[Preechr]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, even with a $10 Trillion debt, we're only one year's income in debt. That's a helluva lotta more favorable debt to income ratio than what's enjoyed by your average American.

Sure, I'm expected to be fiscally conservative as a Libertarian, Kevin, and I am. I'm also realistic. There's a damn good reason why the left hates Republican deficits like they do, just as there's a damn good reason why Republicans run up deficits that seem counter-intuitive. On the face of it, neither thing makes any sense. Things ALWAYS make sense. Democrats look funny bitching about people spending too much, just as there's something wrong with Republicans spending like they print the money.

If I had to guess, I'd bet that under the surface this thing actually does make sense in a way where we don't necessarily have to redefine the two parties. The GOP revolution was basically coming to grips with the idea that you can't fight institutionalized government give-away free-for-alls with stern and well-reasoned warnings that someday we may all regret getting all this free crap. Reagan simply spent all the money before the Dems could get their hands on it.

The average American voter gets all glassy eyed and drooly when you use big words like "redistribution." He gets it, however, when somebody gives him something for free. Try to explain to him that while it looks free, it was either his to begin with or was stolen from someone else, and you run the risk of locking his processor slap up. Republicans finally figured out that you fight your opponents strengths rather than his weaknesses. By spending the money first, they dried up the font at it's source, which made Joe-Six-Pack look the ol' reliable gift-horse in his maw.

This is what was behind Clinton backing Welfare Reform. He HAD to just to save it. I doubt we'll argue over whether he would have preferred extending benefits to dropping millions off the dole...

By running up the debt, Republicans also move the date of critical failure for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid forward to a point where we have to discuss it. We can always put off something that's not expected to happen for fifty years, but if the Baby-Boomers, which are generally better off than their parents, have to decide to increase their old-age benefits (which they WILL have the numbers to be able to decide) at the expense of their children's future stability (which WILL be exactly the case) then maybe the largest pool of SS beneficiaries EVER will be able to allow the radical restructuring offered up by the right in order to fix what's so obviously broken.

The funny part is, by maintaining a constant drone of objections to any THOUGHT of reforming SS, the left has set itself up to look stupid when the discussion is obviated by upcoming realities.