Everyone reading your post should remember that your views on budgets and deficits include that Clinton didn't really run any budget surpluses in 1990s and other positions that get taken by relatively few economists.

$9 trillion national debt in country with $13 trillion GDP and annual budget of $2.9 trillion? Horrors! So if I make $70,000 per year and get loan for $350,000 to buy house, I should probably just jump off bridge. Most economists would be appalled if US decided to completely pay off its national debt, but so long as debt falls rather than rises, most conservative economists would be satisfied.

$53 trillion in future commitments to Social Security and Medicare? More horrors! You could almost forget that Social Security eligibility rules have already changed more than once and will probably change again before too long as life expectancies continue to grow. You could also forget that most economists think that relatively minor changes could take care of any Social Security problems until mid-century at least.

Medicare obligations? You could almost forget that every country in western Europe, every English-speaking country in western world, and most countries in Asia have much larger health insurance obligations to their citizens than US has to its citizens, and that most of those countries have much lower per person health insurance costs than US has. US pays more for health care than any country on Earth by wide margin, on per person basis and on overall basis.

US budget goes 31% for present military obligations and about 20% paying off previous military obligations (including benefits for veterans). Budget deficits amount to around $240 billion this year. But war and Asian adventures won't resolve anything because of national debt and future commitments to Social Security and Medicare? Right. And then you have nerve to say of my arguments, "This is just tripe. I don't even really want to address it."

Who pays for health care now? Businesses? They pass on their costs to everyone who buys their products. Every person who buys anything pays for business-related health insurance coverage, and at grossly inflated rates. But then you have nerve to pretend that top 10% of population pays majority of taxes. Depends on how you define "taxes", doesn't it? But even defining taxes in manner you would approve of, if top 10% paid majority even of federal taxes, then most tax bills wouldn't be focused on middle class people and how much they pay, and it wouldn't be common knowledge among economists that raising taxes on rich can't possibly close budget gaps because there wouldn't be enough revenue from rich alone.

Your "screw old people" version of libertarianism hasn't been required in Europe or Asia, yet you imagine that US will go under if it doesn't bite bullet and decide to piss on its parents. Your "screw poor people" version of health care actually causes as much economic damage in US society as it avoids by keeping taxes lower, and ramps up costs for everyone.

Bottomline: You are full of yourself, and full of it.  

$9 trillion national debt in country with $13 trillion GDP and annual budget of $2.9 trillion? Horrors! So if I make $70,000 per year and get loan for $350,000 to buy house, I should probably just jump off bridge.

Where's the US Government version of the $350k house? The analogy you want is that you make 70k, went to Vegas and rang up $350k in debt at the blackjack table, then came home and got told you were being laid off at the same time the medical results of your doctor visit came back with a diagnosis of a disease requiring longer term treatment.

So yea..given THAT analogy, you might want to consider that bridge real hard. If you can show me what the government can sell (your $350k house) to meet its obligations go right ahead. Otherwise you are merely ignoring the economic realities.

$53 trillion in future commitments to Social Security and Medicare? More horrors! You could almost forget that Social Security eligibility rules have already changed more than once and will probably change again before too long as life expectancies continue to grow. You could also forget that most economists think that relatively minor changes could take care of any Social Security problems until mid-century at least.

I don't ignore it at all. Eligibility rules have changed so much that black people no longer benefit from social security due to longevity differencies -- its unlikely the government can push them up without group genetics causing political strain. Still -- all you are doing is punting the problem by what 3? 5 years? and hoping that people that lack of income causes people's longevity to be reduced.  Why not just argue to raise taxes?

Medicare obligations? You could almost forget that every country in western Europe, every English-speaking country in western world, and most countries in Asia have much larger health insurance obligations to their citizens than US has to its citizens, and that most of those countries have much lower per person health insurance costs than US has. US pays more for health care than any country on Earth by wide margin, on per person basis and on overall basis

Way to completely ignore how exactly the US intends to pay for its medicare obligations. The difference between those countries and us? THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME GDP/DEBT LOAD RATIO.  Do you see Sierra Leone offering Medicad? Didn't think so.

US budget goes 31% for present military obligations and about 20% paying off previous military obligations (including benefits for veterans). Budget deficits amount to around $240 billion this year. But war and Asian adventures won't resolve anything because of national debt and future commitments to Social Security and Medicare? Right. And then you have nerve to say of my arguments, "This is just tripe. I don't even really want to address it."

I said you argument about the cost of health care was tripe , your argument about the cost of war is worse being just plausible enough for those who lean left to believe it. So far you haven't presented ANY data which involves reducing the debt OR accelerating GDP growth, yet I'm the one full of bullshit.

But then you have nerve to pretend that top 10% of population pays majority of taxes. Depends on how you define "taxes", doesn't it? But even defining taxes in manner you would approve of, if top 10% paid majority even of federal taxes, then most tax bills wouldn't be focused on middle class people and how much they pay, and it wouldn't be common knowledge among economists that raising taxes on rich can't possibly close budget gaps because there wouldn't be enough revenue from rich alone.

And this is where the discussion ends. I'm not going to get into a semantic debate about tax revenue. Its as simply as this - if $100 was the federal revenue, the top 10% pays in $90, the top 20 pays near to everything.

Your so called 'middle class' without being defined by income is either in the top 10% or doesn't pay enough to make a difference.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

"And this is where the discussion ends. I'm not going to get into a semantic debate about tax revenue. Its as simple as this - if $100 was the federal revenue, the top 10% pays in $90, the top 20 pays near to everything." Reason that your discussion of this matter ends here? You can't actually provide any proof of your assertions, and those assertions don't actually make any sense. Not all US federal revenues come from income taxes, only about $1.15 trillion out of $2.64 trillion. As for state revenues, in many states they mostly come from sales taxes and taxes on single family houses. Do you really think only rich people buy things or live in houses?

"Where's the US Government version of the $350k house?" How about total productive capacity of largest single economy in world? Do you think US government can lose job, suddenly not have access to $3 trillion per year to pay for its habits? US government doesn't have to sell anything to meet its obligations, just make payments. Actually, my $350,000 house would require five years of everything I make to pay off, while US government's $9 trillion debt would require about three years of everything it makes. US government's position will always be better than mine.

US government can raise taxes to pay for Social Security or Medicare. US government can change eligibility requirements. US government can raise age at which people receive benefits. You admit to all of these yet bring matter up as if US government has some actual insoluble problem with Social Security or Medicare. You were probably just being disingenuous, raising economic non-issue to sound dramatic.

You say of western European countries working on welfare state social democratic model that "THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME GDP/DEBT LOAD RATIO", as if screaming this nonsense will make it so. Some western European countries have lower ratios, some have higher ratios, but if western Europe in general can afford their welfare state policies, how can you possibly convince yourself that US can't?

You present no links, I present no links, therefore you win? Can you really maintain that if US wasn't spending more than half of total military expenditures in entire world that US couldn't reduce its deficits? Defence Department gets almost half trillion dollars per year, Iraq and Afghanistan get another $160 billion per year, nuclear related and veterans related expenditures amount to another $50 billion per year, interest on debt incurred in substantial part because of military adventures runs $260 billion per year, but my "argument about the cost of war is worse being just plausible enough for those who lean left to believe it"? And you present what to support your belief that my argument was deceptive? Nothing but presumptions and tsk tsks for gullible leftists?

Can you really maintain that if US wasn't spending this money on war that it would certainly spend it on something else even less productive? That Reagan-era nostrum may work on committed right-wingers, but don't be surprised that no one else takes it seriously. Why do both Clinton and Obama call for middle class tax cuts even as they supposedly will spend as much on domestic priorities as Bush spends on war? Oh, they must be economically illiterate. Good times in 1990s were all big mistake, you know much better than people like Greenspan, Rubin, and other Clinton-era economic advisers. They should call you up and save all that money on salaries.

In summary, get out of Iraq and start paring back military expenditures aimed at refighting Cold War and deficit will drop just as it did in 1990s, and tax cuts aimed at middle class people (who you argue already don't pay any taxes now) will stimulate economy, a/k/a accelerate GDP growth.

Conservatives like the government to be broke, so that we can't possible consider spending money on anything except "necessary" things like war, and like to talk about how the federal government is out of money and running up unsustainable deficits.  But is it? (Large PDF, see page 127)

In recent years, public debt held by the public peaked at 49.2% of GDP in 1995, and was 37.4% of GDP in 2005 and 37.0% in 2006, the two most recent years for which data is available.  

Its as simply as this - if $100 was the federal revenue, the top 10% pays in $90, the top 20 pays near to everything.

The top one percent are now estimated to own between forty and fifty percent of the nation's wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 95%.)

Think about that.  If the poorest 95% of americans all pooled their wealth together they would still have LESS than the top 1% of americans.   I think the top 10% can probably afford to pay 90% of the taxes.  I am not convinced they are paying 90% of the taxes, but I think they should.

The national debt right now stands at close 9T

You must know that the debt is not the same as the yearly budget deficit?  

Take your 1.2 Trillion in iraq war spending and spread it over the 5 years of the war and we see the iraq war is costing on average 240 billion per year.  In 2006 the account deficit was 260 billion dollars.   So stop the war and the deficit drops to 20 billion per year.  Next repeal the EGTRAA tax cuts and get another 150 billion / year in revenue.  

Now the US is running the economy at a budget surplus of 130 billion per year. Take 1/2 of the surplus and apply it to the debt to increase the speed at which it will be paid down.  Take the other 1/2 and start buying property in the major US cities to help bolster property values.

...we see the iraq war is costing on average 240 billion per year

Interestingly, the government money giveaway that's supposed to happen sometime this summer is in the same ballpark, money-wise, as the Iraq war. This is not to say that either, or both, of these things should or should not be done, it's merely an illustration that the problem with the US federal government is not as simple as "get out of Iraq." The problem is much for fundamental: the US federal government is too big.

...start buying property in the major US cities to help bolster property values

My long term plan would be to convert the homes into low income housing.

My long term plan would be to convert the homes into low income housing.

Oddly enough, this was exactly the plan put in place by the mortgage industry for the past 10 years or so.

My long term plan would be to convert the homes into low income housing

Your logic escapes me.

No I do not want to drive them out of the city.  First, $350,000+ houses are not affordable to poor people as it is.  So I do not see it as taking homes away from poor people.  Second, there is a glut of houses on the market and that is causing property values to decline which is related to the slow-down in economic activity.

You only create a ghetto if you put all the poor people together.  That is not what I was talking about doing.

...there is a glut of houses on the market and that is causing property values to decline which is related to the slow-down in economic activity

I really don't think you've thought this through. If the average house is going for $350,000, and you have the federal government start buying property with a goal of driving up prices, then what do you think is going to happen? You will inevitably drive out buyers at the margin - do you intend to give them subsidized housing, too?

Also, putting subsidized housing in a neighborhood with $350,000 houses will tend to drive values down. You won't create a ghetto overnight, but it will happen eventually.

No, prices are declining because many parts of the US were experiencing a real estate bubble.

Agreed.  It is the bubble bursting that is fueling the problems with the economy.

In the Mortgage Mess story we learned that that $350,000 house was worth $500,000 last year.  Propping up the bubble would hopefully restore value to thousands of people 'at the margin' who are currently thinking they would be better off foreclosing on their home than making mortgage payments.  Bring the price back up to $500,000 please.  Then hold the prices their for 10-15 years and let inflation make the homes more affordable for the average American.

I think I'll pass on the 'how to create a ghetto' discussion for now.  But I think we should take it up again in another story :)

Propping up the bubble would hopefully restore value to thousands of people 'at the margin' who are currently thinking they would be better off foreclosing on their home than making mortgage payments

Bring the price back up to $500,000 please.  Then hold the prices their for 10-15 years and let inflation make the homes more affordable for the average American

I think I'll pass on the 'how to create a ghetto' discussion for now

In LA county, if you own a home $350k in value, it's very likely that you live under the county poverty line for the purposes of the US HUD.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

I'm inclined on a general basis to side with your conclusions. But what about the positive economic impact from getting health insurance off the bottom line of the world's biggest corporations that is associated with nationalizing health care? On a macro level, it's merely a shifting of costs, not an added expenditure.

Also, just as an aside, all those quotes you pulled read more like the first Clinton (Bill) than JFK or MLK. That is the orator I think he's fashioning himself after. Certainly it's an irony but he makes a better Clinton than Hillary. Also, those are obviously just progressive rhetoric to galvanize the left wing into voting. Obama's policies are no more "fiscal fairy tales" than the first Clinton's and to argue otherwise is plain dried-hearted knee jerk conservatism. Oh for the days of such irresponsibility.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Yeah, shifting the cost from the corporations to the remaining well-paid workers, who have their tax burden increased even more.

That's Hillary's plan!

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

I wasn't there. But I assume he used better than 6th grade vocabulary to make his points on the stump.

Candidates are increasingly simplifying their diction. I would suppose that appeals to emotion, fear, hyperbole and the use of false dichotomies are becoming more popular styles of rhetoric. Do you agree this could be due to a lack of willingness on the part of general society to become proficient on the issues and join in a meaningful debate?

The  political process in America really chews on the big issues.

I don't disagree with the idea that things could be improved upon, I just disagree with the weird contention people frequently have that political dialog was more noble in the past. Which past? How far past? Reagan? Nixon? Carter? Harding? The days of yellow journalism?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

I took a cursory look at some old debate transcripts from the Carter/Ford contest in '76.

Perhaps this is just me, but imagine the Iraq War was conducted with draftees along the lines of Vietnam, and imagine a President had decided to pardon those who evaded the draft. Could you imagine the debate being conducted on that likely highly charged emotional topic today in as a civil and high minded fashion as it was back in '76?

Look at the discussion at the end concerning the Federal Reserve and monetary policy. That suggests to me that 'back in the day' the average American was expected to be competent in a wide variety of political and current events. They were expected to engage (or at least understand) in that discourse at a higher level than now. The vocabulary was more elevated, the issues were described in less of a black and white fashion. Contrast that with this (chilling) snippet from a 2000 Bush/Gore debate I just found:

LEHRER: Vice President Gore, can you point to a decision, an action you have taken, that illustrates your ability to handle the unexpected, the crisis under fire, et cetera?
...Gore's Answer...
LEHRER: Governor Bush?
BUSH: Well, I've been standing up to big Hollywood, big trial lawyers -- what was the question? It was about emergencies, wasn't it?

Hilarious.

You know, I heard Mike Gravel speak to the Commonwealth Club (podcast available), and he is decidedly not batshit insane, or even mildly insane.  

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

Seriously? How did it go? I mean... he has the credentials and experiences (especially as an anti-war candidate) to rival (or easily surpass) Clinton.

The only thing is he has been out of the game so long and had a questionable advertisement campaign in the initial stages of the primary. I must admit, now that his stated political positions stance page on Wikipedia has been fleshed out I find myself agreeing with him on many things (an earlier writeup had him pushing a "citizen's wage" of ~$5,000 a year to everybody including the chronically unemployed welfare recipients, something I see missing now).

Having re-read up on him at your insistence I must wonder why is he not polling at least higher than Kucinich? I am surprised he does not draw in more of the Ron Paul crowd with his anti-war, strongly pro-2nd amendment, pro-civil liberties stance.

Again, too bad he is not on the ballot in my state.

There are a lot of people out there who meant to support Gravel but ended up with Ron Paul, I guess.  You can download the podcast at the Commonwealth Club's website for free, or use iTunes or whatever.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

Considering Bill Clinton's pick for Attorney General last time, namely Janet Reno, Democrats could use someone as legally savvy as Edwards somewhat desperately. He would make much better Attorney General than Secretary of Labour, and his abilities would be better put to use in that position, especially if Democratic President wanted to crack down on corporate corruption.

It would be possible to imagine him running for Governorship of North Carolina also, but he seems to have gotten federal bug.

John Edwards would make a fabulous attorney general or even supreme court justice

John Edwards would make a fabulous attorney general or even supreme court justice.

Only if by "fabulous" you mean "pretty" rather than "competent."  Absolutely nothing about Edwards suggests he has the institutional juice or management ability to run the Department of Justice.  He would be dramatically out of his league at Justice; lacking any knowledge of the federal criminal judicial process, or, indeed, of the operation of the Department itself, he'd be about as effective as Gonzales, only without Gonzales' close relationship to the President.  As for Supreme Court, nothing in his background shows that he has the academic firepower to do anything of note on the Supreme Court other than cast votes that liberals might agree with -- although, given that the last time he was in politics he cast a series of votes that he now runs away from, even that is not certain.  

You must be under the impression that because he made a lot of money doing civil cases, he would therefore be a good [insert high-ranking lawyer position name here].  Totally wrong.  This is kind of like thinking that because your family physician treated your broken toe well, he therefore would be a great choice to run your city's main hospital.

But I looked into his eyes and saw his soul.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.