The Cash for Clunkers program was designed with two basic objectives in mind. The first: get old gas guzzling and pollution emitting cars off of the road and new more energy efficient cars with better gas mileage and fewer emissions on the road instead. The second: get people into empty car dealership showrooms to buy new cars thus stimulating the sluggish economy.

Originally our lawmakers approved one billion dollars for this program. That money was quickly exhausted in a matter of two weeks. So the lawmakers hastily approved another two billion dollars to refuel the program. This allows continuation of the program that gives consumers up to $4500 in federal subsidies if they trade in their old cars for new more energy efficient models that get better gas mileage.

So far the program has been a big hit with car buyers. In just the first ten days of the program 75% of the originally budgeted amount of one billion dollars was used up by consumers trading in their old cars for new ones. And according to our lawmakers this is a huge boost to the struggling automakers in Detroit.

Of course the critics point out that 36.5% of these auto sales are from Japanese auto firms like Toyota, Honda and Nissan. Not to mention the fact that the $3 billion adds to our already huge and ever growing federal deficit. These same critics argue that the lawmakers are acting as if they have received no budgeting advice whatsoever as they continue to spend money like it grows on trees. Many are upset with the additions to our federal debt when they feel lawmakers should create federal debt solutions.

But on the other side of the coin, money is being spent at dealerships here in the U.S. and that is good for our struggling economy. Plus it is hard to argue that getting these old gas guzzlers off of our roads is a bad thing. In the case of the Cash for Clunkers program the benefits do appear to outweigh the costs.

Most people think that winning the lottery would be like having a dream come true. You could buy a new car. You could by a new house or that boat you always wanted. Looking into debt solutions would no longer be an issue. Unfortunately the reality is that this dream often turns into a nightmare for people who win the lottery.

Typically when someone wins the lottery debt settlement is the furthest thing from their mind. If you won the lottery today would you settle credit card debt, or would you go shopping? Would you manage your money, or would you start spending it? The statistics show that a lot of lottery winners do the latter, and many quickly find themselves broke. You don’t have to fall into this trap though.

It is only human to want to splurge if you have a large sum of money basically given to you. This is not to say that you can’t buy a new car and treat yourself to a few nice things. Rather, it is about moderation. A good rule of thumb would be not to spend more than 5% of your winnings right away. That way you will be left with 95% of the loot to invest.

If you don’t already have a financial advisor, get one. Professional advice can be instrumental in helping you deal with and hold onto your money. This does not mean that you should rely on your financial advisor completely though. Learn how to invest and save money yourself by reading books, taking classes and researching online to help you manage your money.

You need to set a budget. Setting a budget is not about being frugal. Instead, setting a budget is about being realistic and sensible. Think of it as figuring out how much you can afford to give yourself as an allowance without draining your new fortunes.

You can reduce the likelihood of going broke after winning the lottery if you take these simple steps to manage your money. You can buy some nice things and even take a vacation. But once the initial spending spree (which you did in moderation) is done, be smart with your winnings. You don’t want to be the next sad lottery story that hits the newsstands.

The people of Chicago were certainly disappointed to learn that president Obama’s strong push to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to their city resulted in failure. However, it’s not just the people of Chicago who are suffering a loss. Taxpayers across the entire nation are paying the real price for the financial debacle that’s been dubbed Obamalympics. The estimated cost of President Obama’s attempts to win the Olympic bid is over $1 million. Many people are frustrated at this example of poor money management which comes at a time when the country needs to be looking seriously at nationwide debt solutions. No one wants to see our money wasted in an economy like this one.

Published articles estimate the cost of Obama’s push to host the Olympics to be at least $1 million. Financial bloggers are saying that’s a conservative estimate. This cost comes primarily from the fees associated with flights to visit the International Olympics Committee in Copenhagen. Multiple flights were taken by the president, the first lady and the necessary assistants and security personnel to argue for the Olympics to be held in Chicago. The cost of presidential travel doesn’t come cheap.

In fairness, the president did show some smart money management efforts by combining one of these trips with some other presidential business. He reportedly used the trip to meet with top Afghan army commander General Stanley McChrystal in Denmark. This theoretically saved the president another trip overseas and therefore saved money for the taxpayers. However, the meeting lasted less than half an hour and it is unclear whether or not it was a necessary meeting. As a result, taxpayers aren’t satisfied that this was a true attempt at good money management and remain disgruntled about the cost of these Obamalympic trips.

The economy is obviously a key issue of importance to nearly all taxpayers today. Taxpayers want the president to come up with smart debt solutions for the debt of the nation, the debts suffered by businesses and the debts that individuals are dealing with. When the president shows poor money management by spending over $1 million on an Olympic bid that results in failure, people are unhappy. To his credit, it must be noted that if the efforts had been successful then it would have meant a boost to the local economy to the tune of a few million dollars, or more. Since it was a failure, the president has to answer to the taxpayers however.

The recession has caused agencies at all levels of government to look for debt solutions. Across the board, one of the solutions implemented has been to shift the burden of debt off of the government and on to the taxpayers. Taxes are rising throughout the United States and Canada as budget shortfalls cause government agencies to alter their budgets. It’s certainly a fact that the government has to do something to deal with its debt.

Debt settlement and debt consolidation are abundant for consumers while options for government agencies aren’t easy to come by. Nevertheless, moving the burden of debt on to taxpayers who are already struggling because of the recession doesn’t seem like a smart solution.

We have seen taxes rise in different ways at all levels of government throughout the United States and Canada. For example, New York state legislators voted last year to amend their budget in a manner that resulted in both property tax and school tax increases for residents. These changes may seem like smart debt solutions to New York legislators who have saved almost a quarter of a million dollars in the past two years as a result of the property tax change alone. However it must be remembered that this money is coming from somewhere else: the taxpayers. In a difficult economy, even the smallest increase in taxes can cause financial difficulties for individuals.

In many areas, taxpayers are already paying the bulk of the bills for the city and can’t afford to take on any more of debt to cover budget shortfalls. An example of this is seen in Vancouver, Canada where two thirds of the city’s revenue already comes from taxpayers. The city has a $1-billion annual budget with a $60 million shortfall and that $60 million has to come from somewhere. The city is looking into debt solutions that include cutting jobs and eliminating city programs. This is a no-win situation for taxpayers. Either they experience rising taxes in order to keep city workers employed and programs in place or these people and programs are cut to make up for the budget shortfall.

So what’s the solution? It’s not an easy issue to find answers to. The economy is still shaky throughout North America. Individuals are being forced to look into debt settlement, debt consolidation and loan deferment. Businesses are struggling to stay afloat through the rest of the recession. And the government is going to have to make some cutbacks of its own to reduce budget shortfalls. Hopefully they’ll come up with some creative debt solutions that don’t involve increasing taxes but also don’t cut jobs with an ever increasing unemployment rate.