If the government defaults on its debt, which is to some extent made up of T-bonds
bought by the should-be Social Security escrow, then when that happens then there
would be no more Social Security, and all of those citizens having given the
government peacefully their FICA taxes in return for expectation of minimal
retirement income would find themselves bereft.
There is no point in the government carrying any debt, except to those collecting
interest on it. Consider the statement that about 9 percent of gross federal
income goes to pay interest on government debt. That means out of every dollar
each citizen gives to the government, about a dime goes to service its debt. This
is a terrible thing.
So, there is a lot of smoke and mirrors about the government's books.
Can anyone say where is to be found the IRS breakdown of its income, that is, who
pays what to the government? It would be nice to have in one place all of the
charts, graphs, and tables. As it is if it's available it's not very.
Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > Now I turn the recent 2001 proposed budget of the U.S. Federal Government.
> > The issue: it is not who watches the watchmen but who pays them. The
> > United States is benefitting from unheralded state of productivity growth
> > which rises, explicitly economically, from investment in research and
> > development, and more vaguely Alan Greenspan, and very minorly, any
> > politician. I am thinking that most people make more money than me,
> > thus paying more taxes, yet I am still interested in where my 1/3 of total
> > monetary productivity given to the government does go.
> > Here's where it should go: paydown of the national debt. The younger
> > generation didn't make it and doesn't want it, and the baby boomers will be
> > living long enough that it would be bad for them if Social Security crashed.
> Ross, many years ago I was a big anti-debt advocate (for the reasons
> you outline). I'm not so sure anymore. I suspect that I could make
> a pretty good case that properly directed government spending towards
> the development of an "almost anything" box will produce so much growth
> in the near future, that the national debt is irrelevant. Why do people
> buy bonds? To have an income in the future. Why do they need an income?
> To meet their material requirements. Now while Robin might disagree
> that we don't throw away the economy overnight, I could see a very
> interesting scenario where the government develops an almost anything
> box, puts it in the public domain and simultaneously defaults on
> any remaining national debt.
> One thing I am pretty sure about is that in a few years, if it
> becomes clear that biotech is going to significantly extend longevity
> (e.g. William Haseltine, CEO of Human Genome Sciences, predicting
> in the Oct 18, 1999 WSJ Health and Medicine section, pg R10, that
> the life expactancy of people born in 2050 will be 150+ years)
> then Social Security will be permanently broken and the only way
> out will be to invest in nanotech lifeboat.
I agree that growth is in a long term upswing, but planning on it is an invitation
Properly directed government funding is that towards research and development, as
far as I know the only indicator of increase in productivity, that is the rate of
increase in productivity is linearly and positively linked to R&D.
Well, people will grow older, and be older longer. Social Security will have to
be reformed, as is evidenced by rising retirement ages. Health care costs would
be a rising burden, that would have to be solved. At least by that time
contemporary drug patents would be expired so that the government could be
mandated to purchase "generic" drugs in the majority of necessary cases.
Perhaps at some point in the near future, the current retirement age could be
correlated to life expectancy, then as life expectancy grew then the retirement
age would rise correspondingly. We can expect that as life expectancy rises that
productive span increases as well.
About drug speech, Medicare prescription drug purchase sure would be a hell of a
boon to pharmaceuticals who would be happy to charge the government for drugs that
the elderly might not need. They should get the ones that they do need.
So, about the fact that the U.S. government, over the course of its operations,
has accrued a debt in the trillions, this is a problem.
Besides the debt and social security issue is the critical one of where each
citizen's taxes go below the incredibly broad level of a federal or state budget.
Who is the government paying more than $300 billion for defense reasons, quite
specifically? This is a general statement about detecting and eliminating fraud
of the government, and thus of the people.
It still seems apparent that the government should endeavor to eliminate debt it
has incurred against the public monies.
Could you explain what you mean by "almost anything box" some more. If it is
meaning a nanotech or transmuter or combination, whoever makes one will become
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:45 MDT