There are so many issues any nation must tackle 'for the good' of a society.

But it is hard to find a balance that best serves that interest, despite the way partisan politics tries to oversimplify the issues or point fingers at the politicians.

Take for instance DEBT. No one wants more of it. People gripe and complain how big a debt we have, which is understandable. But what people are slight on are what strategies can be put in place to control it. There are suggestions like cutting welfare or global aid, for instance. But in reality, how closely related are those things to the reasons for debt? If so, why are so many countries with welfare and universal healthcare managing to maintain fairly low debt to GDP ratios? If America, without universal healthcare, has more than 100 percent ratio, while countries with it have less than 50 percent, could it be that healthcare is not the catalyst or the blame? If these same countries maintain less than 50 percent, while spending up to twice the percentage of gdp on welfare, might welfare NOT be the catalyst or the blame?

How about if we look at countries with virtually no debt? How is their quality of life? Would we be willing to make that trade to have less debt?

And what about quality of life? If we look at countries with better quality of life, can we consider they may be on to something with their policies and spending trends? When we look at countries with next to no debt, can we see that they have TERRIBLE quality of life, and consider that the former is not worth moving our culture towards the latter?


I think the real issue is that talking heads and leaders are not opening up the dialog that focuses on how to place importance on more than just the debt, but on the quality of life, place importance on more than just money, but how to best use money WITHOUT sacrificing quality of life to do it. When we are choosing between saving money OR saving a sense of humanity and civilization, we are setting ourself up for a hopeless future.


The Balance is much more complicated, it is a shame more people in the political spectrum don't seem to highlight much concern about it though. Always just 'either/or' politics. I'm hoping the trend will evolve in the future.


Is there a balance anymore? Or is it just money and profit and how much we each can have and keep for ourself?

I believe in America a substantial majority of the population has excellent healthcare and a high quality of life. These people probably have it better than most people in the countries with more welfare and healthcare for the masses. The problem is the remainder of the population. There is a small portion of the population with significant handicaps that we as a society need to look after. I don't think anyone has a problem with that. It is the remainder of the failed population that takes the resources and never seems to improve. In most developed countries, the social welfare system keeps supporting them. In most undeveloped countries, they starve to death, die early from something, or change their lifestyle. I'm for giving them the opportunity to improve themselves but leaving them without a social welfare system when they do not change that should be the final result.

Our public debt is going to be a big issue. A number of municipalities and states are getting close to failing from massive debt. The federal government also has way too much debt. In all cases, it will take an increase in income and a substantial decrease in expenditures. Hard choices that politicians won't make until they are backed up against the cliff! Social Security is a perfect example. Congress could have implemented some minor changes a number of years ago to improve the system and extend the financial outlook. Probably wouldn't have totally solved the problems but certainly would have pushed them out there for more years and been easier to finally resolve. Nope, a hard vote to take and sure to piss off someone's voter base - can't do that. As with most things political, management by crises!

I have many questions about these issues but very few answers to be found. I still believe we as a society have created many of these problems ourselves. Here you are right, we as a nation need to be questioning what is happening, why it is happening, and what the possible solutions can be. Until we move beyond the political talking points, it will not happen.

I think it is a misnomer that people should just 'give' without considering valuing them for what they give, and taking into account what they are ABLE to give in terms of their own needs and situations and experience/education.

I think that most of the countries that are managing lower debt to gdp and have healthcare and welfare are also healthier in general, Maybe we can take some notes on how they do it. Personally, I think it is attitude and culture in terms of how they see and value their fellow countrymen and women. I think we in the States have a sad tendency to tie the value of an individual to what pay check they receive or dont receive. And I think other places, they find a way to just value them BECAUSE they are fellow human beings.

No its not.
A nation should never spend more than the money they have, PERIOD.
It doesn't matter why.
If the money is not there, it is not available.

For a nation to spend more money than it has, is ludicrous.
It makes no sense to a basic citizen as myself and should make no sense to trained professionals.

Yet, it happens constantly.

As a nation, we have debts owed to us by other nations.
Until they actually pay, it means NOTHING.

Until the money is in our pocket, its not actually our money.

I have lectured my kids on not spending money they don't actually have.
I am a basic citizen.
If POS me can advise my kids, why can't a Nation understand you don't spend money you don't have?
It doesn't matter why they spend the money.
If the money is not there, YOU DON'T SPEND IT.
DUH?

If your budget miscalculates for emergencies, you find the money by cutting back until the debt is paid. You don't borrow the money.
If you do, then it subtracts from all future expenses until its paid off.
Again, duh.

A nation, supported by tax dollars should never allocate more money than is available. Its simple management. SIMPLE.
A nation should be able to figure out how much money is available and how to spend it. We are talking trillions of dollars not a few hundred or a few thousand.

These people we trust to run our nation are not doing a very good job at it.
That should tell you what you need to know.

There is no balance.

The baboons in D.C., are as unhinged as it
gets.

It makes perfect sense, which is why americans use CREDIT or mortgage homes or finance cars. Our entire credit rating system depends on people making payments on things that are more than what they can or will pay at one time.

There is something called paying over time, which is still DEBT if it is not paid off, and something that grows quickly because of interest added over time. But it is not irresponsible if being paid on time.

Now a deficit, on the other hand, is irresponsible in terms of it means payment due is exceeding income brought in.

from the Peter s G Foundation:


The debt is the total amount of money the U.S. government owes. It represents the accumulation of past deficits, minus surpluses. Debt is like the balance on your credit card statement, which shows the total amount you owe, including interest. The U.S. government has run a deficit every year since 1970, with the exception of four fiscal years (1998–2001).

A person with no debt at all would have everything paid off and no mortgage, car note, or credit balance. If we look at our credit ratings personally, we have debts for whatever we have balance left on. if we are paying up to date, it is considered in 'good standing'. It shows responsibility to obligations and a higher credit rating lends to qualifying for more privileges and benefits financially in this country.

I wouldn't choose the word "balance" to talk about government deficits and debts.

The problem I have with all the talk about this which comes from people in a position to do things about it, are better described using words like "dishonesty," and "refusal to recognize and deal with obvious reality."

One rather obvious bit of foolishness, shows up as the periodic fad that people take up, saying the budget should ALWAYS be balanced, and that we should amend the Constitution to prevent Congress from spending more than we take in, ever. Anyone who thinks clearly and honestly for more than a few minutes, would realize that a limitation like that, would mean that should the United States ever be attacked by anything over the size of a local motor club, would result in instant capitulation, since Congress would be prohibited from paying for any increase in Defense spending. That, or we'd have to pay all the time, for enough forces and material to be at the ready, that the defense budget would always be at the highest level that a large scale, worldwide international conflict would require.

Another bit of nonsense, is the idea that we can deal with large concerns by ignoring them. This is VERY popular these days, with people who want very low or no taxes at all on businesses, the higher incomes, and anyone who makes money from investments. It's the "Ignore real costs, and let someone else deal with them later" philosophy. Whether that means pretending that there is no climate change happening, that pollution isn't destroying our source of food for the future, or just ignoring the fact that most people who do work, are paid as though they sprang from the earth at the moment they are needed, and will return there each day at quitting time, it's just as dishonest, and just as delusional.

I understand all that but I think you missed my point.
A nation only has a certain amount of money available.
It should not operate on credit and should not have a credit rating.
If the money is not available, it either doesn't spend it or it raises the taxes on its national entities to make up what it needs before it spends the money.

If a nation's income is $1.00.
(the total of all incoming assets from taxes, tariffs, whatever)
If it spends or allocates out $1.50.
It is spending money that is not there.
How can that make sense?
To borrow more than it has is poor management, no matter how you look at it.
If it needs $1.50 to satisfy its needs, it needs to increase its income by tax increases and other asset management.
If it needs more money it needs to get more money before it satisfies that need. Or, it does without until it does acquire more money.
A nation's asset base is made up of its citizen's/entity's contribution.

Each year, we know how much money is available to run our nation.
That figure $1.00 is the total amount available.
If we are paying $0.50 of that $1.00 towards last years bill and another $0.30 towards interest on that loan it only leaves $0.20 of the whole $1.00 to be used this year. So, to make up that $1.00 our nation needs to operate within its mandate, It needs to borrow money to make up the deficit.

The only way out of the mess is to acquire more money to make up the difference. That is commonly done by raising taxes.
Then, once that credit is satisfied, it must never use credit again.

The national budget should be balanced.
A nation should never spend more than it has.
However, this nation has potential to gather national resources to answer threats and catastrophies in its citizen/industry tax base.
Plus, if the budget is balanced a nation with our intelligence would have the forethought to keep a reserve of money available for emergencies earning interest as a national savings account.
If you have an income of $1.00 and you manage the budget at $0.80 you have $0.20 per year going into savings for emergencies.
If emergencies require more one year, the citizens/industries make up what is needed to keep the nation flush.
Raise taxes, suspend national programs, whatever...

Just a note, with ongoing government budget, having balanced budget is not the same as having no debt. Having a balanced budget means there was equal or more revenue than expenses FOR THAT YEAR, in other words, no deficit, or a surplus. BUt we still have debt accumulated over hundreds of years, whether a year ends in surplus OR deficit.

Investopedia is a good source for financial terms and explanations. It describes balanced budget here:


https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/balanced-budget.asp

My issue is with the justification of our current situation.
My issue is with how that justification prevents this nation from doing what is needed to make us flush.
Our national management is very poor for such an intelligent nation.
Our financial management is insane.
Our national debt is a problem that needs to be rectified.
Our nation is comprised of us, the citizens of that nation.
Its everyone's job to fix it.
We need a manager that can find a solution instead of trying to justify the continuation of a deteriorating condition.

We have the same situations as most nations in the world, I suppose. As I don't know one where it is any different concerning having debt.

And in terms of surplus. I found this:

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-top-budget-surplus.html


as far as balancing quality of life with finances, Im not sure many on that list are countries we would want to emulate, except MAYBE Norway and Denmark.

Just because the conditions are 'normal' doesn't mean they are not wrong.
The bottom line is we have allowed ourselves to get into a deteriorating condition and we have no action to recitfy that condition.
It doesn't really matter what the rest of the world is doing or how they think.
What does matter is what we are doing and how we think.
Its our own nation that is stuck in a rut.
We either come together as a nation to fix it or it continues to spiral out of control. It doesn't matter what any other nation does or thinks.
This is my nation, your nation and we are not solving the problem.

It is past the limit of sacrifice.
A sacrifice is the only solution.
Until we can unite and conduct a proper solution and stop the insanity, the problem will continue.

I cited the information about other countries because sometimes solutions don't appear from thin air, but from examples of what has worked before. I think in terms of what others are doing or have done that works, it can matter a whole lot in terms of options and possibilities.

I'm not sure what is out of control, because that is of course another subjective kind of subjective assessment. But I believe when it comes to specifics, like balancing a budget, we can look to examples from those who have successfully done so.

And then, we can look, among those examples, at the sacrifices they make to do it, and figure out if they are sacrifices we find worth the ends as well. If we do, maybe we try to replicate what they do. If it is not, maybe we don't.

But as a starting point, looking at what has worked 'successfully' never hurts for ideas when one is trying to also be successful at something themselves.

One of the problems with governments is their attitude toward spending money. First it isn't their money so they really aren't concerned with getting the best value for that money. Look at it from a personal perspective: some people think nothing of spending $5-10 every day for coffee or cigs and then wonder where all their money went; others spend less for a simpler version or do without and have a lower, balanced budget. It is all about money spent vs value received.

The other thing we see with governments is that well off taxpayers demand more services and governments are more than happy to increase taxes to provide those services. The difficulty comes when lesser well off people are forced to pay their share for something they realized they couldn't afford.

Stuff like THIS isn't helping...Part of the reason our debt is so big is because we're not getting all the money we should.

Companies need to pay their fair share, like they did back many years ago.
(I can provide documentaion of that if you need it)


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2018-taxes-some-of-americas-biggest-companies-paid-little-to-no-federal-income-tax-last-year/

Obviously you believe that companies should raise the prices of what they sell and then pay higher taxes to the federal government. You do understand that business taxes are not paid by business owners or stockholders but by their customers?

Ok, guess i need to hunt those links down about the reverseing of who paid more tax into the system back when we had money for infrastructure, the space program, etc..

Corporations paid MORE in taxes when we had that boom in the 50's and 60's....and I don't remmeber hearing about layoffs and high prices..

And, interestingly...about the time corporate tax cuts started and they were payng *less*...that's when unemployment became a problem.

I'm baking some stuff for a pot luck tomorrow right now, but will post those links when I get a few minutes..

But, here's a preliminary one:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/corporate-top-tax-rate-and-bracket

Here's another one:

http://americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-corporate-tax-rates/

You missed the point!! Businesses and corporations pay taxes from their gross profits. The amount of those profits is determined by how much they charge YOU. Their net profit for the owners of the company is not going to decrease just because their taxes increase; You, their customer, are going to be paying those taxes through the products you buy!!

The politicians are going to tell you we needed more money but instead of increasing your taxes, we raised corporate taxes. They can tell most people that and you feel ok with that. If they told you they need more money so they are increasing your taxes, you would be mad at them. Just a slight of hand trick - it is coming from you either way but you don't see it as easily when it is coming from the goods and services you buy. Nasty corporation, raising prices again!!