Got this e-mail from my brother today and thought it was pretty interesting:

 

How to Save the Government $5,000,000:

 

A president's pension currently is $191,300 per year.

 

Assuming the next president lives to age 80, Senator McCain would receive

ZERO pension as he would reach 80 at the end of two terms as president.

 

Sen. Obama would be retired for 26 years after two terms and would receive

$4,973,800 in pension payments.

 

Therefore it would certainly make economic sense to elect McCain in

November.

 

How's that for non-partisan thinking!!!!

Plus add in the fact that the Secret Service provides protection for the former President and immediate family for life as well.

:D

What the email fails to take into account is that Obama would also have many more active years after he left office in which to continue inflicting damage on this country. Imagine what it has cost in limos, security, etc. to keep Jimmy Carter safe and comfy all these years.

 

McCain will be much cheaper to maintain after his presidency ends than Obama would.

What the email fails to take into account is that Obama would also have many more active years after he left office in which to continue inflicting damage on this country. Imagine what it has cost in limos, security, etc. to keep Jimmy Carter safe and comfy all these years.

 

McCain will be much cheaper to maintain after his presidency ends than Obama would.

 

I don't believe that is true. McCain will continue the economic policies of President Bush. We will be paying hundreds of billions from the Bush presidency for the rest of our lives, our children's lives and our grandchildren's lives. We can't afford four more years of Bushonomics.

I don't believe that is true. McCain will continue the economic policies of President Bush. We will be paying hundreds of billions from the Bush presidency for the rest of our lives, our children's lives and our grandchildren's lives. We can't afford four more years of Bushonomics.

I'm 19 and I'd prefer that our economy not go in the direction that Senator Obama will enact. I appreciate your concern, but I will be able to handle McCain's overspending now instead of Obama's high taxes and reduced growth, which will be coupled with the same overspending as McCain anyways (or a crippled military, pick your poison)

I don't believe that is true. McCain will continue the economic policies of President Bush. We will be paying hundreds of billions from the Bush presidency for the rest of our lives, our children's lives and our grandchildren's lives. We can't afford four more years of Bushonomics.

 

Don't think McCain will continue the policies but even if he does, we'll be ok. We're paying for our grandfathers, our grandchildren will pay for ours. Been that way for decades. Debt levels are not out of whack as a percentage of the economy from past historical levels. Lower than some levels in the past in fact.

Don't think McCain will continue the policies but even if he does, we'll be ok. We're paying for our grandfathers, our grandchildren will pay for ours. Been that way for decades. Debt levels are not out of whack as a percentage of the economy from past historical levels. Lower than some levels in the past in fact.

 

It isn't so much the annual deficit, it is the cumulative debt. In 1980, the last year before we began our modern run of runaway debt, the national debt was about 26 percent of GNP. By 1987, it was up to 43 percent. Now it is about 68 percent. Comparisons of deficit to GNP are relevant only in the short run. Over the long term, debt is going up much faster than GNP is growing. That is a recipe for long term disaster.

It isn't so much the annual deficit, it is the cumulative debt. In 1980, the last year before we began our modern run of runaway debt, the national debt was about 26 percent of GNP. By 1987, it was up to 43 percent. Now it is about 68 percent. Comparisons of deficit to GNP are relevant only in the short run. Over the long term, debt is going up much faster than GNP is growing. That is a recipe for long term disaster.

 

Is there a reason that you are using GNP instead of GDP? And also, where are those numbers from?

It isn't so much the annual deficit, it is the cumulative debt. In 1980, the last year before we began our modern run of runaway debt, the national debt was about 26 percent of GNP. By 1987, it was up to 43 percent. Now it is about 68 percent. Comparisons of deficit to GNP are relevant only in the short run. Over the long term, debt is going up much faster than GNP is growing. That is a recipe for long term disaster.

 

But we've seen these levels and higher before and made our way through them. We'll get through them again. While I don't think it's a sky is falling scenario I do agree that we need to start hacking away at it. While the non social security debt is about 36% that social security chunk is the elephant in the corner of the room. Nobody has the courage to address it.

But we've seen these levels and higher before and made our way through them. We'll get through them again. While I don't think it's a sky is falling scenario I do agree that we need to start hacking away at it. While the non social security debt is about 36% that social security chunk is the elephant in the corner of the room. Nobody has the courage to address it.

 

Bush wanted to privatize a portion of Social Security, but it did not make it through Congress.

If we want to save $5 million, couldn't we just end the war in Iraq a few hours early?

Is there a reason that you are using GNP instead of GDP? And also, where are those numbers from?

 

The figures from 1980 and 1980 and 1987 are from that noted left wing publication National Review (January 27, 1989). The current numbers are my calculation, based on a debt of 9.6 trillion and a GNP of about 14.1 trillion.

But we've seen these levels and higher before and made our way through them. We'll get through them again. While I don't think it's a sky is falling scenario I do agree that we need to start hacking away at it. While the non social security debt is about 36% that social security chunk is the elephant in the corner of the room. Nobody has the courage to address it.

 

I would have to check WW II numbers, but in the post war era our levels of debt are unprecedented, both in gross number and percentage.

I would have to check WW II numbers, but in the post war era our levels of debt are unprecedented, both in gross number and percentage.

 

Not unprecedented at all. Much higher after WWII through the fifties. In fact, they were close to this level in the 90"s. I'm talking as a percentage of our economy, not raw numbers. In raw numbers you're right. I believe that the percentage of GDP is more meaningfull. I mean, who has the greater debt burden, a person making a million who owes $400,000 or a person making a $100,000 who owes $150,000?

 

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/thefederalbudget/ig/Political-Economic-Measures/Debt-as-a-Percent-of-GDP--1940.htm