[crusso]

When the argument is "taxation vs spending" and the spending side is 33% off historical norms while taxation is within 5% of historical norms... calling something a "spending problem" would seem to be objective.

Listing some of the details for why that spending problem exists doesn't make it any less or more politicized. It's just adding details.

[jbooth]

It's absolutely politicized. The obligations driving our spending were on the ledger 15, 30 years ago, everyone knew it. But now we hear about 'overspending during the obama administration' as if it was his decision to have people get old and collect their benefits. Or as if he didn't try to attack healthcare costs first thing out of the gate.

Calling it an entitlement problem highlights the problem. Calling it a 'spending problem' obscures it. Do whatever you want.

[crusso]

Or as if he didn't try to attack healthcare costs first thing out of the gate.

Because he didn't? Instead of attacking the root causes of health care costs, he implemented yet another Big Government entitlement program that was in keeping with his socialist ideology.

There were lots of good ideas on reducing healthcare costs. Obamacare includes almost none: http://togetrichisglorious.blogspot.com/2011/04/levitt-on-he...

It's truly ironic that there you are saying that we all knew about the spending obligations 30 years ago regarding SS and Medicare - yet you call yet another government spending obligation that will certainly spiral our of control an effort to reduce healthcare costs.