Wont really do much.

For all intensive purposes Bush was a liberal when it came to spending.  Hence the term "Neo-Con."

That's really only true if you don't know how Social Security actually works.

Social Security already had to be reformed once to prevent it from crashing.

If there is a shortfall in social security taxes, it causes government debt... but if there is a social security surplus it ALSO causes debt.

Reason is...  there is no social security "Locked Box."  Which is why Gore always talkd about a "Locked Box" to fix social security.

As it is now, any social security surplus is spent and replaced with government bonds.   Aka government debt, (with interest!) that it has to pay off.

To say it's not causing debt is like argueing that a credit card doesn't cause debt... but in fact adds to your income!

doesn't matter if you vote. congress picks the president either way.

This is the key issue. I believe the bottom limit for unemployment is about 4%, and that it's supposedly more wasteful to stress full employment than it is to merely support those bottom numbers.

Equally true is the fact that many economies seem to manage social programs quite well. Japan has the longest life expectancy for women and one of the highest for men in the world, and that's operating off of a largely socialized medicine plan that even covers foreign studying students like me for next to nothing on my part. Japan is not, of course, without its own economic problems, though they stem from unique sources of their own (Japanese twisted Keynesian solutions regarding endless construction programs that ran up against a rather corrupt construction industry)

The point is, responsible administration sees these systems work, though it also requires the populace to use them responsibly. I'd argue there's a culture of exploitation that is embedded in America, one that must be torn out by the roots if we are to proceed with fixing the country in any way, because such an explotation culture will undermine both libertarian and welfare-state solutions to our current ills.

I think you really need to study the differences between Canadain economic policy and American economic policy ...

Based on your principles, Canada has done the opposite of what we should have and as a result have higher employment, faster economic growth, a  lower deficit which will (hopefully) be eliminated within a few years, and less debt.

There is no correlation between public/private and the amount of paperwork, so to suggest that going public would reduce paperwork is not true. The huge amounts of paperwork is more to do with the legal framework of the country.

The best solution for the USA is to completely tear up its healthcare code. End tax breaks for health insurance, in all forms, end the protectionist policies over cross-state competition and imports of pharmas, and to end medicaid. There is also something to be said about reform in terms of frivolous lawsuits, but that should be dealt with at state level, not federal.

Actually so long as the U.S remains the reserve currency of the world, those deficits are simply a subsidy paid by other countries for the right to trade in U.S. dollars. Why would anyone give up free money like that?

I find it hilarious how they are accusing Obama of "buying votes" when Romney's expect to raise unprecedented amounts of money through his Super PAC. It was conservative judges who supported Citizen's United that allowed unlimited money in politics, and conservative law makers who support the idea of a super pac. Of course, Republicans usually accuse others of what they themselves are doing, so I'm not really surprised. It's a good political strategy I guess.

In any case, to reply to something earlier: public health care isn't cheaper because of reduced paper work. I think the inefficiencies of government bureaucracy that most Americans have to deal with kind of confirm that.

It's cheaper because public health care systems are not run for profit. They are run at costs. They don't have to worry about maximizing their profits every quarter, nor do they have to pay any executives or CEOs millions of dollars.

Of course, say what you will about how good or bad it is. I've heard nothing but good things about these systems from friends in Canada and the UK, and these systems lack things like corporate run death panels that determines who lives and who dies through things like "pre-existing conditions", but whatever. I'm sure a public health care system has its own problems, though I wouldn't know since I don't live in one.

A good idea would be to open up preserves for losers like myself who had the bottom fall out, and are losing ground.  Then,  individuals like you, who complain about welfare state and redistribution of wealth, to try to gun me down, and others and thin down the herd.  This way, you can first hand deal with what the byproduct of your neglecting these issues through being self-absorbed in your own self-interests, can actually come home to roost.  Well, you could also raise money by end up televising it and getting ratings.  Just raise the bloodlust level of the public for this, and it should be easy.  Sorry, there will be no panzying out for you wanting them to off themselves due to depression or whatnot, and considering the bulk of those individuals getting the money in the video above are seniors, you can also actually pick off some old folk.  They shouldn't be too hard to kill, as they do have health problems.  

Me out of line by saying this?  Nope, just there are consequences of everything you advocate, even if you live in a bubble.  It is also the same as the current neglect, just one is forced to face the fallout.