Deficit Reduction and the Role of Government-- Question from Andrea

[Indhika Jayaratnam]

On July 11, former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert discussed the
ongoing debate between Democrats and Republicans over deficit
reduction, taxes and the size of government. The debate has heated up
as the August 2 deadline to increase the debt ceiling quickly
approaches. What do you think should be done?

Do you favor raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans and
corporations, substantial spending cuts but no changes in the major
entitlement programs-- social security, Medicare and Medicaid? Do you
oppose any new taxes and support deep spending cuts, including in
entitlement programs? Or do you want to see a compromise that would
raise taxes on the richest Americans and require changes in
entitlement programs such as increasing the eligibility age for
Medicare?

[Victoria Zopf]

In my opinion, there is really only one option that will help the country to get out of the financial jam we are in right now. Congress needs to vote to raise the debt ceiling before the country defaults and our credit rating is lowered. This would solve many of our problems in the very short term future. As for the long term, we must prevent a situation like this from happening again soon. The only way to do so is to increase the amount of money the country has to spend on paying down debt-- we must simultaneously cut spending and raise taxes to increase revenue. Any lawmaker who thinks it is possible to fix this situation without raising taxes is too closed-minded and this certainly will not help the debate process. 

Although I believe that raising taxes on the richest Americans is both the quickest and easiest way to increase government revenues, this is only part of the solution. I don't profess to know much more about how the government operates in regard to budget formulation, but, an increase in taxation combined with a decrease in spending is literally the only way the government can hope to prevent future defaults and crisis situations such as the one we are in currently. 

Victoria Zopf

--
Victoria Zopf
vz...@student.umass.edu
(617) 775 - 5080

[Ivan Ho]

Depend on more Communists countries to buy more of your debt. Solved. 

[Melissa Rodgers]

Given the importance of the US economy in world markets, there will be
widespread repercussions if the US doesn't raise the debt ceiling. In the
short term, raising the debt ceiling seems to be the only responsible
course of action. However, the US requires an equitable long-term solution
to its debt problem. Speaker Hastert emphasized the need for a smaller and
less active government in order to allow people to make their own life
choices; yet in practice people without a basic level of health,
education, and economic security have very few choices. While government
spending should be scrutinized to ensure it is efficient, raising taxes is
probably also necessary. Cuts to social programs would disproportionately
affect the most vulnerable segments of the population. Several other
countries in the world maintain universal healthcare systems, strong
social security packages and good education systems while remaining
fiscally stable - the US needs to figure out how to balance its debt
obligations, taxes, and spending too.

[Christine Hoguet]

I must say that I very much agree with Melissa's arguments. The Republicans may think now that they would make a strong point and remain true to their party's ideologies by not raising taxes, but they completely ignore the long term consequences a default on debt would provoke. Also, shrinking down the government to a size so small it could be drowned in a bath tub (to use the Republican rhetoric here) only works if you have people educated enough to make good, sustainable choices. Unfortunately, that is very rarely the case, anywhere, and thus government in some cases has to step in and make the right decisions for the people. 

I think the only way to get the U.S. out of this quagmire is a prudent combination of spending cuts, especially in terms of defense spending and pork barrels, and raising taxes on the wealthiest and on corporations. Much money could be raised if taxation loopholes were closed that allow large corporations to avoid paying taxes. 

--
Christine Hoguet

International Studies / Anthropology major

Case Western Reserve University

[malberts]

In my opinion, the United States needs to do a few things in order get
over the budget crisis.
Cut spending, raise taxes, let the Bush Tax codes expire, and agree on
balanced budget amendment.
I think that it is unfair to simply raise the taxes on the wealthiest
percent of Americans. To solve the problem
We should have an overall increase in taxes for every tax paying
citizen across the board. I think the government
Should stay away from touching Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid
as those are not valid places to look
To relieve the debt pressure and should not be treated like a back up
piggy bank.

Furthermore, the debt crisis needs to be dealt with in a concise and
mature way by our nation's politicians.
I think in order for Americans to feel the pressure of this crisis
alleviate, they need to see their elected leaders
acting in a manner that is conducive to finding solutions to these
tough problems. The United States cannot
afford to default on its debts and destabilize in with two battle
fronts in the middle east and the European debt
crisis looming as well. America needs to sort its financial problems
out soon in order to set the course straight
for our future generations to be able to focus on the other challenges
ahead.

-Marc Alberts
Univ. of Central Florida

On Jul 15, 7:09 pm, Indhika Jayaratnam <indhika.jayarat...@twc.edu>
wrote:

[Kevin Stone]

I think to curb the long term crisis, we should make deep cuts into our defense spending, including streamlining how we spend on defense contracts, and cut spending elsewhere. I think entitlement programs and social services should take priority over the inefficient black hole of defense spending. To solve the more short term crisis, we should raise the debt ceiling to continue to keep interest rates at record lows to avoid dipping back into recession and we should make a commitment to reaching a balanced budget.

 

Under normal circumstances, I would disagree with raising the eligibility age of Medicare, but if it is an absolutely necessary trade off to reach compromise and a bipartisan solution, then I see no other solution but to concede. Perhaps temporarily raising the eligibility age would be a compromise as well.

--

Kevin Stone 

International Relations and International Business Major & Spanish Minor

Valley Residential Senator 

Associated Students Committee On Inclusion and Diversity 

University of San Diego

(425) 306 - 9996

kevin...@sandiego.edu

 

[Catherine Gauthier]

Considering the emergency of the situation and the uncontrollable increase in the debt, both an emergency plan and a long-term plan should be make, the most coherent together as possible. I do favor raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans and corporations. But before doing so, I would have reviewed the way money is allocated in different sector of the government, as a review of the military budget to the minimum expenses.

I strongly disagree with substantial spending cuts as well as any cut in major entitlement programs like social security, Medicare and Medicaid. The reason why is these programs are even more needed in crisis situations where people are at higher risk to lose jobs, and seek for governmental programs while waiting for a new job. I would even be against changes in entitlement programs, especially in the case of increasing the eligibility age for Medicare. Younger people, with less savings and possibly student debts, are amongst vulnerable classes of society.

 

Catherine Gauthier
Université de Montréal 

[Alexander Henderson]

I agree with Lillian, Ron Paul is the answer to most of our problems. Although the fiscal conservative in me hesitates a little bit to defaulting on our loans because I'd like to see our perfect credit rating preserved. However, the government's spending is out of control and if we keep raising the debt ceiling, then we will just spend until we reach that limit too. I wouldn't be upset to see the debt ceiling temporarily raised just to avoid a default but we must see some drastic measures to cut spending. Spending needs to be cut in defense, and entitlement programs. Obviously the US spends much more on defense then is realistically necessary. But, the government also spends too much on things it shouldn't be responsible for in entitlement programs. I'm not suggesting dropping entitlement programs right away, but we have a serious budgeting problem and we need to see the government reduce spendings in all areas. As I see it, people have become dangerously dependent on entitlement programs such as medicaid, medicare, and social security. The government poisoned itself when it created these programs. When the day comes that the government can't afford to pay for these programs any longer, people are going to go apeshit.

 

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Lillian Hussong <lillian...@gmail.com> wrote:

But being a libertarian, I think it's imperative that size of
government remain small. And before we can even talk about spending
cuts and additions, etc. we need to talk about the money itself.
Where on Earth is all this money coming from?  It's being made out of
nothing-- it used to be that money was backed on gold and silver.
Today it's not, it's just being made out of thin air.  So let's change
that standard so we stop creating worthless money, and then talk about
spending.

So... the debt ceiling.  DON'T RAISE IT!  If you raise the debt
ceiling, you're encouraging more spending.  There's no way to address
the issue of our out-of-control spending if we go ahead and raise the
debt ceiling.  Politicians can say that they have a five year plan
where they won't spend past a certain level, but that's all talk.  The
only year we can be sure about is the current year we're in (and even
that is quite a quagmire).  We can't hedge our bets on the future.

Best way to solve all this stuff... Ron Paul!!!

--
Alex Henderson

[Vitor Hugo Suguri]

I believe that compromise has to be done in order to reach a deal, it is not a question of what the republicans or democrats want.  We have an immediate crisis and it has to be addressed, and it seems like for the short term not raising the debt ceiling will not help solve this crisis.  What I think it should be done, is to first; raise the debt ceiling and give it a time line to bring it back down; second, raise taxes for the richest and corporations along with eliminating the Bush tax cuts; third, leave entitlements as is for now.  These three measures would be just to keep the country from defaulting on its loans, generate revenue to eventually bring the ceiling back down, and to try to balance the budget.  Entitlements from my point of view need to be reviewed and reformulated so that is are effective and cost efficient, so that should be done after an agreement on the debt ceiling is reached.  On the other side, I do believe the Government can cut spending, there are many areas such as the DOD where spending can be reduced.  In addition, government programs and subsidies should also be reviewed so that those programs which does not work and are not effective can be stopped.
 
Besides the overspending on wars, the US also faces a time where inequality is growing exponentially, and when this happens entitlements starts to fail because of the high demand for services.  Furthermore, the government tendency is to expand, so it provides for those who are falling into poverty and into the low income level.  If the economy was healthy and people had means to provide for themselves, there would be less need for government intervention.  That is not the only cause for government expansion, but it is certainly one of them. 

 

I also believe that the size of government will not decrease overnight, and the reality is that it needs money to keep it from collapsing.  And it is up to the people to be active and demand policies that will reduce government size overtime. 



 

> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:09:11 -0700
> Subject: Deficit Reduction and the Role of Government-- Question from Andrea
> From: indhika.j...@twc.edu
> To: international-af...@googlegroups.com

[Adam Portoghese]

Being a realist, I think this "problem" is going to be solved is. What we people are mistaking for government meltdown is typical party politics. The debt ceiling is an arbitrary number set by the Congress that has historically always been raised. What both sides are doing now is throwing in their ultimatums so that they can each walk away saying that they won. 

I agree that spending must be reigned in and we should never go beyond our means, but you have to understand that this conversation happening not too many years ago was the exact opposite. People really liked the country being in debt, because it inspires investor confidence and encourages economic growth. Likewise, the United States is a wonderful debtor. We always payed off our interest on our debts and that is why the US has an amazing credit rating. If you would like your country (for Americans out there) to maintain legitimacy abroad we are obligated to pay our debt. Frankly, It is preposterous to say otherwise.

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Lillian Hussong <lillian...@gmail.com> wrote:

But being a libertarian, I think it's imperative that size of
government remain small. And before we can even talk about spending
cuts and additions, etc. we need to talk about the money itself.
Where on Earth is all this money coming from?  It's being made out of
nothing-- it used to be that money was backed on gold and silver.
Today it's not, it's just being made out of thin air.  So let's change
that standard so we stop creating worthless money, and then talk about
spending.

So... the debt ceiling.  DON'T RAISE IT!  If you raise the debt
ceiling, you're encouraging more spending.  There's no way to address
the issue of our out-of-control spending if we go ahead and raise the
debt ceiling.  Politicians can say that they have a five year plan
where they won't spend past a certain level, but that's all talk.  The
only year we can be sure about is the current year we're in (and even
that is quite a quagmire).  We can't hedge our bets on the future.

Best way to solve all this stuff... Ron Paul!!!

--

Adam Portoghese

aporto...@elon.edu

adampor...@gmail.com

407-712-3555

Elon University Class of 2012

Alpha Phi Omega- President

Model United Nations- Military Coordinator

Men’s Club Volleyball- Club Officer

[Stone, Lauren]

I don't think that the debt ceiling should be raised.  The United States will have to pay the debt at some point in time. If the debt ceiling is raised, the U.S. is only digging a bigger hole for itself, and the debt will only continue to increase.  Raising the debt ceiling would be taking the easy way out.  What happens if the debt ceiling is raised and we reach the new limit?  Not only will the debt be higher, but it will also be more difficult to pay off.

[Tim]

Well, quite the discussion so far. I shall attempt to address a number
of raised points from several people as succinctly as possible.

Debt Ceiling - Not raising it simply is not a viable option. We should
not let it go on increasing indefinitely (for obvious reasons), but
deciding not to raise it will require making significant federal
spending cuts, and it would be highly imprudent to force our economy
to swallow all of them at once. Instead we should raise it for the
time being to prevent default, provided there will be a plan for
making the needed cuts over a more reasonable time frame - allowing
the economy to adapt. This balances long term fiscal responsibility
with economic stability (which is especially important given our weak
recovery).

Consequences of Default - Yes, these are very real and very unwise to
risk. Default could fundamentally undermine the financial system of
the United States (and potentially the world - as America is such a
big player). Why? Because it would gravely compromise the "faith and
trust" in the U.S. $. Why does that matter? Because it is the only
thing that allows us to keep spending. The way our government spends
money is like this - the Federal Reserve/Treasury clicks a button on
its computers to "mark up" any account we pay money to - yes, it is
made up out of thin air! The reason we can get away with this is
because no matter how many dollars we "make up" to spend, we can
simply soak all that cash back up from the economy by selling U.S.
treasury securities (i.e., we take peoples' dollars and give them
slips of paper instead - which they are happy to take because they are
safe and earn interest). If we default, both of those conditions will
be greatly compromised, meaning that - even if we can continue to make
this accounting trick work, which is not guaranteed - it will
certainly cost us more to keep doing it because the "trust and faith"
will come at a higher price. Seriously, do not mess with this nifty
financial mechanism if you want the world as you know it to continue.

Tangible Commodity Standard for U.S. $$$ - Should we go back to a
"gold standard" or some other real commodity to "back up" the U.S.
dollar? Not really. Why? Because it would 1) be extremely difficult to
find enough "real commodities" to back up all the dollars we currently
have out there, and reducing that amount of dollars would have its own
consequences, and more importantly 2) it would prevent us from using
the above accounting trick, as we couldn't "make up" money by virtue
of the fact it would need to be "backed up" by something "real". So
there is no going back to the way the system used to be operated.

Federal Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) - Certainly not! This is a
very bad idea from a purely economic perspective - though it sounds
really good, which is why people keep proposing them again and again
(it makes great political rhetoric too). Why? Because it not only
eliminates the federal government's ability to use fiscal policy, but
it actually forces them to use the opposite fiscal policies from what
they should in a given situation. Let me explain. The government has
two main fiscal policy options - raise/lower taxes and increase/
decrease spending. These can be used to respond to two kinds of
economic situations - recession and inflation. In an recession the
they need to be expansionary (i.e., add more stimulation to the
economy), which is done by lowering taxes and/or increasing spending.
In an inflation, they need to be contractionary (i.e., reduce the
stimulation in the economy), which is done by raising taxes and/or
decreasing spending. But what if we throw a BBA in there? Well, in a
recession tax revenue goes down, meaning less money is going back into
the government. If a BBA is in place, then they will be forced to make
up for this loss of revenue by raising taxes and/or cutting spending -
but look back up a couple lines, this is contractionary and the
opposite of what they should be doing! The converse is also true for
an inflation, where the government gets greater tax revenues and under
a BBA must cut taxes and/or increase spending. Simply put - the idea
that the federal government should spend no more than it takes in
(i.e., that spending must = revenue; a BBA) takes away our ability to
address potentially harmful fluctuations in the market by not only
eliminating fiscal policy as an option, but actually turning it in
favor of economic instability rather than stability.

Answer to the Budget/Debt Ceiling Crisis - The third option from the
original question posted is the only logical way to go - we need a
compromise between spending cuts and tax increases. From an economic
perspective they are functionally the same - they are both
contractionary (which is the opposite of what the government should do
in a recession, but hey, people seem determined to scale back now
anyway). Thus, the difference between the two is not what they do, but
whom they do it to. In other words, its about who will take the burden
of these fiscal policies. Personally, I think the best approach it for
it to be shared between the super wealthy (corporations and their tax
breaks, etc) and the People, many of whom depend greatly on government
programs for support. And as we decide who should take the greater
part of this fiscal burden, I think it is only fair that corporate
welfare come second to the People's welfare. Regardless of how this
burden is divided up, the moderate approach is for there to at least
be a division - which some Republicans have been resisting with their
strict "no taxes" stance. I don't like the Democrats any more than the
Republicans, but I do think the former has been more willing to
compromise and take on its share of the burden. Really all of the
political positioning (from both sides) is very silly because if both
take a hit (Repubs for letting more taxes happen, the Dems for
allowing program cuts) then the hits will cancel each other out
politically (and both actually see a net gain for getting the job
done); instead they seem bent on making the other take a hit while
trying to avoid one themselves (for a net loss to both for not getting
the job done) - an unfortunate case of classic game theory. Such
partisan behavior helps no one, in the long or short runs.

[Matt Mill]

"If the United States defaults it will be the first default in history
caused purely by insanity." Political gamesmanship that originates
from the self-interest of the two parties is about to sink the ship.
At my association we've been dealing with the possible implications of
a default or an arbitrary 44% reduction in Federal spending. The way
the meetings between the President and Congressional leaders have
played out have led me to this analogy. In 1962, when the Kennedy
administration stood eye to eye with the Soviet Union over ballistic
missiles in Cuba the President faced a strategic dilemma. He needed
not only to win, but to win clearly in the court of public opinion.
The problem was that he faced a more disjointed Soviet regime than he
expected. Although it was a one-party totalitarian state, the
Communist Party had divided into different camps. If Kennedy pushed
Kruschev too hard and got too many concessions he risked inciting a
coup by hardliners in the Soviet Union, men who wanted war. There has
been a coup in the Republican Party.

Republicans won handily in the last election, taking control of the
House. Most of the elected members ran on platforms of deficit and
debt reduction. The President has behaved very shrewdly in the ensuing
negotiations, exposing the motivations of the Republican caucus. While
Democrats have become serious about compromise, transforming
themselves into the party of deficit and debt reduction Republicans
have transitioned the conversation into one of taxing and spending, in
an effort to undermine the welfare state. Unfortunately, now the two
sides are locked in a dangerous dynamic. Since he has set himself up
as the responsible figure willing to compromise The President wins
politically with any deal. Republicans have learned that they can dig
in against Democrats and cause fragments to reveal themselves in the
caucus. It worked to strip major components out of the Affordable Care
Act. It worked to keep the financial reform bill from preventing
bailouts. It's the reason we haven't gotten any significant
immigration reform. This is because the Democratic party generally
defies description as a political party. Our system trends toward two
parties because of the single-member district. This prevents
Coalitions, the type of which usually crop up in European Parliaments.
The Democratic Party then becomes a de facto opposition coalition.
Although it receives significant support from unions it is not a Labor
Party (this is mostly because Americans are generally not politically
conscious of class, but that's a different thesis for a different
day). It represents no specific religious group as the majority of
Catholics, Jews, Atheists, Agnositics, and a swath of other religions
identify as Democrat. It represents no specific ethnic group either,
most minorities identify of Democrats. And although you are much more
likely to find LGBT, and even female, Democrats than Republicans you
cannot single out the Democratic Party as the Party of Gays. It is the
party of all these groups. A coalition opposition, not a party.

The Republican party is instead traditionally composed predominantly
of whites, males, and protestants. It has been ideologically
monolithic, although since the 1980's there has been a division over
how religious its membership is. The tea party movement has brought a
new swath of people into the Republican Party who are varying degrees
of conservative hardliners. The three Republican leadership
personalities in these negotiations are embodied in Boehner,
McConnell, and Cantor. Boehner is the traditional conservative,
McConnel the institutional politician, and Cantor the voice for the
new conservative libertarian movement. While the Republican strategy
to press was supposed to exploit weaknesses in Democrat solidarity, it
has instead fractured their own party. Who is in charge? The Speaker
or the House Majority leader? If Boehner had his Party behind him we
would have a deal already. Cantor has been the most vocal figure in
the meetings.

His concern is understandable. The problem here is our self-interested
government. The Government is self-interested from the bottom up.
Individual politicians are self-interested. They are professionals who
rely on the votes of citizens to retain their jobs. (Cantor
represents the conservative Richmond, VA district. It is unlikely he
will ever be unseated by a Democrat, but he is not a tea-partier. His
risk is being supplanted by a more conservative member of his own
party.) Similarly the two parties are self-interested. Democrats and
Republicans are engaged in a zero-sum game dynamic where it is in the
political interest of each party to do nothing more than destroy the
other. Democrats take power when Republicans fail and vice versa. If a
deal benefits Obama the Republicans can always just make no deal, let
the economy tank, and hope Obama takes the blame for it. It is
unlikely that market panic and an unemployment spike will benefit
either party, it could in fact precipitate more radical developments
in American society. The system we are locked in is dangerous. The
effects of polarization and faction within our government could
ultimately lead to political violence erupting due to the government
failing to carry out its most basic tasks. A default would not only be
a renegging on the United States financial obligations, it would be a
significant breach of its social contract with the American People.
Unfortunately, there is little movement in American civil society to
change the status quo, and political elites are not interested in any
major institutional changes that would negate the effect of
polarization. They are after all the ones whom the status quo favors,
so why change it when there is no call from the American people to do
so?

Matthew Milliken

[Josephine Bahn]

I think that this issue can be solved with a compromise between both
parties. It seems rather apparent that the entitlement programs need
to be fixed. They were originally designed with the life expectancy
much lower than it is today. Therefore, fewer Americans would take
from the program, while much more would pay into it. That being said,
the current structure is still being reported as sustainable for the
next 26 or so years. So it might be in the best interest of law makers
to raise the age from 65 to an age higher in five years or so. This
would keep politicians away from the backlash most political strife.
Secondly, we have a progressive tax rate in this country, as of this
morning though, which means that those who make a higher income, pay a
higher tax. I understand that some people make the argument that if
untaxed wealthy Americans will invest back in the economy. Well, in
the last economics class that I took, I learned a different approach.
Most wealthy Americans will buy summer homes in the French Riviara, or
vacation in the Carribbean, etc. While those who aren't so lucky,
let's say making only $40,000.00 a year or less, when they are given
tax breaks, they buy things like shoes, clothes, and things that
actually stimulate the AMERICAN economy. The problem has been outlined
for yeras for Congress to see, and we are still having this battle
with only 11 days before we default on our loans. Fingers crossed that
they resolve it.

On Jul 15, 7:09 pm, Indhika Jayaratnam <indhika.jayarat...@twc.edu>
wrote:

[Kyle G.]

Any viable solution to our nation's current budget woes must
absolutely increase the debt ceiling, thereby preventing our
government from defaulting on our loans. Though many deny the effects
that defaulting would have on our already fragile economy, I believe
that it must be avoided at all costs.
Americans tend to think of our country as the world's leader, a first
among equals. How could we possibly justify maintaining this role when
we cannot even agree that funding our government is necessary? In my
view, there is much more at stake than an out of control national
debt. Sure, we may still remain superior in most respects to the rest
of the world, but we are entering an era in which our superiority in
the world is no longer secure. The world is becoming increasingly
multi-polar with once, non-competitive countries, such as Brazil,
quickly becoming economic powerhouses.
Now, do I fear the U.S. losing its military world-dominance anytime in
the near future? No time soon, and perhaps never. However, when it
comes to economics, if the U.S. does not get its financial act
together, it may come as a surprise in a few decades when the now
emerging economic powers surpass us in economic strength. And though I
may not be an economist, I think I can safely say that allowing the
government to default on its debt in the midst of an economic recovery
would be extremely damaging to our standing on the world's
stage.

When it comes to deficit reduction, I do believe that our nation
should be working towards achieving a balanced budget, but I do not
believe that this should be accomplished through a constitutional
amendment mandating it or atop the backs of working poor and middle
class families. In other words, though spending cuts may be necessary,
the social programs that a significant portion of our population, such
as the elderly, have come to depend on should not be cut into non-
existence. This is something that I believe most Americans would not
stand for. I do, however, agree that many of these social programs,
such as Medicare, need to be reformed so that they may be sustained
rather than being defunded.

Lastly, any efforts targeted at reducing the deficit must include
increasing some taxes. As Americans, we all hate paying taxes. It is
something that we complain about on a regular basis. However, we all
must do it, as our ancestors have done it for centuries, perhaps
longer. Thus it is not fair for the wealthiest among us, individuals
and corporations alike, to not do their fair share. Besides, it is
simply common sense, to me at least, that budget cuts alone cannot
achieve the trillions of dollars worth of deficit reduction that is
needed. New revenue must be worked into this equation.

On Jul 15, 7:09 pm, Indhika Jayaratnam <indhika.jayarat...@twc.edu>
wrote:

[lea pelletier marcotte]

As I write this comment, on July 31st, the Congress has yet to agree
on this issue.

As the whole debate seems to rest on more political than social
considerations, I would invite the elected representatives of the
Federal government of the United States to step away, for a moment,
from their obsession on «being re-elected or not» and teir love of
extreme brinksmanship politics. This issue has repercussions way more
important than reputation or votes. What will happen, on or around
August 2nd, will have an impact on the whole world economy. Smaller
countries have defaulted on their debt before and this led to major
crisis with global impact. I cannot imagine what the consequences will
be if the US, one of the world`s main economies, does the same thing
because its leaders cannot agree.

Personally, I believe raising the debt ceiling while also raising
taxes is the best solution to solve the issue. I do not believe
cutting in social programs should happen, since the individuals that
will suffer from these cuts already are among the poorest in this
country. Why weaken the few necessary social programs this country has
in order for the rich to be happy? It seems only logical and fair that
the richest would pay more taxes, no?

Most of all, I believe the US leaders should stop only considering
their own interests and look out there, consider and weigh what will
happen in the rest of the world, if they keep on acting so selfishly.

On 15 juil, 19:09, Indhika Jayaratnam <indhika.jayarat...@twc.edu>
wrote:

[Chalisa Wangsang]

So we stand here on August 2, 2011: Senate passes the debt-ceiling budget deal and it moves on to Obama. I personally dislike the result. Even under the gun (i.e. deadline, which was needed to get something done), that was all our Congress could come up with. We will be back to this scramble and panic to get some type of bill pass six months to a year down the road. It's a weak compromise and it will just put the United States back into the same position. Politics (as usual) got into the way of what is correct. Both parties are not willing to give a little more for the "long term" prosperity of our economic well-being. "Short term" was the goal; "let  just get us out of this one and we will deal with it later" was the mentality.

 

I favor progressive taxes, not just raising taxes on the rich. Why? Because it is equitable. It is fair. (And I'm not saying because I come from that population, I'm far from it). Progressive tax will allow for taxes to pay according to how much money you make. If you make less, you pay less, and if you pay more (and subsequently more), you will pay more.

 

There are some programs that need to stay in place, however instead of looking to cut important programs like Medicaid or Social Security, why don’t we take the initiative to investigate the other ways our funds are disappearing: unnecessary purchases and frivolous spending, not from the US government as a whole, but the individuals within it. Let's start there. Let's scrutinize our politicians instead of allowing them to play politics on our backs.