Consider this: the AARP as a group tends to vote as a block, and to vote - very strongly - to protect their interests. You can bet yer shiny Republican ass that as the baby boomers retire, this age group and political body is going to hold very, very tightly to their “promised” social security and medicare benefits. The size of the current Republican “base” pales by comparison to this group; go check the demographics yourself, don’t take my word for it.

Bush upped the costs for Medicare, and his “reforms” will merely divert existing social security tax income away from paying through; the so-called “personal accounts” won’t help the baby boom generation’s costs, they’ll help the next, mabye a little. But he’s accelerated the day when social security goes “bust.” Roughly 2015 last time I checked.

So I’d guess that, Repub or Dem, whomever is elected into office around about that time will do so by promoting robust retirement benefits for the AARP - and funding that will be a major headache. They’re gonna be the new base - roughly 30% of the US population. Either we print bales of money and have inflation, or we tax the hell out of everybody; money’s gotta come from somewhere. Japan, France, and others face even worse demographic problems of roughly the same time-frame; they won’t be there to fund us as they are today.

The Harper’s article I referenced above - I truly hope you read it - has an excellent quote from the Japanese Minister of Finance on this very problem. “Very big problem,” he says. Indeed.

Adopting the rhetorical stand that “no matter dems will run the country into the ground” is just pure infantile ignorance - it’s the Chicken Little philosophy. I strongly urge you to research this, and understand the real dynamics and economics, don’t take my word for it - learn yourself what you need to know, quit repeating rhetoric that’s been handed to you, cut from whole red cloth.

Good luck to you, and godspeed.

A new premier, freshly selected, went into his office on the first day of his reign. He found two envelopes on the desk. One read “in case of major national emergency, open first.” The other read “in case of second major national emergency, open next.”

Predictably, a major catastrophy came upon Mother Russia, and everyone wanted the premier’s head. So he broke open the first letter. It said “Blame everything on me, your predecessor.” He did, and everything eventually settled down.

Just as predictably, another major catastrophy came upon the motherland, so the premier, at his wit’s end, broke open the 2nd letter. It said “find two white envelopes…”

Best of luck to everyone in 2008. Whatever happens, it’ll be interesting; and, despite Em’s dire predictions, I think we all know better; whomever wins, Republican or Democrat, they’ll inherit the usual raft of nasty reality problems vs. theology or idealogy, and have to dap dance their way through them.

;-)

A deficit means that you budget shows you are borrowing money more then you are taking it in. Clinton left us with a surplus, meaning that more money was coming into the government. That money was being used to pay down the debt. Yes, the debt still existed when Clinton left, but like Leb said, they were using the surplus to pay that down. Good stuff.

Bush changed all that for the worst. His budgets are losing RECORD amounts of money, WORSENING the debt.

Now, like all good republicans, you are whipping out the 9/11. Yes, 9/11 of course hurt the economy. BUT given that the country was going into war, always an expensice proposition, Bush had a choice of either cutting programs or forgetting about tax cuts.

He instead chose to do neither, which is why I don’t like his administration so much. Instead he decresed taxes, AND increased social spending. MORE THEN CLINTON.

And don’t start on how “crazy liberals” in Congress and Sentae are preventing him from cutting programs. That is not true, simply because the repubs have a majority in both legislative branches.

NEXT!!!

During the Clinton 2nd term, the budget surplus was paying down the national debt. That means that all those foreigners that hold US Treasury bonds - funding our debt - started getting cold hard dollars - cash, which they had to do something with… they *had* to reinvest it, and the most logical place is in the US, in stocks, and bonds. Or onshore businesses or whatever. So the net effect was to (probably) drive investment of stagnant dollars (parked in Treasuries) back into the economy. It also freed up those dollars to pursue other (commercial) paper debt, funding American corporations. It freed up a *tremendous* amount of credit which always amps up the economy. That money has to do something.

When Bush killed off the surplus with the tax cuts, he stopped the reinvestment cycle, and by increasing the national debt, he started pulling those dollars back into US Treasuries at a very fast pace… and, with a recession on, the safest place to park dollars is in US Treasury bonds - given the choice between the market and bonds, in a recession, the money heads for the bonds.

Finally, by enacting tax cuts, he made it (in effect) more expensive for investors to incur “tax losses,” i.e. investments in risky ventures were using their dollars, not the government’s, because they couldn’t write off the losses. Tax cuts tend to drive investment toward lower-risk investment - bonds, safe-haven “blue chip” investments, and the like. In effect, parking the money. Higher taxes tend to promote a “use it or lose it” mentality, which amps up riskier investment, like in Internet or technology stocks. Some of the investements I remember my dad considering in the 70s, facing 50% tax rates, were truly bizarre. The effect is marginal, but it’s there.

So it seems to me that (a) the “Clinton effect” pushed dollars back into the US (and out of bonds) (taxation was very, very close to the H. W. Bush’s levels; taxes did not increase substantially under Clinton at all) and inspired a less risk-averse investment climate; (b) the “Bush effect” pulled the dollars back out of the economy and parked them back in bonds, and promoted a risk-averse investment strategy.

Which, in the end, may have been the “tipping point” for the recession to go truly badly for everyone. Think about it.

More likely, right after the 2006 elections Cheney will resign for personal or health reasons and Bush and the Republican leadership will select someone that’s has a chance at keeping “the base” together through the 2008 election. That’s the only thing that makes sense if they value the incumbent advantage. Otherwise it’s a horse race with an even start, and why would they risk that when they can tilt the playing field ever so slightly in their direction? They risk civil war within their own ranks if they don’t choose a contender for the ticket in a back-room selection beforehand.

I wonder who it might be?

As for the Dems, I don’t think they’re a shoe-in unless “the base” falls apart. With Dean in the chair at the DNC, I don’t have much hope that they’ll field a contender. They’ll have to offer a plank that’s better than “we’re not Bush.” Hillary would be far too risky a choice, and would probably drive moderate-conservative votes that still have a bad taste of Clinton in their mouths (so to speak) toward any Republican candidate. She might have a shot for a VP slot, but even then, she’s far too big a lightning rod (cough) for conservatives.

Whatever happens, it’ll be interesting.