I wanted to write something for the new year that would be full of hope and a bright outlook for our country. After all it is a new year and at least symbolically a clean slate. Time to bury the past and get on with our future. But try as we may we will never be able to do that, because we have to find some sort of closure for the old year. You just can’t forget it and wish it away. In this country that change means a huge transformation of our ways. A change I feel isn’t possible. It’s like swimming across a lake dragging a heavy weight behind you and reaching the halfway point and realizing you’re three quarters spent and you should have made the decision to turn back and get rid of the weight, before you ever came this far. For our country my analogy means chugging along towards a distant shoreline or a new beginning that is out of reach, because we have too much weight.
We have a $14 trillion dollar weight pulling us down that cannot be shucked and we have no political will to get rid of it. We saw that last week with the tax bill that was passed. So now we wait to drown in this sea of debt and greed. Something the country was crying for after the elections was a bipartisan effort by congress. We forgot to tell them it was a bipartisan effort to make things better that we wanted.
There is a point of no return in our government — just like crossing that lake. Are we there yet? It really makes no difference anymore. We’re not interested in talking about it.
Mike Holst
Crosslake
Comments (58)
Add commentWell said, Mr Holst. Until we
Well said, Mr Holst.
Until we make massive cuts in our government handouts and foolish spending, and make everyone in the US tow the line...we are destined to continue sinking under the weight. Its like watching a car wreck, its ugly, you know whats coming, but you cant stop. Thats our country in a nutshell.
Its ugly and we all know what's coming.
"OUR" Debt
Just remember that the same folks controlled the 110th!!!
(CNSNews.com) – The federal government has accumulated more new debt–$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)—during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.
That equals $10,429.64 in new debt for each and every one of the 308,745,538 people counted in the United States by the 2010 Census.
The total national debt of $13,858,529,371,601.09 (or $13.859 trillion), as recorded by the U.S. Treasury at the close of business on Dec. 22, now equals $44,886.57 for every man, woman and child in the United States.
In fact, the 111th Congress not only has set the record as the most debt-accumulating Congress in U.S. history, but also has out-stripped its nearest competitor, the 110th, by an astounding $1.262 trillion in new debt.
"YOUR" Debt
The national debt doubled under Reagan, Bush I and Jr (who pursued two unfunded wars at the same time cutting taxes, especially on the upper 1%). Seventy percent of our current debt was accumulated under republican presidents. Time for you and your ilk to pony up oldand tired!
"cutting taxes, especially on
"cutting taxes, especially on the upper 1%"
Please explain?
"cutting taxes, especially on the upper 1%"
I assume you're familiar with the Bush tax cuts wolf, which were just extended for another two years. The main beneficiaries of those tax cuts, then and now, are the top 1%, most of whom derive their wealth from "unearned income."
Accumulati0n of National Debt
This is especially for Cheyenne43 but we should all pay attention! I find it interesting that some people prefer to come to conclusions which are not based on fact. You seem to be one of those people.
1. 111th Congress Added More Debt Than First 100 Congresses Combined: $10,429 Per Person in U.S.
2. During the 110th Congress—which, according to the Clerk of the House, officially convened on Jan. 4, 2007 and adjourned on Jan. 4, 2009--the national debt increased $1.957 trillion. The Congress was controlled by democrats during both of those sessions of the congress!
3. The 108th Congress ($1.159 trillion in new debt) and 109th ($1.054 trillion in new debt) take third and fourth place among all U.S. Congresses for accumulating debt. In both these Congresses, Republicans controlled both the House and Senate.
4. Historically, according to the U.S. Treasury, the federal debt did not reach $3.22 trillion until September 1990, during the 101st Congress. Between the first Congress, which adjourned in 1791 leaving behind approximately $75 million in debt, and the convening of the 101st Congress, which occurred on Jan. 3, 1989, the national debt grew to $2.684 trillion.
5. During the Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) tenure as speaker, which commenced on Jan. 4, 2007, the federal government has run up $5.177 trillion in new debt. That is about equal to the total debt the federal government accumulated in the first 220 years of the nation's existence, with the federal debt rising from $5.173 trillion on July 23, 1996 to $5.181 trillion on July 24, 1996.
6. In her inaugural address as speaker, Pelosi vowed that Congress would engage in no new deficit spending.
"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” she said in an address from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."
If you liberals would like to verify these figures, go to:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/111th-congress-added-more-debt-first-100
Next, quit your Bit--en about republicans and come to realize that the following is true----
How do you know that politicians are lying???
Their lips are moving!!!!!
I'm assuming
you include republicans among politicians.
Who Pays How Much In Federal Imcome Taxes?
Once again, this is especially for Cheyenne43 but again, we should all pay attention!
When we declared independence so many years ago and became the great nation that we are, our founding fathers used the following words so all should know that each person should have "the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness." Most important in that line is in my humble opinion, " the persuit of happiness." It doesn't say that we will all have lots of everything but it does imply that we can bust our hinders to whatever extent we so choose and through that persuit earn our happiness. It does not say that your neighbor who makes three times as much as you do should give you one third of his income so that you will have the same, does it?
As I have stated before, there are givers and there are takers and I wonder why it is that the great majority of takers are liberals who demand that the other side divvy up and "spread around their hard earned wealth!!
You say that the top 1% don't pay enough so I say, please, find out who actually pays what! Go to:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
Oldandretired, They don't
Oldandretired,
They don't want to hear it, and can't understand it.
I'm assuming
Cheyenne43, you for once seem to have assumed correctly!
The shame of it is that you do too much assuming and not enough fact finding. As a staunch conservative I find it necessary to ensure, through research, that what I say is correct so that the likes of you will not be be to call me a liar. This is not to say that I never make a mistake because we all do but I try hard to be correct!!!! And, occasionally the sources we use make errors also, but not as often as the pure assumers! And also, remember the old joke about breaking apart the word ASSUME!
Oldandretired, They don't
Ain't it a shame Wolfie!!
Oldandretired, They don't
Something else they don't realize is that if a husband and wife filing jointly went out in 2008 and each earned $7.94 per hour, they would have been in the top 50% tax return AGI ! So it doesn't take much to be "rich"!! And, it also shows how little PERSUIT there is at the lower levels!!!!
Let's deal with all the facts, shall we?
Nationa debt increase by president:
>Ronald Reagan’s First Term-- $656 billion increase
> Ronald Reagan’s Second Term – $1.036 trillion increase
> George H.W. Bush’s Term – $1.587 trillion increase
> Bill Clinton’s First Term – $1.122 trillion increase
> Bill Clinton’s Second Term – $418 billion increase
> George W. Bush’s First Term – $1.885 trillion increase
> George W. Bush’s Second Term – $3.014 trillion increase
> Barack Obama’s First “Year” – $1.573 trillion increase
Sources:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11766
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist...
1) The deficit in the first year of the Obama administration was largely a result of spending to keep the economy from totally tanking as well as spending for two unfunded wars inherited from his predecessor. (perhaps it would have been better just to let the economy drift into full-blown depression, then you'd really have something to b*tch about).
2) Perhaps you could explain why the economy boomed when 'marginal' tax rates were 91% during Eisenhower's administration and 71% during Kennedy's? (there is a reason)
3) Perhaps you would care to explain why the buying power of working people has remained the same over the last three decades despite huge gains in productivity while the wealth of the top 1% has sky-rocketed? (hint: the wealthy are pocketing all the gains).
I suspect the great majority of Ame people do not want to live in a banana republic composed of a very wealthy few, a severely shrunken middle class, and a huge underclass, which is what we are fast approaching.
Suggested read: Four Deformations of the Apocalypse
By DAVID STOCKMAN (remember him? he was Reagan's budget director)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?_r=1
Let's deal with all the facts, shall we?
Cheyenne43 = Ostrich! You are mixing apples and oranges!
Who writes the budget, the President of the United States of America or the members of the House of Representatives??
It's a collaborative effort, sandloon
The budget, which recommends spending levels, is proposed by the president to Congress in february. Congress may tinker with the recommendations a bit but they rarely (if ever) stray that far from the presidents rec's. or else they would haave to overcome a veto! Next?
overcome a veto
If you believe that I know where you can buy some really nice high ground in a normally wet place in Florida!
"If you believe that...."
Translation: I (oldand[filtered word] ) really don't know what I'm talking about and I can't answer any of the other questions posed by Cheyenne 43, so I'll say something silly.
Chey; Your wasting your time
Chey; Your wasting your time talking to hardcore republicans,theyhave all been brain washed.
We can only "redistribute" so
We can only "redistribute" so much of the nations wealth upward (and out of the country into foreign investments) before the economy collapses. The current level (1/4th) is even worse than the year before the Great Recession.
How much of that tax cut for the wealthiest 2% will end up out of the US and invested in creating jobs in China and India?
I sent a Vox asking that question but the Dispatch wouldn't print it.
Maybe they didn't print your
Maybe they didn't print your letter because you're redundant?
"If you believe that...."
What I actually was saying is that you (Cheyenne43) will pick and choose from available data so that you can feel that you have won the debate. However, you will note that I did not blame the Democrats or Republicans but I blamed both for the mess we are in. I also concluded that there are vast differences between the positions of liberals and conservatives (generally speaking, progressives and constitutionalists respectively). You came back showing that the Obama budget for his first YEAR (1 year) in office included a deficit 0f $1.573 trillion which was supposed to be less than the G. W, Bush deficit in his second TERM (4 years) of $3.014 trillion. As I said, 'apples, oranges and certain head in the sand creatures'!
And that's the rest of the story!
Good Day
Not Quite OandR
You still aren't able to explain how the cumulative national debt doubled under Reagan, Pappy Bush and Jr, accounting for 70% of the total debt. (Could it be that voo-doo or trickle down theory, that is we just make the rich richer by under taxing them, everything will be hunky-dorry?).
As posted before, the spending under the Obama admimistration was necessitated by the mess left by the preceeding regime, i.e. two unfunded wars and a tanking economy.
It's all Bush's fault. Time
It's all Bush's fault.
Time to man up.
Are you better off than you were 2 years ago?
Where are all those jobs that
Where are all those jobs that "trickle down" was supposed to create? They likely won't be created until working people have more money in their pockets to spend... oh, that's right we, we can't do that because the uber-wealthy will have a snit. There are times when you are laughable, wolf.
Chey, Is Obama practicing
Chey,
Is Obama practicing trickle down? I didn't think so. So?
Obama has simply been trying
Obama has simply been trying to keep the economic ship of state from totally tanking into depression. And ironically to do that, he (and Bush) have had to bail out the wall street money-mongers and keep them afloat. And of course there were the tax extensions for the uber-wealthy, Here: "The Rich Versus the Rest of Us" http://www.jimhightower.com/node/7335
I'm not rich, but...
I'm not rich. I don't have a lot of money to spend.
However, when the rich spend money to buy million dollar boats etc it creates jobs and does end up putting money in my pocket!
Let the rich have their money! We all benefit from their spending it.
Wolfy; All you need to do is
Wolfy; All you need to do is read the real news(AP),to see our money and jobs are going over seas,or are you brainwashed to.
I see jobs created
I admit I'm not from the Brainerd area and am not familiar with the economics of the area.
Jobs are being created in WI at our shipyards because people with money are buying the luxury yachts we build. The ship builders spend their money and create more jobs. The trickle down continues...
I think the real problem is America got out of manufacturing. Jobs got lost when that happened and it is to the point where we almost have to buy products from overseas.
Bring manufacturing back to the US. Drop the "business tax." (our businesses have to pay tariffs to export. their is no teriffs for incoming products).
I hate to say it, but a lot of our woes are our fault.
who spends more
when there's a rebate or tax break the working poor buy groceries or a better car, the rich often stash their cash........Economics 101 says that stimulus money should go to the poor and middle class who will put it back into circulation immediately.