Well, the US has already been considered bankrupt, when the US currency was no longer exchangable for it's value in gold. I've been thinking a lot about the National Debt and how it's almost become fashionable. I say it needs to STOP.

First, We first really got started with a debt because of war. That seems to boost it quite a bit every time. Ok, war is already bad. It can help the economy, but it's still just borrowing to jump start production now.

The National Debt first exceeded $1 Trillion under President Reagan within the past 20 years. It took us 200 years to get to a trillion dollars, and now they do it every quarter. There is one singular primary example of what happens to a county that goes bankrupt, the former USSR. It broke down into many component parts, seperate countries and took more than 10 years for the economy to start stabilizing.

Government spending was DRASTICALLY cut and the country had to reform and everyone readjust. I'd like to think the best, but with our politicians going crazy thinking that "it's only paper" and getting themselves richer, we need to change the rules of engagement.

Food for thought from this blog today: Every time that they spend $1T, that's $3217.48 per PERSON that they've spent. At some point, we'll have to account for that. Our debt is currently 95% of our GDP, that's ALL the business done within the US. That is a problem.

So next time you hear "Congress is spending another $Trillion on ....", think "That's going to cost everyone I know and love $3217, I wonder if I should do or say something".

How to reduce the budget #1

Well, first thing I think should happen, since we're borrowing money and paying interest, is to stop GIVING money away to special interests, charities, foreign governments and subsidies.

Let me clear about this, my proposal does not mention social programs such as school lunch or food stamps. I'll address those later.

What I mean is this, the wealthy should not consider farm land a viable investment to get federal money. Subdivision developers promote developments as a way to get federal dollars annually. (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html). An example is the sheep industry in New Zealand that recently lost all federal subsidies in their country. It is now a more efficient, thriving industry because of change. Subsidies promote laziness. http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/features/0303/newzealand_subsidies.shtml

Even charities like the Boys & Girls club, which I support, was under fire earlier this year for excessive executive salaries, travel expenses and over half a million dollars in lobbying. Is this how a credible charity should behave? When they realize that it will return many times that in federal dollars, yes, they should. This is not an isolated incident and it's unfortunate.

These programs can be reviewed and considered at the state or local levels much more effectively for social aid and should not be influenced by federal lobbists and congress.

Regarding foreign aid, I do not believe we are an island and should cease foreign relations, but we cannot afford to borrow money to give to another county who is probably carrying less debt than we are and pay for it at 4% for the next 30 or more years. If we need to loan someone money, let's do it with the same terms at which we're borrowing it. Let them pay the interest on it.

Government should not drive private research with a government agenda. If it is marketable and worth research dollars, plenty of big pharmaceutical or chemical companies invest the money. If public money is used to fund research, the public should have an ownership in that technology based on the percentage of investment made. And I don't think government should own companies, stocks or patents, which borders on socialism and is a slippery slope.