US Public (Govt) Debt a Problem? If so, what do do?

C

CarbineCaleb

New member
According to the Department of Public Debt at the US Treasury, as of 8/29/05, the US public debt (Federal Deficit) now sits at $7,930,506,290,857.94 (7.9 trillion dollars). See:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm

Increasing the government debt has been a relatively recent, but bipartisan phenomenon. Here is a custom chart I made from data at:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm#history
attachment.php

Some interesting things to note is that the vertical scale begins at zero, so we actually didn't have much debt prior to 1980; presidents and congresses of all political stripes have been spending more than they take in.

So why is this problematic? Isn't this all just "funny money"? Can't the Treasury just print more? The answer is no - the money and the debt are real, and the creditors are both domestic and international. So far in Fiscal Year 2005, the US Government has spent $314,909,670,536.68 (315 billion dollars) on interest on all those loans, just in servicing that debt, see:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm
Of all categories of Federal spending, that's exceeded only by the Dept of Defense, Dept of Health and Human Services, and Social Security (each of which come in around $450 billion). And the debt, as obvious from the graph, is not declining, nor even holding level, but climbing.

What, if anything, should we do about this? To reduce the debt, the Federal government can only either increase revenues, or decrease spending, neither of which would be popular measures. No doubt, that's why we're in the predicament we're in today.
 
decrease spending
Click to expand...

Is the best bet. And if we get rid of agencies that aren't needed IMHO (see the IMHO before you trash me please) like the TSA and the ATFE just to name a few, we could "pay off" the debt in no time.

But, the deficit is really funny math. I don't have the time, or the knowledge on how to do so, to get into what it really reflects. Maybe someone more articulate can do so for me.

We have "written off" so much debt that was owned to us by other countries that I think that we should have the right just to call ours null and void.

Wayne
 
Oh, forgot to add, the biggest drain on our money. The one that should be removed from US soil and the US to get out of:

GET THE US OUT OF THE UN AND THE UN OUT OF THE US

Sorry for the oversight :o

Wayne
 
I just read a wonderful piece about how the Republicans fought to gain power as the party that would limit the Federal Bureaucracy. As soon as they gained power? Same Old, Same Old....even grater growth. Simply a new set of spending priorities explained by a new set of "urgent threats".

Someone's gonna pay this tab; and the Piper is gonna get bloody. The voters desparately need to create a viable Third Party in this nation. Sometimes it feels like we're on a Roller Coaster ride at Theme Park Hell. ;)
Rich
 
The voters desparately need to create a viable Third Party in this nation.
Click to expand...

AMEN to that!

If we keep on playing the republican/democrat game, we (the People) are going to lose, big time.

Wayne
 
Last edited:
We have "written off" so much debt that was owned to us by other countries that I think that we should have the right just to call ours null and void.
Click to expand...
I hear you, but I think the problem is, we have cancelled debt by *our* choice, to the poorest 3rd world countries (say, Bangledesh, Rhodesia...), when it has been determined that they are simply unable (not unwilling) to pay. Our creditors will likely be wealthy countries like us, and they will not likely agree to forget about these debts because we are "too poor". I suppose we could just unilaterally say, "Hey, we're not paying"... but I haven't heard of precedent for that, and surely noone else would ever lend the US money again. Not a small amount of this debt is actually held by American citizens - when you buy Treasury bonds, you are acting as a lender to Uncle Sam.

decrease spending is the best bet.
Click to expand...
I agree - not that anyone listens to me, but I'd like to see hefty spending reductions, as well as increases in taxes to the wealthy, who after all, are a very small percentage of Americans, who take a large percentage of it's pie, and on average, actually pay a lower net tax rate than the average Joe! Time for some old fashioned belt tightening, and a little Robin Hood here, IMO. :D
 
Someone's gonna pay this tab; and the Piper is gonna get bloody. The voters desparately need to create a viable Third Party in this nation.
Click to expand...
I agree that both parties have been doing the wrong thing on this for decades. Noone seems to want to do the right thing, fiscally... I will say though that as a test case, Ahnold (in my best Austrian accent ;) ) has been trying out some fiscal "tough love" in California, and it looks like the voters want to run him out of town on a rail (have seen newsfilm of ugly mobs with torches marching on Ahnoldonia :p ). I am not on the left coast, so there may be more to his decline than painful budget balancing - but showing some cojones there hasn't seemed to help him any in job security. :(

Politicians need to get real, but so do the American people.
 
CC,

There is a movement for a flat tax (you know, the same tax that has taken Russia out of it's troubles so far) that just has a 15 to 25% tax on all, Rich, Middle, Poor.

Honestly, we, the People, need to stop working on emotion (anybody but (insert whomever here)) and start thinking as a nation.

Now, I won't give up on the 2nd and will not deviate from it, it is written in the Bill of Rights you know, but we really need to rethink the "rights" that are popping up left and right that aren't in the Bill of Rights. We need to really rethink our "we're killing the earth" jerks that have said that mankind should be extinct anyway :confused: on that one but doesn't want man to do anything that they've said is going to kill mankind.

We need a President (man or woman), a congress, and a senate that have a pair (man or woman) that can bring us back to what we were. We need to start thinking before we give "dues" and money to others in the billions and ensure that the money is given for good causes (not to pad someones bank account) and that the money is used as issued.

We need to close our borders. Sure, call me racist but my last ER bill was over $1200 dollars. They have a "surcharge" which is listed as "for those that can't pay".... $500 dollars. Sure, I have insurance (right now) but I have to pay a % of that bill, how much of it is for those "that can't pay"?

Our U.S.A. needs a major toilet flush and after the stink goes away, a major commentment to getting us back to where we should be.

Wayne
 
Simple, Kick Bush's @$$ out of the White House. I may get flamed for this but he is absolutely the worst president this country has ever had, replublican or democrat.
 
There is a movement for a flat tax (you know, the same tax that has taken Russia out of it's troubles so far) that just has a 15 to 25% tax on all, Rich, Middle, Poor.
Click to expand...
A flat tax would be interesting - not sure how I feel about it. The main thing that I would like to see is elimination of the current categorization of income with different rates for each category, and also elimination of itemized deductions (and yes, I currently itemize). In the new system you just take income, and look up the final tax based on the *total income* in a table. As far as the rates in the table, that can always be adjusted to either stay revenue neutral for Uncle Sam, or increase total revenue *slightly* to help chip away at the deficit. This could be done equally well with the simplified tax system using either flat, or progressive (increasing with income) rates in the table. Not only would tax time become a piece of cake, but it would become a lot harder to game the system.

P.S. And we could eliminate an awful lot of IRS jobs to save big dough! (sorry IRS ;) )
 
Simple, Kick Bush's @$$ out of the White House. I may get flamed for this but he is absolutely the worst president this country has ever had, replublican or democrat.
Click to expand...

Ah, okay. Sources to validate your post? Or reasons why?

And please, go to the "there were no WMD's" thing... that is my favorite.

Please expand. I wouldn't go on the side of Bush on many issues but your statment deserves some consideration because personally, I think that Carter (from my parts of the woods) and Clinton were the worse.

Debate: Start

Wayne
 
It's a fact that Bush has spent billions and billions of dollars on the war with Iraq. Bush should have stopped when we captured Saddam but he didn't because he wan'ts the oil. To make up for the money Bush spent gas prices are insanely high. Bush also wan'ts to make up for the money by cutting people off Medicaid and disability who need it.

We need to pull our troops out of Iraq because we got Saddam. We need to let Osama get comfortable and let him poke his head up from the hole he's hiding in and pound him with scud missiles.
 
Bush should have stopped when we captured Saddam but he didn't because he wan'ts the oil. To make up for the money Bush spent gas prices are insanely high.
Click to expand...

And you have sources for your information right?

I mean, the oil prices don't have anything to do with not being able to build a refinery since 1976 (IIRC), the law suits against drilling in AK or putting rigs off the coast of Florida. The fact that Katrina shut down the rigs in the Gulf and shut down any refineries in AL, MS, and LA. That we've gotten too dependent (because we are not allowed to drill on our own land (The USA)) on foreign oil. That we can't build nuclear plants because of the environmentalists, that alternative fuels such as ethanol and bio-diesel are not cost effective and will cost more than gas and regular diesel (and you're upset about the prices now :confused: ). That even with hybrid vehicles, that the batteries will need to be disposed of in 7 to 10 years and they can't be recycled so where do you put them? They are not like your normal batteries that you put into your flashlights or cars.

Hydrogen is a explosive substance but contained and ensured during a crash/wreck that it doesn't explode (pure hydrogen, contained without oxygen, is safe but when mixed and then ignited, will burn very hot and quickly) is just as safe as gasoline.

But, if you will please post your sources about the quote above I will be very happy to listen.

Wayne
 
No, its not the oil. Its that he doesn't want to look weak to his friends. He doesnt want the terrorists to say 'WE kicked him out'. As he puts it: It would send the wrong message. I hate it when people say this. If they were clear on their meaning there would be no 'wrong message' .
 
I think that we should have the right just to call ours null and void.
Click to expand...

A good chunk of that, as I understand, is in bonds to the American people. You just wanna cancel those?

And USP speaks the truth. Seems to me, the environmentalists are as much to blame as the President, probably much more so.
 
Ah, okay. Sources to validate your post? Or reasons why?

And please, go to the "there were no WMD's" thing... that is my favorite.

Please expand. I wouldn't go on the side of Bush on many issues but your statment deserves some consideration because personally, I think that Carter (from my parts of the woods) and Clinton were the worse.

Debate: Start

Wayne
Click to expand...

see post #1 for a start
 
Stay on topic, please ;-)

Gentlemen - you are making some interesting points, but I respectfully request that you give thoughts about gas prices in the gas thread, and discuss our national debt in this one.
Thank you,
Caleb
 
I will give you a prediction here.

Our monetary system is based on the Fractional Reserve System. That means that the banks are required to hold only a fraction of the total money they lend out or control. Its a license to print money once you understand how it works.

In an honest system, if there were a fixed amount of money you would see the money become more valuable.

With our system, all is well as long as the money supply grows. What is passed off as inflation is really just the result of the expanding money supply.

We are currently borrowing about one billion a day to pay the interest on the debt that is issued.

So here is the prediction.

When the last of the baby boomers stop spending and the first of the baby boomers retire in large numbers - between 2009 and 2001 - the ability of the country to continue to expand the money supply will come to a screeching halt.

When the money contracts and does so on a protracted basis as a trend, the party is over.
 
If we're to have an honest financial system like you mentioned the absolute most important thing to focus on is returning to a gold-based monetary system. The money in our wallets, those Federal Reserve Notes, are literally not worth the paper they're printed on because there is nothing but our own perception that gives them value.

A precious metal backed system, like we had in the beginning of the century before the creation of the Federal Reserve, is the only thing that can truly save our economy. The Liberty Dollar idea that Libertarians have seems like a great one but it neglects the fact that we'd have to tell Japan and every other country that the bonds they've been buying for the past half century are essentially worthless.

Still, there has to be a way to make the $1 bill in my wallet exchangable for a fixed amount of gold or silver. Without that we'll continue working in a fractional reserve system.


Also, to the guy that mentioned the need for voters to create a viable third party: it's already been done. The Libertarians are, in my opinion, the only party worth voting for. They're the only ones that advocate the smallest government possible with the least amount of interaction with our daily lives. Our Constitution was written with the very beliefs that the Libertarian Party holds dear. Granted some of their ideas are very radical and will require extreme changes in our society but if people would just be willing to give up the status quo then we'd have a chance of being the greatest nation in the world as opposed to the laughing stock of the world.

I'm hoping Badnarik will run again in 2008 (if he doesn't win his Senate race, that is). I voted for Bush this time because

A: Kerry never would've won; even the Democrats knew he wouldn't win which is why he was chosen. One of the worst candidates ever to appear on a ballot.

and

2: concerning the armed forces, I feel it's not a good idea to change the commander in cheif in the middle of a conflict. I now feel I made a mistake; Bush's "stay the course" mantra (in between his six week vacations, of course) make it sound like he's just closing his eyes and waiting until there's a Democrat in office and he doesn't have to worry about it anymore.


http://www.badnarik.org/
http://www.lp.org/

I have a feeling most gun owners are Libertarian at heart. :D Hopefully y'all can help spread the word.


Mods, if political advertising is not allowed on this forum, I apologiz and please feel free to edit my post accordingly.


Edit: My mistake, he's not running for Senate but for a seat in the House representing Texas. Thus even if elected he'll still run for President in 08.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top