Bill Clinton or Bush?
 

Which one would you prefer in the presidency?



Personally, i'm a democrat, and i'd go w/ Bill clinton anyday. I love the way the country was during his 8 yrs, and especially the budget.

I'm not saying he was perfect, but he did a damn good job in his office.

Anyway, who would you prefer?

Re: Clinton or Bush?
 

You need to change your sig, then.

i'd vote libertarian if they had a chance, but till that day comes, i'll go democrat

NO! I'm fucking sick and tired of comparing Bush and Clinton! Clinton is done. DONE. He had his 8 years and he's never president again. We might as well wish for Lincoln to come back. Bush is here now. It's sad that the Democrats haven't offered up any candidate yet for us to compare to Bush, but all this pipe dreaming about getting Slick Willie back in the Oval Office just fuels the laughter of those who want nothing more than to see Bush last another term.
The_Dude, I agree with you, for the record, but it's time to stop the nostalgia for better days gone by and start trying to find a way out of what we're in now. Look into the proposed candidates(excluding Al Sharpton, I would think...) and see who looks good to you so far. Live in the now.

I agree it is time to live in the now... but what the hell are Democrats doing? Where is there candidate? Bush is ripe to be voted out of office...

Wishing for Clinton is just that.... wishing.

Well, there are nine candidates. We won't know who the main one is until we get nearer to the primaries. All of them are bringing different facets of the platform to the public. The preeminence of a sitting president is detracting from the reality that we shouldn't definatively know who to vote for yet--we haven't heard the full debate. Healthy debate brings new issues to the front and both retains and recruits (as well as deters) members to a party.

Well, i voted for Clinton, but I would take ANY viable democrat over Bush.

I'm a moderate, straight down the middle.
I've voted Republican, I've voted Democrat, I've even voted Independent & Libertarian.

I like the way Clinton played the game, he just screwed up himself bigtime.
I don't like the way Bush plays the game, but I liked the decision on Iraq.

We'll see who the Dems come up with this time,
I'll make my decision then...usually all canidates have problems of any party.
So it usually who'll mostly go with ME and the lesser of evils.
But I ALWAYS vote,
that way I can bitch.;)

Career politicians make baby jesus cry.

Well this does not seem to be a popular opinon, but I like bush and what he stands for. Clinton inherited a good economy, bush inherited clintons economy. Unfortunatly it is going to take good republican thinking to get our economy back the way it was. In time that will happen, and after todays tax cuts, there is a good chance it will happen before the elections. It is truly sad to see the democrats pushing to stop the tax cut simply because they want the economy to suffer so that way Bush won't get re-elected. typical tricks, they won't be happy till we are all paying all our income to taxes and then let the government dispurse funds equally to all who work or don't work, sounds to me like a form of government that won't work, ask the russians!
It reminds me of a saying I heard.
at the age of 18 if you are not a bleeding heart liberal, you have no heart, but at the age of 40 if you are not a conservative you have no brain!....or something like that

Dude, since Bill is a non factor I'm guessing you're talking about Hellary. Bush wins hands down. If you are talking about Bill this isn't even a smart discussion. http://www.boomspeed.com/sixate/icon_rolleyes.gif

That sort of thinking is the reason why third parties don't have a chance.

People vote for the democrats or republicans because they want their vote to matter. But votes for the major parties don't matter. They already have tens of millions of votes, what good is one more? Vote for who you agree with, show the people in charge what you actually think.

Personally, I'd choose Clinton over Bush. I don't agree with the Patriot Act or any of the other restrictions of freedom that have been passed lately.

haha, nice technicality

im sick of bush hiing special intrest groups everywhere in his presidency, he hides them in teh unliklyest places, like the way Oil plays a huge role in his 'hydrogen powerd cars'

Given the circumstances under which the act was presented, it would have passed even if Clinton was in office. It is not a bill which is represenative of the Republican platform at all. It's intrusive and extreme, but time-limited in order to deal with immediate threats against the US.

I quote from Vanilla Sky, "open your eyes." SIGs are a factor in every major candidates campaign. They are what drive the political process these days, be it a council of oilman, a teacher's union, an ILA like the NRA's, a group of Hollywood millionaires, etc.

i'm not a huge fan of Clinton but i'm not a hate monger of him. as for party: I give two shits. the man and his supporters ideals and actions should always be bases of leadership, not the tag of party.

in the Clinton age at least we had some fucking jobs...

with bush...... the ceos have bigger bonuses and ballsier moves...

Clinton all the way...

The guy was interesting to watch.

Would love to meet him if i could.

-------------

You're right about the time limit - it feels like the 2005 sunset clause is the only thing protecting society from the Patriot Act at the moment.

It's worth noting that last month, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and other Republicans led an effort to repeal the 2005 sunset clause altogether. Whilst he was unsuccessful, his efforts demonstrate that there are many Republicans who believe that a permanent Patriot Act SHOULD be part of the GOP platform.

Importantly, there were also a number of Republicans who vocally opposed the removal of the time limit. I would love to see true conservatives loudly applaud those guys for their efforts.

Here are the links:

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/04/09/articlejj.htm

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/051103I.shtml

(wishing I still had Lexis-Nexis to post the bloody pay-per-view New York Times source articles).


(I haven't even answered the thread here) While it is certainly very um *interesting* being a liberal in the era of W - I choose Clinton and I'm VERY interested to see who the Democrats come up with for next year.

At least Clinton didn't start a war.

Well I gotta say Bush mainly because Clinton was pure crook in every way not to mention a murder and worse!

Do you honestly believe that Democrats want the economy to get worse? Don't let your tendency to be a conspiracy theorist (we all have that to a degree) get the best of you. Democrats oppose the tax cut because it puts money into the hands of people that already have money to begin with. They don't need it. So while people who are already rich get richer, health care and education programs suffer from being underfunded. The theory is that with the extra money, these CEO's will stimulate the economy, but I don't see it happening. It's a drop in the bucket for these people, whereas if you gave cuts to people who are struggling as it is, it's several buckets' worth to them. And while it sounds awful and irritating and annoying, high taxes for a slightly more socialistic society isn't going to turn us into the Soviet Union. It may turn us into Canada or Sweden, which I don't think is all that bad. I wouldn't mind having to never worry about whether or not I'll have health care, even if it means I take a bit more of a hit in my paycheck.

Maybe, just maybe if he had went looking for Bin Laden after the USS Cole we might not have had 9/11.

But I digress,

Bushes tax cut will put an extra $1200 in my pocket this summer which I plan on spending on a 50 inch big screen tv. So the salesman at the tv store will get his commission, and the manager will get alittle towards his bonus, and the Japanese will get the rest. Thanks slick willie for making it so easy for the Japanese to get their products into the US so cheaply.

So people keep wondering where the hell your job went.

so, you're against free trade? or at least trade w/o much tarrifs?

check out the tariffs the US companies have to pay to sell in Japan, China I would not call it "free" or fair.

Sorry I had to add,
If they can even sell in their markets

I'm all for free trade. It's just that right now, "free" trade isn't free trade. As a country based on exports, we're getting screwed on this. The US dollar floundering really doesn't help matters, either. I'm all for it rebounding back (it indirectly affects my business).

**EDIT**
-sorry for getting off topic.

To the 30% or so that have voted for bush, I just have one thing to say, but I have to call you to say it...
[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RwAAAEgWNDFl*8wwewiSJnr!gWRqIm5SkT41VjUfne6h233tnaFXmNW1FzGhvquOwjbyVGVwxahfiQ*C0jSj!dOzi5KnATHhQ*!dxpfd1Ng/banana.jpg?dc=4675416867982239699[/img]

Dude, I always vote Libertarian. Not that I agree with all their views but I want a choice other than Democrat or Republican. I am hoping that a strong third party can be built. Maybe if the Libertarian's start making some in roads on the big two somebody will look around and figure out the voting public is tired of being screwed over.

Clinton had one gidt in life, and thats it. He was a good public speaker. Actually this could be attributed to the massive amounts of time he spent watching JFK speeches on video...and emulating him.

He was as slimey as they come. His entire presidency was a facade and a fraud...In other words, I have no respect whatsoever for him.

Also you all realize Budget is locked for a period of the new presidency, from the previous presidency...Hmmm that means that Bush Sr. Initiated that great economy Clinton gets credit for...

Hmmm...that means Clinton initiated that shitty economy you all blame Bush Jr. for...

A true leader encompasses moral courage and integrity. Mr. Clinton was not endowed with either one. Also, while President Bush is not perfect, at least he is not a prevaricating adulterer. His legacy seems assured. Clinton's legacy is the dubious distinction of becoming only the second president impeached in the history of the US. All of the damage control in the world will never erase that fact.

He had it all and he blew it.

Nader.

Repubs spent massive $$$ trying to get something on the Clintons for 8 years and the only thing they could come up with was a blow job.

All I can say to you Bush junkies is you get what you deserve.

Wake up and use your noggins for more than a place to put your hat peoples .

Really?

Then how do you explain Donald Rumsfeld vetoing 600 million dollars that the senate approved to fight Al Quada on SEPTEMBER 9, 2001? At the time, old Rumsfeld was upset because the senate wanted to divert a paultry 600 million dollars from old Rumsfeld's precious anti-missile missile programme. I guess old Rumsfeld really really dropped the ball on that one. He was more worried about some "rogue state" firing off a non existant ICBM than Al-Quada terrorists.

Whoops.

You should read the August 12 th issue of TIME magazine. It would seem that an anti-terrorism unit of the US federal gov't that was set up to take the fight to al-quada by the Clinton administration was shut down by the Bush administration because of purely political reasons. (I.e., they (Bush and company) didn't like it because it was set up by the democrats and if they allowed it to survive, it would be seen as the democrats actually having a good idea. Can't have that now.)

I would argue that if American politicians operated in a bi-partisan manner on the issue of terrorism that attacks like 911 would have been more unlikely.

Prior to 911, the Bush administration acted in a purely partisan manner with the good of the republican party being put ahead of the good of the nation.

Actually, the four year anniversary of Mr. Clinton's war was just two months ago. It is commonly referred to as the "Balkan War." This particular effort by NATO did have the UN Security Councils ' blessing, however.

"On March 24 Serbian people around the world will recall with horror the shameful destruction of their country by the US led NATO Alliance. Four years ago, for 78 days and nights, NATO aircraft pounded Yugoslavia inflicting terrible damage on the civilian infrastructure of the country.

Further, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia will be regarded by future historians as the act that completely dismantled the international security framework so carefully crafted by democratic statesmen in the aftermath of two World Wars and the advent of nuclear weapons. It will be marked, as the point in history when other so-called democratic leaders acted dishonorably to set the clock back to the days prior to the Second World War when military might was the only criterion that counted in the conduct of international relations."

Actually, I generally think shooting people is generally wrong.

But the war in Yugoslavia was actually a puzzling one for me. There was no economic or political angle. It was started to stop the people from killing each other.

Now before you go off about the whole Balkan situation, i understand that it's very complex and there was this slaughter 700 years ago where the cros killed the peaceful serbs, and then 500 years ago, the Turks killed the peaceful serbs, then in WW2 to there was the ooshtashaw who were cros and they were allied with Hitler and they killed some more peaceful serbs. Blah blah blah.

BUT

The war in Yugoslavia was brief and it was meant to stop the violence and it suceeded in doing that.

The motive for the war was noble - to bring an end to slobo milosovic and his reign of terror. The serbs, cros, slovenians, muslims, and albanians all hate each other and all want to kill each other (well, all is a strong word, let me rephrase that, many want to kill each other to right past injustices....)

But, the military action by the UN was the last resort, all else HAD failed.

There was no oil driving it.

There was no weapons of mass anything.

There was no political gain.

It was a noble case of world leaders deciding that enough was enough, and as disgusting as it was, they were going to bring an end to it the only way slobo understood.

The americans, the UN, had NO DESIRE IN THE WORLD to move into Yugoslavia, or serbia. In fact, i am sure that they found it most disgusting to have to involve themselves in another country's affairs.

If the Americans / UN had not used force, I have no doubt that slobo would still be "ethnic cleansing" away, and building the new "greater Serbia". Instead, he's in court in the Hague I believe right at this moment, and, if he is innocent like he says he is, he will be cleared.

Ancient injustices, whether real or perceived, do not give give the Serbs the right to slaughter innocent people.

Not to digress, but I was merely pointing out to a previous poster that Mr. Clinton was directly involved in a war. In fact, Yugoslavia was only one of four countries that the Clinton administration bombed. Don't misunderstand me, I am not a fan of the current president either, war is war, people die and I believe killing is morally reprehensible for any reason. The fact is, it doesn't really matter who is at the helm, all of these so called leaders make mistakes, unfortunately on a global level. The so called "noble" cause of stopping the genocide that was taking place was a great idea and I think everyone agress that that bastard had to be stopped; however, it had serious consequences. In the wake of that terrible maelstrom, one of the key nations in that area that had previously renounced nuclear weapons and disarmed (becoming the one and only country EVER to do so), subsequently revived their nuclear program. Both the Ukraine and the Soviet Union modernized and restocked their nuclear arsenals as a direct result of this conflict. Did the end justify the means? Who can say? Yeah, the killing stopped but even to this day, thousands upon thousands of refugees have not returned to their homeland. They probably never will especially since the horror of the nuclear threat is even greater than it was before.

No political gain? Consider this...

Is it possible that the United States was anxious to exploit the power vacuum created by the Soviet collapse to rapidly project its power eastward? There are vast untapped reserves of oil and natural gas in the then newly-independent Central Asian republics of the old USSR. Within this new geopolitical environment, the Balkans assumed exceptional strategic importance as a vital logistical staging ground for the projection of imperialist power toward Central Asia.

This is way off topic, but thought you might be interested.

I have been reading this thread, trying not to laugh. These same arguments are gonna be going on in 20yrs. Honestly, who gives a shit. Your boy lost, your boy won, your boy inherited a shit sandwich, your boy got a blow job. The investigation into clinton was a huge waste of money simply because the spineless assholes in congress wouldn't do their jobs. The budget is in the shitter because too many people think it's their business to take my money and give it to someone else. Why should I have to pay for anyones education or roads in some other state? Unions have priced themselves out of the market, so business cajoled the gov. into nafta and such, so they could afford workers. So now all of the jobs are moving. Well guess the fuck what? learn to do something else! Don't like the way politics are going? quit yer bitchin, find a candidate or be one, convince joe six pack your point of view is right, and win some fucking elections! teach your voters how to use a fucking ballot. Don't like the way the courts are stacked? Win something and stack them yourself. The reason we have a conservative congress, supreme court, and president is because people are sick of democrats on the national and statewide level. So shut up and figure out what they want, then do it. It's a representative government, so shove your idealism up your ass, shut your pie hole and represent!

So America "elects" a monkey to run the country, where's the logic in that?

wtf does that mean?

"I trust Bush with my daughter, but Clinton with my job."

Bush inspired me to register to vote, and when nov. comes around, I'll be there. I'll be there voting for the candidate running against Bush.

the dems have no good candidate running against bush. they are all worthless whiners. I don't see how anyone in good conscience could vote for them.

I wouldn't trust a draft-dodger with my job. :)

Some of you keep discussing how Clinton 'inherited' Bush's economy, which is completely fallacious reasoning, it was high because of the natural ebb and flow of the economy itself. Clinton taking the helm only coincided with the ecomonic boom of the 1990's-the-so called "dot com era". the Democrats rode high and utilized this boom, and in the 2000 election, they were planning on saving all that excess money for the good of the people, because they knew, as the Republicans fail to acknowledge, that after any ecominic boom, lies a period of economic recession. And Now you say Bush "inherited" Clinton's economy? he only inherited the ecomony itself, finally losing the fire of the boom. and Then he gave away the surplus money that we could be using to help keep people and programs afloat, to "give the ecomony a boost". it didn't work.

Now for those of you who say this tax cut will work. It is nothing more than a remaned Reaganomics. the truth of it, is again, that any sort of success during the 80's can be attributed the natural flow of the economy. not Reaganomics. But it goes back even further. The Republicans believe in a system of Lassez Faire "Let Be", to keep Government out of the economy, and to not handle too much of citizens money, taxwise. Just let people keep their paychecks to do with as they please, and let Businesses run as they please. Sounds pretty neat, eh? Try again. before this taxcut, before Reagonomics, was the depression. 1929, Herbert Hoover was president. the stocks fell, and he refused to get involved. (the 1920's were a notoriously successful Republican era, led by faulty business practices, and it seemed awesome, until the depression came and the shit really hit the fan, because the government had no money stored away to soften the blow, in the inevitable case of a recession, and no plan to keep afloat). Hoover cut taxes even further to "boost the economy", and, he let businesses try to get out of this pitiable little rut on their own accord. It failed miserably, for 4 years, people watched at stocked continued to plummet. and Hoover did next to nothing, figguring it would all work out on it's own. Next election came, and fellow by the name of Roosevelt, who had a "New Deal" for the american people was elected one of the biggest landslides in history. His new deal helped alot. Businesses were held more in control by the Government, jobs were created out of thin air, and in 100 days, the economy had begun to rise again.

But again, it goes back even further. in the 1770's and 80's. a newly created system called Lassez Faire held the lower classes in the clutches of the upper class. made them angry enough to rebel. they call it the French Revolution.

So for those of you who think 'Good Ol' Republican Know-How" will help. Think again. you can think having more money in your pocket will help. but perhaps you're just too ignorant to learn from the mistakes of History. it didn't work then. it won't work now.

i don't mind some gov regulation and trustbusting and all that happiness. I just shouldn't be compelled to pay for something that someone else didn't earn. back in the day businesses did get away with too much crap. but the economy is always based on consumer confidence, and if the gov had shot a wad of money into the mix, inflation would have made it all worthless. germany pre world war two is a perfect example. in reality, the prez has so little to do with the economy, except as far as confidence goes. the repubs buy votes by giving people their tax money back. dems buy votes by giving the money away as some kind of unearned benifit or entitlement. it's all bullshit. but for you to take some kind of self righteous stance, talking about lassez faire as the cause of the french revolution. economics played in but the real reason was bad government and law. In addition to economic differences, early modern French society was legally stratified by birth. Its three traditional divisions were the clergy, the nobility, and the common people. this legally stifled economic growth and the sense of self worth and equality in a class that had had it with the fancy boys. this is the same kind of thing we see in india today. in america, the removal of social restrictions allows anyone to succeed. so you can take the two french words you happened to learn while you weren't sleeping in remedial classes in high school and play them some where else.

But, i never stated Lassez Faire was the only reason. obviously wasn't. the lower classes have always been oppressed, throughout all of those years, beyond back God knows when, but the idea of Lassez Faire was instigated in that time, and it WAS, undeniably, a driving force behind the French Revolution. sure, they he oeople were pissed off for other stuff, starving in the streets as Marie and Louis dined in luxury but you can't just write it off. As you said, it was bad Government and Law, a form of Government that oppressed the people, and Lassez Faire, which helped to oppress them even further, helped to send them right off the edge. as for saying i was falling asleep in remedial classes, that's just an assumption you're willing to make because you don't like what i said. cry me a river, build me a bridge and get over it.

Yeah, and the National Guard did us soooooo much good during the Vietnam Era, I'm sure.

I would agree with mystarimatt for the most part, but there is one thing that you have not touched on.

And that is deficits.

And this is something that governments, and in particular presidents have DIRECT control over.

Under George W Bush, the American deficit has soared to over 500 billion dollars annually.

That is unreal.

Clinton was running surpluses, Bush is running massive deficits AND giving out tax cuts to mainly the rich folks in the USA. Now this is a disasterous economic policy that you can lay squarely at the feet of W Bush.

Yes, I know that revenues are falling, and i am especially aware that the USA was attacked on September 11, BUT.....

If you want to play, you have to pay. If you want 500 billion dollars of extra goodies, you have to come up with 500 billion dollars of new revenue.

It works pretty good in the household, it will serve a country the same.

You have to live within your means.

I can not understand for the life of me the sense in cutting taxes while you are in deficit mode.

Essentially George W Bush is borrowing money to give rich people a tax cut.

If inflation rears it's ugly head in the USA you had better watch out because Allan Greenspan will start to raise interest rates to control inflation. He will have no choice. Greenspan (a republican) has consistently warned against deficit spending and how much of a hinderance to growth it is, but Bush doesn't seem to be listening.

If Greenspan starts raising rates when the economy is so weak (and has been week for 3 years), it will be devestating to industry, consumers, AND the US federal gov't who's 500 billion plus loan is going to start costing some very large interest dollars.

That will be a one two punch.

At 500 billion a year, the DEBT (and I am not sure what that is in the USA) is going to grow at an astonishing rate.

Who is going to pay for this???????

All so some guy can have a tax cut and go out and buy himself a new TV???

It's nuts

excuse my humor, those who were offended. I often try to be funny, for funnys sake, with no animosity intended. In the great depression, the economy continued to fail because of deflation, and the deflation continued because hoover insisted on having a balanced budget. Because he would not budge on that, the gov could not affect the flow of money. when nixon took us off of the gold standard in the 70's, that gave the gov the freedom to grow and retard the amount of currency in circulation. It is an accepted theory of keynesian economics that gov's cannot run correctly without a deficit. combining these things allows the gov to actually steer the economy, but not totally control it. the idea behind deficit spending is to give people more of their money so that they will either invest or spend, allowing more capital to be available, or increasing economic activity that will create jobs,(supply and demand) and increase the base of taxable income in the long run. the trick is to control inflation. as long as the gov doesn't increase the available money for economic activity by actually printing more money, then inflation will not increase. by allowing people to simply spend the money they make, more money circulates thru the economy. then the gov revenue grows out of the deficit, and jobs are created. when you get down to it, most people want to be able to pay the cable, drive a decent car, cover the mortgage and want to go out to dinner now and then. because the usa is primarily a service economy, the only way to stimulate the economy is by giving people more money to spend on services. i would rather have a trustworthy (financially) gov in a deficit situation and know that my job is more secure, because the economy is growing or at least humming along, than not have the deficit, and know that my job is tenable. I won't spend any money if i am trying to stockpile against possible job loss. less money moving, less money for people to get what they want. as for tax cuts for the rich, you can only give tax money back to the people who actually pay them. 96% of the income taxes in america are payed by 50% of the taxpayer base. that means a lot of people out there aren't paying taxes (fica type) anyhow. If a rich person gets a tax cut, who am I to bitch, it isn't my money to begin with. the mindset that I should have any say about anyone elses (personal) money is the whole problem in this country. i have found that a lot of wealthy people spend a buttload of money on things that stimulate the economy. works for me.

The problem with the claim that reducing taxes will lead to an increase in jobs and, ultimately, more revenue is that more money in someone's hands doesn't necessarily create jobs--the market dictates the feasability of expansion.

If a market is saturated or the same productivity can be achieved at a similar (or lower) cost then no jobs will be created.

In a strained economy workers' productivity must increase because the labor pool has increased (don't work at %110, get laid off).

very true, the market is going to drive it, and work must be valued correctly. but more than 50% of americans are invested in the stockmarket now, and it changes the dynamic. business naturally looks for the most efficient way to make a profit, including downsizing the labor force. that forces innovation in the labor pool, and more people start a business of their own then. The laws in this country need to be changed to favor small businesses, instead of the punitive nature they have now.

Really, and what happens when 50 cents of every tax dollar is going to pay just the interest on the deficit???

Ask Argentina just how well deficit spending has worked for them, or Brazil, or Venezula, or France even for that matter. Or even Canada where for years our gov't spent money like a bunch of drunken sailors and now we have a huge DEBT that gobbles up 20 some odd cents of every tax dollar. And that's just the interest.

I must have been dreaming when i saw on the news the economic melt downs in Argentina where people's savings became worthless over night.

How many people have mortgages that they never pay down? That's how gov't deficits operate. They keep borrowing and borrowing, which inevitably drives up the cost of borrowing.


Yeah, like chalets in Switzerland, and Ferraris, and winter retreats in the Carribean....

hmm, interesting numbers in the poll.

Now, looking at the poll (pointless to say the least...) It looks like Clintons slimeness works, for you voted for him....sad really...

Bush is not perfect, but I think he is a hell of a lot more inteligent then you give him credit for! For every one of you that bashes Bush, How about you run for president, see if you do any better....Ill bet you do not...

Well put ganon.

To all the people here that are saying live within your means to the government;

Do you have a mortgage? How about a few credit cards? Does that count as living within your means?

That seems to me like you are running a personal deficit.

A government that runs a surplus is taking too much of my money.

You point is taken.

In fact I do have a mortgage, I don't happen to have the kind of cash at hand necessary to buy a house cash.

BUT,

Each year I am paying that mortgage down. Not adding to it.

There in lies the difference.

If I ran my personal finances like gov'ts run deficits, each year I would be getting a bigger and bigger mortgage until all of my income went to paying just the interest on my loans and I had nothing left to buy the basics.

That's what I call a bad idea.

Has it gotten to that point yet for the US gov't?

No, absolutely not.......

But, if they keep borrowing money, more and more tax dollars will be defered to pay the interest only.

Someone has to pay the piper for this sometime.

I don't have a mortgage.

I have a few credit cards. Balances: 0.46 on a 8.9% APR, ~$3,000 on a 0% APR.

I currently ensure I have enough in my saving account to pay off my outstanding balances--I'm earning interest on money that has been lent to me by Discover, however, ATM.

All of my vehicles are fully owned.

My scenario certainly qualifies me as "living within my means."

Now, of course a government that is running with a surplus is holding "your" money. Actually, any money the government has is "your" money--even when we run a deficit.

All economic units, not just families, must save capital in "on" times in order to deal with the "off" times. One can not borrow more money than one is worth--unless a private lender wants to risk his or her money. Even your mortgage is based upon real property--not your word that you'll pay it back, and certainly not whether the market will become invigorated or compressed.

The hydrogen is to be extracted from gasoline. That way, you still have to pay the gas tax. That's also why hybrid cars and ultra-low emission vehicles cause less polution than hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicles.

I think we need a better example, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.