Speaker Pelosi's "defense" earmark

[RoyalShock]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/USDebt.png

The only leveling of that line in the past 30 years was under a Democrat president.

IIRC, that was made possible by the largest tax increase in the history of the country. That should give you just a glimpse of what is in store for the future. And the longer we let our legislators continue their spending ways, the bigger that eventual increase will be. Or, we scale back the federal gov't so that spending can be drastically reduced and the debt worked down (which would take generations). The only other eventual outcome I can see is a complete economic collapse (anything the Federal Reserve does to put it off only devalues the dollar more or increases the debt).

The point is, that now we don't have a party that truly represents a position of limited government.

But at least one side of the aisle isn't talking about taking over the health-care industry and thinking they'll pay for it by repealing a few tax cuts.

[Snapshot9]

But they will reply that everything costs more, which it does today. You can't increase gas prices, wages, ship work overseas, raise unemployment, allow illegal immigrants to rape our country, give away millions to every 3rd world country on the globe, let pharmaceutical companies run rampant without

repercussions to the average citizen. What is a shame is the average citizen can not affect the government machinery in place to any great extent, and even good changes that come along take way too long.

Congress, both state and U.S., is a quagmire of bi-partisanship, that hardly ever looks to what is good for the average man/woman in our country. Yes, they all promise it, but the 1 or 2 that want to deliver it never have enough influence to get it done.

And I believe that Clinton left office with a surplus in the budget.

[ShockBand]

Until we as a country can figure out that either:

if you want the government to do more, its going to cost more in taxes

OR

if you want to have lower taxes, you're going to have the government do less for you, then...

we're not going to get out of our rut.

Even in good economic times, its difficult to keep the public trough running like a college keg party AND lower taxes at the same time. In a tough economy, well, duh, its even worse. But its also not always really simple and easy to fix, as RS can attest to even at the small municipality level.

[BA2929]

Just one more reason the death penalty should be more widely enforced.


The fact that Nancy Pelosi is 2 short steps from the Presidency not only keeps me awake most nights, but should be enough to convince every Democrat in the entire country that the leadership in your party is a complete wack job.

Wack jobs that at least are not going to bankrupt the country. In 200 + years the prior administrations (under both Republican and Democrat administrations) had yet to create total of 6 trillion in debt. The country under the Bush administration and the Republican congress added nearly 3 trillion in just 6 short years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/USDebt.png

The only leveling of that line in the past 30 years was under a Democrat president.

If you really want a good representation of our national debt, click on this link:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

hit refresh a few times to see how fast it actually goes up.

[RoyalShock]

While the current debt is scary, have you heard what our current liabilities are?

Try $59 trillion. That comes to $516,348 for every U.S. household. Do you have those kinds of assets lying around?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-28-federal-budget_N.htm

[Ixiah]

IIRC, that was made possible by the largest tax increase in the history of the country. That should give you just a glimpse of what is in store for the future. And the longer we let our legislators continue their spending ways, the bigger that eventual increase will be. Or, we scale back the federal gov't so that spending can be drastically reduced and the debt worked down (which would take generations). The only other eventual outcome I can see is a complete economic collapse (anything the Federal Reserve does to put it off only devalues the dollar more or increases the debt).

The point is, that now we don't have a party that truly represents a position of limited government.

But at least one side of the aisle isn't talking about taking over the health-care industry and thinking they'll pay for it by repealing a few tax cuts.

Actually the largest tax increase ever was under Reagen with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.

http://www.factcheck.org/treasury_tax_expert_to_bush_clintons_increase.html

As for the health care - I think it depends what system they set it up. Japan for example has a form of social health care and it works effectively.