I love Dan Mitchell's videos, because he always presents information in a quick and easy-to-understand format, which is great for spreading around on the internet. Here's his latest video on balancing the budget without tax increases: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xezWd7VU2Ug
I love this video in particular because it shows how easy it should be to balance the budget. And even if we take his last solution - allowing for only 2% spending increases per year - we could balance the budget by 2020. One could even take this plan and cut a few departments out of the initial spending, like the Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of the Interior, and the Department of Commerce. Then one could "recycle" these "savings" by lowering the corporate tax rate by two-thirds (leaving it at around 12%), which would encourage greater growth and thereby balance the budget even quicker. So by cutting spending initially by eliminating programs which everyone should agree should be eliminated, "recycling" those spending cuts by cutting taxes, and then controlling spending increases, the US federal budget could be balanced in just a few years.
My greatest fear is that the government will remain retarded, as usual, and completely wreck the economy and the US dollar by not controlling entitlement programs and by increasing taxes. I doubt that the Federal Reserve has the balls to put its foot down and not inflate for the federal government when it will need new money to pay off old debts. And even if the Federal Reserve takes the proper course of action, I fear that the Dennis Kucinich and the Bernie Sanders types in Washington will just demand it be abolished and replaced with a less independent central bank or monetary authority, which will inflate at Congress's whim. And of course, too high inflation could cause the dollar to lose its reserve status, causing the price of all goods, but mainly oil, to skyrocket.
Political Atheists Blog
aren't deficits good to an economy?
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
LOL, right. Good until the government goes broke and it prints a tidal wave of money to keep itself afloat.
Does everyone agree that those departments should be eliminated? (Because that would be amazing!)
krazy kaju:My greatest fear is that the government will remain retarded, as usual, and completely wreck the economy and the US dollar by not controlling entitlement programs and by increasing taxes.
I'm willing to bet you money that your greatest fear will become a reality someday.
krazy kaju:I doubt that the Federal Reserve has the balls to put its foot down and not inflate for the federal government when it will need new money to pay off old debts. And even if the Federal Reserve takes the proper course of action, I fear that the Dennis Kucinich and the Bernie Sanders types in Washington will just demand it be abolished and replaced with a less independent central bank or monetary authority, which will inflate at Congress's whim.
That's right. "Fed independence" is a myth. It was created by an Act of Congress, remember. So Congress giveth and Congress taketh away.
I agree with Gary North -- Congress will probably do anything and everything to keep the checks flowing to people. If the Fed won't inflate, they'll resume direct control of the money supply. The smarter of the elites will jump ship. Indeed, they already seem to be doing so.
krazy kaju:And of course, too high inflation could cause the dollar to lose its reserve status, causing the price of all goods, but mainly oil, to skyrocket.
Welcome to the United Zimbabwes of America. Hello, capital consumption. "Zombie apocalypse"? Quite.
I wonder if some people are banking (forgive the pun) on the collapse of the dollar in favor of a new and truly global reserve currency. There does seem to be some decoupling from the US-dominated financial system going on. People who have decoupled won't have to worry so much when the whole thing turns rotten.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Angurse:Does everyone agree that those departments should be eliminated? (Because that would be amazing!)
Obviously, they don't. But it shouldn't be too hard to convince most people, once they realize that all of these functions are already being handled by the states and local communities.
Autolykos:I'm willing to bet you money that your greatest fear will become a reality someday.
I'm hoping that somehow Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan save us somehow! Ha-ha.
Sidenote: WTF is up with the name Paul?!?
I'm suspicious about Paul Ryan's after reading this someone posted on another site. :
Well...he is the LAST person who can claim to be supportive of "limited government": Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli -Voted YES on TARP (2008) -Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008) -Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008) -Voted YES on $192B additional anti-reces sion stimulus spending. (Jul 2009) Paul Ryan on Entitlemen t Programs -Voted YES on limited prescripti on drug benefit for Medicare recipients . (Nov 2003) -Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006) -Voted YES on extending unemployme nt benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008) -Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007) Paul Ryan on Education Rep. Ryan went along with the Bush Administra tion in supporting more federal involvemen t in education. This is contrary to the traditiona l Republican position, which included support for abolition of the Department of Education and decreasing federal involvemen t in education. -Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001) Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties -Voted YES on federalizi ng rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists . (Feb 2005) -Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005) -Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillan ce without a warrant. (Sep 2006) Paul Ryan on War and Interventi on Abroad -Voted YES on authorizin g military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002) -Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanista n. (Apr 2003)
Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli
-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-reces sion stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
Paul Ryan on Entitlemen t Programs
-Voted YES on limited prescripti on drug benefit for Medicare recipients . (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployme nt benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)
Paul Ryan on Education
Rep. Ryan went along with the Bush Administra tion in supporting more federal involvemen t in education. This is contrary to the traditiona l Republican position, which included support for abolition of the Department of Education and decreasing federal involvemen t in education.
-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001) Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties
-Voted YES on federalizi ng rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists . (Feb 2005)
-Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillan ce without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
Paul Ryan on War and Interventi on Abroad
-Voted YES on authorizin g military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
-Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanista n. (Apr 2003)
It was posted to impugn Ryan after his SOTU repsonse, and damn if didn't work on me. I have not fact checked the above - but, really, based on those votes - he cannot be trusted to shrink the gov't or balance the budget. Those votes are something you would NEVER see from Ron or Rand Paul. So sure, Ryan is saying (and proposing) the right things now while Obama is in office - but what will he do if a Republican President asks him for more spending - or if he ever became Prez?
The way I see it, Paul Ryan is a mainstream Republican (unlike the Paul family) who is willing to tackle the big issues like Social Security and health care. I think of Sen. Jim DeMint similarly. Both (DeMint and Ryan) are capable of enacting BIG spending cuts if given the chance - but the fact of the matter is that most Democrats and Republicans simply aren't comfortable enough to tackle spending.
krazy kaju: I'm hoping that somehow Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan save us somehow! Ha-ha. Sidenote: WTF is up with the name Paul?!?
RP, RP, and RP(backwards)
Conspiracy!