> > push to eliminate US nuclear weapons

> I have seen no evidence of anyone in the administration suggesting any such thing.

Really? What about: "Obama Calls for Nuclear Free World, Says U.S. Will Lead" (http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200904/200904060...)

Search Google news for US nuclear weapons.

> > spending $3.55 trillion for 2010 ($400bn over '09), when we've already committed $12.8 trillion to the recession

> What's the problem with that? Be specific.

Uhm... Spending huge amounts of money that the USA doesn't have isn't such a good idea?

> > increasing the marginal tax rate to the highest levels since Clinton

> 'to the highest levels since Clinton' means 'to a higher level than after Bush's tax cuts.' Was the economy, and the federal treasury, in better shape in 2000 (when Clinton left office) or eight years later?

When Clinton left office there was a recession (in 2000 and 2001). It was called the dot com bubble.

Oh. Also take into account that the Democrats controlled Congress the past few years. So maybe it is the Democrat's fault for the current mess?

> > letting North Korea get away with launching missiles over Japan

> Given that this happened two days ago, it's a little early to assess the administration's response.

Didn't Obama want to cut ballistic missile defence?

There is a lot of parroting of talking points to unpack here. First, you assume that drawing down our nuclear program is a priori bad. This is clearly not so. Consider that the greatest threat of terrorists gaining access to nuclear weapons comes from so-called looses nukes in ex-Soviet states. If eliminating some of our weapons will induce them to do the same, this would seem to lessen the chance that apocalyptic weapons will fall into the hands of people who would use them. We could eliminate 9000 nukes and still have more than enough to kill all life on the planet several times over. If the Russians and other ex-Soviet states eliminate a commensurate number of weapons, I think that'd be a good trade.

As for $3.55 trillion for 2010 - unfortunately, I think it's probably necessary. Global manufacturing and trade are falling at rates faster than any seen during the Great Depression. Debt levels are higher now than back then. Deleveraging will take quite awhile. And while some have claimed Japan's deficit spending during its lost decade failed, since growth petered out at 1%, Richard Koo of Nomura makes a fairly convincing case that this was actually a success: they averted a full-scale depression, after all. (http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2009/04/richard_koo_on.htm...)

Saying that Obama has increased marginal tax rates to the highest level since Clinton is a cheap rhetorical trick. I don't think top rates going from 36% to 39.6% represents the tipping point between capitalism and socialism. And lower top marginal tax rates under Bush certainly didn't create a booming economy. This is the worst economy in 80 years. Also, remember that under Eisenhower, top rates were as high as 90%. However, those top rates only applied to individuals with incomes around $75 million in today's dollars. I think there's a convincing argument to be made for introducing more brackets at the top of the tax bracket - lumping in people making 300k with people raking in several million a year makes little sense. Nate Silver made this case a few weeks ago. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/missing-1000000-tax-b...)

Forgive me if I'm not scared about Obama firing CEOs of bailed out firms. Like it or not, certain companies are judged to be too economically, socially, and politically important to fail. If we're going to bail out these firms, getting rid of the incompetents who brought them onto the dole seems like the obvious first step. I wish Obama would get rid of Ken Lewis and the other banking geniuses who played such a large role in bringing on this collapse.

Letting North Korea "get away with firing a missile over Japan." This is disingenuous on so many levels. First, it was a dud, not a missile. Second, it's not as if George W. Bush or Clinton was able to deter North Korea either. Kim Jong Il is determined to starve his people to develop weapons. Short of going to war - which would devastate Seoul and kill millions - there are no good options aside from pressing the Chinese to press North Korea more forcefully.

And finally, you are aware that ballistic missile defense does not actually exist, and likely won't exist in the near future, right? It's something Reagan made up and threw untold billions of dollars into to scare the Soviets. What's the point of pouring money into a nonexistent technology - especially when we are going bankrupt? Ballistic missile defense might be a bigger scam than Bernie Madoff.

> Forgive me if I'm not scared about Obama firing CEOs of bailed out firms. ... If we're going to bail out these firms, getting rid of the incompetents who brought them onto the dole seems like the obvious first step.

Getting rid of incompetents sounds like a great idea. Too bad that Obama isn't interested.

We're still waiting for the politcal class to take a hit. (Barney Frank anyone?)

Heck - we're still waiting for Obama to fire advisors who ran Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground.

> What's the point of pouring money into a nonexistent technology

It's unclear how being able to hit and destroy ballistic missles in certain cases is "nonexistent technology".

Nope - it's not deployed, but ....

> Also, remember that under Eisenhower, top rates were as high as 90%.

Also remember the vast array of shelters and the like that went away with the Reagan tax rate cuts. If you're going to argue that someone isn't telling the whole story, it's poor form to leave out huge details.