Comments on: I.O.U.S.A

By: Bob Schaefer

Bob Schaefer — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 04:47:19 +0000

Honest Republicans must concede that, fiscally speaking, Bush was many times worse than Clinton. In another article Steiner (found here: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/32 ) proves the Bush budget deficits are three times greater than the total Clinton budget deficits.

By: Flannel Avenger

Flannel Avenger — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:32:44 +0000

Re: Bush V. Clinton and their fiscal legacy…

While I will gladly cede you that Bush has been abysmal at managing the federal budget, to say that Clinton was better I think misses the point. In our system of governance, the Congress controls the purse strings, and the founders intended it to be this way as a means to reign in a would be despot in the executive branch.

The budget was balanced in the late 90’s because the Congress demanded that it be so. The budget became a train wreck in the 2000’s because the Republicans in the Congress had no principles.

Does that absolve George Bush of any guilt of our current predicament? Certainly not, however, it’s important to remember that he was aided and abetted every step of the way by the Congress. Clinton was hindered at every step of the way by the Congress.

In almost every measurable way, the Congress has abdicated its responsibility to the people and is bordering dangerously close on becoming a joke. This, I believe, is the heart of the problem.

By: Joel

Joel — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:32:15 +0000

You speak the truth at every turn… I have a couple of questions… Now what? It seems we cannot locate a decent person to fill the Presidency. How do we change this self destructive course our leaders have so graciously set us upon??? Every leader swears their allegiance to the USA and its people, in reality it is just the big business’ back pockets that they’re in…

By: Bubba Euler

Bubba Euler — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:05:35 +0000

”dang me, dang me. They ought to take a rope an hang me, high from the highest tree! Brother won’t you pray for me…”

By: Jessica Boxer

Jessica Boxer — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:52:05 +0000

Regarding Social Security being a Ponzi scheme — actually you are mistaken, it is not a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme the initial investors often make out big time, the incoming cash pays them a hansome return. Usually, though, intial investors become later investors too, and so loose out.
In a Ponzi scheme you actually own your share in the scheme (even as the total scheme’s value spirals down to zero.) If you die, supposedly your children inherit your worthless paper.
In a social security scheme you have to pay in, but you get no actual ownership. It relies on you dying and giving up your asset. So SS is siginificantly worse than a Ponzi scheme.
(Let not forget too that Madoff had to ask nicely for your money – Big Borther takes it without even so much as a thank you. And if you don’t give it to him, he takes everything you own, and throws you in jail.)
Personally, I say “Bernie for President”. It would surely be an improvement.

By: Bob Schaefer

Bob Schaefer — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:44:46 +0000

Aside from his belief that the Social Security Program is a legitimate, government “social safety net” which ought to be continued with taxpayer funding, David M. Walker is a genuine American fiscal truth-teller. You are right to praise his efforts.

On the other hand, your contention that the U.S. budget was “balanced by Bill Clinton” is dead wrong. Craig Steiner demolishes this oft-repeated myth in a succinct article to be found here: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
Refute it if you can.

Note that the total national debt INCREASED every single year of Clinton’s presidency, a fact which contradicts Clinton’s claims of annual budget surpluses.

Like all Democrats (and Republicans), Clinton was a profligate spender. He merely was devious and dishonest enough to cover his tracks by means of Machiavellian manipulation of the official U.S. budget books.

[Whatever our disagreements; it’s high time Republican toadies admit that Bush has been many thousand times worse than Clinton.–IM]

By: JP Strauss

JP Strauss — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:18:23 +0000

I remember that as a child of about 5 or six, growing up in an era in South Africa where the Rand was depreciating relatively rapidly, my grandmother taught me how each piece of paper with eg R10, R20 or R50 on it represents the equivalent value in gold or other commodities. I, in my limited knowledge and naivity, asked her why they don’t just burn some of the bank notes to make the remaining ones worth more.

Then, twenty years down the line, it turns out I wasn’t that far off.

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:11:19 +0000

Well written article. I own my house outright. I drive a 10 year old car. I bought turkey for 49 cents/pound last week. I give a lot of my money to charity and save/invest the rest. And what do I see – the stock market tanking from idiotic shortsighted bubble-manic managers – there went 5 years of retirement down the toilet!! Ahh – but I at least had some money in “safe” CD’s – so now the government will hyperinflate the economy (sooner or later) with Weimar-Zimbabwe Terabuck “Dollars”. What it means is that I will never get to “retire” from my career as a parasite (federal employee). Germany had a hyperinflation to wipe out the middle class and a depression to wipe out the working class and we know what followed. I am afraid that what follows the inevitable collapse of the I.O.U.S.A. will be a sort of “Marion Barry’s Washington DC” – a government that controls everything and nothing at the same time – with underground economies, Blackwater Security, gated communities, and no particular rule of law whatsoever. Half anarchy and half authoritarian but nothing to look forward to for a classical liberal.

By: EN

EN — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:43:53 +0000

What else is there to say? You covered the entire mess correctly in my view. Those who disagree with this view should explain how we can retire the debt through government spending? I’ve still not heard anyone explain it.