When we talk about the National Debt, we are talking about the amount of money that our government owes people, companies, and even foreign nations. This is comparable to a person having a home loan, several car loans, lots of credit card debt, and IOU notes written out to everyone in the neighborhood.

The National Budget Deficit is the amount of money the government spends more than the amount of money the government collects. A person having a budget deficit would likely be putting more debt onto a credit card than payments to pay it off. Every year the government works out the budget, that is, they decide how much money they are going to throw at what. When they’ve spent more money than is collected through taxes, they say, “Oh well, we’ll just take out more loans.” The National budget deficit is the amount by which our National debt increases.

When there is talk about “reducing the deficit,” they aren’t talking about reducing the national debt. They are just reducing the rate at which the government takes out new loans. “Cutting the deficit in half” is saying, “We are only going to take out half as many new loans this year.”

Related posts:

1. Hillary is out of the race and out of money Hillary Clinton recently ended her bid for the presidency. She...
2. Student loans paid off I got a letter in the mail which read: Your...
3. How much is an old computer worth? Occasionally I get asked how much a particular used computer...

I recently came across this poll, which shows how much American’s trust their federal government.  Except for just after September 11, 2001, American’s in large do not trust their government, sometimes by a 2-to-1 margin.

If there is so much distrust to our government, why would we trust them now to create a huge government project like public health care?  That is not to say that something shouldn’t be done about health care, but is government the most trusted organization to fix the problem?

Even if people trust the current government, what is to say that they will trust the government in 4, 8, or 80 years?

Related posts:

1. If we can put a man on the moon Way too often, I hear phrases like, “If we can...
2. Don’t ride alone From the national archives exhibit, “Powers of Persuasion,” comes this...

For example, a quick Google search for this phrase in the last week resulted in 171 pages, which included the following:

Marvin Eisenstein leaving a comment on a NY Times blog:

If we can put a man on the moon I am sure we can solve the health care problem.

Kent Halla, in a letter to the Silver City Sun-News:

Why, if we can put a man on the moon can we not cure cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.?

An anonymous comment in a forum asks:

If we can put a man on the moon in less than a decade, could we not help repair the only planet we’ll ever know by showing the same dedication and bearing the same burden of common purpose?

But the problem is, we can’t put a man on the moon.  According to a Washington Post article, “NASA doesn’t have nearly enough money to meet its goal of putting astronauts back on the moon by 2020.”

Our government no longer has the ability to put a man on the moon.  Although President Obama appointed a special Human Space Flight Plans Committee, the committee found that the governement would not commit enough resources or dedication to put man on the moon anytime in the next decade.

So we are stuck with a government who can’t do what they did 40 years ago: put a man on the moon.  I don’t know why they think they can take on the governement, make cars more efficient, cure cancer, fix healthcare, etc.  We pretty much have a government that is incapable of doing much of anything other than consuming tax dollars.

Related posts:

1. Trust in governement Under President Obama, our government has been busy on new...
2. Don’t ride alone From the national archives exhibit, “Powers of Persuasion,” comes this...

Flickr Stock Image

President Obama wants to spend taxpayer money (to the tune of $8,000,000,000) on Amtrak to improve and expand the American passenger rail system.  I hope the money is spent well, because right now there are seious problems with traveling by train.

Suppose I wanted to travel from Denver to Salt Lake City.  There is a route, the California Zephyr, that travels once a day between these two cities.  I would have to leave Denver at 8am, to arrive in Salt Lake City 15 hours later at 11pm.  I would also have to pay $65 dollars to do so.

In comparison, I can drive at 25 mpg and at $2.50/gallon gas from Denver to Salt Lake City, 545 miles, for $55 and only take about 8 hours to drive that.

Even better, I can find a $49 flight on Southwest that will get me to Salt Lake in only an hour and a half.

Why would I want to spend more money and more time traveling by train, when I can travel faster and cheaper by both car and plane?

(image credit)

Related posts:

1. Cleaner cars not best for economy Recently, Obama signed a request for the Environmental Protection Agency...
2. Best democrat for swing states Hillary Clinton’s latest claim why she is the better candidate:...
3. Preparing for thanksgiving A few thoughts I have today: I still haven’t packed,...

Although I’m certainly not a Daschle fan, I felt sorry for anyone caught up getting all confused about taxes.  That was, until I remembered that this was one of the guys who was elected for quite a long time to solve problems like complicated taxes.

The U.S.  needs a more simple tax system, one where you don’t have to choose between 3 different forms with 4 digit idenfication numbers with double digit lines each referring to pages of instructions which refer to completion of other forms which is JUST TOO MUCH!

Tom Daschle was in a prime position to solve this sort of problem, but didn’t.  The fact that he got caught up with late and unpaid taxes I credit to the fact that he didn’t make the system more simple when he had the chance.

I think of it as just a little bit of irony.

No related posts.

While I support the idea of creating a cleaner environment and reducing our dependency on foreign fuel, I think this is a bad move in this economy for two reasons.

First, this would give single states too much power over the U.S. economy. Auto makers cannot simply create a version of their product lines for California–they would have to drastically revise their products for the entire country. This gives California too much power and leverage over the entire U.S. economy, which is currently very delicate.

Secondly, requiring automakers to research and develop more fuel-efficient cars would place additional burdens on a fragile auto industry. Just last fall, the U.S. auto industry asked the U.S. government for a $25 Billion bailout. Placing further restrictions upon the American automakers will only cause them more trouble, to the point where they will need even more bailout money.

I want a cleaner environment, but I don’t think it is worth the cost of bankrupting the auto-industry, possibly causing the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Creating tougher environmental regulations may be a good thing, but only on the federal level, and only when the economic conditions can support additional auto industry restrictions.

Obama’s request for these regulatory changes is careless and irresponsible. The number one problem in America today is the economy. But instead of working to correct the economy, Obama is trying to please too many special interests, which is instead causing further harm to the economy. It seems like Obama is trying harder to polish his democratic public image than he is to fix a failing economy.

Related posts:

1. Russia tests the new President-Elect Obama’s first day as President-Elect has already brought international tests. ...
2. Best democrat for swing states Hillary Clinton’s latest claim why she is the better candidate:...
3. The problem with traveling by train   President Obama wants to spend taxpayer money (to the...

I dreamed that First Lady Laura Bush broke into the Obama’s house and stole their gold fish.  It wasn’t political hostility or anything, just that Mrs. Bush has a collection of goldfish that she has stollen from other politicians.

Related posts:

1. I spy From the dream dictionary entry for “spy”: To dream that...
2. To dream of a platypus A dream dictionary claims the following about dreaming about a...
3. Last night’s Costco dream Last night I had a dream that I was at...

How will Obama react? Will he stand strong and firm against this Russia political aggression?  Or will he allow Russia to continue an arms building without opposition?

This is not just about a few missiles here or there.  This is a Russian test of Obama. Russia is figuring out how much they can do with the new President.  They are testing the Obama waters to see how much they can get away with.

Related posts:

1. Moderator bias and the VP debates Suppose the moderator of tonight’s vice presidential debates is writing...
2. Best democrat for swing states Hillary Clinton’s latest claim why she is the better candidate:...
3. Cleaner cars not best for economy Recently, Obama signed a request for the Environmental Protection Agency...

My opponent said, “<5 word out-of-context phrase>.”  He is out of touch with mainstream America.

I will lower taxes to middle-class citizens, increase benefits by lowering costs, and increase jobs by improving the economy.  Vote for me.

My beef with politics right now is that candidates are picking apart the details of their opponents plan without even providing the details of their own plan.

I think we need to look at the details of the plans and strategies of the candidates we plan to vote for.  Plans such as “increase jobs by improving the economy” are extremely vague and are likely to be empty campaign promises.

Demand to know, “How are you going to improve this or that?” and “How to you plan to pay for these improvements?” Demand to know the details.  Always ask one more how question.

No related posts.

Gwen Ifill from PBS

Suppose the moderator of tonight’s vice presidential debates is writing a pro-Obama book. Do you suppose that might produce a moderator bias in the debate?

But that is exactly the case with Gwen Ifill, who is writing a book title, The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama which is to be released in January. Presumably, the book will sell better in January if Obama is elected president, providing greater financial reward for Ifill if Biden and Obama’s ticket performs better in the debates tonight.

Is it a good idea to have a moderator who could benefit financially from the outcome of a debate? Of course not.

(Image Source: Used under a creative commons license)

Related posts:

1. Russia tests the new President-Elect Obama’s first day as President-Elect has already brought international tests. ...
2. Shame on CNN I tuned into CNN on Monday night expecting to hear...