U.S. government indebted $53 trillion

[warlock56]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2004-10-03-debt-cover_x.htm

So for you people that are championing your republican or democrat candidates this November, does $53T in debt sound like a financially sound plan for our nation? Are you so gullible to believe that we can just keep patching things here and there and it'll make it all ok? I have yet to hear one single viable solution from either major party to gid rid of these heinous socialist programs.

[ethics]

Heh, I'll be interested to hear from both sides on this.

[tke711]

The only way to solve this problem is through very hard choices that neither party is willing to make.

It would require our government to spend less then it takes in (what a novel concept). That can only be accomplished in one of three ways:

1. Drastic cuts in spending
2. Drastic increases in taxes
3. A combination of both of the above.

[Techie2000]

FWIW I think that as far as national debt goes, if you were to choose between the two major parties, the democrats would be a better bet. The Republican party's candidate today seems to favor tax cuts and the voodoo economics favored by Reagan under whom the national debt was tripled, and now under Bush and a Republican congress where they have actually had to raise the limit set on the national debt due to the amount of defecit spending. In practice, the Republican idea that lowering taxes will reduce government since it has less money to do things with has not come to fruitation. In that way, the Democratic party is probably a better choice if you are worried about the national debt. However I digress.

Gregg is right, if we want to fix the national debt, we are going to have to bite the proverbial bullet for a few years, and no President nor congressman wants to tell his constituents that. That is why this is going to bubble out of control and when it pops it is going to pop hard.

[ethics]

FWIW I think that as far as national debt goes, if you were to choose between the two major parties, the democrats would be a better bet.

That wasn't the question Techie (no matter how ludicrous that logic may be).

This isn't a thread about who is better between the two, it's a sad fact that they both suck when it comes to spending.

[Techie2000]

Paragraph two responds to the original post.

[ethics]

Just trying to stop an avalanche while it's still a snowball. I know how tempted each side is to blame each other.

[eakes]

From what I have read the present actual national debt is about $7.5 trillion. When projected over the next 75 years the unfunded requirement for medicare and social security brings the debt to about 75 trillion. At about 50 years out the debt will consume the entire projected national revenue.

What this really points out is that it is imperative in the next few years the issue of funding for SS and medicare be seriously addressed. It makes no difference what political entity is in power the problem must be dealt with.

One solution that has been proposed for SS is to totally privatize the program. Basically the proposal requires that people place the money they would contribute to SS into an IRA type account, the employerer contribution would continue and help pay SS benefits for those already receiving benefits. US bonds would be issued to pay for the remainder of the unfunded benefits for those already on SS.

The biggest chunk (over half) of the 75 trillion is for medicare. I have yet to read of any viable solution. My opinion is they need to totally scrap medicare and medicaid and start over. I prefer a private system with everyone having their own medical insurrance. Having the government purchase an insurance plan (through private companies) for those presently on medicaid and for others who are unable to afford a plan would be acceptable. I do not like to think of a world in which the government becomes the provider for all healthcare. I envision that situation as one giant HMO (I know EVERYONE loves HMOs).

[LissaKay]

That's what Tennessee did with Medicaid, turning it into TennCare ... the biggest FUBAR'd cluster f**k imaginable.

The governor is *this* close to pulling the plug on the whole fiasco.

Yeah .. a brilliant idea there ...

[Steve]

I believe there needs to exist a quasi-national health care system. It would be privately run, preferably by (at least) regional corporations, on a for-profit basis with the maximum profits determined by the federal government and with some percentage of those profits required to be plowed back into basic medical research and/or teaching hospitals. Programs running deficits would be sold to other management, as underperforming companies are currently bought out by competitors.

Access would be guaranteed for all citizens and paid via a federal payroll deduction (tax, if you will) on all workers, said tax to be adjusted each year according to the national per capita cost of health care. Alternatively, a national consumption tax could be instituted, thus capturing some of the underground economy as well.

Young and old, sick and healthy, would be required to pay into the system, thus spreading risk across the entire population pool.

[eakes]

I am familiar with TennCare. My sister is enrolled in that program. She has rheumatoid arthritis (diagnosed when she was 12, now 61) and was in the Medicaid program before it became TennCare. TennCare was doing OK until the enrollment was opened to include people who did not qualify for medicaid. The program was funded only enough to provide for medicaid patients. When the enrollment was expanded to non-medicaid qualifiers, the funding was not expanded to cover all the new people. I believe that I read somewhere a few years ago that 25% of the people in Tennesse were on TennCare at that time.

The experience in Tennesse with unfunded healthcare requirements is exactly where medicare is nationally.

[RRedline]

One thing that needs to happen is that people need to thank, rather than blame, their representatives for voting against spending. How many negative ads (not necessarily Presidential ads) do we have where candidate A blames candidate B for voting against something that costs money?

When one is in debt, one makes sacrifices. It makes perfect sense that we drastically cut spending. I don't think increasing our tax revenue is as important as cutting our spending is.

Of course, cutting our federal spending may actually increase state and local taxes. I think it's worth it to pay down the debt and maintain a balanced budget once it's gone.

[misterduck]

Personally I feel that it is high time we, as voters and citizens, took our share of the blame for the current state of affairs. We vote congress and presidents into office based on what they will do FOR us, rather than what they won't do TO us. It is no wonder that there is no real distinction between the two political parties. Anyone that does stand out, doesn't stand a rat's chance in hades of getting elected.

Take national health care or social security for example. If you stand against these entitlements, you are painted as uncaring or unfeeling. Doesn't really do much for your re-election chances. Wouldn't creating a state that doesn't NEED entitlements be more beneficial than creating one that cannot survive without them?

Personally I feel that it is too late. Voters simply don't have the stomach for real solutions. Sooner or later we will be bankrupted, government will either become despotic or fail, and some sort of revolution will take place. Hopefully, by that time, there will be more Jeffersonian liberals around to rebuild the country.

[mers2]

Let's not forget all those wonderful add ons to necessary bills that politicians use for 100% pure pork. Those bridges and roads that go nowhere, rainforest recreations, etc. Unfortunately those are used for campaign purposes - "Look how many contracts/jobs I brought home". If a politician votes against one of these necessary bills because of the add ons that is then used against them during campaigns with the "Bill Jones voted against XYZ, do you really want him in office?"

[ethics]

Partially? I say the American public deserves most of the blame.