Sure every prez raised the debt limit. So up YOUR OWN credit card limit every year. What happens when you chare so much you can't pay for it all? They take your credit card away. We should have done this several terms ago, but Obama has increased our spending at such a high rate that we can't wait any longer.

And the great depression would have been over in ONE year, NOT TEN, had it not been for FDR.
Just sayin'

tG ~ Please EDUCATE me here... I don't UNDERSTAND what you said about the Great Depression (THAT was a little before MY time!) WHY did you say that? Did it last 10 years?

NDY

PS: YOU have to consider the RATE OF INFLATION when calculating CURRENT expenditures ....

just sayin'

America is airing its dirty linen in public, Shame on our Congreess. They act like a bunch of 5th graders and put in charge of the world’s largest economy. A default is unthinkable – and it won’t happen!

Media headlines make it appear that our senior citizens, and our military families will be unable to put food on the table or make their mortgage payments.

If it weren’t for the Rupert Murdock scandal, the media would have nothing else to talk about. And if it weren’t for the debt ceiling we’d be better off with Congress in recess -- along with all schoolchildren!

I can't help wondering how many billions the space programme costs, and if it is really necessary in straitened times.

raingirl1, the space program has been greatly diminished in the USA. Cape Kennedy has shut down the shuttle program saving vast amounts of money in this economy but hurting the Florida economy critically by the loss of so many jobs.

ndr - I couldn't agree with you more. My understanding is that Reagan raised the debt ceiling something like 15 times or more. While I do agree that our spending should be reigned in - - the 1% tax increase on the wealthy would not hurt them a bit and it would help our economy a great deal.

Additionally why is the SS pay-in capped at $105,000? Why don't the wealthy continue paying up through their entire income? That would seem to be SUCH a simple way of resolving the Social Security dilemma quite easily. I don't think anyone has even mentioned that. It would seem that if the middle-class has to pay up through their entire income of - oh - say $75,000, the wealthy should have to pay up through their entire $300,000 or more. How is asking the same contribution from the wealthy punishing the wealthy as they claim. I don't get that at all.

NDY, Google the depression of 1920, it was worse than the 1930's and it was fixed in about 18 months. Because the PRIVATE sector fixed it, NOT the Gov't.

Repubs, Dems, it doesn't seem to matter, I think Chinq gives them too much credit and insults 5th graders. LOL At least 5th graders can get along MOST of the time.

Not sure on the SS Limitations LJ, I might have to look into that. Seems like a fair approach.

RainGirl, stop for a moment and think of all the thinges we have today (tech, medical, etc.) that are a direct result of the Space program. True, a man on the moon is only valuabe TO ME, if he could have picked off Bin Laden from there, but all the other industries that the space program produces are a significant portion of our economy. Just my opinion.

Actually, I agree with you, G, about the advantages of the Space programme. One of the benefits is to the world cholera pandemic, which is accelerating as more toxic and tenacious mutations develop. Satellite imaging is able to predict outbreaks weeks before they happen, and the cuts to funding will mean countless lives lost. This could have repercussions all over the world, including the USA.
Wherever cuts are made, someone will suffer, if not immediately then further down the line. On the other hand, every householder knows that it is wise to keep within the budget and stay out of debt as much as possible. No easy answers in this situation.

Knowledge IS power... The offshoots mentioned in raingirl's reply are self-evident. We MUST pursue the SPACE program. It is VITAL to our progress as a country and in the mode of leadership. We can't keep falling behind OTHER countries that we have ALWAYS been considered in ADVANCEMENT of bec of BUDGET cuts. Cut sumethin else..!!

I realize the importance of Foreign Aid but WHY do we have to rebuild EVERY country with which we participate in conflict with? And EVEN at the cost of "We the people..!!" Please help me to better understand this... I mean OUR people are losing their homes... Families are living in the streets and we keep pumping OUR tax dollars into the WELFARE of other countries... NO capiesh!!

just sayin'

NDY

I'm tired of every single time the government goes on a spending spree, they come back acting like "hey, somehow we are all in this bad debt now and need your help". Why do they keep ever increasing the spending and then when it's time to pay, they come back with scare tactics to make the people run in fear? I mean, why do we always end up with, "ok... if we need to cut spending, we need to cut SS and Medicare." Why is it nobody talks about foreign aid spending, fraud in our entitlement programs, wasteful earmarks, etc.? I think they always start with things that would hurt regular Americans so that we will let them continue down the same "debt" road. They spend money like it's not even real and then complain we are in a crisis? Something like a 28% increase in the past 2 years and then act like this just "happened"? I'm sick to death of it.

Also, EVERY SINGLE citizen should have to pay their share. To focus only on the rich, who do pay the majority already, stating they need to pay their share, is a real twist. What is the fair share for over 50% who pay no income tax? Remember the 'ol saying, "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic". Folks, this is what is happening. Once the majority are the receivers of the goods from the treasury, while the minority pay the bill... it's all going to go to HELL.

Pretty soon those paying are going to get fed up and join the majority. I feel like doing just that myself. I work 60+ hours a week only to be demonized for trying to save and stay out of debt. That is seen as me "having", while those who can't seem to live within their means, spend every dime as soon as they get it, as the "have-nots". I have a sister who does just that! She spends all of her money on CRAP and then acts like I am stingy for not giving her money to get her out of debt because I have "extra" money in the bank and she doesn't. Do you know why I have extra? I don't live for THINGS. I save my money. I don't borrow money (debt free) so that I can have things I cannot afford. If I want something, I save and pay cash for it. I save for the future instead of filling my house with crap and buying a new car. I resent her for acting like I am stingy for the way I handle my money. What is more stingy... consuming all for myself or saving and taking care of myself and my family well and having enough left over to help others who need a helping hand? Anyway, I am doing all I can do and paying my share and then some... yet I am seen as stingy for nothing doing more? Then, the person who spends everything in a quest to "consume" only is seen as giving? I don't get it. What we are creating is true blue class-warfare and nobody will win.

I have to say, as I taught them for 15 yr., fifth graders might not do such a bad job as you think. They are open to new ideas, not entrenched in any position, owe no political favors, and think outside the box. They know borrowed money must be paid back . Most also settle their differences on the playground in a peaceful manner. . Most can see right through the phonies and let them know it. Don't mess with a fifth grader!

Random musings...

* To the best of my knowledge the Great Depression was dreadful under Hoover, who believed that tightening up credit was the way out. That didn't work then, that didn't work for the Japanese (who are 10+ years in getting out of their deflation/inflation/depression and now struggle with aftermath of earthquake/tsunami); FDR stood up to the banks and said he "welcomed" their anger. He put people to work in the WPA (yep, I know it's govt-funded), opened up credit, and began some social programs so people literally didn't die of starvation if their family didn't help.

* Also to the best of my knowledge Reagan began borrowing (stealing) from SS by putting a handwritten IOU in a drawer in DC that is still there. It continued on down the line, Clinton also did it. SS would not be insolvent if it had not been raided.

* I love LJ's comment about why is there a cap on SS from your paycheck? I believe it is because there are only maximum benefits you can collect once retired but still - it is a regressive 'withdrawal' from your check because low wage earners pay significantly more of their check than those millionaires. Withdraw SS and Medicare from everyone's check with no ceiling and help refund SS.

* GWBush instituted Medicare Part D - Rx drug program - which was shown at the time to be unfundable into the future. He was a Republican. Not sure why he did this, unless for reelection? Along the same lines with entitlement programs, put unemployed persons with good clerical skills to work investigating Medicare fraud and you could save a BUNDLE!

* Obama supporters are puzzled as to why he kept the Bush tax cuts. We are in trouble, we can't afford this. I believe he had to do this to pacify the Republicans.

* There is enough money to go around, it is just misused. I agree, quit bailing out every country we bomb or march into when we believe it's our duty to call the shots. No wonder we are sometimes called the Ugly Americans. Pull our military out of the 5 or so "wars" we're involved in, bring the boys home so no more soldiers die, and reduce funding for military purposes. We already have enough military might, we could cut it in half and still be safe.

Well I'm sure there's more I think about, but okay folks, have at me!

Mystic

Well said Doddlin. I am not an American but The Bahamas is very close to the US. What's weird is that "taxing the rich" almost always hurts the middle class the most. Think about it. The "poor" don't pay taxes. The "rich" own the businesses, and can pass the extra charges on to the consumers. This leaves the burden on the middle class who pay for goods with their hard earned money and also pay taxes.

All good and interesting comments here.. Mystic, as I remember it, Obama kept the Bush tax cuts because it was a trade-off so unemployment benefits would be continued for many out of work employees who were about to run out of benefits. (Am repeating Hubby's comments, here.)
My social security comment : If SS is in so much trouble, why did the gov't cut the amount that workers pay into the fund by 2 percent on January 1, 2011. I am happy for the extra $70.00 or $80.00 a month that workers see on their paychecks as I know we can all use every dollar we get. The gov't says the SS fund won't be harmed because the cut will be paid back into SS from the General Treasury...Isn't that part of the problem? Robbing Peter to pay Paul!

@zzzjoy - I did not know that the govt cut 2% that workers pay into SS in January. Is that continuation of Bush tax cuts? Seems that would not help the SS shortfall. And paying back from the general treasury? Well, we have no funds to do that and there is that pesky deficit...definitely part of the problem, robbing Peter etc.

If Obama indeed continued Bush tax cuts to extend unemployment benefits (could be, I don't remember) that makes no sense to me. Continue to cut taxes, bringing in less revenue, and yet pay out more revenue in extended unemployment benefits? Yikes! Robbing Peter again or whatever, can't wrap my brain around this logic (or illogic?). That $20 or so per week, is it a huge help to most people? Do we go out and have dinner with our family once a week at McDonald's? That's about all you can do with $20 and it probably wouldn't cover the whole bill.