So many issues; so little time to address all of them!

Pardon me, but I'm going to skip around answering just some of your points.

THE END OF THE CLINTON ERA - So many people use this argument forgetting a couple of things. First, know the difference between debt and deficit. Instead of a projected deficit, Clinton ended up with a budget surplus. Clinton was in the right place a the right time - he was the beneficiary of a set of circumstances. He had a Republican Congress that thwarted his plans to spend more money. Remember: spending money starts with legislative branch, not with the executive branch. Second, Clinton was president at the time of the greatest technological revolution and a bull stock market. Along with a lowered capital gains tax rate, that created more revenue for the government than expected. More revenue plus less spending created the surplus - not Clinton and certainly not the Democratic Party.

THE BUSH ERA - After 9/11, we got into two wars. Agree with the rationale or not, that's what happened and almost 3 years into the Obama Administration, that's where we still are. He hasn't done much better at getting us out of there or closing Guantanamo, two of his 2008 campaign promises. As for spending deficits, the deficit in 2007, the last year of Bush's presidency before the recession, the deficit was at $160 billion. In 2008, that rose to just under $500 billion. During Obama's time in office that is running at well over $1.2 trillion a year - WITH NO END IN SIGHT. This is unsustainable. Under Bush, revenues were about 18-19% of GDP, with spending about 21-22% of GDP. That's about a 3% deficit. Under Obama, spending is running about 25% of GDP and revenues have fallen to about 15% of GDP. That's a 10% deficit! That cannot continue! And Obama's plans to turn it around are dismal failures.

Unfortunately, most people say Tax the Rich to make up the difference. Two problems with that idea. First, if we took all the money of the Rich, it would still not be enough to make up the difference and pay down this massive debt of well over $14 trillion. (And that number does not include the $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, for entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamacare, that is not included in that number - but that is another story.) Second, define Rich. Is it millionaires? Billionaires? Obama wants the taxes raised on those making over $200,000- $250,000. That's hardly rich. Ask someone living in LA, San Francisco, New York if that's rich. That's not millionaire status.

As for the USGS budget being cut by 10%, I'm sorry. I think all federal gov't departments, across the board should have their budgets cut (or eliminated altogether, like the Education Dept - leave tha up to the states). And if we don't reach some kind of an agreement with this upcoming super-committee that must find $1.2 trillion in further cuts, they will cut the defense budget by $500 billion. That doesn't matter to you, you might say? What do you think China is doing with all the money they are making off of buying our debt? They are putting it into building their military! And then, there are still those rogue nations of North Korea and Iran out there with nuclear weapons. And what if Pakistan's nuclear weapons fall into the hands of Al Qaeda? What do we do then with our emasculated military?

We are a debtor nation, not a creditor nation. Our debt has been downgraded to a status below Canada, but equal to New Zealand. Our debt is exploding beyond belief. And you cry about a 10% cut to USGS? And you want a president that is understanding to your concerns about global warming being man-made? Get real. We have much, much bigger concerns.

I think that every high school student in this country should be required to read "Atlas Shrugged." And I also believe that every politician should have taken basic economics courses (micro and macro) and maybe then we could avoid people like a Nancy Pelosi who famously said about the Obamacare bill: "We have to pass it to find out what's in it." Sheesh!

As for unexpected earthqakes having a catastrophic effect on this country, you are absolutely right. We have no rainy-day fund (and this includes the state of California which will have to go begging hat-in-hand to the federal gov't for help when the Big One hits). This little hurricane over the past weekend that created billions of dollars of damage along the East Coast was nothing compared to the calamity that awaits some area of the U.S. should a major earthquake hit. It's time we got realistic about what we can and cannot spend money on.

Barbara