Federal Budget Deficit

Excessive Borrowing Our Federal Goernments Budget Deficit Maria comes home virtuoso day earlier than usual. Her family, two daughters of age five and eight and a stay-at-home husband, is surprised to instruct her so early and unexpectedly. The tired look on her face reveals the experience she had at work. She starts out a sluggish smile as her daughters rush up to greet her with their warm embraces, reminding her of the happiness they constantly propose but also saddened by their questionable future. Quietly, she sits down in front of her anxious fellow as he patiently awaits the news, sensing the tension in the air.Many people like Maria face the supreme doom of losing the only method they can gain family income, especi aloney in homes where only one spouse is employed. Laying off workers is the presidencys plan for reducing Americas deficit. Of course, getting rid of the executive CEO whose company had a rough year would be bad because we all know not to bite the hand that fee ds you. The case organization is planning on making the gap between revenue and borrowing smaller by making cuts here and there throughout certain interests of America.This makes sense because in all economic situations, if you ar authoriseing much than you have, then you either need to cut back on how much you spend or manipulate ways to increase revenue. Cutting military spending has been big in confer whether as to reduce our defenses or not. Many people speculate that military cuts atomic number 18 sound in reducing the deficit because it is too large for us to afford today. It is overlooked that we have been dropping our fortify forces significantly over several decades since the early 1980s, from 2. 1 million to 1. 4 million in 2010 (Samuelson).The resulting nest egg of lowering military spending would be little, since there isnt much else to cut from the already reduced forces. If our national security is a large concern, especially after 9/11, then why expose two troops and citizens at risk of terrorist attacks and cyber warfare? The governments job is to protect the nation and its people, and depositting cash towards meliorate technology and training is necessary for upholding Americas safety and reputation. The question of the budget deficit also involves the issue of training taxes, one that has not gone smoothly since Britains reign over the colonies.Many people argue the importance of increase the taxes on the rich in order to support our economy. Although it makes sense that those with much money should be pay more on taxes than lower income people, but the evidence gathered fails to give strength to the claim that some(prenominal) believe is a solution to the deficit problem. For instance, Obamas plan for raising the taxes for those making more than $250,00 is expected to bring in merely $0. 7 trillion compared to the overwhelming $13 trillion to be accumulated over the same time period (Malm, Sanandaji).It is obvious how big t he gap is between the two intimidating numbers, and the government is scantily wasting its breath about the potential tax hikes. All the talk about the requisite decisions of either cutting government programs or increasing taxes to save our deficit, and our economy overall, seems ominous and depressing(Aaron). However, our federal government is looking at this the wrong way. Its not about how much a program is cut or how large the numeric value of the deficit is its about what and where the money is being invested to enable consistent exploitation in the upcoming future(Conason).Think back on the potential tax hikes and how it could barely affect our economy. If increase taxes leads to tenuous growth in revenue, then wont tax cuts lead to loss in revenue? This is another misconception numerous people, and the government, have about the Bush tax cuts. It lowered the total federal tax burden in order to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest and thus create jobs an d increase economic growth (Foy). In essence, the tax cuts focused on the long run instead of the potential losses that immediately followed.Many skeptics altercate the reasoning for investing so much money into helping so many other countries when that money could instead help us improve internal affairs. After all, foreign aid spending has increased to $50 billion a year today, which could be put towards funding education to ensure that more kids go to college and possibly affecting the innovation of the future(Morris). Giving more than you receive is nice, but when it involves a countrys pecuniary crisis, maybe its best if Santa cuts back some of this years presents.And although the argument may be valid, lending out a helping hand can create more allies than enemies to help us in rejoinder when we need it. In fact, foreign aid only accounts for 0. 5 percent of the federal budget (Stearn). Compared to all the other matters at hand that the government is worrying about, the amou nt of spending put into aiding poorer countries is positive in both a moral aspect and a political aspect. The federal budget deficit that we put so much trust in having handled for us is not to be dismissed so easily. This isnt just about the future of our current generation, but also our childrens future.Our government fails to look back at biography and see how growth has improved our economy and made it flourish. Ultimately, whats at stake here if nothing is make is our jobs, job benefits, our safety, and, overall, having a weak country whose currency is based off of its own good name. By no means is having a high deficit bad, and neither is creating a budget deficit to chip it, but its all about how the government is handling it, and less spending doesnt always mean more revenue. Works Cited Samuelson, Robert J. The Dangerous Debate over Cutting Military Spending. http//www. washingtonpost. com/opinions/the-dangerous-debate-over-cutting-military-spending/2011/10/28/gIQAnPWEX M_story. html. 2011. Rpt. inThe US Deficit. Ed. Kathy Jennings and Lynn M. Zott. Detroit Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2013. Sanandaji, Tino, and Arvid Malm. Raising taxes Will Not Resolve the Budget Deficit. The US Deficit. Ed. Kathy Jennings and Lynn M. Zott. Detroit Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from Obamas Folly Why Taxing the Rich Is No Solution. http//www. american. com/archive/2011/august/obamasfollytaxingtherich/ article_print. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2013. Conason, Joe. Deficits Do Not Matter. The Federal Budget Deficit. Ed. Susan Hunnicutt. Detroit Greenhaven Press, 2010. At Issue. Rpt. from Dick Cheney Was Right Deficits Dont Matterand Republicans Who are Complaining About Barack Obamas Spending Are Hypocrites. Salon. com. 2009. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2013. Aaron, Henry J. The United States call for to Address Two Distinct Budget Deficits. Gov ernment Spending. Ed. Noel Merino. Detroit Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from A Tale of Two Deficits full point Treating Them Like Theyre the Same Thing New Republic(1 June 2011). Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2013. Foy, Andrew, and Brenton Stransky. The Bush Tax Cuts Were Good for Economic Growth. Government Spending. Ed. Noel Merino. Detroit Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from Lying About Bushs Tax Cuts. www. americanthinker. com. 2010. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.Stearns, Richard. Congress Should Not Cut conflicting Aid. Is unlike Aid Necessary? Ed. David Haugen and Susan Musser. Detroit Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from Cutting Foreign Aid Not the America I Love. Huffington Post. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2013. Morris, Dick. Congress Should Cut Foreign Aid. Is Foreign Aid Necessary? Ed. David Haugen and Susan Musser. Detroit Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. fro m Cut Foreign Aid Budget Now. http//thehill. com(29 Mar. 2011). Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.