binary cuts à la Occam's razor dump the deficit distraction

Cut any object (with one swish! of Occam's razor, say), one gets two pieces = a binary cut, i.e. either/or.

Example of either/or: Either properly fix the idiot political/economic system or crash the planet, financially and environmentally.

I suspect a terminology ('framing') problem; to cut a deficit (as both Repuglicans & Dummocrats say, also Libs/Labs; bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic), one must reduce social spending; since one cannot possibly reduce US military spending (the US would have to stop murdering for spoil = oil, and the Zs ditto for soil), so they have to cut 'entitlements' = more or less required social spending = medical/dental (alternative = preventable illness, disease & loss of teeth or whole lives), income support (alternative = preventable 'malnutrition' = cat-food or starvation), education (alternative = preventable ignorance = dumbed-down idiocy), safety regulation (alternative = preventable accidents), financial regulation (alternative = preventable GFCs), etc..

We've had 30-40 years of voodoo economics = supply-side, economic rationalism, neoliberalism, globalisation, etc., and almost all the world is almost everywhere worse off - time to junk the voodoo. Idiots.

The blame may be attributed to three classes of idiots; 1) the economists, 2) the politicians, and 3) any voters who tolerate any part of the prior 1&2. But the voters can't wear much blame, since their dumbed-down idiocy was mainly deliberately inflicted upon them, via their (incomplete if not misleading) schooling, their TVs (Hollywood's portrayal of all possible perversions), and the corrupt & venal MSM, who both conduit *and* actively assist the almost continuous stream of lies coming from the above 1&2. Hollywood + MSM 'infotainment' = the pushed propaganda paradigm; almost nothing is as they say it is (i.e. 'making the world safe for democracy'); note what they do = resource-wars = murder to steal, and the mostly already rich are getting ever more obscenely richer.

Economic phrases we hate to hear: Balanced budget, tax&spend, deficits, then 'service-cuts' & privatisations. Arguments (not debate) are often simplistic to misleading, to the point of being insulting to aware intelligence. Any idiot can promise to cut taxes (see Tony Abbott, say.)

We might need some semblance of balance over the long-haul (but see % below), however the current practices are producing chronic deficits, possibly none larger that those of the US, both domestic & external.

"On Saturday China, the largest foreign holder of US treasuries, had slammed what it said was the US "addiction" to debt.
In a stinging English-language commentary carried by Xinhua, China said it had "every right" to demand Washington address its structural debt problems and safeguard Chinese dollar assets.
"To cure its addiction to debts, the United States has to re-establish the common sense principle that one should live within its means," it said." 
[AusBC/'news']

Recall that whatever else the US govt. is, it *should* be able to afford the best possible advice on the planet - but what a spectacular failure they demonstrate.

Note: Common sense = *not* voodoo.

-=*=-

The voodoo system has *failed*, as we can all see, but all they talk about are cuts and austerity = misery for most.

But there is one simpler way (Occam's razor; swish!) = tax the rich.

Yep; that'd do it, swish! = slash them back to reality.

Forget about trying to lower the bridge (= cut required, civilised spending); provide a rising-tide with fat-cats' properly increased taxes.

By definition, governments (should) provide required services that private enterprise can't or won't; take fresh drinking-water for everyone, or sewage, electricity, phone lines, roads, railways & public transport... education, and vitally medical/dental. The basic principle is egalitarian, what the individual can't, or private enterprise won't, is provided collectively, paid for by *fair = progressive* taxation.

Also by definition, give (= flog-off for a comparative pittance) any function to private enterprise, you get a for-profit regime whereby profit will always be preferred over performance (see Telstra's 'service obligation' and how that's avoided/abused/refused.) Also see that extracting profit adds to costs, and any claimed efficiencies may be compromised by the lean&mean, see electricity-bills going through the roof, and trees falling onto that roof = power-outages after any storm over fart-strength.

But there is additional simpler way (Occam's razor; swish!) = nationalise the banks.

Yep; that'd do it, swish! = slash them back to egality.

Even before going off 'real money' = gold etc., all 'printed' money is fiat but not only, all (new) money exits banks as %-bearing loans. Some old money lands back in banks as deposits to 'earn' some %, always (on average) at some lesser rate. The banks live of the %-difference, and what a comfortable living they 'allow' themselves - but the % is rent on money, a sample of what JMK was referring to when he recommended 'euthanasia of the rentiers.' Very few seem to notice that *no* money is created to pay the interest itself, so the end result is that the interest-bill balloons.

But if the banks are nationalised, the government collects the interest, which it can then spend on required items (see above), simultaneously reducing the amount by which the rich must be taxed. (Q: Why tax the rich anyway? A: Because they've got most of the money.)

Also, one of the insulting voodoo/neoliberal 'debate' items alleges that the rich must be ever-better 'rewarded,' because they create the jobs - see massive unemployment in 1st-world nations, especially the US. That worked out well, didn't it?

Tax the rich & nationalise the banks = two 'easy' ways to save the (financial) planet. Then begin effective moves on reducing atmospheric CO2 to below 300ppm.