What should play the biggest role in the federal government’s efforts to eliminate the deficit?



What should play the biggest role in the federal government’s efforts to eliminate the deficit?

  1. As usual, several idiotic choices with nothing realistic offered.

    • I agree Emily The magazine will offer the choice of question so to deliver the answer they want

    • Yeah, it would have been nice if they'd offered freezing corporate tax cuts as an option. Of course it would be even better if they'd use their journalistic resources to how all of the corporate tax cuts offered so far have done little to create jobs.

  2. This seems a pretty general question to have broken it down to three options…not to mention that each option is general enough to encompass any number of things or combination. Maybe a none of the above option?

  3. An idiotic choice to want smaller, less costly government?? We are in trouble.

  4. Privatization would also be a great help, especially in medical care and education, that would eliminate the deficit overnight.

    • Not to mention quality health care and education. Wow, two birds with one stone!

  5. This poll is hilarious for it misses THE economic key to eliminating deficit: broad-based corporate and personal tax cuts.

    Personal and corporate tax cuts would yield smaller government over time because they would have less revenue and less money to spend on government bloat. The reason government doesn't downsize is because the coffers are always full. Choke the coffer, government will be forced to cut spending. It's brain-dead simple. Tax cuts would also put money back into the hands of workers, entrepreneurs and businesses and spur the growth of the private sector.

    As usual, we're ignoring the elephant in the room. Or perhaps in this case, the wrench.

    • Working real well for the US, isn't it?

      • Uh what? Are you implying that tax increases would help the economy?

        • Mark Peters point was: Choke the coffer, government will be forced to cut spending. – this is simply false. If you attempt to "choke the coffer" by reducing taxes, you get what you see in the US – and now Canada – massive deficits, also known as deferred taxes.

          The only way to have lower taxation is to reduce government expenditures, thus creating a surplus that can be used to pay off the accumulated debt, and only then reduce taxes. But since a majority of the population won't give up their government services, reducing taxes just means higher deficits. Reagan proved it in the 80s, and Bush in the 2000s.

      • I'll just add.

        The problems in the US weren't due to taxation, they were due to the belief that everyone deserves/should have a mortgage, even if they can't afford it. The result was inevitable.

        Lower taxation ALWAYS will help the economy, since the economy is everything that the government isn't.

        • All that's missing is the trust that the government will not do what governments inevitably do — spend-baby-spend whether they have the revenues or not.

          "Starve the beast" is an appealing concept. And, ultimately, the right one. But it is still a beast, and gets mighty ugly when it's big and hungry. Reagan (along with his Congress) cut the taxes but was poor on the spending cuts. Chretien-Martin rode Mulroney's GST-and-FTA wave to tame the deficit beast very well, for a time, even with only modest spending cuts. Thatcher saved the UK, and Cameron has his work cut out for him to pull it off again. Harper has blown it. Bush fils blew it. Obama — don't get me started…

      • The only point to add to Ryan's comments is that the US situation illustrates perfectly what happens when the government meddles with any market.

        • The irony is that the left is so out of touch with reality that they look upon the US and say "This is the fault of the free market, we must have more government control."

  6. Wow, I didn't realize that so many Ferengi posted here…

    • In Canada, I am far more accustomed to hearing from the Borg.

  7. Dramatically slash the size and power of government, terminate tens of thousands of bureaucratic positions, begin the process of reducing government control on the economy. This would not be able to be done instantly, but Canada could embark on a path towards truly limited government and free markets.