A plan to balance the Federal Budget by 2020

[ygmir]

jk, it's great that you're thinking about this stuff. I see a couple of things in the proposal that I don't like;
"cost of U. S. engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq will decrease significantly by 2020."
I just can't see any justification to be in these wars. What is the objective? What have we changed?
"manual-labor-intensive jobs and would therefore find working past sixty-seven an undue burden"
That means that me and ygmir will still be breaking down tires and digging ditches when we're 66 y.o.
The current COLA does not take into account the cost of energy. Obummer says that carbon tax is going to cause the cost of energy "skyrocket"

"At current spending levels, Social Security is projected to become insolvent by 2037"
Last month SS payed out more than it took in. It holds $ 7.4 trillion in non-negotiable treasury bonds. I seriously doubt that treasury will find the money to fund both SS and Medicare. The unfunded liabilities stand at about $ 112 trillion.
Our current debt by GAP standards is about 860 % of GDP.
"Projected Debt-to-GDP Ratio in 2020: 52%"
This is pie-in-the-sky projections that don't take all the liabilities into account.
I'm glad that they're thinking about it. David Walker, the recently departed U.S. Comptroller-General said that there is NO way out. We'll see.

There are several things in the proposal I don't like either. Like I said earlier, everybody will have something not to like in this proposal.

I'm not up on all of the figures, so I won't try to argue those points with you except to say that my understanding differs from your figures on Social Security and Medicare and some of your other predictions.

I do agree with you on both Iraq and Afghanistan--no reason to be there. Is your argument being we should end those two wars and cut military budget even more than proposed? If so, that is not even close to what the current reality dictates. It will be hard enough to get congress to agree on ANY military cuts, let alone the comparatively gigantic cuts in the proposal. Try and remember the last time the military budget was cut.

Regarding the raising of the retirement age; your concern, I believe has been addressed in that first, the age will be raised slowly and incrementally, and there will be some sort of consideration given to people in labor intensive jobs.

Regarding Social Security--I just received my first retirement check last month. There hasn't been a cola raise in the last two years anyway. It's really not an important issue for me--a sacrifice I am happy to make.

There are probably a million reasons this plan is not perfect. No plan will be perfect; but this is the best plan I have seen that even has a chance of seeing the light of day in congress.

So, I say do it. Just like health care reform, it's not perfect, but it's a good start and we can make it better in time.

JK

I always have trouble with that statement:
when, has congress ever "fixed" anything, let alone something that big?
It may well have happened, but, I just am not aware.
But,
I do not trust them, to fix or change anything.
I'd rather they do nothing, than, do it wrong and make it worse.

[pinemom]

Im so not politically aware...and I live under a big pretty rock...they dont deliver the newspaper under rocks, so Ive been told.



BUT, If they had split the amount of the bailout to big corporations and instead given each and every TAX PAYING American citizen the money, the American citizens would have stimulated the economy much better and actually would have supported the stupid corporations in the long run, better then a bailout!


Aw Piss!

[ygmir]

Im so not politically aware...and I live under a big pretty rock...they dont deliver the newspaper under rocks, so Ive been told.



BUT, If they had split the amount of the bailout to big corporations and instead given each and every TAX PAYING American citizen the money, the American citizens would have stimulated the economy much better and actually would have supported the stupid corporations in the long run, better then a bailout!


Aw Piss!

"high five"........

I said that, when it was first proposed.
so did many others.

but, you don't buy power in Washington, by helping the "little guy".

[cowboyangel]

Im so not politically aware...and I live under a big pretty rock...they dont deliver the newspaper under rocks, so Ive been told.



BUT, If they had split the amount of the bailout to big corporations and instead given each and every TAX PAYING American citizen the money, the American citizens would have stimulated the economy much better and actually would have supported the stupid corporations in the long run, better then a bailout!


Aw Piss!

best thing I've seen written here! Hugs to ya Piney

[Elderberry]

Im so not politically aware...and I live under a big pretty rock...they dont deliver the newspaper under rocks, so Ive been told.



BUT, If they had split the amount of the bailout to big corporations and instead given each and every TAX PAYING American citizen the money, the American citizens would have stimulated the economy much better and actually would have supported the stupid corporations in the long run, better then a bailout!


Aw Piss!

"high five"........

I said that, when it was first proposed.
so did many others.

but, you don't buy power in Washington, by helping the "little guy".

Actually, it's a pretty well kept secret, but those "bailouts" actually worked; and the government will have recouped almost all of the money they paid out--with interest--some of those "investments" will have paid the government back plus almost 8% interest. But nobody seems to actually know this little heralded truth about those very unpopular bailouts.

(They are unpopular mostly because of the negative propaganda that has been spread about them.)

Oh, and speaking of helping the "little guy"--Obama gave back $400.00 to each and every tax payer this past year. It was done via smaller deductions in your paycheck, so it again went unnoticed by most people. This is but one of the helpful things that was done for "average Joe".

Bush did similar rebates but gave the money back in the form of a check, which was easier to recognize--he ever printed his message on the check! However Obama chose to do it in a more subtle way so as to help stimulate the economy. You see, a lump sum payment is more likely to be put into savings, where receiving more money weekly is more likely to be spent--which is what was necessary to aide the economy.

Even Bush's TARP program, though also maligned (and often wrongly associated with Obama) worked and almost all of that money has also been repaid to the government.

Ya gotta give credit where credit is due. Just saying...

JK

[can't sit still]

"The bailouts actually worked." Worked for who????????????????
let me check the math. The bankers took a $100 mortgage that is worth about $20 ,, depending on the tranche. They sold it to treasury for $ 100. worth of treasury bonds. The GSEs are sitting on these toxic mortgages that they hold at face value. If you take this toxic paper at face value, then GOV was paid back.
Actually, the path of the money was a bit more circuitous.
The FED bought the toxic paper at face value. The treasury either converts or guarantees the paper from the FED. Converted by the FED or guaranteed by the GSEs. No matter the route, the treasury is holding the bag.

QE I bought a boatload of paper that was never marked-to-market. It was bought at face value. We now have QE lite that is buying about $20 billion a month. The value of a house is always dependent on the wages and employment in the same area. As employment declines, the FED calls for more QE.. QE II is in the works.
The banks are loaded to the gills with paper that they refuse to mark-to-market. The foreclosure system is backed up with toxic turds. They need to unload another big load of crap onto the taxpayer.
QE II will give the taxpayer another huge load of toxic paper that will NEVER be worth face value. The FED will buy it at face value though. These mortgages are crashing through the floor. No matter. The taxpayers continue to pay face value for them.

The FED not only bought all this toxic paper, they also opened the discount window to the banks at .25%. The banks took all this money [excess reserves] and redeposited it with treasury at 2.5%. The banks traded toxic crap at face value for treasury notes. They got free interest on the excess reserves. Then, they paid interest on the TARP funds. BFD

Fannie and Freddie continue to bleed red ink from toxic paper. Treasury sends them transfusions of OUR money. They've lost $ 226 billion so far. Just think about the hundreds of $ billions that they will lose when the turd log-jam finally moves through the system.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/222712- ... t-billions

The GSEs are insuring about 72 % of all mortgages. We're on track to hit about 7 ,000,000 or 8,000,000 foreclosures;
http://www.realtytrac.com/content/press ... ports-6108
What do you think is the true value of all that toxic paper that WE are paying for? What will be the losses from the GSEs that WE will have to pay for?
You can bet that it will be a lot more than $ 400.

Is the loss of $226 billion "negative propaganda"?

[Elderberry]

Some people never see a silver lining.

JK

[can't sit still]

I just don't understand. Maybe you can explain the silver lining part.
October 22 – Bloomberg (Lorraine Woellert): “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac… may need as much as $363 billion in Treasury Department aid through 2013,
http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/cr ... t_id=10452
$ 363 billion from you and me.

[Trishntek]

Well I said it before, but here goes:

Corporations create jobs and pay half the social security tax for each employee. Corporations create goods which get taxed multiple times before reaching the end user. I'm not talking about banks, I'm talking about manufacturers and energy companies. Do you realize state, local and federal governments make more money on a gallon of gas than the oil company does? Can you imagine the FET Goodyear pays? If you have never run a business in California, You cannot imagine all the regulatory hoop-jumping one must go through to stay in business.

Why do we decry all these executives getting enormous paychecks while willingly letting professional athletes and movie stars rape us blind. Do you think the cost of that Nike pair of shoes or the can of Budweiser does not reflect those outrageous wages paid to "stars"? You actually believe those entertaining commercials are paid for by NOT influencing the cost of what is advertised?

Anyway, getting back to the original post: Government needs to get out of the education business (teacher's unions), get out of the energy business (labor unions), get out of the healthcare business (nurses unions), get out of the banking business (FED, fannie & freddy), get out of the welfare business (50% of our population pays no income tax, what you don't think gubmint wants us dependent on them?), get out of policing the world business (military-industrial complex), and get back to governing within its defined boundaries and leave the rest up to state and local governments.

If we all,,,, and I mean ALL paid a flat 10% tax on our profits and required the government to stay within that amount of revenue, then we just might see politicians inclined toward responsibility rather than selfish gain.

[Elderberry]

Well I said it before, but here goes:

Corporations create jobs and pay half the social security tax for each employee. Corporations create goods which get taxed multiple times before reaching the end user. I'm not talking about banks, I'm talking about manufacturers and energy companies. Do you realize state, local and federal governments make more money on a gallon of gas than the oil company does? Can you imagine the FET Goodyear pays? If you have never run a business in California, You cannot imagine all the regulatory hoop-jumping one must go through to stay in business.

Why do we decry all these executives getting enormous paychecks while willingly letting professional athletes and movie stars rape us blind. Do you think the cost of that Nike pair of shoes or the can of Budweiser does not reflect those outrageous wages paid to "stars"? You actually believe those entertaining commercials are paid for by NOT influencing the cost of what is advertised?

Anyway, getting back to the original post: Government needs to get out of the education business (teacher's unions), get out of the energy business (labor unions), get out of the healthcare business (nurses unions), get out of the welfare business (50% of our population pays no income tax), get out of policing the world business (military-industrial complex), and get back to governing within its defined boundaries and leave the rest up to state and local governments.

If we all,,,, and I mean ALL paid a flat 10% tax on our profits and required the government to stay within that amount of revenue, then we just might see politicians inclined toward responsibility rather than selfish gain.

I agree with the items I have highlighted (hat tip to Ygmir for the highlighting idea).

However there is one word that needs a LOT of clarification--"Profit" Corporations right now pay tax on their "profit", which is why the largest corporations in this country pay zero taxes because of loop holes. This suggestion would only work if all of the loop holes were eliminated, but then again, if all the loop holes were eliminated there would be no reason to go to a flat tax. Quite the dilemma. Ten percent on total sales, maybe? Though we have this system in Los Angeles and everybody is crying that it is driving businesses away. They have since decided to waive this tax for business with total gross sales under, I believe $100,000.00 (might be a bit higher, don't recall off the bat.)

Don't agree so much with your other suggestions/assumptions.

JK

[Elderberry]

I just don't understand. Maybe you can explain the silver lining part.
October 22 – Bloomberg (Lorraine Woellert): “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac… may need as much as $363 billion in Treasury Department aid through 2013,
http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/cr ... t_id=10452
$ 363 billion from you and me.

This is one area (among others) where there as some serious problems yet to be worked through. So what? It is just another diversion to the topic at hand, which was the proposal to balance the budget. It's a red haring as it pertains to the topic at hand. If other areas of the budget were reduced, like military spending for example, the chances of having money to, once again, bail out the mortgage industry. (Not that I am happy about that, but what's done is done and it probably would be better focusing on making sure it doesn't happen again.

JK

[can't sit still]

Trish, I can not believe that you would espouse such a plan of persecution.
The U.S. has 50% of the world's lawyers. What are they going to do if you trash all the nonsense regulatory gobeldy-gook? We have millions of incomprehensible laws on our books,,,, all written by well-paid jurists. Written incomprehensible so that ANY question could be litigated until both parties run out of money.
We have 1,128,729 lawyers in this country [2006] what will they all do? Think of their children.

[Elderberry]

I always have trouble with that statement:
when, has congress ever "fixed" anything, let alone something that big?
It may well have happened, but, I just am not aware.
But,
I do not trust them, to fix or change anything.
I'd rather they do nothing, than, do it wrong and make it worse.

They must have done some things right in order for our democracy to have survived as long as it has.

I'd rather have them 'try' to fix the problem and fail than have them do nothing at all. To do nothing assures failure.

Sort of like the Jehovah's witnesses--they'd rather do nothing when they get sick and leave it in the hands of god. Medical science doesn't guarantee a cure, but I'd sure feel better if myself or a loved one died after I tried everything medically available to cure them than to simply do nothing at all.

Treatment may not work, doctors may be incompetent, science might not be advanced enough, but it's the best hope we've got.

Sitting back and doing nothing is simply unacceptable.

JK

[Elderberry]

Trish, I can not believe that you would espouse such a plan of persecution.
The U.S. has 50% of the world's lawyers. What are they going to do if you trash all the nonsense regulatory gobeldy-gook? We have millions of incomprehensible laws on our books,,,, all written by well-paid jurists. Written incomprehensible so that ANY question could be litigated until both parties run out of money.
We have 1,128,729 lawyers in this country [2006] what will they all do? Think of their children.

Well, we can pretty much agree here.

JK

[can't sit still]

jk, the topic at hand is balancing the budget.
"Total Projected Savings in Other Spending: $71 billion

Total Projected Savings on Government Spending in 2020: $476 billion

Total Debt Service Projected Savings in 2020: $142 billion"
The total current debt is about $ 13 trillion. It is expected to hit $15 trillion in the next couple of years.
Let's say that the above savings save 3/4 trillion. 3/4 trillion of saving will NOT balance a deficit of $ 15 trillion. The tax increases won't help either. For every dollar increase in taxes, there is a corresponding 3 dollar decrease in GDP.
There will NEVER be a balance without default.

[Elderberry]

jk, the topic at hand is balancing the budget.
"Total Projected Savings in Other Spending: $71 billion

Total Projected Savings on Government Spending in 2020: $476 billion

Total Debt Service Projected Savings in 2020: $142 billion"
The total current debt is about $ 13 trillion. It is expected to hit $15 trillion in the next couple of years.
Let's say that the above savings save 3/4 trillion. 3/4 trillion of saving will NOT balance a deficit of $ 15 trillion. The tax increases won't help either. For every dollar increase in taxes, there is a corresponding 3 dollar decrease in GDP.
There will NEVER be a balance without default.

I hope you are wrong.

JK

[can't sit still]

jk, we agree on that and many other things. I saw this coming in '05 and I've been busting ass to prepare. I want to be in a position to help people. I was going to run off to Chile but, I stayed around to help the innocents. If I'm wrong,,, still, nobody loses.

[Elderberry]

jk, we agree on that and many other things. I saw this coming in '05 and I've been busting ass to prepare. I want to be in a position to help people. I was going to run off to Chile but, I stayed around to help the innocents. If I'm wrong,,, still, nobody loses.

I was about to say "true", but now not so sure. Is nobody hurt (including the outcome of the situation) by spreading fear and panic?

In your opinion, am I correct to understand, that you truly believe that there is absolutely no way to prevent your pessimistic outcome (foregone conclusion to be default)?

JK

[can't sit still]

jk, you'll find that most of my posts are facts and figures. They stand by themselves [hopefully] If there is fear and panic, that would be a result of the numbers.
Generally Accepted Accounting Practices [GAPP] says that the unfunded liabilities of America GOV are about $ 108 trillion. The Comptroller-General, David Walker agrees with these numbers. The congressional budget office says that debt service will take 100% of the budget in a few years and 200 % a few years after that. The national debt is about $ 15 trillion.
The S&P 500 are $ 254 billion in arrears in contributions to their pension plans. GOV pension plans [Non-federal] are underfunded by $ 1.05 trillion.

These aren't my numbers. I'm hardly in a position to dispute them. The effects of these purported shortfalls are open to discussion and interpretation. I never said that we would all go hungry.
SS has $ 7.4 trillion in non-negotiable IOUs from treasury. I pointed this out. I never said that everybody would lose their SS.
There are 44 million on food-stamps. I never implied that they would lose these food-stamps. I just pointed it out as an economic indicator.
I repeat statistics. I try to refrain from drawing conclusions. Y'all are capable of drawing your own conclusions. I don't regurgitate and interpret statistics like MSM. I try to just post relevant data.
Consider Illinois. They would have to raise everybody's tax liability to almost $ 42,000 to meet expenses. These aren't my numbers.
Chicago Pension Funds Selling Assets to Meet Obligations; Needs to Double Property Taxes; Current Liabilities of $41,966 per Household.


If I claim that the budget will never be balanced, I'm echoing the statements of the Chinese bond rating agency. They know FAR more than I.

There is a way out of default. It's called hyper-inflate. It's been done many times.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Hype ... Dollar.asp
The FED is in the process right now. They're increasing the money supply monthly.
THAT seems to be in our future. "Bernanke’s inflationists out-number the Fed hawks, and the world economy should brace itself for a round of hyper-inflation."
http://sirchartsalot.com/article.php?id=146
Y'all are free to interpret, ignore, panic or whatever. I'm sure as hell not going to lead anybody.

[Trishntek]

Im so not politically aware...and I live under a big pretty rock...they dont deliver the newspaper under rocks, so Ive been told.



BUT, If they had split the amount of the bailout to big corporations and instead given each and every TAX PAYING American citizen the money, the American citizens would have stimulated the economy much better and actually would have supported the stupid corporations in the long run, better then a bailout!


Aw Piss!

"high five"........

I said that, when it was first proposed.
so did many others.

but, you don't buy power in Washington, by helping the "little guy".

Actually, it's a pretty well kept secret, but those "bailouts" actually worked; and the government will have recouped almost all of the money they paid out--with interest--some of those "investments" will have paid the government back plus almost 8% interest. But nobody seems to actually know this little heralded truth about those very unpopular bailouts.

(They are unpopular mostly because of the negative propaganda that has been spread about them.)

Oh, and speaking of helping the "little guy"--Obama gave back $400.00 to each and every tax payer this past year. It was done via smaller deductions in your paycheck, so it again went unnoticed by most people. This is but one of the helpful things that was done for "average Joe".

Bush did similar rebates but gave the money back in the form of a check, which was easier to recognize--he ever printed his message on the check! However Obama chose to do it in a more subtle way so as to help stimulate the economy. You see, a lump sum payment is more likely to be put into savings, where receiving more money weekly is more likely to be spent--which is what was necessary to aide the economy.

Even Bush's TARP program, though also maligned (and often wrongly associated with Obama) worked and almost all of that money has also been repaid to the government.

Ya gotta give credit where credit is due. Just saying...

JK

That's all fine and good JK, whatever makes you feel better. But it's NOT THEIR MONEY to give and take as they please in the first place!

[Trishntek]

It just occurred to me that the Fed gubmint is doing exactly what the organized crime syndicates do. For a nominal fee, they will make sure they do not rob you. Except in the case of the gubmint, claiming they protect us while being the GREATEST THREAT to our liberty in all existence.

[Elderberry]

No wonder we are in the shape we are in. OK I give up. The only thing that seems left to do is to petition our lawmakers to just turn over the country to the Chinese before we default.

Seems the only honorable solution you people leave for us to do.

Damn it, Chinese is a hard language to learn to read, write and speak.

Oh well...

美國
美利å

[can't sit still]

jk, if we default, the banks get what they deserve. I posted a graph of OUR debt on the "screw the banks" thread. All their gambling debts have been transferred to OUR treasury. China wants to sell to us. I doubt that they really want to take over a country with 300 million guns. They want us to earn money and buy their crap.
The banks want to vacuum up every nickel in the country for themselves. If we can throw off their intended yoke, we can work for ourselves and NOT for them and their never-ending interest. 50 % of the cost of everything is for interest. If we can change this, we have a chance of returning to global competitiveness.

THAT is why GOV is doing everything possible to avoid default. A default would bring at least, a restructuring,,, maybe even a repudiation. Look at history. In a lot of cultures, there was a jubilee every 50 years to repudiate all debt. In early years, there was no BK. Debts were passed on from father to children.
The Chinese economy is only the size of the economy of California. Their per-capita GDP is far less than half of the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita
They have plenty to keep them busy at home.

We don't need to fear china. We should fear their productivity because ours is harnessed to the bankers. Get rid of the wars with no objective or chance of success. Get rid of the parasitic bankers. Then, you would see prosperity. Germany did this in the 30s and was instantly prosperous. Don't quote me on the timeline. I haven't researched it.
China isn't the enemy of our domestic prosperity. The enemy is banker's control of the money supply and their and interest.

[Elderberry]

The enemy is banker's control of the money supply and their and interest.

So, is strong regulation of what banks are allowed to do the answer?

JK

[Trishntek]

JK, if I understand your question correctly, the answer is a resounding NO!

It is regulation and the creation of the FED that got us into this mess! Left to competitive markets and the freedom to do with OUR money as we wish, the banks would be forced to function as every other business, i.e. face the consequences of their usurious rates and keep pricing close to actual values.

Because the gubmint encouraged, and some might say 'forced', banks into granting loans to unqualified borrowers and provided banks with cheap money to loan we have inflated housing which is being propped up by bailouts. When houses became easy to aquire, the price naturally increased. Now that the bottom fell out of the market, gubmint wants to continue the artificially high housing prices to "protect" property value. The higher the value on paper, the more "secure" the loans are.

But it all started with cheap loans with cheap money for overpriced property. And that was the creation of the Fair Housing Act of 1998 among other gubmint programs.

[can't sit still]

Yes and no. Canada is a perfect example. They had great prosperity until the finally fell under the control of a central bank. Just like the U.S. the bankers just kept hammering away until they got control. They get it, we wrest it back. That hasn't happened lately.
The Graham-Leachy act tore away a large part of our control.
The founding fathers said that ONLY congress has the power to coin money. The FED got around this. Even if we were to somehow get control back of our currency, they would corrupt whoever it took to take it away. Power attracts the corrupted. I see no way to permanently keep the bankers out of the halls of power. Especially with an apathetic electorate.

I'm trying very hard to understand the whole picture.
If the banks steal most of our productivity,,, fruits of our labor,,, proceeds,,, what do they do with it? I can't say for sure but;
We have millions in the legal profession. We probably have millions of analysts and economists. We have millions in GOV with no discernible purpose Dept of energy comes to mind.
The PHYSICAL economy creates the productive jobs. The parasitic economy is responsible for justifying and self-perpetuating the parasitic jobs. We saw the result of GOV efforts at job creation. It cost $ 117,000 to create a job that paid $ 86,000. I can't remember the exact numbers.
The parasitic sector has no conception of productivity. The parasitic sector can't relate.
Because of market forces in the physical economy, we have huge job losses. The parasitic sector has responded by enlarging the parasitic sector to provide jobs.

There have been no new jobs created in the last 10 years because it was the parasitic sector trying to create them.
As the demands from the parasitic sector increase,,,, at the same time that the employment in the productive sector shrinks,,, the productive sector is increasingly burdened. The parasitic sector demands that all their sustenance be supplied.... by fewer and fewer producers.
They will soon demand that their demands be met regardless of the losses and suffering of the formerly productive members of society. The bankruptcy of 401s and pension plans will transfer the accumulated wealth of formerly productive workers to the parasitic "class" . Like a chupacabra, they sucked out the $7.4 trillion in SS. They are already talking about mandatory conversion of 401s into treasury instruments.

From the Daily Bell;
"Confiscation of Large Retirement Fund Accounts - The long-term confiscation and control idea is to eventually force all retirement benefits under the new automatic/mandatory IRA program where everything will be combined with and managed like your Social Security benefits. Wealthy and productive Americans will find their retirement benefits used to support the trillions in underfunded union, state and local government employee plans."

After all, the GOV retirement programs are NOT funded. You get stuck with it.
Read about carbon tax. It will ALL be channeled through the banks first, NOT GOV.

The banks recognize that the big contraction in the productive economy will not allow the support of many millions of parasites. If productivity will not do it then, they need to take all the savings. Taxes have a 3X negative multiplier on GDP.
The parasites know this. They need to plan for a new host. They would probably like to tap in to the jugular of China.

You can talk about control of the banks. The whole power structure is the main body of the parasite. They aren't so much in collusion as,,, they recognize that they are useless to the productive economy. They will work in unison to insure that the productive economy can never get free.

[Elderberry]

I think you are both way to pessimistic and paranoid and need to start reading writings from more main-stream economists.

I am going to try to gracefully withdraw from this conversation.

JK

[Trishntek]

I'm just spit-balling here, but was that not what the War of 1812 was all about? The British banks were trying to take over the economy of the U.S. Consequently, we were pretty much autonomous on the global market until the establishment of the FED.

I believe Thomas Jefferson warned about banks taking control of our economy. And Franklin warned about the end of our republic when people find out they can vote themselves money.

Our society was created for a citizenry of responsible, self-reliant and self-governing INDIVIDUALS. When classes, races, age groups, religions are targeted for benefit or burden, it divides us into groups. We are no longer treated as individuals,,,, we are no longer governed equally.

[can't sit still]

jk, I have no reason to argue with you. I too, would like to see a balanced budget. It doesn't seem that congress has their heart in it;
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/deb ... speaker-pe

[Elderberry]

jk, I have no reason to argue with you. I too, would like to see a balanced budget. It doesn't seem that congress has their heart in it;
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/deb ... speaker-pe

Sadly, I have to agree with you on this...even without reading your link. If the Republicans take over the house, things will be even worse, especially considering they are saying 'no compromise' at all.

But, I still encourage you to not waste your vote and to call, write and/or email your representatives and let them know how you feel...and do it OFTEN. I have to believe that if ENOUGH people continue to voice their displeasure with the status quo, things will get better.

What we do or say here on eplaya, though sometimes fun, is not having any effect on changing things.

Everyone needs to get involved and stay involved. No matter what side of the issues you are on.

We can't through out the baby with the bathwater. The system will work if do not allow ourselves to be become apathetic and we become involved and encourage all of our friends and neighbors to get involved too.

JK

And now, after reading your link, I will only say that it is not fair to blame the dems for this increase--it was created in an effort to help the country and the world economy recover from from bad economic policy that created a world crisis.