This is going to be the most obvious thing in the universe, but I just feel like responding on MY BLOG to the crap I always see posted on facebook (I just don't like getting political on fb). Today, for example, I saw this:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/715a9/715a9c54bcaca528ad09bd6f4cc79c48028eb2f9" alt=""
I get their point and it's all well and good. Current budget cuts are inadequate to solve the debt problem. I completely agree, but would go further to say budget cuts of any kind are going to be inadequate to solve the debt problem.
You see, we had this issue in my house, too. Once I quit working full-time and we looked at our budget we saw that we too would go into debt if we did not do anything about it. So, should we slash our auto repair fund? Should we stop saving any money for retirement? Should we make all of Little A's toys out of materials we gather outside? Let her run around diaperless like the kids from the African village in that documentary
Babies? Should we never go visit family? Etc. etc.
Well, we decided that though we could reduce the amounts in all of these categories and others, we could not get rid of them completely because they were TOO important. So our only option was to
increase revenue. And since LCD was already working his bum off to make ends meet, the responsibility to make the difference fell to me.
Would I like to be able to nap while Little A naps and would LCD like for me to give a thorough vacuuming to the house every day? Sure. But sometimes solvency now and in the future requires that we make more money instead of just cutting expenditures. It's a balance.
Are budget cuts inadequate to solve the national debt? Yes, but so is income/revenue. If the meager underprivileged in society need to give up some of their services then the privileged wealthy are going to need to give up some money. Fair is fair. THE END.