As to addressing the deficit, it ought to be quite clear.

In the Clinton budget (which generated a surplus for the year), revenues and expenditures were balanced at about 20% of GDP.

Currently revenues are down to something under 16& -- haven't been that low for a VERY long time. Causes there in part the recession and its aftermath, and most clearly the Bush Tax cuts.

Expenditures are up to something like 24% -- haven't been this high for a long time. Causes there are again in part the recession and its aftermath (seen in foodstamps, unemployment benefits, Medicaid increases and earlier reliance of Social Security, but also the Bush Medicare Part D program (unfunded), and the VAST defense and security build up (also unfunded). There were other factors certainly, but those are the major deficit drivers. It should be noted that the budget for fiscal 2009 (ie October 1 2008 to September 30 2009) pretty much reflected the major deficit issues we still have in as much as all those factors were in play.

How to resolve. Certainly deal with entitlements -- truly control Medicare costs (perhaps balance a bit by more revenue in that program), tweak Social Security (perhaps a small boost up in the percentage, increases in retirement age, opening up the top income cut off). Cuts in the defense establishment -- it has bounced up by 80% since 2001. Cuts here OUGHT to seem obvious. Work to control Medicaid costs as well.

Revenue side -- make changes to drive that very low below 16% number back toward the historical norm of 20%. This might entail 'De-bushing' ourselves. It might also recharacterize dividend, capital gains, and 'deferred interest' all as regular income. It might also suggest limits on some of the tax favored areas - say interest on homes with a fixed top rate. Other tweaks surely.

The sad thing is, Teapublicans are all for entitlement reform and budget reform -- except of course for the defense and security establishment. The instant revenue increases go into the mix or defense cuts go into the mix, the Teapublicans storm off into their corner in a highly partisan hissy fit.

To a lesser degree but real nonethe less, the Democrats would endorse some modest cuts in defense spending (probably not enough, but a start), but very little in terms of addressing Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security changes. Further, the only tax changes they seem to endorse are increased rates for the wealthy and elimination of special treatment of dividends, capital gains and deferred interest.

In our current environment, squaring the circle is pretty much impossible. About the only thing I see which *might* get some critically needed collaboration is the 'fiscal cliff' -- of sequestration, end of the bush cuts, end of the 2% FICA holiday, and several other goodies that will occur absent some bipartisanship resulting in legislation by the end of the year. Both parties have much to lose by not agreeing on compromise -- on the other hand, both parties, particularly the Democrats have much to gain by stonewalling -- the Bush cuts go away and would require a Senate supermajority reappear, relatively modest defense cuts happen automatically, and social programs also see cuts.

I don't see the 'automatic' legislation as being the best approach. I do see it being better than the R-money/Rand budget and better than the Obama budget --- which demonstrates just how damned partisan both parties have been.

Sadly, not in this reality -- while it would REQUIRE bipartisan support of measures it doesn't compel bipartisanship. In order to get legislation passed today bipartisanship is required. Clearly it hasn't compelled bipartisanship. I suspect we'll get a 'final exam' for the current seriously flawed Congress in November/December when, absent bipartisanship, Sequestration, the end of the 2% FICA holiday, and the Bush tax cuts go away. The theory is those issues require bipartisanship, but frankly I've seen NO inclination toward bipartisanship -- somewhat from the Democrats in the Senate, but especially from the Teapublicans in the House.

Gary, wouldn't it be cheaper to simply require bills to be passed by Congress and then remove Congress altogether. Your 70%/40% scenario insures nothing gets passed, so why not simply save the salaries.

Of course then we'd need to empower the president to rule fully by decree....

It ensures that only legislation that is well thought out and popular gets passed and stays passed. The only way that happens is cooperation, not school yard bully tactics.

Gary, I didn't ask for the math on the breakdown of congress. Let me be a bit more specific.

Come on skildude, show me the math. How's 45% tax on the rich going to fix our deficit/debt? I've shown how cutting spending will do it in the past. It's your turn to show me. It's just simple math.

Chris, depends on your definition of a "man." Man didn't start to get smart until about 50,000 years ago. But you're right, we've become successful because of the roles we have played in the past. We have forgotten where we have come from and over the past couple of generations and we've fairly quickly evolved to allow a group of folks who think they have a right to free stuff. It's the natural cycle of civiilizations I suppose. It's happened in the recent past without the internet, and it's happening again with the internet.

no math but a really nice chart from the first website I googled

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

amazing

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Gary, wouldn't it be cheaper to simply require bills to be passed by Congress and then remove Congress altogether. Your 70%/40% scenario insures nothing gets passed, so why not simply save the salaries.

Of course then we'd need to empower the president to rule fully by decree....

It ensures that only legislation that is well thought out and popular gets passed and stays passed. The only way that happens is cooperation, not school yard bully tactics.

---

Since when do you get to decide when women have equality? I guess 70% of a man's pay for the same work is your idea of equality?

I have always believed that men and women should get equal pay for an equal job of equivalent responsibility. Why on earth not if they both produce the same results? Businesses are happy with the status quo because it saves them money, it's as simple as that. Of course its wrong and it's gradually changing, but too slowly.

If you didn't like working for $7.25/hour then you really wouldn't want to live on social security. I wouldn't be envious of anyone who has to live on social security if I were you.

I have never been unlucky enough to have to exist on social security, and I hope I never will have to. It is generally a degrading Class C existence, but some do make a career out of it. But thankfully we don't get that many families with 10 kids living in mansions though.

A good education certainly helps, but being born male is a big leg up on the career ladder.

Whether we like it or not it is still basically a mans world. Personally I don't like it. Ever since the Suffragettes of the early 1900's things have been changing, and we now have Ministers for Equality & Women in Government, and quite rightly too. We still have the so called "glass ceiling" though which will take longer to dismantle.

Man has been around on this planet for 5 million years or so, and as physically the stronger of males and females, went out to hunt while the woman remained behind protecting their children and possessions. It was the most sensible distribution of abilities to survive. Of course we had Boadicea and the Iceni, and the modern day Germaine Greers, plus Nicola Horlick, but you can't change inbred prejudices overnight. I only wish we could. ES99 knows that I am basically on her side, but she'll probably smack my bum anyway :-))

If it is in the center then it is perfect as it will reign in the excesses of the radicals.

That happens to be the worse possible solution. The third party is nearly always small and in the centre. Therefore it can actually control everything as it's support is needed by one of the parties to enable it too govern and nearly all motions get so watered down they are useless.

As you all know, we have a coalition in the UK at the moment for the first time 1n 70 years since WWII. It is a a bit shaky at the moment because no-one around has ever had any experience of it, and how to make it work, and the Lib Dems haven't been in power for over 100 years. What you don't do is renege upon a formal coalition agreement just because it suits, you and then have your partner saying OK, we won't vote for your one then either. They need to learn how to work together and negotiate.

But it is better to have a smaller party as a parliamentary policeman curtailing the worst excesses of the bigger party, than simply the two main parties taking it in turns to run the country with opposing policies. They spend 5 years putting laws and arrangements in place, only for a fickle electorate reading the tabloid press to chuck them out and vote the other lot back in. Then we have another 5 years of dismantling.

You have the same situation over the pond with the Democrats and Republicans, and now the emerging Tea party. Would a coalition work in the USA? I honestly don't know. Probably not because your voting system with Primarys etc wouldn't produce a hung house. Answers on a postcard to the White House.

Gary, wouldn't it be cheaper to simply require bills to be passed by Congress and then remove Congress altogether. Your 70%/40% scenario insures nothing gets passed, so why not simply save the salaries.

Of course then we'd need to empower the president to rule fully by decree....

Gary, how about 9 political parties? Then we could be just like Greece.

Nine is likely too many. But let me rework the math. Three parties. Maximum number of seats 36%. No law may pass with less than 75%. Repeals only need 40% to pass.

---

Guy, it is more like shared sacrifice.
Remember, "We the people"?
It is the we part.

---

America likes a split government for some reason.

Praise be to Allah!

Now if we could just fix the constitution to force it into a three party system and forever prevent any of the parties from ever getting over 40% control then we might be able to progress beyond schoolyard bully games.

Imagine congressmen and congresswomen actually having debates and conversing on the merits of a bill instead of just digging in their heels and denying votes or filibustering. Imagine no more filibusters.

Heaven.

We also need a mandatory "none of the above" on the ballot. Finish behind "none of the above" and your name is never printed on the ballot again. Oh you can run but as a write in. Remove lots of slime that way.

Gary & Skil holding an S@H John Lennon lovefest? Who would have thought we'd see the day?!?

Yes, but employment depends on the job market. How many highly qualified people (technicians, tradespeople, engineers etc.) are working at McDonalds or Walmart merely to survive because there are no jobs available in their chosen field ?

Choose wisely.

(I'll let that simmer for a while)

Sorry, I already put it on the stove before you posted that.

America likes a split government for some reason.

Praise be to Allah!

Now if we could just fix the constitution to force it into a three party system and forever prevent any of the parties from ever getting over 40% control then we might be able to progress beyond schoolyard bully games.

Imagine congressmen and congresswomen actually having debates and conversing on the merits of a bill instead of just digging in their heels and denying votes or filibustering. Imagine no more filibusters.

Heaven.

We also need a mandatory "none of the above" on the ballot. Finish behind "none of the above" and your name is never printed on the ballot again. Oh you can run but as a write in. Remove lots of slime that way.

---

America likes a split government for some reason.

Praise be to Allah!

Now if we could just fix the constitution to force it into a three party system and forever prevent any of the parties from ever getting over 40% control then we might be able to progress beyond schoolyard bully games.

That happens to be the worse possible solution. The third party is nearly always small and in the centre. Therefore it can actually control everything as it's support is needed by one of the parties to enable it too govern and nearly all motions get so watered down they are useless.

If it is in the center then it is perfect as it will reign in the excesses of the radicals.

---

America likes a split government for some reason.

Praise be to Allah!

Now if we could just fix the constitution to force it into a three party system and forever prevent any of the parties from ever getting over 40% control then we might be able to progress beyond schoolyard bully games.

Imagine congressmen and congresswomen actually having debates and conversing on the merits of a bill instead of just digging in their heels and denying votes or filibustering. Imagine no more filibusters.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

America likes a split government for some reason.

Praise be to Allah!

Now if we could just fix the constitution to force it into a three party system and forever prevent any of the parties from ever getting over 40% control then we might be able to progress beyond schoolyard bully games.

That happens to be the worse possible solution. The third party is nearly always small and in the centre. Therefore it can actually control everything as it's support is needed by one of the parties to enable it too govern and nearly all motions get so watered down they are useless.

America likes a split government for some reason.

Praise be to Allah!

Now if we could just fix the constitution to force it into a three party system and forever prevent any of the parties from ever getting over 40% control then we might be able to progress beyond schoolyard bully games.

---

Yes, but employment depends on the job market. How many highly qualified people (technicians, tradespeople, engineers etc.) are working at McDonalds or Walmart merely to survive because there are no jobs available in their chosen field ?

Choose wisely.

(I'll let that simmer for a while)

I don't disagree with that statement.
I could have chosen several career paths that higher paying jobs but had the risk of long term layoffs and intermitent work. I chose a field where I knew there would be work and opportunities to grow into when I was ready to move up.

I often wonder why people are suprised that job offers aren't flying in after they get Phd in Ancient Babylonian monetary systems. Like you said Choose wisely

I guess I too could have chosen a high paying career path with long hours and lots of money. I "chose" one that meant I'd be around enough to be a mother to my children. Sometimes so called choice is constrained by circumstance. Of course it was my fault for "choosing" to be born female and therefore ending up being the one who has to make these "choices".

Lot's of people end up working in McDonalds and Walmart because they offer hours that people with other commitments can actually work. A good education certainly helps, but being born male is a big leg up on the career ladder.

---

Reality Internet Personality