When President Obama is re-elected!!

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:48 pm

Day after -- so it's congratulations to all the winners, but especially to Obama and the Dems. If it's any consolation, Tmas, I don't consider Obama to be my president either

manton · Post by **manton** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:05 pm

RE: the Republican party having to change or die. It's not either/or. It's both. It will change, and it will die. In any event, it will die.

Looking at the maps and comparing them to the last 3 cycles, it's clear that the Democrats have built a demographically and electorally impregnable majority that will last as long as the country lasts. There will never be another even nominally conservative or center-right president again. There might, once a generation or so, be a "Republican", when people get super-tired of this or that incompetent/hackish Democratic administration. But that "Republican" will be an empty suit in the Governator/David Cameron mold and will offer more of the same.

Liberals and Democrats finally have the permanent governing majority they have been dreaming of since Woodrow Wilson. I predict a very unpleasant outcome for us all, but of course I would think that.

BTW, if there is one clear result of this election, it is that the electorate has shown that it will brook no changes to entitlements, spending, the debt, the currency, any of that. The Democrat campaign message was "Not one step back" and the electorate said "Yah!" Eventually the bubble will have to burst and there is going to be a very ugly crash.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:10 pm

Bearing in mind that I did not pay a lot of attention to the campaigns, because I'm too busy pursuing the American dream, Adam Smith-wise, in my own invisible hand, self-interested way that will ultimately redound not just to me but to the benefit of all, I thought Romney ran an above-board, high-road, if ineffective campaign. And while one need only look at his track record in politics and business to see that what the BD says is true - Romney's a, what's the nicest word for it, a pragmatist at least when it comes to seeking election - I think he would be the perfect guy for Obama to tap as the "fiscal cliff" czar. Romney will gladly trade tax increases (surprise!) for budget cuts and come away with a deal that secures his place in history as a good American. His business is business and he's willing to compromise to get the greater good for his business. That's what it's all about. Now, there are definitely some "wreckers" in his party who are going to react vehemently Taliban-style and make it difficult to achieve, but in the end this will get done and Romney's just the salesman for it.

There have got to be some people really, really livid over Chris Christie "going for" Obama that night under the ravaged boardwalk. While he seemingly put his state above politics at that moment, and perhaps gained in the eyes of many, the wreckers who loved him enough to try and push him onto the stage last spring will never forget or forgive.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:12 pm

I do agree manton, that Democrats need to engage in addressing the fiscal catastrophe that is inevitable.
Hopefully it can be accomplished through a combinations of spending cuts and fair revenue increases.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:14 pm

I'm not a supporter of Chris Christie but I would say that the republican move forward needs to be more aligned with the social moderate/fiscal conservative Christie model rather than the social conservateve/fiscal conservative Ryan model.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:18 pm

Manton,

The beginning of America's relative decline (hopefully reversible) predates Barack Obama...

Also, I am very puzzled as to this term of "entitlement". I've looked it up in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

1

a: the state or condition of being entitled : right

b: a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2

: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also: funds supporting or distributed by such a program

Seems this is a sort of a dirty word to some people. I cannot understand though. If you've worked hard for 25 years and then get laid off and can't find a job, aren't you entitled to benefits?
If you have a handicapped child (as I do) isn't he entitled to financial support from the government?
Shouldn't single mothers with several children receive a helping hand from the state?

Would you have these people shrivel and die so you can pay less taxes, or possibly live in carboard boxes under a bridge somewhere?

America is a great and wealthy country. It has a moral obligation to look after its citizens.

Best regards,
Alex R.

manton · Post by **manton** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:21 pm

There is no "Republican way forward." If they do what you suggest--really what every left of center commenter has been saying the Republicans should do since at least the Robert Taft era--they will just make themselves Democrats lite, dispirit their base, and offer nothing to other side's base.

What this election has decisively shown is that the Democrats have a large enough base to win without any crossover voting at all. So why would any committed or even nominal Dem look twice at some RINO? Why should she care? And of course the old school committed Repubilcans will get pissed.

It doesn't matter, the party is doomed either way nationally, but it has better prospects staying relevant at the state and local level in red and purple states if it maintains its principles.

manton · Post by **manton** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:22 pm

"entitlement" is a legal term that describes certain federal social welfare programs, chiefly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And, some day soon, ObamaCare.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:29 pm

manton wrote:"entitlement" is a legal term that describes certain federal social welfare programs, chiefly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And, some day soon, ObamaCare.

I'll gladly do w/o any of the programs provided I get my money back.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:46 pm

RDD,

I don't think that's an option...
Does every relationship have to be "I win, you lose or I want out"?

Margaret Thatcher famously said "There is no such thing as society".
That seemed pretty barbaric then, as it does now.
We are more interdependent than ever.
That's irreversible.

Cain asked "Am I my brother's keeper?".
You can always turn your back on your neighbor.
Just please don't try to make me believe that it is anything other than egotistical self-interest.

Alex R.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:47 pm

I thought CNN had the best coverage last night.
Wolf and john King were A+.
King called those county results brilliantly.
The first big moment of the night was about 10pm when they turned to Carville and he said:
"I'm looking at Florida."
up to that point I had been watching Obama's Florida numbers holding and I was just not believing it.

manton · Post by **manton** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:50 pm

It should be obvious that "maintain current welfare programs and spending levels as they are now" and "let the poor starve" do not exhaust all possible alternatives.

However, maintain is what we shall do, apparently.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:51 pm

Hey Jim, how's the 2014 House elections looking?

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:53 pm

AlexR wrote:RDD,

I don't think that's an option...
Does every relationship have to be "I win, you lose or I want out"?

Margaret Thatcher famously said "There is no such thing as society".
That seemed pretty barbaric then, as it does now.
We are more interdependent than ever.
That's irreversible.

Cain asked "Am I my brother's keeper?".
You can always turn your back on your neighbor.
Just please don't try to make me believe that it is anything other than egotistical self-interest.

Alex R.

I understand.
I am touching on the basics of the situation.
If you've been extorted all your working life and then the "deal" is broken, people are going to feel hoodwinked.
It is as simple as that.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:55 pm

Lol.
Unfortunately, the House is a different animal.
the republicans ruthlessly gerrymandered that vote in the last census.
Still, they're gonna have to contend with the latino surge in the south and southwest.
An off-year election in a second presidential term is probably going to go to the party out of office in the White House.
2016 is going to be the next really big one.
Gotta give hillary the edge!
If I were Hillary, I'd be lining up David Plouffe (that guy is absolutely brilliant) and David Axelrod now!

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:56 pm

Yes, regarding entitlements. Sadly, I didn't have the luxury of doing without the OASDI payments my mother received on my behalf when my father died prematurely when I was just seven years old. It's possible I would have been able to rear myself up by the boot laces if given the chance. Bully for anyone who does forgo those benefits when the circumstances arise which trigger them. After all it's your choice, you're free to decline them if you wish. Talk to me when you have.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:57 pm

Colbert asks the question, "How do I stop Obama in 2016?"

manton · Post by **manton** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:01 pm

That's actually a good test for whether we want to go down the tubes quicly or put it off for a while. If people start brining up repeal of the 22nd Amendment, the answer clearly will be "the faster the better."

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:02 pm

Manton makes a good point, the country as set up nationally, with the electoral college, has undergone a paradigm shift that favors the Democrats.
The way things are set up, the House is where the Republicans are most likely to thrive.

The problem that is coming there for them, though, I believe, is the Latino surge.

manton · Post by **manton** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:05 pm

The Republican party will be reduced to a purposeless rump within a generation and perhaps sooner--just as they have been in California, New York and elsewhere.

Chateau Vin · Post by **Chateau Vin** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:08 pm

JimHow wrote:I thought CNN had the best coverage last night.
Wolf and john King were A+.
King called those county results brilliantly.
The first big moment of the night was about 10pm when they turned to Carville and he said:
"I'm looking at Florida."
up to that point I had been watching Obama's Florida numbers holding and I was just not believing it.

I agree Jim. CNN was more objective and had the best coverage. John King was phenomenal without any partisanship or bias...

But I found more entertainment value at Fox.

After Obama became re-elect, Juan Williams et al were saying that they had been predicting all along that Obama would win. Since when did Fox news start predicting that Obam would win?. Hmmm....I thought it was pretty comical...

They also said that 'Since people are still blaming Bush for the economy, and therefore Obama won'.

The absolute hilarious thing to hear from the panel at Fox news was 'Obama has been making some economic strides, and so he won'...WOW, Now that's beyond hilarious...

And Don't get me started on the whole Karl Rove show about Ohio getting called for Obama by Fox News itself...Everybody knows Fox News not only loses its shirt quite often, but this time it also lost its pants...

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:11 pm

Here is the video of the Karl Rove fiasco...

Absolutely incredible:

http://www.tvguide.com/News/Karl-Rove-A ... eakingnews

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:13 pm

we had to stay up an extra hour last night because of this buffoon....

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:20 pm

Please please please tell me dick morrises career is over?!?

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:23 pm

Manton,

You wrote : “It should be obvious that "maintain current welfare programs and spending levels as they are now" and "let the poor starve" do not exhaust all possible alternatives”.
No irony meant whatsoever: what do you suggest then?

RDD,

You wrote: “If you've been extorted all your working life and then the "deal" is broken, people are going to feel hoodwinked”
By being extorted, do you mean paying taxes?

All the best,
Alex R. (still marvelling at the fact that no one has flown off the handle, gotten personal, or been insulting on this thread: BRAVO BWE!!!)

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:24 pm

Lol, Robert...
I can't WAIT to see him, he's supposed to be on tonight....

I agree, Alex, when you see the vitriole on other sites, BWE is a shining example of how it should be done.
It was this way four years ago as well.

manton · Post by **manton** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:32 pm

I have no more suggestions. It's clear to me that no one I would be eager to vote for will ever win again, nor will any policy I support ever be enacted again. The country has chosen and it has chosen the other side, finally and definitively, and there is nothing I can do about it. I honestly don't think I will ever vote again. It's kind of a hassle and there is no point. Not for me.

The central liberal contention is that we can have it all: we can spend forever progressively more without ever going bankrupt or without overseas "investors" in our debt calling our bluff. We can build out the welfare state in every direction and never sap the energies or virtues of the people to the point that they become lethargic and unproductive. We can inflate the currency into a joke and have no effect on consumer prices or standards of living. We can regulate everything and have no negative effect on innovation. We can tax and tax and tax and never harm the productivity of the economy. You can have all this taxation, spending AND the big welfare state AND low unemployment and 3% growth or higher in perpetuity.

Since I believe the vast majority of government spending is ineffecient, even if all of the above were true, I still think it would be a bad deal. But I don't think any of the above is true. However, that is now the governing framework of the United States and it will be until the country collapses. I don't know when that will be. It would be nice if were not in my lifetime, or my children's, or their children's, but I have no idea. I don't see how the country can possibly outlive my children. My own life, I would not put good odds there but it's possible.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:43 pm

AlexR wrote:Manton,

You wrote : “It should be obvious that "maintain current welfare programs and spending levels as they are now" and "let the poor starve" do not exhaust all possible alternatives”.
No irony meant whatsoever: what do you suggest then?

RDD,

You wrote: “If you've been extorted all your working life and then the "deal" is broken, people are going to feel hoodwinked”
By being extorted, do you mean paying taxes?

All the best,
Alex R. (still marvelling at the fact that no one has flown off the handle, gotten personal, or been insulting on this thread: BRAVO BWE!!!)

It is said tongue in cheek.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:43 pm

Dear Manton,

When in such a mood, I find that a glass or two of Champagne does wonders for me!

All the best,
Alex R.

tmas · Post by **tmas** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:07 pm

AlexR says:

"Your account of (the once and future) President Obama’s reactions after the Benghazi attack is a flagrant example of misinformation perpetrated by the same people who insist that he was not born in the US, think he is a Muslim, and God knows what else. No, Obama cannot be faulted for the things you claim. Just sour grapes. It is totally absurd to blame Obama for the attack in Libya, as though the president is to be held personally responsible for the security in hundreds of embassies and consulates around the world! Using the “buck stops here” reasoning, you can blame the head guy for anything. Why not Hurricane Sandy, while you’re at it?
In your anti-Obama tirade, you go on to say, “Well, I'm sure Russia is very happy. Obama can cave in to them now that he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected”. I don’t know if you noticed, but the cold war is over. Suspecting the president of colluding with the Russians went out ages ago.
What makes you think that Obama has “disdain for a small business person like yourself”? And what is the heritage you speak of?
I, too, have a small business, but I do not glorify egotism. I’m willing to pay employer and employee taxes to help my fellow man. But not the Department of Defense.
As for the “stripping of the rich”, there is no need to worry. In no other great country are they so pampered as in the United States."

No Alex, your denial of the facts of Benghazi and the man who won's responsibility is evidence of the fact that you are an ideolog who will unquestioningly believe whatever version of the "facts" fits your viewpoint. That, of course, is easy for you to do given the proclivities of the mainstream media. I stand by everything I said about Benghazi.

Obviously one can't blame the man who won for the actual Hurricane, although there may be some who might argue that, but as far as his response, what the hell did he do that so impresses you? He showed up to have his photo taken, uttered some words of support, and flew off to Vegas. He hasn't been back. The response of the Feds has been abysmal, and the suffering goes on. I know, I live here, do you? A Republican would have been fried for Sandy. The man who won goes to Vegas and plays basketball.

Your naivete regarding our need to maintain our defenses is surprising. News Flash Alex...the world does not love us, the man who won failed to effect that miracle during his first term. Given the fact that the news sources you seem to exclusively rely upon ignored it for the most part, perhaps you are unaware of the fact that the man who won was caught on an open mike in March of 2012 whispering to Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that he needed "space"from incoming president Vladimir Putin regarding missile defense and other issues.
The man who won: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space"
Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you."
The man who won: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
Medvedev: " I understand, I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

I am not comfortable with this exchange or with the man who won's lack of commitment to America maintaining it's strength militarily. I find your statement that you're not willing to pay taxes to support the " Department of Defense" sad. I am always amazed at those who enjoy freedom because of the sacrifices of those in the military and their families and then make statements like that, but of course that's your right in America. Reminds me of an old Merle Haggard song the name of which escapes me.

Finally, I have no beef with paying my taxes as a business person. I pay plenty of them. I do, however, have a problem with a president who vilifies and belittles the business community and acts to damage the business environment in this country. Most of the business people I know feel the same way. Guess I'm just not a socialist.

Enjoy your celebratory bottle of Bordeaux and the next four years. I'll keep my fingers crossed and pray the damage isn't too great.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:11 pm

Manton, agree with much of what you say. I see no easy solutions for the Republican Party and I also have some serious reservations about the current (and presumed near future) fiscal approach. The only chance that the GOP has is if the public sours substantially on the Dem plan. We shall see if they can right the fiscal ship (the market does not seem to be optimistic today - that could change tomorrow). Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Obamacare will be wildly unpopular as it rolls out, both because the red tape will be enormous and because it is flamingly underfunded. In four more years it will be difficult to still blame much on Bush. The risk for the GOP near term is to be seen as obstructionist and lose the house in two years to boot.

To be clear, I am rooting for success; I don't want to come off the wrong way. I hope I'm wrong about some of these issues. The math just doesn't make sense to me financially. David, with due respect, the idea that fiscal austerity was responsible for the Depression is far from dogma. There are many economists who believe that the spending prolonged the pain rather than solving it. There is, in my view, a massive risk in additional spending on the scale we've seen. I think, as Manton said, it will end very, very badly.

Jim, regarding Libya, as I said, it was never the main issue for me. But honestly, the more I read about it the worse it looks. Clearly no one else is bothered about it, but for me personally, it makes me think very much less of him.

manton · Post by **manton** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:11 pm

I will say this, the Bengazi issue/scandal is going to be with Obama for a while. This is not over and it will cause him more pain. Not to say that it is equal in magnitude to Watergate, but remember that Watergate happened months before the 1972 election and then consumed Nixon's second term.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:13 pm

Also Jim, you are exactly right on the social issues (gay marriage, women's issues, Hispanic concerns, etc.). The GOP is utterly out of alignment on these, and I think unrecoverably. Whatever they might gain moving in that direction they will lose in the base. They are dead in the water on this stuff.

manton · Post by **manton** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:14 pm

re: ObamaCare, no doubt it will be unpopular, maybe even among a majority. But consider the Canadian and UK health systems. Voters have a bipolar opinion of those systems: they despise the waits, the lousy care, the bureaucracy and so on, but they also furiously resist any reform. The systems are now sacrosanct and can't be reformed. Meanwhile people go on hating them out of the right sides of their mouths and defending them out of the left sides. That's what's like to happen here.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:29 pm

Manton,

If denial of the facts there is in the Benhazi incident, it is clearly with the right wing elements!
I stand by my denial of the accusations against Obama who is only pilloried by those who seek every excuse so to do.
Sandy? Obama did what any president would do. No less and probably no more. What’s to complain about?
You say the “response of the Feds has been abysmal, and the suffering goes on”. It was no better with Kartrina, when there was a Republican president. In fact, Bush mismanaged that one horribly as I recall. I guess there are just basic flaws in coping with natural catastrophes whoever’s in power.

The amount the US spends on arms, and the arms it sells to other nations to kill people outside our borders is totally disgusting. Let us not forget that it was a Republican president, Eisenhower, who slammed the “military industrial complex”. It is alive and well and stealing billions from the US government. Look at the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan. When I think of the people responsible for those, who learned nothing from the defeat in Vietnam…
I believe it is a fantasy to say that Obama “vilifies and belittles the business community”. He bailed out Wall Street with billions upon billions and the so-and-so’s still find reasons to dump on him.
There are some people you just can’t satisfy whatever you do…
You say “Guess I'm just not a socialist”. I live in a country with a socialist government. I’ll give them a while yet before I pass judgement. They were only voted in in May.

All the best,
Alex R.

manton · Post by **manton** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:32 pm

I know a great deal about what happened in Bengazi and in DC at the time, and as more facts drip out, it looks progressively worse for the administration. I don't know what the upshot will be but at a minimum, this is going to cause Obama more heartburn for months and it's not all going to come from the right. Nor is it going to depend on people making things up.

tmas · Post by **tmas** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:40 pm

AlexR wrote:Manton,

If denial of the facts there is in the Benhazi incident, it is clearly with the right wing elements!
I stand by my denial of the accusations against Obama who is only pilloried by those who seek every excuse so to do.
Sandy? Obama did what any president would do. No less and probably no more. What’s to complain about?
You say the “response of the Feds has been abysmal, and the suffering goes on”. It was no better with Kartrina, when there was a Republican president. In fact, Bush mismanaged that one horribly as I recall. I guess there are just basic flaws in coping with natural catastrophes whoever’s in power.

The amount the US spends on arms, and the arms it sells to other nations to kill people outside our borders is totally disgusting. Let us not forget that it was a Republican president, Eisenhower, who slammed the “military industrial complex”. It is alive and well and stealing billions from the US government. Look at the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan. When I think of the people responsible for those, who learned nothing from the defeat in Vietnam…
I believe it is a fantasy to say that Obama “vilifies and belittles the business community”. He bailed out Wall Street with billions upon billions and the so-and-so’s still find reasons to dump on him.
There are some people you just can’t satisfy whatever you do…
You say “Guess I'm just not a socialist”. I live in a country with a socialist government. I’ll give them a while yet before I pass judgement. They were only voted in in May.

All the best,
Alex R.

Poppycock. Are you an American citizen Alex?

tmas · Post by **tmas** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:43 pm

manton wrote:I have no more suggestions. It's clear to me that no one I would be eager to vote for will ever win again, nor will any policy I support ever be enacted again. The country has chosen and it has chosen the other side, finally and definitively, and there is nothing I can do about it. I honestly don't think I will ever vote again. It's kind of a hassle and there is no point. Not for me.

The central liberal contention is that we can have it all: we can spend forever progressively more without ever going bankrupt or without overseas "investors" in our debt calling our bluff. We can build out the welfare state in every direction and never sap the energies or virtues of the people to the point that they become lethargic and unproductive. We can inflate the currency into a joke and have no effect on consumer prices or standards of living. We can regulate everything and have no negative effect on innovation. We can tax and tax and tax and never harm the productivity of the economy. You can have all this taxation, spending AND the big welfare state AND low unemployment and 3% growth or higher in perpetuity.

Since I believe the vast majority of government spending is ineffecient, even if all of the above were true, I still think it would be a bad deal. But I don't think any of the above is true. However, that is now the governing framework of the United States and it will be until the country collapses. I don't know when that will be. It would be nice if were not in my lifetime, or my children's, or their children's, but I have no idea. I don't see how the country can possibly outlive my children. My own life, I would not put good odds there but it's possible.

+1

Except that I will always vote. Guess I'm just a stubborn SOB.

manton · Post by **manton** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:00 pm

For the record, JimHow, exits in OH now say turnout was D=38 R=30, so the poll samples were not skewed after all.

Chateau Vin · Post by **Chateau Vin** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:34 pm

manton,

I see your point of view. But here are my 2 cents. For the full disclosure, I am not a citizen yet, but may be by next elections. Moreover, I have a vested interest for this country to prosper, since I call this my home and my kids are born here. I want them to succeed, and I want the country to succeed.

manton wrote:I have no more suggestions. It's clear to me that no one I would be eager to vote for will ever win again, nor will any policy I support ever be enacted again. The country has chosen and it has chosen the other side, finally and definitively, and there is nothing I can do about it. I honestly don't think I will ever vote again. It's kind of a hassle and there is no point. Not for me.

That's not what we want. We are much better off when everybody participates in the process even though we have disagreement. Disengagement worsens the situation IMO. At least through engagement we end up with the better of the two evils.

The central liberal contention is that we can have it all: we can spend forever progressively more without ever going bankrupt or without overseas "investors" in our debt calling our bluff. We can build out the welfare state in every direction and never sap the energies or virtues of the people to the point that they become lethargic and unproductive. I don't think it's the liberal contention that we can spend whatever we want. It's the contention of both the parties. As most of the people on this forum know, I am from uchicago and I subscribe to chicago school of thought regarding economy (but the preconditions should not be forgotten). We did this in our studies, and the numbers show a different picture. No matter who is in power, both the parties spend like drunken sailors. If you think Reagan was the pinnacle of presidency, go into the details (rather facts). He more than doubled the debt (from 1 trillion to 2.9 trillion), raised taxes (he had no choice) before he cut. Under senior Bush, the debt increased, and he had no choice but to raise taxes. Bush W doubled the debt. Democrats are no saints either. Under FDR, the debt ballooned before it fell in later presidencies under nixon, clinton. Under Obama, it will balloon.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Feder ... 1-2010.png

Where were the so called fiscal conservatives when the debt was raising in recent years? Why now? Republicans had the senate, house and white house under Bush W, but where were the fiscal conservatives when the republicans were spending like drunken sailors?

The thing is, when the economy is tanking, the revenues decrease - precisely when you need the money the most to pay employment benefits, etc. It's ok to take a bit of debt to stop the immediate bleeding at that time, but you need to get back to balance budget within a year or two and shoot for surplus to save for the rainy day. No different than what you and I would do to fix our personal finances. But then even in good times, spending goes out of control and sooner or later you will end in a mess like this.

Regarding the welfare, I could not agree with you more. But again, I will go by the facts. Democrats are for social welfare and the Republicans are for corporate welfare. Hard working people like most of us are left holding the bag. When does it end? No disrespect to seniors, why did Bush increase the medicare and prescription drug coverage without putting a plan to pay for it? Why did the dems expand a host of social programs that disincentivize to work? If bank bailout under Bush to a tune of 700Bil is not a moral hazard, why should we think the auto bailout or a mortgage bailout for people is such? I mean these are the questions we need ask ourselves based on the facts. And I think the facts are that both the parties are welfare toting and fiscally non conservative. It's just that we need to see through the fog.

We can inflate the currency into a joke and have no effect on consumer prices or standards of living. We can regulate everything and have no negative effect on innovation. We can tax and tax and tax and never harm the productivity of the economy. You can have all this taxation, spending AND the big welfare state AND low unemployment and 3% growth or higher in perpetuity.

Again the inflation of the currency goes back to the story of fiscal discipline. I agree with you that too much regulations are bad, but I do not agree with doing away with regulations. There should be someone who has to play referee to make a level playing field so that the owners of small businesses can effectively compete with big businesses solely based on their abilities. And that someone is ourselves or in other words, we call it government. Who else can do that without vested interest? But again, make the regulations to increase competency but not kill it...

Since I believe the vast majority of government spending is ineffecient, even if all of the above were true, I still think it would be a bad deal. But I don't think any of the above is true. However, that is now the governing framework of the United States and it will be until the country collapses. I don't know when that will be. It would be nice if were not in my lifetime, or my children's, or their children's, but I have no idea. I don't see how the country can possibly outlive my children. My own life, I would not put good odds there but it's possible.

Amen to that. Could not agree more...The US needs to get its act together. But I urge you to check the facts, and go by the facts. It's not one party or the other...It's both of them in a spending binge...

What I have noticed is also a state of denial. It's a feel good story that within past hundred years or so, US has successfully done well in the face of adversity, and so US can do it again, and again and again. Really? What planet are the leaders of both parties and the public are on? Look around the world. There are lot more countries out there to see us fail now than hundred or fifty years ago (that includes some of our allies, may be due to envy, etc.). Taking a sample of past hundred years and pounding the chest that US is invincible is suicidal IMO. Sure, the Egyptians and Romans with their 4000 year sample of success would be a better statistical sample, and look where they are...

So, we should just buckle up and take nothing for granted..