default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

We must cut spending to bring down the debt

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 6:13 am, Sat Nov 17, 2012.

Now that the majority wants to raise taxes on certain earners, I would like to go through some math.

The federal government currently spends about $1.2 trillion more each year than it brings in. This has resulted in about $16.2 trillion in debt. Ignoring the potential effects of raising taxes, the additional income could move towards solving the problem if the money pays down the debt, and the government starts spending less each year than that additional income pays down the debt. In this scenario, the debt goes down over time (under this scenario, we are much less broke in 20 years).

If the federal government doesn't decrease spending by more than the additional income, we have gained nothing; of course, if the additional income is simply spent, we actually get worse.

The solution to the deficit and debt problems is to stop spending more than comes in — something not even being considered by our federal government.

The proposed additional income (new taxes on the few) is estimated to bring in over $1 trillion in additional income over a 10-year period. In that same 10-year period, we are expected to overspend more than $1 trillion each year. Thus the new taxes are like telling someone we are only going to shoot you 10 times instead of 12. We are still dead anyway.

John Herrick


Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:23 pm on Tue, Nov 20, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Pretend the government siezed 100% of the money from the "1%"'.

    Do you have any idea how long government would function with 100% of the "1%"'s money?

    Approximately 3 months Mr. Lucas.... [sleeping]

  • John Lucas posted at 10:17 pm on Tue, Nov 20, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730


    Year .... Top Tax Bracket

    2003....35% RlCHES 1% PAY 14.1% EFFECTlVE RATE!
    2008 2nd G0P GREAT DEPRESSl0N

  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 5:50 pm on Tue, Nov 20, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2370

    As far as closing overseas bases, we have to make sure OUR security interests are better served by those closures than those of the host countries. Then as for reopening stateside facilities, they should only be considered for opening based upon which mission would need the support. I don't think opening a base simply to bolster a local economy is good enough; there must be a military reason.

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:24 am on Tue, Nov 20, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Ingram mentions Social Security. I think we should take guidance from all the teachers in United States. Their unions examined Social Security and determined it was a bad thing for their members and demanded legislators give them the ability to “opt out” of forced payroll deductions into the Social Security System.

    To save money, let American's opt out of social security if they do not want it. I personally would have opted out years ago saving tax payers all sorts of money.

    Next, let the tax payers of the hook for backing guaranteed defined contribution pension plans. Now, is STRS or PERS loses money, the tax payer must make up for the lost money. That financial obligation is crushing as the promised benefit is far better that what the retirement investment can generate.
    Next, military and public sector operations needs to be strong yet money needs to be saved across the board.

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:16 am on Tue, Nov 20, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Ingram stated...
    I think the tough part is deciding what to stop supporting. Shall we cut buying jet fighters or 'price supports' for corporation Farmers? How about social security ? Want to try and cut that ? But today is a new day and if You want big cuts to the federal budget, please define exactly who gets cut and don't forget to sign Your name.

    Mr Ingram makes a very good post that in reality should be the focus of American politicians. Where do we make the cuts.

    One possibility...a group of private sector businessmen should be appointed to a board and be given powers to make government more economically efficient. Imagine if Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Warren Buffet, George Soros and the team on the Shark Tank looked at military, social and promotional expenses and made eliminated waste. If we can give our health care industry a 15 member panel to controll costs, why not all industries?

  • Kevin Paglia posted at 6:48 pm on Mon, Nov 19, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2110

    And for the record I was talking tax cuts way back into Bush's first term.

    I was saying we should have been out of the middle east by 2004. Everythign after that looks too much like an occupying force.

    I have also argued for the closing of oversea bases and bring those men and women home to reopen OUR military bases that have closed and crushed local economies.

  • Kevin Paglia posted at 6:41 pm on Mon, Nov 19, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2110

    I think the first thing we need to look at are the Subsidies the US gives out to companies tht make a profit. Subsidies to profitable companies is not only a bad reallocation of needed funds, but insulting when we have people struggling to put food on their table.

    After that are the financial aid packages to other Countries. We can't be helping others so much we bankrupt ourselves

    Pork-barrell, non-management projects should also be cut..

    Wages and compensation packages to the elected officials should be slashed to the bone.

    These would be a good start.

    In addition to higher taxes, MUCH stronger fines for those breaking federal laws would be a good start.

  • Bobcatbob Ingram posted at 3:24 am on Mon, Nov 19, 2012.

    99er Posts: 119

    Yes , spending less than your pay check is what we taught our children. I think the tough part is deciding what to stop supporting. Shall we cut buying jet fighters or 'price supports' for corporation Farmers? How about social security ? Want to try and cut that ? How about help to Israel? I have noticed, the same folks who chant, "cut cut CUT" are the same folks who claim G.Bush didn't get us into 2 1/2 very expensive wars, nor did Bush grant huge tax benefits to the v.rich........
    But today is a new day and if You want big cuts to the federal budget, please define exactly who gets cut and don't forget to sign Your name.

  • Josh Morgan posted at 8:31 am on Sat, Nov 17, 2012.

    Josh Morgan Posts: 542

    Spending less than what you receive? What a novel idea!


Recent Comments

Posted 11 hours ago by Jien Kaur.

article: Letter: Ron Portal’s letters repeat the…

So very much the truth Mr Adams - but you forgot to make the mention of the man who spend the millions and finally discover that the Mr Oba…


Posted 11 hours ago by Michael Fiske.

article: Letter: Suggestions for committee appoi…

Ed, everybody knows JoAnne hates Bob. If you don't know that than you don't know squat! Open your eyes. She campaigned against two candidat…


Posted 11 hours ago by Jien Kaur.

article: Letter: Our leaders need to be better r…

The Mr Kindseth wrote that 'America’s attitude toward Royal Emperor Obama changed when he went from “We the People” to “Screw the People”' …


Posted 12 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Steve Hansen: Funding, researcher bias …

Skepticism is a smart way of saying "I DON'T KNOW." No more no less. It is not a lofty intellectual endeavor. It is used by the …


Posted 12 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: Ron Portal’s letters repeat the…

A correct assumption instead: Mr. Portal, like most conservatives, utilize information that is not true and when they do use the correct …



Popular Stories



Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists