For many many years, the US Government has shown that it is unable to behave in a fiscally responsible manner. Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of this. You and I have to live within the scope of our respective incomes and so should our government. Raising taxes is not the answer. Controlling spending is the answer. None of us need any more "income adjustments".

Personally, I think it is way past time for us to have a balanced budget ammendment to our Constitution. Only during times of war, natural disaster or emergency should our government ever spend more than it takes in. This should only be a very temporary situation, not standard operating procedure.

Lets not forget, they are not spending the governments money. They are spending our money.

It has been much easier to spend now and let the next Congress worry about the money, than it is to make the very difficult decisions about what spending is needed and what is not. While I don't think we need an amendment (surely they have gone downhill after the first ten), we do need legislation and voter pressure to balance the budget. More and more economists are pointing out the inconvenient truths about what is going to happen within the next twenty years if we don't., and the ramifications to our position in the global economy gives reason to pause.
Z

Oh yes, it is much easier to take the mentality of letting someone else deal with it later. We have seen the results of that far too often. For the career politicians, they don't want to take a stand on something and be the one who cuts a program that might affect someone in their respective district. The mentality is "I'm for cuts...as long as it doesn't affect me."

Unless I have missed something, I don't recall any of the candidates really talking about this issue.

This is one of the reasons I've supported a "line item veto" for the President. Most recently, Clinton used it a few times during his Presidency.

Wikipedia - Line Item Veto

Since Congress can over-ride the President's veto, only those budget items that would received veto over-ride power would get through, rather than all the "pork barrel" stuff that now gets approved.

How can we blame a President for out of control spending when the Congress allows it?

How can we blame Congress for out of control spending when the President allows it?

The government really needs to curb their spending, I heard that they buy toilet seats for $5,000 each. Did you know that when social security has left over money after all the retirees receive their checks they put the rest in the bank it is so they can be ahead the Government comes and takes it out to spend on something else. That is why they say they are not going to have enough money for the baby boomers when they retire. That is one of the reasons social security is in trouble.

My View on the whole thing is: I have to live within my means, and keep within my budget. I really expect my government to due the same.

When I run out of money and don't pay my bills, they turn the lights off. When the government runs out of money, they raise my taxes. !?!

Governmental spending is out of control! Yes some of it is because of the war - I want to get that in before the Bush haters start in - however the congressional pork barrel spending has got to stop.

I'm tired of paying for bridges to nowhere!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're absolutely right, John. The blame rests with each Congress and each President going back as long as most of us can remember. Like you, I am in favor of a line item veto for the President. The 535 people that we have in Congress are too quick to blame other members. But with our President armed with a line item veto, the buck would stop with him, so to speak. People seem to like holding the President responsible for spending. You want to make him/her really responsible for it? Give him the line item veto. Then he has no excuse.

Speaking of ridiculous pork barrel legislation, isn't the entire highway system of Boston being put underground? That's why were in debt!

It would take every American citizen 30,000$ to pay off the national debt.

Against a proposed fiscal budget of something around three trillion dollars, eliminating all the local porkbarrel projects that are sneaked in by Congressmen are a drop in the bucket. Some economists predict that, without spending restraints and given the insolvency of Social Security and other welfare programmes currently mandated by law, that within 20 to 25 years, the entire revenue base will be needed to fund those and service the debt (most of which is held by foreigners).
Now this prediction may be exaggerated, but I suspect few will question the potential harmful effects upon balance of payments and the value of the US Dollar, not to mention inflation and America's ability to be competitive in the world market.
Z

It might be exaggerated a little but it really makes little difference if it takes 25 or 50 years. The trend is well documented and at some point in the future, our government will be unable to fund the obligations that is has already undertaken. Not counting anything new that they take on between now and then. There has to be signifcant and dramatic cuts made in our spending and major changes in how we operate.

It really amazes me how this issues has not been addressed by any of our Presidental candidates. This is a major problem.

It is one of the more serious problems facing Americans, and one would think that at least one of the major candidates would be serious enough, and honest enough with the voters, to at least bring up the problem, even if unable to provide a simple ten-point solution. But to tell the people that they may end up paying increased taxes, or that they just might have to make some adjustments to their style of living, or to make some difficult choices about what they want from their central government and whether they will pay for it, seems to be suicide for politicians; perhaps they are hoping for a statesman to come along after the election, of course, and make everything better or make it all go away.
Z

Of course they won't say anything - President Bush proposed a curbing of the spending - Heaven forbid any body agrees with anything he says.

I mean really ... whats the point of being president if you can's spend money right and left!

Lord knows both Clinton and Obama like to spend money - especially if its not their own!

I think that is why some politicians do not address the issue. And that gets back to a point that I made in another thread regarding career politicians. I am a firm believer in term limits. Yes, I understand that elections are supposed to be term limits but we all know it doesn't work that way far too many times. Many people just vote for someone because they recognize the name. They don't really know much else about them. If a politician was not concerned about his/her re-election campaigns, then they would make some of the tough decisions necessary to bring about fiscal responsibility. And I think we all need to resign ourselves to the fact that this is not going to be pleasant. Like Z mentioned, we are going to have to make some significant changes in our lifestyles and what we expect out of our Federal Government.



Vicki, this is one of the things that scares me the most about those 2 (and to be perfectly honest, McCain doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling on this issue either). They have both proposed programs that would, by some accounts, increase spending by $1 trillion. Considering where we are today and the existing financial committments that we have, how in the world can you even begin to think about spending more? That is absolute insanity.

Socialism is expensive. Worked out real well for the USSR!

They have been doing that since 1965 and replacing it with I.O.U.'s and saying they will pay 1% interest on the money they take at some later date. I believe that last year you will find they took somewhere around $78,000,000,000 of the SSI money and spent it on other things. In 1961 the SSI back log was $50,000,000,000. Friends, that was in 1961 dollars which was worth 12 to 14 times as much as it is today and at the time was the largest untouched fund in the WORLD!!! The first encroachment on the fund was perpetrated by Kennedy when he helped finance the Space program out of it. Then Johnson broke into it to help pay for the Vietnam War. Then Nixon had to get into the act and finance the Russian Grain deal out of it to the tune of 9,000,000,000. Then they brought in all the Vietnam refuges and a lot of them on the Government payroll, paying them GS-4 and GS-5 wages while having GS-2's and GS-3's train them, all paid out of SSI. And now the libs want to put the illegals on SSI when they reach retirement age. Either we put people in that will stop the pilfering of the fund or it will go belly up and it's our children and our grandchildren that will be left holding the bag.