Many years ago Paul Kennedy published a book called The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers or something like that.  My copy has long since vanished.  The premise was that when you spend more on defending and exp[anding your empire tyhan you spend on taking care of your own people, you get into trouble.  Seems to me we are there.  Lil' Georgie's budget demonstrates that problem.  Those at the top always want just one more dance, and than the house of cards collapses.  In the 60's the Chinese called us a paper tiger.  That is what we are becoming, but the fat cats want "just one more dance".  That's my view.  Thoughts?

Many years ago Paul Kennedy published a book called The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers or something like that.  My copy has long since vanished.  The premise was that when you spend more on defending and exp[anding your empire tyhan you spend on taking care of your own people, you get into trouble.  Seems to me we are there.  Lil' Georgie's budget demonstrates that problem.  Those at the top always want just one more dance, and than the house of cards collapses.  In the 60's the Chinese called us a paper tiger.  That is what we are becoming, but the fat cats want "just one more dance".  That's my view.  Thoughts?


I find it interesting that the whole topics of "budgets" and "deficits" and "national debts" and "revenue" are becoming so lost on society...  It seems to me that when it comes to the government, there is an infinite amount of funds available, and if we are in debt, or we are in surplus, life still goes on as normal... because we know that no matter how much in debt we are, the government will never "go bankrupt".  We are billions in debt, yet we still have our schools, our transit systems, our bridge tolls, our public hospitals, our Department of Motor Vehicles, etc.

Then there is the subject of a "good economy" and a "bad economy".  A good economy would be defined as a low unemployment rate, national surplus, etc... which comes along with high prices, high interest rates, etc.    A bad economy would be defined as a higher unemployment rate, affordable housing, low interest rates, etc.  It seems to me there are advantages and disadvantages to both sides...

Remember too, "georgie" is only as powerful as his house of representatives and senators, which means they should be credited/blamed for our financial situation, good or bad, as much as Bush.

Hi ADH
I think the problem the Don is referring to is in a nutshell is, well... this surely can't go on for much longer. The government may not go bankrupt but the money is coming from somewhere and someday someone, somewhere expects to get paid. In the 1980s the government in the UK sold off our North Sea Oil to pay off the UKs budget deficit and it looks like the US government is relying on the oil revenues from Arabia to sort out their debts. No-one lends anyone money without expecting a return so the I.O.U.'s have been written out against something thats gonna pay off in the future. Perhaps this is why the Alaskan Oil exploration strategy is now coming to the fore?

All I know is when I go into the bank and ask for a loan the loan officer wants to know darn sure I can pay it back and have some security. When a government is in debt I, like the Don, worry a) What has been secured to get the money in the first place and b) What happens if the debt can't be repaid. The bottom line is if the youknowhat hits the fan it'll be the regular joes in the streets that'll be picking up the tab with increased taxes and public service cuts.

Maybe someone in government has a secret plan though that we're not privy to - I certainly hope so as the UK has a nasty budget deficit as well - eek !

Yeah, I do understand what Don Carlos was saying... but it reminds me of a family... the parents are in debt, but the school-age children, although they KNOW about the debts, they still get fed, still get school clothes, etc. so it really doesn't affect them so they don't pay attention to it.

In the situation Don Carlos is referring to, our government = parents and the general public = children.

Only difference in this case is that its the children that will end up having to pay off the debts that the parents are happily running up without the children having any say it how the moneys spent.

Only difference in this case is that its the children that will end up having to pay off the debts that the parents are happily running up without the children having any say it how the moneys spent.


I agree, and I do worry about it, I'm just making an observation that the general public seems a little blind to it...

Has anyone made mention of the latest news of Pres. Bush making a deal to give Pakistan planes??

The same country that permitted weapons to be exported from their ports (thank goodness caught), to be sold to terrorists?

How does he explain that one? :-\\

Has anyone made mention of the latest news of Pres. Bush making a deal to give Pakistan planes??

The same country that permitted weapons to be exported from their ports (thank goodness caught), to be sold to terrorists?

How does he explain that one? :-\\


One word: realpolitik.

Yeah, I do understand what Don Carlos was saying... but it reminds me of a family... the parents are in debt, but the school-age children, although they KNOW about the debts, they still get fed, still get school clothes, etc. so it really doesn't affect them so they don't pay attention to it.

In the situation Don Carlos is referring to, our government = parents and the general public = children.


Well, sooner or later someone has tro pay the bill, that means us and our kids.  The fact that lots - the majority- of our tresurey bods are held by China is especially distrubing.  They could destroy our economy at a moment's notice.  The signs are there that we could eisily become the next 3rd world country.

Well, sooner or later someone has tro pay the bill, that means us and our kids. The fact that lots - the majority- of our tresurey bods are held by China is especially distrubing. They could destroy our economy at a moment's notice. The signs are there that we could eisily become the next 3rd world country.


That is what I've been saying for awhile now. Its what I was trying to get at in my thread about the dollar's possible collapse.

Our economy has been slowly changing into a Third World economy for over 20 years now. Heck, close to 30 probably. During the 70s and 80s, people were told not to worry about all the manufacturing jobs being lost. We were consoled that a new wave of highly skilled jobs related to the coming "information age" and new economy would replace those jobs. College became a higher priority in the country. But what happened? These new jobs that were promised, well, they went over to India and China.

Instead, what we are getting is a wave of non tradeable service jobs. Bartender, waiter/waitress, janitor, etc. THESE are the types of jobs in the "New Economy". Skilled workers, are increasingly making less money due to underemployment, but inflation continues on. That is why(I think) SO many middle class families are spending themselves into debt. Middle class Americans do not seem to be reconciling the rising prices of goods with their stagnate and in many cases falling incomes.

And what did Bush do? He hit up the middle class even harder with his tax cuts. Many middle class Americans are now paying MORE taxes, not less. The richest 2 percent of Americans already control one-third of our wealth. How will they benefit from such tax cuts? It is the middle class that would actually SPEND that extra money, and put it back into the economy. YES, I am saying that the richer you are, the more taxes you should pay. You can yell "taxing success" all you want. But the fact remains that in order for the American dream to live on and function, sacrifices have to be made. Besides, the economy was booming in the 1950s. It was that decade in which the Middle class was at it's strongest. And you know? The top tax bracket paid 89% of their income back then. Taxes were MUCH higher in those days.

Conservatives often reminisce about those "Good Old Days" and how much nicer the country was. The infrastructure of this country, especially in urban areasm seems to have really taken in a dive in the 1980s. That was the era of Reagan, of trickle down economics. Or "voodoo economics" as Georgie Sr. once labelled them. Can it be a coincedince that when the Federal gov't. disavows the principles of "civil society" and the idea of some economic sacrifice by a few for the benefit of the general public the nation's infratructure takes a major dive?

Connect the dots, people.

Has anyone made mention of the latest news of Pres. Bush making a deal to give Pakistan planes??

The same country that permitted weapons to be exported from their ports (thank goodness caught), to be sold to terrorists?

How does he explain that one? :-\\


The same country that is thought to be harboring osama(who?).  He explains it the same way he explains
why he hasn't gone after the worst mass murderer in our history.  He just doesn't say anything.

That is what I've been saying for awhile now. Its what I was trying to get at in my thread about the dollar's possible collapse.

Our economy has been slowly changing into a Third World economy for over 20 years now. Heck, close to 30 probably. During the 70s and 80s, people were told not to worry about all the manufacturing jobs being lost. We were consoled that a new wave of highly skilled jobs related to the coming "information age" and new economy would replace those jobs. College became a higher priority in the country. But what happened? These new jobs that were promised, well, they went over to India and China.

Instead, what we are getting is a wave of non tradeable service jobs. Bartender, waiter/waitress, janitor, etc. THESE are the types of jobs in the "New Economy". Skilled workers, are increasingly making less money due to underemployment, but inflation continues on. That is why(I think) SO many middle class families are spending themselves into debt. Middle class Americans do not seem to be reconciling the rising prices of goods with their stagnate and in many cases falling incomes.

And what did Bush do? He hit up the middle class even harder with his tax cuts. Many middle class Americans are now paying MORE taxes, not less. The richest 2 percent of Americans already control one-third of our wealth. How will they benefit from such tax cuts? It is the middle class that would actually SPEND that extra money, and put it back into the economy. YES, I am saying that the richer you are, the more taxes you should pay. You can yell "taxing success" all you want. But the fact remains that in order for the American dream to live on and function, sacrifices have to be made. Besides, the economy was booming in the 1950s. It was that decade in which the Middle class was at it's strongest. And you know? The top tax bracket paid 89% of their income back then. Taxes were MUCH higher in those days.

Conservatives often reminisce about those "Good Old Days" and how much nicer the country was. The infrastructure of this country, especially in urban areasm seems to have really taken in a dive in the 1980s. That was the era of Reagan, of trickle down economics. Or "voodoo economics" as Georgie Sr. once labelled them. Can it be a coincedince that when the Federal gov't. disavows the principles of "civil society" and the idea of some economic sacrifice by a few for the benefit of the general public the nation's infratructure takes a major dive?

Connect the dots, people.


Yup, one more dance, and f... posterity.  We all better start learning to speak Chinese, evan all those latinos who can't speak English.  Learn Chinese first.