[mtjl79]

I'm sorry but, higher taxes aren't going to solve anything. At the end of the day, our spending will just not stop. We are just adding fuel to the fire.

We need to:

• Invest in the future: We need to invent, produce, and export new renewable energy sources. We need to invest in robotic manufacturing because cheap people labor is not sustainable in any country - robotic is where it will go.

• We need to heavily tax imports like many other countries in the world do. And have American made things become competitive - we have sold our souls to Asia.

• Drastically cut bullshit spending. There are billions spent every year on...bullshit.

• Invest further in Entrepreneurship, and start bringing smart people from other countries here.

Those are big 4.

The big problem is our countries expenses vs. income is too high. At the end of the day, a country is a business. And right now, we are a company that is not running well. We need to clean out the board of directors (Congress) and start fresh.

[akeefer]

Wait a minute: you say that our expenses versus income is too high, but then also say that higher taxes won't solve anything? Unless you're arguing that higher taxes won't increase government income (which is a totally specious argument that people make all the time, but which isn't backed up in the least by any actual historical analyses), then higher taxes absolutely could solve the deficit problem. Federal tax revenues as a share of overall GDP are historically low right now, and merely letting the Bush tax cuts expire for good would solve almost all of the "deficit crisis." For example see http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/are-the-bush-ta... or http://baselinescenario.com/2011/10/03/how-big-is-the-long-t...

So I guess it depends on what problem you want to solve, but if you're worried about the federal deficit, then higher taxes (even in the form of just eliminating the bush tax cuts) will absolutely help to solve that problem.

[dgreensp]

The point is, if the government manages its money poorly, it should make better decisions rather than taking on more money.

If I tell you, "Fred is always running out of money; in fact, he's deep in credit card debt," your immediate response is not going to be "He should get a raise so he can pay off that debt" or "Here, give this money to Fred."

[anthonyb]

Perhaps Fred is underpaid and needs a raise?

I'm not sure where you're going with that analogy. It all depends on whether Fred's spending his money wisely or not.

[nooneelse]

If Fred's boss comes and offers him a raise, you would tell Fred not to take it? No, of course you wouldn't. If Fred were working up the nerve to ask for a raise or apply for a better paying (or second) job, you would shut him down? No, of course you wouldn't, because any of those would help him in his efforts to re-balance his books. And I assume you would know that due to you not being an idiot. Well, I guess I also need to assume you have Fred's best interests at heart too.

So your analogy doesn't just do work for your position; it clearly cuts both ways.

[mikecane]

>>>Drastically cut bullshit spending. There are billions spent every year on...bullshit.

Look, I'm no defender of gov't waste, but you can't blanketly say "bullshit" without specific examples. One's man bullshit -- the two Steves with their "toy computer" -- is another man's gold (Markkula, who saw the promise and invested early). Is NASA bullshit? Is protecting the environment bullshit? GPS satellites? The Coast Guard? Food inspection? I see the news headlines like everyone else trumpeting what look like screwy studies. What we never ever hear is any follow-up that one "stupid" study connected to a non-stupid study that led to a breakthrough. A breakthrough that most likely was just handed over to some private company to exploit for profit without any compensation coming back to taxpayers (this has been the case for decades with private companies taking government-tabulated data and reselling it as for-profit databases). This latter giveaway to private enterprise with original funding by working people is the ultimate bullshit to me.

[usefulcat]

A business is like a machine whose function is to produce profit. Anything else that it may happen to produce (products, services, jobs, taxes, environmental damage, whatever) is really only a side effect.

So no, a country (or government) is not the same as a business.

[eli_gottlieb]

At the end of the day, a country is a business.

No, it's not. It needs to manage its finances responsibly, but that is quite different from being a profit-generating business.

[mtjl79]

Countries are the largest companies that exist on the planet.

[yzhengyu]

Being Singaporean and living in an environment which resembles a real corporate state, I can assure you, countries should not be administered like a company.

[eli_gottlieb]

Quite simply, no. The goal of a country is not to amass wealth in the government.

[mtjl79]

Not all companies that operate are for profit.

BUT, The goal of a country is to amass wealth, is it not?

[purephase]

No, not at all. If anything, the goal of a fiscally responsible country should be to break even. Match spending to revenue generation while providing the most optimal services to your citizens.

The problem lies in that determining optimal services is a no-win game as it differs greatly in most geographically areas and person-to-person.

Corporations are far more focused on a particular set of goals and have a far smaller audience to satisfy (shareholders) who all generally want more wealth.

[gnaritas]

No, it is not. GDP is not a measure of the happiness of the people.

[rayiner]

No.

[rayiner]

So the spending will not stop, and your suggestion is more spending?