In response to:

The Kingdom of Fairness

Corbett_ Wrote: Dec 06, 2012 12:18 PM
I thought it was Iran. At least during the primaries, all of the Republicans were saying that they agreed with everything Ron Paul said on economics and the need to make actual cuts on the federal budget, but that he could not be the nominee because there was a vanishingly slight chance that Iran might someday in the indeterminate future get a bomb. Now suddenly the the people on this site are worried about spending? Seems to me that if they thought spending was an issue, they would have nominated the ONLY candidate who was talking about real cuts to the budget.
Corbett_ Wrote: Dec 06, 2012 2:27 PM
Stranger -- surely you knew that Obama-lite would never beat Obama...
stangerinmyownland Wrote: Dec 06, 2012 1:44 PM
Right on. If I had known Mitt would lose, and my vote lost, I would have voted for Dr. Paul.
Ghost of the Republic Wrote: Dec 06, 2012 12:45 PM
Corbett_

It seems to me that politicians of all stripes have abandoned the core principles of their party. Instead, pundits and politicians alike pontificate on "strategic policy realignments" and "fiscal repositioning". In other words, the language of whatever-I-have-to-say-to-get-elected.

We are still borrowing more than $1 trillion a year. Barack Obama has added more than $5 trillion to the national debt in just his first term alone. Such massive borrowing is unsustainable. Someone somehow at some time has to pay it back.

Obama would agree. He once alleged that George W. Bush's much smaller deficits were "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic." Obama himself vowed to cut the budget deficit in half by the end his first term. Instead, Obama's annual deficits have never gone below $1 trillion.

Three ways to establish a long-term trajectory toward a balanced budget were under...