Yes, I do realize that the three tax cuts passed in 2001-2003 have now been permitted to "sunset", just like the Pay-Go limitations on spending were allowed to "go away" by Congress. But even with newly increased revenue from the reinstatement of those taxes, this year's federal budget will again set records for deficit spending and further increases in the national debt.

The high point of our national debt, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), was 121% in 1946 when we were trying to restart the economy and pay off the costs of WWII. The ratio declined dramatically in the following 42 years, under the administrations of Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter, at which point our debt-to-GDP ratio had declined to 35%. During the administrations of Reagan and Bush 41, the ratio doubled from 35% up to 70%. During the eight years of the Clinton administration, the ratio again declined, from about 70% back down to about 58%. As has been widely reported and written about, the U.S. was actually on a track to eliminate all public debt towards the very end of the Clinton administration, a condition that Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan thought would be a very unhealthy situation. Since 2000, under Bush 43 and now Obama, the ratio has grown to its highest level since 1945, about 63%. Of course, the curent ratio is affected by both profligate federal spending as well as prolonged recession-like levels of economic activity.

To give some real measure of the debt that our politicians have caused by increased spending, note that when Jimmy Carter left office in 1981, the total national debt of the U.S. was just about $1 trillion. In the 30 or so years since then, under the administrations of Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama, our national debt has risen to the current level of over $12.5 trillion. The trend line reflecting both the amount of debt being created by government spending as well as it's chart as a percentage of GDP has steepened dramatically in the last couple of years.

The ratio of U.S. debt-to-GDP is currently about 63%. That compares to the ratio of the weaker developed economies of the U.K. (69%), Germany (77%), France (80%), and the poster children of political irresponsibility, Greece (108%) and Italy (115%). Unless something changes dramatically, significant reductions in annual deficits, the U.S. will be reaching the levels of the weaker economies within only a few years.

In contrast, the economies with which we are competing to retain our role as an important economic player on the world scene have far less leveraged debt levels and have economies which are growing at dramatically faster rates than ours. China's debt-to-GDP is only 15% and they are struggling to slow their economic growth rate to a more manageable level of about 10%. All of the other emerging economies who we count as our major competitors--China, India, Russia, Brazil--are all considerably less leveraged than the U.S. and all have economic growth rates far higher than our own.

No one is talking about the economic peril that our political leaders have placed us in--certainly not them! So long as they can keep us arguing among ourselves about the partisan issues they create, they know we won't focus on the real and rapidly emerging threat to our way of life. So long as they can keep "delivering the goods" to the interests who finance their election campaigns and the electorate who returns them to Washington year after year, they know they'll be OK.

But what about us? What about the next generations of Americans? Someone better be thinking about these things. Someone ought to be doing something about them. I'm afraid that "someone" is us and we can begin doing something about it in November. It's time to start over. I see no one in Washington who hasn't been a part of getting us into the fix we're in now.

Kahuna, I believe you have hit the nail right on the head. No one, and I repeat, no one in Washington who is up for election this year should be left in office come November. Send a message loud and clear: "It will NOT be business as usual anymore!"

I personally think it is too late. People will vote their ideals and their entitlements.
Why did over 95% of blacks vote for Obama? Was it because of what he promised them or just prejudice? What about the unions? What about public employees, which is growing larger every day. Government is getting huge. I consider government anybody who receives a paycheck from the taxpayers. What about the people who receive government entitlement checks?Who they gonna vote for?
We have quite the struggle.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Yes, I do realize that the three tax cuts passed in 2001-2003 have now been permitted to "sunset", just like the Pay-Go limitations on spending were allowed to "go away" by Congress. But even with newly increased revenue from the reinstatement of those taxes, this year's federal budget will again set records for deficit spending and further increases in the national debt.

The high point of our national debt, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), was 121% in 1946 when we were trying to restart the economy and pay off the costs of WWII. The ratio declined dramatically in the following 42 years, under the administrations of Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter, at which point our debt-to-GDP ratio had declined to 35%. During the administrations of Reagan and Bush 41, the ratio doubled from 35% up to 70%. During the eight years of the Clinton administration, the ratio again declined, from about 70% back down to about 58%. As has been widely reported and written about, the U.S. was actually on a track to eliminate all public debt towards the very end of the Clinton administration, a condition that Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan thought would be a very unhealthy situation. Since 2000, under Bush 43 and now Obama, the ratio has grown to its highest level since 1945, about 63%. Of course, the curent ratio is affected by both profligate federal spending as well as prolonged recession-like levels of economic activity.

To give some real measure of the debt that our politicians have caused by increased spending, note that when Jimmy Carter left office in 1981, the total national debt of the U.S. was just about $1 trillion. In the 30 or so years since then, under the administrations of Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama, our national debt has risen to the current level of over $12.5 trillion. The trend line reflecting both the amount of debt being created by government spending as well as it's chart as a percentage of GDP has steepened dramatically in the last couple of years.

The ratio of U.S. debt-to-GDP is currently about 63%. That compares to the ratio of the weaker developed economies of the U.K. (69%), Germany (77%), France (80%), and the poster children of political irresponsibility, Greece (108%) and Italy (115%). Unless something changes dramatically, significant reductions in annual deficits, the U.S. will be reaching the levels of the weaker economies within only a few years.

In contrast, the economies with which we are competing to retain our role as an important economic player on the world scene have far less leveraged debt levels and have economies which are growing at dramatically faster rates than ours. China's debt-to-GDP is only 15% and they are struggling to slow their economic growth rate to a more manageable level of about 10%. All of the other emerging economies who we count as our major competitors--China, India, Russia, Brazil--are all considerably less leveraged than the U.S. and all have economic growth rates far higher than our own.

No one is talking about the economic peril that our political leaders have placed us in--certainly not them! So long as they can keep us arguing among ourselves about the partisan issues they create, they know we won't focus on the real and rapidly emerging threat to our way of life. So long as they can keep "delivering the goods" to the interests who finance their election campaigns and the electorate who returns them to Washington year after year, they know they'll be OK.

But what about us? What about the next generations of Americans? Someone better be thinking about these things. Someone ought to be doing something about them. I'm afraid that "someone" is us and we can begin doing something about it in November. It's time to start over. I see no one in Washington who hasn't been a part of getting us into the fix we're in now.

VK...I tried to tell you during the campaign and I am even going back as far as the primary..........IT IS TOO LATE !

You kept saying we could vote him and them out,but the dye is cast...the health bill will be passed and will never be repealed...it will become what it is today...a political football to be kicked around. Cap and trade, and all the other things I warned you about are going to become a reality !

Before you go on your Bush rant...I agree...he over spent and mismanaged, but this guy and this congress are making him look like a major leaguer.

Would McCain be better..I dont know.....I DID KNOW AND DO KNOW about what we have now !

...why I voted the way I did. It was definitely the lesser of two evils as far as I was concerned. I voted for a bright, well-educated, extremely well-organized candidate who ran on a campaign of change from what we had experienced for the previous eight years. But he was inexperienced and didn't have a legislative track record that could lead to predictable performance in the job.The candidate I chose not to vote for was one who admitted his lack of knowledge of financial problems, which were huge and threatening our economy, even before the election. I was disappointed that candidate seemed to have "sold out" to the fringe elements of his party by both choosing an unqulaified VP candidate (even though he was a 72-year old cancer survivor) and sold out to his handlers, permitting some of the ugliest negative campaigning I can ever recall be conducted in his name.

I said at the time that my choice was the lesser of two evils and that if it didn't work out, I'd vote for someone else in 2012. It's not working out, although I'm finding it difficult to assess how much blame to assign the POTUS and how much to the Congress. In the end, the POTUS must bear the responsibility. The 2008 election was an easy choice at the time and I still believe that on balance the country and economy would be in worse shape had John McCain been elected.

You still seem to have great certainty as to why you didn't vote for Barack Obama. But unlike the way I feel, you're not altogether certain whether things would be different or better had John McCain been successful. My feelings were almost a polar opposite from your own. I felt strongly that the McCain-Palin ticket was weaker and would provide less leadership than the Obama-Biden ticket. Yet I wasn't at all certain how good Obama could or would be. I still think I made the right choice even though I won't vote the same way in 2012.

I won't be voting for any incumbents in 2010 or 2012. Do I think my singular vote will make a difference...unfortunately, no. I think that too many people will vote out of habit for a party or for an ideaology that might at one time represented their personal desires. The result will probably be that more than 90% of the Congress will be returned to do even more damage to the country for another 2 to 6 years.

I won't stop trying to convince others that none of the members of the House and Senate that are there now should be rewarded with election for another term. They have already seriously injured both our economy and our political processes.

Like you, VK, I voted for what I felt was the lesser of two evils. I literally held my nose when I voted for McPain. I'm curious as to why you think Palin was unqualified, but you had no problem voting for someone who had never run anything. Obama was a community organizer, taught some law classes and was a Senator, for a short time. She cleaned Biden's clock in their debate. I recall, and I may be wrong, that McPain refused to say anything negative about Obama. I seem to recall that his campaign manager said he would quit if anything negative was said about Obama. Ireally don't think things would be worse if McPain had won. Hopefully, he woud have surrounded himself with good people who wanted what was best for America.

with unprecedented coverage by the media in his behalf. And the same media trouncing McCain and Palin.

If Obama were to be measured qualifications wise in exactly the same way as Palin was/is he certainly would not get the job.

What he was good at was reading a script (without one he is about average like most of us) telling people what they wanted to hear.

Remember it wasn't as though he won by a landslide!

Also remember to re-elect NO ONE in 2010 & 2012........NO ONE!!!!!!

btk

Originally Posted by Donna2

I personally think it is too late. People will vote their ideals and their entitlements.
Why did over 95% of blacks vote for Obama? Was it because of what he promised them or just prejudice? What about the unions? What about public employees, which is growing larger every day. Government is getting huge. I consider government anybody who receives a paycheck from the taxpayers. What about the people who receive government entitlement checks?Who they gonna vote for?
We have quite the struggle.

I think I've been watching way to much Glenn Beck. I totally agree with your statements above. I fear this administration has a master plan to create such a huge number of citizens dependent on the federal govt that these same citizens will be forced to perpetuate the process because of simple self preservation. Also, the mentality..."if you can't beat em, join em"... will lure more and more onto some form of gov't payroll posn. After all, what is the most rapidly expanding component of the workforce? Who/what is the nations largest single employer?

I recently spoke to a colleague I did my medical training with and spent some time in the Army with. I had not spoken to her in decades. Turns out she's been retired for over 3 years. I said..."hey Eleanor, how the heck did you retire at 57"? Her answer--> "After I goy out of the Army I got a civil service job"... I should have known.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Yes, I do realize that the three tax cuts passed in 2001-2003 have now been permitted to "sunset", just like the Pay-Go limitations on spending were allowed to "go away" by Congress. But even with newly increased revenue from the reinstatement of those taxes, this year's federal budget will again set records for deficit spending and further increases in the national debt.

The high point of our national debt, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), was 121% in 1946 when we were trying to restart the economy and pay off the costs of WWII. The ratio declined dramatically in the following 42 years, under the administrations of Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter, at which point our debt-to-GDP ratio had declined to 35%. During the administrations of Reagan and Bush 41, the ratio doubled from 35% up to 70%. During the eight years of the Clinton administration, the ratio again declined, from about 70% back down to about 58%. As has been widely reported and written about, the U.S. was actually on a track to eliminate all public debt towards the very end of the Clinton administration, a condition that Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan thought would be a very unhealthy situation. Since 2000, under Bush 43 and now Obama, the ratio has grown to its highest level since 1945, about 63%. Of course, the curent ratio is affected by both profligate federal spending as well as prolonged recession-like levels of economic activity.

To give some real measure of the debt that our politicians have caused by increased spending, note that when Jimmy Carter left office in 1981, the total national debt of the U.S. was just about $1 trillion. In the 30 or so years since then, under the administrations of Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama, our national debt has risen to the current level of over $12.5 trillion. The trend line reflecting both the amount of debt being created by government spending as well as it's chart as a percentage of GDP has steepened dramatically in the last couple of years.

The ratio of U.S. debt-to-GDP is currently about 63%. That compares to the ratio of the weaker developed economies of the U.K. (69%), Germany (77%), France (80%), and the poster children of political irresponsibility, Greece (108%) and Italy (115%). Unless something changes dramatically, significant reductions in annual deficits, the U.S. will be reaching the levels of the weaker economies within only a few years.

In contrast, the economies with which we are competing to retain our role as an important economic player on the world scene have far less leveraged debt levels and have economies which are growing at dramatically faster rates than ours. China's debt-to-GDP is only 15% and they are struggling to slow their economic growth rate to a more manageable level of about 10%. All of the other emerging economies who we count as our major competitors--China, India, Russia, Brazil--are all considerably less leveraged than the U.S. and all have economic growth rates far higher than our own.

No one is talking about the economic peril that our political leaders have placed us in--certainly not them! So long as they can keep us arguing among ourselves about the partisan issues they create, they know we won't focus on the real and rapidly emerging threat to our way of life. So long as they can keep "delivering the goods" to the interests who finance their election campaigns and the electorate who returns them to Washington year after year, they know they'll be OK.

But what about us? What about the next generations of Americans? Someone better be thinking about these things. Someone ought to be doing something about them. I'm afraid that "someone" is us and we can begin doing something about it in November. It's time to start over. I see no one in Washington who hasn't been a part of getting us into the fix we're in now.

Very interesting how you lump Obama and Bush. Your post would make much more sense if you separated what these two big spending Presidents contributed to our deficit.

Bush was a big spender, but a miser compared to Obama.

Originally Posted by rshoffer

I think I've been watching way to much Glenn Beck. I totally agree with your statements above. I fear this administration has a master plan to create such a huge number of citizens dependent on the federal govt that these same citizens will be forced to perpetuate the process because of simple self preservation. Also, the mentality..."if you can't beat em, join em"... will lure more and more onto some form of gov't payroll posn. After all, what is the most rapidly expanding component of the workforce? Who/what is the nations largest single employer?

I recently spoke to a colleague I did my medical training with and spent some time in the Army with. I had not spoken to her in decades. Turns out she's been retired for over 3 years. I said..."hey Eleanor, how the heck did you retire at 57"? Her answer--> "After I goy out of the Army I got a civil service job"... I should have known.

AMEN to RSHOFFER and DONNA2 !

To KAHUANA.....I also mentioned to you during the campaign about the perfect storm being created with this President and this particular congress.

RSHOFFER and DONNA make the point and I agree..it is too late. The political appointees should show you that...these are hardball politicians with a common thread and despite this President's pretty prose the beat goes on and so does the plan.

Stop and think...we have a President now who has been told in his first physical to cut back on his drinking, stop smoking...who was trained in left wing radicalism all his life...who, when you become a political liability throws you under the bus even if you have been his religious and personal advisor...who lied so openly during the campaign and continues.

YET...with all of this, people say in polls they like him....and YET the electorate will vote for him despite what he is doing and will do (and we are far from done)!

I am not so confident with a person like this you can simply vote him out and change everything back.....he is attacking the very fiber of this country !

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

...why I voted the way I did. It was definitely the lesser of two evils as far as I was concerned. The candidate I chose not to vote for was one who admitted his lack of knowledge of financial problems, which were huge and threatening our economy, even before the election.

I still believe that on balance the country and economy would be in worse shape had John McCain been elected.

Most intelligent voters cast their ballot in large part through the prism of their life experiences, education, values and priorities. The premise of your decision is solidly grounded and supported with your well defined articulate financial and economic concerns. Personally, my education, training and experience did not warrant a choice between the lesser of two evils. My priorities, like many others, was rooted in national security. In that regard, I believe John McCain, would have been a much greater asset to the country and would not have made us as vulnerable as we are today.

I lost neighbors and associates in the World Trade Center. My family lives in the shadow of the New York skyline. At the time, professional obligations required that I methodically calculate the effect, impact and implications of various terroristic tactical options and attacks on the target rich metropolitan New York area. The results of my efforts would readily be applicable to Chicago, Los Angeles or any other major metro area. The results brought new meaning to catastrophic probabilities. I use the word probabilities with calculated emphasis.

Can you relate to the economic implications of a catastrophic terrorist attack on New York City or any other major population, financial and commerce center?

For me, the choice was easy. There was sufficient credible information on Obama's leftist track record for me to identify him as a threat to national security. In fact, I believe he would not have passed the background vetting for the agency I worked for. His on the job performance, his appointments, his handling of domestic security issues sufficiently validate my personal concerns.

In other words, from my perspective, national security trumps progressive social justice and economics. As an aside, his handling of the economy, predictability leaves much to be desired.

Thanks for engaging.

My call to action to try to change our political leadership in the future seems to have morphed very quickly into yet another review of the 2008 presidential campaign, the candidates, what they said or didn't say, what experience they had or didn't have, and yadda yadda.

Hey, we are where we are. What's the point in trying to prove that what anyone said or believed in 2008 was right or wrong? That gets us nowhere.

I'll say it once more--I voted for Obama because on balance I thought he was a better choice than McCain. I'd probably do it the same way if it were still 2008. But it's not. The Obama administration hasn't worked out as I had hoped. I won't vote for his re-election. I'll continue to talk about what we need to do to improve future political leadership in the country.

If everyone wants to continue to talk about how right they were in their assessment of the candidates back in 2008--have at it. If everyone believes that "it's too late" as does Donna2, or that the current adminsitration is "attacking the very fibre of the country" (as I knew he would) as Bucco does, maybe we should all conclude that there's nothing that can be done or no one who can do anything about the future political leadership of this country.

I'm not in that camp, folks. So if you want to continue to exchange messages about how right you were and that you told us so, have at it. I'll choose to conduct my "discussions" with others who may have a more optimistic and thoughtfu view of what can and should be done.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

My call to action to try to change our political leadership in the future seems to have morphed very quickly into yet another review of the 2008 presidential campaign, the candidates, what they said or didn't say, what experience they had or didn't have, and yadda yadda.

Hey, we are where we are. What's the point in trying to prove that what anyone said or believed in 2008 was right or wrong? That gets us nowhere.

I'll say it once more--I voted for Obama because on balance I thought he was a better choice than McCain. I'd probably do it the same way if it were still 2008. But it's not. The Obama administration hasn't worked out as I had hoped. I won't vote for his re-election. I'll continue to talk about what we need to do to improve future political leadership in the country.

If everyone wants to continue to talk about how right they were in their assessment of the candidates back in 2008--have at it. If everyone believes that "it's too late" as does Donna2, or that the current adminsitration is "attacking the very fibre of the country" (as I knew he would) as Bucco does, maybe we should all conclude that there's nothing that can be done or no one who can do anything about the future political leadership of this country.

I'm not in that camp, folks. So if you want to continue to exchange messages about how right you were and that you told us so, have at it. I'll choose to conduct my "discussions" with others who may have a more optimistic and thoughtfu view of what can and should be done.

PLEASE alert me to what can be done between now and Nov 2010 that might in some way stop what is happening because between now and then a LOT will happen !

I will be glad to discuss where we go from here but UNTIL we change things in November, what can we do ?

PS: I have no desire to say I told you so.....but I am totally frustrated. If you read my other thread this President has actually told the Democrats to just pass the bill and all those things they had to put in it to pass, he will work to change. Now, how can you be hopeful UP TILL the election.....he is in a hurry because as political as this guy is, he knows what is coming but until then.....sorry..nothing we can do. They call tea ******* names because they show their disdain on the streets and they will ignore calls and emails so you tell me !

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

My call to action to try to change our political leadership in the future seems to have morphed very quickly into yet another review of the 2008 presidential campaign, the candidates, what they said or didn't say, what experience they had or didn't have, and yadda yadda.

Hey, we are where we are. What's the point in trying to prove that what anyone said or believed in 2008 was right or wrong? That gets us nowhere.

I'll say it once more--I voted for Obama because on balance I thought he was a better choice than McCain. I'd probably do it the same way if it were still 2008. But it's not. The Obama administration hasn't worked out as I had hoped. I won't vote for his re-election. I'll continue to talk about what we need to do to improve future political leadership in the country.

If everyone wants to continue to talk about how right they were in their assessment of the candidates back in 2008--have at it. If everyone believes that "it's too late" as does Donna2, or that the current adminsitration is "attacking the very fibre of the country" (as I knew he would) as Bucco does, maybe we should all conclude that there's nothing that can be done or no one who can do anything about the future political leadership of this country.

I'm not in that camp, folks. So if you want to continue to exchange messages about how right you were and that you told us so, have at it. I'll choose to conduct my "discussions" with others who may have a more optimistic and thoughtfu view of what can and should be done.

My last hope was diminished after the republicans had congress and the white house. How did that work out? At least in 1994 we had a smarter more politically savvy president working with conservatives in congress. And yes, we would be much brtter off with McCain-Palin in the white house now.

Kahuna, you are uncharacteristically harsh on those that responded directly to your words in your post. Any subsequent "morphing" appears to be in response to your statements and not a desire to review the 2008 Presidential campaign. You stated:

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

...why I voted the way I did. It was definitely the lesser of two evils as far as I was concerned. The candidate I chose not to vote for was one who admitted his lack of knowledge of financial problems, which were huge and threatening our economy, even before the election.

I still believe that on balance the country and economy would be in worse shape had John McCain been elected.

Personally, I acknowledged respect for your position and offered the basis for my opposing opinions for contrast. No where did I interject a judgemental tone because my core belief system, (established by my often repeated reference about being raised by a mother, a Boston Democrat who worked on JFK's campaign and a father who was a solid Goldwater Republican), is respect for political persuasions other than my own.

Further, my prolific accumulation of posts offer no shortage of discussion viewpoints about the direction the country should be taking from my perspective. Until there is a quantum change in the White House, Justice Department and Congress, as indicated in my post, I believe "national security trumps progressive social justice and share the wealth and health economics". I understand that our economy is in dire need of attention. My point is that exposure of the American people and our financial and economic institutions to the threats of enemies of this country is real. I believe the totality of our present circumstance has made us less safe. I submit that rebuilding the economy requires at least a concurrent commitment to national security that will provide increased safety for our people and institutions.

I hope you continue to post because you offer informative and interesting perspectives. Of course, occasionally disagreeing with them is aways an option....and the basis of what makes this forum challenging and a venue for cerebral exercise.

Have a good evening.