"We'll just make the rich pay for it" is indeed a one-size-fits-all solution that socialists fall back on to appeal to the masses, and it's of course way too simple to be an actual solution. Here in Quebec where most parties are already left-leaning, we have a very leftist one that keeps repeating it and is driving me nuts.

However, there is one aspect of that admittedly simplistic idea that has merit: getting the richest to pay more. The highest tax bracket in the US has been brought dramatically lower since its peak in the 1940s and 1950s -from 85% to a smidgen over 30%. Yes, in those halcyon days of the Republican dream, in the Eisenhower years, you could pay as much as 85% on your income if you were extremely well-off.

Now paying 85% tax is naturally a lot... except that when CEOs earn 300 times what their employees do (that's the actual current average figure), 85% inn taxes will still leave one with a very healthy chunk of money. It might also discourage the kind of greed that led us to the recent financial crisis, because making a gazillion dollars a year will mean a marginal increase in actual income. Might as well settle for being "just rich" instead of "I'll buy Madagascar tomorrow" rich.

I don't like paying taxes, even if I recognize their necessity. I'm sore that income tax was a temporary measure that turned pretty permanent. I also think that governments take tax money for granted and rarely consider ways to reduce the size of the state; everyone in the system seems to be looking out for themselves and for their job. But without taxes, no proper schooling system; no army; no roads; no space program; basically no science. I'll keep paying.

That being said, if taxes are a necessary evil, I am convinced that we must take all precautions against the richest being able to buy politicians and make sure that laws favouring a disproportionate increase of their fortune be adopted. Increasingly higher tax brackets, a cap on political contributions (direct or indirect) and severely controlled expenses by candidates would be good first steps in making sure democracy does not become a plutocracy.

I wonder what Hilary and Sanders have to say about higher tax brackets. I sort of doubt they'll want to handle such a hot potato, because "higher taxes" is the last thing a politician wants to say... if he isn't Justin Trudeau!

I don't really see it that way. People may have died for a younger generation to have the option to vote. I now have that option, but I don't feel like I should be obligated to participate if I don't think it matters/don't want to. Especially since I'm leaving the country. Even if I did, am I going to wake tomorrow and the country and/or my life is instantly going to be different? My vote in 2008 hasn't changed anything significant for me that I can think of off the top of my head. If I want a different quality of life I should probably move somewhere else. Which is what I'm doing.

Which sentence do you mean?

Maybe if the electoral college system was scraped and it was as basic as one person, one vote end of story folks like myself would be more inclined to believe that they're actually making a difference. As it is now it just seems like complete bullshit to me.

No, I think terrified is overselling it. While I'm sure many economists would prefer a lower national debt, I think they're generally a lot more sanguine about it that Republican politicians. The problem is that the causes of the financial crisis were so clearly the result of the Republican worldview (e.g., lax regulation of business; home loans designed to enslave borrowers, which backfired; dudebros in finance who looked to make a short-term killing on derivatives they were too dumb to understand), so Republicans tried to change the subject. Somehow the cause of the financial crisis, became debt added after the crisis. A time paradox! What really freaked economists out was the far right's grandstanding tactic to "fix" the rising debt: the GOP plan to refuse to raise the debt ceiling. There were apocalyptic scenarios about that.

And there's a couple problems with the notion that Obama is extremely awful on the debt:
1) The year with the worst budget deficit during Obama's Presidency was 2009. But it's problematic the Republicans always seem to add that to their calculations. The fiscal year starts on July 1 of the previous year, so that budget came from George W. Bush. So every single Obama budget has had a lower deficit than Bush's last budget. With one exception, the budget deficits has been lower year-to-year in each Obama budget.

2) One would expect budget and deficits to get bigger over time, all other things being equal, because the economy has gotten much bigger/inflation, etc.

3) A better metric that absolute number is the ratio between the debt and the GDP. That has risen over time, but it was actually higher during WWII. The seriousness of debt has to be viewed in relations to one's ability to pay. Is it bad to owe $1,000? It depends. Are your penniless or do you own a lot of property and investments? Are you unemployed or do you earn $150,000 a year? The USA has a huge economy, so it's good for its debt (unless some idiots in Congress decide not to raise the debt ceiling).

4) It's important who you owe money to. Is it a loan shark who will break your thumbs or your kindly granny? As much as folks talk about debt to China, the majority of U.S. debt is not external debt. It's debt owed to others in the U.S. So a lot of our debt is bonds held by state and local governments, retirement funds, U.S. investors, etc. And the U.S. is so integral to the U.S. economy that any country that tried to pressure us would actually being ruining their own economy.

5) The financial crisis is precisely the time that you should engage in deficit spending. You need to mitigate the disastrous effects of Bush's financial crisis by taking care of people on the brink (food stamps, unemployment, etc.). That helps the economy recover. For parts of 2008 to 2010, I was either unemployed, employed part-time, and/or volunteer at a job in my field to try to get full-time work. Unemployment benefits helped me make it through. I'm not deadbeat. I've been working full-time for over 5 years now. I come in weekends to get more work done. I paid off my remaining student debt ahead of schedule. Government spending during an economic crisis helps to stimulate the economy and rescue people on the edge. That's mainstream demand-side economics.

The years we should have been more austere was after Clinton left Bush with surplus. That was the time to pay down the debt and tamp down economic bubbles. Instead, Bush squandered the surplus giving tax cuts to the rich, and we got runaway speculative bubbles. How come no Republicans were demanding Bush maintain tax rates and pay down the debt instead. Now, we're in a pickle because the GOP refuses to return tax rates on the rich to reasonable levels. It's hard to pay down the debt when the rich have lower taxes than they've had for most of the past century.

6) So many things in Obama's budget were mandatory spending that the government is required to pay by law, rather than discretionary spending. You can't cut Social Security benefits and pension for federal employees without changing the underlying laws and taking back what you've promised. You can't keep money paid in food stamps and unemployment benefits unless you severely change the qualifications (just when people need it more).

7) As noted, the GOP talks big on the debt, but their track record tells a different story. Before Reagan, the U.S. had never had a $100 billion budget deficit. Not only did Reagan give the U.S. its first $100 billion deficit year - he also gave us our first $200 billion deficit year! The GOP likes to build up the military budget. They do it to create pressure to cut domestic programs people need, to pretend to be tough, and to build a climate of security paranoia. We spend more on the military than a whole slew of our rivals put together. We have as many active aircraft carriers than all the other countries on Earth combined. We don't lack the spending for military brute force. The GOP actually tries to keep weapons programs that the Pentagon doesn't actually want. What we need to do is be more skillful in intelligence, alliance-building, etc.

I've voted in every election since I became eligible in 1988. I've voted Republican for every office every year, except for President. Usually, the nominee is not conservative enough and I have to vote for a third party. In this year's GOP primary I will be voting for Ted Cruz. Like Coldwater, I had a unionist father that would not tolerate anyone that was a Republican or a Cubs fan. Naturally, I turned out to be both. I have a strong interest in politics and spend a lot of time discussing the issues and the "horse race" side of elections. Just not here of course.

This will actually be the first presidential election that I could legally vote in, even if it's unfortunately an even more "red" state than my home state. I wouldn't say that I'm as invested or well informed about politics as most people on this board or even some of my peers, but I stand firmly by the idea that your vote matters, no matter how much the electoral college may skew things. Like CW said, the attitude that someone else will pick up the slack with their own vote leads to the wrong candidate winning by the narrowest of margins in some instances. Voting may take an hour out of your day, but that hour could have ramifications on your life for years.

Fair enough, but what was his opinion on bananas?