Political rhetoric of the two primary U. S. political parties, and would-be-contender party drum beaters has sought to blame "those other parties" for all the economic ills of the U. S. The history of over-spending by the U. S. government began during WWII, when few of us would argue it was not necessary to save the world from tyranny. What few U. S. citizens today seem to be aware of is that sacrifices were made at all levels of our society -- millions of young men volunteering or being drafted, millions of domestic housewives and agricultural workers stepping into jobs in industry, enduring rationing of fuel and food goods, victory gardens... and, overall, just buckling down and doing more, and doing without more. The result was increased productivity. After WWII, productivity continued to be high, and increases in income followed naturally -- increased earnings for increased results, as opposed to inflation, alone. And the Great American Dream began to be conceived as manifest by people's having more "things," and having more "conveniences." That was not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It was a good thing. But many of us were not content to live less well than the Jones's, and, when property values were going up, and jobs were increasing, and life was getting seemingly easier and better, many of us began to perceive ourselves as "deserving" to have "more" and "more" and "more" things and conveniences. And with everything getting "better" we could borrow increasingly against what we were going to be earning in the future, and what our real property was going to be worth in the future... ad infinitum. Meanwhile, as Prof. Bacevich explains in "The Limits of Power," our government began to feel a necessity to operate with borrowed funds, as well... or, more particularly, our presidents did. Citizens individually and state governments severally and our national government central decided more and more often that certain things were WORTH going into further debt for. After all, we deserved to live in a world increasingly democratized in accordance with our political philosophy did we not? Other countries who were not yet democratized "deserved" to be "free" as defined by having a voice in their social and political affairs, as we did and do, did they not? We were the "city on the hill," and, concomitantly were under a duty and an obligation to "fix" countries whose governments did not perform in accordance with our interests -- dressed up as a "freeing" of those people, did they not. Damn the COST, full spend ahead! And spend we did, not only as individuals in our own country but as a country (our government) demanding that other countries become more perfect democracies like our perfect (or so we deemed) democracy. Perhaps the cold war was "necessary." Perhaps the North Korea policing was "necessary." Perhaps the North Vietnamese policing was "necessary." Perhaps the botched Cuban invasion was necessary, and the move into Afghanistan (followed by occupation), and Desert Storm, and the military move into Iraq (followed by occupation). In a very real way, we may find rationales whereby we can salute the flag, sing the national anthem, cry for those who died, call anybody who disagrees a "coward" ... But, each of those "necessities," if we wish to call them that entailed COSTS far, far beyond our present ability to pay. To say each and every one of these "police" actions or military actions was necessary is financially equivalent to saying it is NECESSARY for a nation -- if it deems itself under a duty and an obligation to save the world from tyranny on an on-going basis, to BANKRUPT ITSELF in the process. We might use similar reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that a young person who cannot afford to go to college as financed by employment (sorry, but that is how I did it... not on borrowed money). We might reason that it is necessary for that young person to buy a top quality wardrobe on credit and a high-end motor vehicle, to make the right impression in seeking employment. Also, we might reason that this young person, if he or sees any person who lacks enough to eat, is obligated to use his credit card to buy that person some nice clothes and some food, too. And, why should there be no duty and obligation to use the credit card to rescue a few children from an abusive father (as a nation tries to rescue another nation's citizens from a ruler who does not allow free elections)... etc. ad infinitum. Is not every individual, and every democratic nation, under a duty and an obligation to leave no stone unturned to right all the wrongs in the world, ON CREDIT? This is the question that should haunt all of us, I believe: What are the limits of our obligations RELATIVE TO our ABILITY TO PAY out of hand. How many generations should a young person going to college, just out of college seeking a job, employed and feeling he must keep up with the standard of "having" and the standard of 'ease" of his most affluent neighbors have to go deeper and deeper into debt, and what are the limits of the duty and obligation of that individual to rescue others from the burden of a situation in life less "successful" than his own. Should every young person not spend himself into bankruptcy seeing to all these duties and obligations. And should not a nation, so blessed as ours, not pull out all the stops in spending -- if not to democratize the world then surely to make the world more ready for global democracy and affluence? In my own life, I have spent what I have earned, and have made do with it. A child of the post depression years, it was enough for me to live within my means, to live less well than I might on credit, and pay as I went. In my own life I have helped other as I could, without going into debt. And, in my life, I have wished that the government of my country could find some way to keep expenditures within the bounds of this nation's net domestic product... You can see where I am going with this. I am leading up to one final question which all U. S. citizens should -- in my humble opinion -- take to heart and mind -- the question: TO WHAT EXTENT IS OUR GOVERNMENT UNDER A DUTY AND AN OBLIGATION TO SPEND US INTO DEBT SO DEEPLY THAT -- EVEN IF IT STOPPED DOING SO TODAY -- OUR GREAT GRANDCHILDREN COULD NOT EARN ENOUGH TO PAY OFF THAT DEBT? Or, let us put it this way: Just supposing it is the only right and reasonable thing for us to do, as a people, and as a nation, to spend money we cannot even hope to pay the interest on, eventually. What is the end result of all this duty performing and all this obligation satisfying? As Prof. Bacevich explains in his book, this is the situation we are in, and our presidents (having gained too much power as war presidents, and then passed that power along to their successors), and our congress -- which has become a self-serving country club, as well as a hackery at the beck and call of the wealthiest and most powerful interests both nationally and internationally (by way of power and money to influence elections on part of multi-national mega corporations). This is the situation we are in. A genuine question hangs over us like the Sword of Damocles: What is the weight of our duties and obligations to exercise control over how other peoples think and live on this globe, when the COST of it, as financed by increasing reliance upon DEBT increasingly approaches a point beyond which we cannot even make the minimum payments? Where do we go FROM HERE as we teeter at the brink of financial collapse, in trying to "fix" the world's problems by exercising ever expanding control over it -- of, should I say, TRYING to? That young person we pictured, with the credit card, and buying of an education to be paid by future earnings, and buying that fancy wardrobe, and fancy automobile to be paid by future earnings, and buying more justice, and more possessions and more ease for unfortunate others... is he a yellow-bellied coward to take a breather and ask himself, "Where is all this leading to?" Meanwhile, every politician tells us all this is the fault of the other party and its candidates. Every politician tells us spending will be decreased, while spending has NOT decreased, not at ANY time (with a rare few breathers). Taxes have NOT decreased. The over-empowerment of the presidents -- all of them -- and the country-club mentality of the congress -- and the burgeoning indebtedness pushed every farther into the future earnings of U. S. citizens -- that is no partisan thing. It is a ubiquitous thing among politicians of this nation, for at least the past half century. Partisanship is a red herring, friends. It's a party alright, but the politicians are all enjoying the benefits. The pointing of fingers by the one or the other is comparable to two children who have done something they should not, and each is pointing the finger at the other and saying, "He's the one who started it." Does it occur to you, as to me (and I believe I speak for Prof. Bacevich on this question) that we are half a century late in STOPPING it? Hopefully, better late than never. Can we change the way we think enough to see that, if we spend this nation into complete financial collapse, we are not going to be able to defend ourselves, much less rescue everybody else in the world from one another. And, at present, WE HAVE ONLY AN OVER-WORKED MILITARY, and have spent so much that our politicians are afraid to acknowledge the fact that, as a military power, we are over-extended and are SITTING DUCKS. Some things we must spend on, or else. But have we already spent so much on causes and actions and things that bankrupted us, that we are no longer able to spend what we must to survive? If you want a better perspective on where we are, and how we got here, and what we need to be putting the highest of priorities upon, even to survive, READ Andrew Bacevich's book. If it does not provide you any idea of what we might do to save the U. S. from failing financially as a nation, at least you will understand better what you and I and all of us, and our government are up against right now.