In an effort to reduce the deficit, is it wiser to reduce spending or raise revenue (taxes)?
Given the down economy, should we further burden the tax payers or reduce the money we spend? It makes logical sense to me there is more room to reduce spending than increase taxes. An example would be to reign in our foreign policy. We don't need to man over 800 bases around the world. Over $1T/yr is spent overseas on foreign policy alone. How can liberals say it's a better idea to 'tax the rich' than it is to close some of the 268 bases in Germany, 124 in Japan, or 87 in South Korea? http://www.fpif.org/articles/too_many_overseas_bases
Politics - 10 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
How? We painted ourselves in a corner. Time to scrap FREE TRADE!!! Enriching the rich is great but bring back the JOBS ALREADY!!!
2 :
DEFICIT AND GET RID OF THOSE 400,000 GOVT JOBS OBAMA CREATED. NO MORE EARMARKS. NO MORE GOVT TAKING OVER BANKS AND AUTO COM. NO MORE BAILING OUT FAILED UNIONS!
3 :
Any effort to reduce the deficit that doesn't start by getting the government off my back and out of my wallet is bound to fail.
4 :
print more money and repay the debt.
5 :
Reduce our military effectiveness?? that's like being in the prison yard at Sing-Sing, lowering your pants, and bending over.
6 :
If I could only choose one: I'd choose reduce spending. The government is too big as it currently stands. Too much control that it gave itself, without updating the constitution. The government is currently running illegally. We once understood that to pass prohibition, we'd need an amendment. Now we feel we can force people to participate in Social Security AND force the healthcare reform, welfare programs, etc. on its citizens without an amendment? This is illegal. though ideally, we'd also increase taxes after we cut spending. We need to pay off our debt and become independent again. I'm willing to pay more now so that my children will have a better country in the future.
7 :
We passed the point of increased revenue by increasing taxes when the government decided that the role of taxation was to redistribute wealth, rather that to support legitimate government actions.
8 :
Both I would say. For example: You can't pay your bills at home. Would you (A) Cut your spending (B) Work overtime to raise your income levels or (C) Both. I would choose C. I would want to pare down my expenses while at the same time bring in more income to boost my bank account in case of another emergency.
9 :
Given their constant confusion of Capitalism and Corporatism, their undying love for the deficit-inducing Keynesian economics, and their inability to engage in productive discussion about economics, I don't put much stock in liberals understanding the logistics in economics.
10 :
We have to do both. Many conservatives choose to ignore reality, though, and say that the W Bush tax cuts were worth it. See my source for the truth. It took a few years for growth to make up the difference in revenue. We were told the debt was worth it for the good of the economy, then the economy tanked. Ronald Reagan's Budget Director, David Stockman, went on 60 Minutes and called the W Bush tax cuts, "rank demagoguery", because they were bad for America, but good for Republicans running for office. What did that huge mistake cost us? In 2008 we wasted $451 billion on interest on the Republican National Debt in one year alone. That's 17% of all the federal tax you paid or $3260 per federal taxpayer depending on how you choose to look at it. The entire Iraq war has been estimated by NPR to have cost us $700 billion in nine years so far by contrast.
