Dependency ratios will go up more than most people realize. (Our only consolation is relative: Europe's problems will be much worse.) I have stated accurately before that the retirement age for government programs and other related laws (airline pilots, to name one example) should be age seventy now. There is nothing sacred about age 65 and this is obviously too young and too early. (Disagreements are not due to facts but merely to emotions and to politics.) If we wanted to keep dependency ratios at a reasonable level, we'd have to actually go beyond the legitimate modern retirement age of seventy, into the mid-seventies. And as with Europe and elsewhere, our problems are less bad than elsewhere because we aren't aging as much as other nations are. Europe would have to see retirement ages moved to the late seventies or beyond, and some east Asian countries would require retirement ages in the eighties. This obviously isn't say this should, much less will, be done, but it serves well to illustrate the aging problem we're going to face. Related to that we'll see some effects on the economy. Namely, there will be a large-scale sell-off of assets to finance retirements, while at the same time, a larger dependent class may subject the economy to inflationary pressures (more consumers for less producers, which is not limited to a future labor shortage). Addressing this is not going to be easy. One way suggested is to index the retirement age to the ever-changing, normally increasing life spans of people (true for the USA). This is the correct thing but faces a lot of opposition, including many among the ignorant and childish who actually assume and expect to retire earlier (at government expense), not later, in defiance of the facts and common sense. (It was this group to whom Bill Clinton appealed at the end of his presidency by suggesting some federal retirement benefits become available at age 55 rather than age 65. It was a shameless appeal to emotion.)

Actually, we have a few more years, but only a few. I've tried warning the ignorant about this for years, largely without success; many prefer to remain ignorant or in denial.

The year is actually 2016 or 2017 right now. That's when the program begins to actually reach an operating deficits. The “bonds” in the “trust funds” of course have no value at all. In order to redeem the bonds so that benefits can continue to be paid in full, more revenues have to be found, from elsewhere in the budget, or from new or higher taxes, or from more borrowing. There is no denying or escaping this fact.

Subjecting all income over the current cap (approximately $90,000 annually) to the Social Security payroll tax (without the bizarre or suspicious “doughnut hole” in the Obama plan — is it a sop to affluent liberals or a setup for higher federal income tax rate for them as well as for those over $250,000?) will delay the onset of deficits by only a year or two, depending on the adjustment (or, if degenerate, no adjustment) in the benefits of those subject to additional, new taxes. By 2020 we'll see a need for more revenue to pay Social Security benefits in full. No denial, no escape possible.

I have some interest in divided government, but neither party has shown any interest in controlling spending in the last 8 years at least. The Republicans don't seem to bring strong fiscal conservatism to their side any more. Instead it's social conservatism. If I could get another party to hammer Obama on spending, I'd think about the benefits of divided government, but I've seen little evidence the Republicans would actually bring this. If that's the case, might as well go with Dems all around so that at least the governing philosophy is semi-coherent.

You well know that the Clinton accomplished those short term budget surplus while having a Republican Congress. The Republicans were much more fiscal conservatives when they were keeping Clinton from starting any new programs.

I'm not sure that I would agree with all of superdestroyer's conclusions, but he brings up a good point.

Yes, we had surpluses in the late 90's, but the fact that a Democrat was president wasn't what caused the surpluses. With Democrats in control of the White House and Republicans in control of Congress, we had divided government.

Yes, we have deficits during the 00's, but that fact that a Republican was president wasn't what caused the deficits. With Republicans in control of the White House for the last 7 1/2 years and Republicans in control of Congress during most of that time, we had one party control of government.

The last 70 years of American history shows again and again that spending goes up much faster during periods in which the same party controls Congress and the White House and goes up much slower during periods in which we have divided government.

In other words, assuming Democrats maintain control of both Houses of Congress (which I believe is inevitable), the election of Obama doesn't bode well for keeping spending under control.

Obama has rightly pointed out that our government's $600 billion war in Iraq certainly hasn't helped our financial situation. But Obama hasn't mentioned a single area where he wan'ts to cut government spending and has proposed several areas where he would increase it.

More government spending…that's not change we can believe in.

You well know that the Clinton accomplished those short term budget surplus while having a Republican Congress. The Republicans were much more fiscal conservatives when they were keeping Clinton from starting any new programs.

Do you really think that Robert Byrd as chiarmen of the Senate appropriations committee will limit the spending of the Obama Administration? If you answer honestly, then you know what will happen to the budget when the Democrats are in charge of everything.

The real question is what will happen to the budget as the U.S. becomes a one party state. Looking at deficits at the state levels in very blue states like Maryland or California, it will not be a pretty picture.

Bear that in mind when you consider the following.

McCain's secret plans are to do whatever it takes to stay in Iraq, continue BigOil's hostile and illegal takeover of oil there, and continue the backroom gravy train for bloated monopolies that pad his and his buddies' pockets at the expense of the basic america citizen.

Obama's secret plan is to do basically the exact opposite of McCain's plan.

Neither man wants to advertise their stance because it will offend too many voters right now. What Congress is really up to at this point is what I like to call a strong-armed compromise. The GOP knows the dems could bury them with evidence that links our country's demise directly to them and just them. Dems know that if they speak too loudly about the good and prudent plans they have on the backburner to rescue our country, that too many short-sided, pinheaded voters will hear the battlecries of the ensuing GOP media-circus and rush en masse to cut off their nose to spite their very own faces.

So there is a tenuous compromise to hedge around until aftter the election..duct-taping the economy until a leader can emerge to turn our nation either into an accelerated spiral into hell or a slow, stead plod back to health. And I think you know which candidate will accomplish which..

Well, apparently they do!

There are some unforeseen consequences of other policies as well. In Prince William Cty, Virginia, the value of some townhouses plunged by over $100,000 when anti-immigration fervor caused some legal immigrants, who were prominent in the community, to abandon their properties and head elsewhere. (story is in today's WaPo)

Far more likely is the scenario where the bailout will temporarily push the “crisis” further down the road and we, as a nation, will go back to simply refusing to think about an unpleasant reality.

We've done this so many times, it's become CV that the road is endless, and therefore the can can be kicked indefinitely.

Unfortunately, this is no longer a can. My thinking goes more along the lines of a freight train barreling down the tracks, as we madly lay more track in front of it. Nobody's noticed that we're deeply into a box canyon, and the end of this track is a cliff wall.

I always think it's bizarre when I read the type of reaction like Davebo's above. Why does it make sense to you to punish the GOP with a broad brush instead of rewarding those in the party who've been contrarians? Bob Barr didn't change

Are you typing that with a straight face?

Let's review his Libertarian street creds shall we?

“Barr was originally a strong supporter of the War on Drugs, reflecting his previous experience as an Anti-Drug Coordinator for the United States Department of Justice.[8] While in Congress, he was a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America.[31] This task force was established in 1998 by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich to “design a World War II-style victory plan to save America's children from illegal drugs.”[32] The task force crafted legislation specifically designed to “win the War on Drugs by 2002.
Barr advocated complete federal prohibition of medical marijuana. In 1998, He successfully blocked implementation of Initiative 59[35] — the “Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998″

Barr took a lead in legislative debate concerning same-sex marriage. He authored and sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act, a law enacted in 1996 which states that only marriages that are between a man and a woman can be federally recognized

Voted for the Patriot Act.

Voted for the War in Iraq

Controversially proposed that the Pentagon ban the practice of Wicca in the military

So basically, if he hasn't changed what the heck is he doing running as a Libertarian?

She seems to think that no matter how poorly her party performs in office, you can always find some member of her party to reward with your vote.

Unless she's suggesting that McCain supporters ought to switch their votes to Barr, in which case, I apologize for misreading.

The number of workers relative to the number of receiptants is the important numbers. As the baby boomers begin to withdraw, the number of payers can stay the same but the outlays start going up. Of course, then general revenue fund will have to come up with more money to make up for the loss in receipts from the social security trust fund's purchase of goverment bonds (really it is just moving money among a number of federal government accounts).

Look at how bad the projections have been on Social security and image who bad they will be for nationalized health care under a Democratic Party dominate government that supported open borders and unlimited immigration.

The message that you can have tax cuts and then also have a of of free stuff on top of that (free stuff = someone else will pay for it) worked pretty well for them at the ballot box, hasn't it?

Which party has more credibility?

I don't think it's the party that fought two (poorly managed) wars and created the largest entitlement program since the 1960's while also cutting taxes.

Well, the crunch actually begins much sooner than that — in 2011, when Social Security’s cash flow turns negative, because of the first wave of baby-boom retirements.

The same people who say this often note how little the boomers actually have in savings. I really wonder what their assumptions are on numbers of boomers retiring and how they relate to the number of boomers who will be working much longer than that because of a low rate of retirement savings. Will there really be that many retirees? How many will “retire” only to work part time and therefore still pay into the system? I really question some of those numbers and the basis used for them.

Being fiscal conservative in the Democratic Party means desiring extremely high taxes and having to believe that high taxes have no effect on the economy (listen to any show on Air America to hear this view point).