Have you noticed neither candidate really talks in any detail about how they will balance the budget and pay for the things they plan to do? The press has done a poor job of analyzing all the claims and presenting the mechanics of the so-called plans.

Kerry will roll back the Bush tax breaks for those who earn over 200k per year, but give a greater tax break for the middle class AND try to do all all the social things he and Edwards talk about during the debates, plus reduce the deficit by 50%. Hmmmm. Bush is no better. He fights a war in two countries, gives aid to disaster stricken countries and states, gives aid to states he owes favors to and cuts taxes. Hmmm. Oh...and they'll both protect Social Security.....

Well, we could create a couple pages of comments about why we hate both of them and why they lie, and then a couple of pages defending our candidate, but we do that all the time (I know, some of you will do it anyway. You can't help yourselves). I thought it mght be nice if we Vintage folk who are the ones who are responsible for turning over a better country to our kids talk about what we really need to do to balance the budget. Tough stuff.

 

I am unqualified to answer, but I did read your post.

 

Bill

I think that both candidates rely on an expanding economy to generate more tax revenue in order to balance the budget. I think Bush believes that his brand of tax cuts will create this robust economy just as Kerry believes that his brand of tax cuts will have the desired effect. Neither really believes, or is able, to reduce spending in spite of the fact that both, from time to time, give spending cuts lip service.

I think over time too many municipalities and the federal government have gotten used to spending "anticipated" revenues. As long as this continues, there can never be a balanced budget.

 

I agree Rob and it is ironci. Our leaders tell us that the kind of growth we experienced in the 90s was not healthy and led to the correction we are living through now. All the "experts" say 4 or 5% growth per year is the kind of steady increse that is maintainable and healthy. I don't think that is the kind of growth that is going to close the budget deficit

 

I don't know very much about financial type stuff, the economy, investing, etc. What I do believe is that if most families and companies ran their household/business budgets like governments did, we'd be a nation of bankruptcy.

 

I think the reason they don't talk about the budget in detail is that the vast majority of Americans aren't interested and/or don't understand it. The saying "all politics is local" is very true. If they could relate the budget to something at the local level, rather than discussing it in such overwhelmingly broad terms, it might attract more attention. Probably the only thing that everyone can relate to is the price of gas. Plus, we have turned into a nation of sound bites - all the news in 25 words or less.

Maybe people will learn a bit more in the last debate, which is on the economy.

 

But it's nothing new and 50 years down the road it still won't be any different, yet it seems to be a major focus of all campaigns. Our welfare system certainly needs to be reformed and I'm not sure, after 40+ years of research, we're ever going to live in space, so why the heck does it matter what used to live on Mars? I'm thinking that our immediate air space (and I include satellites in outer space when I say immediate) is certainly of bigger concern and has more possibility. I think we spend a lot of $$ on legal (okay, this may be getting ready to be an oxymoron) defense of illegals, as well as their health and welfare (and I'm not saying they should be suffering abuse or allowed to suffer, but get them back to their countries and let them take care of them!).

Did I just offer any solutions??? Don't think so.

 

People will take the budget seriously when the benifits stop I guess.

ps, sorry for all the typos. Using me little lap top and tryingto post quickly.

Have a great day everyone!

 

Looking at it from the immigrant's point of view, I find that most Americans have no idea of what liberty and freedom meant back in 1776. This country is regulated and taxed to a point that would shock the founding fathers, and it's getting worse all the time. Without looking at individual issues, I think it's obvious that a huge reduction in government, and government powers, would get us heading in the right direction again.

Here's an essay from the Cato Institute...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletters/cl-13.pdf

 

So, you're saying lets get rid of the fat cats in government, maybe cut their salaries a bunch......I dunno if that's such a good idea - then all you'd have in Washington were people who weren't interested in making money in politics - old, (wise, seasoned) retired guys who had pensions and retirement savings to live on......hmmmm.....nah - it'd never work.