The reason no one will go first is because the other side in order to cease or keep power will demagogue the issue. It seems to work every time. I guess that means we, meaning the entire electorate, are the real problem. The electorate coupled with an intellectually dishonest media

Agreed

I know you are right of course.  I guess that is why I choose the phrase "somewhat diminished."  I am extremely frustrated with the lack of intellectual honesty the current administration demonstrates in addressing the economic issues facing the country.  Frankly I don't forsee any end in sight.  Any light at the end of the tunnel is surely an oncoming train. 

Perhaps a better analogy is one spouse blaming financial ruin on the other for refusing to sign the application to increase the couple's credit limit.  The point is the spouse that is trying to prevent continued deifict spending in not the problem.  The spender is the problem even if there is someone willing to feed the habit with more credit.  In my view it is totally irresponsible to demonize those who are seeking rational reforms to trim future deficits.    

 The fact that a lender is willing to make a loan does not in any way prove that taking on the additional debt is a good idea.  The willinginess to make unwise loans was the principal casue of the financial markets collaspe in 2008.  

Lenders are willing to supply credit to the government becasue the government can always print money to repay the debt.  The debt will be paid at the cost of inflation which actually results in the lender suffering an economic loss unless the rate of interest charged exceeds the rate of inflation. 

I used to worry about passing debt to future generations.  But since they are getting the government they voted for my concerns have somewhat diminished.

Tonight on Special Report Charles Krauthammer asked Juan Williams a version of the question I have been waiting for someone to ask.  "How did the Bush Tax cuts cause the collaspe of Lehman Brothers?"   No one ever seems to challenge the premise of the Obama refrain that the economic meltdown was caused the "failed" Bush policies."  Ok, which policies caused the economic meltdown and how did they do so?

Juan's answer was the Bush tax cuts caused the deficit.  Of course that cannot be the position taken by the Obama administration since it is the position of the administration that the Bush tax cuts should be retained for the middle class.  These cuts have a value of approx $2.3 trillon dollars over the next ten years.   The Obama position on the Bush tax cuts is that the tax cuts for the upper income earners should be repealed for reason related to fairness not because those tax cuts caused the economic meltdown.