And you're right, there's plenty of blame to go around, but it started with “Reaganomics,” “Thatcherism” etc. The senior Bush himself dubbed it “voodoo economics,” but when it turned out that the public was easily and cheerfully led to the slaughter, GHWB and GWB joined right in, and Clinton to a lesser extent. As for Congress, sadly we've seen that they're in the pockets of the oligarchs; both parties.

Well, if the right wingnuts want to “shrink government to a size that they can drown it in the bathtub”

The phrase is “starve the beast” (just search for it, there's plenty), supposedly a Republican strategy for shrinking the government. If so, it's not a particularly bright one.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/03/starvin…

Many sites list this as a strategy of Reagan, the champion of borrow-and-spend. Personally, I think they're trying to resolve their hero's conflict between his words and his actions, when he was really just paying back his pals in California.

and 45% by the Fed (essentially printing money, which dilutes all our spending power).

Which covers the other two of the ways that congress can tax us. But again, the Fed is currently a separate, privately owned entity (really entities) that have government powers. If congress turned it into a government owned entity, that 45% would become debt that the government owed to itself, and it could simply write it off. Granted, the 55% remaining isn't chump change, but it would be a help.

But the Democrats are by no means innocent, especially since they were just as much responsible for the bank bailouts and repeal of Glass-Steagall as Republicans were. They also championed The Social Security act of 1965, which created Medicare, without consideration of the effects that it would have on medical costs, and allowed congress to drain the trust fund. Then in 1968 decided to hide that theft with its “unified budget”.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally65.html

As I was researching other addons in other eras, I came across this little beauty and realized that the numbers wouldn't mean anything even if I did find them:

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapt…

You may be more right than either of us expected.

I guess it's a shock to those not only beholden to the Dems but to the welfare state, the overgrowth of Washington, and of course, the decades-long practice (stronger by the Dems, but also by the GOP) there of More. More, More, More.

As I was ready to write elsewhere, I laugh at the shock and hype now. The real retirements will come with the real shocks (to those in such poor or demented condition they will be shocked), when Social Security and Medicare's fundamental failures can no longer be deferred. Of course there will be a big rush to leave DC and leave responsiblity for having to say No More, and even have to start saying Less.

Just wait until more taxes or borrowing or redirected spending needs to happen to keep Social Security and Medicare benefits paid in full — once the deficits can't be ignored any longer. Then it'll be “thunder,” lighting, the Apocalypse. What? No? No More?? Less??? [gasp]

And for all the GOP's ranting *now* about the debt, they never proposed for a minute to use the surplus to reduce it. They dished the surplus out (Doled it out?) to their fat cat buddies and their own greedy selves. Then they doubled the $5.7 trillion debt we had when Clinton left office. NOW they're screaming, because they want to spend freely on credit when they're in power, then strangle *social* spending when they're not.

As for ownership of the debt, 21% is foreign (3 times the amount of money in circulation), 32% is held by investors in the US, and by government trust funds, and 45% by the Fed (essentially printing money, which dilutes all our spending power). Here's a summary: http://dollardaze.org/blog/?p=211

I don't see how we can walk away from any of that debt, but I sure don't see any way we'll pay it off.

In short, we're screwed.

No one commented, certainly no one challenged my calculations.

*ahem* I commented.

There's nothing much to argue with on the calculations, it's more a matter of whether one cares or not. You even downplay the tea party groups when, for most of them, that debt is a large part of their concern (yes, including some of their benefits). So now we have:

Democrats promising new benefits (new and improved: no middle class tax hikes!)
Republicans promising new tax breaks (new and improved: no middle class benefit reductions!)

But I'm still a little optimistic that it can be fixed, once people stop believing the lies, or at least get tired of jumping back and forth between the fire and the frying pan. Much of the debt is held by the Fed, which can be absorbed. Unfunded liabilities could be dramatically reduced if doctors, lawyers, bankers and all other protected industries were brought back in line. And corporate welfare could be carefully eliminated with only temporary impact on the overall economy.

My pessimism is limited to the entrench party(s), not the actual logistics.

We have the best government money can buy, and we've been bled dry and beyond. I'm not very optimistic now about our future prospects. The entrenched interests that drive this plutocracy will never allow government to work for the people. And so far, the people are far too sheep-like to take control by direct means (by which I mean referendum, not revolution).

It's probably already too late. Those who think any more tax cuts are possible –ever–.are dumb as a box of rocks, yet that's what the GOP falsely promises, time and again. By my accounting no one at or below median income pays ANYTHING for government services, just servicing the debt and our subsidy of their health insurance. No one commented, certainly no one challenged my calculations. That comment is here:
http://themoderatevoice.com/57997/they-made-the…