How would you cut $1.5 Trillion from the Federal budget over ten years (which is only $150 billion annually)?
I assume (based on the question math) that you are talking about cutting $150 trillion over 10 years.This is not the same as cutting $150 billion per year.You could cut Social Security (old age and survivors fund) to zero starting in the year 2020.You could also cut CHIP, Subsidies for Obamacare, all SNAP benefits, and Military Pensions starting right now.You could cut Medicaid entirely starting in 2025.The thing about cutting any of this is that if you do so without cutting inlays or revenues meant to fund them, you would be voted out of office in a heartbeat. Furthermore, you may be voted out anyway, since you’d be cutting programs without actually reducing the deficit much.And on a deeper point, if you did reduce the deficit, you’d run the risk of creating private debt bubbles which have caused our last several recessions, since a growing private sector needs more money to operate, and the only two places to get more money are through public debt or private debt (read up on sectoral balances). Recessions tend to cause major regime changes in democracies.Mostly, you shouldn’t be looking at cutting spending. The only budget that’s possibly really bloated is the military, but even it serves a purpose (guaranteed jobs for millions of people). Unless you replaced the biggest federal jobs program in existence with something else that also creates jobs (meaning you’ll still be spending), you’re going to increase a lot of other costs. It would be nice to have fewer soldiers and missiles, and to instead have more roads, bridges that aren’t falling down, and post offices that are open on Sunday, but apparently paying someone to sit around waiting for a war is worth a deficit, but actually doing something productive is not…
You have 10 trillion dollars. How do you defeat the USA?
10 trillion dollars? I see we have a lot to work with…Step One: Burn the money!- Sorry. It has to all be burned for my master plan to work, except for 100$. I’m saving this to buy a keg of gunpowder.Step Two: Buy all other supplies.- With the 100$ left, I buy a keg of gunpowder (25$), and rent a truck with fuel (75$). With this, I load all of the ashes of the burned money into the back, and drive to Wyoming. Specifically, Yellowstone National Park.Step Three: Go to the supervolcano.- The Yellowstone Caldera is one of the world’s deadliest supervolcanoes. Although it is currently dormant, it doesn’t take much to activate it.Step Four: Unload all of the ashes of the money into the caldera.- All of this ash gently floats into the caldera, and starts piling up. But wait, the worst is yet to come.Step Five: - Remember the keg of gunpowder I bought? I drop that into the crater, and, within seconds:Step Six: -Apparently, the Yellowstone Caldera is powerful enough to launch ash into about a third of the entire country.And this is only what might happen WITHOUT the extra ash from the paper money. All of that ash, plus the extra gunpowder, should blanket even Orlando, New York, and Houston with ash.Well, I sure am going to lava this…
Can Trump force the funds allocated for his manufactured “National Emergency “ be used for a wall and only for a wall? Wouldn’t the experts responding to this emergency decide how to use the funds allocated for it?
No on both counts. This will be the crux of Congress’ (and others’) impending lawsuit against President Trump’s actions: A president cannot spend money that has not been explicitly authorized or appropriated by Congress. This stems from explicit language in the Constitution:No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law (Art I, Sec 9, Cl 4).It was the same argument that the Republicans made against the Obama Administration’s implementation of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act, and they were successful[1] .Sure, he has broad discretion in the kinds of things he declares to be an emergency, but even in response to that emergency, he still has to obey existing law. And existing law prohibits him from spending money for purposes without Congress’ express or implied consent.Footnotes[1] House GOP wins Obamacare lawsuit
Who won the debate and who is better, Obama or romney?
Based on todays debate who won??? Why ? Who do you think is better? I feel like obama took control of this debate and will help more out more in the future for some reason i feel romney is lieing about his plans. Idk im just 17 what do you guys think? Who will make our future bwtter. I know romney wil make jobs but who will make it greater than bush's years!?
What should the future of the Affordable Care Act be?
Insurance is nothing but risk sharing. The larger the pool of member that you have, then you can spread out the risk over a larger area. This is the premise behind the Affordable Care Act. However, when first passed, we limited the number of members. This was a gigantic error. Everyone should have been included. By this I mean all people that are US citizens (healthy, non-healthy, veterans, congress etc.).Where do we go from here with the ACA?Change ACA with the following provisions:All US citizens are coveredEliminate all health insurance plans. Develop a single national health insurance plan for all.Allow insurance companies to only process claims. No advertising expenses, no gigantic budgets etc. Only a small amout per claim to process for the federal government.Allow all physicians, hospitals, and other providers to submit claims to insurance companies to process. Insurance companies then submit bill to federal government for payment.This then begs the question of how to finance this. I do not presume to be a great statistician and have the ultimate answer. However other countries have implemented a program of universal health insurance. A comparison between the UK and Taiwan would be of help. Both have mandatory universal coverage. Taiwan is noted for patient choice, low cost, and quick patient response times.
Will the average American benefit from the GOP's new tax law?
As is often the case with supply-side economics, the rich get the benefits and the rest of us, at best, are revenue-neutral — until you count the real costs of continuing to balloon the national debt or the results of reducing the debt by cutting programs that actually help people. Then, it’s clear that the non-rich get screwed — and often for trivial reductions in their taxes.The Congressional Budget Office is especially worried about the plans to make the 2017 Trump cuts permanent. The opening paragraph in a July 2018 Reuters article saysRepublican plans to make President Donald Trump’s tax cuts permanent for individuals and many private businesses would worsen an already rising U.S. debt burden, congressional researchers said on Tuesday.And we already know how the Republicans plan to reduce the debt problem: by cuts to programs that, in general, are funded by their own payroll deductions and not out of the general budget — meaning that cutting them won’t lower the debt — or by eviscerating Obamacare and providing no alternative. What they wont cut is our three quarters of a trillion dollar defense budget. Or their own salaries. Or programs that benefit giant corporations.
Is it true that the US can't afford single payer healthcare?
No but it is true that the U.S. cannot afford to continue its current approach to healthcare!!HC in the U.S. is the biggest subsidy in the history of the world. We give away $1.5 Trillion a year to the HC industry at an incredible cost to every citizen. The U.S. GDP would be 5–10% larger than it is today if we adopted a universal HC system 20 years ago. Wages would be higher and Americans would be much happier and healthier.To put it in perspective $1.5T is larger than the GDP of all but 14 of the 200 countries in the world. It is ~2,8 times the size of Sweden’s GDP of $550B. It is also almost 3x the U.S. military in 2016. One year of savings would exceed the amount the U.S. spends on construction annually($1.35T annually). One year of savings would pay for every airport, power plant, office building, shopping center, road, school, University, research lab, military base, hospital, house and factory built in the U.S. with $100B left over!!We cannot afford this type of waste and corruption.And we would cover everyone!!!It is a bigger threat to our national security than China. It is making us uncompetitive with the rest of the world and slowing investment in R&D, education, infrastructure, internet security, etc. it may not seem like we are falling behind but I spend most of my time outside the U.S. and other countries are moving much, much faster than we are. While the Republicans and Democrats bicker and we are standing still other countries are taking advantage of our inability to focus on effectively governing through the present day and future challenges.And the HC industry is trying to divert more and more away from other worthy investment each and every year. And many of our politicians are working hard to help them!!
Liberals told me that the economy would collapse under Trump. If that's the case, why is growth at 3% now?
We're still living under the Obama economy — give Trump and the Republican Congress time to generate the recession/depression created by the second term of every Republican administration for a century:Want A Better Economy? History Says Vote DemocratRepublican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidentsPersonal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidentsGross Domestic Product (GDP)has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidentsCorporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)The two (worst) times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrationsWe often remember the myth, not the real factsCorporate profits have risen under Obama more than any other presidentThe stock market has soared 14.72%/year under Obama, second only to Clinton — which should be a big deal since 2/3 of people (not just the upper class) have a 401K or similar investment vehicle dependent upon corporate profits and stock market performance”As to the challenging Republican party’s platform, Mr. Goldfarb commented:“The platform is the inverse of what has actually worked to stimulate economic growthThe recommended platform tax policy is bad for velocity, and will stagnate the economyRepealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) will have a negative economic impact because it will force non-wealthy individuals to spend a higher percentage of income on health care rather than expansionary products and servicesEconomic disaster happens in America when wealth is concentrated at the top, and we are at an all time high for wealth concentration. There is nothing in the platform which addresses this issue.”
If it passes, how will the GOP tax plan affect the economy over the next 10 years?
“If it passes, how will the GOP tax plan affect the economy over the next 10 years?”The Congressional Budget Office and other professional economists do not project enough economic growth to offset the loss of tax revenue. Some mix of increased deficits and decreased spending are the likely result of (a) lost federal revenue, and (b) congressional compromises.The effects on the economy depend on what spending cuts are made. Cuts to programs that help the poor will reduce spending at convenience stores, fast food, and other businesses in poor neighborhoods. Poor people will get poorer. More poor children will quit school younger. A smaller fraction of Americans will have tech skills. More of America’s tech industries will use foreign labor (by importing or by off-shoring).If the cuts are made to education, the loss of productivity will extend to middle class children. The effects on US tech companies will be greater.The increased deficits will also make infrastructure spending less likely. Deteriorating infrastructure will make all American manufacturing less efficient, more expensive, and less competitive with foreign competitors.Economies are large and complex, with lots of internal interactions. The above are only first order effects that are easy to predict. There will be more complicated, harder-to-predict results. Example 1, some investors will have more money and some will have less, so the stock market might go up, down, or up and then down. Example 2, the increased deficit may or may push investors away from US bonds, lead to higher interest rates for US debt, and lead to generally higher debt debt service costs for US individuals and businesses. Which might or might not increase the interest that retail investors can get on money market accounts and CDs.But, hey, business love surprises, right?