[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We can’t keep incurring more debt forever and ever. Someday, the rest of the world won’t want to fund our spending.[/quote]
Presumably, but what happens when that happens, remains to be determined…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We can’t keep incurring more debt forever and ever. Someday, the rest of the world won’t want to fund our spending.[/quote]
Who holds our household debt?
Does this chart include mortgage debt?
A bankrupt nation:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
A bankrupt nation:
[/quote]
Trade deficit does not equal bankruptcy but our governments deficit may.
Check out this article.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
It’s my opinion that it (line item veto) would allow for a more efficient presidency, no matter the party affiliation of the office holder.[/quote]
I know that the federal government seems frustrating and mired in red tape but we need a government that operates via broad consensus, and not based on one very aggressive leader.
“Getting lots of stuff done” runs the risk of turning our institutions into political footballs… for example when one party is in power, we have privitized Social Security. Then poof!, the other party takes power and changes it back. We NEED a certain amount of detente in the federal government. Line item vetos give the president too much power, by giving him the power to sidestep Congress. The president should not be able to sidestep Congress… it is imperative that the branches of government find a consensus, even if it means that progress is slow. Sometimes slower is better. It protects the government from radical upheaval every time the office of president changes hands.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
A bankrupt nation:
Trade deficit does not equal bankruptcy but our governments deficit may.
Check out this article.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1396429[/quote]
A good read! Thanks, Zap!