Bob Calco wrote: >> Obama has been winning largely by virtue of a massive campaign chest. >> My >> guess is that his people don't know how to wage an effective campaign >> without throwing huge sums of money at it. >> >> I've been told by many that I should have faith in Obama's skills >> because he >> was so effective in running his campaign against Hillary. However, if >> you >> took away his huge funding advantage I don't know what the outcome >> would >> have been. I believe it is likely he would have lost, as so many were >> predicting for so long. It is really easy to look like you're managing >> your >> funds well when you have a lot of money. The real trick is to manage >> your >> funds when you don't have so much. >> > > In this respect precisely both parties and the federal government actually > *do* represent the average American family. > > Debt is hard-wired into our way of thinking over the last generation or two, > and it's hard for most folks to imagine even buying a car without a loan. I > mean, why pay cash when you can finance? You can have more stuff today and > as long as you got that paycheck coming in, and no illnesses rock the boat, > why, life is good. > The war in Iraq has been financed much like the American people finance the standard of living using credit card debt. The current USA deficit is around $410 billion dollars. Every time President Bush has ask congress to pass an authorization bill for additional billions to finance the war in Iraq, the deficit increases. It strange how that works.
The Administration doesn't include the war spending in the federal budget in a way that would call for taxes to cover the expenses. Instead, the entire war has been financed with special congressional authorizations. Congress has approved/authorized the spending knowing full well that its USA world bank account/federal reserve account is overdrawn/in deficit, and knowing there has been no budget appropriation call for tax revenues in the budget to cover the auhorizations. When the checks are written for war goods and services, the recipient present the check to the US Treasury's for collection. The US Treasury must honor the the check, even though the current bank account is in the read and the additional spending increase the overdraft/deficit to the USA world bank account. Since congress has authorized the war spending, the world bank must honor the checks being presented for payment, even though there is no money in the account and the overdraft/deficit continues to grow. At least congress must authorize the spending, so the Bush Administration doesn't have a complete blank check to run up trillions of dollars in overdrafts. LOL This reckless behavior has caused a devaluation of the dollar and contributed, along with high energy prices, to the worst inflation in decades. We probably will not know the full extent of our financial conditions until we get a new administration in office. Regards, LelandJ > (Hence the effectiveness of "jobs" despite a 95% employment rate, and > "healthcare" as political issues... we are so leveraged as a society that > just the thought of either losing a job or health coverage makes us beg and > moan for government programs that "secure" our entitlements...) > > The ungodly gobs of money going into politics is not the work merely of evil > "lobbyists" -- nor is our national debt the result of a single party's lack > of fiscal discipline. The loss of our jobs overseas is a bipartisan effort > that goes back more than 40 years. > > It's a reflection of our cultural attitude toward life, which has become > increasingly man-centered, narcissistic, pleasure-oriented, and geared > toward instant-gratification. We throw money at everything and if we can't > afford it we use leverage. Like the sun rising everyday in the East. We're > happy with cheap stuff, and don't care if buying it puts Chinese nuclear > submarines in the Pacific to prowl our coasts. > > Obama and his new chic liberalism isn't going to change that--to the > contrary, it's based on the very same impulse. Obviously, McCain has not > changed that (one can only be a maverick so far when one also harbors > presidential ambitions). > With any luck Obama will return the USA to fiscal sanity and pay off our overdrafts/deficit to the world bank. When Bill Clinton, the last democratic president, left office we had a surplus in our bank account and a real balanced budget, so we had some way to know were we stood, (eg how much we were paying in taxes, and what we were receiving in services form Uncle Sam). > When it all comes crashing down--which I suspect will be quite soon--it will > be "look in the mirror" time for everyone. I think it already has come crashing down; although, we may not have reached the worst of it yet. > It's too bad it has to come to > that. But then we will have real "change." It won't be of the cardboard > cutout variety that still woos coeds, brings in hundreds of millions of > campaign cash, and wins elections, though. > > - Bob > > >> Kristyne >> >> > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
