Nice diversion and non sequitur G.T. There are other threads to debate social issues and/or whether it is the federal government's responsibility to feed the hungry, etc. Also how well we can do that if we are bankrupt and the economy collapses completely.
Let's try this again.
I have your credit card and am maxing it out and generating huge over limit penalities as well as huge debts for you. And I continue to do that while looking deeply into your eyes and saying with all the sincerity I can muster, "I am concerned that you are spending too much money."
How sincere would you believe that I was?
The real world doesn't work like that.
NYS, for example is in Debt.
If they cut ALL spending.
The guy who collects tolls on the highways, presumably more than his pay, cannot work. (do you think he'll work for free?)
Their "spending cut," in this case, costs them more.
That's what I meant.
It sounds nice to compare it to a real life person with a credit card, but it's not.
It sounds nice to say "we're not going to spend a single dime!" and expect that that somehow solves the Debt, it doesn't. The cuts have to be strategic, and we still need to invest where said investment would yield future GAIN, thus more debt reduction.
I like how you think it's just as simple as turning off a light switch. It's not. Try reality.
Even the mighty U.S.A. cannot sustain 1.5 trillion dollar deficits year after year and not collapse the economy. That is precise what the President proposed, however, even as he gloriously pronounced he would cut the deficit in half in the next two years. You cannot freeze spending at the current level, especially in a shaky economy, and expect to cut the deficit much at all, much less in half.
And news flash--cutting the deficit in half would still leave $750 BILLION deficits as far as the eye can see and that also is not sustainable.