Billions and Billions and Trillions and Trillions.......

[GwynnInTheHall]

of debt.

I keep hearing that this should be the focus of the election.

I keep hearing that we should stop blaming whomever and fix it.

I then hear It's not going to be fixed by taxing the wealthy.

And then I hearing we need to cut/stop spending.

But whenever I ask for specifics, I hear the same sound I hear when Geoff Blum is nominated for $1 in a mixed league auction.

To my conservative brethren-- Can someone please give my your specific answers as to how to fix the debt?

*Carl Sagan approves of this message.

[chancellor]

Hmmm...I think I've been pretty clear - I'm all for restoring the Clinton era tax rates once the Dems show me $1tn in real spending cuts. And given that the Clinton era tax rates only add about $200-300bn to revenue, we'll still be only slightly better than Bush era deficits.

We're going to have to slash discretionary spending a lot - 30%, or roughly $380 bn. Defense will need to be cut 20-25%, roughly $220bn.

[B-Fly]

I'm not that far off from chancellor, in that I'd also restore the pre-Bush tax rates and cut about a quarter of a trillion from the Defense budget. As for other cuts, I think we need entitlement reform - greater needs testing of Medicare and Social Security. Yes, I realize that it's breaking an implicit contract with wealthier oldsters, but I think it's necessary.

[Judge Jude]

"greater needs testing of Medicare and Social Security."

no question about it.

[Fresno Bob]

I'm all for capping the mortgage tax credit at some number, say $250K or $300K, and my mortgage is more than twice that.....

[Pogues]

For years...YEARS...I've told folks my plan would be to cut spending 40%, and keep tax rates exactly the same as where they are. Every penny that the federal government brings in that is outside of the yearly spending budget goes toward paying down the debt. After 10 years we can evaluate how much progress has been made, and consider cuts to the tax rate...but nothing crazy. Little here, little there.

There is another option, albeit probably too radical for just about anyone. We fake a revolution, which wins the day. The country changes it's name and we shrug our shoulders and say "That was their debt...not ours. Sorry!"

[dslaw]

For years...YEARS...I've told folks my plan would be to cut spending 40%,

Do you mean 40% to every department (cut social security 40%, Medicare 40%, defense 40%, etc.) or would you cut some by 90% and cut defense by 20% and Medicare by 30%?

And if we have cuts there are consequences to each. People say "We need to cut Medicare spending" which is all fine and dandy but I work in health care and got no raise in 2009 or 2010, a small increase in 2011 that was taken back when Medicare cuts were announced and then another pay cut when we saw the depths of the cut. But I have a job, many other companies in my field cut jobs. So by cutting the gov't spending like this it cuts my pay which cuts the tax revenue. I'm not saying we can't cut because there has to be cuts along with a tax hike but it isn't as easy as looking at the numbers and saying "x% cut" will get us there.

[Don Quixote]

For years...YEARS...I've told folks my plan would be to cut spending 40%, and keep tax rates exactly the same as where they are. Every penny that the federal government brings in that is outside of the yearly spending budget goes toward paying down the debt. After 10 years we can evaluate how much progress has been made, and consider cuts to the tax rate...but nothing crazy. Little here, little there.

The only way that spending gets cut by 40% is if we lock Congress in, no food, no water, no bathrooms, and tell them they can get out when the job is done, then tell the President he can't leave the Oval Office until he signs off on all of it.

It is a dream I have, nothing more.

[JudeBaldo]

I'm not that far off from chancellor, in that I'd also restore the pre-Bush tax rates and cut about a quarter of a trillion from the Defense budget. As for other cuts, I think we need entitlement reform - greater needs testing of Medicare and Social Security. Yes, I realize that it's breaking an implicit contract with wealthier oldsters, but I think it's necessary.

I'm with this as well.

[Don Quixote]

I'm not that far off from chancellor, in that I'd also restore the pre-Bush tax rates and cut about a quarter of a trillion from the Defense budget. As for other cuts, I think we need entitlement reform - greater needs testing of Medicare and Social Security. Yes, I realize that it's breaking an implicit contract with wealthier oldsters, but I think it's necessary.

So you're saying it's OK to take money from people for years and years with the promise of future benefits, then say, "Sorry, we've taken all your money and we're not going to give you anything in return". Pardon the language, but that sounds like a stereotypical Republican way of doing business, like a big corporation reneging on pension and other retirement benefits.

The wealthy don't think rules apply to them. Your idea would just be confirmation. And how much would you like to wager that the "wealthy" line would be set low enough to harm a lot of people who are not rich but merely thrifty, the savers who get penalized on their taxes (by having their Social Security benefits taxed) now because they put money away all their lives?

To use a line overused on Law & Order, you're on a slippery slope here.

[nots]

To use a line overused on Law & Order, you're on a slippery slope here.

$16,000,000,000,000+ is a pretty slippery slope as well.

[joncarlos]

This is a pretty cool online tool... go through and figure out what you would ACTUALLY cut. Shows you just how hard it really is.

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/#

[Fresno Bob]

Very nice, thanks for posting

[DMT]

This is a pretty cool online tool... go through and figure out what you would ACTUALLY cut. Shows you just how hard it really is.

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/#

Cool link. I got us down to 51% of GDP by 2021 even after raising funding for some of the social welfare programs.

[heyelander]

Why is it either cut or increase? Shouldn't maintain current funding levels be an option, too?

just don't click either and it stays the same.