What is the best way for the U.S. to get out of debt???

Fine everyone who types or texts 5 cents fer evey misspelld ward. 10 cents for every ******* swear 20 cents for every slur 30 cents if what they write is stupid. Let's all eat bacon for ten years straight! And video games Totally cause violence This is obviously a joke. {90 cents have been deducted. Thank you for your cooperation}

Progressive taxes, unemployment insurance, abolishing the tariff, free trade agreements, cutting the naval and army budget, removing more tanks and ships from service, welfare, and some good old American nationalism

And the options don't really allow for solutions.

If the isles would get together first off cut spending, secondly raise taxes. But the democrats just want taxes and believe the people need the money and paying off debt doesn't matter because the rich have enough money. The republicans refuse to increase taxes until the budget has more cuts because money is currently handed out to people in the U.S. for being the most poor (try being a poor person in any other country, our poor people aren't really poor.......). I'm beginning to wonder if the U.S. will ever have a balanced budget.

Why do we have Welfare? That is what happens when there is massive Wealth Inequality, when there are extremes, ones who have more then they could ever use, and others who can't even feed themselves. I am sure no one wants Bread riots in the street now do we?

@jif ---- We agree on the army budget, and decreasing welfare, but nationalism in a radical or struggling right-wing society leads to fascism :/

If government granted income (food stamps, section 12, free or reduced children's lunch, etc.) were to be factored in to income you would quickly find alot of "poor" people are middle class. In addition poor people in other countries often make less than $4 a day, citizens here make that in an hour in the worst job available, even after taxes.......

The democrats don't want taxes, and I want more welfare. These are actual solutions to social inequality. Cutting programs as the GOP wishes to do destroys the economy. I can't stand these libertarians who wish to abolish the department of commerce and energy, even though these agencies add additional revenue to the economy.

And the reason we have welfare and unemployment insurance, is not to keep citizens above poverty, like you claim. Its to lower the social inequality gap, preventing the 1% from getting to powerful, and having the coporates rise above government.

The democrats definetely support more taxes, and left wingers have supported additional taxes through history and want nothing more than to tax the rich and give to the "poor". In countries like rome a great country fell due to democratic policies such as devalueing the currency, openly throwing out gold to the poor, and extreme inflation using these policies as a form of a secret tax. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VPpYXwliKVY

You can't claim that nationalism leads to fascism. Its social inequality that leads to fascism, with a touch of extreme nationalism

Fascism is by definition a radical form of authoritarian nationalism.

Nationalism is foolish in my eyes, but lets avoid that topic for now. For the aspect of the poor, why must the majority suffer while a minority lives lavishly? There IS enough money for everybody to live comfortable lives.

Thats because taxes make us a large net more then spending cuts. Which is why we support them. We can have 5$ more from taxes then we do for every dollar of spending cuts. Taxes sound bad, but we need them, and especially from the rich. And the higher we tax the rich the lower we can charge the 99%. Its common sense. Your conservatism seeks to send us into a even deeper hole

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

We do need taxes, but we have many excessive and unnecessary ones, have you even seen the foreign defense budget, or military scandals involving the budget, or congressional pay raises. Our money is spent in many stupid ways that doesn't aid the common good.

Of course.. We support cutting the Military bill, in like half. Then getting rid of corporate Subsidies, getting rid of our Cheap Food Act, etc.

I Have to go, I reccomend you watch my video I provided and make your own opinion. Please don't listen to any subjective arguments from jifpop.

Wow.. Alright, that is a form of cheap shot.

Wow.. Alright, that is a form of cheap shot.

Think about it. Why should people in a Nation fight over their share of the Wealth? Why should they not all have an equal part of the Nation?

Hey pop, otter, and action, I like my idea

Hey pop, otter, and action, I like my idea

It seems he's giving up. Sufficient logic is not his strong suit. Anyways, I would love to gang up on you another day.

To bad progressivedem didn't join in on this.

Seriously... We are on this Earth Together. Why do we all fight each other over selfish things such as Personal wealth?

In a ideal world, we would not require socialist laws, and everything would be equally fair. We don't live in an ideal world though. To much socialism and the wealth is spread thin. To much capitalism and the wealth all flows to the 1%. We need an equal balance. While conservatives advocate in being fair, its simply not realistic. With the current trend, the wealth is indeed flowing to create a near elite society once prevalent in Europe and Mexico.

Reform mining law of 1872 to make companies pay current rent value for federal property

Depends, the invention of new Technology is a vague but amazing field, and I have a lot of hope in it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-04/deficit-to-fall-to-514-billion-u-s-budget-agency-says.html

And your right, actionspeak calling my arguments subjective is an ad hominen. Out of the two of us, I based my locig off of realism and statistics His was based off of ideals. Thanks Comrade ;)

Anyway, I tried to research the mining act of 1872, and I actually really like your plan. That could earn a lot of money, especially in the states of Wyoming, Alaska, and Illinois I'm surprised that no bill is in office supporting this.

Actually though, it seems the act was devised so poor people could produce revenue without losing much money. Perhaps the revisment you propose should only extend to the rich corporations?

We don't need to get out of debt immediately. What I previously didn't understand was that the national debt was more like an investment in the economy rather than a kind of subjugation. If the US were debt-free, it would be doing something wrong in my opinion, because there could be more money in circulation. The money belongs in the pockets of people, which maintains high tax revenues and a high standard of living.

Kbub hit the nail on the head.

We will never get out of debt, because debt is a necessary part of every nation. No country has 0 national debt.

Its funny how your liberal minds work.

Your the one who openly said you would blindly vote for anything the GOP supports. That is pure idiocy.

Well the GOP hasn't done me wrong yet.

You made a lot of stupid posts throughout this site. You never back your arguments up, but say "your wrong", and repeat yourself. The GOP did do you wrong, mainly the economic downfall during the Bush administration.

Bush was the best president this country has ever had! You have to admit that!

Wut?

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Barack Obama is damaging America more than any other president in its history. He’s running up crushing federal debt at a level unprecedented in American history. We are talking trillions upon trillions of dollars in debt. Obama has endorsed, and will continue to foster, the entitlement mentality, playing the victim, and mob rule;Obama is lending aid, money, and support to tyrannies & terrorists. Obama is discounting and attempting to undermine America’s Christian and Judeo-Christian culture.He is rapidly ceding the Middle East back to terrorists and tyrants. He is trying to cozy up to Iran but, more importantly, he is withdrawing troops from Iraq even as violence escalates, risking the loss of that country in the infancy of its democracy. I’ve saved the worst for last. Obama has already reduced funding for missile defense and threatens to eliminate the program entirely. Yet missile defense is the only potential defense against nuclear missile threats from a growing number of terrorists and tyrants around the world. This deriliction of duty on Obama’s part could result in the deaths of millions!

No, I actually don't. He ruined are international reputation and sent a lot of people to die after a long occupation of Iraq. Afghanistan showed some promise, but the fact that we spent 7 years looking for the supposed WMD's, which cost more then enough of our GDP. 100's of billions actually which could of filled the deficit three times over.

Ok maybe Bush made some bad decisions overseas, but back home he did pretty good. Obama on the other hand is probably the worst president, but I do like his foreign policy a little. "Don't get involved in anything".

Really? Unemployment was much higher under bush, and Obama has significantly lowered the deficit, whereas Bush raised it.

MiracleChild, that may be the dumbest comment I have ever seen.

What about Iceland's approach of erasing debt and jailing banker's for corrupt practices?

Iceland may not be the best example for action. The three largest banks crashed at virtually the same time, due to government practices. The economy tanked for awhile.

Here's a solution: Get people less dependent on entitlement spending (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.) and then cutting spending for that. The government should protect our rights, not give us stuff we need.

That stuff helps the economy though, as it has been doing for France, Germany, Switzerland, and Denmark. In no mood to argue this with you, but try me in the forums at a later time.

@giraffelover: Social Security and Medicare aren't "entitlements" -- people paid into them because they were contractually promised benefits. How people still don't understand this astounds me. Also, how do you "get people less dependent on entitlements?" The utter simplicity and illogic of conservative thinking never ceases to amaze me.

Like, yeah, let's reduce the budget deficit by stealing money and lying from people -- it's theft if the government doesn't pay back what it owes -- and throwing out old people to live on the streets, as happened prior to the New Deal. Do you morons even think through the implications of your positions? Or is it just "Cut government!; Defend the rich! They're the job creators! Etc."? It's disgusting.

Laissez Faire

Cut the welfare for the people who don't attempt to get jobs and/or use drugs. (I know this from personal experience with my relative)

Easier said than done.

The world is not ready yet for Social Marxism, unfortunately. However, the only way to get rid of debt is to have a healthy economy. Try getting rid of banks first, that would fix the domestic economy by abolishing personal and consumer debt, and would get rid of internal debt. I laughed so much at the print more money solution, printing fiat money is why US has internal debt. The Federal Reserve and intragovernmental holdings, which are the holders of internal debt, own a little less than half of the total national debt. Foreign debt holders, like China, own a little more than half of the total US national debt. Imagine if the US could avoid paying for almost half its national debt. When will people stop thinking that printing money out of nothing, or making money out of money is a good thing? No, it creates the debt monster, and has no social benefits or value.

Tax on consumerism/ debase the currency