Some Staggering Figures

Published on April 11, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

OK, folks, do me a favor. Look at the secondhand on your watch right now.

Look at the secondhand again when you finish reading this article. Then calculate the number of seconds you spent reading this article.

Divide the number of seconds by five. Multiply your result by one million.

That is how much the federal government will have spent in the time you were reading this article. ONE MILLION DOLLARS every FIVE SECONDS.

That's right...in slightly more time than it takes an NFL running back to run 40 yards, the US government will have spent another million dollars. That, any way you slice it is too much.

As I have stated many times before, the burden for this year's BUDGET is a staggering $8566 per man, woman and child in this country; the national debt is more than TWICE that number. These are numbers that we have no realistic hope of ever repaying; nor, it seems, do we even have such intent.

And yet, there are many, many Americans clamoring for MORE to be spent. When asked where we will receive that money, they simply answer that we must increase taxes on the rich, apparently ignorant of the fact that every dollar taxed on the wealthy will be charged to us in the form of higher consumer prices. These people aren't fools, you know.

The tax burden on the average US citizen is BEYOND excessive; it is appalling. We NEED a "pay as you go" system that does not allow the US government to spend more than they receive.

Put simply, we need to cut up the US government's credit card. It is what would be done if you overextended yourself, and it is what MUST be done where our government is concerned. Their reckless spending is bankrupting America, and it is a debt which future generations will be required to repay. It is basically the child's game of "hot potato" in play. It's a lot of fun, unless you're the one caught holding the bag.

And whose generation would we consign to live in abject poverty? Can you look in your child's eyes and tell them you wish them a WORSE future than that which you have? Or at the babies in your local hospital's nursery and wish for them a future of servitude for two centuries of reckless overspending by a runaway government?

The time, dear friends, to make a change is NOW. and it is your children's future that depends on it.

Comments (Page 1)

Dr Guy

on Apr 11, 2005

You are not going to get an argument from me.

mick_k

on Apr 11, 2005

The Canadian governement basically said that. When there was a protest by some University students over sky rocketing tuition some members of parliament said that it is the resposibility of the younger generation to bear the burden of the governement over spending. It'e not the burden of the people who actually caused the problem.

ParaTed2k

on Apr 11, 2005

Ok, the government will stop spending so much. Where do we cut first?

I would say that we should cut revenues going to countries that should be standing on their own, but that would break too many treaties and international agreements.

Then I'd say, let's cut federal departments that have no Constitutional basis, but that would lead to massive unemployment.

I'd also say, let's cut programs that have either failed miserably, or have outlived their usefullness, but that would start a civil war on defining "failed" and "outlived" alone!

So, do you want a balanced budget (I mean a real one, not the pie in the sky crap that passes for "balanced" in Washington), even with all the problems balancing it would cause?

Just a few things to think about.

bakerstreet

on Apr 11, 2005

Another way of looking at it.

How many people work for the government? How many corporations and businesses rely upon the government? How many educational institutions, thinktanks, etc. exist becasue of the government. How many industries heavily rely upon the government?

Now, look at your watch, and imagine what the unemployment rate if the government DIDN'T spend that much money in that amount of time.

I hate the size of government, I hate our reliance upon it. It would be utter ruin to our society if we were to allow the people who carelessly caused this problem to decide how to fix it.

They will NOT cut those parts of government that are unnecessary. On the contrary, they'll cut our necessities and keep their pork flowing. The only people who have the real power to fix this problem are inherently incapable, through dishonesty or ineptitude.

More oversite by the voting public MUST be the first step. The billions spent on programs buried in footnotes of thousand -page legislation have to be more accessable to the public, and subject to their approval.

kingbee

on Apr 11, 2005

well...some rather surprising responses here.

but first...

yet, there are many, many Americans clamoring for MORE to be spent. When asked where we will receive that money, they simply answer that we must increase taxes on the rich, apparently ignorant of the fact that every dollar taxed on the wealthy will be charged to us in the form of higher consumer prices

who exactly is doing the clamoring? most are shocked and appalled--at least those few able to count that high (that isnt intended as humor altho it may seem so; those who can't are the reason for devising that 'look at your watch' exercise)--by the nearly unimaginable amounts of money being poured out of the future. it don't take a lotta brains to realized the country can't continue to spend like a drunken sailor while continuing to cut taxes.

kingbee

on Apr 11, 2005

Where do we cut first?

It would be utter ruin to our society if we were to allow the people who carelessly caused this problem to decide how to fix it.

They will NOT cut those parts of government that are unnecessary. On the contrary, they'll cut our necessities and keep their pork flowing. The only people who have the real power to fix this problem are inherently incapable, through dishonesty or ineptitude

while i'm guessing yall blame this on a different group of people from the ones to whom i attach responsibility for winding us up here, at least we all seem to be on the same page as far as acknowledging the existence of the problem and the cause--in general at least.

what surprises me--and what should shock at least some of you--is this: if i'm reading you right, yall seem to be saying a balanced budget is an unrealistic ideal.

i musta missed the 'polar shift ahead' sign.

bakerstreet

on Apr 11, 2005

"yall seem to be saying a balanced budget is an unrealistic ideal."

I think it is possible, but I think it is IMpossible to get Americans to agree on what must be cut. Add to that the impossiblity of straight-forwardness and selflessness from Legislators, and I suppose you could say it is an unrealistic ideal.

If, and it is a big IF, the US decides to run our affairs like small, sleepy European nations, it is certainly possible. We almost did it for a few years in the 1990's.

Other nations, like China, won't, though. If we pull in our tentacles, we may find ourselves sitting, ineffectually whining like France does now. If we strangle progress by taxing enough to pay for our efforts, we might well find ourselves in the same spot.

JE0192

on Apr 11, 2005

What you’re suggesting is simply that we go back to pure liberalism... Well, it’s been tried, and it failed miserably. “In the long run, we're all dead”. That’s the famous quote that made most governments realise that they couldn’t wait for the markets to restabilise themselves. Governments must intervene in order to ensure the security and the welfare of the population. Debts are completely normal whether you’re buying a house, starting a business or running a country. Many other developed countries have much more important debts than the United States if you compare it to their GNP (like Japan, Italy or France for exemple). In an industrialised country, public debts really don’t mean that much as long as they’re in the country’s currency and most of the debt is internal. You have to understand that most of the interest that is paid stays in the country. The “original sin” when you’re talking about public debts, that will inevitably have disastrous results, is to borrow in another currency...

Just try to imagine what would have happened in the last 5 years if Bush had forced fiscal discipline and would have refused to spend more than he was collecting (thus having a zero deficit). Do you think the economy would have been able to get out of recession that easily? What about the war in Iraq? Or in Afghanistan? How would he have paid for that?

The antideficit discourse is an irrational one. It has no real merit; yes, the numbers are big, but it’s a tiny percentage of the GNP. The debt can be progressively reduced easily, when the economic conditions are better...

bakerstreet

on Apr 11, 2005

"What about the war in Iraq? Or in Afghanistan? How would he have paid for that? "

The Liberal answer would be to strangle prosperity, removing capital from the system and using it to band-aid the government.

ParaTed2k

on Apr 11, 2005

what surprises me--and what should shock at least some of you--is this: if i'm reading you right, yall seem to be saying a balanced budget is an unrealistic ideal.

I'm not pointing out any "unrealistic ideal", I'm just wondering if we are ready to accept the consequences that a balanced budget would demand.

We cannot shrink the government without cutting services; we can't cut services without cutting jobs; we can't reduce any part of the government without increasing unemployment and poverty and/or breaking international treaties.

As a Constitutionalist, I say we cut all federal programs and expenditures that have no Constitutional basis. However, not being an accountant, I have no idea how long it would take to do so without causing major damage to our economy.

bakerstreet

on Apr 11, 2005

We also have to accept that there is egregious waste at the state level, whose slack is taken up by the Federal government. How much should we cut of the national debt before we look and see how much state waste effects it?

kingbee

on Apr 12, 2005

What about the war in Iraq? Or in Afghanistan? How would he have paid for that?

i don't think you really wanna go there.

The antideficit discourse is an irrational one. It has no real merit; yes, the numbers are big, but it’s a tiny percentage of the GNP. The debt can be progressively reduced easily, when the economic conditions are better...

well, i've always wanted to be as rational as possible...so perhaps you can remind me when spending way beyond a nation's means while planning to catch up easily later on when things get better has ever proven a successful national economic policy?

kingbee

on Apr 12, 2005

Add to that the impossiblity of straight-forwardness and selflessness from Legislators

from the 50s thru the 80s, there was one thing you could always count on hearing from any conservative candidate for executive office (governor or president) and it went something like this: give me the tools and i'll balance the budget ('tools' being a fairly apt euphemism for legislative majority).

so now, when you have a nominally conservative president in office with a nominally conservative majority in congress--so everything's in place to perform the miracle--suddenly it's not impossible but damn near? and somehow the legislature is responsible?

bakerstreet

on Apr 12, 2005

"well, i've always wanted to be as rational as possible...so perhaps you can remind me when spending way beyond a nation's means while planning to catch up easily later on when things get better has ever proven a successful national economic policy?"

Dare I say the 80's? I don't remember plague and famine in the 90's...

kingbee

on Apr 12, 2005

We cannot shrink the government without cutting services; we can't cut services without cutting jobs; we can't reduce any part of the government without increasing unemployment and poverty and/or breaking international treaties.

all of this has a real deja vu feel to it. i guess i musta hadda dream once in which an about-to-become majority party--after more than 50 years of unsuccessfully trying to legislate social programs into the grave as a minority party--realized it finally had the votes to do it. there was only one drawback. by doing so, they'd all be voted outta office in the next election. then one of em had a flash...all we have to do is convince the voters they can no longer afford those programs.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!