Federal Government Debt Over 7 Trillion

In summary, the conversation discussed the federal government debt which is currently at $24,470.04 per person and rising. This means a family of four 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 as of May 26, 2004 was 7,197,880,192,218.16. The conversation also touched on possible solutions for reducing the federal debt, including controlling spending, slowly increasing taxes, and cutting the debt in half. Some participants suggested reducing spending in areas such as military and corporate subsidies, while others proposed improving the school

what do you think should be done about the federal debt?

  • Freeze budget increases excepting what is necessary to compensate for infation

    Votes: 4 50.0%
  • Raze taxis

    Votes: 5 62.5%
  • Force government to pay a certen persentage anualy

    Votes: 3 37.5%
  • Nothing

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 25.0%

  • Total voters
    8
  • #1
bulloughclan
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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)
 
  • #3
phatmonky ! Did I read "increase taxes" ? Is that any way for a respectable conservative to talk ? Or have I misjudged you all along ?
 
  • #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:
  • #5
Gokul43201 said:
phatmonky ! Did I read "increase taxes" ? Is that any way for a respectable conservative to talk ? Or have I misjudged you all along ?

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.
 
  • #6
Dissident Dan said:
People should look into ways to improve the school system through methods that don't involve throwing lots of money at it.

Oh man,don't get me started on this!
 
  • #7
phatmonky said:
Oh man,don't get me started on this!
Nor I!


Watch out for zero, you'll get him foaming at the mouth if you talk cutting school monies...
 
  • #8
  • #9
Robert Zaleski said:
Everything went to Hell when we got off the gold and silver standard.
www.toptips.com/debtclock.html - 10k - Cached


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.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #11
Robert Zaleski said:
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.


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.
 
  • #12
phatmonky said:
And there is nothing wrong with it. Once again, a proper economy SHOULD carry a debt.

WHY?
 
  • #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 by a moderator:
  • #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))
 
  • #15
Dissident Dan said:
Cut spending drastically.
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.
 
  • #16
russ_watters said:
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.

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.
 
  • #17
bulloughclan said:
WHY?

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.
 
  • #18
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 ??
 
  • #19
russ_watters said:
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.
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.
 
  • #20
Sell Alaska. :P
 
  • #21
RE: Company A. Company B.

I agree but company B (U.S.) is spending way to fast and not keeping or making it's investments in a wise manner, the result if it continues this same path: BANKRUPTCY
 
  • #22
"raze taxis" ? :confused:

How would cutting a bunch of taxicabs down to the ground affect the nat'l debt?
 
  • #23
bulloughclan said:
RE: Company A. Company B.

I agree but company B (U.S.) is spending way to fast and not keeping or making it's investments in a wise manner, the result if it continues this same path: BANKRUPTCY

Having a debt, and Having a huge debt are two different things.
 

1. What is the current amount of Federal Government Debt?

The current amount of Federal Government Debt over 7 trillion is approximately $27 trillion as of October 2021.

2. How does the Federal Government accumulate debt?

The Federal Government accumulates debt by borrowing money to cover budget deficits, which is when the government's spending exceeds its revenue. This can happen through issuing Treasury bonds, bills, and notes, as well as borrowing from other countries or organizations.

3. What are the potential consequences of a high Federal Government Debt?

Potential consequences of a high Federal Government Debt include higher interest rates, decreased investor confidence, and a decrease in the value of the dollar. It can also limit the government's ability to fund important programs and lead to budget cuts and austerity measures.

4. How does the Federal Government plan to reduce the debt?

The Federal Government can reduce the debt through a combination of increasing revenue (e.g. through taxes), decreasing spending, and growing the economy. This can be achieved through careful budgeting, implementing fiscal policies, and promoting economic growth through investments and job creation.

5. Is the Federal Government Debt a major concern?

The Federal Government Debt is a complex issue with differing opinions on its importance and potential impact. Some argue that a certain level of debt is necessary for a healthy economy, while others believe it is a major concern that should be addressed through strict budgeting and debt reduction strategies.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
23
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
Replies
28
Views
5K
Replies
37
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
24
Views
5K
Back
Top