Fed Up With Debt
In a political season where government fiscal responsibility has received short shrift, the presumptive presidential nominees of both parties would do well to heed the mantra of the Blue Dog Democrats articulated in "Attacking the Deficit" [June 23-30].
Although both Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain are targeting the support of the so-called Reagan Democrats, neither senator is making fiscal conservatism a cornerstone of their platform, offering instead only political rhetoric about the cost of continued war (Obama) or the cost of domestic programs America cannot afford (McCain). A Blue Dog Democrat, congressman Mike Ross of Arkansas is quoted in the article stating "We believe that the majority of the American people today are in the middle." These voters in the middle, comprised of Reagan Democrats and others with conservative stances on national security, federal spending, and illegal immigration, often cross party lines to vote for the candidate who best reflects their viewpoints. Despite the fact that Obama and McCain make almost no mention of America's $9.4 trillion national debt and offer little in the way of specific plans to significantly reduce it, Obama should at the very least consider a running mate who subscribes to Blue Dog Democrat philosophy. It is this philosophy, or at least much of it, that transcends party affiliation and will likely be a crucial deciding factor in who becomes our next President.
Michael Peterson
Hillsboro, Ore.
More power to the Blue Dog Group. Even though they are democrats, who could disagree with their intentions? However, I've always had a problem with identifying each citizen's share of the national debt. Since Congress spends the money, I suggest that a more realistic definition of the national debt is $17.57 billion for each representative and senator.
Stephen L. Chapman
Englewood, Ohio
It seems grossly shameful that out of several hundred politicians in Congress, only a tiny fraction are willing to risk their political necks by publicly coming out for "fiscal responsibility." Unfortunately, as Michael Barone says in "In Defense of Lobbyists" [June 23-30], that's the way it's always been, since before the beginning; and always will be—until beyond the end.
Richard S. Schmidt
Houston
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (3) | Print
Reader Comments
DEBT vs. "deficit" - STOP the nonsense
Something that's always puzzled me on this topic was the insistence (and I'd add - irresponsibility) of confusing many people with the use of "deficit" vs. "debt". Some will brag about running - or even just THINKING about running - a budget with a "surplus" or even a "reduced deficit". But what a shameful joke, when the DEBT is well over $9 trillion - excuse me, $9,000,000,000,000 - I think I got that right - or as will soon become more commonplace and convenient to say, $9E12?
How many of us, running household or small businesses, get to start with a clean slate and ignore our DEBT, at the start of a new year, by saying that we can run our own checkbooks in the positive - or less in the negative - for the upcoming year ONLY? This is exactly what our pols - on both sides - do every day when they talk in terms of "deficit" or maybe "surplus". This voodoo math ignores the big picture - the REAL checkbood bottom line - and tries to impress with the plans for the given year, only (which typically aren't met, anyway).
Analogous would be for me to have my family $500,000 in DEBT, but plan a 2-week (vs. 3-week) vacation one year, telling my family that I am doing great things by operating this year only $5000 in the hole, vs. the $10,000 I sunk them the previous year. On top of showing a silly level of (non)discipline, that would ignore the elephant in the room: the family's missing $500,000, or in the main case, our US family's missing $9E12. Actually, probably now closer to $1E13. Thank heavens for the scientific notation options on my calculator and spreadsheets.
Did You Bargain for "for Poorer" When You Said Your Vows & Where's the Chapter About Creditors in "Happily Ever After" ?
Did You Bargain for "for Poorer" When You Said Your Vows & Where's the Chapter About Creditors in "Happily Ever After" ?
Money... the main cause for most relationships failing can be rooted to financial problems. It's sad but true. "For richer, or for poorer" may have been part of your wedding vows, but let's face it, most of us dream of the "for richer", and few of us plan for the "for poorer".
Cinderella was saved from a miserably lonely life of destitution by Prince Charming. But if your Prince Charming and you have a mortgage, car payments, and can't afford to heat your drafty castle, it's funny but the story isn't as enticing. The harsh reality of the matter is that even if you were lucky enough to find your prince, life doesn't come complete with a magic wand and fairy Godmother, you can't turn a pumpkin into a chariot, and more likely than not your chariot is probably more of a lemon.
There is hope, don't travel down the path of financial ruin, don't let your prince charming ride off into the sunset without you. Remember, learn to cope with stress, talk about the things bothering you, share something together that you enjoy, even if it's just snuggling on the couch and watching something funny! (I recommend the movie "Money Pit", it helps put things into perspective.
Today's economy has consumers buried in debt. There doesn't seem to be a light at the end of the tunnel, and it's hard to know where to turn for help. The most important factor is being proactive about your situation. Don't wait until your story reads more of a horror tale, seek assistance from a debt settlement company that keeps you, the consumer, in mind. With so many options available today, rest assured that United Communications offers a debt settlement program you control. unitedllc.net
Add your thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.advertisement
