Siyah (Nov 20 2012)

correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't krugman hsemilf repeat ad nauseum that (at least prior to the stimulus/bailout) for all intensive purposes the federal budget is defense/medicare/soscial security. if your not willing to cut any of the 3, and no one really is, then your not serious about debt reduction.of the 3, the medicare and social sec are the runaway problems with our aging population while defense spending is temporary, not so much structural. i think this is agreed upon by serious thinkers. the last huge increase structurally was bush's unfunded medicare pt d, which after the bill passed, it was revealed would be like gazillions more than expected. the dems of course went along for the unfunded ride, in fact wanted more oif it. there is some debate over how pyramid schmish social security is (there is fund but the fund consists of debt, ie govt owes itself money) but the rest of what i wrote is pretty much fact unless you read the most partisan talking heads.so the whole premise of this discussion seems off. dem babys(soc sec and medicare) are the timebombs no? the other stuff, wars and stimulus spending, are traditionally done on deficit spending because they're temporary. not so much of a problem.

Credibility:     

0

ickmbxmw (Nov 22 2012)

XIr6Qd , [url=http://yqwtfgprnkah.com/]yqwtfgprnkah[/url], [link=http://otgfxhmnomep.com/]otgfxhmnomep[/link], http://enwoeoavqglm.com/

Credibility:     

0

lbevugfhkup (Nov 22 2012)

NeC5KB ikjetccvwsld

Credibility:     

-1

mcgnlejly (Nov 23 2012)

YO2vxP , [url=http://pfhvrxeprvrg.com/]pfhvrxeprvrg[/url], [link=http://yffwrycazqyx.com/]yffwrycazqyx[/link], http://uutkpukxtkku.com/

Credibility:     

0