Is it even remotely possible to balance the budget in the United States?
Please share your plan.
- GungyLv 67 years agoFavorite Answer
There are literally hundreds of this type of waste...
>Arizona universities examining the division of labor in ant colonies (combined $950,000)
>Fire station without firefighters in Nevada ($2 million)
>Investing in nation-wide wind power (but majority of money has gone to foreign companies) ($2 billion)
>Sending 11 students and 4 teachers from an Arkansas university to the U.N. climate change convention in Copenhagen, using almost 54,000 lbs of carbon dioxide from air travel alone ($50,000)
>Storytelling festival in Utah ($15,000)
>Door mats to the Department of the Army in Texas ($14,675)
>University in New York researching young adults who drink malt liquor and smoke pot ($389,357)
>Solar panels for climbing gym in Colorado ($157,800)
>Grant for one Massachusetts university for "robobees" (miniature flying robot bees) ($2 million
>University in Indiana studying why young men do not like to wear condoms ($221,355)
- bluLv 77 years ago
As recent as the Clinton admin, America's financial house was in order. The projections were indicating America would be out of debt in the near future. Enter GWB and all that changed. He started wars we couldn't afford, he signed every spending bill to cross his desk, he contributed extremely to deficit increase by enacting tax cuts heavily weighted for the wealthy. He told us the wealthy were job creators but America was losing 750,000 jobs a month when he bowed out ... bush was wrong again. But, if his intention was to make the rich richer at the expense of the rest of us ... that plan worked great.
If we could undo what bush did ... we'd be on track.
My plan is the same as Obama's ... use a balanced approach that includes more revenue f/ the wealthiest Americans in conjunction w/ responsible decreased spending.
I just saw a graph this morning ... 80% of the wealth controlled by 20% of Americans. I think closing loopholes they qualify for is a helpful way to reduce the deficit.
The disparity in class distinction continues to widen. They can pay a fair share.
Either that, or a sensible flat tax.
I would also embrace increased tax revenue/more US jobs by responsibly reversing at least some law(s) that dictate morality (prostitution, mj?).
- 7 years ago
Only if we elect people willing to compromise. End the tax cuts for millionaires and corporations that export jobs. End foreign aid, corporate welfare, the "wars". Close most if not all of the obsolete military bases in foreign countries. Tax Wall Street transactions. Pay congress and the POTUS and VP minimum wage until they do balance the budget. This would balance the budget. If we also went through the spending line by line, we could cut waste to the bone, allowing us to pay down our debt quicker. Reinstate paygo while we are at it.
- tribeca_belleLv 77 years ago
At this point it would be extremely difficult. Under Clinton, we had balanced budgets for four straight years, after many years of running deficits. The approach involved raising taxes and cutting spending. Republicans objected to both because the spending cuts were not in areas that they met their approval.
Today, the major concentration has to be on getting the economy fully recovered from the Great Recession. A vibrant economy produces more revenues.
Balancing the budget requires a balanced approach. Revenues have to be increased and expenditures have to be cut.
Closing tax loopholes and getting rid of subsidies to wealthy companies that don't need them would be a start in increasing revenues. Cutting spending, however, should be secondary to revitalizing the economy and lowering unemployment.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 7 years ago
Sure but it requires people including the corporations to act like adults and quit whining for special favors. there is plenty of money in the country the problem is that only a few have it. I do not blame just the lazy that are not willing to work but especially the Rich that are living off Federal subsidies, bailouts, tax incentives and government contracts.
Man up and be responsible for your risky stupid behavior, banks, Aig, GM and all you spoiled little shits that pretend to be capitalists.
Stop all government help and cut government to the bone is the only way things will ever get into balance.
the other important piece is that we have to stop looking the other way and enforce the laws we have regarding business practices. including those carried out by federal agencies.Source(s): I am on the receiving end of government subsidies but do not agree with them. No one will pay me to be a martyr though so i have to keep taking them until they are stopped for everyone. Other wise I just go out of business and the rest laugh while snuggling up to the government teat.
- Anonymous7 years ago
If we had Jobs, responsible spending, people not on PAC payrolls all the problems would be solved. Balanced Budget in no time.
Sorry but the only way this will be accomplished is to removed the Establishment Politicians and replace them with the TEA Party people like Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Tim Scott who are for SANE Government.
- Anonymous7 years ago
I do, but I doubt it will happen any time soon.
Huge cuts need to be made in order for that too happen.
We, the US in general, have come to believe that government is the answer to everything.
And it is even worse at the State level.
Public Sector employment jobs need to be eliminated across the board.
Departments need to be shut down permanently. In the State and Federal government.
Until we, the people, start using common sense about what we actually need, this problem will never be solved.
Quite simply our governments both State and Federal are not sustainable as they are.
As Ronnie Reagan said, government isn't the answer, it is the problem.
Btw, did ya know the Dept. of Energy has 16K employees? Doing what?
- alcory11Lv 67 years ago
of course it is, but the problem lies in the fact that doing so would require all entitlement programs and such to be cut...people who think cutting foriegn aid and those sorts of things would help don't understand. foriegn aid accounts for only about eight-tenths of one percent of the federal budget spending, about 1/70 of what is paid out in social security and medicare...and this does not take into account what the federal share of the medicaid programs in the 50 states cost the federal budget. add to those things the federal support for food stamps, welfare, and all the other such programs, and we have the real problem. sorry, but balancing the budget means cutting a big hunk off of what is paid out to our citizens in one form or another. yes, cutting foriegn aid would help a very small bit, and we should definitely stop all federal payout for such things as 'the arts', but when 99 cents of every tax dollar goes to us in one form or another...from the military to federal paychecks and benefits to roads to all the rest of it, you should be able to see that cutting spending and balancing the budget is going to come only at our expense.
- megLv 77 years ago
It is easy when the economy is good, all you have to do is tax as much as you spend. However during recessions reducing spending or increasing taxes slows the economy even more and may actually reduce government revenues enough to increase the deficit.
- ahandle101Lv 77 years ago
Yes. Spend less than you take in through revenue. You could start by cutting the foreign aid, like the $100 billion that went to Syrian rebels when the sequester only needed to cut $85 billion.