Considering there is a debt crisis, I am going to go with HEAPS of times and by ALOT...

Also, I am not 100% of the working crisis, but in essence, the US need to lower spending or increase tax revenue? If this is the case, neither will ever be popular in the publics eye who will cry that they are missing out...I mean before the debt crisis hit in Europe, did anyone ever notice how riots/protests in Europe over public spending (one that does come to mind was the protests in France over raising the retirement age...also Australia's retirement age at that time was higher by almost 10 years, lol...lazy people)...so, if the public do like cuts/tax rises, why would a senator/whatever you call the guys in the US be happy about cutting costs when his voters will NOT be happy about it.

Now I hope I do not sound like Einstein with my rants, but this is one of the few problems I find with democracies (that in hard times it is harder to actually put something in place, where as an authoritarian government will just tell the people and crush any public resistance ), I also feel that (at least in Australia's case) long term planning is shoddy at best...but not the time or place to bring this up (and I do not support authoritarian governments either, I feel that there can be some middle ground that keeps people happy most of the time whilst being able to make the hard decisions)...one again, sorry for the Einstein style rant against democracy

I prefer a Constitutional Republic.

vote ron paul
problem solved

Looking at the data it seems to me that the only period in the last 30 years that didnt have frequest raising of the debt ceiling was the Clinton era

the US has to cut the defence budget, raise taxes and support the states to balance their budget, which helps the ruined communities. atm many states and cities are close to collapse. when the communities fail to offer the essential means for public life, a democracy cracks down in the long run.

Well it depends, the reduced taxes would need to be propotionally smaller than the reduced spending, otherwise I think it would render the whole point redundant.

If the government is borrowing money to meet its expenditure obligations to its citizens, reducing taxes will force the government to borrow more in order to meet its obligations. Sure you can cut expenture as well, but reducing taxes would mean more budget cuts would be necessary to create a surplus.

I understand the concept that the public need to be kept happy, and raising taxes and cutting benefits just increases public unhappiness, but I do not think that it will help reduce foreign debt...

US budget today:
24% defence and veterans
23% health
20% pensions
33% other
=3,8 trillion $ expenses

income:
53% income tax
37% social fees
10% other
=2,2 trillion $

= -1,6 trillion $/year

main cost explosions 2000 to 2011 in billion $:

pensions 409 => 748 (+81%)
health 352 => 882 (+150%)
defence 341 => 910 (+167%)

cut funds for these three in an equal way to support the budget and rise taxes for the middle class, as the poor can't pay and the rich have too much lobby power.

You can save 0.9 on health easily and still offer basic services to the poor. Where does all the other money go? Its wasted.

You can have a better defense even if you save some, if you cut the crap. You can send over 50% of the soldiers home from Europe to name one thing.

the 33% "other" I have already addressed.

I agree we do not need to defend Europe.

Let them choose to fight the next Hitler early, or suffer again.

What will these soldiers then do???