Bob Calco wrote: > Mike: > >> It's much better to run a deficit than run a surplus. A surplus means >> that Government it taking too much in taxes. >> > > Ideally government simply spends no more than it takes in, and takes in no > more than it needs, which is based on its real responsibilities, not all the > entitlements with which it has bribed various segments of the population in > exchange for power over the last 100 years. > > Government should not be allowed to "save" money in the form of a budget > surplus until first the people have enough disposable income after taxes to > save money. This is not the case today. >
The deficit is what has been increasing the national debt. It works something like this: Total Prior Year National Debt + Current Year Deficit or - Current Year Surplus = Total National Debt At the End of Current Year. Therefore, we need a surplus to pay down the national debt. This could be done over time by paying off the old treasure bonds and treasure note as they became due, while not issuing anymore current debt. The Federal Government has been living like most Americans who indulge in a high standard living by using credit card debt or money borrowed against the inflated value of their homes, or other form of debt available to the general public. This must stop, before the country is ruined. The people of the USA need to decide exactly how much government they need/want, and raise the amount of money needed to finance that level of government, and stop the insane marry-go-round of ever increasing debt due to a government that insist on living beyond her means. If a correction is not made soon, we will see the government robbing Petter to Pay Paul with eventual financial collapse of the entire country, (eg a severe recession or depression). I picked the following up in an article I read recently, as to what needs to happen in order to bring things back into balance. 1) Bring what we consume back in line with what we produce. 2) Let the dollar fall to its natural level. 3) Wring the excessive capacity out of industries that over expanded during the credit bubble. 4) Allow real estate prices to fall in line with income. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit Regards, LelandJ > The reason people never really vote for reducing debt is because as a > society we've become used to it. It's a fact of life, like the sun rising in > the East, to most people. The way things are. > > In reality, leveraged debt in any form is more apparent freedom today in > exchange for future real bondage tomorrow that eventually does come due. > > The combined scams of financed debt and insurance has made it easier for the > cost of things, ordinarily regulated by what people can actually pay, to > spiral out of control, and become in some sectors of the economy so > ridiculously expensive that now we fear losing either credit or insurance > almost as much as we fear death itself. They have become indispensible for > existence, and the institutions around them are tools of demagogues to grab > more power. > > As an example of the insurance scam, consider: > > http://tinyurl.com/6ansal > > The real estate bubble is a great example of how people will finance > anything as long as on paper it looks like they can afford the monthly > payment, and the companies can create terms that make outrageous sums of > money look affordable. I'm sensitive to this piece of news because I'm about > to fork over ~$3K this month to Sunshine State -- double what I paid two > years ago, and for no good reason. Note, SSTs in the Atlantic this year are > BELOW normal, but because it's palatable from a marketing perspective to hop > on the global warming farce as an excuse, they'll get away with this, and > then people will ask the politicians (of all people) to "fix it." LOL. > > It's OK to blame the Evil Corporations for this, as happened to Enron, and > now Countrywide, and eventually insurers, but when these folks are just > borrowing tactics from the playbooks of our politicians on both sides of the > aisle when they're playing shell games with trust funds and over-blowing > hyped issues, it does seem ironic and hypocritical for those same > politicians living in such a house of glass to be casting stones at their > erstwhile campaign contributors... > > - Bob > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
