Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Regardless Of Debt Deal, Experts Say Much Remains To Be Done On Debt

August 4, 2011 by  

Some experts believe more needs to be done to fix America's economic situation.While much has been made about the debt ceiling compromise, a number of economic experts are not convinced that it will do much to fix America’s financial woes.

“A drop in the bucket, or even spit in the ocean,” Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told Fox News about the potential long-term impact of the legislation on the country’s debt issues.

MacGuineas said that such the legislation was a step in the right direction.

“But this is nowhere close to the amount of savings we need to really get on top of this deficit and debt challenge. We’re on course to borrow about $10- or 11 trillion over the next 10 years,” she said. “And $2.5 trillion in savings over 10 years is not going to fix the problem. It’s not even going to set us on the right course quite yet.”

Regardless of the deal, America’s sterling AAA rating may still be threatened as Standard & Poor’s said in July that the debt needed to be reduced by $4 trillion.

“We expect the debt trajectory to continue increasing in the medium term if a medium-term fiscal consolidation plan of $4 trillion is not agreed upon,” the rating agency said, reports Reuters.

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Regardless Of Debt Deal, Experts Say Much Remains To Be Done On Debt”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Michael J.

    All that has happened is Obama’s campaign war chest has been filled. And the debt ceiling issue has been kicked down the road until after he is re-elected, from his perspective of course.

    Nothing has been done to restore confidence that would inspire businesses to hire new workers. In fact, Obama is hard at work to insure just the opposite with the mandate that health insurance companies now provide birth control at no charge. Is there any doubt that the cost of which will be passed on to consumers? And in turn will this not make it more expensive to hire new employees?

    Strategically, this move has a two-fold effect. First it’s right out of the Rothschild playbook of population reduction. And two, will further stagnate economic recovery as far as new job creation.

    • Warrior

      And no sooner does this scam get signed into law, and little timmy is already warning us that interest rates will most likely rise because of the “debt debate”.

      Frickin unbelievable how these people think that we do not know WHO will have caused the rise in rates.

      • Al Sieber

        A rise in interest rates could lead to hyperinflation.

        • Warrior

          And what do you think printing trillions of added dollars does?

        • vicki

          A rise in interest rates is not the cause of hyperinflation. It is (one of) the result.

          There is one and only one cause of inflation. Hyper or otherwise. An increase in whatever is being used for money. Since interest is the money charged for loaning out money an increase in the supply of money means the people loaning what they have want more back. Interest rates go up so they can get more back.

  • Doc Sarvis

    Yes we need to cut costs in some areas of the budget but we can’t solve our debt on that alone. We need to end tax loopholes and increase the tax on those in our country who have benefitted the most from all she has contributed to them.

    • Michael J.

      OK, ONE MORE TIME, if you tax the rich they’ll just move their money elsewhere and cease spending it here. Jeesh!!!

      • Doc Sarvis

        Ever since the Bush tax cuts have stayed in place the rich have been moving money elsewhere. Where are those jobs that the lower tax rate on the rich is supposed to get us?

        • Ellen

          Doc, The problem with the Dems ‘tax the rich’ mantra is that they call the top 2% of earners rich. If you are making $200,000 per year, you probably live in an area where the cost of living is higher and you are upper middle income but not rich. There are no billionaires making $200,000 per year. The ultra rich may move their money off shore, but the ultra rich are a very small percentage – less than 1/2 of a percent. It doesn’t sound impressive to say “Let’s tax the top 1/2 of 1% of earners,” so they focus on the top 2%. It’s utterly ridiculous, but people fall for it. So, if we want to tax the ultra rich at a higher rate, we need to realize we are not talking about a large number of people. The frustrating part of this is that most people making $200,000 work very hard and earn that money where as most people making $10,000,000 usually have people doing their work for them. We should set the limit of ‘rich’ someplace well over $1 million per year. Even the fool Chuck Schumer used $1 million as a starting point.

          • Doc Sarvis

            Since when does the top 2% go all the way down to people making $200K? The top 2% are the ultra rich!

          • http://?? Joe H.

            You dam well know as well as everyone else here Nobummer has ALWAYS talked about taxing anyone that makes over $250,000 a year!!! He figures anyone makeing more than that RICH!! Except himself, of course!!

          • Doc Sarvis

            Joe H.
            When has President Obama excluded himself from these tax equations?

          • Ellen

            Doc, Obama’s numbers are $200,000 for an individual or $250,000 for a married couple filing a joint return. You are barely middle class if you have these incomes in New York, Connecticut, California, etc. This is the top 2% of earners. Anyone who thinks people making these incomes are millionaires or billionaires is an outright idiot.

          • Doc Sarvis

            I don’t believe anyone was claiming that the 200K or 250K figure represents the top 2%.

    • vicki

      The rich have already contributed. They invested their wealth. They made products that we buy. We paid them. That you want the government to take some of the money WE willingly gave them shows you to be a thief. Or worse. Someone who hires a thief to do what you won’t do yourself.

  • AJ

    Doc do you mean people like the George Sorros’s, Rockafeller family,
    Nancy Peloses, Kennedys, Warren Buffets? I don’t know do these people pay any taxes?

    • Doc Sarvis

      These are among the people I refer to and as far as I know they do pay taxes.

      • Michael J.

        If they share your enthusiasm, they and you can merely pay more taxes.

        • Doc Sarvis

          I’m living on the margins myself. Glad to hear you say the rich can pay more taxes.

          • Song

            the rich that the govt. love to refer to are the middle class Doc. Sure wish you and others like you could get a dose of reality through that head of yours. Just wait and see what happens when the Bush tax cuts are repealed.

          • Doc Sarvis

            Song, you wrote;”the rich that the govt. love to refer to are the middle class”. Where is the lower break point you claim the government calls the rich and that you claim is the middle class?

          • vicki

            People in government are well aware that there are not enough “rich” people to feed their appetite for spending. That is why the “less rich” will be seeing their taxes go up. A lot. There are SOOO MANY middle class folk that the government won’t resist.

            good luck finding an actual definition of “middle class”.

  • AJ

    Good I really wasn’t aware that they did. However I did read somewhere that a few years back David Rockafeller paid $850.00 in
    personal income taxes.

    • http://?? Joe H.

      Had you paid attention, it has been said here many, many times that the top 2% pay over 46% of the taxes!!

  • Les

    US citizens are so damned stupid.

    1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
    2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
    3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
    4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
    5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

    Guess where we are today? Do you think I am going to continue to bust my ass to keep watching more and more of it being taken away by the government? Lets see: Federal Income Tax, State Income Tax, County Piggyback Tax, Social inSecurity Tax, Medicaid Tax, Property Tax, Sales Tax, Gas Tax, etc.

    Really rich people don’t pay taxes on their income since most of it is made from foreign investments. You don’t Tax the Rich on what they have beyond property taxes. You think I’m going to stay here if I were a billionaire when I hear you want to take it all away like all the socialized countries do? You need to take a look at all those socialized countries to see lies told about their successes.

    Let the bashing begin….

    • http://?? Joe H.

      Sin tax, entertainment tax, bed tax, ect, ect, ect!!!! It goes on and on forever!!

  • peter

    It has never worked before and it will simply never work. You cannot get out of debt by borrowing money. Economists are either ignorant of that fact or are hoodwinking the populace into believing it. Makes them all the same anyway – is liar a polite word?

    • BigBadJohn

      Same goes for taxes, you can not get out of debt by cutting taxes. Reagan proved it by tripling the national debt and Bush proved it by doubling it again.

      • Michael J.

        Ever heard of the Laffer Curve?

        • BigBadJohn

          I agree that when the top tax rate was 70% that it killed productivity. Watching your video though the point on the curve where taxes become detrimental are 45-50% which is no where near what the rate was even before Bush’s tax cuts.

          When you cut taxes OR increase spending that money is put into circulation and is spent and taxed something like 6 more times. So following that logic, tax cuts and spending increases do exactly the same thing, put more money into circulation and increase the debt at the same time.

      • Michael J.

        And here’s why Obama’s Keynesian approach isn’t working and never will.

      • Don

        BBJ,,, and what did your man do, and is still doing, i’ll tell you what, he is trying to destroy this country anyway he can, so with that, why don’t the both of you move to kenya where you belong, we will take our country back in 2012 and and put people like you and yours in prisons !!!

        • BigBadJohn

          Not my man – Obama looks just like George Bush to me……

          • http://?? Joe H.

            could have fooled me! you defend his actions vigorously!!

  • LAW2

    In my opinion the “people who have benefitted the most” are those people who have been supported their entire lives on the public dole and have never worked or paid any taxes. What would happen to tax revenues if we just required them to pay taxes of even 1% on their benefits? We all hear about having skin in the game and equal representation and yet I see alot of representation with NO taxation.
    The uber wealthy at least had someone,somewhere who worked their butts off to create wealth and then worked hard after that to keep their wealth together, and rest assured that all along the way they paid “taxes”. Maybe not Form 1040 Income tax; but they paid property tax, sales taxes and all the hidden taxes included in the price of goods, which adds up to almost 50% of all taxes paid.
    Isn’t America supposed to be about working hard and becoming a sucess? Well, lets work to get this country and its laws back to where those people who are willing to do the work are rewarded. If you are unwilling to work for the reward the I have one comment for you: Hunger is a powerful motivator”.

    • BigBadJohn

      “In my opinion the “people who have benefitted the most” are those people who have been supported their entire lives on the public dole and have never worked or paid any taxes.”

      I you have ever actually seen how these people live I don’t think you would use the word “benefited”.

      The welfare system has for generation destroyed families, killed motivation and created a feedback loop that feeds on itself – IT MUST BE CHANGED!

      The very first thing that I would change is Aid to Dependent Children. Basically a single mother is paid to stay home and have kids, the more kids they have the more money they get. If they get married they lose their benefits. So they learn to play the system, if married the husband slips out the back door when the social worker shows up (for instance).

      The government should pay for sterilization of these baby machines, NOT giving them money to raise the children.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        When I was about 14 years old, there was a welfare family down the street from the people I lived with. We had a black and white set and the guy worked 50 hours a week. the welfare dept said that the mothers kids were under priveledged and should have a color tv set like the other kids around them. Mind you, very few of the kids in the neighborhood had them to watch. Well, you guesses it by now, they got one bought and paid for by welfare!!!

        • BigBadJohn

          Once upon a time…..
          I sold real estate in the inner city of DEEtroit.
          Suffice it to say, I saw just about every welfare abuse you can imagine. When you try to to talk to these people about improving their lot in life you hear the same thing. “My great grand mother was a slave – YOU OWE ME SOMETHING”. One day I responded “My great grandfather was a Yankee soldier that died freeing your grandmother – what do you owe me?”
          They don’t like to hear that.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Why shouldn’t they say it? Oblammas auntie who has been told by TWO US CURTS to leave and is still here said we owe her the welfare, as well!!

      • Song

        BBJ: I work with the welfare class daily. They are happily complacent with their living situation and have most definitely benefited the most off the backs of the working class taxpayer. They are uneducated, lack skill, motivation, and discipline and can’t see beyond their next subsidized welfare check. They have absolutely no concept of how things work or who is paying for their lazy butts and they are among the most ungrateful group of people I have ever met in my life with no intentions of changing except to ensure that their entitlements keep on coming and that next years tax return is bigger than the last. Question: why are these people even getting tax returns???

  • Dave G

    Fix our woes? This ‘deal’ makes it worse! Kicking the can down the road only postpones the coming train wreck which is snowballing. Saving 10T over 10 years? They’ll find a ‘special case’ where we really need to spend this money – just ‘can’t save it right now’. In other words, Washington can just go back to their spending habits till after next election!

  • BigBadJohn

    Good article from BusinessInsider:
    The Truth About Who’s Responsible For The Explosion In Government Spending

    Read more:

    (follow the link to see the charts).

    Mention anything about the US’s huge debt, deficit, and debt-ceiling problem, and fans of both political teams will immediately begin shouting at each other.

    Republicans howl that the whole problem is the fault of President Obama, who exploded federal government spending the moment he took office.

    Democrats, meanwhile, blame massive increase in federal government spending during the Bush years and the triumphant assertions by Republicans during those years that “deficits don’t matter.”

    So, what’s the truth?

    They’re both right. (And wrong. And, on the Republican side, hypocritical.)

    Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because of the $800 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession he inherited from President Bush. But the increase in federal spending under Obama is dwarfed by the colossal increase under President Bush.

    Don’t believe it?

    Let’s go to the chart.

    Here’s Federal Expenditures from 2000-2011 (quarterly figures, annualized), from the St. Louis Fed:

    Federal Government Spending 2000-2011

    As you can see, from 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.

    From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year. It has also now begun to decline.

    In other words, federal government spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President Obama.

    The Truth About Who’s Responsible For Our Massive Budget Deficit

    Say the words “budget deficit,” and Republicans and Democrats begin screaming at each other about who’s to blame.

    Republicans howl that the deficit is President Obama’s fault, because he has exploded government spending and failed to fix the economy.

    Democrats roar that President Obama inherited a catastrophic economic mess, that this mess will take time to clean up, and that our massive deficit is therefore President Bush’s fault.

    So, who’s right?

    Let’s start by looking at the deficits under Presidents Bush and Obama. Then we’ll figure out what has caused them. Finally, we’ll assign some blame.

    First, the chart below shows the progress of the annual deficits under Presidents Bush and Obama.

    President Bush, you will recall, inherited a budget surplus (the first in decades). Then, hit with a recession, he took the budget into deficit. Then he cut taxes, growing the deficit to $400 billion a year. Then, the economy boomed between 2005 and 2008, reducing the deficit to $200 billion a year. Then, the financial crisis hit, and the Bush deficit ballooned to $400 billion again.

    In early 2009, President Obama took over, amid the worst recession since the Great Depression. President Obama signed an $800 billion spending increase at the same time that GDP and tax collections tanked. The combination of these two factors–growth in spending and a drop in revenue–exploded the deficit to $1.4 trillion. In 2010, the economy and tax collections improved modestly, and the deficit shrank to $1.3 trillion annualized.

    US Federal Budget Deficit 2000-2011

    So, what actually caused these deficits?

    The chart below provides a look at federal receipts (taxes) and spending during the same period. (The deficit is the difference between them).

    Republicans howl that President Obama has exploded the size of federal government spending in his short tenure as President, and it is true that he has increased it. But President Bush actually increased federal spending by more than 2X as much as Obama has. So it is unfair to lay the explosion in spending at the feet of President Obama: Both presidents are responsible.

    The increase in government spending, meanwhile, is actually NOT the only factor that has caused the deficit. The other factor–equally if not more important–is the fall-off in government revenue (tax receipts).

    This second and larger factor can be blamed on two things: First, the Bush tax cuts, which reduced revenue, and, second, the weak economy, which has reduced the incomes and capital gains upon which most federal taxes are based.

    In the chart below, you can see what happened to both federal receipts (red line) and spending (blue line) over the past decade.

    President Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003. These tax cuts hit federal revenue, while federal spending growth continued apace. This combination ballooned the deficit in the early years of the Bush presidency.

    By the middle years of the Bush presidency, however, on the strength of the housing boom and strong economic growth (much of which now looks like a debt-fueled mirage), federal revenues began to grow rapidly. By 2007, in fact, the gap had almost closed.

    But then the bottom fell out. The housing bubble burst, the financial crisis hit, and the economy plunged into recession. And then President Bush handed President Obama the worst recession in more than 70 years and left Obama to clean up the mess.

    This recession clobbered federal revenues (tax receipts–red line), which still have not regained their 2007 bubble highs. President Obama’s stimulus, meanwhile, helped add about $600 billion to federal spending (blue line). The combination of these two factors ballooned the deficit from $400 billion when President Bush left office to ~$1.3 trillion now.

    US Federal Receipts And Expenditures 2000-2011

    So, who’s responsible for the massive deficit?

    This is a tougher question.

    We know WHAT is responsible: The combination of weak government revenues (tax receipts) and a vast increase in government spending.

    But figuring out WHO to blame is a more subjective exercise.

    If you believe that the growth during the “Bush Boom” was a debt-fueled mirage–a theory that is certainly supported by the evidence–then you can lay the blame squarely at the feet of President Bush. His combination of reduced taxes and increased spending took the US from a surplus to a deficit, and even the economic boom from a massive housing bubble and enormous borrowing couldn’t close the gap.

    Even if you think the “Bush Boom” was real, moreover, the recession and financial crisis began on his watch, and the deficit was already exploding when President Obama took office. So it’s very hard to escape the conclusion that President Bush bears a lot of the responsibility for our current mess.

    On the other hand, President Obama’s stimulus certainly hasn’t had as big an impact on the economy (and, therefore, government revenues) as he and his advisors promised it would. Given the extent of the mess Obama inherited, it’s possible that nothing would have fixed it by now. But even huge Obama supporters are justifiably frustrated with his over-promising, as well as with many of the decisions he has made.

    So it seems fair to lay some of the responsibility for our current deficit at President Obama’s feet as well.

    But, of course, if we’re doling out blame, we need to bring two other parties into the conversation.

    First, Congress, which approved all of the decisions above.

    Second, us–the American citizenry–the folks who voted Presidents Bush and Obama and Congress into office.

    We cheered as President Bush and Congress ignited the housing bubble. We cheered as they cut taxes and increased spending (it’s just so marvelous to have it all). We cheered as President Obama and Congress approved the stimulus and extended the Bush tax cuts. And we’re cheering now as Republicans promise us that–if only we just cut taxes and spending–our problems will be solved. (Never mind the examples of Greece and the UK, which demonstrate clearly that enacting “austerity” in the midst of a fragile recovery doesn’t work).

    In short, we’ve all become accustomed to our free lunch, and we never tire of electing politicians that promise it to us.

    So if we want to know who’s really to blame, we should take a peek in the mirror.

    • Les

      You got your degree in economics from? And you get all your news where?

      If you steadily increase the cost of anything, you reach the point of diminishing returns that includes tax rates. John Kennedy proved this by rolling back taxes and ending up with more money in the Treasury. When Reagan did the same thing, people called it Voodoo economics. Kennedy ran afoul of the Federal Reserve when he created Silver Certificates which probably got him killed. LBJ terminated those immediately when he took over.

      Here’s where it’s really interesting to me. How many people pay no tax and actually get paid by the federal government for one reason or another not to work, like farmers being paid not to grow crops. These people all have a vested interest in keeping everything moving on this train wreck. They don’t care what it is costing you to support them.

      We pay lots of people Social Security that never paid in a dime. Citizens & immigrants get housing, living wages, etc. all free. The good ones take care of what the get, the bad ones trash everything and expect more and more and more and more……

      This is coming to an end. the sad fact is our incompetent leadership thinks they know how to fix while keeping all of the above going.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        Where do you see all this incompetence comming to an end?? If we don’t get a true constitutional conservative in office and have them backed up by the same, we are screwed!! The circus will never leave town!

        • Les

          The incompetence is never going away. The real problem is the permanent Government employees that outlast every administration. I have never seen government employee fired for incompetence. Who got fired for 9/11 or any other grievous error? Hell, they didn’t even get reprimanded.

          I have worked in and around the federal government since 1970. I have seen it all, from fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, malfeasance, etc. I would love to know what the percentage is of federal employees with fake degrees. You do know they protect each other.

          I could go on and on, but what’s the point? We are Rome, including the bread and circuses. Hell we even have mercenaries doing our fighting, we just call them contractors now. Look what evil is being done for “We the People”. Read up on things like MK-ULTRA and tell me we are in control.

      • BigBadJohn

        It wasn’t “people” who called it VOODOO economics it was his VICE PRESIDENT GH Bush that called it VooDoo economics.

    • Don

      And the dumocrats owned congress since 2006, wake up

      • BigBadJohn

        From the article above:
        “We cheered as President Bush and Congress ignited the housing bubble. We cheered as they cut taxes and increased spending (it’s just so marvelous to have it all). We cheered as President Obama and Congress approved the stimulus and extended the Bush tax cuts. And we’re cheering now as Republicans promise us that–if only we just cut taxes and spending–our problems will be solved. (Never mind the examples of Greece and the UK, which demonstrate clearly that enacting “austerity” in the midst of a fragile recovery doesn’t work).

        In short, we’ve all become accustomed to our free lunch, and we never tire of electing politicians that promise it to us.

        So if we want to know who’s really to blame, we should take a peek in the mirror.”

        What are YOU willing to give up??????
        My opinion is that this is SO serious we ALL are going to have to give up something. which of course boils down to paying more tax and getting fewer perks…..

  • Bert Cundle

    THE ONLY DEBT DEAL… WAS RAISE THE BORROWING LIMIT! The Borrowed Money is to pay for their Defisit! ( The Money to pay for their Pet Projects, when they have SPENT ALL of the REVINUE From TAXES!!!)

  • Bert Cundle


  • Jerome Bigge

    Income taxes were a lot higher in the past than they are now. Back when I started working in 1959, the bottom tax rate was 20% and the top tax rate was 91%. Today the bottom tax rate is 10% and the top tax rate is 35%. We also faced the USSR with its ICBM’s, a massive conscript Army, Red China with its massive Army. Russia is now just a shadow of its former self, and China is economically dependent upon exporting manufactured products to the USA. The foes we face are groups of Muslim terrorists and rag tag pirates off the Horn of Africa. Neither compares in any way to what we faced in 1959. Effectively we have the same defense budget (in constant value dollars) as we had in 1959. But our foes are much weaker. In 1959 jobs were plentiful. Today they aren’t because we have exported tens of millions of jobs to Mexico and China. That is the source of our problem. Something no one wants to do anything about because business lobbyists have convinced Congress not to act on this. In effect we have “The Finest Government That Corporate Money Can Buy”!
    That is why we are in the fiancial difficulties we are now in…

  • http://GOGGLE vaksal

    Well the article written,side steps the real core of the problem,and that is when the boy and girl wonders in this republics government gave away this nations economy via (NAFTA) guess what? big big big mistake.why look around at all levels of our nations citizens,everyone is dying in the government formulated deal that gave our nations economy away,and the real truth is that both sides of these ruling elite people in government,are trying to cover this massive blunder by pointing fingers and yelling cut this and cut that,the point i am going to make is what good is it going to do the dying patient(THE AMERICAN TAX PAYER) who doesnt have a job to pay the bills? i myself can tell you for fact all the cutting on government will not help,the first step in saving this nation is to throw the (NAFTA) agreement in the garbage can where it belongs,and that will never happen until we all look at the real cause of this planned destruction of this nation by those who wish to turn us into a third world nation that is ruled as a police state,with foriegn corperations ruling the very every day operations of this nations government,its time to get rid of the cancer(NAFTA AGREEMENT)and not let the patient bleed out little by little,i am an older american,and identify myself not by any ethnic group, but by my fellow cuntryman and those who live as those who wish to be governed,but not ruled by those who wish to destroy,the very basis of this nations,self determination and that is the right to make a fair living,and i did that many years ago,and in thruth,i myself wonder how anyone can live under all the evil that has overtaken this once great republic,on one side the republicans,lets kill off all the old folks on social security and medicare and on the other side the dumocrats with lets turn this country into a communist police state,what a choice,its a real win win sitution for those in power,but in thruth the american people lose either way,how about putting the house in order by dumping the (NEW WORLD ORDER)concept and getting this nation rebuilt from the ground up,by dumping all the laws that have stopped this nation dead in its tracks and is only serving a small number of people,and i sure dont mean folks that make less than a million dollars,like the middle class,not that there are many,that are doing well,i have some of the answers,but in fact i wont last the day if i posted them,for this is the new america,where the thruth has no place,well thank you for reading the banter of an older american,but please look at the true facts,no one caused this mess,but those in power in government and they are puppets of foriegn corperations in reality. and they control those we elect.

  • chuckb

    blaming nafta is not the answer, blame the unions that drove our manufacturing out of the country, blame the epa and the environmental regulations imposed on the business in this nation. it doesn’t matter which side of the fence you are on greed likes the same profit. all you have to do is use california and the liberal democrats for an example. this state is in chaos, our gov. moonbeam brown has to borrow money, 5 billion dollars, to make the payroll for the people living off the state, they have regulated and taxed business to the point they can no longer do business here. can you blame nafta for this, no, you can blame the unions, tax and environmental regulation.
    union leaders like to blame the ceo’s of our business corporations for the lack of jobs and benefits. all you have to do is take a look at gm, they are a prime example. they can’t make it even with the government holding their hand. barry paid off the unions for their vote by giving them gm stock and look at the consequence, we lose two or three billion and gm will go under.

    shut down the environmentalist by shutting down the epa.
    this will induce more business and end our energy problem.
    enforce right to work laws.
    remove the union control of our schools, make the teachers account for their own ability.
    remove barry from the wh.
    remove boehner and mcconnell from leadership and the republican party
    remove pelosi and reid from washington dc.

    • http://GOGGLE vaksal

      TO:chuckb i total agree with what you posted,but you must agree that most U.S.regestered companies are operating outside the U.S. borders and raking in massive profits overseas,example ford motor company has bulit in mexico the largest car and truck manufacturing plant in all north america,and another is general motors which this wise congress bailed out,a terrible fact,china has cornered the market overseas in selling general motors made in china cars and trucks and have over 23 truck plants that make trucks and cars not counting spare parts ,then delco-remi and eclin ,the makers of electrical parts have there operations far from this nations boundaries,and the list is endless,the result is unemployed people without jobs,and (NAFTA)allowed this to happen,by letting these companies to move overseas because of unions and environmentalist in this nation killed many american based companies,so they could have jobs that fueled more companies leaving this mess,so we are on the same page,and i agree with you,but we must look at the view point also that a lot of our citizens have been left holding the bag(unemployed)and have lost everything because of this rash act of passing (NAFTA),i was a farm kid many years ago,and once owned two homes in my lifetime,bought and payed for the first home my first wife got and the second one i lost,because my health collasped,the only reason i post is to state that was when i worked the fruits of my work were put into building a life for my family,now that would be impossible ,the bottom line is if there are no jobs,that makes no income to pay the bills or know its funny but the parents would be on the school board,and if the district got its funds cut,then the employees wages followed,but that was long before unions,now their wages are pegged to homeowners and landowners,and everytime they want money,guess who gets the bill for there wages? please keep posting it sheds light and truth and this massive mess.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.