Where's the Outrage?

[lacrew_2000]

Here is perhaps a better link:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...bt/feddebt.htm

You can got to the schedules of federal debt and look at successive two years side by side, in a table, usually somewhere between page 16 and 21 for each annual report. The SSA debt is the top line of the table; but, I was amazed to see all the other 'funds' that were 'borrowed' from each year, besides SSA...truly amazing. It only goes back to 1997...and its been a problem finding 'official' data, in readable form, pre-dating the mid-nineties, on the internet. In any given two successive years, however, you will see that government debt to SS goes up.

The good news is Obama will not continue this practice...annual SS budgets are forecast to be in the red themselves, starting NOW. No problem..they'll just redeem some of the notes in the trust fund. The bad news...the annual federal budget will now have to make payments to the fund, instead of the reverse...more borrowing from China...and Obama gets to have budgets that look bad, thanks to the 40th-43rd president.

I predict this will actually become a big news item, as soon as the 2011 budget is announced (make that 2012, since congress just voted to not have a budget in 2011...and don't believe for a minute that these people would lie to you )

Again, its not the world according to lacrew...this was actually a big campaign item for Al Gore. Its all there, in black and white...just somewhat obscured by well meaning politicians, in double speak and misleading economic terms.

[HeyMikie]

It is interesting (to me) that nearly everyone (all parties, any ideology) will blame the sitting or past Presidents for all the ills that befall the nation.

IMHO, the President has very little real influence on the events that occur during his tenure, excepting declarations of war, and even that must now be OK'd by Congress. While the POTUS is the Commander In Chief and Head of the Executive branch, nearly all of the real decisions of the military and the executive branches occur well below his radar, and most of those actions are dictated by legislation.

The President serves more as a figure-head and/or scapegoat (depending on the vantage point of the observer) with little real power. There is more image than substance in the job, with most of the power being in the "bully pulpit" of public speeches to influence the opinion of the electorate.

I am intrigued that President Obama, while apparently gifted in charisma and persuasive speech, has barely exercised this power to guide the few legislative agendas that have been presented by the White House.

Why did he not speak out against Reid and Pelosi when they allowed the TARP bailouts and the Economic Stimulus to become huge boondoggles of unprecedented pork-barrel spending. The excesses of the Democrats, with their filibuster-proof super-majority, were the main precipitating catalysts of the ersatz Tea-Party movement.

Why didn't he speak out about the direction of the Health Bill legislation when Max Baucus' Senate Finance Committee refused to hear alternatives that were more fiscally sound, backed by higher percentages of Health Care professionals, to push a hodgepodge bill that favored the Health Insurance industry and big Pharma over the needs of patients.

Obama could have been (maybe could still be) the "Great Communicator" of liberals and Democrats, parlaying minds on both sides of the aisle into a consensus majority, following in the mold of Ronald Reagan, uniting a great Silent Majority. Both Reagan and Obama were able to tap that vein during the election debates, Reagan continued to speak to his constituency, Obama has been strangely silent, allowing others to fill the void.

If anything, Obama's silence on issues has fueled the opposition forces of dis-affected voters to now include the vast moderate "independent" voting block as well as the more extreme Tea-Party and other factions.

The growing "independent" voting block includes the dis-enfranchised working public that is too busy making a living to get involved in the dirt and politics that national elections have become, but have become progressively more militant about the way "their" money is being spent.

But, back to the subject:

It is rather naive to expect ANY presidential candidate to deliver on their campaign promises. How can they? They cannot pass laws.

Forget blaming Presidents, they are ineffectual at delivering anything.

On the other hand, why aren't we, the voting public, "Mad as Hell" at our elected representatives in Congress.

THEY are the ones who make the deals in return for local pork.
THEY are the ones who are progressively mortgaging our (and or kid's and grand children's) future.
THEY are the ones that have passed special laws to exempt themselves from insider trading rules and/or accepting bribes (gifts) from lobbyists.

It doesn't matter if the congressman/woman/person is Democrat or Republican or anything else,

THEY all accept millions in campaign donations to buy re-election ads and then sell out the voters to pay back the big donors.
THEY are all BUMS.

Vote the BUMS OUT in September, 2010. We can get ALL of the House and one third of the Senate. You can bet they'll be listening by 2012.

[dirty dog]

Damn it mike, that just wont fly here in the sandbox, blaming congress does not allow for these intellectual debates to play out they way they do. Besides, damit it just isnt as much fun LOL. So please the use of logic and reasoning must be held to a minimum. LOL, this is the sandbox you know. By the way, I fully support your statement.

[HeyMikie]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

...By the way, I fully support your statement.

High praise indeed, thanks DD.