Is it really absurd to just want to go back to 2008 spending levels?

anything different? We did, after all, elect the members of congress.

‘The Economist’, is a publication I have read weekly for over forty years is unique with nothing even remotely like it published in the USA. Their rather mid-Atlantic view is refreshing and lends a global perspective (frequently in my view wrong) that usually escapes the American media. This magazine also has the courage to write for a literate audience.

Personally, I have no problem with bashing the Republicans who as the ‘stupid party’ usually deserve it. Indeed, such criticism is more meaningful coming from a traditional ally like ‘The Economist’ that has always been ready to apologize for the malfeasance of the governing oligarchy and can be counted on to spring to the defense of the forces of entrenched greed.

Read Rajan's Fault Lines. If you're in a rush, read just the first couple chapters. It gives the best description of why the US economy is becoming trash, and how deficit spending is related.

It is interesting that there seems to be a fairly consistent opinion among economists and other technocrats that an expansion of the social safety net, universal health care, and increased federal revenues are in the long term best interest of the US, with most of the debate being about how to expand the social safety net and health care, and from where (or whom) taxes should come rather than whether those things should be done.

Obviously this opinion has been mutated into something less effective for Democratic and omitted entirely for Republican political rhetoric.

Not surprising, considering the attitude that which benefits the oligarchy (first the British, and secondarily the Northeastern US) is best. It's basically the same attitude that got us into WW1. We have already seen some of the fruits of this world view: economically hollowed out US, massive entanglements, a debased working class, and massive debt. The Economist's own role in calling for the Iraq War is significantly overlooked.

The point the writer missed, that Z. Brzezinski pointed out on the Joe Scarborough Starbucks Power Hour, is that this debate, as so many others, is being driven by growing inequity in this country. Of course we shouldn't expect the Economist, from its lofty heights, to deign to serious consider the plebs' complaints. Pay your debt tax, serf, protect the overseas investments of your betters, keep a stiff upper lip, remember Queen and Country, there's a good chap.

Our World statesmen in DC (why be a national leader, sounds so tawdry, when you can go global?) will have to deal with the mundane domestic troubles of the US or else we can expect even more insane political debates in the future. In any event, we will default, we'll just do it through inflation, as Ron Paul and others have pointed out.

The inequity Brzezinski spoke on is a direct result of the type of governance and policies advocated by the Economist. While we haven't reached crisis level yet, if we stay on the current course we will. At some point, Globalists, so concerned about instability in the far reaches of the world, will have to accept that we might have political instability at home.

"America’s net indebtedness is a perfectly affordable 65% of GDP..."

And

"Under America’s elaborate separation of powers, Congress must authorise any extension of the debt ceiling, which now stands at $14.3 trillion."

Did anyone notice, particularly those who are not members of the "stupid party"
that this puts GDP at $22 trillion? Could someone who is not stupid explain that number?

Rhetorical question here, what kind of stupidity does it take to mindlessly and thoughtlessly accept BS statistics, even if from a reputable publication, in the middle of a contentious political debate?

....hinging your argument on: "America’s net indebtedness is a perfectly affordable 65% of GDP, and throughout the past three years of recession and tepid recovery investors have been more than happy to go on lending to the federal government." sounds pretty weak to me.

Perfectly affordable? That is hardly a fact. Very debatable.

Investors happy to lend to us? So what!?! That doesn't mean these 'investments' are without risk! (see: 2008 housing bubble)

I've been an Economist subscribor for almost two years now. I love reading it for a good once-over-the-world news intake, but they seem like the same sort of Republicrats that infest D.C., thinking they can push all the right buttons and turn all the right levers to make the world work.

Are our politicians playing politics witht he budget?? Well, let me think about it...their occupation is called 'politician.' Hmmm...no they couldn't be..

I wish I could take time machine forward into the future to a point where mankind has evolved out of the need for government. It will happen eventually.. politicians and so-called economists will be kicking and screaming the whole way down! Until then, Ron Paul has my vote. The only guy in congress that won't lie to you.

It will never work if the current class of rulers continue to not be held accountable (i.e. getting away with boiling down their economic position into a quick 10second sound bite, as opposed to an hour long discussion by Ron Paul). So yea, in my lifetime, it might not come to pass.. But eventually, the public will wise up and stop electing people to congress for Life (giving them tenure in essance), and we might see some change. It seems to me that civilization is slowly moving toward more and more free market capitalization (in the aggregate) as time marches on. Maybe not the case currently in our country, but a girl can still dream, right? :)