The American Spectator : Thomas Jefferson Warned Us

Text Size

Thomas Jefferson Warned Us

By Andrew Cline on 8.5.11 @ 6:09AM

The debt and our “broken government.”

“At some point, isn’t it time to admit the system is broken?” So wrote Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein on Thursday. It was a phrase in widespread use for the past few weeks.

The intro to CBS News’ Face the Nation on Sunday asked, “As Americans watch a broken government, can Washington avoid economic catastrophe?”

“Government is broken and it’s not going to be repaired by next Tuesday,” Bob Edgar, head of Common Cause, said last week.

Something that is broken does not work as intended. It has been damaged by an outside force. The debt ceiling negotiations revealed many things, but never that the United States government is broken. On the contrary, the government worked exactly as designed.

The party in control of the White House and the Senate disagreed with the party in control of the House. The disagreement was resolved through prolonged negotiations that resulted in a compromise that the president and a majority in Congress could and did accept. Disagreements in Washington have been worked out in precisely that way for centuries, just as the Founders anticipated.

The U.S. government is not broken; it is dysfunctional. That is, it functions, but in an unhealthy way, a way that needs to be corrected. And that dysfunction was the direct cause of the debt-ceiling “crisis.”

Unlike most state governments, the federal government has no mechanism that prevents prolonged deficit spending. Congress and the president can spend more than the government takes in, forever, or at least until no one will lend to the government anymore.

Thomas Jefferson recognized this flaw immediately.

“No man is more ardently intent to see the public debt soon and sacredly paid off than I am,” he wrote to President Washington in 1792. “This exactly marks the difference between Colonel Hamilton’s views and mine, that I would wish the debt paid to-morrow; he wishes it never to be paid, but always to be a thing wherewith to corrupt and manage the Legislature.”

To Senator, and former House Speaker, Nathaniel Macon, Jefferson wrote in 1821, “There does not exist an engine so demoralizing of the nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad against whom this army and navy are to protect us.”

Jefferson thought a perpetual public debt was so injurious to liberty that he theorized a way of preventing one generation from passing a debt on to the next. In a letter to John Eppes in 1813, he wrote, “What is to hinder (the government) from creating a perpetual debt? The laws of nature, I answer.” Each generation would be limited to accumulating only the debt that it could pay off before it died, he theorized.

“Suppose that a majority, on the first day of the year 1794, had borrowed a sum of money equal to the fee-simple value of the State, and to have consumed it in eating, drinking and making merry in their day; or if you please, quarrelling and fighting with their unoffending neighbors.”

If that generation tried to pass that debt to the next generation, “Every one will say no,” Jefferson wrote, “… the laws of nature impose no obligation on them to pay this debt. And although, like some other natural rights, this has not yet entered into any declaration of rights, it is no less a law, and ought to be acted on by honest governments.”

Jefferson’s theory notwithstanding, this “law” has yet to be acknowledged by our government, much less written into the Constitution or our statutes. With no restraint on the accumulation of long-term debt, Jefferson’s worst fears have been realized. Our politicians have figured out that they can benefit themselves by borrowing excessively and passing the bill to the next generation, which is exactly what they have done. The current debt is more than $14 trillion, or nearly $47,000 per U.S. citizen. Jefferson would be appalled.

That “perpetual debt,” as Jefferson called it — not the recent “crisis” caused by taking the debt ceiling seriously — is our government’s real dysfunction, and what must be fixed if we are to reclaim the liberty that comes, as Jefferson knew, from being freed of the “torment” of perpetual indebtedness.

About the Author

Andrew Cline is editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader. His Twitter ID is @Drewhampshire.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (222) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Intelligent Design| 8.5.11 @ 7:07AM

If Obama had any sense of responsibility, or decency, he would resign. In fact, the entire Obama administration should resign. Citizen voters should be given a chance to correct their error, by a special election.

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.5.11 @ 7:13AM

"When the Government fears the people, it's called LIBERTY. When the people fear the Government, it's called TYRANNY."
The Declaration of Independence SPECICALLY states that: When the Government no longer serves the people, it is the DUTY of the people to REMOVE IT." (I'm Paraphrasing)
Thus, the 2nd Amendment was born.
That time get closer bye the day.

massmile | 8.5.11 @ 9:11AM

A dysfunctional government reflects a dysfunctional people. We have a majority of Americans- and many of them Republicans and conservatives- who want something for nothing.
I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username sammyshine2002 on--a'ge'l'ov'e'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!

Bill| 8.5.11 @ 9:28AM

I too am seeking a good man who can give me real love...or is a real man who can give me good love?

I can never remember.

Bill| 8.5.11 @ 9:29AM

Unfortunately for me, I'm a lesbian stuck in a man's body...

daddio| 8.5.11 @ 9:54AM

Try craigslist...

NYMPH| 8.5.11 @ 10:31AM

A good man is hard to find, but a hard man is good to find.......

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.5.11 @ 5:10PM

I am a good man and I do not want any of you to find me.

Dan Mathewson| 8.5.11 @ 5:59PM

I am an outstanding man. I haven't been found. I know exactly where I left myself.

victor| 8.6.11 @ 2:43AM

Dan Mathewson:
"I am an outstanding man"

Is that why it is said: "that that idle Dan Mathewson is outstanding in his field?"

Occam| 8.9.11 @ 10:26PM

Try the obamas, they haven't a clue as to which way they are going either.

mames| 8.5.11 @ 10:40AM

With institutionalized anti constitutional systems in place, where the govt is Operating outside their enumerated powers the solution is and only will be Jefferson's when he spoke of the tree of liberty being sprinkled with the blood of tyrants and patriots every now and then - no more talk, time to remove the tyrants. if THAT SOUNDS TOO RADICAL FOR YOU YOU DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THE ENTRENCHMENT OF THE TYRANTS. The left and the RINOs are in favor of entrenched socialist spending. That makes them by definition traitors to the Constitution which they swore (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) to defend.

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 8:27AM

"Citizen voters should be given a chance to correct their error, by a special election."

The election next year COULD be special, but you will either lose or elect a crummy candidate. Until then, the question remains: why with all the brilliant minds in America did you run McCain in '08?

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 8:38AM

BTW, Jefferson's private life makes Clinton seem like the Reverend Billy. For those who call themselves 'conservative' you sure have inconsistent taste in icons.

Nancy in NC| 8.5.11 @ 9:09AM

It's become fashionable to attack the humaness of the Founders, choosing to overlook their wisdom and brilliance.

Instead of discussing the idea Jefferson put forth about national debt, you attack the man. Classy...spoken like a true liberal.

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 9:54AM

"you attack the man"

Didn't you attack Clinton as a man?

Brubaker| 8.5.11 @ 10:02AM

Bill Clinton is alive and able to defend himself.

NYMPH| 8.5.11 @ 10:33AM

His actions as a man were deplorable......

Trinacria| 8.5.11 @ 4:49PM

AB -

Tu Quoque arguments are effective tactical gimmicks in a high school debate, bit I trust you'll agree that they're of rather limited value in a substantive discussion aimed at advancing a particular view. Perhaps you might profitably consider the merits of formulating a substantive rational argument; you might find it refreshing....

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 3:08AM

AB -

Tu Quoque arguments are effective tactical gimmicks in a high school debate, bit I trust you'll agree that "they're of rather limited value in a substantive discussion aimed at advancing a particular view. Perhaps you might profitably consider the merits of formulating a substantive rational argument; you might find it refreshing"

Wrong blog.
AS is for Joe Sixpack, not WFB.

Trinacria| 8.8.11 @ 1:03PM

On the basis of the intellectual breadth of your arguments, I'm afraid I must regrettably concede this point - you are indeed no WFB! I hasten to note, however, the remarkable consistency in your approach (which, sadly, is the time tested MO of the intellectually bereft liberal): attack the messenger; ignore the substance of the message. Pity.

Hollywood Hick| 9.29.11 @ 9:07AM

I know you are, but what am I...

J Baustian| 8.5.11 @ 1:18PM

Jefferson attacked Hamilton for a comment taken out of context. Hamilton wanted the federal government to take over the debts incurred by the states during the Revolutionary War; then he created a tax system and a sinking fund to pay off the war debts. Jefferson did not care about those debts and wanted them repudiated.

It is one thing to honor all the Founders for the legacy they left to us. But let us be honest: Jefferson was a cowardly governor of Virginia, a dishonest envoy to France, a disloyal secretary of state and vice-president, and a mediocre president whose only accomplishment was the Louisiana Purchase. He was a hypocrite and liar and scandal-monger who had no room to criticize anyone else's personal habits.

Hamilton was no saint, but if not for him we would not have a country. Jefferson fought him tooth and nail, by fair means and foul, all through the early years of the Republic.

RCV| 8.5.11 @ 1:33PM

Gee, I wish I had such mediocre accomplishments like the Louisiana Purchase ... not to mention the Declaration of Independence (at 33), designing Monticello, founding the University of Virginia, among a dozen other stellar accomplishments.

One of the great men of any age.

George True| 8.5.11 @ 2:38PM

Well said, RCV.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.5.11 @ 2:42PM

I don't bother with silly hailing respectful commendable virtue upon the man who penned The Declaration Of Independence on reprehensible contemptuous venom directed at the words of the very same man who penned the necessary fate of The Tree Of Liberty matters.

RCV| 8.5.11 @ 3:58PM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............

Dan Mathewson| 8.5.11 @ 6:12PM

Let me ask this question; What, if any, and if not, how much? Let me leave you with this final remark, You're never completely worthless. You can always serve as a bad example.

WILLIAM NEER| 8.5.11 @ 2:35PM

SHOW ME SOME FACTS TO BACK UP YOUR COMMENT

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 3:21AM

Who can blame AS, located where it is, for being nostalgic for Jefferson-- you are only a few hours drive from Monticello.
But nostalgia wont get you another Reagan: he was born in 1911; people today are not like him and will not be no matter what you do or say.

Nunya| 8.5.11 @ 10:03AM

Alan, I am a conservative and Jefferson is one of my heroes--along with Washington, Adams, and others. Did he have faults? Absolutely--and not just promiscuity. He also had brilliant ideas and proved himself to be one of the most important of our Founding Fathers. Are we to judge him because of his faults, or should we weigh his brilliance in writing the Declaration of Independence and his many contributions to the founding of this country a little more than the fact that he had faults? As to Mr Clinton, he had more faults than the fact that he was an adulterer--which in reality I could not care less about. The fact that he lied to a Federal judge and got away with it bothers me much more--try that one if your name isn't Clinton and see what happens.

John Navratil| 8.5.11 @ 10:29AM

Nunya,

I'm completely with you! Consider what he was really trying to do was to deny Paula Jones her day in court because of who he was and what he could get away with. It is the textbook definition of a tyrant.

Fortunately, the courts didn't let him get away with it.

His dalliances with Ms. Lewinski flirted with sexual predation, although Lewinski was, nominally, an adult.

mames| 8.5.11 @ 10:43AM

What the hell are you talking about? The rumors of Hemmings? His own indebtedness? His desire to free slaves yet keeping his own as there was no where to free them to? Get your facts straight.

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 11:07AM

"Get your facts straight."

Then get your facts straight about Clinton.

W| 8.5.11 @ 11:21AM

Jefferson is regarded as the founder of the Democrat party. He talked a good game, but unlike John Adams, he owned slaves. GW freed his slaves in his will. Jefferson kept selling his to pay his debts. Jefferson went bankrupt. During the War, he never served in the military. On the plus side, he did the Louisiana purchase, authorized the Lewis and Clark expedition, and attacked the north african muslims who were kidnapping our sailors. He was a Scoop Jackson Democrat in defending our citizens against the muslim terrorists of his day.

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 11:33AM

"On the plus side..."

Clinton did better than either Bush.

PaulyD| 8.5.11 @ 2:50PM

Yes, thanks to the Republican congress Clinton helped elect in 1994.

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 12:12AM

"Yes, thanks to the Republican congress Clinton helped elect in 1994."

There you go! so you really did secretly like Clinton as a foil.

chuck| 8.6.11 @ 8:42AM

You know, compared to Obumster, Clinton is looking pretty damn good!

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 3:09PM

"You know, compared to Obumster, Clinton is looking pretty damn good!"

And next you might admit Clinton was a better POTUS than Dubya.

J Baustian| 8.5.11 @ 1:28PM

There would have been no US Navy to attack the Barbary Pirates, if Jefferson had had his way. He thought the US only needed a handful of coastal patrol craft. Congress authorized the construction of six frigates right before Jefferson became president.

Tired Taxpayer PRM| 8.5.11 @ 12:13PM

I realize that liberals like to revise history but you really should wait until all of the people who were alive during that time in history are dead before making such laughable statements.

Clinton was not impeached for practicing safe sex in the oval office. He was impeached for committing the crime of perjury. Oh, but of course, everyone lies about sex.

If you want to talk about icons, let's start with the Kennedy brothers.

BOmustGO| 8.5.11 @ 4:41PM

And Patriarch Joe Kennedy! Ever hear of Gloria Swanson? The Kennedy men were notorius womanizers. Typical "keep the wife at home and pregnant" then go out and diddle anything in skirts, but keep it quiet mentality.

Tina B| 8.7.11 @ 1:36PM

Don't forget that those Kennedy men had beaucoups bucks and the Kennedy women could apparently take a lot of adultery when it left them with so much time and opportunity to shop, travel and play their own power games.

They traded true love and commitment for baubles. In my thinking, many of them made what a lot of women would consider a fair trade. I wouldn't, but they must have. Wonder how that's working for them now.

The Bruce| 8.5.11 @ 11:35PM

Clinton was also convicted of Obstruction of Justice, if my memory serves me correctly.

Jim G.| 8.5.11 @ 1:46PM

Mr. Brooks:
Seeing as how I am sure you never cared much how many dresses Clinton ejaculated upon, you need to recuse yourself from speaking on this topic. You can't let Clinton go free, and then complain when others who oppose you do it.

Also, comparing 1700's men with current men is a little unfair, if not outright stupid.

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 12:18AM

"Also, comparing 1700's men with current men is a little unfair, if not outright stupid."

You are the people living in the past. Who is this piece about? anybody current? your next RINO-in-chief? no, you hero-worship a guy who has been dead since 1826.

Hollywood Hick| 9.29.11 @ 9:11AM

Your Obama-worship make you feel good? Because he will go down as the most inept leader of any century.

John Navratil| 8.5.11 @ 8:58AM

Alan Brooks,

Because he won the primary. Sad but true.... and changing.

It's kind of like asking why the Dems ran Carter in 1980, or Mondale in 1984, or Dukakis (chortle, snort) in 1988. Gore and Kerry were good for lampooning.

But, in fairness you did finally get it right. Obama in 2008. Even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in a while.

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 10:00AM

"Sad but true.... and changing."

Changing? no, that is the point, Navratil-- it isn't.

John Navratil| 8.5.11 @ 10:19AM

Alan Brooks,

So say you and on that we disagree. Other than Romney there is no one in the field who ran last time.

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 11:10AM

Not too good for you.
And only a half year to the primaries, but you have no front runner.

John Navratil| 8.5.11 @ 2:19PM

Alan Brooks,

Don't you fret yo' purty little head, dahlin'. We'll be jess fine.

Tina B| 8.7.11 @ 1:39PM

I just love it when you talk that way, John M, the syrup just drippin' like that.

And you are so on the money.

TrueBlue| 8.5.11 @ 6:08PM

There really shouldn't be a front runner this far out from the primaries, otherwise why have the primaries at all? If we were a month or two out and still had all these potentials that'd be different.

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 12:22AM

"Don't you fret yo' purty little head, dahlin'. We'll be jess fine."

You have said that since '88, and you have not been fine-- again, that is the whole point, you shot your last bolt with Reagan. 1984 was your last good general election!

axbucxdu| 8.6.11 @ 9:38AM

"...1984 was your last good general election!"

For Republicans, this is true. For conservatives, well, it's been alot longer than that...Coolidge!

Strider| 8.6.11 @ 11:35AM

And the Dems haven't had one since Grover Cleveland.

axbucxdu| 8.6.11 @ 12:27PM

Right on, Strider.

Groad| 8.5.11 @ 5:21PM

Sucks to be you doesn't it. Not only being a Lib, but being such a nihilistic cynic. Oh well, your choice.

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 12:28AM

Go ahead, if it is so important to you, elect another post-Reagan next year. Do what you want, but don't expect everyone to be enthusiastic about your next POTUS.

JimH| 8.5.11 @ 8:39AM

Of course then we get good old Joe B.

daddio| 8.5.11 @ 9:55AM

at least we might have some comic relief then!

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 12:31AM

Comic relief? run another old-doofus war vet as you did, TWICE.

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 5:37AM

I'm nostalgic too. The old days were ... old. But admiring heroes such as Jefferson, Washington, and Reagan wont get us back our AAA rating.
If only we could bring Reagan back from the dead; but you'll have to wait until you go to heaven to see Reagan.

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 8:37AM

Reason I wrote all the comments is you hero-worship Jefferson, who wasn't as important as Washington. And I do not care about his private life-- but a female slave couldn't send an email if her boss came on to her,
Some of you live in Virginia; so Jefferson is a big deal to you. But not to everyone; and it also demonstrates how Eastern Seaboard-oriented you are.. I think of Virginia as being East, not South (Alabama is South- Virginia is East).

But do what ever you want, however please don't expect enthusiasm concerning your candidates: quoting Jefferson wont work anymore.

axbucxdu| 8.6.11 @ 9:53AM

Thanks for the help there, Alan. I for one don't overlook Washington, nor do I "worship" Jefferson.

But Jefferson's warnings against central control have been demonstrated to be true. System theory also predicts many the same shortcomings that Jefferson identified. I wonder why.

I suppose it's just because that scientific discipline must be politically conservative.

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 3:20PM

Then large nations have to be broken up into smaller ones- including ours. America 200 years ago was much less complicated than now, so devolution had a different meaning.
I don't dislike Jefferson at all, yet you must admit he was a wildman; and a slave woman had no choice in dealing with her master 200 years ago, she couldn't textmessage the NAACP.

axbucxdu| 8.7.11 @ 5:45PM

Sorry Alan, but as things get more complicated, greater is the need for decentralization. It's not me saying this, but the math. On this point Jefferson's instincts are unassailable.

BTW, I could not care less what Slick did after hours, but when he's on my payroll, I don't want him messing with the help, nor do I wish to pay for proven liars.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.5.11 @ 8:01AM

Here are some Jefferson quotes. It is obvious that McCain, the Wall Street Journal and the Main Stream Media would have dismissed him as a terrorist and a Hobbit.

From Thomas Jefferson:

We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for[ another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.

The system of banking [is] a blot left in all our Constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction... I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity... is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple. Were we directed from Washington when to sow, when to reap, we should soon want bread.

Let us, then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled, we have yet gained little if we counternance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of a bitter and bloody persecutions.

It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 8:32AM

"would have dismissed him as a terrorist"

It is strange that you like Jefferson, who was a fan of Robespierre; who fathered kids with a slave (or two); who in fact was wilder than Clinton ever was in his life.
IMO you are a radical conservative crank, O' Stalin.

Old Soldier| 8.5.11 @ 8:42AM

Away troll.

What does that matter? I don't care if he fornicated with a goat.

Thom| 8.5.11 @ 9:56PM

The goat probably would mind....

Chris Killingsworth| 8.5.11 @ 9:47AM

Alan is *so* clever! OK, now leave.
...and notice his icon and standard- bearer - Clinton's promiscuity.
Weirdly fixated on that.

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 9:55AM

"Weirdly fixated on that."

You are the ones who got him impeached.

Nunya| 8.5.11 @ 10:05AM

He should have been kicked out of office. He's a lying piece of crap, in my humble opinion. How can you defend that?

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 11:13AM

"He's a lying piece of crap, in my humble opinion. How can you defend that?"

Your people defended Nixon.

Mike| 8.5.11 @ 11:25AM

No they did not. It was Rebublicans who forced him to resign. Where were the democrats with integrity when it came tro Clinton?

Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 11:35AM

Clinton was more about misdemeanors than high crimes.

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 11:40AM

"It was Rebublicans who forced him to resign."

....BTW,
George HW Bush said to Nixon at a meeting a few days before he resigned (right after the 'smoking gun' tape was publicized): "the November [1974] elections threaten disaster."

That's when Nixon was persuaded-- not forced-- to resign. Because of that year's midterms.

Al Adab| 8.5.11 @ 3:29PM

It was Goldwater, Hugh Scott and John Rhodes.

Thom| 8.5.11 @ 12:59PM

Perjury and obstruction of justice are felonies and have never been misdemeanors.

Groad| 8.5.11 @ 6:10PM

Perjury is not a misdemeanor.

Bill| 8.5.11 @ 1:40PM

As a Republican for the past 30 years (though one who voted against Nixon in '68 and '72), I have always -that is, since his days as Eisenhower's VP- thought that Nixon was a scumbag.

simon templar| 8.5.11 @ 5:00PM

Another lie. Nixon was impeached by vast numbers of Republicans in congress who actually led the effort. When Clinton was impeached not a single democrat voted in the Senate to make it stick, they fought tooth and nail to get him off and stop the investigations and proceedings. Projecting again, Alan?

DRed| 8.5.11 @ 9:12PM

Nixon was never impeached.

DRed| 8.5.11 @ 9:14PM

And when the house judiciary committee voted to recommend impeachment, 11 of the 17 republicans on the committee voted against it. Learn some history Simon.

simon templar| 8.6.11 @ 2:05PM

Proceedings were well under way to impeach Nixon and they had significant support from republicans, he resigned before final actions could be taken. You know damn well what I am saying. Furthermore Dems, fought Clintons impeachment proceedings tooth and nail and no historical revison is going to change that fact. Do not lecture me about history, you filthy hater of America. Your crediblity on this site died a long time ago, in fact the first day you opened your mouth full of lies. The only reason, I ever respond to you is because I know many uniformed independents come to this site and I do not want them brainwashed by your liberal left wing propaganda.

DRed| 8.6.11 @ 3:36PM

hahaha. You wrote that Nixon was impeached by a vast number of Republican. Nixon was never impeached. (by the way, that's not left wing propaganda-it's a historical fact) You were wrong. It happens to the best of us. If you don't want me to lecture you about history, try getting it right next time. I'm off to watch the Yankees, Simon, enjoy the rest of your weekend.

simon templar| 8.6.11 @ 6:11PM

You have just confirmed to me that you are no older than 16 years of age. Do not tell me what I am wrong about. You are in no position to correct anyone on anything. Technically, Clinton was not impeached either if you define impeachment in its full sense..that includes trial, full prosecution and removal from office. Both men were "impeached" in the sense of what we were discussing in this thread meaning both faced impeachment proceedings by Congress. Silly little smarmy, jackass, DRed. Enjoy the game. I bet your rooting for the enemy team!

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 5:42AM

Richardson and Ruckelshaus, who were not exactly liberals, wouldn't fire Cox in the Saturday Night massacre, but Bork-- another GOP hero-- did. Nixon was certainly NO BETTER than Clinton, and perhaps much worse.

Nunya| 8.6.11 @ 11:11AM

Alan, you are wrong about Nixon, in my opinion. It seems to me he was left to defend his own actions, which were reprehensible.
Besides that, it's irrelevant to the discussion--a red herring, if you will.

jothepro| 8.5.11 @ 9:53AM

Hey Alan, Do you live your life like you talk? I feel sorry for you and your pitiful comments.

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 9:57AM

Who were YOU talking about in '98?:
Bill, Lewinsky;
from March to December.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.5.11 @ 9:59AM

I enjoy being a radical conservative crank Alan. Thanks for noticing.

Maddox| 8.5.11 @ 11:15AM

Alan, with the problems we are facing today none of that personal drivel you spout matters. What matters is whether we are to remain a nation that follows the laws established in The Constitution (you know, our founding document) that grant freedom and opportunity to all citizens. Liberal politicians with both parties stopped working within the powers granted to them by The Constitution and they should be removed and punished. If not, all laws are invalid, even those that protect vermin like you or be ruled by tyrants.
If you want to discount the works of someone because of his personal faults, then we would have no laws or guidelines to follow other than the Bible with the teachings of the only one who walked the earth who was perfect. That would be a good idea as it would cause liberal heads to explode.

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 11:45AM

"then we would have no laws or guidelines to follow other than the Bible with the teachings of the only one who walked the earth who was perfect."

If you love Jesus so much, then why are you so materialistic?

George True| 8.5.11 @ 2:43PM

How do you know who is materialistic and who isn't? Do you have some kind of a list? Is my name on it?

simon templar| 8.5.11 @ 5:04PM

Jesus of Nazareth did not come to earth to preach or teach anti-materialism as you define it in your marxist rhetoric. Alan, do you own a car, house..? ..then give them over to the government or just shut up.

TrueBlue| 8.5.11 @ 6:26PM

So instead we should be forced to give the fruit of our labor to those who don't even try to help themselves, instead living off the government because they know the checks will continue to flow? I have no problems giving help to those who are trying to better themselves but I do not, and never will, agree to helping people too dang lazy or underhanded to better their situation and expect others to do all the work for them.

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 12:38AM

Tell it your well-off kin who get not only funds from local, state, and fed sources, but services as well.
Hypocrisy only works when people don't know about it.

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 5:46AM

''Alan, with the problems we are facing today none of that personal drivel you spout matters."

That's it! with all the problems you look back to the ancient era of Jefferson.

axbucxdu| 8.6.11 @ 10:22AM

That's it! That era isn't so ancient.

What's that Peter Gabriel line?..."It is HERE, It is NOW"

So what did he recommend? Whatever it was, it surely doesn't read like the latest "I'm so brilliant and your just a rube" progressive missive.

mames| 8.5.11 @ 10:49AM

There has never been confirmation of his sireing any chilren with slaves. That is revisionist history. Jefferson agreed with some aspects of Robespierre dealing with liberty but certainly not wit his concept of a naked democracy - he supported a Constitutionally Limited Republic not the mess the Robe man came up with. Please use accurate discrimination when stating your information.

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 11:14AM

Then be fair to Clinton!

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.5.11 @ 11:23AM

If we had been fair to Clinton he would have been impeached and been thrown out of office for lying to a federal grand jury.

If we had been fair to the public we would have tarred and feathered and rode Clinton out of town on a rail.

Thom| 8.5.11 @ 11:38AM

Clinton lied under oath multiple times, obstructed justice and we send people to prision for far less for years.....

Be fair to Clinton? What next Alan, be fair to OJ?

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 11:48AM

Gordon Liddy and Oliver North committed crimes and were rewarded with radio shows and much else besides-- so crime does pay, and not only for Dems.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.5.11 @ 12:46PM

Those two weren't elected officials. However, I don't think they ever tried to steal the White House furniture either:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f.....A9679C8B63
From the NY Times article in February 2001:
"In the latest criticism over their departure from the White House, the Clintons faced questions today about taking $28,000 worth of furnishings, which two donors were quoted as saying had been intended to become part of the permanent White House collection, not gifts to the Clintons.
The disclosure, reported in today's Washington Post, came three days after the Clintons said they would pay $86,000 to cover the value of gifts they received last year in an effort to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The couple had originally sought to leave with $190,000 in gifts."

Thom| 8.5.11 @ 12:54PM

Liddy was convicted and served time; North was convicted of what? Clinton was convicted and not sentenced to anything meaningful with regard to a felony conviction which is what perjury and obstruction of justice is btw. North and Liddy’s combined net wealth is what compared to Heir Clinton Alan? You don’t end up with a net worth over 100 million off of a Presidential Salary, pension and gains made from insider trading in Cattle Futures. In the real world you don’t get rewarded with a talk show you have to earn an audience and bring in revenue greater than your cost to the business. I think you have Air American confused with profit making businesses like Fox and the national syndication network Liddy works for.

Hollywood Hick| 9.29.11 @ 9:15AM

Hey Alan, how's that Fast and Furious thing going to work out for your boys?

simon templar| 8.5.11 @ 4:57PM

Alan Brooks is at it again. False premise.
Like most Americans, when the French rebelled against Louis XVI, he generally praised their action, hesitated over it, and finally recoiled from it. He was not a fan of Robespierre. You like to stretch the truth and revise history. There was only one black woman, furthermore, who he was know to have had a love realtionship with not two. To imply that Jeffferson was some sort of radical left wing revolutionary is absolutely absurd and equally absurd to imply he condoned the actions and atrocities of the French revolution as well.
Second, your illogical argument is also ridiculous. Let's pretend that Jefferson was a leftist liberal as defined today and your implication correct. Well, then it only supports this idea of fiscal responsibility and prudent spending as your liberal Jefferson can not be wrong...he is a leftwing liberal! Alan, do not be a jackass.
The same man said the best government is the government that governs the least; you can not find a better proponent of limited government.

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 5:52AM

Jefferson was no better in personal morality than Clinton; a female slave in the antebellum era was no better off than Paula Jones-- to say the very least. And saying he didn't cozy up to Robespierre is like saying Carter didn't cozy up to dictators-- they both played footsie with bloody radicals.

Grant in Louisiana| 8.6.11 @ 10:24AM

Clinton looked me in the eye via the TV camera and lied to my face. Jefferson never did that.

simon templar| 8.6.11 @ 2:20PM

Here Alan, I will make it easy for you given your comments lack any logic, substance, or rationality. They are a continual stream of liberal talking points, misdirection, red herrings, contradiction, sometimes downright lies, and smarminess. Here just copy and paste this..it will save you time.
"You conservatives are stupid, you hate children, grandma, and all forms of life including unicorns. I, on the other hand, am an enlightened citizen of the world and a righteous Progressive who knows all, sees all, and will get the last smarmy word."

Tina B| 8.7.11 @ 1:50PM

Why do you twist everything, AB, back to your constant ranting? Why not just comment on what Jefferson said, written above, which are obvoiusly words for such a time as this. He was so right.

You have comebacks, but your comments are never answers, or constructive for that matter. It seems you live to insult. Or you love to insult. Or both.

Louis Jenkins| 8.5.11 @ 8:15AM

Well, I don't have a quote from T. Jeferson, but I do have one from John Galt (the real one):

"Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth."

Amen!!

A. C. Santore| 8.5.11 @ 8:42AM

Make no mistake about it, anything broken about our government has been done and is being done intentionally. The clear intent of progressives by any name is to destroy both our economy and our government so that they can come charging in to change it.

When the president said that he is tempted to take over and run it himself, he was not joking.

Every tyrant in history gave more or less clear statements of his intent to tyrannize. Sadly, they always have willing partners, as in Congress today, and a disheartened and disillusioned population who believe them.

Old Soldier| 8.5.11 @ 8:45AM

My kids are perfectly aware of what is going on - they also know how to shoot and survive without help from the government.

I hope they refuse to pay off any of the Baby Boomer debt. Toss them out of their retirement homes and make them work until their debt is paid.

Derek Leaberry| 8.5.11 @ 9:00AM

A dysfunctional government reflects a dysfunctional people. We have a majority of Americans- and many of them Republicans and conservatives- who want something for nothing. For instance, the best but very heartless way to remedy our national fiscal calamity is to eliminate Medicare and allow the elderly to die when nature beckons. This is how the world worked when the Constitution was promulgated. But that's not going to happen as 99 % of Americans think Lyndon Johnson's promise of 1965 is still valid. Old people want to live even if it is at the expense of their grandchildren.

Nancy in NC| 8.5.11 @ 9:15AM

I'm and old person and I happen to agree.

I will elaborate. People make choices...they should reap the consequences. One can choose frugality or waste. One can choose to live within their means or stay perpetually in debt.

While expecting the government to do everything for them, they squander their own money on "things" and another trip to Wally World.

I have done without so that I can avoid debt. I personally have no debt, but I live in a small house, comfortable as it may be. My vehicles are paid for, but they're not BMWs or Mercedes.

In other words, I made choices and am living with those choices. I suggest we let others do the same.

Old Soldier| 8.5.11 @ 12:29PM

Count me in. Why should the government spend $billions of our money to keep 80-year-olds alive for a couple extra years? If they have the cash, or private insurance, fine. If not, they had a good run, now it's over.

Thom| 8.5.11 @ 3:38PM

Old Solider,
The “fly” in your thinking is thus:
The “debt” in both SS and Medicare/Medicaid was front loaded. The first generation to receive payments paid essentially nothing into it. Every generation after that has had to pay an ever increasing amount of money to cover the front loaded debt of the generation(s) before. In round numbers the Baby Boomers have paid twice the percentage of income into SS and Medicare that their parents did and their grandparents generation got these programs for “free” essentially. All this occurred before the Baby Boomers earned their first pay check. If you are going to fault Baby Boomers, the Worst Generation in this Nation’s history of something in regard to this matter fault them for not having another 250,000,000 babies because that is what it would have taken to keep both SS and Medicare/Medicaid tax rates where they were promised to stay by people long past dead. We Baby Boomers have many faults but not paying ever increasing SS and Medicare/Medicaid taxes over our working life is not one of those faults. SS tax was supposed to rise to 6% in 1950, Truman put it off because it would have hurt his reelection chances. It was to not rise above that and the amount of income subject to that tax would be 7 times lower today adjusted for inflation if what FDR’s Social Security Administration had said in 1935 had not been a blazing actuarial lie.

I’ve spent much of my working life making investments for retirement and thus I think each person has a responsibility to do the same but kind of sort of paying 15.3% of my income each payday to fund someone else's retirement and medical coverage kind of sort of gets in the way of putting a matching amount away to cover my own retirement needs…… I think that was kind of sort of the plan by those that think up these Ponzi schemes thus the devil is surely in the details of all this and devil usually wins when your government ponzi scheme program is based up wishful thinking rather than sound economic policy.

I wish there was a simplistic solution to all this but I just don’t think robbing one generation for 45+ years of their incomes to pay past generations’ indebtedness and then tell them to fish or cut bait is very workable in the long run. I’m not sure there is a solution at this point either but give the generation that has paid the debt of the past two generations ponzi schemes some due here.

Strider| 8.6.11 @ 11:45AM

Health care costs have skyrocketed since the 1960s precisely because of Medicare, Medicaid and all the related govt. programs. The exact same thing has happened with college costs because of all the "free" money handed out via student loans. Get the govt. totally out of both arenas and watch prices plummet! Then the elderly will be able to pay for whatever they want or need, and kids will be able to afford college.

"everything the government touches turns to crap." -- Ringo Starr

David| 8.5.11 @ 9:52AM

Both parties are to blame for this mess we are in, and so is the public. "We the People" are the ones who comtinue to put up with all the lies both parties have been giving us. We see what is happening and we do nothing except complain about it on sites like this. Until someone steps up and actually does something to defend the constitution and the people, then we can expect no changes from Washington. We need someone to step up and get the revolution started, the revolution that we all know is overdue and is desparately needed to save our democracy and this country.
I agree with those that have said our children should not pay this debt, and we should not expect them to.

squalis| 8.5.11 @ 12:54PM

It's called the TEA party.

Al Adab| 8.5.11 @ 1:29PM

What could be achieved with a sale of some of the Federal lands? Dedicate the income to debt reduction (not deficit reduction) and redeem those bonds.

Thom| 8.5.11 @ 3:03PM

Al Adab, you mean to say all those Civil Service Acts to separate politics and corruption from the loyal servants of the people didn’t work? Who would have thought the bulk of 22,000,000 government workers would vote to grow government in order to guarantee their jobs for ever….

Al Adab| 8.5.11 @ 3:33PM

We have created a Mandarin class, isolated from the voters, and solely dedicated to their own positions. The agencies are full of them and it is well past time to examine those agencies to see which, if any, are worth their cost.

Cromwell said to parliament, "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing." Most of these agencies impose regulatory costs which serve only to retard business expansion. One muight think that in an era when jobs are high priority, regulatory impediments could vanish with the wind.

Thom| 8.5.11 @ 4:25PM

Al Adab, I agree completely.

I was a "government" employee for 20 years.... I know the drill and specific differences between local, state and the Feds. I know far too many Feds that put in their “30” and then make damn sure they get their 10 year credit for SS payments too….. That’s the game as constructed. Military retirement is even worse and I also served in the military. The rules need to change. My function in “government” involved automating and saving money but for most of my career for every dollar I could save either an elected official or the management persons appointed by the same would promise something between $1.08 and $1.12 in order to get elected or reelected. Hence even those in government service that think like Jefferson are defeated by those that have the power to spend money.

While working for “government” but not an employee at NASA I was given a task related to the Space Shuttle program regarding “risk” reduction. This task involved the simulation of launches under different circumstances and I had to get two tests through the “system” each day for months to keep the testing on track. Each test cost $2600 in 1974 dollars. Each test took 2600 computer seconds running on the most advanced computer systems the US had at the time and they were running full tilt 24/5. One of the guys that was my “mentor” had an IQ over 180. Much of the model/test “code” was his. I put forth a proposal to him about a way to reengineer the way the “code” was run to save time (and money) and he thought about it for about 15 seconds and drew something on a piece of paper that sent me off to completely redo the entire process. My daily gross salary was $25.00 a day. Took me about two weeks to reengineer the process. The end result was $1800 test runs and 1800 computer seconds used or a daily savings of $1600.00 a day for several more months. The cost savings were an obvious plus but the ability to get in an extra run a day was also a plus even though we never had to.

In the private non union sector such initiatives are usually rewarded and I’ve received such bonuses for similar savings many times. That’s not the way it works in government and it didn’t work that way for me with the above example because the “savings” were simply spent somewhere else so they would not lose that money in the following year. Most know how this works that have been around government. I’ve worked projects whose specific purpose was to spend “surplus” money before the end of the fiscal year to keep from losing it the next. Given the primary function of government is to rob one citizen and give to another, there is no personal incentives for government employees to step forward with suggestions like I did on one of the most costly space programs in history.

NASA's entire budget could be eliminated and you couldn't find the loss in 3.8 trillion dollars with a magnifying glass.

Al Adab| 8.5.11 @ 4:50PM

Thom, If I recall correctly:
NASA: 18.5 billion
Medicare: 565 billion

Should we ask about return on investment or just give up our computers and cell phones?

Thom| 8.5.11 @ 5:14PM

Not sure that is the right question but ultimately we are going to give up a lot more than the technology advances from the initial space program.... Most of those “returns” came from the initial Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. The Apollo program alone cost 25 billion in 68-72 dollars. That would be an impressive number today. IMHO the manned space program ended with Apollo and the Shuttle never came close to the reusable/cost savings it was pitched with. Kind of like those projections of Medicare cost by 1990….. An ounce of common sense goes a long way but I haven’t seen even that at NASA in at least two decades…..

Al Adab| 8.5.11 @ 5:52PM

Dramatic and awe inspiring as the shuttle was, your analysis of its role in the long term is correct. It was a trip down a box canyon.

Back to the moon? Absolutely. Additional planetary probes and landers? Absolutely. Manned landing and ultimate colonization? Yes again. The future of humanity lies beyond and all we have to do is go there.

My fear is that America, having given mankind the stars, now withdraws (ala the Ming Chinese) and ironicly delivers the future to the Chinese.

Thom| 8.5.11 @ 7:46PM

It was more of a “ditch” IMO. I also ran test for the people who developed the heat tiles and “super” glues that kept them on at Mach 25 in the atmosphere and could withstand max reentry heat. The whole tiling and retile process was amazingly labor intensive even then and there never seemed to be the money to reengineer that portion to modularize it. Without that alone the reuse times could not be met and the entire purpose of the shuttle became moot with regard to building an actual working space station in orbit with commercial viability. The ISS is nothing more than a High School science project run amok. The first director of the project quit after it was cut in scope and purpose so many times that it served no useful scientific purpose. In some ways the manned space program has been dead man walking for about 3 decades as compared to the progress made in the first 8 years of the Buck Roger’s portion of the program.
As far as revisiting the Moon well, remember what I said just four years of the Apollo program cost with just the capability to put a capsule, three men and a tin foil lander in orbit around the Moon? Trying to reuse the shuttle’s solid rocket boosters, each one equal to the initial thrust of the Saturn 5 has numerous limitations and risk not the least of which is that you don’t have any back up or redundancies in your initial launch and essentially can’t control the thrust at all whereas the shuttle got its lift from both liquid and solid power which gave it the ability to control enough of its launch thrust to remain within max thermodynamic stresses. With just a solid thruster you have to add weight to the payload to control that which limits your ability to just use the same system for just people cargos or near orbit launches. You can cut sections out of the solid booster (or add as they were going to do with this new larger capsule system) but that doesn’t reduce thrust and stress but burn time. I’m not confident we could ever overcome or work within the tight budgets that NASA could have gotten to even return to the Moon with 1972 efficiency. The Chinese Moon is certainly rising in this regard. Only Hollywood has the technology to go to Mars… and return safely. Not a chance with the real world technology we have now or will have in the next decade or two.
You made an important observation in another post. There are things “government” is not meant to do and as long as the primary purpose of government is to take from one citizen and give to another and provide jobs for special classes of citizens there won’t be enough money left over to do real world scientific things like we did in the sixties and early 70s. Eventually, the enumerated necessary functions of government will be gutted to support the welfare state. Things like Space X will end up being the ultra-rich’s theme park ride. Little more than the capability of the X-15 program brought forward a few decades.

Strider| 8.6.11 @ 11:55AM

Military retirement is even worse and I also served in the military. The rules need to change.

Looks like you may get your wish. There's a proposal floating around to totally overhaul the retirement system. And unlike previous changes, current personnel will not be grandfathered. I have a cousin who's been in the USAF for more than 25 years; I hope he retires ASAP.

Al Adab| 8.5.11 @ 3:38PM

Thom: PS
Check out the Growth Economics thread for a list by Dan Hirsch of agencies and budgets.

Petronius| 8.5.11 @ 9:55AM

Neither party believes in Liberty. They want the national debt so large that it can never be paid, thus making the accumulation of any wealth by average Americans impossible. I'm sure the RINOs are even more pleased about it than the Dems.

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 11:50AM

You are more honest than the others here.

Al Adab| 8.5.11 @ 1:31PM

You actually are on to something there. The establishmentarians have a vested interest in keeping voters dependant thereby increasing the entrenched power. The reason for representative government is to overcome that problem by not creating a governing class. OOPS and to that we have added a mandarin class of bureaucrats whose interest is the same but who are not accountable to voters.

simon templar| 8.5.11 @ 5:09PM

Oh really Alan, yeah...we are all apologist for the Washington DC elite and ruling class. Asinine. There is not a day that passes where posters are out here are not railing against the RINO's, progressives, and DC politicians from both parties!

C Smith| 8.5.11 @ 10:39AM

Not impressed! All who reverence Jefferson's monetary ramblings regarding deficit spending would do well to remember his prolonged "personal" deficit spending. In the end, only the "dignity" of his former presidency kept his creditors at bay. Jefferson perpetually lived beyond his means and died a debtor.

However, in Spiritual matters, he incurred the far greater debt:

All those who reverence Jefferson's Declaration and alter ego as "American Scripture," and eulogize the like-minded pseudo sainthood of our founding fathers, would do well to read the "Jefferson Bible." Eliminating angels, miracles, and concluding with the stone sealed sepulcher in his final verse, Jefferson created a "sanitized" version of Scripture to fit his "faith":

"... the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus... will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" (Jefferson to Adams, April 11, 1823).

Jefferson has since discovered that it is not a fable:

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1Timothy 2:5).

mames| 8.5.11 @ 10:55AM

All very true as I have a copy of his "bible"; he was an early historical critical man. I am confident he is not in heaven today BUT he was right in many areas of life and just because he did not take his own advice regarding indebtedness does not mean we shouldn't. If we only took advice from sinless men there would be no advice to take. Often the law written on our hearts is denied by our own actions but the law remains valid anyway.

crookedwren| 8.5.11 @ 12:32PM

It is often those who have been enslaved by their own personal debts who best understand the dangers of the monster. I, too, have more debt than I want, so I am especially concerned about our US debt -- KNOWING what it is to be a slave to it.

simon templar| 8.5.11 @ 5:11PM

So what? That is what you call an argument. There are 20 other founding fathers who held the same opinion. Sophmoric.

H. Rider Haggard| 8.5.11 @ 10:40AM

See http://www.truthfulpolitics.co.....on-gdp.jpg

The problem is that both Bush and Obama have under-taxed compared to the 17.5% of GDP average in the glory years extending from FDR through Clinton. With only 15% of GDP coming in as federal revenue, deficits can never shrink.

mames| 8.5.11 @ 11:02AM

Better recheck you GDP numbers there bub. We already spend in excess of our GDP. You are correct when usjng FDR as the starting point as then is when we began to let government do what the constitution demands it cannot do - it operates outside the enumerated powers with impunity. If socialist like you want to change the constitution then do it by the amendment process not through the courts and the legislature. Socialism is a traitorist view in light of our Constitutionally Limited Republic. SPENDING is the problem not "revenue" which is TAXES not revenue. Revenue assumes a profitable enterprise and the govt is and cannot be a profitable enterprise.

J Baustian| 8.5.11 @ 1:35PM

Tax revenues are low because economic activity is weak. This is the flip side of a progressive tax system; revenues rise faster than GDP when the economy is booming, but fall faster than GDP in a recession.

According to Keynes this created an automatic counter-cyclical stimulus. But politicians only pay attention to those aspects of Keynes' theories that give them a blank check for spending, in good times and bad.

Bill| 8.5.11 @ 1:42PM

Are you, by any chance, married to She Who Must Be Obeyed?

Doctor Right| 8.5.11 @ 4:33PM

Aren't we all..?

Bill| 8.9.11 @ 10:42AM

Of course you're right; I should have said Ayesha.

buckeyeman| 8.5.11 @ 10:58AM

"Unlike most state governments, the federal government has no mechanism that prevents prolonged deficit spending"

Not true. We just witnessed the squandering of one of our checks and balances on budgetary indiscretion. The fact that Boehner botched the opportunity doesn't change the fact that the opportunity was there. Had the hopeless Boehner led his troops to refuse to raise the debt ceiling we would not be witnessing Obama bungling his only attempt to be a CEO, but at least we would not be on the hook for ANOTHER 2.4 trillion dollars. I think the stock market would be 500 point HIGHER.

mames| 8.5.11 @ 11:03AM

Oh, but Boehner was afraid of the faux deadline boogey man, coward that he is.

Clint| 8.5.11 @ 11:22AM

Jefferson Was a FRAUD.

Everything He is Credited With Writing Was Stolen From Dr. Ron Paul.

The Tea Party Rebellion Marches Off of The Cliff

Carpe Dumbass.

Dr.Right| 8.5.11 @ 11:51AM

Tee, Hee, Tee, Hee,
Giggle Giggle.

I like to pose as Clint, because I hate him & those Tea Party Ruffians.

They're such Terrorists.

Doctor Right| 8.5.11 @ 11:54AM

Clint,

Actually, I've NEVER been to a Tea Party rally...But I hear that the guys there are REALLY hot...so maybe I should go?

Carpe Drill-Me!

Clint| 8.5.11 @ 11:55AM

I've scored more a** than a toilet seat at public restrooms in DC!

Dr.Right| 8.5.11 @ 12:14PM

I score my big strong men in bus stations, airports and at My Nazi's R Us Meetings.

Heil Honey !

Clint| 8.5.11 @ 1:22PM

I want to be a woman...

Dr.Right| 8.5.11 @ 2:51PM

I am Barney' Frank's woman.

Ted| 8.5.11 @ 12:02PM

You and Clint are like two brothers who fight as nauseum, rarely stopping to realize you are on the same side....

Clint| 8.5.11 @ 12:10PM

Dr. Reich's A Cowardly Gutless Poseur, Who Wasn't Man Enough To Face Me Man On Here At American Spectator Or In Person.

He's A Fanatic Lapsed Catholic/ Anti-Catholic Piece Of White Trash Garbage Bigot, Who, Like The Pavlovian Slobbering Dog He Is, Always Attempts To Spew His Anti-Catholic Crap.

Doctor Right| 8.5.11 @ 1:21PM

Clint's an angry, repressed, individual who somehow thinks that an anonymous message board is "man to man".

He's a very odd fellow.

Do tell, Clint...who exactly are YOU facing "man to man" on this message board?

And WHEN exactly did you challenge me to face you "in person"???

Hmmmmmmm..?????

Clint, you're delusional. I wish Occam's Tool (you know..."Israel Firster Tool-Job"...) would do an analysis of your personality based on the strange way you write your posts. He's a psychiatrist, so he'd probably have some interesting things to say.

And frankly, Ted, Clint and I are NOT on the same side.

In the first place, Clint hails from the brown-shirted, drone-like fringe of the Conservative movement. Yes...sad to say, but there are nuts on our side, too. They spew angry talking points and invective, have lots of simplistic ideas, but no real solutions. They just like to yell...I dunno', makes them feel important, I guess.

Secondly, Clint is a fanatical supporter of Ron Paul...And I'm not.

Finally...Clint is about as clever as a piece of wax paper.

Clint| 8.5.11 @ 2:58PM

You got yourself an open invitation to show up anytime, at a Valley Forge Patriots Tea Party Meeting & start something, then I can legally kick the crap outta you, without getting you to sign a waiver.

Put Up Or Shut Up, Gutless Mouth Fightin' Purse Swingin' Nazi Bigot Coward, Dr.Reich.

Doctor Right| 8.5.11 @ 3:14PM

Oooh! Valley Forge Patriots!!!

That sounds REAL butch!!! No wonder you like it!

And how, exactly, will I recognize you?

Will you be dressed like the Leather-Guy from the Village People?

Carpe dil-weed!!

Clint| 8.5.11 @ 3:30PM

Put Up or Shut Up, Gutless Coward Dr.Reich.

Doctor Right| 8.5.11 @ 3:18PM

Is this you, Clint??

http://www.meetup.com/VFP-TeaP...../14455497/

Clint| 8.5.11 @ 3:35PM

So, Put Up or Shut Up, Gutless Coward, Dr.Reich.

Doctor Right| 8.5.11 @ 4:11PM

"Clint Air"..???

Is that your REAL name? Or another "nom de plume"???

And it doesn't look like you're really that involved, Clint...no comments, not much activity, either...Did you get kicked-out?

Oh, wait...

There's a WEBSITE! www.teapartygroundzero.com

So...You're actually just using this Valley Forge Group's website to pimp your own blog!!!

Gee...What a dedicated guy you are!

And what a cool blog!!

...yawn...

Doctor Right| 8.5.11 @ 4:13PM

Clint:

Either meet me at 4:15pm in front of the Sears Tower, or you're a TOTAL, GUTLESS COWARD!!!!

Clint| 8.6.11 @ 9:17AM

Ain't My Name, Ain't My Blog.

Put Up or Shut Up Gutless Coward, Dr.Reich.

Doctor Right| 8.7.11 @ 12:58PM

Clint, you big pussy.

I waited for you in front of the Sears Tower and you didn't show.

You're a real coward. All talk.

Clint| 8.6.11 @ 9:21AM

What's The Matter Cupcake,
Can't Back Up Your Bloviatin' Keyboard Mouth?

Put Up or Shut Up, Gutless Coward, Dr.Reich.

victor| 8.6.11 @ 2:54AM

Clint the Gutless Coward with his posse:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1H-n.....dogdog.jpg

Clint| 8.6.11 @ 9:28AM

Victor, The Crippled Russkie Neo-Chickenhawk Israel FirsterCoward Chimes In.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....rotzki.jpg

victor| 8.6.11 @ 2:52AM

Hey Clint, I hear you forgot to pay your exorcist last month and now you are repossessed.

Clint| 8.6.11 @ 9:38AM

Hey Victor, I hear you forgot to pay your scooter bill last month and now you're back on your roller board.

That's just how Victor rolls.

http://images.starpulse.com/Ph.....es-p12.jpg

Clint| 8.6.11 @ 9:59AM

Victor At Work

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q.....Poi_z7CCqn

Ted| 8.6.11 @ 10:55AM

I rest my case....

Kathy Washburn | 8.5.11 @ 11:35AM

"That "perpetual debt," as Jefferson called it -- not the recent "crisis" caused by taking the debt ceiling seriously -- is our government's real dysfunction". A terrible concept, perpetual debt, but I don't see that as our dysfunction so much as I see dysfunctional people at the helm of our government. People who will do anything for a vote, people who are totally infatuated with wielding power, people who are not responsible adults, people who have no integrity (and not a lot of intellect), people who are not honest, people who show contempt for honest Americans - our government officials. We elect them, yes. But what we are usually offered by the two major political parties are the choices of 1)bad and 2)horrible, and if we had better choices, our country would be better off.

mames| 8.5.11 @ 5:34PM

We have a choice we just haven't exercised it ITS called take back our Republic by force from these traitors and leeches. Believe me hold a few of them accountable as Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Washington would and the rest would get the message or get out of town. They must be held accountable to abide by the Constitution which they use as ass wipe everyday. 80-90% of them have dirt on each other.

LMajito| 8.5.11 @ 11:37AM

unfortunately for the middle class of this country, the bankers convinced the power elites to allow them to provide folks with plastic money and home equity lines so they could go and spend their future nest egg today acquiring cheap plastic and junkets (you DESERVE a break TODAY, right)...then the greed merchants, seeking higher profits initially took the middle class blue collar jobs, shipped them to mexico first and then the slave sweat shops in the far east...after the middle class was decimated it was time for the white collars and ditto same thing...took their jobs and shipped to south central asia first and then came up with the h1b plan...who clamored for these type of visas? the gates, ellisons and palmisanos...the only way the could match the street expectations was at the expense of their workers and this they did...while the ruling political elites were just as happy counting their filthy lucre found in their campaign coffers...

the greedy empresarios purchased the political prostitutes over decades in the federal and state legislatures to the point that USA now resembles more a 3rd world country run by banana republic politicos who are told by the uber rich what do next...the corruption is so blatant that there isn't even an effort to maintain an appearance of propriety... it's time for another revolution in this nation...one that takes all of these ruling elites and exterminate them from power...and i don't mean at the ballot box...and break the hold of the wealthy on the affairs of the folks...europeans came to this land to break the yoke of feudalism and now after 500 years we find ourselves in the same situation...

these people aided by the soros of the world will not relinquish their sacred seats without a physical fight.

in the capitalist system, government should be vigilant of the richmen greed and keep it in check...not to prevent the accumulation of wealth or riches but to protect the well being of the folks and prevent the rich from trampling on them...income taxes only taxes the income...all these zillionaires already made their wealth and this isn't taxed so they can afford to pay $35k a plate to seat next to the guys in power while their high paid tax attorneys keep their income out of the tax man hands...

as a society americans lost their moral and ethos many decades ago and decided to worship the mighty dollar at any costs and without any constraints...after the affluence moral decay has become so prevalent that you have churches with leaders that have had multiple wifes (one after another following divorces), priest lusting and engaging in shameful acts with boys, protestant ministers trapped in pornography, hiring prostitues (males and females) while selling zillions of books talking about how God will prosper you and all you have to do is give...then the culture have picked as icons the most lewd and obscene topics to revel in them...all of those celebrities are celebrated for what? Virtue or vice?

currently in usa, the folks can be divided in three segments: 1% see something wrong and take action to make something happen...9% will notice something is wrong but just watch somebody else make something happen while 90% will not not even know that something happened...

so which group are you in?

Thom| 8.5.11 @ 12:08PM

LMajito, I’m not going to cut down a virtual Forrest of paper pointing out all the reasons this is not true but suffice to say “income tax” is not the only tax in the tax burden, my middle class “net worth” looks mighty tempting from the perspective of someone living off of government transfer payments and “wealth” is not “income” per say. If you disagree with that concept try sending in part of your “wealth” as payment for your property taxes and see how that works for you. The government says my taxable estate (home and land) is worth twice what it was 6 years ago. The valuation of my land is based on the prorated value of government services provided (cost of government divided by number of parcels of land) and my home value is based on the sell of one or two homes within a 2 mile radius typically bought by subprime loans….. There is no “income” potential in my “wealth” based on my estate because at any given point in time no one is going to give me “money” for what some say it is worth. Most of the wealth of those you seem to have some problem with is tied up in income producing enterprises and in effect are mere paper evaluations of said worth at any moment in time. Ask a Government Motors bond holder where their “wealth” went if you don’t get this part. Something is worth only what someone is willing and can pay for it. Basic economic principle. Be careful what you rant for, you might find yourself having to give up some of your imputed net worth to pay those taxes you think the rich don’t pay…..

Al Adab| 8.5.11 @ 11:46AM

Oh good grief. A debate about the proper function of debt and deficit spending turns into ad himinym about individuals. That is very helpful.

All of us are human. We should be measured by our political theory and our influence on our time, not by our foibles (some more rumor that fact) which have little to do with philosophical validity. All err, but all can contribute to the betterment of society and the advancement of Liberty.

Ted| 8.5.11 @ 12:03PM

What I find ironic about Jefferson's position is that when he died he was in debt to the tune of about $100,000.....

George True| 8.5.11 @ 3:07PM

So? What of it? I gather you are trying to say that the fact that he had personal debt somehow makes Jefferson a hypocrite because he felt it was a bad idea for government to incur debt that would have to be paid back with OTHER PEOPLES MONEY.

So imagine you were in debt for your mortgage, and also had more debt you incurred to expand your business, and things went fine for quite awhile, and you were paying the debt back with your own money that you earned. Imagine that then things changed because you got sick, or got injured, or got old and tired, or the market for your business's product dried up, and you were having trouble paying your debts, and so you had to start liquidating your own assets that you bought with the money you earned, to try to make good on the debt, and then you died.

Would that make you a hypocrite simply because you thought it was a bad idea for government to incur massive amounts of debt that would have to be paid back by stealing other people's money from the current generation and their descendants?

Ted| 8.6.11 @ 10:57AM

Me thinks you have overdone yourself. I simply observed an irony. That's all. No more, no less.

As Dr. Right might say, don't be such a wet blanket.

Thom| 8.5.11 @ 3:51PM

Jefferson's estate and the things he pioneered in this time are still around some 185 years later.... I think I'm safe in saying that I don't think Ted's estate or things he pioneered in his time will be around much beyond his death.....

Ted| 8.6.11 @ 11:02AM

As far as my estate or the things I have pioneered go, I will leave it to my soldiers that I led in combat to judge the value of those things. I also will leave it to their wives, children, and parents to judge. With only a few exceptions I led them in, and I brought them home, safe and sound.

wade mcinnis| 8.5.11 @ 12:41PM

I am sorry but Thomas Jefferson is not a good choice for words of economic wisdom. Maybe he did not want the Federal government to be in debt but he seemed to do a good job of it himself.

I judge a man's counsel by how well he runs his own life., Jefferson could write some stirring words, especially after careful editing by others, but all in all he turned out to be a spolied rich kid kook like so many on parade today. Another Pinch, if you ask me.

Hamilton was so far above him in his conception of a nation'e economy as to make the comparison laughable. Jefferson scolding Hamilton; get serious.

I would love to hear what Hamilton would think of out mess today. I suspect he could tell us that deficits within reason are essential and good to the prosperity of the nation but there is always the danger of going overboard, whcih, of course, we have done.

A balanced budget amendment would do us no good. It is a silly idea. We should have an amendment, instead, that would allow no more than a certain percentage of the GNP as a limit to debt the government is allowed to take on. I would like to see it in the range of twenty to twenty-five percent.

George True| 8.5.11 @ 3:12PM

Wade: See my response to Ted, just upstream of your comment.

A far, far sillier idea than a balanced budged amendment is the idea of government spending far more than it takes in, and thinking that it won't cause great harm in the long run.

Ted | 8.6.11 @ 11:05AM

A BBA is not necessarily silly. It is a budgeting tool, and can be quite useful. What is silly is people like Chuck Schumer and Chris Van Hollen saying a BBA is extreme/extremist when 49 states have some form of a BBA.... Evidently Oregon's BBA version automatically returns surplus tax receipts to the taxpayers.

fwb| 8.5.11 @ 12:42PM

The Constitution is a short, easily read and understood document so long as those reading for understanding are not corrupt. But as Lord Acton said, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

IF we had EVER had a Congress that followed OUR rules for the government, the US would be a great place. But that has never happened. The first Congress began the process of violating the Constitution an converting us from a government where all sovereignty is endowed on the individual to one just like those evil governments of Europe that our ancestors fled.

To understand the system that was proposed, simply look at any government where the power flows down from the government to the individual and reverse it. There you have it. The system envisioned by the Framers and the system thgey attempted to establish. But they forgot that most people (95%) are corrupt from birth.

Al Adab| 8.5.11 @ 2:36PM

It is not that the government is broken, it is that we ask it to do things for which it was never designed. It was created to maximize Liberty not to be either our employer or our nanny. It is not to prevent risk, but to allow opportunity. The fault is not in our stars but in ourselves that we demand what it cannot- and should not- do.

Thom| 8.5.11 @ 1:28PM

Who among this group would be surprised that that the leading advocate for fiscal frugality in government would know from their own personal failures the cost of ignoring timeless wisdom? The personal failure of one man is not quite on the same level as the entire nation’s population doing the same sort of debauchery. One man’s failure, 100 men’s failure out of 1000 will not put at risk the entire community of men but 500 will certainly do it.

Jefferson’s personal failures stand as testament in and of themselves to his public wisdom and how he conducted himself in public matters while in elected office. Had Jefferson’s public behavior in such matters of elective office matched his personal behavior then all those shooting the “messenger” here would have a point but I note with consistency that those shooting the messenger here are the same ones that embrace Jefferson’s personal debauchery be transferred to the public trough into infinity and aren’t by their example charting a different course with “their money” on the line.

As one poster put it so well, if sinless men are to be the guiding light for society then all there is left is chaos and darkness.

Jefferson signed his own death warrant by writing and signing the Declaration of Independence. William Jefferson Clinton’s only risk in his life has been to caught some sort of venereal disease and get caught at it.

Bill| 8.5.11 @ 1:43PM

Government isn't broken; the people we elected to run it are another story, though.

Chef Schnauzer| 8.5.11 @ 1:48PM

The fact is that 99% of office holders and 99.99% of their staffs are TRAITORS and deserve the ultimate punishment - until the twitching stops. No one expects them to be any sort of moral arbiter (not wise enough). One does expect the following question to be asked unceasingly, unceasingly... does my action shine in the reflection of the Constitution or the Declaration and do my actions serve the country as a whole?

Brian Richard Allen | 8.5.11 @ 1:49PM

Too bad, in the manner, from Mr Jefferson's less clear suggestion, that they delusionally-fantasized their "Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state," the lying looting thieving "Democrats" didn't take to Mr Jefferson's unequivocally-expressed abhorrence of public debt.

Anne McElroy| 8.5.11 @ 2:43PM

The system is not quite broken but it soon will be. Pres. Wilson snapped it with the 17th amendment.(This amendment changed the way Senators are elected to one by popular vote instead of the Governor and Legislatures electing one.) The Senate is now completely a mouth piece for whichever political party is in the majority and NOT a voice for the States as it was intended to be. The corruption it was intended to curtail has simply become woven into our national political fabric. Both political parties are culpable because politics always involves corruption, it's the nature of the beast. We would not be in this mess if the Senate had remained a voice for states instead of popular vote. (The House already serves that purpose.) Can you really see a majority of individual states voting for Medicare? No Child Left Behind? The EPA? Obamacare? Social Security? Repeal 17 and set the country right permanently! A balanced budget amendment won't do it because the cost of war always incurs a debt, be it short term or longer on. To put the financing of war completely up to popular vote, which is what a balanced budget amendment would do by not amending who each house of congress speaks for, would be irresponsible. Repealing 17 would disperse the concentration of lobbyists, unions, PACs, and political parties from Washington to the various states. It will become exponentially more expensive for them to influence political debate on a national scale and wield influence if they must conduct business in 50 sates! Politics would become "local" again, as the founder's intended.
Can you see a majority of States, thus senators, ever voting for say Medicare? Social Security? No Child Left Behind? Obamacare? TARP? and every current politician's favorite meal of Pork? I don't think so. If a senator was elected by the Governor and Legislature combine, as he once was before amendment 17, many of these programs currently causing financial ruin to both our state and national gov't would never have seen the light of day! Repeal 17!!!

Oldefarte| 8.5.11 @ 4:01PM

Many of us have personal debt due to our residential mortgages [out of necessity], but that is managable over a lifetime to pay off same. Other debt should be avoided however in an attempt to live within ones means. If you are running up/increasing numerous credit cards to finance your everyday expenses, they you're in deep do-do and headed for bankruptcy. So to with government, as the longterm necessary to credit-pay our military/security needs is understandable and permissable, but beyond that is bankrupting [which is where this country is currently]. The government is simply living way beyond its financial means, and needs to be placed upon a severe financial diet, but it cannot happen now due to politics. In November of next year, the citizen-voters of this country must vote intelligently for the [hopefully] conservative Republican candidate [and correpsondingly remove/replace the current liberal Democrat one] if we are to avoid impending bankruptcy. This HOPE & CHANGE bullexcrement exclaimed by liars and theives must be discounted and ignored, otherwise we're all headed for the bottom of the financial toilet!!!!!!!

Louis Jenkins| 8.5.11 @ 4:53PM

And if debt is a problem, then I have more than my share of the national debt, 45,000 to 46,ooo dollars worth I believe. And I don't feel one inch richer.

Thom| 8.5.11 @ 5:37PM

Louis, that's the figure for each citizen... if you pay income tax now your portion of that proportionately is over three times that. Feel rich now?

Stefan Stackhouse| 8.5.11 @ 5:41PM

I suppose you could come close to accomplishing what old Tom envisioned if you established a sinking fund for each bond issue, and earmarked specific revenues to go into that fund to service the bond until it was paid off. Pretty soon you would run out of revenues to earmark, and that would be your limit - at least until the older debts were liquidated in full and some earmarked revenues were freed up. I guess that could work.

Richard Baker| 8.5.11 @ 5:42PM

Remember, this problem requires the Congress, President, and the American populace to make it happen. Too many people in this country want something for nothing and Mr. Jefferson was correct in his warning. The difference is that now the citizenry is also demanding this largesse.

George S| 8.5.11 @ 5:48PM

Apples and oranges. Jefferson, Hamilton, et al, viewed the federal budget like a household budget -- borrow only in times of emergency or for expansion of infrastructure. Households borrow for houses and medical expenses; governments for war and shipping canals. That's it.

Thomas Jefferson never anticipated the Progressives.

You may recall the name Keynes, who had a theory that in recessions, budget deficits could stimulate demand and lead to recovery, and during expansion, surpluses would both prevent excessive growth and pay back the debt.

The Progressives immediately pounced on this theory to justify using the federal budget as an instrument of social change and central planning of the economy (hurray!) rather than what the Constitution allows: a tool of finance (boring!).

So arguing back and forth about Thomas Jefferson's personal spending habits, character traits or apparent hypocrisy is missing the point. He warned us how the debt could swallow us all. Never did he anticipate politicians breaking open the treasury, stuffing their faces with our money and then handing the bill to those yet to be born. Big difference.

Apocolypto| 8.5.11 @ 6:42PM

Zzzzzz.boring.... wake me when when the world's end or Margie becomes Catholic.Whichever comes first

reads1| 8.5.11 @ 9:20PM

Alan, is 'Brooks' an alias for "Colmes' or are you kissing cousins??

POST American| 8.5.11 @ 11:01PM

--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------

------Taking in their glowing legacy of
Indentured Servitude, African Slavery, the Poor Laws, the Corn Laws, the thrice times destruction of Chinese Civilization, the Opium Trade, the Bolshevik/Soviet multiple Halocausts, the Nazis, the RED Chinese EUGENICS paradise ---and, of course, the 4 decades engineered takedown underway right here

------------THE--------------central overrriding
issue remains, as ever, unbridled, incested, Globalist, psychopathic, creation hating , God mocking -----------USURY.

---------------EVERYBODY KNOWS-----------------

Dan Mathewson| 8.6.11 @ 8:43PM

All is right in the world. POST American has checked in with more of his ranting. Wasn't sure he was around because he hadn't commented on this piece, yet.

jackc| 8.5.11 @ 11:21PM

Lofty claims, endless pontification, and messianic prophecies of hope - orchestrated by the policies of Obama and his cohorts - have steered America towards an economic abyss.
In a global economy, the role government must be an absolute minimum, where education, innovation and business leadership - all privatized and driven by the indomitable human spirit is allowed to prosper.
Ubiquitous privatization and decentralization are the essential tenets for prosperity and well-being. Aberrant behaviors will have a reduced impact and the market will arbitrate results effectively.

William Tucker | 8.6.11 @ 11:26AM

A good article but perhaps a little disingenuous. After all, it was Jefferson who formulated the aphorism, "the earth belongs to the living," and used it to argue that the generation of 1800 shouldn't have to pay off the war debt accumulated by the states during the American Revolution. Over Jefferson's objections, Hamilton incorporated the state's debts into the federal treasury, thereby solidifying the nation. Jefferson's attitude toward bond holders was that he was perfectly happy to stiff them. Fortunately, Hamilton prevailed.

axbucxdu| 8.6.11 @ 12:51PM

Jefferson warned. Hamilton prevailed. How did I (we) get here?

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but it looks to me that political and monetary consolidation have very dangerous drawbacks. That's what Jefferson was on about. Had the states been forced to assume that debt, on the contrary, we'd be better off today for it.

The USG would have gotten off on the right foot. The states would have either defaulted or amortised, in either case the choice would have remained theirs, and the Federal government subordinate to the states and their citizenry. Unfortunately, Hamilton's actions functioned like a bribe.

Surely he thought was doing good by the country. But it came at the price we know today. Jefferson's price.

Dixie Pixie| 8.6.11 @ 1:17PM

Well Obamageddion has arrived.
The Official Democratic Dogma is “Laissez les bons temps rouler”,
which is French for “Let the Good Times Roll on”.

Obama, Pelosi, the Democratic Leadership and the MSM all claimed if the debt ceiling wasn't raised the US credit rating would be downgraded from AAA to AA.
The Democrats and the MSM (but I repeat myself) also claimed if that happened an economic disaster would befall us.

Moodys said exactly the opposite, stating it was the uncontrollable rise in Federal spending and thus the raise in debt that would make it impossible to service the resulting debt, thus the ratings agencies would have to downgrade the US rating.
That has happened and now the US has the credit rating of Slovenia.

What is Obama and the Democrats plan?
Why to spend more money on themselves by laundering the money through the Federal Government.

Starting from a Bush level Federal Budget of approximately $ 2.7 Trillion dollars and adding the TARP / Stimulus of $ 900 Billion to that base line gives the current US Federal spending of $ 3.6 Trillion.
That is too high according to Standard and Poors.

Naturally, Obama, Democrats and MSM state more money is necessary, as in a further $ 2.1 Trillion in debt treated as Federal income.
That means by election day the Federal Government will be spending $ 5.7 Trillion Dollars a year!!!!

Obamageddion is just starting.
The Federal Government can not last if it takes in approximately $ 2.7 Trillion in revenue and spends $ 5.7 Trillion leaving a shortfall of $ 3.0 Trillion in debt per year.
The credit rating of the US is certain to fall to junk bond status as Worldcom and HealthSouth had better accounting practices than the Federal Government.

Can anyone imagine what a total financial collapse is going to look like?
We are certain to find out in the next Presidential Term.
Obamageddion is now starting to snowball and coming straight at you.

jackc| 8.6.11 @ 2:18PM

The commoner - the citizens - are fired from their jobs everyday, in these times of economic collapse.
The freeloaders, thriving on taxpayer donations - the Obama government - should also be fired, for their destructive policies that have downgraded America's credit rating.

jgo| 8.7.11 @ 1:01PM

Yes, a practical recall and referendum would provide more popular over-sight. OTOH, that could also be very dangerous.

Solo| 8.7.11 @ 1:11PM

Thomas Jefferson was the Scribe and largely the author of The Declaration Of Independence. He was an architect, a statesman, Gov. of Virginia and author of Virginia's Constitution. He established the University Of Virginia, was a gentleman farmer who grew crops such as corn, barley and hemp (for rope manufacturing) and he also manufactured nails in a small shop on his estate. These business ventures failed and went into receivership not due to mis-management but because of his dedicated service to the establishment and preservation of this great Republic. He was also a naturalist and political philosopher.
He was first Minister to France for the colonies and later Ambassador to France and soon Secretary of State before becoming President.

He even contributed to the writing of the French Constitution although those writings were later discarded for other "language".

He "owned" slaves but they were treated more as family members than anything else.

There is no truth to the "urban legend" that he had sex with or fathered a child with one of his slaves. The "slave" in question was a friend and companion to his youngest daughter, Polly, and Jefferson had her accompany Polly to France during his stay there.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was a corrupt laggard who never worked an honest day in his life. Married to Hillary," The Lady MacBeth of Little Rock", was plausibly a serial sex molester and rapist who controlled certainly the most scandal-ridden and arguably the most corrupt Administration in the history of our Republic.
His primary claim to fame and lasting legacy was having 'shot his wad' onto the blue dress of a pudgy intern and then lying about it to a grand jury.
He was impeached and entered into a legal agreement pleading guilty to perjury and accepting Disbarment from practicing law for a period of 10 years and an agreement to not run for public office for a period of 7 years after leaving office in order to avoid criminal prosecution upon exiting office---an exit from office, by the way, which was punctuated by he and his Trailer trash wife having vandalized everything that they didn't steal on their way out.

So...when comparing Thomas Jefferson to William Jefferson Blithe Clinton, I think Ole Tom deserves a good bit of slack. But then, compared to Bill Clinton, so does Charles Manson.

Solo| 8.7.11 @ 2:00PM

"William Tucker| 8.6.11 @ 11:26AM

At least Jefferson was consistent. He also believed that property ownership didn't transcend death. Upon one's death, their property was no longer "owned" by anyone and must be purchased again.

Hamilton, on the other hand, believed strongly in a Ruling Class Elite and a concentration of power. He and Franklin (I believe) argued for only allowing property owners to vote.
Jefferson and Madison argued the opposite view.

A pretty diverse bunch, the Founders. Each of them held beliefs that most of us today would find peculiar. And many of those closely held beliefs changed over time. None more so, perhaps, than Jefferson.

He was once an interventionist Hawk and later became more isolationist in his views. The blood bath which followed the French Revolution sort of tempered his aggressions about establishing Liberty in other nations. Jefferson was sickened by what Robespierre and crew did following their revolution--particularly their treatment of their former King--of whom Jefferson was very fond, personally.

Jefferson is perhaps my favorite Founder--not so much because of his philosophy but because he was, in my view, the most 'interesting' personality of the bunch.
A very complex man, to be sure.

axbucxdu| 8.7.11 @ 6:00PM

1962 April 29. (John F. Kennedy, Remarks at a Dinner honoring Nobel Prize Winners): "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. Someone once said that Thomas Jefferson was a gentleman of 32 who could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, and dance the minuet."

He's my favorite Founder as well. I went to Monticello once, and I remember his invention for making copies of letters. The mechanism used an extra quill to write on the copy as it followed his motions while he wrote the original. Kennedy was right.

Michael Newton | 8.7.11 @ 7:32PM

Please see my essay entitled "The Founding Fathers Solve Our Debt Crisis." http://www.whatwouldthefounder.....ebt-crisis

Hamilton was not in favor of keeping the debt forever. He actually proposed ,"Extinguishing the whole of the present debt of the United States, foreign and domestic, in a period not exceeding thirty years."

That does not detract from Jefferson's opposition to debt, but all the Founding Fathers favored funding and paying off the debt.

POST American| 8.9.11 @ 1:51AM

----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------

Bringing us up to speed:

USURY, and most esp. unaccountable, INTER--national USURY
= TREASON = DEPRAVITY = Glow-BALL-ISM = Ultimate TREASON = EUGENICS

DROP your 'fave' EYE-CONS.

REAL---eyes the REALITY of the Globalist
RED China TREASON OP.

OPEN, AUDIT, PRSOSECUTE and DIS---MANTLE
the 'FED' and TAX FREE, nation subverting, 'benny
violent' foundations and their thousands of
proxies and fronts (---like this magazine?)

GET the Buffets, and the Clintons, and Bushes
(certainly the Bushes) and the Soroses, and the
David Rockefellers and Lord Rothchilds
before HUAC meets NUREMBERG.

" -----Understand? It's US or THEM."
-ALEX JONES
(yesterday)

--------------------UNDERSTAND!-------------------

---------BOTTOMLESSLY UNDERSTAND!---------

Hollywood Hick| 9.29.11 @ 8:57AM

The only time "government is broken" is when liberals don't get their way. You didn't hear anything about government being broken during the passage of Obamacare. We were, however, treated to a photo of a smug Pelosi walking with a giant gavel. She thought she was posing for a historical photo. It turned out to be a comedy sketch. Liberals are are a mirror to their own corruption.

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|96 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|98 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|55 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|24 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|29 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|17 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|32 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|88 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6:34PM

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6:01PM

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 4:55PM

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 4:01PM

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 2:46PM

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 2:24PM

Boehner to Enforce Hastert Rule with Immigration Reform

Jordan Gonzalez | 1:10PM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Constitutional Opinions

Thomas Jefferson Warned Us

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (222) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Intelligent Design| 8.5.11 @ 7:07AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.5.11 @ 7:13AM

massmile | 8.5.11 @ 9:11AM

Bill| 8.5.11 @ 9:28AM

Bill| 8.5.11 @ 9:29AM

daddio| 8.5.11 @ 9:54AM

NYMPH| 8.5.11 @ 10:31AM

Michael L. Hauschild| 8.5.11 @ 5:10PM

Dan Mathewson| 8.5.11 @ 5:59PM

victor| 8.6.11 @ 2:43AM

Occam| 8.9.11 @ 10:26PM

mames| 8.5.11 @ 10:40AM

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 8:27AM

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 8:38AM

Nancy in NC| 8.5.11 @ 9:09AM

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 9:54AM

Brubaker| 8.5.11 @ 10:02AM

NYMPH| 8.5.11 @ 10:33AM

Trinacria| 8.5.11 @ 4:49PM

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 3:08AM

Trinacria| 8.8.11 @ 1:03PM

Hollywood Hick| 9.29.11 @ 9:07AM

J Baustian| 8.5.11 @ 1:18PM

RCV| 8.5.11 @ 1:33PM

George True| 8.5.11 @ 2:38PM

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.5.11 @ 2:42PM

RCV| 8.5.11 @ 3:58PM

Dan Mathewson| 8.5.11 @ 6:12PM

WILLIAM NEER| 8.5.11 @ 2:35PM

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 3:21AM

Nunya| 8.5.11 @ 10:03AM

John Navratil| 8.5.11 @ 10:29AM

mames| 8.5.11 @ 10:43AM

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 11:07AM

W| 8.5.11 @ 11:21AM

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 11:33AM

PaulyD| 8.5.11 @ 2:50PM

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 12:12AM

chuck| 8.6.11 @ 8:42AM

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 3:09PM

J Baustian| 8.5.11 @ 1:28PM

Tired Taxpayer PRM| 8.5.11 @ 12:13PM

BOmustGO| 8.5.11 @ 4:41PM

Tina B| 8.7.11 @ 1:36PM

The Bruce| 8.5.11 @ 11:35PM

Jim G.| 8.5.11 @ 1:46PM

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 12:18AM

Hollywood Hick| 9.29.11 @ 9:11AM

John Navratil| 8.5.11 @ 8:58AM

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 10:00AM

John Navratil| 8.5.11 @ 10:19AM

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 11:10AM

John Navratil| 8.5.11 @ 2:19PM

Tina B| 8.7.11 @ 1:39PM

TrueBlue| 8.5.11 @ 6:08PM

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 12:22AM

axbucxdu| 8.6.11 @ 9:38AM

Strider| 8.6.11 @ 11:35AM

axbucxdu| 8.6.11 @ 12:27PM

Groad| 8.5.11 @ 5:21PM

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 12:28AM

JimH| 8.5.11 @ 8:39AM

daddio| 8.5.11 @ 9:55AM

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 12:31AM

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 5:37AM

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 8:37AM

axbucxdu| 8.6.11 @ 9:53AM

Alan Brooks| 8.6.11 @ 3:20PM

axbucxdu| 8.7.11 @ 5:45PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.5.11 @ 8:01AM

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 8:32AM

Old Soldier| 8.5.11 @ 8:42AM

Thom| 8.5.11 @ 9:56PM

Chris Killingsworth| 8.5.11 @ 9:47AM

Alan Brooks| 8.5.11 @ 9:55AM