Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Federal Government Debt Over 7 Trillion

Tags:
  1. Freeze budget increases excepting what is necessary to compensate for infation

    5 vote(s)
    55.6%
  2. Raze taxis

    6 vote(s)
    66.7%
  3. Force government to pay a certen persentage anualy

    4 vote(s)
    44.4%
  4. Nothing

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Other

    2 vote(s)
    22.2%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. May 26, 2004 #1
    FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT = $24,470.04 PER PERSON, and rising.
    This means a family of four (4) shares more than $93,080 in federal debt responsibility - - including those still in diapers.The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $1.73 billion per day since September 30, 2003! The National Debt is as of May 26 2004: 7,197,880,192,218.16
    So knowing this what do you think should be done about the federal debt?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 26, 2004 #2
    control spending. slowly increase taxes as the economy allows. cut debt in half (arbitrary number,but a better loan score from the IMF isthe goal)
     
  4. May 27, 2004 #3

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    phatmonky !!! Did I read "increase taxes" ? Is that any way for a respectable conservative to talk ? Or have I misjudged you all along ???
     
  5. May 27, 2004 #4
    Cut spending drastically. Repeal bush tax cuts. Progressively (you can take that two ways) add some taxes. There is just too much debt to be all pretty and PC about it and think that you can pay it off without raising taxes.

    We need to reduce spending in military, corporate subsidies (especially agriculture!), and perhaps coverage for large medical expenses that yield low bang-for-the-buck. People should look into ways to improve the school system through methods that don't involve throwing lots of money at it.

    edit: Wouldn't "razing" taxes be the opposite of what its homonym is?
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2004
  6. May 27, 2004 #5
    I didn't say who or where to increase taxes, nor when it would be applied. Perhaps I should have said 'tax restructuring'? That's a back end tactic if you run out of things to cut. I hate the idea of anymore taxes, but the fact is that I am not that bad at economics.
    OF COURSE Iwould begin with mass fat cutting. Bush has said he wants to HALF the cost of the deficit in the next 5 years. That still isn't putting money back into getting the debt down. Bush's lack of conservative spending has put us in a worse rating with the international banks. I personally would have never got us in this position in the first place. I run a business - if I start putting the business in debt, and I can't shave off enough expenses to turn the tide,I must start saving money in the business instead of putting it in my pocket. In turn,the bank will loan me more money that I can use to increase productivity and investors. In the long term, the business and I win. I am all for tax breaks to setup an environment creating a good business climate, but if it doesn't mean a shift in the debt's direction,it'snot enough.
    I still believe in a strong dollar policy. The debt is one of the most dangerous things to our economy at this point, IMO.
     
  7. May 27, 2004 #6
    Oh man,don't get me started on this!!!!
     
  8. May 27, 2004 #7

    kat

    User Avatar

    Nor I!!


    Watch out for zero, you'll get him foaming at the mouth if you talk cutting school monies....
     
  9. May 27, 2004 #8
  10. May 27, 2004 #9

    Thank goodness we did get off of it! It went to hell because of the abuse - like a child with a credit card - not because of the different standard.
    A proper economy should ALWAYS carry a debt, but it should be one that is proportional to the size of that economy. We need to bring the debt down some, but not all the way.
     
  11. May 27, 2004 #10
    Under a gold or silver standard you could take your paper money to a Federal Reserve Bank and exchange it for gold or silver. The government could only print additional currency if it had gold or silver to back it up. Today, your money is not backed up by anything with intrinsic value.
     
  12. May 27, 2004 #11

    And there is nothing wrong with it. Once again, a proper economy SHOULD carry a debt.
    It's be a damn shame if I had to come up with all the money at once to buy a new piece of machinery to increase my businesses productivity. Luckily, I can borrow the money based upon estimated growth, and in exchange make a larger profit - while my competition sits waiting to buy said machine outright and misses on profits.
     
  13. May 27, 2004 #12
     
  14. May 27, 2004 #13
    The following section is a series of revised quotes taken form a book called
    The creature from Jekyll Island, by G. Edward Griffin.
    THE MISLEADING THEORY OF QUANTITY

    It often is argued that gold is inappropriate as money because it is too limited in supply to satisfy the needs of modern commerce. On the surface, that can sound logical - after all, we do need a lot of money out there to keep the wheels of the economy turning but, upon examination, this turns out to be one of the most childish ideas imaginable.

    First of all, it is estimated that that approximately 45% of all the gold mined throughout the world since the discovery of America now in government or banking stockpiles. There undoubtedly is at least an additional 30% in jewelry, ornaments, and privet hordes. Any commodity which exists to the extent of 75% of its total world production since Columbus discovered America can hardly be described as in short supply.
    The deeper reality, however is that the supply is not even important. Remember that the primary function of money is to measure the value to the items for which it is exchanged. The supply of gold in the world does not affect its ability to serve as money, it only affects the quantity that will be used to measure any given transaction.

    See my post: "Gold standerd economy better?"
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2004
  15. May 27, 2004 #14
    What would you think of the following equation to limit government budget increases?

    Current budget=B
    New budget=N
    Inflation=I
    Pop growth=P

    N=B+(B(I+P))
     
  16. May 27, 2004 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    This really should have been in the poll because its the most important way to do it. Our government is far too bloated: right now, we're trying to have European style socialism with American style freedom. It can't be done. Get rid of the socialism and keep the freedom.

    Re: gold standard - looooong dead issue guys. Even countries that could be on it if they wanted to use The American Dollar standard because its better.
     
  17. May 27, 2004 #16
    Great point Russ, people talk about cutting education funds, pulling research and military funds but the real source of the problem is in the welfare, social "security" and other such socialist ideas.
     
  18. May 27, 2004 #17
    Why limit ourselves with what we have tangible right now, if we can borrow against our perceived tangible present, and future, value????

    Extra money means either
    1> More funding for government programs with borrowed money
    2> Money to pay for government programs with borrowed money, while the populous retains more private income for the private sector of the economy.

    Both of these options mean, in essence, the same thing. They mean that we have X amount of dollars of wealth and investment that we can use to be ahead of competing economies.

    Simple situations:
    Company A increases size as revenues allow. They borrow nothing and only pay for training and new machinery when present profit allows.

    Company B, on the other hand, sets out an estimate based on past performance and realizes that new training and machinery can increase profits. Company B borrows money to train and revamp old machinery.

    After time Company B continues at it's previous rate with no debt. Company B's training and machinery allow it to be more efficient, lowering overhead and capturing more of the market share. B is in debt for a number of years, but has been passing A in sales and production for quite some time leaving their profits in the dust.
    Now, at this point B has a better trained workforce, better machines, and A does not have the revenues to buy the required machinery to catch B.
    So when does the debt come into play? Well B isn't interested in paying off the debt. This is a fruitless idea that does nothing for the business. Instead, B pays down the debt but continues to revolve an amount of debt that it's profits, from the borrowed investments, can sustain.

    In economies this works the same way. If the US and China's economies are neck and neck. It would behoove either country to borrow money as an investment in military, research, training, security, etc. to make a more efficient robust economy. This means debt, but it means passing the other guy. Revolving that debt leaves you X amount of dollars of investment ahead of the competition.
    Revolving a debt also does on other thing (that I'm sure you thought of already while reading this.) It allows for a safety net.
    An economy based on the gold standard is what it is. Things go bad and you have to suffer through them with everyone else. In an economy based on virtual perceived value and comaritive currency, the bad times can be offset with borrowed money that can 1> aid revenues that are not coming in 2> make investments that will expedite the return to a good time.


    Again, paying the debt off accompolishes nothing except giving us more money to borrow (which those that support paying it off seem to be inherently against). Going to the gold standard makes us company A while company B buys up machinery and training to out do our operation.
    The key is REVOLVING a debt that is MODERATE compared to our economy with INTELLIGENT NON-WASTEFUL investments in our country.
     
  19. May 27, 2004 #18

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Here's a problem...most of the jobs being made are coming from the government.

    Reduced government spending => no/little short term unemployment drop => no short term appeasement of voter base => no second term for Bush.

    Does "john smith" care about the deficit ??
     
  20. May 27, 2004 #19
    I agree, the gold standard is dead and buried. My point is, how many of these wacky socialist programs would have gone anywhere if we were still on the gold standard. When Roosevelt confiscated the gold and took us off the gold standard, it opened the door to his new deal socialist agenda.
     
  21. May 28, 2004 #20
    Sell Alaska. :P
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?