....moves a significant amount of money out of treasury bonds and into the hands of banks and investors, who will, then, you know, spend it and/or invest it. Shrink it by $14 billion, and that's $14 billion more dollars entering the economy.

If this is not what triggered the non-inflationary growth that we experienced in the 90s, than what did? We know it wasn't tax cuts, because taxes were raised. We know it wasn't government spending because, as I previously mentioned, Clinton didn't get his stimulus package. What's your answer?

And where did the tech companies get all of the money to invest in the research and development that created the wonderland of digital efficiency that was the 90's - or at least the later part of the 90s? And where did all of the corporations big and small in the 90s get the money to invest in all of this wonderful new technology?

They got it from banks and investors who were no longer tying their money up in treasury bonds.

Clinton shrunk the deficit by raising taxes on the wealthy and actively cutting spending by poring over the budget with a fine tooth comb. The rest is just the virtuous circle that these two steps kicked off.

When you make the personal into the political, you objectify it. Once so objectified, a personal choice is then no longer personal, but subject to the scrutiny and judgment of others. Hence, you end up in Valenti's situation, in which the bride-to-be feels compelled to justify her decisions regarding one of life's most highly personal affairs to an audience of people she doesn't even know.

Furthermore, and more importantly, once a personal choice is made political, ownership over that choice is lost. It is no longer subjective, and thus, no longer yours.

Ownership over one's own life choices is the very essence of freedom, and the personal sphere is the only place where that ownership is really possible. This is why the existence of a personal sphere, where decisions made are subjective and nobody else - be they government officials or just your nosy neighbors - has a say in them, is so important for anyone who really values personal freedom, and why the existence of such a sphere ought to be vigorously defended against anyone who seeks to invade it - be they government officials or just your nosy neighbors.

The personal is not political. It never can be. Because once it is made political, the personal - and the freedom resides within it - simply ceases to be.

Sanford advanced a serious, legitimate point - that the costs being inflicted on the future generations by debt and inflation outweigh the benefits of having a shiny new school now. You may not agree with that point of view, but it is a serious enough point to deserve a serious, reasoned response. More importantly, there is absolutely nothing racist about that point of view, and to simply chalk it all up to racism is incredibly unfair to Sanford. Racism is a heavy accusation that shouldn't be made unless you can back it up.

Sanford made a serious point, Joan, and you essentially responded with name-calling. Not fair.

Yes, he advanced a very reasonable, serious point. He was pointing out a tradeoff that you seem dead set on ignoring - the possible costs that Ty'Sheoma may have to bear some day, in the form of inflation and debt, for having that shiny new school now. Racism has nothing to do with it.

Like I said, address his point on the merits. Don't just call names.

Sanford's point was that fiscal recklessness is what created the economic instability that we are currently going through, and that setting the stage for more future instability in the name of "the children," while it may be emotionally satisfying, may not be in their best interest in the long run. You may disagree with that, but it is a serious, legitimate point. And if you adhere to that position - as Sanford clearly does - the only non-hypocritical thing to do is to take a stand against the stimulus money.

My point was that Joan failed to address the serious and legitimate point that Sanford was making here, and instead simply resorted to calling him a racist, and that that was entirely unfair on her part.

Sanford's point is that fiscal recklessness on the part of goverment - deficit spending, holding the interest rate artficially low, and printing up money - is what created the incentives that led to fiscal recklessness on wall street, that deregulation had little to do with it, and that Obama's stimulus package is simply adding to the overspending that created this mess in the first place. Yes, it is a legitimate and serious point of view. Despite Andrew Leonard's best efforts to convince us otherwise, the fact remains that we are not all Keynesians now, and nobody is yet sure what caused this current crisis.

Mark Sanford didn't make the "shiny new school" comment. I did.

In making that comment, I did not intend to belittle Ty'sheoma's concerns about the state of her school. Indeed, I have no idea what condition her school is in. My point had to do with tradeoffs - of course, everyone wants a "shiny new school" but at what cost? Is further economic instability - instability that may jeopardize her chances of that "shiny new school" actually coming to be - worth it?

That was Sanford's point. Agree or disagree, but there was nothing racist about it, and Joan was out of line to imply that.