One person’s blame is another person’s accountability. would be nice to have a more positive, political environment here but we do not and that is - as you say - not good. Basically we seem to be knee-deep in crap.

The 1st tax cuts did help the economy. Of that I feel certain. The post 911 tax cuts were counterproductive. I feel with equal certainty. Tax cuts aren’t always bad or good just like public spending isn’t knee jerk good or bad. Partisans will stupidly say one or the other. Partisans quit thinking. They got stuck somewhere. Their opponents got them so angry their brains froze. Too bad but still a frozen brain isn’t contributing.

I think it is true that the U.S. is in bad debt to bad people and dependent on oil from bad people. That makes us weaker. That makes us accomplices. To Saudi autocracy and Chinese powered genocide in Darfur. (e.g. take a look @ the Oct 9 Comment on your Darfur post) Bush is responsible for not asking folk to sacrifice in the spirit of 911. He could have funded research to get new energy sources and conservation programs and new limits on fuel efficiency for car fleets. And Bush weakened our China leverage by making us poorer and more in their debt. That conservative republicans are saying these things makes the case more credible. It is a case worth making. Evidence that is “an admission against interest” is and should be given more probative weight. But I don’t expect those conservative Republicans to turn into liberal Democrats over Bush’s failures.

Most articles contain good points with bad ones. Truth and lies. Comfort and aggravation. But it is like with birthday presents: it’s the thought that should count.

Blame, personalities and partisan stuff is over done and distracting. It demeans debate. And it is sloppy thinking that lets serious stuff get lost. Bush or Clinton bashing is sort of hollowly satisfying but it is a kind of masturbation and nearly as embarrassing. Certainly not to be done in public unless one is totally out of control. Folk don’t find it persuasive.

Is it really true that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton? That
is not my memory. And did not Bush’s tax policy actually largely create the deficit?

And is the U.S. economy really as strong as the markets would have us
believe? The data on purchasing power of most Americans is not good at
all and the fact that one can make money in the market is not
necessarily the best predictor - or is it? Or am I just pissed off
that gold and oil are down?

But the basic issue the writer raises of not asking Americans to sacrifice to support our foreign adventures is real - kind of an unlearned lesson from the 60’s when Johnson refused to make us pay the real costs of Vietnam
(economic costs I mean, god knows we paid in blood).

And what if we were asked to pay the real costs by further reductions
in social spending, a military draft, and increased taxes across the
board? Would that help our foreign policy or would it force the
president and his minions to seek alternative careers?

Christ - this is sounding more like a screed than I intend -
Somewhere in all of that crap are some serious questions
on which I would like your insights.