Baraka_Guru

It's not that the national budget can't be balanced; it's that it shouldn't, based on the consequences that would occur should it be made to balance.

The role of government isn't to make a profit. Continuing to insist that government should look to business as a model for balancing budgets serves little to address the issue and mostly is a distraction.

Governments are not businesses. If the American federal government were run like businesses, they'd do things like eliminate the majority of the military budget and outsource it to China and India. They'd let the poor starve because of no return on investment. They'd let China have fundamental influence on executive decisions because they are the biggest shareholder.

Or we could just simplify things and simply say: the government should always balance the budget. Okay, but this would require making important decisions such as raising taxes (something akin to Canada's tax rate, as we do have legislation regulating balanced budgets) and decimating the military budget to put it on par with other developed nations. Those two would be the first steps because they are clearly the biggest anomalies in America when compared to other developed nations: an astoundingly low tax rate, and a ridiculously bloated military budget.

Where to start? Anyone want to throw out some numbers?

Any idea what reducing the military budget by 90% would have on job numbers?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot