To be fair, a lot of Democrats were worried during the primaries that Obama was too conciliatory and we were told not to worry, this guy was from the rough and tumble world of Chicago politics and would kick some ass. We helped get him elected by a huge margin, by recent standards.

Honestly, I blame the "centrists" who take our party name in congress for most of Obama's problems but his critics from the left are well meaning, have a great point and deserve kinder treatment from you.

Yes, some government spending is off the balance sheet. Some of it, like Medicare and Social Security is off because it's not real spending, it's a projection. The current expenditures, the checks written, are in the budget.

The big off balance sheet expenditure of the Bush years was Iraq (now on the balance sheet) but you're quite fair in pointing out that GWB is as big a spender as anyone.

I feel for you, Bulldog. You're a principled conservative (and quite thoughtful and friendly) but you've been let down by both parties.

I'm amazed that we're completely obsessed with what's a tax and what isn't but that we never look at the amounts at hand.

I don't give money to political candidates and prefer to support them (or not) through my writing, speaking and voting. I just don't find that most of them really need my money and I don't believe my money will be particularly well spent if I give it to them.

I'd also suggest donating to a non-profits arts or culture organization. During hard times like these a lot of people feel like donating to theatre groups and the like is frivolous, but I think they're important.

Now we know he did this because the Treasury was, for a short time, able to stop issuing 30 year Treasury bonds, the most expense type of debt to raise and we know that even George Bush agreed that Clinton had created one annual surplus, which he argued should be returned to the people.

You're absolutely right, though -- it didn't bring down our total debt. To do that, the surplus would have had to have been either used to pay down existing debt (buy out bondholders on the open market) or invested in order to buy out bonds when they mature.

It's a comlicated issue but, for what it's worth, I think you make a good point but that people who point out that Clinton created one annual budget surplus (no easy feat) are also correct and how that did or didn't alleviate our long-term debt issue is another matter and one we can certainly debate.

-Mike

You can't count on the secular majority to overpower the stridently religious because the secular majority is almost by definition less passionate about these issues and more willing to look the other way so long as they're not forced into anything. Imagine you're a secular Jewish employee of Intel in this case. What are you fighting against, exactly? A day off?

That's why it's essential to have something that says the government is religiously neutral. Then you can easily answer the extremists: I know you'd like us to do X but we're forbidden. That principle also gives the secularists something to rally around and something to push back with. In the U.S. many secular forces want to serve a higher power -- the constitution.

It's not that Bush isn't really still to blame, either. The financial crisis is his. And how can Obama be "dithering" about Afghanistan when the previou administration should have had the problem well solved before a new president took office (did anyone think Afghanistan was going to be an 8-year plus occupation?)

Problem is, there's a lot of appetite on both the left and right to forget Bush entirely. Psychologically, we are repulsed by failure. We don't like to dwell on it. There's also a bias, both on the left and the right for Obama to "own" his presidency.

Obama is also not the type to blame the last guy. It doesn't suit Obama's character. He doesn't like to do it. He's definitely an alpha male.

He's also a snob in the best sense of the term. He won't get into a public argument with people he seems unworthy. This means the Sarah Palins of the world can take a lot of free shots because Obama doesn't see much point in debating them.

I still have some problems with the big guy. I hate the health care legislation and I find it hard to muster support for it. I think the stimulus was a bit botched, relying on a trickle down effect while people are the top of the economy are just hoarding the money. I don't want to send more troops to Afghanistan. So some of my enthusiasm is waning just because he's not doing what I would have him do.

Unfortunately, Paul isn't credible on this issue. Remember, the guy wants a precious metal standard for monetary policy and would prefer to abolish the Fed entirely. That doesn't mean the legislation he's pushing now isn't good, it's just a reminder that our ally on this issue might be one we have to push back against later.