The US debt and government spending is analogous to a sinkhole. On the surface, the ground may appear level and stable, but as conditions dry the moisture below evaporates and the surface begins to collapse.
Moisture = Revenue
Heat = Demand that creates debt
Hole = Deficit
Earth (sand, land) = Economy
If you want to reclaim the “land” and restore it to stability, you have to do add moisture, “revenue,” and you surely don’t want to remove more sand.
To add more revenue, you have to make it rain which is akin to creating jobs that is a product of new product and new business unit development from which to produce gross domestic product (GDP).
If you create more government jobs that just produces a flood that erodes more sand from the hole, and the hole gets deeper. Only commercial jobs produce the right moisture and of course, we must replace the sand.
Where is Aesop when you need him? This fable is holding water.
Moral: To solve the problem, we need 1) more tax revenue, 2) less government spending, 3) more capital investment, and 4) more new products and new business units producing higher gross domestic product.
“A sinkhole, also known as a sink, shake hole, swallow hole, swallet, doline or cenote, is a natural depression or hole in the Earth's surface caused bykarst processes — the chemical dissolution of carbonate rocks or suffosion processes for example in sandstone. Sinkholes may vary in size from 1 to 600 meters (3.3 to 2,000 ft) both in diameter and depth, and vary in form from soil-lined bowls to bedrock-edged chasms. Sinkholes may be formed gradually or suddenly, and are found worldwide. The different terms for sinkholes are often used interchangeably.”
“Two months ago, Wonkbook was mostly a compendium of articles detailing the Democrats' interest in raising taxes and the Republicans' resistance to the same. In recent days, that's flipped: now each morning brings new articles about how Republicans -- yes, Republicans -- want to raise taxes, while Democrats want to keep them low. So what changed?
Who we're talking about, mostly. Two months ago, we were talking about raising taxes on the rich. Now we're talking about keeping them low on the poor. And the politics of that turn out to be totally different.
For one thing, you've got the payroll tax cut, which the administration favors, which is understood as a stimulative measure, and which offers almost no benefit to the wealthy. As Charles Babingtonreported for the Associated Press, "many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different 'temporary' tax cut" -- the payroll tax cut -- "should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase."
Then there's the federal income tax. In recent years, Republicans have become increasingly agitated by the fact that as many as half of all Americans don't pay federal income taxes. In an article at Slate, Dave Weigel traces the mounting outrage. For now, this argument is more rhetorical than it is legislative. Unlike the payroll tax cut, which could expire at the end of this year, there's not been a serious proposal from a serious Republican politician to raise taxes on this group. And perhaps there can't be. These are pretty sympathetic groups, and pretty popular policies.”
Most Recommended Comment
Chicago, Illinois, United States