A Stubborn U.S. Budget
April 2010
A Stubborn U.S. Budget
   Click For Story

DISCUSS


Reader Comments (13)

Posted by: bill at 04/21/2010 05:16:13 PM

A better title would have been "Can the Federal Budget Be Balanced Again?" Because, recall, it DID happen...about ten years ago. And then it was obliterated.

Posted by: marky44 at 04/21/2010 06:44:58 PM

Wasn't it Dick Cheney who said deficits don't matter? Isn't it true that in the ~220 year existence of the USA, we have been without a deficit for only about 5 years of those decades? This post keeps referring to the Obama deficits, but aren't these deficits more in fact Bush's? Isn't it true that Clinton turned around the deficit spending and did so by insisting on a "pay as you go" accounting system for the Congress and that GW Bush had that law repealed? And isn't it true that just a few months ago, Obama and the Democratic congress tried to reinstate the "pay as you go rule" but it was filibustered to death by the Republicans? Isn't it true that some people only worry about deficits when the money is being used to invest in common people, but ignore deficits when the money is going to tax cuts for rich people? Or when the money is going to fund wars of choice? Wars mainly to protect the oil pipeline?

Posted by: Julie at 04/22/2010 08:51:59 AM

I love these first two comments. Kiplingers, get your head out of that Republican rear end, and get real.

Posted by: jeff milligan at 04/22/2010 01:05:40 PM

Yes, it was balanced under Clinton, and he went even further to have a plan to use the surpluses as they rolled in to actually pay down the debt of the nation. It took one idiot and some right wing neo-cons to undo this all in a matter of months. Were it not for "W", healthcare could have been paid for in the first year.

Posted by: BigDaddy at 04/22/2010 02:02:27 PM

We are witnessing the planned financial downfall of the U.S. It's just a matter of time...

Posted by: marky45 at 04/22/2010 04:44:31 PM

marky44: Isn't it true that democrats never seem like they have any balls because rather than saying something with strength and a sense of force as though they mean it, they instead sit around forming statements as questions and then wonder why no one listens to them?

Posted by: Jeffy57 at 04/22/2010 06:33:10 PM

way to bring it marky45. you really told him! no, no, i get what you are saying. you have to have *force* and *conviction*. marky44 would have done better if he had a banner behind him, ya know, a real, in-your-face banner. with a bold statement. something like, "mission accomplished". and a ship. no, a yacht. no,... an *aircraft carrier!

Posted by: Scott at 04/22/2010 07:50:34 PM

Pretty good propoganda. Love the nuanced liberal slant like "Obama and congress are considering defense cuts but defense manufacturers . . ." Also - apparently Kiplinger doesn't understand that tax cuts = increased government revenues, as they did in the Bush administration.

Posted by: bill johnson at 04/22/2010 10:20:17 PM

I made a prediction during the Reagan administration and that darn Bill Clinton messed it up. Thanks to Bush 2 it will come true. Someone will run for President in 2008 or 2012, they will be seriously considered as a candidate, they will run on one issue, the national debt, and their solution will be simply to default. Yes default on the national debt. Everyone will get a 30% tax cut because no interest in the budget anymore. Those fat cats, foreigners (Chinese government, Iran, etc.) and, those profiting from war that have all the t-bills will take the loss. Note: Ask the average US Citizen how much they have in government securities, tell them they will get a 30% tax cut and they will say the cost will be recouped in about one year in tax savings. If the candidate can convince the average voter that the disruption in the economy will be worth it then look out. Of course a flat tax institution simultaneously with no deductions, IRS Code, tax lawyers, tax accountants, etc. Those individuals would have to get real jobs that added productivity to the economy. The flat tax would put the Congress in the hot seat. They would have to set the tax rate as a percentage of estimated national income. It would not sit well with the voters if the % increased to fund bridges to nowhere in Alaska. Accountability, efficiency, the guilty pay and the average American gets the benefit, at last. Try this idea on someone, without any charge positive or negative, and you will see how well it is received. Then act accordingly when you find out.

Posted by: chuckles at 04/22/2010 10:50:34 PM

Wow but did anyone ever stop to think what happens when the money that the government invested for Social security in government bonds has tio be paid back When do we ever stop aspsending money

Posted by: Amy at 04/23/2010 01:38:07 PM

Scott writes that tax cuts = increased government revenues ? Um, so the government, which collects taxes, cuts those taxes and collects less. How, my dear Scott, does this work? Magically, somebody like the tooth fairy gives them a financial reward?

Posted by: Sean at 04/23/2010 05:04:14 PM

"Um, so the government, which collects taxes, cuts those taxes and collects less. How, my dear Scott, does this work? Magically, somebody like the tooth fairy gives them a financial reward?" Amy, a decreased tax rate typically leads to higher economic activity. Though the amount of tax per dollar of activity is lowered, the total activity is increased, thereby increasing revenue. The same holds true for private companies. They can increase revenue by lowering its price. It really is a matter of basic economics.

Posted by: Albert at 06/25/2010 01:59:49 PM

...Wake up, it's both political parties. It was both Bush and Obama. Get your heads out of the sand and realize that you and me as voters/non-voters are all to an extent responsible. Start telling your elected officials to stop the handouts, stop the waste, and get back to responsible and practical governing. Gov't has gotten too big and too involved in every aspect of our lives. People need to be better educated and take more responsiblity for their own actions and inactions.