Your title is very close to the anarchist motto: There's no government like no government.

You know what would improve the country's financial situation even more? Telling these incompetent fuckwits in congress we're going to stop paying them. If we're better off with no congress (and it certainly appears that we are), that money could be put to much better use.

of course that graph doesn't include interest on the current debt - no small matter - but it's pretty telling in terms of just how destructive the Bush cuts are.

@1: Actually, it's a play on the classic Irving Berlin song and Ethel Merman standard.

If by "spending cuts" you mean "stop handing money to banks while they post record profits," then sure, I can get behind some spending cuts. But if you mean "slash vital services while continuing to publicly fund private enterprise" like the rightists do, then you can go fuck yourself.

@2: how, praytell, would we do that? can barack "2-term" obama do it? how about the bush-junta-installers on the SCOTUS? cuz congress ain't gonna do it to themselves.

Also funny: Belgium had quarterly GDP growth higher than the USA, UK, France, Germany, etc. Why funny? Because they haven't had a government for 15 months.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n17/john-lanche…

Well, yes, Max, therein lies the rub.

Thanks, Goldy. I read it as the old libertarian slogan, but now that you explained it I've got the show tune playing in my head. With full orchestra. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh....

But of course rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the middle class would unleash unbelievable levels of howling even though most wouldn't notice it much more than they noticed the tax cut they received from the stimulus package.

@10 - precisely... sadly... They'll be no real effective change until people advocating change include themselves in the sacrifice - that of course excludes the right entirely - but the idea that the problems we have can be solved by changes to the tax treatment of "the 1%" is not serious thinking.

Until the middle, or at minimum, the upper middle accepts they have to take a (small) hit we're not going to get anywhere in solving the problems (deficits, infrastructure, education, you name it) we face. There doesn't appear to be much expression of such an interest from that group. I say... raise MY taxes - and I'm squarely median income (nationally, that is - for Seattle I make less than the median, but it's my choice to live here).

Jobs? *echo*

Look at that "total primary spending" trend line. From 16% of GDP in 2000 up to 24% of GDP in 2035 and showing no signs of leveling out. I can see why that would make a progressive happy.

And the most extreme rise (~44%), @13, was 2001-2009. The inflection points are at annual intervals; I suspect that if the plotting was monthly you would see the curve rise much earlier in 2009 as Bush et al. desperately tried to delay the by-then-unstoppable economic collapse.

The bulk of that "trend line" increase is healthcare spending. The only thing that will significantly flatten that increase is moving to single payer, so no; the increase doesn't really make a progressive happy.

@13: You mean the rise from 24% in 2009 to 24% in 2035? You mean we'd be spending the same percentage, but it would be on health care instead of wars? You're right, progressive dream, conservative nightmare. Now, just keep on telling everyone, as loud as you can, that you'd rather spend the same amount on government, so long as more goes to war and less goes to health care, and the Democrats will have a lock on the government for the next 20 years. Thanks!