danimal151@ wrote:
Well writen. But I think you hit a snag right at your "first step". How, pray-tell do we get a constitutional amendment when the very people who would have to write it and submit it are the ones who don't care if we have a balanced budget? In fact, they are the very ones who oppose it. Congress does not want us telling them what to do. That would be following the constitution, and the great majority in the House and Senate want nothing to do with that.
Sure, we could begin a grass roots uprising and elect "only"people that run on the platform of balanced bugets, bit as always, as soon as they get elected and see the perks of pandering to special interists...POOOF...al those issues go up in smoke. I think "first" we have to rewrite election rules...however, you hit the very same snag again. The bottom line is our government is out of control and needs replaced before they legislate the USA right out of exsistance. Now that gets a little sticky because it would require a full blown revolution. A coup de'ta? (oh I do spell bad...so bad that i am not even sure if I spelled that wrong or not) Sure, Americans have the right to bare arms and we have millions of firearms in American homes. Do you think thats enough to overthrough the government? Not a chance my friend. The armed forces would be brought to bare on any uprising, never mind that the National Guard is the only entity thats allowed to be used on our soil except in a time of war, out of duty, any uprising would be quelched before it took hold. And those guys have some weapons that make pour little cache of pistols and rifles and shotguns as worthless as pea-shooters. NO, our socialist government will be the downfall of a once great and powerful idea. FREEDOM. It had a chance before the rich took over the government.
Sure, we could begin a grass roots uprising and elect "only"people that run on the platform of balanced bugets, bit as always, as soon as they get elected and see the perks of pandering to special interists...POOOF...al those issues go up in smoke. I think "first" we have to rewrite election rules...however, you hit the very same snag again. The bottom line is our government is out of control and needs replaced before they legislate the USA right out of exsistance. Now that gets a little sticky because it would require a full blown revolution. A coup de'ta? (oh I do spell bad...so bad that i am not even sure if I spelled that wrong or not) Sure, Americans have the right to bare arms and we have millions of firearms in American homes. Do you think thats enough to overthrough the government? Not a chance my friend. The armed forces would be brought to bare on any uprising, never mind that the National Guard is the only entity thats allowed to be used on our soil except in a time of war, out of duty, any uprising would be quelched before it took hold. And those guys have some weapons that make pour little cache of pistols and rifles and shotguns as worthless as pea-shooters. NO, our socialist government will be the downfall of a once great and powerful idea. FREEDOM. It had a chance before the rich took over the government.
27 July 2008 11:14:22
danimal151@ wrote:
ok...Coup D'etat....thats better huh?
But with the public...it would be more of a CHICKEN coup D'etat.
That rinds me...how many door does a chicken coup have?
2...because if it had 4...it would be a chicken sedan!!!!
But with the public...it would be more of a CHICKEN coup D'etat.
That rinds me...how many door does a chicken coup have?
2...because if it had 4...it would be a chicken sedan!!!!
27 July 2008 11:25:09
atalbert@ wrote:
hi danimal,
I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. Folks just can't get together to change the "status quo". Besides they've got folks so divided anyway with the lib vs conserv garbage. A part of me thinks that in todays world, our "system" wouldn't work anyway without the constant MANIPULATIONS by the big money boys.
I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. Folks just can't get together to change the "status quo". Besides they've got folks so divided anyway with the lib vs conserv garbage. A part of me thinks that in todays world, our "system" wouldn't work anyway without the constant MANIPULATIONS by the big money boys.
27 July 2008 12:30:56
Scant wrote:
The best thing people can do for themselves right now is to get out of debt in their own lives. As the famous Reverend Jerimiah Wright (Obama's pastor) said, when Americas chickens come home to roost, it will be easier for those who have no debt to weather the storm that is brewing. That storm is coming people, it is just a matter of how soon it will be here. Problem is that there are becoming more and more people voting for poloticians that say they will make sure the government will take care of their every need, we who are responsible are being out voted by those who do not take that responsibility onto themseleves. It should be law that if you are accepting aid from the government you can't vote untill you get off of the government teat.
Daniamal, good one. You should write those jokes down.
Daniamal, good one. You should write those jokes down.
27 July 2008 15:53:24
danimal151@ wrote:
Tony...hey dude. Yeah, sad but true.
SCANT!! good idea...but again the folks that make law...are the ones that wont make that law because they would loose their jobs. And therein lies the rub my friend. WE THE PEOPLE have given over too much power to the ever expanding government. That makes us partly to blame, if not totaly. We let it happen. Again and again and again.
SCANT!! good idea...but again the folks that make law...are the ones that wont make that law because they would loose their jobs. And therein lies the rub my friend. WE THE PEOPLE have given over too much power to the ever expanding government. That makes us partly to blame, if not totaly. We let it happen. Again and again and again.
27 July 2008 19:25:56
Scant wrote:
What we need maybe is a good old fashion, Boston Tea Party event. TL could lead the revolt. Instead of throwing tea in the water, lets throw the poloticians over.
Danimal, you are right we have given the government to much power over our lives. They will never pass a law that will limit their power or give it back to the people. The government has done a wonderful job of creating fear in the American people to convince us to let them take a little more control over us a little at a time, they package it as, you have a right to this and that, and we will make sure you are safe and taken care of, so just sit back and vote for me and I will make sure you will have your American idol to watch on tv, three sqaure meals to eat, free health care, make your house payments and we will make sure the rich are punished to make you feel better. Thats it in a nut shell. What happened to the time when people had the, "John Wayne spirit," that said, no thanks, I will take care of things on my own, that tough guy attitude in a good way. We are a nation of soft, I don't want to do whats hard kind of people, makes me sick.
Danimal, you are right we have given the government to much power over our lives. They will never pass a law that will limit their power or give it back to the people. The government has done a wonderful job of creating fear in the American people to convince us to let them take a little more control over us a little at a time, they package it as, you have a right to this and that, and we will make sure you are safe and taken care of, so just sit back and vote for me and I will make sure you will have your American idol to watch on tv, three sqaure meals to eat, free health care, make your house payments and we will make sure the rich are punished to make you feel better. Thats it in a nut shell. What happened to the time when people had the, "John Wayne spirit," that said, no thanks, I will take care of things on my own, that tough guy attitude in a good way. We are a nation of soft, I don't want to do whats hard kind of people, makes me sick.
27 July 2008 22:05:13
Scant wrote:
Danimal, you need to put your one-liners and jokes in a book and title it, "Danimals life lessons for the comman man" what do you think?
27 July 2008 23:59:49
danimal151@ wrote:
Scant,
To be honest, only about half of my stupid jokes are actualy mine...the rest I have heard or read someplace. The thing is, I like to laugh, and help others get a chuckle now and then. Thanks for the idea. It will be another project I will start and never finish.
To be honest, only about half of my stupid jokes are actualy mine...the rest I have heard or read someplace. The thing is, I like to laugh, and help others get a chuckle now and then. Thanks for the idea. It will be another project I will start and never finish.
28 July 2008 03:16:25
heidisgranny@ wrote:
not one peep about the (R) who got us in this mess? Its what you voted for?
"watch the left, watch the left"!
"watch the left, watch the left"!
28 July 2008 15:53:48
Lucente wrote:
Dan,
Which R are you talking about? Roosevelt? Because that is who has saddled us with tens of trillions of dollars in Social Security debt.
~tjl~
Which R are you talking about? Roosevelt? Because that is who has saddled us with tens of trillions of dollars in Social Security debt.
~tjl~
28 July 2008 16:05:06
heidisgranny@ wrote:
Nice try TL, nice try, and fair and balanced. How about your boy Ronnie? And George and George of course. But if you cant bash and trash a Liberal, you squat!
28 July 2008 16:33:03
Lucente wrote:
Dan,
Even the truth is out of bounds for you? Are you denying that Roosevelt is responsible for SS? The national debt is just less than $10 trillion. But when you add SS and Medicare, it comes to more than $100 trillion. Both of those are D programs, are they not?
Also, did not the Dems control congress for more than 40 years, including most of the time RR was prez? Does the Congress not control the purse strings?
Ah, but you don't care about the truth. You only care that no one bashes your whacked out liberals who think they can save the world through communism and wealth redistribution.
~tjl~
Even the truth is out of bounds for you? Are you denying that Roosevelt is responsible for SS? The national debt is just less than $10 trillion. But when you add SS and Medicare, it comes to more than $100 trillion. Both of those are D programs, are they not?
Also, did not the Dems control congress for more than 40 years, including most of the time RR was prez? Does the Congress not control the purse strings?
Ah, but you don't care about the truth. You only care that no one bashes your whacked out liberals who think they can save the world through communism and wealth redistribution.
~tjl~
28 July 2008 16:39:39
heidisgranny@ wrote:
He is responsible for SS, GOOD FOR HIM! Yes they are (D) programs, so why does your CORP america keep dumping thier retirees onto SS? BTW there is a surplus with SS.
RR and both Bushies ran up the debt, and thats a fact you cant handle. You dont care about the truth. BTW, we could save the world if Y"ALL would get out of the way, and stop Fn everything up. Just a namecaller, acusations, and BS! But you know that.
Fair and balanced, LOL! Just another politcal hack, that most of the world disagrees with.
RR and both Bushies ran up the debt, and thats a fact you cant handle. You dont care about the truth. BTW, we could save the world if Y"ALL would get out of the way, and stop Fn everything up. Just a namecaller, acusations, and BS! But you know that.
Fair and balanced, LOL! Just another politcal hack, that most of the world disagrees with.
28 July 2008 18:51:08
Scant wrote:
Most of the people on this bolg agrees with TL, your about the only one who doesn't Dan.
28 July 2008 18:56:04
danimal151@ wrote:
DAN...people dump themselves into SS. We each have a duty to plan for our future. Get educated, work, save, work more if need be, to save more. Invest wisely, and take care of ourself. If I had all the $$$ that the government has taken from me for SS taxes over the years, and could have invested it myself...I'd have another million or so banked for my own retirment. But SS and the DEMOrats don't want that. They (you it seems) want us dependent on them for our well being. I am not a HUGE tom Leucent groupie by any means. (ask him) But he is right...you are wrong. Period DOT. End of story.
28 July 2008 20:30:02
Scant wrote:
The only person who cares about your future is yourself. The government doesn't give a rats behind about you. Save and take care of yourself, and get out of debt, that is wise counsel from a humble man!
28 July 2008 21:02:48
wrote:
dan- UNBELIEVEABLE! Every single thing you said is wrong. Let's break this down:
Why is it your former employer's responsibility to continue paying you after you are no longer working for them?
What do you mean "dumping them on SS'? You say that as if you're admitting that the SS is failed and inadequate. I hope you are.
I will need a source saying that there is a surplus with SS, because I have never in my life heard anyone make that claim. There could conceiveably be more money coming in than going out, but since the extra would be spent, not saved, that hardly counts. I don't particularly agree with the way TJL plays with the numbers to include future payouts into the national debt, but your statement just has no foundation whatsoever.
Lucente was very hard on Bush specifically, as well as anyone else who has ran this country into debt. He is very willing to "handle that fact".
Who exactly should "get out of the way and stop Fn everything up"? Anyone who disagrees with you on anything? Why are you unwilling to deal head-to-head with people of an opposing view? Debate is healthy. I don't want you to get out of the way, I actually prefer that you continue to illustrate for us how absurd your views are.
I don't understand the "Fair and Balanced" comments. Is TJL really Rupert Murdoch in disguise? This is an opinion blog/column. Lucente isn't pretending to give both sides, just his own.
"Most of the world" disagrees? Really? That's certainly not an exaggeration at all. Most of the country certainly agrees that the national debt is a problem. In fact, I can't imagine anyone NOT thinking that. As to what the rest of the world thinks........who cares?
To sum up, you haven't taken on the crux argument of this column at all. The nation's founding fathers did not intend for us to owe other countries huge sums of money. It is causing, and will continue to cause, huge problems. What exactly do you propose we do, if not cut spending on things the gov't shouldn't have it's nose in anyway? Do you have any ideas?
Why is it your former employer's responsibility to continue paying you after you are no longer working for them?
What do you mean "dumping them on SS'? You say that as if you're admitting that the SS is failed and inadequate. I hope you are.
I will need a source saying that there is a surplus with SS, because I have never in my life heard anyone make that claim. There could conceiveably be more money coming in than going out, but since the extra would be spent, not saved, that hardly counts. I don't particularly agree with the way TJL plays with the numbers to include future payouts into the national debt, but your statement just has no foundation whatsoever.
Lucente was very hard on Bush specifically, as well as anyone else who has ran this country into debt. He is very willing to "handle that fact".
Who exactly should "get out of the way and stop Fn everything up"? Anyone who disagrees with you on anything? Why are you unwilling to deal head-to-head with people of an opposing view? Debate is healthy. I don't want you to get out of the way, I actually prefer that you continue to illustrate for us how absurd your views are.
I don't understand the "Fair and Balanced" comments. Is TJL really Rupert Murdoch in disguise? This is an opinion blog/column. Lucente isn't pretending to give both sides, just his own.
"Most of the world" disagrees? Really? That's certainly not an exaggeration at all. Most of the country certainly agrees that the national debt is a problem. In fact, I can't imagine anyone NOT thinking that. As to what the rest of the world thinks........who cares?
To sum up, you haven't taken on the crux argument of this column at all. The nation's founding fathers did not intend for us to owe other countries huge sums of money. It is causing, and will continue to cause, huge problems. What exactly do you propose we do, if not cut spending on things the gov't shouldn't have it's nose in anyway? Do you have any ideas?
29 July 2008 14:11:52
Scant wrote:
Averageguy,
You have made some good points, but you know you might as well be talking to a wall as talking to Dan. He is over the edge, you can't save him.
You have made some good points, but you know you might as well be talking to a wall as talking to Dan. He is over the edge, you can't save him.
29 July 2008 21:52:17
heidisgranny@ wrote:
ITS CALLED A PENSION ave guy, a deal made with that employer, for working there 40 years. So its you who is wrong. The rest is just yak, you would have understood if you read all the post before you yak. Try google for info on surplus that is/was robbed.
THE REPUGS!
Yes most of the country agrees that debt is a problem, but most of the world disagrees with (L) and (I) or they would be incharge. I DONT LIKE THE DEBT, I just think that most of it is the fault of the repugs. RR GHWB and W! TL loves RR and wont blame him for anything. Nice try aveguy
THE REPUGS!
Yes most of the country agrees that debt is a problem, but most of the world disagrees with (L) and (I) or they would be incharge. I DONT LIKE THE DEBT, I just think that most of it is the fault of the repugs. RR GHWB and W! TL loves RR and wont blame him for anything. Nice try aveguy
30 July 2008 19:01:12
wrote:
I understand what a pension is, it's an agreement to continue paying an employee after they're no longer productive. That and agreeing to continue to pay their medical costs is a big part of the reason why manufacturers are leaving this country, or going out of business.
Yes employers need to keep up their end of the agreement, because that's what the arrangement was. Problem is it's difficult to see 40-50 years into the future to see what your business expenses will be. That's why very few businesses are offering pensions anymore, it's just a bad idea for the business to commit to something that they can't be sure they'll be able to follow through with.
The bigger point is that if the gov't weren't robbing me and my employer of money for Social Security and Medicare, I would have a sweet retirement portfolio on my own. As it stands, they're taking what if invested properly would be millions of Dollars from me, and sending me a check for 900 bucks a month. That is, if I get anything at all. If there were a surplus, they need to give the people their money back.
Yes employers need to keep up their end of the agreement, because that's what the arrangement was. Problem is it's difficult to see 40-50 years into the future to see what your business expenses will be. That's why very few businesses are offering pensions anymore, it's just a bad idea for the business to commit to something that they can't be sure they'll be able to follow through with.
The bigger point is that if the gov't weren't robbing me and my employer of money for Social Security and Medicare, I would have a sweet retirement portfolio on my own. As it stands, they're taking what if invested properly would be millions of Dollars from me, and sending me a check for 900 bucks a month. That is, if I get anything at all. If there were a surplus, they need to give the people their money back.
31 July 2008 10:06:35
wcreekmore@ wrote:
it is always a puzzle how these genius types can take exactly the same facts and come up with totally opposite conclusions. I think the message is that we are always better off when we are allowed to make our own choices and have to live with the success or failure. The founders of this nation showed true genius but one thing that I think should have been written in to the constitution that would have made it much better is term limits. I understand why they did not think of it for they were part time politicians and made an honest living outside of politics. There were no Ted Kennedys, Robert Byrds etc. We may yet survive but not if we continue on the track we are on. The good ones, and there are a few, don't last long in Washington. We are left with many that have no idea what it's like to actually work for a living. Now Obama wants to give another thousand "stimulus" to all the po folks (them making up to $150,000 a year) financed by big awl. I doubt he knows that half of that obscene profit they just made is going for taxes. For sure he don't care. How lucky I was for the first half of my working life. I had no debt and no worry about the price of gas. I had no car till I was 27 and most of what I drove after that was broken down wrecks. Yup, Phil Gramm was right. I'm workin' on it but still don't have the whine technique perfected. I still didn't get my first "stimulus" check. What the heck, it's free money, ain't it?
01 August 2008 15:39:01
Scant wrote:
Wes,
Good post. I agree with term limits all the way. This country has become a nation of whiners. No one wants to be responsible for their own lives, so sad.
Good post. I agree with term limits all the way. This country has become a nation of whiners. No one wants to be responsible for their own lives, so sad.
01 August 2008 16:12:49




![Validate my RSS feed [Valid RSS]](http://www.lucente.org/images/valid-rss.png)

[COLUMN] Forget energy; debt is killing us
"The Decline and Fall of the American Empire."
I can imagine that book title adorning some future bookshelf.
Am I crazy?
I am certain that, if you told a citizen of Rome on Sept. 3, 476, that the empire was going to collapse, he or she would have laughed you right out of the Forum Magnum.
Of course, Odoacer deposed Emperor Romulus Augustulus the next day and the rest is history. In reality, no specific event marked the end of the Roman Empire. The fall was most likely a gradual transformation stemming from loose fiscal policy, military adventurism, welfare, high debt and excessive defense spending.
That is the likely course for the end of the American Empire. We will not even know it happened until long after the fact.
Perhaps the best indicator that we are in decline is the national debt.
Thomas Jefferson, in many of his letters, warned against government debt. In several letters, he warned that an overbearing national debt would lead to the collapse of liberty and to what philosophers referred to as the bellum omnium in omnia, or, roughly, the war of all against all.
The national debt is a phenomenal $9.54 trillion. That comes to about 65 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product and $31,309.88 for every man, woman and child in the country.
When George W. Bush took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2001, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. With the debt increasing at the unbelievable rate of $1 million a minute, it could reach the $10 trillion mark by time Bush leaves office Jan. 20, or shortly after.
However, that figure is not even the real debt.
Because the U.S. government does not use proper corporate accounting practices, much of its real debt is not even counted. The true debt is more likely above $110 trillion. That is because the government does not count unfunded promises such as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare as debt.
The reason government officials give is that those programs are not really debt because they could be ended at any time and the money paid into it would be forfeited to the government.
How's that make you feel about your retirement plans?
Still, in less than 20 years, those three programs, plus interest payments on America's debt, will consume all the tax revenue the nation can expect by then.
Don't expect relief from the next president. According to a study by the liberal Tax Policy Center, U.S. Sen. John McCain's tax plan would increase the national debt by $5 trillion in 10 years and Sen. Barack Obama's tax plan would increase the debt by $3.4 trillion.
The problem with carrying such a large debt should be obvious to everyone.
It gets worse.
Japan and China are America's two biggest lenders. Great Britain is third, followed by a bloc of oil-producing states including Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Libya. In fact, about 45 percent of the national debt is foreign-held.
Therefore, in trade and military disputes, China, as America's No. 2 lender, holds considerable influence. Foreign lenders can also dump their existing holdings outright. To lure other buyers of Washington's debt, U.S. interest rates would then have to rise sharply, throttling the nation's economy.
Perhaps it's time we stop whining about gas prices and talking about energy independence and get our financial house in order before China, Iran and Libya foreclose on America. Fiscal irresponsibility is ruining the American experiment in self-government. Financial independence is more important than energy independence.
The first step is to force the government, through a constitutional amendment, to pass only balanced budgets. Then we must institute a plan and timeline to pay off our debt. Finally, we must limit all future borrowing to times of national emergency (war) and that debt must be paid in full within 20 years, as Jefferson suggested, through increased taxation, the threat of which would limit borrowing to real emergencies, not imagined or contrived ones.
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt," Jefferson wrote in July 1816. "Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."
That is the future of America if we do not act.
category | Column
author | Lucente