A. The people of Connecticut.

=========================================

Q. Why did Joe Lieberman cross the road?

A. To invade Iran. (It was on the other side.)
A. He just went to the middle - he is too much of a centrist to stay on one side of the road. Just don't tell him about the 18-wheeler coming around the corner.

=========================================

Q. What do the initials "CFL" (Joe's party) really stand for?

A. "Congress For Life"
A. "Can't Forgive Liberals"
A. "Cash For Legislation"

Far too little of the ARRA was directed towards infrastructure-building and new industry gestation; far too much was wasted on tax cuts and questionable consumer spending accelerators.

Before I get on board with more deficit-funded stimulus, I'd like to see some serious action on financial industry reform, along with some proactive cleanup of the housing market. I'd also like to see some realistic dialog starting about how to bring our deficits under control - how about setting up a bipartisan commission, along the lines of the 9-11 commission, to come up with a set of recommendations on this and publish them?

This isn't 1933; the money supply isn't the underlying problem for our economy. Our real problem is competitiveness. Stimulus spending is justified only if it can truly increase our competitiveness over the longer term and thereby drive growth. Otherwise we are just piling on debt and making things worse over the long run.

1. Deficit-spend in the near term, until some unspecified recovery milestones are met

2. Once we recover, devalue the dollar to stimulate our export industries (even though this penalizes the very people who financed our deficit spending spree)

3. As we continue to recover, continue to devalue our currency through inflation, to the further detriment of our creditors

Isn't this the exact scenario that our creditors expect from us? Isn't this why the world must move away from the dollar as a reserve currency inevitably?

What the US needs urgently is a new engine of economic value creation - we need to build things that other countries will buy. (Obviously we also need to fix health care, reform Wall Street etc.) I think Baker is right about inflation here but he misses the importance of the US actually making things that other people buy.

I concur with the view that the Democrats face serious challenges in the Congressional races in 2010/2012; the far-right base will be highly energized, but most of the rest will be depressed over the economy, frustrated with the slow pace of real change and in more of a "throw the bums out" kind of mood. I don't foresee a "moderate revolution" in the Republican party any time soon, and hope for the sake of the country that Obama and the Democrats plan on an aggressive campaign in 2010 and 2012.

I'm guessing you are well aware that most of the straw men advanced in your response are false choices. To point out that modern racism and American exceptionalism have the same roots is not to be anti-American. To say that cultural bigotry is real is not hatred of whites. To observe that anti-immigrate sentiment is rooted in cultural insecurity is not to throw open our doors to any number of immigrants.

I'm a believer in dialog between people of opposing beliefs, but I'm also a believer in efficient use of the energy that goes into such dialog. My advice to you is, if you are looking for constructive engagement on issues, you should avoid advancing so many obviously false choices. It discourages people from replying to you at all.

First, can we agree that what is most important is that the US achieve robust growth in real GDP, without excessive borrowing? If we can get the economy back on track for decent annual growth (say 3.5%, adjusted for inflation) and reduce our society's debt-to-GDP ration (maybe back down to 250% or so, vs. around 400% today), there will be a lot more money flowing and we can fund necessary government without excessive taxation.

I would argue that immigration - especially, encouraging the smartest, hardest working and most ambitious people in the world to move here - is key to growing our GDP. I do not personally care if a person was born in the US or not, I just want them to contribute to the US economy. For this reason alone, those of us who see GDP growth as vital to our future should be wary of unconditional anti-immigration attitudes.

The net impact of illegal immigration on our economy is probably negative (though it is small). I think the key is to do much better. We can have a much more open door to people from anywhere in the world with drive and ambition, and our economy will grow as a result.

I don't think liberals/progressives want to cede perfectly reasonable position statements like the quote to radical right-wingers - this is giving up the high ground unnecessarily. Do you disagree?

It would be helpful to have a really thorough (and recent) study of health care costs in the US and a few other countries - something that accurately reported the total costs and the categories they fell into. Presumably something like this exists - if anyone reading knows of it, please post a link.

You make a good point that if we expand care simultaneous with bringing its costs down, we might mitigate the loss of health care jobs. I think we probably end up with some job loss because we would be reducing expenses by 60% and increasing coverage by 15% (roughly).