Nation’s spending out of line — Free spending big government Republicans are breaking the country. After all the talk about fiscal responsibility and small government from these guys, this is what they give us.
Last month, the national debt reached yet another miserable milestone, passing the $8 trillion mark for the first time. As of last week, the United States was $8,084,858,891,735.31 in the hole, according to the Treasury Department.
Here is the depressing stuff you should now consider before the 2006 elections:
In fact, Bush has borrowed more money — $1.05 trillion — from foreign governments and banks since taking office than all other presidents combined.
From 1776 to 2000, the nation’s first 42 presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign interests, official statistics show. In just five years, Bush has out-borrowed them all.
Wow. Too bad most people choose not to comprehend this.
Amazing if it is true. Nothing conservative about this admin.
I’m ashamed to admit this, but I actually voted for W. back in 2000 when he ran against Gore. I actually thought he’d be more fiscally conservative and better for the economy. Yeah, I’m a moron. I can honestly say that I’ve never been more wrong about something in my entire life.
Look at the bright side. Since China owns so much of us, can you say that there’s really such a large trade deficit?
I ask the following question without knowing the answer, and with out any motive:
What percentage of GDP is Bush’s borrowing compared to the borrowing of previous administrations?
I would believe Bush’s borrowing is the highest, but by how much? While I think the story is valid, the “number shock value” some use to sell their reasoning is just plain lazy. We all know the economy grows, and we all know a buck today isn’t worth the same as a buck yesterday. Relay the information in reasonable, measurable terms.
James — a quick peek at http://www.iie.com/publications/chapters_preview/3993/01iie3993.pdf shows foreign debt vs. GDP in 1990 at less than 3%. At the end of 2003, it was into that 21-24% region.
More important, a significant article from Economic Policy Institute — http://www.epinet.org/Issuebriefs/203/ib203.pdf — projects the current 24% as spiraling up to 64% of GDP in another 9 years. Debt service alone should be 1.7% of GDP. And that brief is a year old.
I will say this now. The Democrats AND Republicans BOTH suck. I don’t care what side you are on NOTHING will matter if this country goes bankrupt. This country needs to both get used to higher taxes AND fewwer serivces. Yeah a few might get hurt but we will all be better off in the long run.
Let’s honestly start by closing down New Orleans. Before you flame me in response…Please think about it.
James — now I wish you hadn’t gotten me curious. That’s worse than I would have guessed.
The Debt To the Penny
Current Amount
11/25/2005 $8,095,944,892,371.48
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
We are lucky the country is worth more than the debt. The assets are still greater than the total debt. 11/25/2005 $4,713,343,564,966.66 is the debt held by the public. Debt Held by the Public — Is all Federal debt held by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments, and other entities outside of the United States Government less Federal Financing Bank securities.
You can actually send a check in to help reduce the debt, which I never knew. I guess every little bit helps. It’s funny that the checks go to West Virginia and not Washington D.C.. I wonder if you get a thank you note back if you send in a contribution.
The site says:
How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
Please follow these important steps to make a contribution to reduce the debt.
1. Make check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt.
2. In the memo section of the check, notate Gift to reduce Debt Held by the Public.
3. Mail check to –
ATTN DEPT G
BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
P O BOX 2188
PARKERSBURG, WV 26106-2188
It’s where it all began.
George Washington acquired 250 acres in what is now West Virginia because it contained an oil and gas spring. This was in 1771, making the father of our country the first petroleum industry speculator. Source: http://oilandgasmuseum.com/
Not much has changed really. Different George, same old oil. At least the gasoline prices have dropped some recently.
Agreed Rob…. and furthermore, the only way this Country will ever be as great as it once was would be if we had a third-party candidate with a good enough chance of winning too scare the Republicans into going back to what they’re supposed to stand for, and make the Democrats realize that their idea of what America wants is just as screwed up as the Republicans’
“The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.”
– H. L. Mencken
No way am I going to pay back that $8 trillion. They spent it. Let them pay it back.
Your the biggest bullie in TWIT. shame on you!
Rob, I Agree with your N.O. idea. I see the area turning into a Corp and/or white owned Travel destination. It has lost its roots, which for the most part are the poor. Let’s face it, this is not the first time this area has been hit. (On the long timeline) On the news we see HUGE house wraped in wind blown trash vs. huddled shanty houses with mudlines above rooflines. How can these dis-infranchised Americans fise above mud they have no means to scoop away? Often to many times in history, those hit the hardest have less to lose.
Re: Twit…That’s my job, quit being such a weenie about it. My role is to keep the show moving along. Nobody else wants to do it.
Now please quit posting off topic!
what’s even better about this whole thing is that because the government controls the inflation rate by how much money it prints, it can in effect borrow $1 and it will only be worth 80 cents by the time it pays it back.
What [not] at surprise. So we borrow money from some large [greedy], Bush/Cheney affiliated company and then the US gives that money to Iraq so that Iraq can then give it to the that same company, but the government still owes that money. Country’s full of bigots.
I seriously wonder how much longer the U.S. can stay on this financial path before their nation literally goes bankrupt. I mean seriously, people can’t continue to lend them money forever right? And I wonder what the economic consequences would be to the planet if the government were to go into Chapter 11…
Rob/Adam: That’s such a cop out. “Here’s something we can’t deny the Republicans screwed up but wouldn’t the Democrats be just as bad?” No, maybe they wouldn’t. That’s such a cheap equivocation.
Bill Clinton handled the money great. You could say that he had the benefit of the Internet bubble which really wasn’t under his control, but that doesn’t cover up other things, like that Bill Clinton had less discretionary spending in his worst year than Bush had in his best. Or that, given a surplus, he actually wanted to do something responsible with it like pay down the debt. The Republicans wanted another tax cut. Notice a pattern? The economy is good: that surplus is your money, not the government’s. Tax cut. The economy is bad: we need to kick start it. Tax cut. We’re at war: we need a tax cut to keep the economy going during this war even though no one has cut taxes while at war before ever.
With the exception of Carter, Democratic presidents have been much better for the economy than Republican presidents. Maybe it doesn’t seem like that *should* be the case, as Republicans are the ones trying to slash regulations and give tax breaks to big businesses, but it *is*. Comparing the current Republican reality to a Democratic stereotype doesn’t change that.
Greg, you seem to be ignoring, I hope not intentionally, that after nearly a year in office, Clinton tried to institute a completely socialized federal healthcare system. Our current Medicare/Medicaid system, along with Social Security, is projected by many to consume nearly 3/4 of the federal budget over the next 30 years. I would hardly call Clinton fiscally responsible. It was the backlash against “Clinton Care” along with the “contract with America” that lead to the Republicans taking over the Congress in 94. Also, the welfare reform of the 90’s was part of the contract that Clinton eventually signed into law only after feeling the enormous political pressure to do so(and later tried to claim credit for).
Ultimately, it’s the Congress, not the President, who creates the final budget and determines the amount of all federal spending.
I’m still sad that the balanced budget amendment and congressional term limits (both parts of the contract with america) were abandoned after the Republicans took control.
Mike
You make some assumptions about “socialized” medical care. It would actually save the nation money, not cost it more. Currently, the U.S. Spends about 15% of GNP on health. That is the highest amount of any industrialized nation. By contrast, Canada spends just under 10%. In the U.S., an estimated 46 million people (not counting the illegals) are without health care. In Canada, everyone is covered.
On Monday evening News on NPR, there was a piece on those not covered by health insurance. Reportedly, and confirmed by a hospital CEO, an uninsured can pay up to six times the amount for a procedure as an insured person would be charged. The insurance companies sign agreements with hospitals and doctors that will send business their way in exchange for reduced rates.
Currently there is overcapacity in hospital beds in this country. Those beds cost money that must be paid for by passing the cost on to all consumers. There are also many procedures not required but ordered by physicians anyway. Then there are the procedures where other physicians stick there hands in, as consultants, and expect to be paid as well.
In Canada, most taxes are higher. The actual cost of living is not much higher though. When you factor in the cost of insurance premiums, co-pays, non-covered procedures, and drug costs, and consider them as the taxes they are, then the score is evened. (note, other Canadian social programs contribute to Canada’s still higher tax rate)
If the Federal Government, or even state governments collected what are now the health insurance premiums and paid the medical bills, I suspect the total bill would drop. The government could then control waste, over billing, reduce social costs associated with insurance companies refusing to pay, and have everyone covered. Is it a big deal to have health insurance? Ask the clerk in the next store you enter if they have or would like to have health insurance. You know, the clerk making little more then minimum wage.
The reasons for foreign lenders holding so much American debt, is because Americans have by far the highest rate of personal debt in the world. Another reason is because the oil producing nations and exporters have all these U.S. Dollars with no other place to put them.
Want to help the debt? Buy MADE IN the USA. Drive less. Quit putting purchases on credit. Vote Democrat.
Rob
I thought about New Orleans. My flame is more of a very small spark. I agree that much of the Mississippi delta and southern Louisiana should be returned to nature. I just don’t want kill all that wonderful Cajun food, Jazz, or Mardi Gras spirit. Could you tell ’em for me?
A bigger cost reduction would be to just get out of Iraq. It is costing us too much in both lives and money. Also, reducing the military expendatures to something more reasonable would go a long way.
The government is better at controlling waste and inefficiency? I hope you intended that as a joke.
The government does not have to compete like private businesses do… do you honestly believe that it would run the way it does if it had to worry about going out of business? When the government loses money (as it does when it runs a deficit), does it have to worry about going bankrupt? No, because the government has something that private business will never have: a monopoly on police power to compel citizens to give it more money or have their freedom taken away.
The federal government is the most lethargic and inefficient organization in this country; I know because I work for it. The problem is that the people have been convinced over the past 80 years (by do-gooding politicians of course) that it is the government’s job to take care of them. Well, I suppose it is much more appealing to a voter to vote to have somebody else to take for him than to take care of himself.
The whole notion of socialized healthcare, social security and the hundreds of other programs that exist now would have been deemed as vulgar perversions of legitimate government power by the men who fought for and founded the United States.
I would also like to add to Pat’s comments that “socialized” health care would help American businesses and the economy. Many interesting tidbits in this article. I’m at work so I don’t have time to pick out the choice quotes.
Mike: How is it a vulgar perversion of power if the people support it? Social Security and many other programs in that category, though certainly not all, are enormously popular. It’s called the third rail of politics because voters punish anyone who messes with it. I would call that democracy.
Greg,
The United States was created as a Constitutional republic precisely because the whims of the mob are not supposed to trump the rule of law. If the majority of Americans voted to seize 95 cents of every dollar that you earned to provide themselves with a benefit, would you still think that was okay? After all, that’s democracy.
Read the Mencken quote I posted for a very good argument of why legitimate government has no business dealing in charity and providing services that people should be providing for themselves. Yes, voting yourself a benefit at the compelled expense of another is a perversion of law.
Basic healthcare should be a basic human right within any civilized society. For a society as a group not to provide for the sick is just plain barbaric.
This is one of those things that really shows the difference between talk and action… the right wing in the USA is ultra-christian and against socialized medicine, yet does anyone doubt that Jesus would support medical care for anyone that needs it?
Awake, nothing can be claimed as a right when it is provided by somebody else. To argue otherwise is to advocate slavery.
Pat,
Exactly what does a veteran’s healthcare benefit have to do with a federally run universal healthcare system? There is absolutely nothing wrong with the government providing a pension and healthcare benefits to veterans, but there is a lot wrong with creating a universal healthcare entitlement.
No, I do not believe that government is corrupt by default. But governments do become corrupt when the people who run them start travelling down the road of trading votes for the promise of entitlements given to one group of people by taking from another. This was one of the great evils the founders of this country tried to address when they created the Constitution.
Jesus was a liberal? Do you mean he was a classical liberal (like Thomas Jefferson) or a modern liberal, who advocates entitlement through the use of state police power? Here’s a clue for you – it is not charity when you are coerced to give.
> Bush has out-borrowed [from foreign sources] them all.
When the US Treasury issues debt, it holds an auction to sell bonds on the open market. Whoever pays the most for the bonds gets to buy the bonds. An equivalent statement is to say that whover is willing to accept the lowest yield gets the bonds. The Chinese and other Asian economies buy our bonds because…
The dollar is falling because everyone and their sister is buying billions in Chinese crap at Wal-Mart. Which is to say that we, American consumers, determine the trade deficit (not the budget deficit) which affects the level of the dollar. The falling dollar could stymie the export-led growth of the Asian economies, so they buy our T-bonds to help prop up the dollar and keep their exported goods competitive, despite the fact that the dollar is weak and the bond yields suck.
> Bush has out-borrowed them all.
The budget deficit is Bush’s and the Republican Congress’ fault, but not who buys our debt. Actually, an economist could probably make an argument that it is Bush’s fault, but it would involve about 6 levels of indirection and be too complicated for anyone on this blog to understand, including me.