Social security is a great example. Before social security, a large proportion of seniors were living in poverty. This proportion was lowered greatly. Now-a-days, people are living longer so it makes sense to increase the age of payment for social security. People should be working longer and should plan for it. This fact alone suggests that there is a growing well of productivity in the economy that is yet untapped. In other words, no we can't maintain the status quo for social security. But if we abandon it entirely, a bunch of people will be pushed into poverty (a result that may end up hurting the economy a lot more in the long wrong). The solution is to raise the age of first payment and convince the boomers they need to work longer because they are getting the benefits of advanced medical care. Cutting all social programs doesn't make any sense. It will just make the lower income earners suffer and inevitably lead to less growth because of the downward cycle of poverty (no money, no education, no opportunity).

The reason I don't see it is that your argument is, essentially, everything that happened which was viewed as positive over the last century was actually a huge negative in disguise. I don't buy your premise that the debt is fundamentally beyond payment nor that the only way to balance the economy is to confiscate massive amounts of money or disband the entire military. Cuts need to be made, the entire economy is not a total loss. I find it hard to believe that you actually believe this considering your ' Stop Koolaid Politics' moniker. It's straight from Glenn Beck.

I see this as overly pessimistic. Unless our economy is fundamentally unable to produce any wealth, and people decide all taxes are for suckers, the debt is still at a payable level. It's been higher, historically and has declined (as a percentage of GDP) as recently as the 90s.

The housing market collapsed because people lost faith in the loans. China and Japan might decide one day that US debt is worthless, and in doing so would wreck not just our economy, but theirs, and probably the world economy as a whole. So it is a dangerous game, and at some point we do have to pay it down, but comparing it to the housing market is like comparing the US to a nation like Ecuador, or some other nation that needs debt relief. Also, as a percentage of GDP, we are only now approaching WW2 levels. The debt decreased as a proportion of GDP during every presidency until Reagen, and has been rising ever since. The original 'Keynesians' did pay it down after it got us out of the great depression, all the way down to 30%. Take that for what you will.

I guess that's why religious people are so easily tricked.

This is true, but it's still growing.

So any threat/ by the police is justifiable. That's an interesting view of the law you have there.

If you don't want to acknowledge standard measures of economic growth, it's your prerogative.

She makes a living bashing the left while winking at the same time, people feel the need to bite back.

It's clearly Obama's fault that a bunch of people projected their desire for competent leadership onto a candidate because of the obvious inadequacy of the previous administration.

Let me guess: you spend all day sitting in front of Matlab trying to make sense of the data only to be confounded by the obvious deficiencies in your grossly inadequate model. Don't get me wrong, we've all been there, but don't be jealous of the guys w/ exciting experiments (some of which do work).

I bet they would be pleased with this comment.

The economy is still growing at a rate of 2-3% a year which is not stagnant...

As President, one has three levers at one's disposal: lawyers, guns, and diplomacy (I'll put the bully pulpit under diplomacy.) If none of these things can be levied to solve the problem, there isn't much one can do. And my 'ones' go to eleven.

Wrong...education = population control.

Yes, the effect of one person on the global economy is very small. However, buying something and selling it at a higher price increases costs for someone, that's for sure. Whatever hand-waving you want to perform (no one else would have bought it, there's a bigger market online, etc.)...that's up to you.