It was in American prospect which is noT On line

What if I do not believe the mechanics of this statement? That is I do not actually think deficit spending dispossesses the generation to come.

Granted I think Political leaders use sophistry and rhetoric…

But, why aren’t new spending programs “investments”? Or rather stimulus to soak up previous investments made in anticipation of an aggregate demand, that can only exist with lower taxes and increased government spending?

You joke about the Facebook IPO, which currently has a PE north of 70. It may or may not be a bargain at $27.72. But it is almost certainly a bargain in a world of even lower taxes and even increased government spending, but in a world of decreased government spending and higher taxes it is a horrible value.

You say nice things about Kate, but she is a professor at a community college. Thus she is a recipient of an “investment”. Her typical student is lulled into believing that somehow english grammar is going to make her a better nurse (so she can earn 70k a year). These community colleges are boarderline criminal, of course given demographics(ageing population) and projected deficit spending, it may in fact turn out that the investment in a nursing degree ends up being worth the upfront cost.

Lets say a nursing degree is thus akin to a stock with a PE of 30.

Of course it gets a lot worse if you can actually follow the discourse of both the legal and political science community. A Legal education is akin to a stock with a PE in all likelyhood north of Facebook, try walking around with 200k in debt.

The Nurse wants deficit spending that will ensure her clients and a job, thus all that projected deficit spending for medicare, medicaid and social security is a form of job security.

The young lawyer wants what is good for the nurse, ((what is good for the elderly:)+ or – rhetoric) and in addition he wants no new taxes. That is he wants anything that will allow him to repay his debts as soon as possible with money that is cheaper than what he borrowed at.

Of course it is people with a lot of money who want to decrease the quantity of money by raising taxes and decreasing government spending. (This draws dollars out of the system, and basically allows folks to profitably short the market).

As Facebook shows us the true Cartesian is Eduardo Saverin. While he makes money off a website which essentially “personalizes” (puts a face upon the other), he is not about to be “rooted” to any community or nationality if it mechanically means having to pay more taxes.

The Ultra-Living-Constitutionalist Justice Brennan: there is a spirit to the Constitution, heading inexorably towards ever-fuller realization of “libertarian dignity,” and it is the duty of the Supreme Court Justices to apply this spirit in their decisions.

James Ceaser: there is a spirit to the Constitution, read the Fed. papers to figure it out, but it is not the duty of judges to implement it in their decisions–in those they must be originalist–rather, it is the duty of politicians, and we adherents of political constitutionalism are going to really criticize those politicians who violate it.

Future Democratic Legislator or President: “So you so-called political constitutionalists are saying that my Obamacare II w/o the mandate (but w/ the tax provision) is technically and legalistically constitutional, probably, but you’re all in a dither about it being obviously spiritually unconstitutional?”

Again, an initial reaction. Is it fair? How is wrong?

I especially liked your distinction between legalistic constitutionalism and political constitutionalism as different understandings of the document. And conservatives really should be able to make a political case for limitation of government in favor of liberty, most expediently with the young.