Posted on 12/03/2007 5:56:48 AM PST by chessplayer
Split the government budget into true funds- disclose the numbers to the public using Generally Accepted Government accounting principals (like all the states):
Ban federal funds from buying treasuries. Limit the amount of private investment. Investment board nonpolitical.
The general fund needs to be balanced;
* Stop paying interest payments on treasuries held by federal funds, this would eliminate the general deficit by approximately 40%;
* Federal government out of the secondary education and welfare business- move to the states.
Privatize over time social security. SSA will forgive any bonds it holds after private system is solvent;
Stop paying interest payments on treasuries held by federal funds;
Use true "manciple" bond systems for other federal funds like transportation, airports, etc.
Yes. The real problem is the baby boomers. This generation funds that supported entitlements was repeatedly raided by Washington incurring debt to this generation. Now this generation is top-heavy of retirees demanding the same entitlements they paid for. There will be be little choice but for future US politicians to raise taxes and cut defense spending. A good economic team could come up with a way to create a market such the hydrogen economy as a massive export product and cheaper domestic consumption to solve a lot of these problems and eliminate the debt over a 20 year period but I see too little movement from either party on gaining any real progress of how to deal with this massive issue.
Both of our political parties have sided with the enemy (us) on this one. Our banking system trembles over a mere 400-500 Billion in bad mortgage loans. What a joke. A mere bag of shells.
In addition to what is mentioned below, we currently have about $50 Trillion (1 trillion= 1,000 billions) in unfunded, mandates off the books. As Everitt Dirksen used to say, a billion here, a billion there, soon you talking about real money. If you are actually paying taxes your individual DEBT is closer to $400K in the form of a sub-prime, interest only, balloon loan, with a reverse amortising principal amount.
If only it were that simple. The sad fact is that both parties have a dismal record on reining in spending and controlling debt. In many ways the GOP is worse than the dems.
Yes, you nailed it.
I guess that since they published the last National debt estimate 3 weeks ago and it shown the deficit and debt decreasing... it is a good bet that it is.
LLS
State & Federal spends over $1.8 billion per day on welfare. Drop welfare and the problem is solved.
I think your having a 90's flashback......
“It is increasingly clear by now that a severe U.S. recession is inevitable in next few months...I now see the risk of a severe and worsening liquidity and credit crunch leading to a generalized meltdown of the financial system of a severity and magnitude like we have never observed before. In this extreme scenario whose likelihood is increasing we could see a generalized run on some banks; and runs on a couple of weaker (non-bank) broker dealers that may go bankrupt with severe and systemic ripple effects on a mass of highly leveraged derivative instruments that will lead to a seizure of the derivatives markets... massive losses on money market funds with a run on both those sponsored by banks and those not sponsored by banks; ..ever growing defaults and losses ($500 billion plus) in subprime, near prime and prime mortgages with severe knock-on effect on the RMBS and CDOs market; massive losses in consumer credit (auto loans, credit cards); severe problems and losses in commercial real estate...; the drying up of liquidity and credit in a variety of asset backed securities putting the entire model of securitization at risk; runs on hedge funds and other financial institutions that do not have access to the Fed’s lender of last resort support; a sharp increase in corporate defaults and credit spreads; and a massive process of re-intermediation into the banking system of activities that were until now altogether securitized.” (Nouriel Roubini’s Global EconoMonitor)-—Roubini is a Professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University.
Good factual post. Trust me, I know about these programs. There is no incentive to be reasonably frugal. The gov’t does try to prevent waste and abuse, but the program is simple too large to effectively manage. Further, many states are currently seeking to expand Medicaid and Medicare coverage as a work around to universal health care coverage. These monsterous programs are actually growing, and I believe critical mass is unavoidable.
Let’s all declare national bankruptcy and start over.
There are a lot of companies out there who are willing to give new credit to reestablish our worth.
Thomas McCauley mentions exactly this issue in an essay around 1820, about laments on how would england pay the debts from the Napoleonic war. He pegged it then -- the future will be a lot richer than the past.
If, as is the case now, our deficit is around 2% of GDP, and GDP is growing at 3-4%, you see that the problem is not getting worse.
Again, this isn't to say that the problem is handled by itself. And, if SS and Medicaid/care grow at the rates projected, something will have to give. But simply staring at a debt of 6-8 Trillion, and forgetting that we are a $14 Trillion economy, doesn't make sense.
As an aside, the really sensible way to look at it would be to say "what are the nation's assets, to put against the debt?" (In the same way that a $100,000 mortgage "debt" isn't bad if you have a $200,000 house, but a killer if it's only worth $50,000) But politicians rarely want to look at that, because then someone might want to privitize something and reduce the debt! nevertheless, most estimates are that our national asssets have exceeded the debt since at least the mid 60's.
Thomas McCauley mentions exactly this issue in an essay around 1820, about laments on how would england pay the debts from the Napoleonic war. He pegged it then -- the future will be a lot richer than the past.
If, as is the case now, our deficit is around 2% of GDP, and GDP is growing at 3-4%, you see that the problem is not getting worse.
Agiin, this isn't to say that the problem is handled by itself. And, if SS and Medicaid/care grow at the rates projected, something will have to give. But simply staring at a debt of 608 Trillion, and forgetting that we are a $14 Trillion economy, doesn't make sense.
As an aside, the really sensible way to look at it would be to say "what are the nation's assets., to put against the debt?" But politiuicand rarely want to look at that, becasue then someone might wat to privitize somehting and reduce the debt! nevertheless, most estimates are that our national asssets have exceeded th edebt since at least th mid 60's.
This wouldn't change a thing. We'd still pay the same benefits, doesn't matter if the funds get shortchanged or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.