Yes it’s two different things. The first “thing” is the left wing’s strategy to accommodate the American Public’s desire to have the government do more than we are willing to tax ourselves to pay for; the second “thing” is the right wing’s strategy to accommodate the same. If you want to discuss the merits of left wing policy vs. right wing policy that’s fine, but it’s not the topic I was intending to address.

“I honestly think that would require a some radical restructuring, our politics and media are pretty much dominated by a 2 party political establishment, that is friendly to the status quo. ”

I can sympathize, but not agree. I am very much in favor of alternative parties and unseating the political establishment. Nevertheless, though I’m constantly criticized for having “radical” ideas I do not actually advocate radical restructuring – at least not over a short period of time. Radical changes are likely to cause more harm than good. A better approach is gradual reform.

But whether it’s gradual or radical I’d like to hear what sort of reform, that the American people would actually support, you think would result in politicians spending responsibly? The Republicans have proposed a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. Do you support that idea or oppose it? Do you think most Americans would support it or oppose it, when and if they understood what it would mean if it were actually enforced (highly doubtful, but that’s another matter)?

Or do you have some other idea in mind when you advocate “radical restructuring” and if so, what is it?

“I think we are living in an intentionally engineered debt crisis, created to compromise the regulatory and entitlement aspects of the state, and a huge amount of the money has been spent on things that were completely off the radar for much of the population. We’ve been electing people who see defeating the liberal state and as the chief goal and are way too comfortable with the idea of using fiscal crisis to do it.”

So I’ll ask again another way: Suppose you are 100% correct about the situation above; was this result consistent with the wishes of the American people, or contrary to those wishes? If contrary, then how was that accomplished and what realistic means do you propose that would remedy the situation in the future?

BTW – I ask these questions because there’s a very commonplace mental contradiction in democratic societies. Lots of people think that past elections didn’t accurately reflect the will of the people, but that the solution is in essence to make sure that we elect “the right people” *next* time. I call this the “vote harder” strategy, and it’s magical, wishful thinking. Every election, there are hoards of pundits of all political stripes expounding how important the election is, how much we need to inform voters and get out the vote and…yadda yadda yadda to make sure the right people get elected. Except they don’t. Or even if we think they do (i.e. the best “guy” in our judgment wins both the primary and the general election) they still turn out to be incompetants or scoundrels once in office. If you actually think the will of the people has been thwarted by past elections, then there has to be an answer other than “vote harder next time,” which is practically indistinguishable from “pray harder next time.” What do you propose?

That’s true, but war isn’t that good of an example. War can and often is framed as an economic issue just below the surface. “Protecting the free flow of oil at market prices” is politician-speak for going to war to keep the price of gas low and create a defense contractor jobs program.

Issues that have little or nothing to do with economics but still influence elections are things like abortion, gay marriage, and separation of church and state. But these issues have comparatively little impact on the deficit as well.

That pretty much sums up the rhetoric, at least.

But it isn’t neccesarily true that people vote solely on economic issues. 
They vote on a lot of other issues too – going to war is a very popular one.
And in the past voters were happy to go to war and pay additional taxes to support it. It’s only been recently that we have had governments that
embarked on major expensive projects while at the same time telling
voters that they wouldn’t be taxed to pay for them.

“Deficits don’t matter” – Dick Cheney 

Can you explain how this contradicts my statement “…as a society we are habitually addicted to having government do more than we are willing to tax ourselves to pay for.”?  

Were the elections of the people who “intentionally spent irresponsibly” to “bankrupt the welfare state” not indicative of the will of the American people? If not, why not?  And if so, then do you think the majority of Americans want the welfare state to end?

Is there something preventing Americans from electing politicians who will spend responsibly (regardless of whether or not there’s a welfare state)? If so, what is preventing that?

I’m not a huge fan of democracy, which sometimes boils down to two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. However, democrarcy does seem to be a better system than any alternative, subject to the rule that more binding constraints on government power are generally better than less.

Though politicians often lie, it seems to me that the politicians who spent and continue to spend irresponsibly got elected more or less by promising to do it.

Promising tax cuts gets politicians elected. Promising tax increases makes politicians lose. Promising benefits gets politicians elected. Promising *specific* benefit cuts makes politicians lose. There are so few counter-examples of these rules I think it’s relatively safe to say that they reflect the will of the people.

As a result, politicians who promise tax cuts but no specific benefit cuts, and politicians who promise benefits but no tax increases, and especially politicians who promise tax cuts AND benefit increases,  get elected.  And if they keep their promises (sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t) the result is irresponsible spending.

Do you see any flaws in this reasoning?