Is the US in denial over its $14tn debt?

I'm by no means a Reagan hater. Nevertheless, it was also during his first term that I became really disillusioned with the Republicans. I had never really been what you could call a solid Republican, but I considered them the less bad of the two parties, by a fair margin. I remember telling my older brother, sometime during the Ford years: "I vote Republican because the Republicans are slowly ruining this country. The Democrats would do it much faster."

Nevertheless, at that time I thought it was because a conservative, such as Goldwater or Reagan, had no chance in the party or, if they did get the nomination (as they did in '64), no chance of winning.

When Reagan was both nominated and elected, against an incumbent at that, I thought there was maybe some hope. But even though Reagan was, IMO, the least bad presisdent we've had in a long, long time, it was that very fact that soured me on the Republicans and politics. He had no real solutions, he was forced to compromise with a Democrat Congress, and the result was rising deficits, an increase in the size of the federal government, and no real improvement in much of anything substantial.

When the Republicans took both houses of Congres in '94, I was amazed. I could have sworn that we would never see a Republican majority. "The party of the White House" could never take over Capitol Hill. But they did it. And despite a Democrat president, they actually helped improve things somewhat.

Nevertheless, even that was disappointing. It wasn't so much of an improvement as it was a serious slowing of things getting worse. But it was nice, after so many decades of decline.

There was still one nagging question, though, even though I had a very strong suspicion concerning the answer. During the "Contract with America," the Democrats still controlled the White House. Was it still the Democrats holding things back? I had seen the Democrats in control of everything (House, Senate and White House, with a majority in their favor on SCOTUS as well) plenty, and no longer had any reason to hope they had any solutions. They were clearly making things worse. But I had never seen the Republicans get the same chance. I didn't really believe they would fix things much, but it was a possibility that couldn't be completely ruled out, since I hadn't seen it.

The Bush (43) administration was the final straw, though. The Republicans "had it their way": Congress, White House, a more or less favorable SCOTUS, and public opinion with them after 9/11.

And they were about as bad as the Democrats. Not in the same way, but just about equally bad. Balooning deficits, bloated government, trampelling of liberty, you name it, they were destroying it.

I had continued to hold my nose and (usually) vote Republican until then, because they still seemed less bad than the Democrats. And they may actually be slightly less bad, at least in some ways. But not enough to make a difference. I have had it with both parties, and no longer believe either of them has any solutions. But then, I don't believe the libertarians have any solutions, either. I have become quite cynical over the last few decades, to be honest. The more I study history, sociology and psychology, the more I am convinced that there is no solution to the endless cycle of civilizations that crawl up from the rubble, bloom for a century or two, then crumble again under their own weight. They may or may not have several high points in their history (the Egyptians did it three times in a thousand years, as did the Babylonians and the Assyrians), but the low points are still there.

We have had our day in the sun, and the slow decline has begun. It won't happen in 10 or 20 years, even a major economic crisis won't mean the end of our civilization right now, but we have passed the top even so. There will be more "downs" than "ups" in the coming centuries, and there really is no way to reverse the process.

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any solutions, because there aren't any. The same can be said of politics in every country I know. At best, some are less bad than others, but not by a significant margin.

I gotta run; I didn't intend to write all that, and I don't have time to proofread it. Too bad for the mistakes.

The politicians in the United States know exactly what they are doing. They simply do not care. The power and control they have is like a narcotic. They are addicts and are incapable of controlling themselves.

Every time I bring up term limits people call me crazy, but everyone hates career politicians.

:whatareyougonnado:

Quite probably. One of them got the ball rolling on this shit, after all.

Term limits have been absolutely disastrous in Florida. Be careful what you wish for...

Everything in Florida is absolutely disastrous.

You're more right than you'll ever know.

I'm not opposed to the concept of term limits, but the reality is, they really do not work that well. CA has term limits and has for a number of years now. It doesn't help.

There was a time in this nations history when those who held public office would bow out gracefully after serving for a while. Unfortunately, the political establishment have become nothing more than self-glorified welfare recipients.

Bitching, yet not actually producing any candidates that lower spending...

Of course, no one here has brought up the possibility that lowering the deficit might be harder than some people think and electing people who are willing to actually work and sacrifice some of their cherished plans might be the answer instead of electing people who just holler "no new taxes". There's plenty of stubborness on the spending side, but for the new wave of Tea Partiers set the standard for themselves and now they can damn well eat i

When faced with historic deficits post WW II, Eisenhower helped usher in top marginal tax rates of 91% which of course ushered in the 2nd Great Depression of the 50s...