Artful Dodger:

> I don't agree that we ought to curb military spending.

I think that of all measures to cut spending this would be the most unpopular. Nobody even wants to consider it, and this is where a lot of the spending inefficiency exists. Much of the research and development of weapons is done by private companies receiving huge investment from the DOD. This research is expensive, and private contractors love the money. The problem is that the American public feels that without that research and the military the United States would be vulnerable. Billions are being spent taking preemptive measures. This might be popular, but the need for those measures can often be questioned. The USA is also spending billions defending other countries that have the money and capability to defend themselves. However, for historical reasons those countries (I am talking Germany and Japan) are not allowed to defend t themselves by creating their own strong military. Western countries still harbour a lot of distrust towards Russia (even though Russia has never truly attacked the west, and was instrumental in defeating the Axis during WWII). Well, if there is a branch of the government that might prove to be the financial undoing of the American government, it will be the DOD. It syphons billions of dollars that could be used for programs that truly improve the lives of Americans.

> The ONLY real hope for change is a third party. Both the old wing of Dems and Repubs are corrupt.

This is very difficult too. American politics became more polarized during the Bush administration. It started during the Clinton administration, but the Bush administration and the Iraq war crytallized deep divisions between left and right. Many Americans are disillusioned with the state of affairs. It has become so bad that Washington is almost paralized. If a third political party arises, it has to start afresh with new ideas.

The Tea Party has good intentions in terms of corruption and cronyism. However, I am not entirely sure that their economic policies would be very different from those of the Regan administration. The tea Party would probably push a lot of privatization as well as reductions to programs that help the economically disadvantaged. They will probably push tax cuts and other similar measures. These measures will be popular, but not necessarily what the situation needs. The real sticky point will be tax cuts because any reduction in government revenue fails to reduce the debt. If the Tea Party will push Reganomics as a solution, then they are adding more wood to the fire because the problem started spiralling out of control when the Regan administration introduced its economic policies.

I think left wing parties have the right idea, but no plan of action to carry it. For example, in September of 2008 the green party put out a snippet in a speech:

"Promote an economy that's based on sustainability rather than on lending and borrowing beyond one's means. Raising the debt ceiling will lead to greater potential liability and further economic meltdown."

They talked of this 3 years ago, but never followed through with a clear plan to make the economy sustainable or to eliminate debt.

Somewhere in all of this there has to be a balanced approach. Reductions where necessary, without making poor people suffer. Tax cuts only if the country can truly afford them. Seeking sustainable solutions and increasing self-reliance. I think it will take a party that can balance both left and right wing views so that Washington can end this stalemate and polarization. It won't be easy.

I live in Canada, but I think this concerns everyone in the world because if the American economy defaults it will hurt not just Americans, but millions of people around the world. The USA holds 68% of the world's financial capital, so the shockwaves will be felt everywhere.