I don’t see how a third party addresses the problem of the public’s refusal to take responsibility for actually doing something about our fiscal problems. We live in a representative democracy, so perhaps our government’s fiscal irresponsibility is based on the public’s fiscal irresponsibility: they don’t want to make hard choices, so it’s no surprise that their elected representatives don’t make those choices either, regardless of party. And I don’t see why a third party would be any better at dealing with that problem than the two major parties.

I don’t think a third party will help at all. The essential problem is the refusal of a majority of the public to take responsibility for the things they say they want out of government. Democrats are afraid to ask people if they’re willing to pay for the government they say they want, and Republicans are afraid to ask people if they want the government they say they’re willing to pay for.

they’ll finally make up for all these shackles they’ve snapped around the feet of our grandchildren with one glorious payout that fixes the economy, grants everyone free medicine

No one is pretending to offer “free medicine.” Democrats are requiring that health care reform be paid for.

As for the “shackles” placed on future generations, we can’t pay back our debts if the economy continues to suck. The economy needs to be fixed first, then we can start paying back the debt. Yes, it does need to be dealt with, but the consensus is that we’d be worse off long-term without indulging in deficit spending today.

Really, I’m starting to think that if today’s Republican party had been in charge during the Great Depression, we’d still be in it.

dsimon put it perfectly: “Too many on both sides still want to sell the public a free lunch, and there are too many in the public still willing to buy it.”

I supported none of those huge outlays of fake cash you mention except for Afghanistan, since the Taliban and Al Queda must be fought down whether we can afford it or not. The outrageous tab run up by the federal government just in the last ten years–Afghanistan, Iraq, No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit, bailouts, stimulus and now health care–has convinced me the two party system is broken. They’re acting like compulsive gamblers, convinced that if they pull the lever one more time, they’ll finally make up for all these shackles they’ve snapped around the feet of our grandchildren with one glorious payout that fixes the economy, grants everyone free medicine, and forces or cajoles (pick your flavor of Utopian poison) the world into loving America again. All while bemoaning the fiscal irresponsibility of the other party. It’s sick behavior. And I think the only cure at this point is a credible third party.

It just happens to be the Democrats ladling out their gruel at the moment, so their brand of hypocrisy is a lot more immediately galling.

What do you mean “suddenly”? Don’t conservatives accuse liberals of “tax and spend”? “Tax” implies that things should be paid for. Unlike, apparently (and as Moira pointed out), two wars, prescription drug benefits, and tax cuts (oh, I forgot, tax cuts pay for themselves despite all the evidence to the contrary…).

There are plenty of liberals in favor of fiscal responsibility. There are some conservatives in that camp too. But too many on both sides still want to sell the public a free lunch, and there are too many in the public still willing to buy it (and then complain about fiscal irresponsibility).

But I assume you didn’t research the meaning of the word consistency.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/02/retirement/stofunion_socsec/index.htm

I remembered Bush talking about “4%,” but it turns out he meant 4% of taxable salary, or around 1/3 of social security contributions. Still not quite privatizing social security, but more extensive than I made it sound like above.

I still find it amusing that liberals suddenly think we need “a mechanism for funding” extraordinarily expensive propositions.

That’s not what “every D on the planet” said. There were plenty of people talking about the transition costs of paying for individual accounts for today’s workers while still paying for the benefits of today’s retirees. (After all, I didn’t think up that issue on my own; I’m not nearly smart enough for that.)

And by the way, when you’re “old” the system will still be paying benefits. Even if no adjustments are made, Social Security will be able to pay about 75% of current benefits when the surplus trust fund runs out in 2037.

And if you allowed for the money earned on personal accounts to partly offset losses in revenue to current retirees, they could pay for themselves.

Some estimates of the transition costs stated that it would be $1 trillion over the first 10 years and $3.5 trillion the decade after that. And even if private accounts eventually offset at least some of that amount after decades of investment, they would do little to exacerbate the substantial short term costs and add to the deficit which would likely make the credit markets extremely unhappy in the meantime. Indeed, some people argue that the risks, overhead costs, and borrowing costs could result in a lower rate of return than sticking with the current pay-as-you-go system.

And actually, similar to Obama’s “Health Care” bill, it never really was written in concrete, and nobody ever actually knew how it would work.

I think that’s because nothing was ever developed that came close to fiscal sensibility, so nothing ever had the votes, so nothing ever was submitted to Congress as an actual bill for debate. At least all the health care proposals are paid for.

But I’m sure you didn’t actually research the question.

I’ve looked into it. The Wikipedia entry has a pretty good discussion on the subject. Have you researched it?

Cliff - And if you allowed for the money earned on personal accounts to partly offset losses in revenue to current retirees, they could pay for themselves.

You say above partly offset, does that mean there would still be a sizeable gap?

I assume you don`t mind if millions of elderly American’s retire in poverty because they were too “stupid” to earn $60K plus each year.