I understand the historical perspective: right now our debt/GDP is about where it was in 1953, which overall wasn't a bad year for the USA. Next year, though, it will be where it was in 1943. That's terrible. We're not even in a real war right now.

Blame who you like--hell, Reagan tripled the debt (though exceeding the borrowing capacity of the enemy is a better way of winning a war than nuclear exchange; it will be difficult to do this against China if they become hostile since they are currently lending our government $800 billion).

Regardless, we're going to soon see inflation. Or we're going to see very high taxes. We're going to see our power and flexibility diminished greatly as a nation. (Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of Great Powers gives a litany of examples where this has been true. Ditto Manchester's The Last Lion). Maybe some of you don't mind this, but the consequences have usually been worse than you think for those fallen empires.

Is this really the time to start enacting a series of new entitlements? It's a practical cost/benefit question more than an idealogical one, I think.

Yes, spending is out of control and thus our debt. I say we cut the military spending by 30% or more. We don't need troops all over the world.

As for healthcare just enact the Swiss plan; non profit private insurers. This will cost far less than what the Dems are proposing.

Stop the madness on military spending and yes, use the swiss model...

Good to see there are other sound minds here at the fray! ha ha.

But really, I don't understand Dems or Repub here. Dems appear to believe that money growns on trees and repub say they wish to cut spending, but when \ if they do they cut spending on things that are useful to US citizens and NOT on something like military (of course we need military spending but NOT at the current levels).

This healthcare reform is a joke. The goal from the start should of been to remove profits from health insurance coverage and ensure everyone has coverage. The Swiss model would do this. Instead the Dems appear willing to reward the private for profit insurance companies and still not cover everyone!

A 30% reduction in military would cut about $250 billion and probably not compromise our national existence. Certainly a good start.

I'm actually wondering whether we even need a large standing Army branch--it has never accomplished anything for us foreign policy-wise, except for in GW I. It's our Navy and Air Force that maintain world peace and free sea lanes.

I guess you missed the fact that it was the army that invaded Afghanistan after the attack on 911.

The army can be cut back big time since the odds are we will not need large scale invasions of foreign lands. We clearly don't need troops in Germany, Japan or Iraq.

If you don't wish to cut military spending how should the USA try to balance the budget and ensure the dollars doesn't become worth the peso.

middleview:

I guess you missed the fact that it was the army that invaded Afghanistan after the attack on 911.

And that's worked out well, hasn't it?

Iran is going to be the bigger problem. I agree bring some troops back home to build Americans confidence.

I don't know what our current staffing is in Germany or Japan, but I'd agree that we don't need garrisons there.

The fact is that our manpower is at a point where we are unable to actually meet all of the missions they have. The demand on the national guard was unacceptable over the long term.

I would like to see a review of all current government spending. If it does not have a measureable and meaningful return on the investment then it should be cut. We should probably triple the number of investigators available for medicare. We should establish a new set of rules related to what the federal government is going to spend money on. The idea that the federal government is spending money on local roads (ie...the bridges to nowhere) or a telescope for a local planetarium or a railroad museum is ridiculous. If it isn't a federal facility or is not related to national health, interstate trade, national defense or national borders then it probably is not appropriate for funding by the national government.

Any bill that requires federal spending should be classified as belonging to one of the approved spending areas. It should also be tagged as investment or entitlement spending. Congressmen should have to try to justify the money they want to spend.

Iran might be Israel's problem but last time I checked Israel isn't part of the USA. Until Israel ends apartheid I don't believe the USA should provide them any support.

Iran isn't going to attack the USA. That is way over the top paranoid. Let the people in the region worry about Iran.

We invaded Afghanistan with 11,000 soldiers. We maintained a fairly low troop level for far too long. Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and a large number of their fighters escaped because we did not have enough troops available to cut off their escape.

I agree that Iran isn't our problem right now, lets wait and see if Israel dosen't come to us on bended knee for support.

Germany isn't going to attack the USA. Let the Poles and the Czechs worry about Hitler.

Israel...apartheid? No kiddin?

Sounds to me like you are making excuses. We had all the troops we needed to capture OBL and his cronies. To bad Bush had a hard on for Iraq. That's why we haven't captured them. Not insufficient troop levels. Nice try.