However in my experience at some point everyone has a price and can be exploited.

Very true. And in the case of our elected officials, this price is startlingly low. It doesn't take much to 'corrupt' a politician. Everyone wants to make laws punishing the act of lobbying a politician. To me that is a position that is both ineffective (they'll always find ways around it) and unconstitutional (1st Ammendment guarantees the right to appeal). The solution to me is obvious. Instead of making laws that punish lobbying - make laws that punish politicians for establishing financial connections. Punishing lobbyists as a way to solve the problem of political corruption is like trying to kill a man by poking him in the butt with stick. Punishing politicians for financial ties... That will be a stabbing to the heart.

I don't know where you get info saying that Reagan practiced anything close to "fiscal conservatism

Because it is both historical fact and real world truth - things your education seems to have been woefully lacking. Your grasp of US politics & civics is weak. The PotUS does not control the purse. Nor does he have power to enact legislation. That power lies with Congress. During the Reagan presidency, the House and Senate were both firmly in the control of the Democrat party. Reagan ran on a ticket of cutting taxes, cutting spending, and strong military. He only accomplished 2 of those things. His tax cuts were greaet. His military spending was what ultimately broke the back of the Russian economy and caused Gorby to enact Glasnost (eventually collapsing the Soviet state). But without the vital component of cutting domestic spending, it was not a truly fiscally conservative policy. But it wasn't because Reagan didn't WANT it. He pushed for it, but couldn't get domestic cuts past the Democrat congress.

The liberal left practically has a cottage industry on 'myths of Reaganomics'. But all such verbiage ignores the fact that Democrats controlled domestic spending policy - not Reagan. Tax cuts don't reduce government when you don't cut government spending.

What programs do you think can be cut while maintaining popular support? Medicare? Social Security? Defense? Just those three accounted for something like 65% of the budget in 2008.

I can't think of a single program that I wouldn't cut radically. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and some Defense would probably be my first targets. If I had to pick only ONE program though? Social Security. It was a terrible idea when it was started, and it only has gotten worse over time. SS needs to die in a fire. Government has no mandate or role in managing retirement. That is the responsibility of each citizen. If individual states wish to create programs to help, that is their choice. But no federal program along these lines should have ever been allowed to exist.

I've always found this facinating - the idea that North America is divided into 9 subcultures already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Nations_of_North_America

I think we'd all be much happier if we split along cultural lines... conservatives could try it their way in the south (and I'd move north), liberals could try it their way, and we'd all learn the lessons from each instead of this constant 2 party stalemate.

Makes sense Russia thinks a breakup is imminant because it's pretty much exactly what happened to them in 1990 minus the Glasnost. Failed war in Afganistan, economy crashed then break up... few would've believed it just a few years beforehand.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Upvote for glasnost's sake. Better out than in.