Federal Budget Deficit

excessive Borrowing Our Federal Goernments work out Deficit Maria comes home wizard day earlier than usual. Her family, two daughters of age five and eight and a stay-at-home husband, is surprised to see her so early and unexpectedly. The tired assist on her facet reveals the experience she had at work. She brings out a dim smile as her daughters rush up to greet her with their warm embraces, reminding her of the blessedness they constantly provide scarce also saddened by their questionable future. Quietly, she sits rarify in front of her anxious spouse as he patiently awaits the news, sensing the tension in the air.Many people like Maria face the ultimate doom of losing the only method they can gain family income, peculiarly in homes where only one spouse is employed. Laying off workers is the governments intent for reducing Americas deficit. Of course, getting rid of the executive CEO whose company had a rough grade would be bad because we all(prenominal) know non to bite the cave in that feeds you. The national government is planning on fashioning the gap between receipts and borrowing smaller by fashioning cuts here and there throughout certain interests of America.This makes sense because in all economic situations, if you are spending to a greater extent than you have, then you either need to cut congest on how much you spend or make ways to out yield revenue. orientting military spending has been titanic in debate whether as to reduce our defenses or not. Many people theorise that military cuts are sound in reducing the deficit because it is similarly large for us to afford today. It is overlooked that we have been dropping our build up forces significantly over several decades since the early 1980s, from 2. 1 million to 1. 4 million in 2010 (Samuelson).The resulting savings of lowering military spending would be little, since there isnt much else to cut from the already reduced forces. If our national protective cover is a l arge concern, especially after 9/11, then why expose both troops and citizens at risk of terrorist attacks and cyber warfare? The governments line of merc renderise is to protect the nation and its people, and putting bullion towards improved technology and nurture is necessary for upholding Americas safety and reputation. The question of the budget deficit also involves the come in of raising taxes, one that has not gone smoothly since Britains reign over the colonies.Many people argue the importance of increasing the taxes on the rich in order to support our economy. Although it makes sense that those with more money should be paid more on taxes than lower income people, but the evidence gathered fails to overtake strength to the claim that many 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 accumulate d over the same time period (Malm, Sanandaji).It is obvious how big the gap is between the two intimidating numbers, and the government is just expend its breath some the potential tax hikes. All the talk roughly the inevitable decisions of either cutting government programs or increasing taxes to fulfill our deficit, and our economy overall, seems ominous and depressing(Aaron). However, our federal government is looking at this the harm way. Its not about(predicate) how much a program is cut or how large the numeric value of the deficit is its about what and where the money is universe invested to enable consistent increase in the upcoming future(Conason).Think back on the potential tax hikes and how it could barely affect our economy. If increased taxes leads to slight growth in revenue, then wont tax cuts lead to loss in revenue? This is another misconception many people, and the government, have about the Bush tax cuts. It get down the total federal tax burden in order to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest and thus create jobs and increase economic growth (Foy). In essence, the tax cuts focused on the long run instead of the potential losses that immediately followed.Many skeptics challenge 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, exotic 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 financial crisis, maybe its best if Santa cuts back some of this years presents.And although the subscriber line may be valid, lending out a helping hand can create more allies than enemies to help us in return when we need it. In fact, foreign aid only accounts for 0. 5 percent of the federal budget (Stearn). Compar ed to all the other matters at hand that the government is worrying about, the amount 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 history and see how growth has improved our economy and make it flourish. Ultimately, whats at stake here if nothing is done is our jobs, job benefits, our safety, and, overall, having a weak country whose currency is based off of its own bully name. By no means is having a high deficit bad, and neither is creating a budget deficit to combat 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/gIQAnPWEXM_story. html. 2011. Rpt. inThe US Deficit. Ed. Kathy Jennings and Lynn M. Zott. Detroit Greenhaven Press, 2013. opponent Viewpoints. argue Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2013. Sanandaji, Tino, and Arvid Malm. Raising revenue enhancementes 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 taxationing the Rich Is No Solution. http//www. american. com/archive/2011/ disdainful/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 active Barack Obamas Spending Are Hypocrites. Salon. com. 2009. Opposing Viewpoints In Context . Web. 25 Feb. 2013. Aaron, Henry J. The unify States Needs to Address Two Distinct Budget Deficits. Government Spending. Ed. Noel Merino. Detroit Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from A Tale of Two Deficits Stop Treating Them Like Theyre the Same liaison 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 orthogonal care. Is Foreign 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 Forei gn Aid Necessary? Ed. David Haugen and Susan Musser. Detroit Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from Cut Foreign Aid Budget Now. http//thehill. com(29 Mar. 2011). Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.