[LS]

I've been hearing "we're-in-trouble-in-ten-years" since the 1960s. I agree we have unfunded liabilities, but Bush most certainly HAS attempted to fix SS and received only grief for it.

He screwed up on Medicare, absolutely.

And the problem with "long term" effects of debt is that there are just too many economic variables long term: in the Clinton years, he raised taxes and got a boom . . . because the price of oil was VERY low; computers began to drive productivity up everywhere; and a vast new market opened in Eastern Europe. Clinton had nothing to do with any of that, but it certainly minimized the entire U.S. fiscal policy.

[Huck]

And the problem with "long term" effects of debt is that there are just too many economic variables long term: in the Clinton years, he raised taxes and got a boom . . . because the price of oil was VERY low; computers began to drive productivity up everywhere; and a vast new market opened in Eastern Europe. Clinton had nothing to do with any of that, but it certainly minimized the entire U.S. fiscal policy.

I agree with that. What it really means is that the US economy doesn't care too much if the top rate is 36 or 39. The big hoopla about the Bush tax cuts is kind of overdone. It was pretty small.

[curiosity]

I support Bush's plan to fix SS. That was on of the biggest reasons why I felt it was important for him to win.

You're also right about Clinton. He just got lucky about productivity and oil. Plus the captial market bubble inflated revenues, gaving the illusion of fiscal health.

At any rate, don't delude yourself, we're in big fiscal trouble. Both in the government sectors and private sectors, we are in debt and unfunded liabilities up to our ears. The situation we have today is unprecidented if you look at the ratio of our net obligations to our net national income (NOT GDP, which for reasons I posted earlier is a lousy measure of financail health).