state of our nation (it is 3 pages long so it will take a couple of minutes...a good investment):

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...056610,00.html

How about some :Concerned Americans" views. This one can not and should not be put in us VS them terms...cause that is not how we got here.

What matters is what is being done about it.....not much by historical standards of doing something now that benefits the country 10-20-30 years out. A simple example....energy independence...the easiest one of all to do....support by close to 100% of us.

btk

This is one that everyone should read. It captures exactly what has been bothering me about what we see and hear every day, on TV, in the newspapers and even here in TOTV Political, where participants are supposedly thoughtful enough to want to be here.

Everyone should read this article. It is not tilted left or right, but an effort by the author to speak the painfully obvious truth. I'd find it difficult to believe that anyone, regardless of their personal political ideology, could refute what is said in the article.

[QUOTE=Villages Kahuna;335330]This is one that everyone should read. It captures exactly what has been bothering me about what we see and hear every day, on TV, in the newspapers and even here in TOTV Political, where participants are supposedly thoughtful enough to want to be here.

YES, and it is certainly time to cut all current Social Security recipients back 6% and raise the Medicare deductible at least 100%. The politicians seem to be oblivious to these programs as part of the group of leading causes of the huge deficit.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

This is one that everyone should read. It captures exactly what has been bothering me about what we see and hear every day, on TV, in the newspapers and even here in TOTV Political, where participants are supposedly thoughtful enough to want to be here.

Everyone should read this article. It is not tilted left or right, but an effort by the author to speak the painfully obvious truth. I'd find it difficult to believe that anyone, regardless of their personal political ideology, could refute what is said in the article.

Not tilted left or right???
Come on...

What we see today is an American economy that has boomed because of policies and developments of the 1950s and '60s: the interstate-highway system, massive funding for science and technology, a public-education system that was the envy of the world and generous immigration policies.
BIG government spending.. and generous immigration policies (open boarders right???) ..
what about free market economy where hard work, and risk taking were rewarded...

There are some areas in which we are still clearly No. 1, but they're not ones we usually brag about. We have the most guns. We have the most crime among rich countries.
GUN OWNERSHIP IS BAD.. so slip in a gun control shot and tie it to most crime by implication where no actual connection exists.

Sure, the political system seems to be engaged in big debates about the budget, pensions and the nation's future. But this is mostly a sideshow. The battles in state capitals over public-employee pensions are real — the states are required to balance their budgets — but the larger discussion in Washington is about everything except what's important.
THERE IS NOTHING more important and of immediate concern than saving this country from bankruptcy and the resulting economic collapse. What is this country going to do on June 30th when QE2 ends and there will be no one to buy our debt. Right now the FED.. that is US buys 70% of our own debt.. and foreign govs buy 30%.. Anyone want to tell me where we get 14 trillion from to give back to those borrowers.. and worse yet.. what is the FED going to do with the money when we give it back to them.. burn it?.. of course not.. they have no intention of getting paid back.. they will leave it in the system to reduce the value of mine and your savings and assets.
Why do you think QE1 and 2 where even started?... hmm maybe because we could no longer pay the going interest rate so we just started printing our own money and loaning it to ourselves to keep the interest rate low.. and how did that effect all of our savings and cds/??? hmm.. killed them.. an invisible tax.

ON THE deficit commission recommendations:
They have been forgotten by both parties, in particular the Republicans, whose leading budgetary spokesman, Paul Ryan, praises the commission in the abstract even though he voted against its recommendations.
RYAN voted against it because it included huge tax increases. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

We are cutting investments and subsidizing consumption — exactly the opposite of what are the main drivers of economic growth.
TYPICAL liberal bs.. Call spending INVESTMENT.. instead of what it is.. spending. HUGE amounts of educational spending was just plain political payoffs to teacher unions.. and social welfare.. far too many kids in school are getting free or reduced lunches... family of 4 eligible with incomes of 80k or more.. Lawyers on my staff were eligible.. In Iowa free preschool for everyone.. why?? So many before and after school programs it is ridiculous. Technology in schools where kids cannot even read. INVESTMENTS.. bull... welfare and political payoffs.

And neither side will even talk about tax increases, though it is impossible to achieve long-term fiscal stability without them.
THIS IS NOT TILTED LEFT? Are you kidding? The VAST majority of people on the right do NOT think tax increases are the answer.

Certain taxes — such as ones on carbon or gas — would have huge benefits beyond revenue, like energy efficiency.
YA. . OBAMA wanted this and stated it would necessary send the price of gas sky high... AND LIKE HUGE price increases to pay for the taxes.. and then libs will want to HELP the poor by paying their carbon and gas taxes.. and borrow or tax the "rich" which always trickles down to the middle class to pay for it..
Not tilted to the left or right .. are you kidding???

And all those interests are dedicated to preserving the past rather than investing for the future.
INVESTING.. YOU MEAN SPENDING.. not tilted left huh?

I did enjoy reading the article but to say it was not tilted.. read above..
JJ

Let's summarize what the writer said in the article...

• Americans seems unable to grasp the magnitude of the challenges facing us. Too many Americans operate on the assumption that the U.S. is number 1 in lots of areas and will remain in that position.
  
• Our success today is the result of decisions made in the 1950's and 1960's, decisions to invest in infrastructure, education and the like.
  
• A look at the current situation might be a precursor of the future. Amercia is currwntly falling well behind in education compared to all other developed countries. We have the highest level of crime and by far the largest amount of debt among the developed countries in the world.
  
• Other countries are bypassing America in many areas not because we made mistakes, but because they are developing using the same approaches we took decades ago. Yet too many Americans simply refuse to admit how we have slipped with regard to many other countries.
  
• The six things that we did that lead to our success are exactly the same things that China, India and the like are now doing: reliance on competition, modern science, the rule of law, modern medicine, consumerism and a high work ethic.
  
• A worldwide technological revolution has permitted countries bent on improving their lot to out-compete the U.S. in many areas. Yet our leaders spend their time debating inconsequential issues.
  
• Our Congress refuses to consider making the changes so obviously needed to align our spending with our revenues. Instead they are talking of cutting programs that are likely to damage our ability to compete in the oong term, even thought he savings are so small as to be meaningless.
  
• Our elected leaders govern for purely political purposes, serving special interests who fund their re-election and avoiding presumably unpopular decisions even though they are so obviously needed.
  
• History of nations which have declined, Great Britain, demonstrate that with success their populations grew complacent and rigid, and they became more interested in the distribution of wealth rather than growth and the creation of more wealth.
  
• A crucial beginning of the U.S. being able to turn things around would be an honest assessment of where we stand and where we want to be in many areas. Yet because so many believe there is little to be learned from countries that have already surpassed us, that they refuse to consider the need for such a re-assessment. That attitude pervades both the general piblic as well as those they elect to represent them.
• Our government spends way too much on things that do nothing to encourage economic growth and increasingly less and less on those things that do.
  
• Our political system is geared to our elected representatives pandering to those interests that can assure their re-election, with little thought to longer term issues that would enhance our ability to again become more competitive.
  
• The sad thing is that our elected leaders know what needs to be done, but refuse because by doing so, they might sacrifice re-election. Our founding fathers would likely be profoundly annoyed at the growing absence of foresight and leadership among those that followed them.
  
• Our founders rralized that our republic was a work in progress and that their governance would have significant results in the future of the country. Our current elected representatives demonstrate no such foresight. That is very depressing.

There are lots of examples and statistics supporting these statements in the article. JimJoe, you seem to have cherry-picked a few statements or statistics with which you disagree to malign the entire article. I must ask you, do you disagree with any of the summary statements above, garnered from a re-resd of the article?

Or are you among those that beleive that the United States has been a world leader in lots of areas for a century or so and will remain that way, reagrdless of evidence to the contrary?

I agree with much of what you say...but I have a question: did your vote for representation in Congress reflect those well-stated views?
I, for one, did not vote for Nugent or Rubio. They do not stand for our needs...just for what best suits them for reelection...the ultimate selfishness. The way that Ginny Waite-Brown sneakily 'anointed' Nugent -- after she was caught in a number of lies -- was disgusting. She took choice away from even members of her own party.

Originally Posted by saratogaman

I agree with much of what you say...but I have a question: did your vote for representation in Congress reflect those well-stated views?...

While ours is a democracy, I'm sorry to say that I think we've passed the "one man-one vote" concept long ago. Those who occupy those 535 seats in Washington are more beholden to the special interests and lobbyists who pay to get them elected and re-elected than to a schlub like me who casts one louse vote and doesn't contribute any money. That's too bad, but that's they way I think it is in Washington these days.

Who'd I vote for? For Congress I voted for one of the Democrats who opposed Dick Nugent. There was one who seemed pretty well qualified and stated some principles that I mostly agreed with. I knew it was a wasted vote because of the high plurality of people in the 5th District who would automatically vote for the Republican candidate without even knowing his name. I too was offended by the under-the-table way that Ginny Brown-Waite announced her retirement from Congress, and at the same time got her buddy from Hernando County on the ticket only minutes before the filing deadline, virtually assuring his election to Congress.

I can't recall Nugent making a single speech or distributing one letter or flyer describing what he stands for. In fact, if you go to his website right now (http://nugent.house.gov/) you'll have a tough time figuring out what he really stands for. He says that Social Security is a promise that shouldn't be broken--I guess that means he won't cut Social Security. He says that government spending should be cut. But then he says that veterans' benefits should be improved. He has three kids, all military officers and two who graduatd from West Point. I can only assume that he won't be voting for cuts in the defense budget anytome soon. I can only conclude that arithmetic was not his best subject in school if he thinks the budget can be balanced with those limitations.

I voted for Charlie Crist for the Senate. I thought he did a pretty good job as Governor and seemed to take an independent stand on things that might have been unpopular. I liked that independence.

Who will I vote for in 2012? The little statement below this post tells it all...no one who's currently in elected office in Washington.

VK: I agree we are in big trouble... but more "INVESTMENT".. that means SPENDING.. is not the solution.
We became great because of innovation, work, and risk taking by INDIVIDUALS.. NOT by INVESTMENT "SPENDING" by government. I agree government creates the environment where individuals may prosper, but we are spending far too much on "EDUCATION" which means "WELFARE spending inside school buildings", and WELFARE spending which dis incentives work and self reliance. We had none of that junk when I grew up. I took my own lunch to school. I made it and I ate it. I didnt get FREE OR REDUCED COST breakfast, lunch, and supper at school.. and we were POOR. Knock it off with the INVESTMENT bs to justify welfare spending in school.
I paid my own way in college and law school. I worked during the school year and in the summer. I had 3 jobs in law school. Sure rich kids had it easier.. but so what...
I made it fine. I went to community college to save money and work. No one gave me a laptop or other overly stressed technology.
Credit cards instead of food stamps so people dont have to be "humiliated" when they get food off the public dole.. bull..
It is all social welfare social justice bull and you know it. There are winners and losers. Those that have the will to win will win. I did it. My kids did it. They paid their own ways in college, and in graduate school even though I easily could have done it.
Reduced welfare give aways is not just necessary nowadays, it is the life lessons that have been lost and must be found.
JJ

Originally Posted by JimJoe

... more "INVESTMENT"... means SPENDING.. is not the solution...We became great because of innovation, work, and risk taking by INDIVIDUALS.. NOT by INVESTMENT "SPENDING" by government....

JimJoe, I'll ask just a couple simple questions. They're intended to be examples of a role government can play that the private sector simply cannot achieve...

1. Would we have an interstate highway system like we do if President Eisenhower hadn't made it a national priority and gotten it approved by Congress? What would our country look like today, what would our economy look like had we relied on the states to build and pay for their parts of the system or private interests to build toll roads to be operated for a profit?

2. Would we have achieved all the scientific breakthroughs that came out of the space program unless it had been established as a national priority by President Kennedy? Would we have gone to the moon even today if we had relied only on the private sector to achieve that milestone while seeking a profit?

Our problem isn't government spending. It's government spending on the wrong things. It's government spending on things that are desired by special interests and with the Congressional votes needed to fund those programs bought an paid for by those interests. The list is a long one...farm subsidies, planes that even the military doesn't want...submarines that no one can see a need for with the security threats of the future...multiple federal programs, sometimes numbering in the dozens and dozens, all doing the same thing...a national healthcare system that has become unsustainably expensive while run for a profit...and on and on.

There doesn't need to be a lot of additional spending for government to play an important role in our future. What is needed is a clear definition of a set of national priorities and a steel-willed resistance to efforts to politicize the implementation of those priorities.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

JimJoe, I'll ask just a couple simple questions. They're intended to be examples of a role government can play that the private sector simply cannot achieve...

1. Would we have an interstate highway system like we do if President Eisenhower hadn't made it a national priority and gotten it approved by Congress? What would our country look like today, what would our economy look like had we relied on the states to build and pay for their parts of the system or private interests to build toll roads to be operated for a profit?

2. Would we have achieved all the scientific breakthroughs that came out of the space program unless it had been established as a national priority by President Kennedy? Would we have gone to the moon even today if we had relied only on the private sector to achieve that milestone while seeking a profit?

Our problem isn't government spending. It's government spending on the wrong things. It's government spending on things that are desired by special interests and with the Congressional votes needed to fund those programs bought an paid for by those interests. The list is a long one...farm subsidies, planes that even the military doesn't want...submarines that no one can see a need for with the security threats of the future...multiple federal programs, sometimes numbering in the dozens and dozens, all doing the same thing...a national healthcare system that has become unsustainably expensive while run for a profit...and on and on.

There doesn't need to be a lot of additional spending for government to play an important role in our future. What is needed is a clear definition of a set of national priorities and a steel-willed resistance to efforts to politicize the implementation of those priorities.

I agree with everything you said in this post. IF we limited FEDERAL government to the constitutionally authorized areas, we could reduce taxes at the federal, state, and local level.
The original article you posted had such information in it but it also inserted the typical liberal solutions of MORE investment in education and social programs, reduce guns ( what does that have to do with this economic discussion), the other liberal junk I posted above.
Of course the government has a role in defense, and interstate commerce. Those goals are in the constitution. But when the feds say their right to regulate interstate commerce includes how much water my shower head releases or how much my toilet flushes,, and many many more serious intrusions on our freedom, FEDERAL government has become the problem and needs to be seriously shrunk.
JJ

I'll take your toilet/shower example and point something out. I live one plot over from the Merrimack River. That's where (eventually) my wastewater ends up. (It takes a rather circuitous route to get to the treatment plant bofore ending up in the river, though). 3 miles downstream is Massachusetts. That's interstate commerce. What my town charges me for that service depends on what standards they have to treat the water since it's going to head into Massachusetts and, after that, out to the Atlantic.