Another eccon professor that misses the point.  When a government is run on debt and gets to the point where no one will lend that government any more money the result is austerity.   The austerity is a result of debt and poor or no planing.  Politicians in Europe and the US have been buying votes with borrowed money.  It is now time for Europe to pay the piper for this systemic corruption.  The US's turn will come more quickly than most expect with similar results. 

I agree that what Harding did did help the economy grow and helped end the recession.  However total debt, not just government debt, was 1/4 of what it is today.  The cost of servicing debt is a hindrance to growth.  If the debt which has been accumulated was used to invest in capital producing investments then you and the GOP's pipe dream might work once again.  However most of the debt was used to buy consumer goods.  The government has been encouraging consumption in stead of saving for a half a century or more.  If you have a way for a country whose GDP is made up of 90% consumption and government spending which has been sustaining itself with debt of continuing the farce indefinitely I would like to hear it. 

I have not looked at the numbers in the last couple of months, but total debt as a percent of GDP is at least 300% higher than ever.  Essentially all Bush and Obama have done is exchange a small fraction of the private debt for public debt.   Until a sizable portion of this debt is liquidated little will change.   Austerity (by this I mean federal spending below 14% of GDP) is  in the long run the answer, but saying when the government did this or that in 1946 or 1920, when debt was 1/3 or less the level it is now, and if we did the same thing now something similar would happen is foolish at best.

I said the only argument lies in the immorality of homosexuality.   If homosexuality weren't immoral it would not cheapen marriage.  All the other arguments rests on this.  I hear no one objecting to a female and male  marrying when they are past child bearing age and do it solely for economic reasons.    Though this falls far short of the ideal it presents no problem.  

The marriage fiasco has more to do with demanding that the state sanction deviancy than love, bonds or mutual respect.  The only argument against gay marriage lies in the immorality of homosexuality.  The controversy is about the unwillingness of people to call immoral behavior immoral.  The evangelical church has been kowtowed into virtual silence  and the end result in the short run will be  gay marriage and in the long run the ending of the relevance of the evangelical church,  The only real question is how long it will take.  

I view this election as now being about how the deck chairs will be arranged on the Titanic.  The time for doing something to effectively address the debt crisis has passed.  It is now about what party will get the blame.  I wouldn't get too excited about winning.

This parasite who evidently thinks growing spending at a 3% rate is reducing the federal government is yet one more Republican career politician who makes frequent reference to the Founder's intents.   I am not a student of history, but I don't recall any of the founders longing for the days when our country would be governed by professional politicians.  It is about time this hypocritical bum left office and started doing some honest work.   He is, like most career Washington  politicians part of the problem.

The Democrats abandoned bipartisanship long before Obama.  Republicans, like yourself, are just beginning to realize it.

Don't you mean a career life long phony politician.  He says a lot about the Republican party.

It probably means entitled Americans, Greeks, Italians, British, etc will all run out of other peoples money much faster.  

It seems to me that not ordering the mission held more political risk than ordering it.    After 10 years the US had OBL in the cross hairs but the BHO refused to pull the trigger.    I have yet to figure out why the decision is thought to be courageous.   Generally using politician and courage in the same context creates an oxymoron and this is no exception. 

Liberal, socialist Democrats like Obama think the government can  borrow, tax, and spend and that this will have a positive effect on the country.  The arguments they make and proposals they put forth are consistent with this idea.  Ryan states that there is a pending debt crisis that will occur in 2 - 3 years.   His budget does nothing to seriously address spending or borrowing in the next 3 years.   His argument is that promising to do something about entitlement spending in the future and making yet one more tax reform proposal will so stimulate growth that deficits as a percent of GDP will decline over time.  Both men should be ridiculed; Obama for being wrong about the debt and Ryan for not addressing it seriously.  

I find Republicans more amusing on this subject than they normally are.  The Senate passed a HC mandate bill sponsored by Bob Dole in 93.  It passed with considerable Republican support with little concern about the Constitution or liberty.  Medicare Part D while not imposing a mandate does penalize anyone who dose not participate in the program if they are otherwise qualified to participate.   No one that I am aware of in  the Republican party are in the least bit concerned about Congress imposing penalties for not engaging in this commercial activity.  Democrats have long ago declared the Constitution is meaningless and Republican act as if it is even if they are not honest enough to declare so openly.   If this were Republican sponsored legislation the people wjho are now outraged would be supporters.  Most of the problems in the HC market are the result of government interference  yet both parties advocate more not less government action and overtime the SC will continue to rubber stamp the absurdity.   What rational they use to do so is of little importance.  Until there is a major party that stands for the principle of liberty this will continue.

Both parties proposed solution to every imagined ill is governmental action.   That is the fundamental problem.  Unless one of the parties becomes a party of limited government it makes little difference how the mandate question is dealt with.

While it would be some sort of victory to have  O-care overturned by the courts it is hardly a cause for celebration.    The choices offered to voters by the two major parties is to continue moving toward socialism quickly or continue to move toward socialism more slowly.   Will limited government conservatives be able to take control of the GOP?  That is the important question and it looks like this is no where close to happening.

The argument for government action is that if a non insured person severely injures himself and requires extensive medical care everyone pays for that care.   The cost of his care is reflected in the cost of medical care that everyone pays for primarily through their insurance premiums.  Now if everyone has insurance and the same person sustains the injury everyone pays for his medical care.  In addition in the latter case everyone must pay for the enforcement mechanism that forced everyone to have insurance and the added administrative costs.    The logic behind government action like the logic for most government action is false.