Raise Taxes or Granny Gets It [Reader Post]


This is quite amusing and worth reading:

President Obama is pulling out the big guns and pointing them straight at your grandmother. “Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3” absent an agreement with Congress to raise the debt ceiling, CBS News reports:

“I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

At a press conference yesterday, Obama demanded that Republicans not only authorize trillions of dollars in new borrowing,which at this point seems unavoidable, but agree to what he called “massive, job-killing tax increases” effective in 2013–i.e., after what he expects will be his re-election.

And of course, the press lapped it up.

For this he drew plaudits from what used to be called the mainstream media. “Obama Grasping Centrist Banner in Debt Impasse” read the New York Times headline. The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza dubbed him “Dad-in-Chief,” explaining: “Boil Obama’s message down and you get this: Adults sometimes have to do things that they don’t want to do. This is one of those times. So, let’s get it done.”

The kids are acting up, so he threatens to starve Granny to death. That’s just how a strong father behaves.

The truth is that the money for Granny is there.

However, according to the Daily Treasury Statements published by the U.S. Treasury Department, the ongoing flow of federal tax revenue since the Treasury declared that it had hit the debt limit on May 16 has been more than sufficient to cover the combined costs of federal spending on interest payments, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Veterans Affairs department and federal workers wages and insurance benefits (including wages and insurance benefits for military personnel).

When was the last time the government shut down and Granny didn’t get her check?

I do like McConnell’s plan for a few reasons.

One, it makes Obama own the debt.
Two, it’ll never pass.
Three, if Obama raised the debt ceiling without any spending cuts, it would prove everything everyone says about Obama’s inability to do anything other than spend, spend, spend. And he still doesn’t get his tax hikes.

And if Granny gets it, it will be because that’s Obama wants.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

retire05: Wrong about the BBA coming before the House for a vote? Are you drunk? You, yourself, provided a link to that. Or have you killed so many brain cells that you suffer from early on-set Altzheimers? H.R. 1 has been place on the House calender, according to Thomas

What part about both of them being introduced on the same day, Jan 5th, 2011, escapes your comprehension, retire05? Which one cleared the House Judiciary committee June 15th, and which one never got out of committee?

Suggest you engage in some “bite the weinie” activities for alternative entertainment. The personal bog you continue to mire yourself into, attempting to defend the indefensible via facts, with your emotional hyperbole is quite boring.

So, you acknowledge you got your Hanes in a wad because I pointed out that you are nothing more than a pansy ass who couldn’t have lasted three miles with me? Got it.

Oh for heavens sake. On a road trip, me, or anyone I know, would have taken the tools out of your saddle bags, and thrown you over the nearest proverbial cliff as far too high maintenance to travel with….. LOL

But I see you feel you hold a monopoly on roadside motorcycle maintenance.

Rather than a Balanced Budget Amendment, why don’t we incorporate Thomas Jefferson’s idea:

“I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.”

Depending on the extenuating circumstance, John Cooper, why would you advocate putting the US federal government into a blanket credit blackball condition as a cure?

Mata, you are an arrogant, know-it-all bitch who thinks you are the sharpest tack in the box. Believe me, toots, you’re not because your ego is twice the size of your brain. What you are is a pathetic person who uses insults as debate tactics. FA must have really been desparate to seek you out. At least you don’t deny that you are the most thinned skinned people on this site. You are. Poor widdle Mata.

Now, take the final say. I am done trying to be rational with you. Just keep your ass out of Texas and you will do just fine there in LaLaLand with the rest of the statists who think they are soooooo much smarter than everyone else.

JohnCooper, Jefferson loved the Constitution until he became President. Then he violated it.

Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland’s Smith School of Business and former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission, has weighed in with an interesting and detailed idea I’d love to see FA’ers react to.

An answer to the nation’s debt problem
Neither Democrats nor Republicans have offered a real solution

One of his points I do not recall discussed well anywhere is this:

With the interest on the debt honored, [using tax revenues] the government can sell new bonds to replace bonds that come due without piercing the statutory debt limit.


The Treasury has the power to print money to pay its bills. That would create the danger of too much money in the hands of the public and, thus, inflation, but the Federal Reserve has options to neutralize this problem. The Fed holds on its balance sheet about $2.6 trillion in securities, mostly Treasury bonds. As the Treasury prints money to pay its bills, the Fed could sell bonds to the public to keep the amount of money in circulation from rising.

How? Remember that the money supply is currency the public holds in its wallets and deposited in checkbooks — but the statutory debt limit applies to Treasury bonds held by the public and the Fed.

At $1.6 trillion a year, the process of the Treasury paying its bills by printing money and the Fed selling off bonds to absorb the excess cash in circulation could keep the government running past the next election.
The Treasury would have to print about $1.2 trillion a year in new money, and the Fed would sell an equal amount of securities from its balance sheet; that would take us until a new Congress is seated and a re-elected President Obama or his successor has a clear mandate.

So, what do you all think?
Does the idea hold water?
Are there holes he hasn’t foreseen?
(Finding buyers of all our new debt comes to my mind.)

Yes maam, Nan G. The power to print money… poo poo’ed by some.. has been ever on my mind INRE all this. Especially in the States vs Federal mandates.

New buyers of debt is a problem. Remember that the fed is busy buying up notes (even in the last month) to sell. And , if they don’t, taxpayers are left holding the bag. All this is part of the banks “whispered threats” to the WH, theTreasury, the Fed and all of Congress, as I addressed in my post. Not only new buyers, but those who abandon existing debt. Thus the “threat” from the banks.

Personally I think the revelation holds considerable water.

@retire05: Now, take the final say. I am done trying to be rational with you. Just keep your ass out of Texas and you will do just fine there in LaLaLand with the rest of the statists who think they are soooooo much smarter than everyone else.

From your keyboard spittal to God’s lips, I pray you “are done trying to be rational”. Sure do hate to waste time with unbalanced humans. Of course, it’s amusing to note, with your so called superior research abilities, that I am not located in LaLaLand…. save in your imagination.

Oh yes.. I will enter Texas, where I have both many scooter trash friends plus relatives, any time I like. Thank you. In the meantime, you may feel free to blow it out your fishtail exhaust pipes.

You know, I listed a lot of them elsewhere at FA, but Obama and when the dems controlled both houses of the legislature back-loaded over $1/2 Trillion in new taxes on the American people.
(Sure, most of it kicks in after the 2012 election.)
So, it isn’t like we aren’t taxed enough.
It is the spending that is the issue.

as a matter of fact ,they should be still paying the salaries of those
who have been killed since 2008 because of the RULES OF ENGAGEMENT INSTALLED BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF,

Mata, giving us once again an example of her brilliant mind. Oh, please do come to Texas and tell some of my “scooter” friends to blow it out their tailpipes. I will pay to watch that.

And Mata’s next response will be “na na na na na na.” Water always seeks its own level.

retire05: Mata, giving us once again an example of her brilliant mind. Oh, please do come to Texas and tell some of my “scooter” friends to blow it out their tailpipes. I will pay to watch that.

And Mata’s next response will be “na na na na na na.” Water always seeks its own level.




oh, wait… that’ bit of politically astute wisdom.. or is it a threat?…. is worth again repeating.

retire05: Mata, giving us once again an example of her brilliant mind. Oh, please do come to Texas and tell some of my “scooter” friends to blow it out their tailpipes. I will pay to watch that.

And Mata’s next response will be “na na na na na na.” Water always seeks its own level.

ya know, even on the second time, your brilliance escapes me. Your tone? I think that’s obvious to even a 1st grader.

Nan G,
hi, PETER MORICI, has a great idea, but the TRUST in GOVERNMENT is not there,
the people would not touch it with a 10 foot poll,
only after 2012 new deal and government

How weak must one’s personality be, or how insecure must they be, that even when someone tries to walk away from them , leaving them with what remnants of dignity they may still possess, that person feels that only by having the last word do they confirm their credibility?

retire05, please stop right there,
we need to focus now, and you know on what subject we can turn to be the winners in 2012,
we will not let us separate for futile argument that wont go anywhere,

Mata asks @62:

why would you advocate putting the US federal government into a blanket credit blackball condition as a cure?

You ask a difficult question and I have to admit that I don’t know what “the cure” is. I do know one thing for sure, though: If you don’t define the problem, then you’re never going to find the cure.

So what’s the problem here? One might offer “Our federal government borrows and spends more money than it brings in via taxes”. While that’s very true, it’s not quite the whole picture. Our federal government – the only purpose of which was to “secure our unalienable rights…deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed” has morphed into something which would be totally abhorrent to our founders. Our federal government has wrested control away from the people in just about every area and the people who run it have become a “ruling class”, answerable only to themselves.

Skookum might compare the federal government to a runaway horse with the bit in its teeth – not responding to the commands of its rider. So how does one stop a runaway horse, Skookum? Shoot it? I certainly don’t know because the only time it happened to me, the horse just ran and ran until it decided not to. As he was about to run across a highway and I was about to jump off to save my life, he just stopped. But I digress…

Even if someone could come up with a “Balanced Budget Amendment” with ironclad wording, the ruling elite would just find a way around it. I’m afraid that our former servant has become our master. “Brutus” warned the young nation in Anti-Federalist #8

The power to borrow money is general and unlimited, and the clause so often before referred to, authorises the passing any laws proper and necessary to carry this into execution. Under this authority, the Congress may mortgage any or all the revenues of the union, as a fund to loan money upon, and it is probably, in this way, they may borrow of foreign nations, a principal sum, the interest of which will be equal to the annual revenues of the country. — By this means, they may create a national debt, so large, as to exceed the ability of the country ever to sink. I can scarcely contemplate a greater calamity that could befal this country, than to be loaded with a debt exceeding their ability ever to discharge. If this be a just remark, it is unwise and improvident to vest in the general government a power to borrow at discretion, without any limitation or restriction.

So to attempt to answer your question, Mata, I would advocate cutting the government off from ANY borrowing to secure the survival of America; We’re certainly not going to be a free country much longer if this keeps up.

Anticipating a possible objection, “What about war?”, I would make an exception for war bonds if purchasing them was totally voluntary, and their sale was approved by 3/4 of the States.

I can see you’ve thought a lot about it, John Cooper. But again I come back to Constitutional Amendments should be stated principles that “the feds will not do this…”… but not followed by the phrasing “unless the Congress votes to do it anyway with x amount of votes…”. This already happens with our 2nd amendment rights, and there’s not even language in there that Congress can vote to remove them under certain conditions. But they have done so. Adding another, hoping to mandate fiscal prudence out of career politicians seems to be pie in the sky hopes, and fraught with extreme dangers of abuse and misuse.

But because the eldest sibling (prior and current Congresses) abuses Daddy’s credit card limit, should the next in line sibling be denied any credit entirely? Especially in a world which revolves around using credit to increase purchase power and to prove reliability and responsibility.

The problem is easy to pinpoint, but, granted, a huge portion of it is inherited legislation from the mid 1930s and 60s. We are saddled with mandated spending for the entitlements, our biggest debt burden. That is a runaway cost that suffers from two ugly realities.

1: The volume of Americans hitting that age group (and in Europe too… not just the US) compared to the amount of youth supporting their benefits and
2: The increased costs of providing those entitlements… from more expensive health care to a growing amount of beneficiaries, to the increased cost of living leaving SS payments woefully inadequate for the times and prices

Simply put, it was a bad idea when it was shoved on the American people, and it’s proven it’s flaws today. I guess they always banked on the ensuing generations, always being larger in number, and more affluent in earnings, and therefore easy to support the generations before them. That’s a dangerous bet to make.

Compound the real problem with poor solutions… which usually entails chasing more money after bad. Stimulus for “not quite shovel ready” projects, interest free money for the financial institutions to use for trading plus using the taxpayers money to boot, and a huge monstrous concoction of O’healthcare. This last one is supposed to cure the Medicare runaway costs when it does nothing but add more federal burden, and attempts to keep costs under control by price fixing services and premiums,

These entitlements must be weened from the system. That won’t be easy because today’s generation have grown up knowing these entitlements are there. One would think that pointing to today’s problems would go a long way into re’educating them to the reality that ponzi schemes really don’t work, and they are better off without them. For those that are close to the retirement age, and currently on the system, you can’t strip it away. If someone is older than 55, how much time do they have to make other arrangements after the cash has been absconded from their payment their entire working life? Especially in an economy with high unemployment., where their prime competition is college kids, also hungry for work.

I can see what needs to be done, but the logistics of doing it I don’t. And I can also see the uphill road it will take to sell it to an unwilling public. Make the cut off age 55, and those 54 will feel cheated… And how long can the current beneficiaries exist on the system when the government is no longer robbing the younger generation, having them make their own arrangements? After all, they took the revenue, and spent it elsewhere.

Ultimately, fixing the past problems is the first order of business, because that’s what’s dragging the nation down. The next step is to do like many states that are fiscally healthy do… pick your elected officials wisely, as Idaho and Wyoming have done. Those who don’t need a stinking Constitutional Amendment to exercise fiscal prudence. Because, truth is, there is no law that can mandate fiscal responsibility,.. no more than you can mandate hate and prejudice out of mankind..

John Cooper,
I take one of your line at the almost end of your comment ,
and find it very important for the REPUBLICANS TO TAKE IN CONSIDERATION,
we certainly not will be a free country much longer
if this keeps up,
let everyone who serve the NATION, get that very important comment of you’res


I agree that Amendments shouldn’t give congress any weasel room, which is why I suggested that ALL borrowing be cut off permanently. The only “out” I suggested was that during a time of war, the States – not the congress – could grant an exception. Yes, I believe “the next in line sibling be denied any credit entirely”. Let the States borrow, but not the federal government (except in a time of war for survival).

Like you, I’m still cynical about whether such an amendment would work, though; Just look at California. Their Constitution requires a balanced budget, but they never seem to have one. I believe that’s because they always overestimate tax receipts and underestimate expenditures, but the point is that their legislature just ignores the Constitution. Nowhere is that more apparent than in Article 16, section 1, which demands:

SECTION 1. The Legislature shall not, in any manner create any debt
or debts, liability or liabilities, which shall, singly or in the
aggregate with any previous debts or liabilities, exceed the sum of
three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000), except in case of war to
repel invasion or suppress insurrection, unless the same shall be
authorized by law for some single object or work to be distinctly
specified therein which law shall provide ways and means, exclusive
of loans, for the payment of the interest of such debt or liability
as it falls due, …blahblahblah omitted…but no such law shall take effect unless it has
been passed by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each
house of the Legislature and until, at a general election or at a
direct primary, it shall have been submitted to the people and shall
have received a majority of all the votes cast…

California routinely and repeatedly borrows billions of dollars without the approval of the legislature and without a vote of the people. IOW, the politicians just ignore the Constitution they have sworn to uphold.

I have no doubt that it would be the same with any kind of federal Constitutional amendment. The ruling elite would just find a judge somewhere to rule, “I’ll allow it” like they have in California, essentially ruling the Constitution itself unconstitutional.

Your comments on SS and Medicare were right on. Everyone knows both programs are sick, but nobody wants to take the cure. For anyone under thirty, I’d just cut them off altogether and offer them Health Savings Accounts to replace Medicare, and IRAs to replace Social Security. There’s a lot more which would have to be done to get the government out of our doctors’ offices and allow the free market to work, but that’s a topic for another time.

Of course, until this economy recovers (if it ever does), the young folks won’t have any extra money to sock away anyway. So basically, America is well and truly fooked. Sorry Ben, we tried, but we just couldn’t keep the Republic you gave us.

John Cooper, you said ” Let the States borrow, but not the federal government (except in a time of war for survival).”

States borrow from whom? Since they can’t print currency, as the feds can, they cannot borrow endlessly. Were they borrow from the feds… the likely source as it’s unlikely all the States are going to run to foreign nations to get a loan to prosecute or prepare for a US war… where will the Feds get it unless they have a credit line? War bonds… just another “loan” and debt security… issued by the feds, of course. Also, as has been mentioned by someone here before, what is the definition of “war”? Must it be a declared act of war from Congress? What’s that criteria? it’s left up to the very same that have abused their Constitutional authority already.

What if the US military wants to acquire technology from Israel or another source, and they don’t have the cash to do so… while not a war? Or even the spare cash giving them the ability to build vehicles or weaponry for a trade?

Even the most successful of companies use credit to grow and function, parlaying their cash assets in wiser ways. They just happen to exercise discipline (most of the time) in doing so because if they don’t, they don’t have the theoretical filled wallets of taxpayers to bail them out.

er… wait. LOL

But you get the gist. Private enterprise functions on a combination of credit, as well as cash flow. They just happen to be smarter about it, or they face bankruptcy.

What you are suggesting is to remove one of the 19 powers of authority in Sect 8, Article I of the Constitution. I guess I fail to see how stripping that power, which in and of itself isn’t a bad thing unless (as has been) abused by corrupt and irresponsible elected officials, is really the answer. And there is no penalty for that abuse. But I find that “no credit… ever” restraint to be somewhat unrealistic. Especially considering that the most likely “bank” for any of the States is the Feds themselves. Would not the better answer be to impose penalties on those corrupt officials who do abuse the currency and debt of the US, and remove the corrupt instead of the power?

I think we both agree that figuring out a way to duct tape Congressional hands shut, well away from the revenue cookie jar, is likely to be impossible. Whenever there’s an intent for the “there oughta be a law” as a solution, it usually just increases the clusterfook already in play.

I don’t think it’s impossible to eventually fill Congressional seats with those similar to state legislators that exercise fiscal prudence. And hoping that the power to print money doesn’t corrupt them after getting there…. But then that’s why, more and more, I’m believe that full time politicians in Congress is simply a bad idea. Forcing them to actually be civil servants, splitting their time between a real job and serving the nation as an elected officials (as used to be done in the past) is superior to term limits. After dashing back and forth for regular, or emergency sessions… and on their own dime instead of the taxpayers… they will be happy to serve and then return to a private life. It would take away all the incentive of being a career politician.

But the first task still lies ahead… a careful dismantling of the entitlement programs. That may be impossible since neither party genuinely want to dismantle them, or are afraid to try for fear of losing personal power as an elected official.


JohnCooper, to answer the question:

“States borrow money from whom?”


As to Social Security, it was a promise made, and should be a promised kept. We can reduce the number of people who are going to be claiming benefits by allowing workers to opt-out of it if they are under a certain age, say 40 (which still gives you a 25 year time frame to save for your retirement) and allow them to receive that money, tax free, back. Anyone over that age, say until 55, will received no more than they put in with the standard amount of interest they would have earned if they had put that money into a savings account. Also, we should allow those who retire to take a one-time payment, paying them the amount they have put in, again, with credit for what the interest earned would have been.

We should not be responsible for retirement planning for the entire nation. The SSA was a bad deal when it was enacted, and hasn’t gotten any better with age. But you see, once again, the Democrats knew what they were doing as the average life span of a white male in 1936 was 58. Hell, no one was expected to live long enough to collect.

Short term bridge loans which mature in six months, and repaid by selling some municipal bonds… state or local government security risks. Certainly states often get bank loans to parlay debts/state projects, but the response was to John Cooper’s suggestion that, in times of war (or or traditional national expenditures), the States do the borrowing. Somehow I doubt that the States could borrow enough, or sell enough municipal bonds, to finance a war of any duration length.


I should have provided a link to the California Constitution Article 16 so you could have read the entire language, but it makes sense to me (if they would follow it). If a state wants to build…say…a new college campus but don’t have the money, they can 1. get approval from the legislature to issue bonds, then 2. get approval from the electorate, then borrow the money in the open market. The blahblahblah I snipped out of my last post specified how that is done legally.

…shall be
authorized by law for some single object or work to be distinctly
specified therein which law shall provide ways and means, exclusive
of loans, for the payment of the interest of such debt or liability
as it falls due, and also to pay and discharge the principal of such
debt or liability within 50 years of the time of the contracting
thereof, and shall be irrepealable until the principal and interest
thereon shall be paid and discharged, and such law may make provision
for a sinking fund to pay the principal of such debt or liability to
commence at a time after the incurring of such debt or liability of
not more than a period of one-fourth of the time of maturity of such
debt or liability;

You asked, “borrow from whom?” That would be investors who needed a (supposedly) reliable return on their savings.

There are no such constraints on the federal government; They can just borrow the money with no plan to pay it back and no time limit. You asked, “where will the Feds get it unless they have a credit line?” They should “get it” with the approval of Congress and 3/4 of the State legislatures, and only in extremely dire situations like war. (We need to repeal the 17th Amendment as well.) As it is now and has been for close to a hundred years, congress just spends the money and have the Fed print some more. That’s why the U.S. dollar is only worth 4% of what it was in 1913. The money for their schemes has been stolen right out of the bank accounts of savers and retirees.

You say, “I find that ‘no credit… ever’ restraint to be somewhat unrealistic.” Is it unrealistic to stop providing drugs for a drug addict? You might have to let him down a bit at a time, but eventually you have to cut him off. It’s the same with federal borrowing: They only way to stop them is to cut them off permanently.

I fully agree with your comments on a part-time congress and dismantling “entitlement” programs.

Again, I believe my focus about states financing/borrowing had less to do with sundry municipal projects that are state specific benefits, than the larger scale national events such as war, or even infrastructure. You exempted the credit restraint, in theory, for times of war. But again, we go back to the definition of war. While the AUMF authorized the use of force in Iraq, it was short of a declaration of war. In fact, there’s only five formal declarations in our history, and in four of them, the hostilities had already begun. What of all the conflicts since the last declared war in 1942 against Romania? What of the current conflicts, sans any formal declaration? Do they fit the bill for federal borrowing… the war against the global jihad movement? Where would the states attempt to get such funding for the costs of these?

And again, what about improving and upgrading our military while not a war… which sans a formal declaration, is pretty much a perpetual state?

Added… as to the drug addict analogy. I’d simply fire the drug addict and would consider penalties for any violations or damage incurred during his employment. But, as most people are not drug addicts, I wouldn’t outlaw the availablity of drugs… which is, in essence, what you are suggesting by stripping the power from the 19 authorities in the Constitution. Because some people are alcoholics, do we make alcohol illegal again? Or do we simply not hire alcoholics in Congress?


“But again, we go back to the definition of war. ” Excellent point, but that’s why I included approval of 3/4 of the States to approve borrowing money for a “kinetic action”. I am convinced that they wouldn’t approve of Libya, for example. Yeah, I know, I’m starting to sound like Ron Paul.

As for improving or upgrading our military, I’m convince that once the illegitimate functions of the federal government are abolished, there will be plenty of money left for the legitimate ones like the military. Like you posted earlier, we should elect better people to be our representatives – ones who understand that the federal government is not your sugar daddy.

The more you look at it, the more a clusterfook it becomes. How do the states decide their vote? Via their legislative sessions? Are the costs for bearing the burden for these “non wars”/kinetic actions then apportioned equally among the states? Or per capita? Per each state’s GDP capability (sort like the “wealthy” bearing the greatest burden…)? If that’s the case, do those wealthier States get a bigger say for their larger burden? And assuming greater debt for more prolific GDP is just a moment in time. There was once a time when Michigan was an economic powerhouse… not now. Long term debt, based on their GDP performance in a snapshot of time is ludicrous.

Doesn’t this requirement of States’ approval for kinetic hostilities then strip a CiC of his Constitutional powers as well?

This is the problem with “laws” in general. With each one, there’s a Pandora’s Box of details that usually ends up extremely FUBAR in practice.

Personally, the only law I really approve of right now is that for every new law created, five have to be removed from the books.

@John Cooper:

John, yes we should elect better people, but as in the case of elected Sheila Jackson Lee, she is elected by those who have nothing to lose and everything to gain. How would you, in a society where everyone is entitled to vote if they are an American citizens of legal age, would you prevent that?

I would remind you that the Revolutionary War burden was carried by the states. Yes, it was a badly thought out system, because not all states paid their fair share. Even the states with high populations were reluctant to pay what they should have. This problem could be addressed.

But it is not the cost of our military that presents the biggest burden to America. The cost of providing public welfare is greater than the cost of our military. Those who are non-productive citizens reap more from government than those who are productive. Public housing, TANF, food stamps, free cell phones, free utilities, the cost of local services (police and fire departments) and cash welfare payments exceed our military expenditures. We will never have again, a viable debt free nation if we continue to grant largess to some on the backs of the few.

MATA great comments, you mentioned the STATES BORROWING POWERS.
I read something before a good while ago, about the gold coming as a great important
currency and silver 5 time less value of gold , that when the economy will crash so low that there will be needs paid directly with those precious metals.


You asked, “How do the states decide their vote? “, to which I would answer, “The same way they vote on any Constitutional amendment.” I’ve enjoyed this discussion, but let me leave you with this time-honored observation:

I fully realize that I have not succeeded in answering all your questions. Indeed, I feel I have not answered any of them completely. The answers I have found only serve to raise a whole new set of questions, which only lead to more problems, some of which we weren’t even aware were problems. To sum it all up, in some ways I feel we are more confused than ever, but I believe we are confused on a higher level, and about more important things.

were any of you aware that the federal goverment’s various depertmental accounting programs number 135. None of the central accounting programs talk to each other.. That is right, none can talk to the other.so the problem is where is the real debt and real expenses? Hold the debt ceiling: hold the senate, house, justices and whip house pay for the next six months. No trips, no vacations, and no wipe house parties that cost over 2 million a night. Smile America..you will continued to be screwed..no kiss no nothing.

Thats all rotten liberals want to do is raise taxes on us all they want to tax our burgers,soda,guns,bullets,gas,millages we drive and all that all