We've always known that massive deficit spending could bring about some form of economic prosperity. When the government hires people and buys goods on credit, it can make things look pretty good for a short time. That's what we did in WWII, and the economy boomed. But no serious economist of any political hue argues that it's any way to run an economy. Bush economics relies on foreign investors to finance our lifestyles. The more debt we run up, the less valuable it becomes and pretty soon, creditors start wanting more and more interest to continue buying our bonds, which means higher interest rates and a depressed economy. There's no way around it - long term, Bush economics is a fool's game, which is no surprise given who the president is.

There was a time when conservatives generally and Republicans specifically knew this stuff.

The answer to your questions is contained in my post to Phoenix Woman. The effect of the actions you describe, with the exception of raising the cap on FICA earnings would be salutary for the economy because it would effect a transfer of wealth from the very well-to-do to the poor and middle class. (The government would take tax money from the wealthy and redistribute it via govenrment spending to workers in defense industries, government bureaucracies, etc.) That would enhance our ability to consume what we produce which would boost wages and lower inventories. In other words, instead of relying on foreign investors to finance our economic activity, we'd do more of it ourselves and be able to cut the deficit at the same time.

As to raising the FICA earnings cap, I'm all for it. The Economic Policy Institute has studies showing that, if the cap were raised to $140,000, we would make Social Security solvent until 2075 with no cut in benefits. Given that, if we raised the ceiling even further, it would allow us to cut taxes on everyone earning under the current cap while still making the system solvent until 2075 with no cut in benefits. It would be easy and politicians could rightly claim to have both cut taxes and saved Social Security. What's not to like?

You're right that the current administration is not the first to deficit spend. Reagan slashed taxes the way Bush did and produced, like Bush, unprecedented deficits. The difference between the two of course is that Reagan learned from his mistake and raised taxes later in his presidency.

it's not socialism, it's Keynesian economics and it's solidly pro-capitalism. In fact it's more than that - it's nothing short of necessary to capitalism's functioning well. Please read my post to Phoenix Woman which I won't reprise here. Redistribution of income is necessary because without it a capitalist system tends to overproduce which results in recession/depression. Redistribution of income downward enhances an economy's ability to consume what it produces because the "marginal propensity to consume" among the poor and middle class is greater than it is among the wealthy. Plus there are a lot more of them. Falling prices and wages and rising inventories are not good for producers or consumers, capital or labor. If you think capitalism is a good thing, and it seems like you do, you'll support the redistribution of income downward. This is basic economics; we've known it for decades.

which explains their amazing run through the playoffs. Catch even a mediocre team when it's hot and you're in trouble no matter who you are. But, as King points out, it'll be 8 days before they play again, and when they do they'll be playing a team that's better than anyone they've faced this year (unless in interleague play). Look for the Rockies to tank, whichever AL team they play.

The right-wing crazies have long ago run out of real things to say, real alternatives to offer America or the world. (That's why they all shout so loudly - their ideas are so thin, the slightest opposition will blow them away.) So they're reduced to trashing sick children, soldiers serving in Iraq and anyone else who questions their loony notions, however reasonably. They disgrace themselves with every syllable they utter. Most Americans, I believe, view their dishonesty and hatred with contempt. They're digging their own graves. Let 'em.

it'll make it VERY difficult for these people to resist coming back into the Republican fold.

Sloan's child faces increased risk of a multitude of behavioral problems from drug/alcohol/tobacco use, to early sex/pregnancy, to crime, to difficulty with intimacy, to poor performance in school, etc. Children of single parents are at greater risk for all those behaviors than are children of two married parents. And that increased risk is not a function of income, class, race, ethnicity, geography or religion. It cuts across all of those categories. Of course, this is not to say that Sloan's child will actually exhibit any of those problems, but he/she does face a greater risk.

Mieszkowski dismisses the argument for two-parent families as stick-in-the-mud moralizing by social conservatives. It's not that at all. It's the genuine concern by many people, myself included (and I'm anything but a social conservative), who have read the sociology/psychology on the issue and understand something about the problems these children face. There are plenty of situations in which raising a child alone is unavoidable, but no one should do it as a choice.

Is it impossible to just look at the case on its merits? There either is some sort of actual evidence that McCann and her husband had something to do with the disappearance of the child or there's not. Why is it more complicated than that?