Take a good look people! ---- This is where we are headed if Obama gets another 4 years!

The headline will read: "Obama warns of collapse if Chinese bailout deal rejected"

Don't you love your country? How many more years are you going to let Obama destroy our country? STOP LYING TO YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!

U.S.A.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good question.

To be fair, the debt and budget deficit problems facing the US have been building since long before Obama entered politics. Problem is, Obama and many in Congress wants to act as though there is no debt problem and that we are somehow immune to collapsing under our own [debt and budget deficit] weight in the not-too-distant future. When the producers and successes (the "1 percenters") in the US get fed up with being bullied to take care of the other 99% at gun-point, then we will be within a few years of where much of Europe will be by the end of 2012 and it will be very hard times for everyone except whoever is in the powerful ruling class at the time. We are now just seeing the tip of the iceberg and no one has the ability to convey the issues that are coming down on us to the bulk of the voters (who happen to be recipient class)

Furthermore, to the devout socialist/marxist (as I believe Obama is) the coming crisis (and Obama continues to throw more fuel on the fire) is the perfect opportunity and reason to remain positioned at all costs, to "assume control of all capital" once the system collapses. It's global history's most extreme case of Munchausen by proxy syndrome and Obama has the current control of the situation and the operations.

This is what happens when you borrow from your children's future to finance your current lifestyle.

Are you listening, Obama?

What were the Deficits for recent presidents?

Here are the actual figures, according to official government sources (Obama White House);

Total Deficits under Reagan (1981-1988) = $1,339 Billion over 8 years = $167 Billion per year.

Total Deficits under Bush 1 (1989-1992) = $933 Billion over 4 years = $233 Billion per year.

Total Deficits under Clinton (1993-2000) = $321 Billion over 8 years = $40 Billion per year.

Total Deficits under Bush 2 (2001-2008) = $2,006 Billion over 8 years = $251 Billion per year.

Total Deficits under Obama (2009 – 2012Proj) = $5,453 Billion = $1,363 Billion per year.

Obama's average Deficits are more than 5 times greater than 'big spender Bush'. After seeing what's happening in Greece, can we afford 4 more years of Obama?

Source - http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals See Table 1.3

Because it is not contravertial and critical of Obozo marxist communist in chief

How did people become so stupid in 3 years? Remember back before the last election when anybody with half a brain knew that WHOEVER was elected was in for a rough ride trying to repair the disaster the Bushies gave us? And this is not simply Bush bashing. He WAS in charge for 8 years. Where was he during that time? Obsessed with not finding bin Laden? Feeding the Dicksters bank accounts with all the Halliburton billions? Maybe if he had been actually doing the job we hired him to do he wouldn't have left us in such a mess. So the Greeks will have to face their own 'Bushies', I guess. These pinheads in America seem to think that all this spending was somehow Obama's fault. THAT is OUR crisis...simple ignorance. And that's what will do us in. Finger-pointing dimwits without any sense of reality. Obama isn't the answer, obviously. Our bigger challenge is to find someone with ethics and ideas to actually lead us and not just pander to the bobbinghead party loyalists. So unless the GOP gets their collective heads out of their rectal canals and come up with somebody of substance we're on the same path as Greece.

Roy, what do you want to cut? Social Security, Medicare, Defense? Those are the biggies. All the others won't get you there. Don't tell me, cut foreign aid and welfare... guess what, not enough! Let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone. Take the lumps of the ensuing recession and move on--Greek-style.

BTW, drill baby, drill. Our kids will have good credit but we can leave them dirty air. What a joke!

If you speak out about BSNBC or the Obozo admin then you are cut off. The BSers at MSNBC see the articles will have a negative impact on them and are afraid that there are OTHERS who think the same. Vinees, wake up to the biased liberalism to this venue.

Remember back before the last election when anybody with half a brain knew that WHOEVER was elected was in for a rough ride trying to repair the disaster the Bushies gave us?!

Barny Fwank!

B707320C "Roy, what do you want to cut? Social Security, Medicare, Defense? Those are the biggies. All the others won't get you there. ...BTW, drill baby, drill. Our kids will have good credit but we can leave them dirty air. What a joke!"

Good question. Here's my suggestion;

Just for perspective, I looked at President Obama's 2012 Budget projections, and here is what it shows with regard to just the health care entitlements - Medicare/Medicaid;

Total projected Revenues for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years = $2.730 Trillion.
Total projected Costs for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years = $10.530 Trillion.
That's a net Deficit in just the Medicare/Medicaid programs of $7.790 Trillion.

It's interesting to note that the same Budget projections by Obama for the same 10 year period (2012-2021) show a TOTAL Deficit of $7.206 Trillion, so if it were not for the health care Deficits, we would actually show a net SURPLUS of $584 Billion over the next 10 years. These figures include the added cost of Obama's new entitlement for Obamacare. The revenues and spending projected by Obama can be verified at the following White House link - See Table S-3;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf

It's obvious that underfunded Medicare/Medicaid is the REAL problem with the Deficits.

My recommendation – Fully fund Medicare with increased payroll taxes of about $71 per month each for employers & employees, and for Medicaid, a combination of a small deductible ($10 per doctor visit) for Medicaid beneficiaries plus a National Sales Tax of about 3% (excluding food and medicine). These simple changes would fully fund these programs and lead to a Surplus instead of huge Deficits within 10 years.

I welcome any comments.

PS - If we just let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone, that will cut the Deficits by an additional $4 Trillion over 10 years. I don't recall anyone claiming that taxes were too high under Clinton - so let's just go back to the tax rates under Clinton.

People,

It is very easy to fix the situation in Greece, or any other country with a national debt/yearly deficit problem.

At the federal level, you simply don't spend more than you make ---- ever. By doing this you will never have a yearly deficit.

Also, you lower taxes and maintain them at a low level. By doing this you strongly encourage, and maintain economic growth because low taxes makes it EASIER to open and maintain a business. Doing this also creates new jobs, which, with a new job, people will turn around and put their money back into the economy by buying things. Doing this also creates a greater tax revenue than was being made before, because more people will be paying taxes ---- and more of a little is greater than less of a lot.

You all are missing the reality of money. Social debt is absolutely a scam, a nation representing sovereign citizens should be issuing currency not bonds. national debt is a scam. It is a system meant to enslave the entirety of society. Economic collapse cannot happen unless the government is full of snakes and traitors with no desire to represent the people of their country. You all need to ponder on the origin of money, where it comes from and why and its purpose. Economics is so simple and easily manipulated. You will come to the same realization, economic collapse cannot happen unless it was meant to and let happen by a corrupt government, example is the soviet union, the collapse of it was never and could never be because of money or economics unless it was orchestrated to happen. You hold to much stock in and currency, none of them mean anything but an idea. They are just trying to take complete control of every assest in greece and make it a for profit endevour to benefit a few hundred people.

hungrymongoose "It is very easy to fix the situation in Greece, or any other country with a national debt/yearly deficit problem."

Don't confuse people with simple solutions that would probably actually work - it might make the 'big government is the cure' crowd confused.

America, YOU reap what you sow! Just like Greece!

Tic, Toc, Tic, Toc!

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Lets take a peek at the past, and see what O'bama feels about deficit spending!

Herm, wont let me link it... interesting hehe

In response to Roy,

It appears you did your homework and I am not well versed enough to challenge the math. I would be more than willing to do my part. I am 55 years old and could work a couple of more years past the current required age to collect Social Security and in all honesty while I wouldn’t like it I am willing to pay a bit more in taxes to ensure our children will be okay in the future. The problem I have is a lack of trust in our government. If I did all of the above I truly feel it won’t help the situation one bit. All it will do is fuel the fire for additional spending. Our politicians……..ALL of THEM…..Democrats and Republicans alike act like there is no limit to spending. Our current President needs to be stopped. I understand George Bush and all the presidents before him have contributed to the current financial mess we are in but Obama’s answer seems to be bigger government with the thought of spending our way out the problem. I don’t know what the answer is but I do know we need to get the current administration out of the way so this great country of ours can once again prosper.

Hate to spoil your rant fest boys. But America will be alright.

tactical45 "Hate to spoil your rant fest boys. But America will be alright."

I'm sure the Greeks felt the same way a few years ago.

MarkM012757 "The problem I have is a lack of trust in our government. If I did all of the above I truly feel it won’t help the situation one bit. All it will do is fuel the fire for additional spending."

That's the real danger. We need a mechanism that sets binding revenue/spending goals that will get us out of the problem - including reforms of 'entitlements'.

The problem is that politicians are afraid to tackle entitlements - the same as in Greece, because it will not be popular with voters. Rep Ryan of Wisconsin had the courage to suggest entitlement reforms about a year ago, saying "The Democrats can either go with me and start tackling this looming monster, or they can demonize me for trying". They demonized him.

The lesson for all politicians in the future - Don't Try.

MarkM012757For someone who claims to not be very well versed you sure could teach some people who think they are a thing or two. I agree with you that raising our taxes and cutting our benefits wont do anything but give these scum bag politicians more to squander. I might suggest that after I see the size of the govt. cut in half, close most of the foreign military bases and halt most of the foreign financial aid, then I'll be willing to bend over a little further.................oh wait, if they do that I'll actually be able to keep more of my money. Whata u know!

The Flea Party and the Thugicans are sending us there next

I note that "Roy" doesn't mention defense. Total defense related expenditures are slated at $1.2T to $1.4T with revenues forecasted at $2.4T.

Ignoring the most obvious culprit?

uaw -

Do you have anything constructive to say, or are you just going to cry becauyse your entitlements need to be taken away?

Sandtrich, for some reason you always find a need to bash the military as the biggest waste of money. Little do you know but that 1.2-2.4 trillion $ goes to buy stuff, military stuff, you know, like tanks, planes, ships, rifles, bombs, and the lot. Now, I'm sure you realize that stuff is really expensive, however for you, getting past that part must be extremely difficult. So I will give you a clue. Are you ready? THINK ABOUT WHERE THE EQUIPMENT COMES FROM . That money that you criticize as a waste is what is keeping this country alive. The military manufacturing industry is one of the only major industries left that is thriving, everything else has gone the way of the dodo bird due to union demands here and job demands over there. If you can't figure it out now then your not worth saving.

sandtrich "I note that "Roy" doesn't mention defense."

Obama's 2012 Budget called for Defense spending of $553 Billion, out of a total spending Budget of $3,729 Billion. That's about 15% of total spending. Of that, the category 'Overseas Contingency Operations' (war costs) is budgeted at $126 Billion.

Can money be cut from Defense? Absolutely, but keep in mind that WW2 taught us that weakened defenses has often been very costly in both blood and treasure.

Interestingly, Democrats always seem to cut Defense spending as a first priority, but what has history shown. I did an analysis over the last 96 years (thru 2008), and of the approximately 611,000 American war deaths in that 96 years, over 95% of them occurred under Democratic Presidents, despite the fact that Republicans and Democrats held the White House for 48 years each.

Perhaps Republicans are just better at PREVENTING wars by having a strong defense and realistic foreign policies. Also, Reagan's increased Defense spending arguably ended the Cold War with the collapse of the Soviet Union, which in turn led to dramatically reduced Defense spending in subsequent years (in real, inflation adjusted terms).

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

sand

Where did you get your 1.2-1.4 Trillion for Defense? The LARGEST number I can find is 700 Billion for FY 2011.

Budget breakdown for 2012

Defense-related expenditure2012 Budget request & Mandatory spending[20][21]
DOD spending$707.5 billionBase budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations"
FBI counter-terrorism$2.7 billionAt least one-third FBI budget.
International Affairs$5.6–$63.0 billionAt minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget
Energy Department, defense-related$21.8 billion
Veterans Affairs$70.0 billion
Homeland Security$46.9 billion
NASA, satellites$3.5–$8.7 billionBetween 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget
Veterans pensions$54.6 billion
Other defense-related mandatory spending$8.2 billion
Interest on debt incurred in past wars$109.1–$431.5 billionBetween 23% and 91% of total interest
Total Spending$1.030--€“$1.415 trillion

Q: When will Americans get off their pleasure-driven rear ends and demand justice and accountability from the White House and our elected officials?

A: When there's no pizza left and the cable is turned off!!!

Really the accountability starts in the home and like it or not the government is a reflection of the hell on earth that is tolerated by an all about me society.

This mess in Greece is the tip of the iceberg and is comming to a theatre near you! Wake up America, we'd better put the right person in the White House this fall or "it's all she wrote"!!!

The national debt of the united states is more than all the american money in existence. Do you get it? If the government could sieze all the american money in the world, it would not pay off the national debt.

Too big to fail? The debt is too big to be paid off. See anything wrong with this picture?

sand

OK thanks. Did you know that Medicare,Medicade and Social Security accounts for about 1.56 Trillion or 43% of the FY2011 Federal Budget??

sandtrich

FBI, International Affairs, Energy Dept., Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, NASA, Veterans Pensions, and interest on the debt are not what most people consider 'Defense Spending'.

At any rate, Obama is supposed to come out with a new Budget in the next week or so. It should be interesting to see what changes he proposes (other than huge tax increases to fund his 'pet projects').

I still find it interesting that Harry Reid in the Senate still has not passed the required annual Budget for over 3 years now. I guess he's too busy blaming the Republicans, who have only had control of 1/3 of the government for 1 year now.

Good ole Harry also has refused to even allow consideration of the 27 or so jobs bills already passed by the Republican House. I guess it's easier to blame the other side than do his job. Here's the link to jobs bills blocked by Reid;

http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/

I don’t think you can look at raw deficit totals when to make an assessment of how the government did in managing the budget. There are times when it is most appropriate to go into debt. Going to war, preventing a depression, or major infrastructure spending to benefiting tomorrow are all valid reasons for going into debt. However, most of the time we should in fact live within our means.

It was most appropriate to expect debt from two wars and efforts from both Bush and Obama preventing another great depression. We very much needed the stimulus, the problem was there was not enough of it, and not that it did not work. I was bothered by the fact we were never asked to help pay for those wars.

The real problem was that when times were good we still went into debt, in 1980’s when there was no real reason for those deficits. That’s when the accountability started not working. Because fiscal conservatives looked the other way in hoping to “starve the beast” down the road by offering up tax cuts, and now is the time they think they will collect. Well, it’s a little late to act this way decade after decade and then all of a sudden see the light. I am in favor of reversing the tax cuts to achieve some balance again.

Slodon: "Why is this article and one other the only ones in the Business Section to have a chat enabled??"

My answer: because "they" don't want feedback, because they don't want to hear what you have to say about it, because they don't care and want to do it their way by imposing their views, because they are really just advertising. Yeah, I think that covers it.

Roy Wilson, I think you have made a great case showing where are money goes, and where it needs to be cut. I'd rather have you for President than Obama.

save

OK. Thanks for the reply to my question. Only took 3 1/2 hours. So many replies so many non-answers.

Hi GW Laws,

Deficits aren't bad so long as the use the deficit spending is put to increases GDP by an amount large enough to cover the debt, and the money is used on a constitutional purpose. But I would disagree with you sharply that massive deficits to prevent an economic depression are appropriate. In fact, I think it's the most immoral act we have perpetrated on our heirs. There are a few reasons at least.

First is that we avoid fixing the actual problems which created the economic bubble that burst, and instead continue to live beyond our means. We could, for instance, pull back on some of the tens of thousands of environmental regulations in order to kick start business development. Surely not every environmental policy in place is effective, let alone cost effective. But we don't look that direction. Or, we could radically reform our tax code so that it is simple and without incentives for certain behavior. It must be the case that if more people knew what they paid for their government that more people would demand LESS government.

Second, the debt we've incurred to "prevent" this depression has failed to do the job it was intended to perform. Our current economic model is remarkably similar to that of the 1930s--a sharp decline followed by nearly no growth for years to follow. Massive spending didn't work then, and it isn't working now. There are multiple reasons for this, too.

Third, this money will have to be paid back. In a real sense I think that if we were to suffer a Greece-like cataclysm we could walk back on some of our present immorality, but if we are able to avoid it so that we don't have to pay it back someone else will still be compelled to settle the debt for us. And that means their economy will be sharply reduced compared to what it otherwise could be.

We've done enormous damage to the USA because of our narcississtic immorality. Had the money resulted in a better USA for future generations we could at least make the case it was done for good intentions, but we don't even have that hook to hang our hat on.

Save:

How about another conspiracy; While I enjoy reading and posting blogs I truly believe all this stuff is monitored. I also believe your post #1.35 is right on the money! Assessment of blogs helps the powers that be determine what we need to hear. As for those who doubt mind control, study your history books, it's nothing new. The trick is trying to outguess the rascals, as to why I can't say why we should for we have little hope of change, too much water over the dam.

Have you noticed the nature of the "news" offerings; always controversy, always something to stir up the pot and get everyone riled up and take your mind off the giant that sleeps on the doorstep. I often look at foreign news sources for a good blend of information although I also feel the one who oversees all this tripe knows no border or nationality.

We'd better read our blogs and be good little boys and girls, everything will be alright......it's only a movie.....it's only a movie....it's only a movie.................

Hey Roy,

I am not opposed to higher taxes, but I think your idea of more taxing opportunities for the feds will result in exactly the outcome you don't want. Our government has no history at all of using increased tax receipts to reduce deficits--they always increase spending.

Why not radically simplify our tax code? Do away with pretty much every federal tax and replace it with a single tax on personal income. Pick whatever rate you want in order to cover all spending, even allow a generous deduction per wage earner so as to soothe liberals' worries that poorer people will have to pay anything.

My bet is that if more Americans knew their actual tax bite, not the 1040 amount but the total aggregate taxes paid by them, that we would get a more constitutional form of government rapidly as voters realized they were being taken on a bad ride. If Medicare, which is a massively corrupt program, remained a public priority (despite its extra-constitutional nature) then at least those same voters will be able to see how much it is costing them. Ditto for ALL federal spending.

Imagine a USA where politicians, instead of trying to out-promise one another over how much "free" stuff they can give away, begin to argue for less federal government. Our debt would decline. Our liberty would increase. Our future would be more secure. And, in the best of American traditions, the people would once again be able to honestly say that we are a self-governing republic.

The ship is going down and everyone in America that thinks other wise are living in a Fantasy world, it does not matter what party is at the controls, there is no way in hell any of these political MORONS are going to fix it, I will have to say this the GOP really did a number on America and We will never recover ..........

Take a good look people! ---- This is where we are headed if Obama gets another 4 years! The headline will read: "Obama warns of collapse if Chinese bailout deal rejected"

Crying "Greece today, the US tomorrow" ignores a fundamental difference in the situation. Greece's most fundamental problem is that it borrowed in a currency that it doesn't control. If it had borrowed in Drachmas, it could've repaid its debt by devaluing it. Yes, that makes imports more expensive, but it makes exports much cheaper, stimulating the economy.

Big election coming up. If we re-elect the Big O, we fully deserve what we've got coming. Trouble is, the Big R probabaly isn't willing to cut spending to levels we can sustain, while creating policies to actually encourage growth. O's stimulus may have worked if it had been targeted to put more money into the private sector rather then rewarding Gov workers. Now that it expired, we see the states laying off workers - all the stim did was keep several hundred thousand state employees working for a couple more years. That's the major affect it had. Face it: it's political suicide to cut entitlements, and that is really the only way to get this under control. They remember what happened to Ryan, they see the riots in Greece, even when they are on the verge of collapse they can't cut without social upheaval. No, we'll probably wind up one of the dominos, Greece first, then the other PIGS... until O presides over our own collapse.

The United States is in line to get our country foreclosed upon, just like what’s happening to the European countries. The entire banking system is corrupt and rigged and the rating agencies are insignificant.

I think most people have figured out that Wall Street is one of the most corrupt and ethically deprived institutions on our planet. I think most people also know the media is bought and sold just like most politicians. We also know that Wall Street is one of many tools of the elite but not the main tool. What is very clear is that our financial system has an architect and carefully designed plan that is playing itself out in Europe.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is very brazen in its fear mongering that we have lost a decade economically. Especially since the IMF has been one of the biggest contributors to perpetuating the instability of the European crisis. The dominoes are beginning to fall in what is an orchestrated attempt by the banksters to consolidate Europe and eventually the rest of the world’s economies under one umbrella that is to be controlled by those that have always controlled currency and money. The most egregious aspect of this contrived extortion is that they are blaming the people who are the backbone of any economy instead of their greedy corrupt political and business leaders.

George Papandreou was pressured to quit because he lapsed into a morally and ethical responsible position by trying to give the people of Greece a say in their economic future through a referendum. This vote would have given the Greek people the choice to stay in the Euro zone and allow their country to be foreclosed upon by the banksters or leave the Euro regain their sovereignty and coin their own currency once again. The IMF bullied the smallest country as a litmus test for what is going to be a much more challenging foreclosure process when it comes to the larger economies. Italy is now in the cross hairs. This dilemma you are watching unfold goes to the core of the rotten apple that is the world’s financial system.

Folks, you are witnessing the death throes of a desperate corrupt financial system where the stock markets and the fractional reserve banking system are at its core. The volatility in the stock markets are a microcosm of the greed, theft and corruption that has perpetrated all aspects of our and other countries economic systems. In the United States, It doesn’t matter who’s in office. Our political system has turned into a two headed one party system with both parties serving their masters, Wall Street and the banksters/Federal Reserve. The stock market is just another ponzi scheme whose intent is to fleece the gullible at the bottom of the pyramid. The stock market is a rogue element of a financial system that is meant to funnel the wealth to the elite/banksters who soicopathically control our financial lives. It is reaching a point where there is nothing more to take from the 99% of the world. The banksters would separate you from your rainy day fund if they could gain access to your shoe box or secret compartment in your purse or wallet. The stock market isn’t the main problem; it’s the fractional reserve banking system that has set the foundation for outright theft. We are experiencing the biggest bank and investment robbery in history and the banks and financial institutions are doing the robbing. When you blame one political party or another they have you right where they want you, in fear, divided and distracted to the theft that is going on right in front of your eyes each and every second of the day.

When you have people on Wall Street day trading and speculating making half a million dollars a year in their twenties betting on people being foreclosed on, you need to ask yourself what is the true purpose of our banking system? At the moment it is largely a theft on the American public. MF Global CEO, ex Goldman Sachs CEO Jim Corzine knows this and knows that nobody with his connections have served any time for stealing the investor’s money (1.2 billion at last count). The financial system’s main mission should be to allocate capital to areas of greatest growth in the real world economy. Yet they allow all kinds of broker speculation and financial gimmicks such as the derivative markets which are based on non-realistic side bets which are now in the quadrillions. The derivatives market was illegal for most of the 20^th century.

The European banking crisis is a prime example of what is going to happen to all economies associated with stock market fraud and the Federal Reserve banking system. The financial strife in Greece is the model that will befall most countries. Greece is but a symptom of a cancer that has attached itself to the world’s economies. The Federal Reserve (which is neither federal nor a reserve) has been creating money (monopoly money) out of thin air and charging interest on it insuring a debtor economy for anyone who chooses or is forced to get involved with the Federal Reserve and their fractional reserve banking system. That is why this whole European or any countries current debt crisis will never be resolved and will be preyed upon by the stock market vultures. The Federal Reserve System is designed to cause economies to fail.

If someone loans you two dollars to run your economy and expects three back for the loan and interest how are you going to pay the third back? You can’t unless you borrow more dollars which puts you in perpetual debt and in a constant borrowing cycle to pay off the debt. This is designed not accidental.

Here’s the kicker, once the Federal Reserve/banksters have you struggling to pay off your interest, they send in their loan sharks the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF will loan you money to cover your ever burdening interest payments but they attach a provision that if you default, you will have to give them your assets in what they call privatization (foreclosure).

Since the interest is exponential, you will default and the banksters will come in and try to foreclose on your country, like Greece. They are being told to sell off their own country to pay back the people who caused the mess to begin with. This allows the elite to steal your intrinsic valuable assets because they gave you paper (loans/debt) and the interest on the debt that is systematically impossible to pay back. This also allows the parasitic stock speculators to profit from this designed theft. They not only know the outcome of an economy, they can gamble on the economic bubbles at the investor’s expense. This cancer goes all the way down the food chain.

In the United States case, it doesn’t have to be that way. In our constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, it stipulates that we can “coin money” as a nation and avoid the Federal Reserve’s interest (fee charged on loans) black hole.

So don’t be fooled that the Europeans have come to grips with their financial debt, it’s impossible, it’s a designed virus that has spread around the globe. The Europeans are now replacing their leaders with technocrats/ex Goldman Sachs banksters. These people haven’t been elected by anybody. The stock market vultures will continue to contrive “financial instruments” (credit default swaps/credit derivatives) to defraud the people of the world.

Banks, Central banks, World Bank, BIS, IMF = Federal Reserve = Debtor economies, Debtor Nations (economic slaves) and carrion for the stock market derivative heist.

Barry, I don't even know where to begin with your post. If you took an economics course and passed it then I would like to know the school so that i NEVER send one of my kids to it. Hyper-inflating a currency through monetary policy is never a good idea. And...we don't really control the value of our own currency. Unless by "we" you mean the Federal Reserve and international money markets.

But it is true that if not compelled to work with the Euro that Greece would have had other options. Here's the rub...Greece could opt out of the Euro and return to the Drachma, but they haven't. They can't all be less intelligent than you, right? So there must be a reason. It's there, think it out.

Trust Verify: Yup. the banksters have created a monster, the governments have been complicit and the people take it in the shorts. Note that the only two times we had no debt, the central bank had been outlawed. Once a central bank gains control of the currency it's all over but the crying.

ROY WILSON-336103
sandtrich

FBI, International Affairs, Energy Dept., Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, NASA, Veterans Pensions, and interest on the debt are not what most people consider 'Defense Spending'.

Well, Roy, How do you wish to reinvent the wheel? What facet of this diamond in reverse are you not getting? That staggering interest on that staggering debt is, in large part, due to wars and the war machine. "Us veterans", many disabled, and due funds from a promise that if the broke us, they would make us whole. Is that not the result of the costs of wars?

What is "Homeland Security and the TSA---defense.

Here's the total deal:

Total revenue$2.627 trillion (requested)[1]
Total expenditures$3.729 trillion (requested)[1]
Deficit$1.101 trillion (requested)[1]
WebsiteUS Government Printing Office

Revenue hikes and spending reduction is the only way out.

Another thing about your posts--"trickle down economics" is like anything in life. It has a tipping point and it's long past that. The profit motive that sent the jobs abroad to China for $.31/hour. It's not working. We need to raise tariffs dramatically for items produced in China. The results would be 2 fold. 1) Corporations would be forced to bring jobs back to the States where their consumers are. 2) initial consumer prices would rise, but people have jobs and can afford the goods.

And in the future, only give most favored status to those who make an effort to trade equally with the US. Greece was an extreme experiment in everyone getting back more from the system than they put in--average start work at 26 years old , (with prolonged gaps in employment), and begin government backed pensions at 57 y/o is far from prudent governing--like our defense budget.

Sand, I think you're right that we will begin a trade war by imposing tarriffs, but don't think it's the right way to do things. We, as American consumers, need to purchase American products. That accomplishs the same thing, doesn't it, without ratcheting up international tensions. But, we all rush to Waly-World and suck up all that crap... well, I don't - haven't been in one in 15 yrs and wouldn't shop there if it was the only store where I live. Won't buy a foreign car. Will search the internet and pay more to buy American. If everyone did that, think what we could accomplish. But, here's the thing, it's our personal greed that stops us. We complain about "corporate greed" but in reality what choice do most corps have? If we won't pay more for their products, they have to move the jobs to China for .31 an hour. Corps really don't care where they build their products - only that they can sell them for a profit.

Rich ... I didn't say that devaluing the currency was necessarily a good idea. My point is that this Greece vs. US comparison crap misses fundamental differences, one of the most important being that we control our own monetary policy.

But it is true that if not compelled to work with the Euro that Greece would have had other options. Here's the rub...Greece could opt out of the Euro and return to the Drachma, but they haven't. They can't all be less intelligent than you, right? So there must be a reason. It's there, think it out.

There are a number of reason Greece hasn't left the Euro zone. One is that the treaty that created the zone has no legal provision of an exit of a member. It would be uncharted territory. Two, their debt would still be denominated in Euros. Three, since the new Drachma would be of unknown value, there'd be a run on Euro-denominated deposits. However, if they had never joined the Euro zone, concerns #1 and #3 would never have existed. They would only have a problem with the foreign bonds if they borrowed in foreign currencies.

cele2000
Sand, I think you're right that we will begin a trade war by imposing tarriffs, but don't think it's the right way to do things. We, as American consumers, need to purchase American products. That accomplishs the same thing, doesn't it, without ratcheting up international tensions. But, we all rush to Waly-World and suck up all that crap... well, I don't - haven't been in one in 15 yrs and wouldn't shop there if it was the only store where I live. Won't buy a foreign car. Will search the internet and pay more to buy American. If everyone did that, think what we could accomplish. But, here's the thing, it's our personal greed that stops us. We complain about "corporate greed" but in reality what choice do most corps have? If we won't pay more for their products, they have to move the jobs to China for .31 an hour. Corps really don't care where they build their products - only that they can sell them for a profit.

I agree with buying American, but we've stop manufacturing so many essentials that we're looking like the Roman Empire as she fell. The trade imbalance and government corruption were said to be the main reasons.

I firmly believe that an employed economy will pay more and the manufacturing would return. If they want the US corporate branding and product identity, make it in the US. The right has worked both D's & R's and let corporate America have to much access to policies that govern trading.

Slodon, they don't want you to talk about things that matter. That is why they don't let you comment on anything you like. But I am going to change that.

mikes

I'm waiting.

realitycheck3009300 you say: " I truly believe all this stuff is monitored." I think you are right. Check "Intelligence assessment" on Wikipedia. There is censorship in all societies, otherwise we could use this board to coordinate attacks on this or that and nobody would do anything about it.

if you are not certain about monitoring, censorship or straight reporting by private citizens try making a threat to the life of the president, and see how long it would take them to come knocking on your door. If you start acting funny they can get your IP address, name etc, in about 10 minutes, if that. They probably can ghost your computer if you are acting strangely and put you on 24 hour watch.

An article can be funnelled to the online press by a client (paying or not) in order to get feedback. Surveying the public opinion, "taking the temperature", in order to act accordingly and adjust your tactics and strategies, at a social, political or commercial level, depending on the client. I mean they crank those articles at lighting speed, with many editorial grammar mistakes. Speed. That's the reason I try to offer leyman solutions when I can, I hope somebody will hear it if it's worth anything. Sometimes they don't want to hear back and that is why they have no posting option (like the Clint Eastwood piece, it is straight advertising(simmer on it) or Clint personally doesn't want to be in the thick of it and subjected to speculations or politicized, as an older man he could just want peace for America, with nothing to gain but peace of mind, and there's nothing wrong with that, mostly after all he's given this country ). We all do yap, it's a natural tendency to complain and find a solution from our personal perspective. It keeps the dialogue going and it's a good thing in progressive societies, beats the ME countries doesn't it?

Papademos spoke on Saturday in a televised address on the eve of a parliament vote on a deeply unpopular austerity bill to clinch a euro130 billion ($170 billion) bailout from the European Union and International Monetary Fund.

How much of that $ 170,000,000,000 came from the Secretary of the Treasury/Federal Reserve which went into the IMF portion ? What exactly was our "share" as a member nation, since the U.S. is the BIGGEST CONTRIBUTOR to the IMF ?

The IMF is nothing more than a THUG ARM of the U.N. Check their inner circle of "committees"/"G series councils" and you will find they are doing nothing more than stripping (redistributing) the World's wealth. I would call these folks nothing more than "Economic Terrorists".

If the Greek PM says that if the Greek people will not accept this "bailout" and adhere to "austerity measures", then Greece will go down the tubes.

Wait a minute, the Greek PM should have some control over the EuRoPIIgs and IMF holding him and the Greek people hostage to their "demands".

Makes one wonder what the U.S. is going to look like the rest of this year. Mr. Obama is about ready to "propose" his "budget" again and I will be it is going to be filled with more Social Engineered Spending. Expect to hear him say things like: green energy, education for the kids, police, firefighters, medical institutions, automotive industry....yeah....his source of votes. I would think Mr. Obama would submit AT LEAST ONE BUDGET which will go into effect. Nah, I must be dreaming.

Rich-281385 "Hey Roy, I am not opposed to higher taxes, but I think your idea of more taxing opportunities for the feds will result in exactly the outcome you don't want. Our government has no history at all of using increased tax receipts to reduce deficits--they always increase spending."

Agreed - that's why I mentioned in Post #1.21 that we need "BINDING" revenue and spending goals - to prevent that from happening. The problem is that 'Revenue' goals (taxes) are 'binding' - can't be changed except by agreement of all parties, while spending goals can be changed at the whim of each new Congress.

sandtrich "Revenue hikes and spending reduction is the only way out."

On that, we can agree. I would support equal increases in taxes and cuts in spending (real cuts, not the phoney cuts in spending INCREASES). I think it would be easy to find $300 Billion per year in tax increases and $300 Billion per year in spending cuts (including Defense). Painful? Yes, but necessary.

Heck, Obama increased spending by $535 Billion in his first year alone (2009), and letting the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone will raise about $400 Billion per year (I don't remember anyone complaining that Clinton's tax rates were too high, so let the rates revert to those rates).

ROY WILSON-336103

Perhaps Republicans are just better at PREVENTING wars by having a strong defense and realistic foreign policies.

As usual Roy you are skewing the facts. The roots of our invovlement in Vietnam are directly related to the actions of Pres. Eishenhower and the Dulles brothers in the 50s. Half of U.S.deaths in Nam occured under Nixon. bush/cheney started two wars, Ronnie Ray-Guns the "small" military action in Granada. As for WW2 I seem to remember the Japs attacking us at Pearl Harbor. You do remember that, right? It wouldn't have mattered who was in the WH then Roy.

As for our defense budget yes it can be cut. We are still developing and producing weapon systems that will be of no use to us as the day of the "our Army" slugging it out with "their Army" in large battles is over. Why? To keep people working. We need to keep our noses out of everyone else's business. Bring the troops home from around the world, quit paying out massive amount of dollars for foreign aid. Let the rest of the world solve their own problems.

But we won't. Why? Because all our pols, be they Dems or Repubs, are owned, lock, stock, and barrel by big business, the financial world, the military-industrial complex, and the likes of Soros and the Kock brothers.

ROY WILSON-336103

I don't remember anyone complaining that Clinton's tax rates were too high, so let the rates revert to those rates

Roy,

Why don't we let the tax rates go back to where they were during the Eishenhower administration? Top rate was what, 95%. Yet we had a strong economy. The problem is we've let our pols and greed get out of hand.

imwhitewolf "ROY WILSON-336103 As usual Roy you are skewing the facts. The roots of our invovlement in Vietnam are directly related to the actions of Pres. Eishenhower and the Dulles brothers in the 50s. Half of U.S.deaths in Nam occured under Nixon."

Give me a break. Johnson running up the troop involvement in Vietnam had nothing to do with Eisenhower. In fact, our first involvement came under Kennedy.

I split deaths in Vietnam based on who was President when the deaths occurred.

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because they considered our military too weak to respond - they hoped we would 'sue for peace' if our fleet was destroyed.

imwhitewolf "Roy, Why don't we let the tax rates go back to where they were during the Eishenhower administration? Top rate was what, 95%."

Numerous economic studies have shown that such punitive and confiscatory tax rates stifle economic growth, not enhance it. The dramatic economic growth rates under Reagan after he lowered the tax rates demonstrated this effect. Who would slave to make a $Million per year if they ended up with no more than someone making $50,000 per year? If businesses decided to stop working after making $50,000 each year, few people would be working.

Ever heard of the Laffer Curve?

Bye - Going to bed.

ROY WILSON-336103 How convenient to start w/ Reagan. Why not show Carter? It's because Reagan started the annual deficits with his tax cuts!!! Obama simply ran into the worst recession coming after 30 years of deficits in tax revenue thanks to Reagan's tax cuts to the rich!! Idiot!!! You think you could raise those taxes from 30% to the 50% they were before Reagan so we can pay for out stuff? Not with ill-informed loons like you!

Reagan.....

Tax rates are relative to how much money you have, what you can buy with that money and your earnings. If inflation is high, gas is over three dollars a gallon and your wages are stagnant...well, then you might, possibly, be a mite concerned about how much more of your meagre earnings will be going to pay taxes.

Hi Mike Davis,

Everything you wrote is factually wrong and because of that your conclusions, political or otherwise, must also be wrong unless just by dumb luck you were to hit upon something right.

Before Reagan we had yearly deficits too. Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, they all ran deficits similar to the deficit average we saw from Reagan to Bush 43 in terms of GDP.

Reagan didn't give tax breaks to the rich. The rate reductions were across the board, but at various times during his presidency he sharply increased taxes as well. Your information is so pathetically wrong I can only hope you got it from someone as insane as Ed Schultz.

Lastly, tax rates can be thought of in two forms. Both are meaningful but for different reasons. The first is the marginal tax rate on income. That means, in essence, how much of your next dollar earned will you have to pay in taxes. The other tax rate that matters is the aggregate rate. That means the total effective tax rate from all taxes relative to your income. We could have, for instance, a return the the 90% marginal tax rate, but that was never the effective rate applied to anyone--NO ONE paid this rate.

Because of deductions and deferments and credits the tax rate, regardless of the marginal rate, has remained relatively steady at about 20% of GDP for decades. Which translates into an effective rate on personal income (all taxes, no matter where they are charged, are taxes on personal income) of something closer to 30% at the federal level (not including price level taxation like the kind caused by tariffs).

However, if you really want to return to Carter's tax rate during the 70s because you think that will help our economy, or any other historical rate you want to choose, I might agree if you would be willing to return spending levels to those of that era too. It makes no sense, but neither do you. The marginal tax rate isn't closely connected to the revenue produced over any long period of time since people alter their behavior to avoid it.

Which is why we should end this truly dumb debate about the optimal marginal tax rate to produce the highest increase in revenue. Which is why liberals will never get the utopian country they hope for. What we should do is focus on the effective rate (over the long term anyhow) so that the government gets the money it needs to give you the government you demand. We can do this with a flat rate in income. You might even better see how much you pay for the government you vote for, and that alone might change your priorities.

Hey Roy,

Without a constitutional amendment to limit spending to a percentage of GDP or something similar there is no way to force a future Congress to obey this Congress' spending priorities, even if this Congress could finally establish them and pass a law to that effect. The tax code can, and is, changed by every Congress too.

I think the better way to deal with this issue is the way that has no guarantees at all. It's to give to the voters the knowledge they need to make a good political choice. We can't depend on politicians to do anything but give us what we want over time. We haven't, surely, been able to depend on the USSC to constrain the federal government to those duties enumerated to it. And I think the majority of voters, because really not one of us knows how much we actually pay in taxes, have thought for years they are getting a better deal than really exists--less money paid or more benefits provided, or both.

So rather than try to limit Congressional spending with a law forcing them to spend X, I'd rather voters see clearly how much they pay for their Congress to provide X. A flat tax, and no other federal taxes, with no credits or deductions (maybe we'd have to give a deduction to each wage earner to provide some element of progressivity in the rate) regardless of the rate applied would do it. That rate, today, would have to be close to 35% just for federal taxes in order to pay the bills.

Would liberals continue to want more government if they understood they were paying 35% of their income in taxes? I doubt it. I could be wrong and I admit that. But at the margins at least some moderates would rebel against such a rate, and, joined with conservatives, would mean those spending cuts you want would become reality.

I'm in the auto business and we just sold a nice two year old car. The gal gets $700 a month and $697 each for her 4 kids (different dads) from the Gov. She doesn't even have to get out of bed and makes almost $3,500 a month. We see this similar situation about 2-3 times a month and that is whats wrong with the hand out welfare system this Gov has built. They actually believe they are entitled to the working classes money, with no shame at all........I am sick of it.

Rick, I think originally welfare and food stamps was supposed to be a helping hand during tough times. It was never supposed to be a lifestyle. Unfortunately, we see those who were raised on welfare and food stamps continue it in their own lives today, and even more unfortunately, their children likely will as well. I'm not saying everyone growing up this way will continue it, but I think more likely than not.

AG99,

Don't forget to add most subsidies to that reduction list.

Rick,

So why sell her the car then? If it angers you as much as me. I see your actions as part of the problem as well. We all enable the people who abuse the system by allowing it to continue.

A politician today would rather have 3 voters who are solidly committed to welfare than 5 blue-collar, hard working voters where 3 of those 5 are too busy or don't care enough to vote. The welfare recipients never miss a chance to vote liberal. thus we have came to the point we are today ... who in that position wouldn't vote to keep that permanent welfare benefits system in place? And there are sooooooo many of them who happen to live within walking distance of polling locations.

Bobby: Absolutely. Those were just things off the top of my head. I've thought of more since.

Simple reduce everything.

Cut the budget to X% by reducing absolutely every budget by that percentage. No exceptions.

Then each group has to re-adjust with what they get.

Simple, fair, doable, easy, but it will never happen.

AG99...Being irresponsible is the enemy... creative income tax avoidance, tax cuts while starting open ended wars or huge increases to entitlements like drug coverage etc....debt is the result. The problem is quite solvable if one side didn't insist on taking ridiculous pledges that ensure the problem isn't solved.

See what happens if you propose something to cut..........If it is the EPA, a social program or healthcare then the Repubs will be fine with that......but if it is a program like defense, a pork barrel project or contracts with "private" contractors that is a particular benefit to THEIR income or to THEIR state..............no deal.

So...........What would you like to cut??

The government is so inefficient it amazes me. Think about this aspect.

Police, fire, schools, sewage and water are all paid by property owners who pay their taxes. So right off the top the responsible people of this nation are the ones taking care of everyone on a local level.

Then we send our federal taxes to Washington. Doing so we get to support not only the "unfortunate" people who live in this nation, we also support people in other nations. Not to mention wars, subsidies, bailouts, etc.

I don't know how people can defend the actions of our government. I don't know how people can lobby for taking more from the responsible and simply giving it to others. The responsible people of this nation already support every aspect of this world. We fund over 20% of the U.N. with how many members?

The way the system is set up it feels like the only idiot is the one left paying his or her taxes.

Rick H? The Rick H. I always hear talking on the radio from H&H Kia with Steve H. No way........

Hmm ann, it's a known fact that adversity strengthens and assistance weakens. A zoo animal soon loses the ability to survive being returned to its natural habitat. Which is worse, a few people starving to death, or millions made too feeble to feed themselves.

Which is worse, a few people starving to death, or millions made too feeble to feed themselves.

Here's another quote:

I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and
those who are badly off must go there.''

``Many can't go there; and many would rather die.''

``If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, ``they had better do it, and
decrease the surplus population."

A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens, 1843.

I guess we haven't progressed very far in nearly 170 years.

Yes, gov is very inefficient. I used to work for a state-funded county agency that did direct health-related work with low income people. We spent north of 16 mill to provide, on an outpatient basis, about 9,000 office visits per year. I now work at a non-profit that provides 12,000 shelter nights, 12,000 outpatient thereapy sessions per year, provides consumer credit counseling for 8,500 people per year, provides in-home services to 400 families at high risk of child abuse, and education for 2,000 parents - all for about 6 mil a year. Gov cannot get out of its own way - and we continue to allow it to grow more and more powerful and intrusive. Continued spending at current levels will lead, at some point, to at least rampant inflation. Yes, we can always print money and pay off the debt - but then our money is basically worthless. Look at Argentina in the 80s. Is that what we want?

Hey, Barry, we don't want people to starve, just to take responsibility for themselves. Everyone deserves a hand up - very, very few (like medically disabled, or developmentally disabled) deserve a hand out. Since the "War on Poverty" began under Johnson, we've increased social spending by 355%, in inflation adjusted dollars, but all we've accomplished is to institutionalize poverty. We haven't helped break the cycle - we've made it permanant.

Part of the increase in spending since Johnson has been for Medicare. But, you're right, old people don't have the right to live without the fear of being unable to afford their medical care.

There has to be a safety net. We certainly need to ensure that it isn't abused. But, as the current recession/depression has shown, just about anyone can need help now and then. People who thought they were solidly middle class are losing their homes and jobs.

Can anyone explain why the US should fear a rising national debt? It's been rising for over 30 years, yet there hasn't been any direct effect on the US economy due to rising national debt.

Can anyone cite one distinguished economist that believes debt is bad?

There's simply no evidence that the US national debt is too high OR that high debt is bad for the US economy.

Rick-H I have a solution for you: you give your job to the "gal", you take care of her 4 kids (that way you don't have to get out of bed) and you get $3,500 a month. How does that sound to you?

Maybe we should send them Obama...he's the expert on free lunches.

If the EU lets them collapse, it's a ripple effect across the globe. Sooner or later we'll hit a depression and no amount of money will be able to save us until it sorts itself out.

Bakuo

Sooner or later we'll hit a depression....

So I take it you are one of the people out there that believe we actually came out of the recession?? The depression you talk about is here, now, the media and those in power just refuse to call it that. Personally, I don't see that it can be averted at this point, the Great Depression II is upon us and nothing we can do will stop it. Thank your local Democrat, they've been in control of your government for the vast majority of the last 50 years.

You seriously need to check your facts. In the last 50 years there have been 5 Democrat presidents and 6 republican presidents. In fact since 1969 we have had 5 Republicans and 3 Democrats.

Facts are immaterial to the GOP. Facts are inconvenient.

Mr ed you have the brains of a horse! After Clinton we had a surplus,after 8 years of BUSHWHACKED we had $5 trillion debt, losing 700,000 jobs a month and the stock market was at 8,000(dow). Logically it would take several years to repair these problems! The last couple of month almost a half a million jobs created and the DOW is at 12,800 so we're on the way back! Why in hell would we want to return power to the BOZO'S that started this whole mess!THE REPUKELICANS are the problem!!!!!

the GOP says they are conservatives. in what. all they have done is spend spend and spend. the only conservative thing they have done is cut taxes for the rich. i'm sick of it. don't dress your self up with lipstick because you are still a pig

Y'all check your facts, your money is controlled by congress, guess who has been running congress most of the last 50 yrs?

Nearly Militant,

The congress makes the laws, not the president. The tax laws have been written by congress. The business regulations have been written by congress, and unconstitutionally by the agencies that regulate us. The president is mostly just a figurehead. That is why I am much more concerned about the Senate and Congress, than I am about Obama. In addition, Democrats and Republicans are cut from the same totalitarian cloth. Neither party cares about liberty. I have never voted neither Republicans or Democrats, though I have voted in every election that I have been eligible to vote in. I have voted Green, I have voted Libertarian, I have voted Independent, and I have voted for the Reform Party. I am not responsible for this mess, and I will do anything I can to avoid paying anything towards fixing it. It is not my problem.

Blaise,

Clinton's imaginary surplus vanished the minute he left office, it was smoke and mirrors, it never existed.

Opp,

I agree that the Republicans were total hypocrites 1990-1998. True conservative were horrified to watch the GOP call themselves conservatives. They weren't.

I always love to hear Liberals exclaim the virtues of Pres. Clinton and "his" surplus. Funny part is, he got there using mostly policy plans set out by the Reagan administration but that were denied by the then Democratic controlled Congress. Of course now I'll get a bunch of flack from the Liberal deniers but then I expect no less. Fire away.

Don't forget that Clinton had a Republican congress as well, and the congress is what matters, the presidency is little more than a bully pulpit for a figure-head.

He and the typical liberal politician have done an amazing job of convincing so many of us that government is "the solution" to all current --and future-- problems, when the obvious fact is government is the problem. Hard to reason with a bunch of morons (typical American voter) and there mind is made up so America is only as strong as it's weakest link in the system that has been built on an entitlement mentality.

The president didn't add one dime to the national debt. True for Bush, True for Obama. Congress did, does, and will continue to do. Want to control the money, control congress. Vote em out. The only power the president has is to line-item veto certain congressional spending items. In other words, the only power the president has is to spend less than congress wants him to.

Get real, or get out.

I think all voters should be required to pass a one line test before being allowed to vote. The question should be: Has the president spent too much money. The possible answers should be: a)Yes, b)No, c)Not applicable. Only those people who answer c) should be allowed to vote. That will solve our problems right quick.

Ok, that was sarcasm, but seriously, I really think only voters that can pass a basic constitutional test to prove they understand the job functions of who they are voting for should be allowed to vote.

Why do the oil companies need entitlements? (aka, subsidies)

When are we going to try and put an end to the rampant lying, fraud, bait-and-switch, and other subversive practices that inevitably screw the poor/middle classes? I am blaming nor supporting either party here: I believe all are to blame. But why do people have to screw each other like they do? Where is all the morality in this world? It sure isn't with religion.

trust...Dick Cheney said Deficits don't matter... You believed him didn't you?

Amen brother. Oops.

What is a subsidy? Is a mortgage deduction, a state income tax deduction, charitable contributions, a subsidy? They certainly are meant to encourage people to buy a house. There have been many polls to asking for the elimination of these deductions and overwhelmingly nobody wants to change those deductions. Now they might for those that are rich or the upper middle class, but then primarily those are the people that benefit from these subsidies.

Is childcare credit and earned income credit a subsidy? I would say yes. Now these credits benefit the middle class and yet for the government they are very expensive.

The mortgage deduction costs the government around 100 billion each year.

Obama and his supporters believe the the debt is no big deal. They will tell you it has been worse. They will also tell you that what is important is the debt/GDP ratio not the actual debt that NOBODY PLANS TO PAY OFF. Everybody might pay lip service to the possibility of paying it off, but it won't happen until the bond market turns on us which the Fed is purposely keeping low and forestalling that day. There is the belief that we can grow our way out of the deficit spending without reducing government spending.

When our borrowing costs begin to soar, that is when things will get ugly. The bond market will determine that. So if investors in US debt begin to see continued overspending and lack of any spending constraints, they will want to be paid more for that debt financing. Right now the US is the Best game in town, but our debt is growing so fast we will lose that crown in the not very distant future.

Europe is showing us what our path will look like. They embraced socialism long before we did, and now we can see that they have in fact "run out of other people's money".

Where were all the screaming meemies when Bush added 6.1 trillion to the debt with unfunded wars (2) and a Medicare prescription drug benefit that NOBODY tried to pay for? (source: Bureau of Public Debt, Treasury Dept). Up to 2011, Obama added 2.4 including 1.1 for tax cuts (remember the payroll tax reduction the Republicans were ready to hold hostage for a pipeline the states didn't want?) and the stimulus (same source). Much of the bank TARP has been repaid and the government actually made an 11% profit on the GM deal. Remember Clinton and the surplus? Remember that before him was the iconic Reagan who had the largest deficit in US history with his Star Wars initiative and military expansionism.

it is bush and all the gay peoples fault

AF-remember Congress controls the purse not the President. Reagan tax RATE cuts doubled GDP and revenues. but the Dem controlled Congress spent all the increases. So the debt doubled-end of the day debt as a percentage of GDP stayed the same through Reagan's years-but all the spending was from the Dems. Now lets look at Bush 1. The last Budget Bush had with a GOP Congress the deficit was 167 billion per year-now we have 1,500 billion per year 2. Of the last 5 Presidents which one had the lowest deficits as a percentage of GDP-answer=Bush followed by Clinton a very close second -who had the highest Obama. the TARP money shows as a debt of cash during Bush but adds an asset. Obama sell the asset but does not pay down the debt with it. 700 billion shows as deficit spending on Bush's last year but it bought a 700+ asset. You should subtract 700 billion from Bush's last year and add it to Obama's first year when he sold the asset for profit. The deficits exploded once Pelosi took control of the House-WHY has the Senate not passed a budget for 1,000 days which they are lawfully required to do????? CAN'T face the music

AfanofHistory

since taking oath of office the following is true and factual:

Jan 22nd 2001 - 2009 Bush started at 5,728,195,796,181.57 ended at 10,618,718,703,374.78

Jan 22nd 2009 - 2/09/2012 Obama started at 10,618,718,703,374.78 ending at 15,355,838,921,022.16

Bush 8 years in office 4,890,522,907,193.21

Obama 3.06 years in office 4,737,120,217,647.38

if not for the stalled spending cap from April - Aug of 2011 and the short one in January of 2012 Obama would have passed Bush already.

Debt under DEM controlled Congress 1.75 and 1.69 trillion but in 2011 that lowered to 1.2 trillion partly due to REPs slowing down some spending and the debt ceiling as mentioned above.

-----------------------

IMO -- No, Obama didn't spend it but he sure didn't try and slow it down. Heck the TARP that made money was a BUSH deal signed Sept 08 obama spent that and more.

The reason they can't? They DON'T want to. We have allowed BOTH parties to hold this country hostage. Listening to the Republican lie of smaller government while growing it with things like the Dept. of home land Security. We have listened to Democrats talk about helping people, but then want to spend all your money doing it. Then even though every single one of us seems to dislike everyone in congress.... We all vote those people back in, thinking "Oh but I like mine, it's everyone else's that are the problem people.

Randy you live in fantasyland. BUSHWHACKED started with a surplus, so take those ten trillion and add a couple more you get $12 trillion dollars that how much BUSHWHACKED ran thru and the economy was a mess!

The Republicans and their litany of fiscal responsibility.........they mortgaged the country with their unfunded wars,and now want fiscal prudence.......where was that prudence during the Bush years?......the answer is simple,they knew it would come to this....it was their PLAN....

fantasyland?

http:// www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

I guess the treasury dept just makes up the numbers???

Clinton left office in Jan 2001 which was in the middle of the DOTCOM recession that lost 5 trillion in market share. Your "surplus" was short lived in 1999.

Also Newt and his passage of welfare reform and balanced budgets got Clinton his surpluses.

Please leave your misguided hatred of Bush at the door and deal with facts.

Hi blaise,

I think you are wildly wrong, but I'd rather let you figure it out yourself. So, just a simple question...

If it's true as you claim that we had a surplus in FY98, FY99, and FY00, then please explain why, in each of those years, our national debt INCREASED? A surplus would mean more revenue than expenditures, and that would mean a paydown of the debt.

And please, no partisan talking points. You can look up the debt figures yourself. You can see how in each year of the supposed "surplus" years our national debt went up. Just focus, please, on the question.

How can you vote for someone who just added 6 trillion to the debt and has rejected any committee designed to address the problem i.e. Simpson-Boles, Paul Ryan, ect?

Are you talking about the Republicans who have constantly refused to raises taxes by the few percentage points that is all that would be necessary to close the entire budget gap? We hve

I'm not a Bush supporter but I am tired of the same old answer, "It's Bush's fault."

I don't think it is aimed specifically at Bush. The problem that most of us have is that when we pointed out the deficit problem in Bush's time, we were told "Deficits don't matter." The problem we have is with the hypocrisy.

Obama and his supporters believe the the debt is no big deal.

So did Bush. There's that famous statement by Dick Cheney that "deficits don't matter" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml%7CThe). Bush might be out of the office for nearly four years, but somethings are still the result of actions that he set in motion.

Easy, much that deficit was due to that fact that Obama included Iraq and Afghanistan in the federal budget instead of hiding it like Bush. Coupled with the fact that Bush left him with a raging recession meant declining tax revenues and a greater deficit.

I know... You are going to say "how long are you going to keep blaming Bush..." The simple answer is long as it is appropriate, and trust me it still is. Not even superman could instantaneously take office and turn a recession around, nothing works that fast. Additionally nearly everything the president tried to do was halted in congress, now I know for the first 2 years Democrats controlled both houses. But by the beauty of the congress just one senator (Lieberman) or one committee member (Stupak) can halt legislation. Not Obama's fault.

So the truth is that Obama has not increased spending by much if at all. What he has done is continue Bush era spending - and not all of that could be stopped immediately upon taking office. EG, Obama couldn't just pull the plug on both wars, or stop medicare part D. Get it?

Bush didn't leave him with a recession the DEMs in congress and senate did.

Housing is one of the biggest problems and the GSEs did more damage than any one thing to our economy.

From as early as 2002 the Bush admin did inspections via regulators on the GSEs and found fault.

Housing mess -- Barney Frank , Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Greggory Meeks & Aurtur Davis are the main players who from 2001-2005 supported Freddie and Fannie and put a blind eye to the problems the GSEs could and would put on this economy.

youtube.com/watch?v=-48RA304IBk

Maxine Waters DIRECT QUOTE ~~ "Under the OUTSTANDING leadership of Mr. Frank Raines everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine infact the GSEs have exceeded thier housing goals. What we need to do today is focus on the regulator and this must be done in a mannor,so as not to imped thier affordable housing mission. A mission that has seen innovation flurish, from desktop underwriting to 100% loans"

It took 15 years of giving out money to anyone who could fog a mirror for the housing mess to finally pop with the DEMs saying everything is all right. Iam sure it will take time to fix.

Bush's Dot-Com recession lost 78% of the Nasdaq value and 5 Trillion dollars down the drain and we came out of that in 2 years. Obama took over being president Jan 21st 2009 and the bottom was March 2009 and after nearly 3 years his failed policies haven't done very much besides add 4.7 Trillion in more debt.

Are the REPs blameless no, is Bush perfect no , are the DEMs even worse yes

Obama had 3yrs and blew it.

O = Epic Fail

So the truth is that Obama has not increased spending by much if at all.

let see

2001= Federal Gross Spending 1.9 T

2002= Federal Gross Spending 2.0 T

2003= Federal Gross Spending 2.2 T

2004= Federal Gross Spending 2.3 T

2005= Federal Gross Spending 2.5 T

2006= Federal Gross Spending 2.7 T

2007= Federal Gross Spending 2.7 T

2008= Federal Gross Spending 3.0 T

2009= Federal Gross Spending 3.5 T Obama takes office 15% jump

2010= Federal Gross Spending 3.7 T

2011= Federal Gross Spending 3.8 T

Bush gov't increase 1.1 Trillion Obama in 3years 800 billion

Bush Debt in 8yrs 4.98 Trillion Obama in 3 years 4.7 Trillion

FY 2009 was passed before Obama took office. Recession meant declining tax revenues which opened up the difference creating the deficit. Obama has added very little in the what of federal spending, rather his sin was to continue Bush era spending.

Look, you can criticize the man all you want, there are plenty of reasons to but at least get it right.

I don't blame Obama for the enlarged debts incurred in 2008 or 2009 but 2010 and 2011 were recovery years and the DEMs spent like a drunken salor.

Bush was a lame duck POTUS since 2007 when DEMs took control. I blame them and the problems with the GSEs that Barney Franks , Maxine Waters, Arthur Davis , and many more DEMs who killed the reports about Mr Raines and the ENRON type fraud by the GSEs and help cause the housing mess that collapsed our economy.

Obama is only to blame for 10% and DEMs in congress 70% and REPs 20% for not saying NO even louder.

Steve, I think you have it right.

Greece is just the first domino to fall. We all know what happens after the first one goes down don't we?

Wrong. Greek leaders, as corrupt as they are, know that if they exit the Eurozone, they will be able to buy NOTHING with their worthless drachmas. Everything will come to a halt - transportation, energy, sanitation, infrastructure, farming, fuel, food, medicine. There will be wholesale rioting, food and fuel shortages, the government will likely resign, etc. And the IMF will NOT bail them out at that point. Greece brought this on itself with systemic and unfixable problems. They were in fiscal trouble when they had to borrow money to complete the 2004 Summer Olympics. Every Greek citizen cheats on paying taxes and fees, and the government is rife with cronyism and nepotism. Putting the genie back into the bottle is going to be VERY difficult.

Steve Allen-2200609 "The result of bank runs might see social and civil unrest as people lose their savings and money from bad loans made to other countries who could not and never can, pay back the money."

It could easily happen. Just look at what happened in Germany under the Weimar Republic. Link below;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic

Greek essentially has defaulted. The only thing that the EU wants to happen is a controlled default. They will wall off Greece, knowing in the next few months they will probably need to be booted from the EU. The Greek government promised austerity and without promises backed up with proof of being able to secure that austerity, they won't get the money now nor later. The EU will let them rot. The process behind the scenes for months has been to wall off this country to stop the cancer from spreading. So I am saying banks have been scrambling and so have countries holding Greek debt.

Recently Iran under monetary sanctions has been having quite a time paying for shipments of necessary commodities. Greece will experience situations much worse at least until they can secure a government that others are willing to invest in. So what does Greece have to sell? There will always be buyers but at what cost?

Along the same line but to a lesser degree, how about the bankruptcy laws in this country. American Airlines files Chapter 11; gets out of its obligations and continues along as nothing has happened. The executives still receive their big salaries and bonuses. General Motors is now owned by the taxpayer (still in the hole financially), stockholders and bond holders lose everything and the unions own the rest of the company. The US is destined for the same demise as Greece.

It will do watching. Will there be a general revolt? Will they burn all the rich folks? How about people who wear glasses? Lots more poor and stupid people. Look at china and cambodia.

A likely preview of the united states after the fall.

I hope I see it coming and can get out.

As long as the US government borrows in US dollars, it will always be able to pay off the debt. It may destroy the currency, but the debt can be repaid.

Roy, I just finished reading the link you provided:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic

Most interesting and disturbing. Looks like we had better make some deep changes in a hurry, in this nation.

it's called government subsidies. Greek is socialist, so the government is actually buying the oil and medicines. That's why it would be disrupted. The people don't actually get to spend their own money, because they prefer their government to spend it for them. In reality, it may very well be that there are many Greek citizens who won't be affected, because they have their own money. IT's the rest of the pack on government welfare that are in deep trouble.

Because Radical, one can increase their income, however difficult that may prove to be, but you can't affect the price of the commodities!

yea don't worry we will just hope it changes

It won't happen, that America reduces anything- just mention a reduction to anybody's wages, or minimum wage, or tax increases, or food stamps, or Congress' LIFETIME salaries, or an airport closure or... and all the SPENDERS come unglued. It will never happen. If we threw all of Congress out and started over, the ones that matter are out here: us. If we don't tell them to knock it off, do a REAL balanced budget amendment, no change will happen. Hang on for the ride- it will be Greece in America- or worse. The link Roy put up, about super inflation- hyper inflation, at one point stated that primed Germany for the take over by dictators...

I noticed that JP Morgan was there...

Get real Alan! Kicking the can down the road is the number one job and priority for all politicians. That's what the average voter elects them to do: procrastinate!

The entire idea of the Euro was nothing more than an opportunity for a money grab by those that knew better.

My grandmother use to say; “Never put all of your eggs in one basket” and that is exactly what the European Union is, one big basket!

There are already members of the European Union starting to get itchy, and for good reason. They need Greece to fall on their own sword or they are all screwed. If Greece decides to default Italy will be next and the results will be felt around the world.

The real question is; will Greece bite the bullet for the Euro team?

Greece elected officials will have to decide in the coming hours if they are ready to sacrifice the future of their young for the benefit of the wealthy.

The money grab has concluded and now it time to clean up all the broken eggs.

If you were an educated american, you'd know that the President is constitutionally forbidden to create the budget. That is the primary job of our Congress. Therefore there is one person who is never at fault of being fiscally irresponsible, our president. There are hundreds who are responsible: Congress!

In hindsight, switching their currency, along with the other Eupopean nations, to the Euro, might have been a bad idea. And like a domino effect, if one fails, they all fail.

Jim, if you start bringing reason and logic into a subject like this you risk offending all the tunnel vision types on both sides of the issue. The libs and cons are equally devoted to following the party schpiel. Obama hasn't turned around the disaster that the Bush Brigade allowed. But did anybody expect either of the two choices we had back in '08 to really make a difference? McCain might have if the Tundra Twinkie hadn't been forced on him but it is what it was. But the bottom line is, much like building more prisons, people are for them....just not in their neighborhood. Cutting spending would have a disastrous effect on employment. And our lifestyle. We all want fiscal responsibility....just not if it affects us. So when the day actually comes, as it must, that spending is curtailed, we'll see a local version of the Peronistas.

Well remember if the Clinton Budget had remained in place, we would not have a National Debt today. The tax cut, borrow and spend Republicans created the Republican Recession. The only way out of a recession is for a government to increase spending for infrastructure projects to lower unemployment and increase tax revenues.

rrobeson, do you know the president has veto power and sets the direction of the country as president! He can take it to the American people.

He can take it to the people? Set a direction? Veto power.

So because he's the last person in line after all the powers that be and all the elected representatives choose to go a certain direction, he can say no. And it's his fault if he doesn't? The president isn't a president, he's a sacrificial christian goat for Abraham. Who in their right mind would want such a job.

Hello PEOPLE! If you have a money issue, or a problem with ANY law, talk to congress.

Ok, I've taken it to the people. That's all the president can do to. Some good that does.

Ah, but rrobeson, Obama was in the Senate for a couple of those years and did vote on the budgets. He also called for the democrat-controlled Congress of his first 2 years in office to spend money that this country does not have when he pushed to get Obamacare passed. He also proposed a budget for 2012 that was voted down 97-0 in the Senate because his proposed spending levels were so high that even the progressives in the Senate couldn't stomach it. So, Obama does, in fact, set the tone for the budget debate in Congress - or lack thereof.

I understand that Congress is actually responsible for the budgets, but the office of President is supposed to act as a check on the Congress. Obama has failed to rein in the spending levels or even to force Reid to consider the budget items that were passed by the House. This makes him, at the minimum, culpable for the spendthrift ways of out federal government.

Medicare and Medicaid must be funded, the bloat in our government agencies must be trimmed, they simply employ people just for that purpose only, We must cut those agencies down to size or out completely.

Increased taxes on the wealthy so to speak will not solve our deficit by any stretch.

Until Obam realizes that this spend a thon will not survive nothing changes...he will not ever to that IMO. He is against a budget and that is tooooo obvious. Until the people wake up and demand their Reps and Senators stop the spending and waste nothing changes....wake up people!!

You folks who support the current debt to increase - are you blind by choice??

No, we're not blind. But, we also know that you can't just suddenly cut Federal spending by 40% and not expect the consequences to be severe. The UK imposed massive budget cuts and the austerity is hurting their economy.

Barry-NJ:

No, we're not blind. But, we also know that you can't just suddenly cut Federal spending by 40% and not expect the consequences to be severe.

So, if not 40% today, how about 15%today?

It would be a good idea to start today, and get the ball rolling, not kick it down the road.

Maybe we all should be out protesting for them TO MAKE cuts now, instead of waiting until our nation is starving and bread costs $20.00 a loaf, if you can find one!

My water comes from a private water company. Not everyone gets theirs from city utilities.

I bet you didn't complain when you borrowed billions to sponsor the Olympics. Who did you think was going to pay for all those facilities and the infrastructure. Well it's time to pay now.

So does mine. The question is why do we have to pay for it? Can a corporation based in the U.S. "own" a river that has existed for 4,000 years on the other side of the world? Only if you let them.

We pay for the water being treated to make it safe. You don't want to drink water from a river that's not treated.

Yet there was once a time where that water was safe in the first place.

People that are scammed are typically targeted because they deserve it. What's the average scam? Convince someone that they deserve to earn something for nothing. Works every time. Where do you think the phrase: Fools and their money are soon parted came from?

When the piper has to be paid, who's fault was it that they owed the piper to begin with?

I can see your a human at a lower level of evolution. If we all followed your theory, then society would be over. I suppose if someone with a gun shot you dead, you would deserve it because you did have bullet proof armor on. Or perhaps some peaceful nation, good to its neighbors deserves complete anihilation because it did spend trillions on weapons of mass destruction. Or a certain race should be genocided because it has undesirable traits from the point of veiw of another race. You are not far up the scale from a monkey my primate blogger.

Will, nice try, except nobody will accept your currency if your a bankrupt Nation.

I wouldn't say they deserve to be scammed, especially when it's the so-called "representatives" in power who can be orchestrating the scam. But in either case, this isn't possible to Greece, unless they leave the European Union... The reason is actually quite simple.

Greece doesn't print their own currency, they use the Euro... The European cenral bank prints this. Greece would have to go back to their own currency (which would mean leaving the European Union) in order to have their own independent central bank, and print their own currency. However, even if they did this, given the state the world knows Greece is in, it doesn't mean that their currency would have a good value on the international currency markets. Think the Rubble here, for a moment, when Russia's economy was, well not so good, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. People have to want the currency, to trade it globally...

Wrong, everyone will need to accept the currency if taxes have to be paid in it, everyone will accept the currency if it is the only one that's in circulation without debt. Everyone will accept the currency but the leaches holding on to debt and their brainwashed idiot minions. So nice try but your wrong , and that's why the leaches are doing there best to hold on to their fraudulent currency ATM, because they know it can work simply and easily.

Magnifico!!!

they cannot print money because they are part of the euro

Bruce get real. Where did you get your economics, the back of a cereal box!

Since we have our own currency and own monetary policy, we're not going to be in the same boat as Greece. Greece's situation is much more analogous to a US state going into bankruptcy, although a state's bankruptcy would have fewer consequences for its people because of our federal system.

Welfare, what the hell do you think capitalism is, societal welfare for money lenders. I agree , lets make everyone earn their money, you wont see too many money lending leaches support that one. The middle class spend millions a year supporting the poor, the middle class also spend trillions a year supporting the rich money lending leaches. I for one would rather give to the poor instead of being extorted by bond dealers and their fraudulent currency.

will-1866747 for President!

I don't think the greed was the exclusive trait of the guy on the street... I'm rather certain greed existed in the hands of the politicians and the bankers as well.... Of course the political and economic leaders are better at their greed, because they also know how to play the system, and set it up for their own advantage... When people thinki of taking out a mortgage and paying the money back; they think about morality in the matter. For people like Bernie Madoff, morality never enters into it. It's all cold, hard business, for which they're adept at playing hard ball. They don't care to think about morality, when it comes to conducting business; just getting the good PR so everyone will think well of them, even if the bankster is playing a bit of a shell game, etc...

If you are in the top 1%, all your money is NOT in US funds. Top dogs do ok no matter. They are NOT living pay check to pay check. They'd have to "cut back" on some things, like cheaper champers, etc, but PRICES would also fall, including the cost of labor. First class air would cost very little more than economy now. Their private jets would be less expensive to own and operate. And so long as the GOP stays in power, their taxes will no increase.

In sort, the super wealthy really are different and live in a different world.

politicalh: stockpiling a Bible? LMAO

Dont know if you are serious or kidding. Hope you are kidding.

what free stuff??? Damnit, did I miss something????? Because to my recollection, he's no better than Bush W., Bush H.W., Clinton, or Reagan. Somebody please show me the difference!!!! Only difference I can see is that he's more suave and dapper, and that's where the deceit comes in if you ask me.....but nobody asked me, did they??? lol

Hopefully sarcasm.

Didnt obama promise us some kind of dividend from the oil companys?

It's even MORE scary that MILLIONS of Americans missed the sarcasm in my comment

We'd have to change more then who's in Washington... We vote one set of peeps out, and the next come in, and become part of the self same system. Lets be honest for a moment, do people really believe that flip flop Romney would really be that different from Obama? Getting rid of the CURRENT CROP of politicians, and putting others in, who will become part of the same "business as usual practices" in DC; would do little more then what Egyptians are seeing resulted when Mubarac (who was in many ways a figure head) was removed, but he same ruling military council remained....

The head of this beast isn't the names and faces of the people we see in DC, and a mere re-shuffling of the deck won't change much. One would have to go after the lobbyists, the PACs, in essence the actual corrupting influence that buys all these politicians out, and gets them to serve the special interests, rather then represent the voters at large. The nature of lobbying itself would have to change, along with some meaningful campaign financing reform.... And in this, Super Pacs that can do all the muck raking they want, and throw out negative ads, while CLAIMING independence from the candidates they support; even while they're staffed by former members of the candidate's official campaigns, isn't the sort of reform I'm talking about...

Correct...new lawmakers and new laws....Or how about demanding TRUTH from those we send...?

Nope, you keep electing the same guy, Ron Paul is the only one that is different.

IF HIS policies are supposed to promote fair share, then damnit I want to file a complaint. I want to spend most of my days at the golf course when I should be at work and still get paid $425,000,000.00 annually plus stock options and a termination clause and bonuses when I don't fulfill the duties of my job. I want to travel to Spain and Paris and remote islands at the expense of my employer, I want to......nah, I DON'T want to use hookers on my lunch breaks with the company's black card and charge it to auto repairs.

And if you think ObamaCare is a fair-share policy, then think again, it will cost those that don't even have the resources to pay for insurance, so what's fair abt. that? No it's not fair that we pay for the uninsured, but I don't want someone telling me what to do with my money that I worked for. What's "fair share" abt. that?????

It will be much sooner than that and sooo much worse!...But go ahead and fiddle while Rome burns!

Yes we will be and there is no way out of it.

The finances of a country is quite different than the finances of a family. In a debt based monetary system, the budget cannot be balanced for a long time because the money supply (allt he money we have) was borrowed at interest. It was created when we borrowed. It will never be paid off. And in order to pay the interest, we need to keep growing the economy at all times. But in a limited world that may not always be possible. Google for "How do banks create money" to understand the root cause of the problem. Clinton's balanced budget was a coincidence, not making of his own. Presidents do not run the economy. Social mood does. As the mood changes, expansion and contraction of credit, aka money supply, creates economic cycles like Kondratieff wave. We are now in Kondratieff Winter. Until spring, all efforts will fail.

Very good, Mikes-5, post #25.3, you are entirely right. We are all working to pay interest-debt, and as is, there isn't a true viable solution.