I think debt is a bigger problem in Europe because they have much larger debts (per capita).
They do all have soverign currency still, don't they? I thought they all just added the euro, not replaced their currency. If you're right, YIKES!
I disagree that we have control of our currency since we left the gold standard, but that's a different discussion althogether. We certainly do have the control to devalue it, just maybe not re-value it.
You say 'at worst, inflation' as if that's just fine, but remember Germany after WW1, they 'just' had inflation to pay their crushing debt, it started with them needing a wheelbarrow full of deutchmarks to buy a loaf of bread, and ended with the creation of the Nazi's and WW2. I think they also defaulted in the end. Inflation can be a nation killer.
I have repeatedly said the same thing to you about ballance, but reversed. There's no need to focus solely on taxes either, it's a ballance thing. You seem to be focused solely on raising taxes as a way out of the problem, I'm saying that's only 1/2 the solution (that should not translate into 'I don't think low tax rates are a problem' or 'I think overspending is the only problem', it seems that's what you're incorrectly gleeming from my words). Maybe it's just that you don't like the WAY I said it, but you agree with my point? I don't get it.
We are NOT the rich and powerful country we claim to be, and have not been for a while...that's the issue. We need to consider ourselves a second world country and decide if we want to continue on the path of fiscal irresponsibility and become a third world country, or do we want to regain first world status. Our 'friends across the pond' will shortly not be supplying these programs to their citizens either, they bankrupted themselves with these kinds of programs and lack of revenue, and now their bankrupting their partners in the EU. That's why it doesn't make sense to compare our social programs to theirs and say 'they can, why can't we?'...theirs bankrupted them. If we had the money, I would be all for it, and 3 months paid vacation, guaranteed retirement benifits, low or no taxes, etc., as long as we never spend more than we have, I'm fine with it. It's just not fiscally possible without going into the hole even farther, and that leads to disaster. Right now, we are in debt more than the entire country produces in a year, and that only counts the debt on the books, and counts our GDP at 09 levels, which we no longer meet. That means if every person/corperation was taxed at 100%, it could not erase our debt in a year (assuming we also stop spending a dime on anything). That's a HUGE problem that should never have been allowed to happen, if you don't think it is, I think you aren't responsible with money. Living above your means on credit is irresponsible, and usually passes the bill on to others or leaves it unpaid. I have no children to worry about there, but I'm not the kind of a$$hole that plans on leaving YOUR children deep in debt in a third world country...and I don't want to end up there myself before I die.
>> ^NetRunner:
>>
The European debt situation is different, and seems to be a major cause of their current economic crisis, so is the whole credit default swap thing to a lesser extent, but they're far more removed from it.
Debt is a bigger problem in Europe because they have sovereign debt without having a sovereign currency, and don't have an established EU-wide fiscal policy.
In the US, we have control of our own currency, and have a federal fiscal policy, so a debt crisis for us would at worst lead to inflation, not to default.
Not to mention, there are two halves of a balanced budget, spending and revenue. One way to balance a budget is by cutting back on your social safety net, another way is to raise taxes. There's no reason to focus primarily or solely on cuts, if your overall goal is fiscal balance.
More broadly, I think paid maternity leave is a pretty good idea, and if we're really the rich and powerful country we claim to be, then we can afford the taxes to pay for it. If we can't afford it, then we need to think of ourselves as an impoverished 3rd world nation who aspires to one day be able to provide such a valuable benefit to our citizens. If we're simply unwilling to pay for it, then we're less humane than our European friends across the pond.

>> ^newtboy:

I completely agree, our economic crisis was caused by mismanagement and deregulation of the banking system/wallstreet, which is now made worse by the European crisis. Our debt crisis is a decades old issue that's suddenly in the forefront, but is also a huge and looming problem.

That there is pretty much what I meant in my original quip, and subsequent responses.

>> ^newtboy:
The European debt situation is different, and seems to be a major cause of their current economic crisis, so is the whole credit default swap thing to a lesser extent, but they're far more removed from it.

Debt is a bigger problem in Europe because they have sovereign debt without having a sovereign currency, and don't have an established EU-wide fiscal policy.

In the US, we have control of our own currency, and have a federal fiscal policy, so a debt crisis for us would at worst lead to inflation, not to default.

Not to mention, there are two halves of a balanced budget, spending and revenue. One way to balance a budget is by cutting back on your social safety net, another way is to raise taxes. There's no reason to focus primarily or solely on cuts, if your overall goal is fiscal balance.

More broadly, I think paid maternity leave is a pretty good idea, and if we're really the rich and powerful country we claim to be, then we can afford the taxes to pay for it. If we can't afford it, then we need to think of ourselves as an impoverished 3rd world nation who aspires to one day be able to provide such a valuable benefit to our citizens. If we're simply unwilling to pay for it, then we're less humane than our European friends across the pond.

[citation needed]

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Hm – well I’ll give the racist bigot host a 50% for being half right.

It is true that US citizens do have a hypocritical relationship with the big government’s socialist voter-bribery scams. However, he is dead wrong when he claims ‘socialism works’.

Socialism doesn’t work. European governments across the spectrum are being forced to increase privatization and cut social benefits in order to stave of fiscal collapse. When BM glowing describes all the great stuff European countries have (health care etc…) he totally ignores report after report after report of these so-called ‘services’ being abject, utter, complete failures. The UK health care system is being forced to ration SURGERIES (IE death panels) or collapse. Spain, Greece, Italy, France, UK, Germany, Portugal… The list of European socialist nations tottering on the edge of failure and having to pass ‘austerity measures’ to survive is myriad.

But the reaction that citizens have to cuts in socialist services in Europe is no different than that of the pork addicted public in the US when anyone suggests that shutting off the spigot. The riots in Greece prove that. It is nothing more than the principle Thatcher nailed so accurately in 1975… “The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money.” This is merely an extension of Tytler’s argument that “democracy can only survive until the majority discovers it can vote itself largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship.” Which then leads to his subsequent “Cycle of Tyranny” (Liberty, Complacency, Dependancy, Tyranny, Revolution).

Maher (and other of his ilk) love to pretend that socialism works. Problem is that every factual analysis of socialism proves quite conclusively the exact opposite. Socialism doesn’t work. It is failure after failure on parade. And the reason the US is failing is BECAUSE it has so much socialism in it already. We better hope the Tea Party can talk more citizens into agreeing to ditch socialism, or the US is destined to financial collapse and subsequent balkanization.

As a side note – oh YEAH Bill Maher… The US budget entirely goes to military spending and corporate tax breaks, eh? What a complete moron. Whenever he opens his mouth to vainly try and sound intelligent, he proves himself ever more conclusively to be an absolute idiot. The 60 trillion in unfunded federal obligations is for socialism, dummy. The biggest budget items are socialism, idiot. Defense spending could be cut to zero tomorrow and we’d still be 59.2 trillion in debt for all those wonderful social programs that everyone loves so much.

Maher calling Palin a retard is like a severed head calling Cain Velasquez a cripple.

Hm – well I’ll give the racist bigot host a 50% for being half right.

It is true that US citizens do have a hypocritical relationship with the big government’s socialist voter-bribery scams. However, he is dead wrong when he claims ‘socialism works’.

Socialism doesn’t work. European governments across the spectrum are being forced to increase privatization and cut social benefits in order to stave of fiscal collapse. When BM glowing describes all the great stuff European countries have (health care etc…) he totally ignores report after report after report of these so-called ‘services’ being abject, utter, complete failures. The UK health care system is being forced to ration SURGERIES (IE death panels) or collapse. Spain, Greece, Italy, France, UK, Germany, Portugal… The list of European socialist nations tottering on the edge of failure and having to pass ‘austerity measures’ to survive is myriad.

But the reaction that citizens have to cuts in socialist services in Europe is no different than that of the pork addicted public in the US when anyone suggests that shutting off the spigot. The riots in Greece prove that. It is nothing more than the principle Thatcher nailed so accurately in 1975… “The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money.” This is merely an extension of Tytler’s argument that “democracy can only survive until the majority discovers it can vote itself largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship.” Which then leads to his subsequent “Cycle of Tyranny” (Liberty, Complacency, Dependancy, Tyranny, Revolution).

Maher (and other of his ilk) love to pretend that socialism works. Problem is that every factual analysis of socialism proves quite conclusively the exact opposite. Socialism doesn’t work. It is failure after failure on parade. And the reason the US is failing is BECAUSE it has so much socialism in it already. We better hope the Tea Party can talk more citizens into agreeing to ditch socialism, or the US is destined to financial collapse and subsequent balkanization.

As a side note – oh YEAH Bill Maher… The US budget entirely goes to military spending and corporate tax breaks, eh? What a complete moron. Whenever he opens his mouth to vainly try and sound intelligent, he proves himself ever more conclusively to be an absolute idiot. The 60 trillion in unfunded federal obligations is for socialism, dummy. The biggest budget items are socialism, idiot. Defense spending could be cut to zero tomorrow and we’d still be 59.2 trillion in debt for all those wonderful social programs that everyone loves so much.

Maher calling Palin a retard is like a severed head calling Cain Velasquez a cripple.

In reply to this comment by RadHazG:
I'm not sure how folks are saying blurry is being rude... on reviewing the entire conversation I see only the usual "I know I'm right and I refuse to apply critical thinking to my beliefs because they do not require such" that any and all truly religious people project. It's no more rude than a (R) trying to tell a (D) that his fiscal policy is better. I welcome another viewpoint in here, even if it is in my opinion, based on nothing and has nothing truly real to say. Sadly this all reads as insulting, but only because of the privileged place the religious have placed their beliefs in the conversation in this country. As if to say anything about them at all is a grave insult to everything about the person.

All aside, welcome to the conversation and congratz on losing the P. Just keep in mind that questioning your beliefs here is NOT inherently insulting. Though I grant a few of the comments here have been intended as such.

right on.

I'm not sure how folks are saying blurry is being rude... on reviewing the entire conversation I see only the usual "I know I'm right and I refuse to apply critical thinking to my beliefs because they do not require such" that any and all truly religious people project. It's no more rude than a (R) trying to tell a (D) that his fiscal policy is better. I welcome another viewpoint in here, even if it is in my opinion, based on nothing and has nothing truly real to say. Sadly this all reads as insulting, but only because of the privileged place the religious have placed their beliefs in the conversation in this country. As if to say anything about them at all is a grave insult to everything about the person.

All aside, welcome to the conversation and congratz on losing the P. Just keep in mind that questioning your beliefs here is NOT inherently insulting. Though I grant a few of the comments here have been intended as such.

---
I can only work with proven results, not what others want things to be or theorize is possible. Obamanomics has failed to deliver prosperity, and this may be because increasing prosperity is not what it's designed to do. It could be working beautifully if its goal is to increase dependency on government and curtail American influence worldwide.

REAL American unemployment is currently 18%, not the BS that D.C. is spouting. 2 to 3% more wouldn't even register with the crew in D.C.
---

You cannot 'prove' anything in a social science. What you can do is historically look at past crises and see what worked and what didn't.

Financial crises historically have high levels of unemployment following them. This is because as in this case for the US, consumers have overspent and must spend years rebuilding their savings levels. As they rebuild them, demand is low, the demand for employees is low, and there is relatively higher unemployment.

This is historically accurate for Latin America's debt crisis in 1982, the 1990 asset bubble bust in Japan and so far entirely consistent for the financial crisis in the US.

The way you label fiscal stimulus as Obamanomics leads me to believe you think that his policies are idiosynchractic and unique. They are not. Virtually every country in the world hit by the global financial crisis has enacted the same combination of direct spending, lower taxes and looser monetary policy. You would be well advised to be aware of this.

Also, despite what you may claim, the fact that unemployment is high and has risen under Obama is not evidence that his policies have not worked. In fact again there is historical evidence to suggest the US has fared better than other countries. See the first graph below:

http://www.economist.com/node/17041738

Unemployment is measured by virtually all countries as the number of unemployed out of the proportion actively seeking work. Yes, this is not an accurate measure when previous employees have been discouraged from looking for work and have dropped out, but it is consistent with most measures used internationally.

---
Though the government obviously denies it, the origins of this financial crisis were largely the fault of government policies and meddling.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

----Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury

Keynesian economic theory does not work. It mistakes action for results. Despite enormous spending (which began as Bush was sunsetting) Obamanomics hasn't created any jobs, unless you count the temporary kick of the useless Census.

The American people have the wealth and are indeed holding onto it. There are 2 trillion dollars in assets waiting to rejoin the economy. So why don't people jump in again?

No sane business is going to invest heavily or hire workers with our leftists in power, threatening to tax everything in sight and "punish" profits. This current govt--even with the coming Republicans in January--also offers no stability or confidence, and I don't expect this to change anytime soon.

The current US Secretary of the Treasury is a tax cheat, and well before they installed the SOB they knew he was a tax cheat. Does it get any more obvious the lack of integrity and disdain for the public harbored by the crew in DC.
---

I agree that the financial crisis has much to do with government meddling. Policymakers in the US have historically encouraged the quintessential notion of homeownership frivolously and irresponsibly. At the other end equally though, predatory lending exacerbated the issue. Left to their own devices, banks knew full well that they could generate huge returns by lending, and then selling off those financial assets to wipe themselves clean of risk. They also knew that if worst came to worst, the government would bail them out as they were too integral to the functioning of the world economy. Both less intervention and more regulation was necessary to prevent what happened.

Either of these 2 factors in and of itself would have led to a crisis sooner than later, would you not agree?

I can't take a quote seriously that skips over text 3 times in 4 lines. For all you know, the original intent has been completely manipulated. For all you know (based on previous experience) this wasn't even SAID by who it's claimed to have been said by.

Besides, there is no evidence there. It is someone's opinion, without any facts, without any figures. Nothing to substantiate what is being said. I genuinely hope you don't rely on people's pure opinions as gospel and factcheck what you read.

Again, you are simply wrong the stimulus has not created jobs. It has created both permanent jobs by giving subsidies to industries, and temporary jobs to prevent skills loss from unemployed workers:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

Read the title of the article above.

Frankly, how is it POSSIBLE that you think it hasn't created any jobs? Where do you think the money goes? Do you think it's laundered into people's bank accounts and shipped overseas? How can you possibly think that a stimulus has not created any jobs? That the only jobs it has created are for the census is a typical right wing talking point from what I hear. Again, I implore you to consult some less idealogical sources without absolutist views.

Not to go on a tangent here, but how often have these sources you rely on information for actually lauded something that Obama has done? Do you really think it is possible that Obama has done nothing good, or let alone nothing that ideologically they would agree on? Take for example the increased drone strikes in Pakistan, relative to even Bush. This seems like a clear cut policy that right wing pundits and blogs would laud. Why is there no one mentioning this?

Or do you think that possibly, just possibly, they have an agenda or an absolutist view with which they perceive the Democrats and the left-wing that blinds them to anything that doesn't conform to their predisposed views that Democrats = bad?

Why would you want to emulate and follow the opinions of someone who cannot look at things at face value?

For your comment on why investors are not investing, they are not investing because of the debt which will worsen if taxes fall - this is historically proven as fact. But let's say for argument that taxes were drastically reduced. Demand is still low in the US though. People are still rebuilding their balance sheets. What will the multinational and wealthy corporations do with this excess revenue?

They will invest it overseas in developing markets with high growth rates. Lower taxes will be paying for growth in foreign countries. Since the money will be invested elsewhere, even less of it will be reaped back in tax revenue. Growth overseas will be rising while the US is falling further and further into debt default.

I am curious where exactly you don't agree with this logic.

I have nothing cogent to say against your notion that Democrats want to punish profits.

It does not make sense.

The buy-up of bank and auto industry stocks is being relinquished. Citibank recently bought back some of these shares, and the government made a profit. The auto industry is making a profit. There is simply no evidence that Obama wants to nationalize anything. There is no public option. The independent review committee to trim Medicare will MINIMIZE government involvement, something the right quite hypocritically, is against.

How is it not obvious that punishing profits would be bad politics? How is it not obvious that doing this would not win votes? Where is your evidence that he intends to do this? The health care plan is deficit neutral. Financial reform will reduce risk.

Will taxes have to rise? Sure, because without that, the budget will never return to neutral. This is fact. Cutting social policies by that much is not feasible. Why do you blame Obama for this and not Bush who allowed this to fester during prolonged periods of economic growth? Would you rather the problem fester while taxes are kept low and imperil the whole economy in the process? There are only those two options.

Also, I think I laid out, what is a pretty simple and logical explaining of fiscal policy, and why it works.

Where do you disagree with it?

---
Well, like you or anyone else, I'm just as likely to vote to stop the other side as promote my own. Where you live, govt is seen as a benevolent force for good. And as you can probably attest, you pay through the nose for the government services provided.

Individual > State = America

State > Individual = everywhere else

If the Republicans don't repeal or de-fund obamacare they are finished.
---

The funny this is, if I were making the same as I am not in the US, I would be paying nearly the same in taxes.

I'm a recent university grad and make 60K/year.

I pay 15% between 6-35k, and 30% between 35-60k. (4350 + 7500 = $11850)

The US income brackets are very similar.

For me they would be, 10% between 0 - $8375, 15% between $8376 - $34,000 and 25% between $34,000 - $60,000. (838 + 3844 + 6500 = 11182)

So let's see. I'm paying roughly $700 more (a bit more actually, say $1000 for argument considering the exchange rate of 0.95, but close enough) for free universal access to hospital treatment and subsidized out of hospital expenses; for generous unemployment benefits if I ever lose my job. For university cost assistance, despite the fact that I could easily pay off my university debt if I lived at home with minimal expenses in one year (It's ~25k from 5 years of study with nothing paid back yet). I hear that in the US for Ivy league schools it can be 20-30K US A YEAR. I mean that last point alone MORE THAN makes up for the difference. Frankly any of those do by themselves. I also have great job prospects being in an economy that never officially went into recession (only one quarter of negative growth) with a private sector one lined up for next year.

To sum up, I'm actually paying only 1.7% more in taxes for a WHOLE HEAP of benefits.

How is that a bad deal?

Incidentally much of our (Australia's) economic success can be attributed to good bank regulation than anything else. If you are curious I can elaborate on this.

This was my first reaction as well. I started thinking about it differently recently however.

I've started thinking that Obama wants one thing as his legacy. He wants to knock China off the peg, and that's about it. He thinks doing so will matter more to the US economy long term than a trillion here, or a trillion there. The best way to do it is to follow a highly inflationary fiscal policy over the short term which, frankly, China can't afford to follow right now. Once I started thinking about his policies that way, more and more of them started making sense.

It's not "you're racist", it's "you didn't think".

It’s actually quite the opposite. I’ve thought about this topic about 10 levels deeper than everyone else. They just don’t like it because I’m daring to bring up politically incorrect, uncomfortable truth.

You went on about how responsible home ownership says something about a person...implying it qualifies you as good.

Responsible home ownership does say good things about a person. It does not mean you are a good person, but it does generally show a person is good at managing their finances.

Taking away someone's right to vote because they did something society doesn't like is a different issue, and you're confusing the two, IMO.

No I’m not. I’m applying the idea fairly, and that disturbs some people. Is it not logical to say that the people who took out subprime loans they knew they could not afford did “something to society” far more harmful than the collective actions of U.S. mass murderers? So, why are people mentally comfortable with limiting the voting rights of murderers (who do comparatively little damage to overall society) but are uncomfortable limiting the voting rights of bad borrowers who cause far more societal damage?

IMO it's a bad idea to give government lots of powers to disqualify people from voting. It's WAY too easy for it to be abused, modified in stupid ways, etc. It's a serious slippery slope without all the normal exaggeration the phrase "slippery slope" usually comes with.

When the full public has unlimited voting rights, the eventual dynamic result is that the primary concern of the voter becomes the claiming & retention of personal benefits. The resulting loose, debt-heavy fiscal policy collapses the government. Is that not a “slippery slope” at least as alarming as the slippery slope of limiting voter rights? Which slippery slope do you choose? Regardless, the left has routinely pooh-poohed the entire ‘slippery slope’ argument. The opposition to Obama’s health care bill was based on ‘slippery slopes’ of death panels and socialism but it was mocked as ridiculous. Why is the ‘slippery slope’ so absurd when it is applied to leftist political philosophy, but so pertinent on voting rights?

Voting needs to be easier, not harder.

Easier? Sure. But more restricted too. A good start would be to require a valid U.S. birth certificate, and current photo ID at the site of voting.

This is abhorant, fascist thinking. Godwin be-damned if I can't call a spade a spade. I normally ignore your comments, but this latest set of talking points needs to be called out for the bull that it is.

I think that your hyperbolic overreaction suggests that your policy of self-recusal should be reinstated, because this entry into the crucible of debate is woefully inadequate. Clearly you are unable to control your emotions when grappling with issues, and therefore you should quit the field to spare both yourself and others from your abecedarian efforts. Or you could just go breathe into a paper bag for a bit and come back and try again. Your call.

What's different is that the left understands that we shouldn't be taking away people's civil rights because people use them in ways we disapprove of instead we think we need to do a better job of getting the facts and our point of view out to people.

When the left loses in the court of the national discourse, they do not just shrug and try to ‘get facts and a point of view out’. They demonize, attack, insult, and slander. When that fails they dictate by fiat against the will of the people. In short, they take away people’s civil rights when those people use their freedom in ways they disapprove. So your statement is patently false. The left is only interested in ‘civil rights’ insofar as it advances their pet agendas.

Liberal electoral reforms are always aimed at making it easier for people to vote, and growing the percentage of the populace who vote.

You need to correct your position, because it ignores a lot. The left always finds a way to make it easier for the people it WANTS to vote, but always seems to oppose easy voting for groups it opposes. Regardless, the whole civil rights argument is a cheap rhetorical dodge. Nations routinely monitor, restrict, and regulate voting rights. Requiring vital documents, proof of citizenship, and basic intellectual capacity is not some sort of crazy, dictatorial power grab. It happens all the time in every civilized country.

Mostly these days that's making sure there are paper trails for electronic voting machines, but it's also making sure the people working the polling places are treating everyone the same. Curiously, the right always finds a reason to oppose every one of the above.

I disagree. The left that is the routine, documented, proven opponent of a rigorous, fair voting process.

Isn't a common trope from neolibs and Videosifters a lament that the American public is "too stupid" to vote? Wouldn't restricting sufferage rights to property owners increase the average intellectual level of the voter? Isn't that a good thing?

Look - there is no evidence from this 30 second selection that the guy was seriously suggesting removing sufferage. He may have just been making an exaggerated example within the context of a completely different point. Regardless of whether or not this is contextually challenged or not, the guy is accurate. The FF's did in fact recommend that voting rights be restricted to property owners specifically because property owners were more likely to be informed, educated, and qualified to render an intelligent vote. They were the ones with 'skin in the game'.

There is a very solid argument that giving voting rights in a Republic to people who have no 'skin in the game' is a long-term fuse on a bomb that ultimately results in the collapse of civilizations. "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

The argument the guy is making appears to be rooted in this perception. The bottom 50% of our wage-earners contribute less than 5% of our tax revenue, and their only voting interests are driven by using the public treasury for benefits. That kind of voting mentality will result in loose fiscal policy (we see this), and will be followed by a dictatorship. Want to stop a dictatorship from rising? Then just maybe you'll have to consider the possiblity that some things you don't like may be necessary to prevent fiscal collapse.

>> ^jwray:

Ever started a business? Ever bought a car? Ever made an investment in anything that required taking out a loan? Ever get fed/clothed/educated by your mother?
Just because you are fully self-sufficient now doesn't mean everyone can magically become such the moment they fall out of the womb.
Also, if businesses had to do everything with cash reserves instead of taking out loans, the economy would be slow as fuck. Ask any economist.

There's a huge difference between taking out a loan you can pay off, and running up all your credit cards to the limit with no plan for paying the bills. Guess which one resembles our fiscal policy for the last 30 years.

You can win elections by promising to balance budgets, but as soon as you start cutting programs you get replaced by the next guy promising big buzz words with as few specifics as possible.

No argument. The problem is the GOP doesn't want to do that because they are just like Democrats in the sense that they want to keep eating and promising free lunches. America for 20+ years has been living in a government sponsored 'benefits bubble'. Everyone thinks they can get free this & cheap that and politicians have spent the farm for their votes. This is not a GOP/Democrat issue. This is a "political class" issue. There are a few glittering jewels in the mine like Christie in NJ and Chaffitz from Utah - but they are far too rare.

This is a problme that is not going to be solved unless (A) the government completely collapses or (B) voters collectively wise up and vote in a couple generations of true fiscal conservatives. This election cycle gives some very distant gleams of hope that (B) might happen - but I'm pessimistic. I think America has already reached the Alexander Tytler point of no return...

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is followed by a dictatorship."

We see this happening right before our eyes. More wisdom - same guy...

“From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

In my cold assessment of the American condition, the U.S. POLITICAL CLASS is firmly decided on "dependance" and is starting to push into "bondage". The American PEOPLE however, are factionalized into about 30% "liberty", 20% "complacency", 20% "apathy", and 30% "dependance". By and large most of the public falls towards the "Liberty" side but you flash enough baubles to get 21% of the complacency/apathy vote and BOOM the U.S. is running over a cliff to tyranny.

That's what happened with Obama. Only what can be described as the collective insanity of emotion based stupidity elected that doofus. If he was in ANY other country, he would already be swaggering around in a uniform with epaulettes and making everyone call him "Commandant". He's a disaster, and polls are showing that even the apathetic and complacent realize they made a horrible mistake electing that specimen.

But too little - too late I fear. I think the government is too addicted to spending, and the public too addicted to the lie of 'free/cheap' government stuff. Loose fiscal policy will collapse this great nation, and there will be a period of subseqent balkanization. At this point, I fear it is inevitable.

You won't get many upvotes on VS with any video that supports sound fiscal policy and mentions Ron Paul in a positive way.

>> ^Throbbin:

I hear Krugman warning against a relapse into recession and maybe even depression, and that is the last thing America needs right now (imagine what the Republicans would do with that?)

I think the real problem with the austerity decision is that the EU really needs to either put up or shut up about its existence. Either it needs to let member nations ditch the euro, or it needs to have the low-debt nations bail out the high-debt nations.

Keeping people on the euro, tightening monetary policy on the euro, and demanding austerity everywhere is going to give them a Great Depression that will make our economic troubles look like a walk in the park.

As for us, we seem to be good (but not great) shape on monetary policy, and have the right idea on fiscal policy, but we're being stymied on fiscal policy by domestic extremists. <godwin>You know, the Nazis used the Great Depression to come to power, apparently the Republicans want to create one so they can come to power!</godwin>

But remember!! NOONE dislikes Obama because he's black! It's because of his fiscal policies! Right BF?