Monday, April 21, 2025

What financial miracle would pull the US out of its national deficit, like how the 1950 Cinderella movie pulled Disney out of massive debt?

What financial miracle would pull the US out of its national deficit, like how the 1950 Cinderella movie pulled Disney out of massive debt?

The 1950 Cinderella movie was Disney's miracle ticket out of debt, so what miracle would have to happen to America to pull it out of its current $36T national deficit?

 

 

all 48 comments

[–][deleted] 1 point  

But you don't... or at least SHOULDN'T... "pay" Social Security. You CONTRIBUTE to YOUR Social Security Savings Account. Not that I disagree with removing the cap, but that's supposed to be YOUR money YOU put in that YOU get back later. If you're thinking of a different use for it, then it should be something else. If the cap is removed, and the government doesn't totally screw the pooch on investing your money, then a small portion the interest and dividends from the higher earners' contributions should MORE than pay for a little extra for those that never earned a lot through their working years.

[–]FootLongz 1 point  

Nothing will change with SS other than the cap. It’s never missed a payment it’s self funding and will always be there unless the GOP figured out a way to steal it.

[–][deleted] 1 point  

If nothing were to change other than the cap, it just means rich people get more SS when they retire. That wouldn't help the poor or middle class that were too stupid and lazy, or simply unfortunate, to go above and beyond the FedGov's "emergency" retirement savings account, which is all SS was ever supposed to be. Skimming some of the D&I off the top of the larger accounts doesn't take away any of their principal, but would give some to the lower income contributors.

[–]Plane_Pop7983 -5 points  

Eliminate income and property tax, then implement a national sales tax. Therefore everyone on from hookers to drug dealers to the kid buying gum will all contribute to the system.

[–]Plane_Pop7983 0 points  

Ok guy on reddit.

[–][deleted] 1 point  

How is that "regressive?" A poor person owns less stuff. A poor person, therefore, pays far less tax. A person in poverty gets things for free. That person pays no tax. A rich person buys lots of stuff. They pay a lot of tax - far, far more than the middle class, poor, or poverty-stricken. What is regressive about that, if the percent paid by all parties is the same?

[–]Plane_Pop7983 1 point  

I agree. I paid 34k in income tax, and my business paid 48k in property tax this year. That would be straight stimulus if I could have kept that. Imagine that to the tune of 350 million people.

[–]Plane_Pop7983 0 points  

The poor don't pay income tax either. With the tax credits they get large returns without paying in.

[–]Good_Influence5198 2 points  

This would be slammed as discriminatory against the poor, because the rich can easily afford these taxes but the poor need to scrimp and save every penny they can to buy a carton of Lucky Strikes.

[–]Javina33 1 point  

That means that the people who earn the most pay the lowest percentage of their income and can earn any amount without any scrutiny including any dodgy dealings. Whereas the poorest people would be paying a higher percentage of their income on basic necessities.

[–]Good_Influence5198 1 point  

All this would accomplish is that certain programs would be padded to protect against the inevitable across-the-board cut.

[–]HRDBMW 1 point  

AND the congress would be all new faces in 2 years.

[–]Good_Influence5198 1 point  

I think you seriously underestimate Congress's ability to comply with that requirement without actually changing anything.

[–]HRDBMW 1 point  

Which is why I said to make it an amendment. To the Constitution. Law of the land. No outs. Simple math.

[–]s4burf 2 points  

El grande coronary

[–]Intelligent-ChainSaw 3 points  

Both sides is bullshit,  think about what happened under Clinton.   Republicans  just increased military  budget to 1 trillion.   

[–]Bluewaffleamigo 2 points  

During Clinton, you mean when Republican Newt Gingrich had the contract with america to balance the budget. You realize the President doesn't pass the budget... right, you studied that in 9th grade right? You should read that contract.

Fiscal Responsibility Act:

An amendment to the Constitution that would require a balanced budget unless sanctioned by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress (H.J.Res.1, passed by the US House Roll Call: 300-132, January 26, 1995, but rejected by the US Senate: Roll Call 65–35 (the amendment was defeated by a single vote, with one Republican opposed, Oregon Republican senator Mark Hatfield; Bob Dole cast a procedural vote against the amendment to bring it up again in the future), March 2, 1995, two-thirds required.[7]

So stop with the "both sides is bullshit" bot rhetoric. It's both sides or we would have had a balanced budget for the last 30 years.

[–]OskaMeijer 1 point  

Not just tax high earners and businesses, but raise the minimum wage and strengthen unions. Really any policy to fights income inequality. Largely the only money that gets taxed is money that is moving and the money concentrated at the top barely moves once it gets there.

[–]Good_Influence5198 1 point  

You will have to explain how this would fix the national debt. Please. And thank you.

[–]Laves_ 2 points  

In simple terms, take away the bad men who don’t know what they are doing and find a good person.

[–]Good_Influence5198 1 point  

That's what elections are for. And they fail miserably. Holding a special election will make no more difference than a regular election.

[–]Laves_ 1 point  

Yes thank you. I completely understand this. OP asked what it would take. I have an opinion. I understand a million other things have to happen for what I said to have any validity.

[–]BullPropaganda 1 point  

Cut military spending by half. Tax the rich. Keep everything else

[–][deleted] 1 point  

Taxing the rich.

No comments:

Post a Comment