I get a weekly free email newsletter from John Mauldin, called Thoughts From The Front Line. This week's edition talks about what might've happened if Hilary had become president, or Gore in 2000, or Bush41 in 1992. It's worth a read if you're interested, google his name and sign up for the free email newsletter. Anyway, he goes on to talk about what the winner of the next election will face in the next 4 years, and it ain't pretty. I know lib/dems are jumping up and down right now with the current lift to the economy, modest though it is. And who knows, maybe we've hit the big turnaround at last; but also maybe not, there's really no basis or reason to think that we're really out of the woods yet. Mauldin thinks we'll run out of road to kick the can down by 2016. Most economists will tell you we're on an unsustainable path; at some point the bond market will decide the US of A is not such a good investment if our debt is out of control and our leadership cannot or will not take the necessary steps to fix the problems. Not sure I'd put the date at 2016, but sooner or later thar day will come unless we make some changes. So, the question before the house is, how much difference will it make if Obama or the repub candidate wins? I think we can make a few reasonable assumptions, neither party will win a filibuster proof Senate, and the GOP will retain control of the Hlouse, albeit with a smaller majority. Sure, maybe the Dems'll retake the House, if you think so go write your own thread. Personally, I'm not seeing a big difference no matter who wins. Would Obama tack back to the center like Clinton did? I don't think so, why should he? He doesn't have to worry about any more elections, and he's a man of the far left anyway, a lot further left than Clinton ever was. I think we'd see a continuation of 2011 - gridlock. That's not a bad thing when things are going good and you don't want Congress fucking things up. But the status quo is not good, if we don't make some changes then we're headed down the same road Greece is on. Assume that Romney is the Repub nominee and he beats the big O. Even if the GOP gains control of the Senate and keeps control of the House, they won't be filibuster proof. Why should we assume the Senate Dems will agree to work with a repub president, hell they won't work with the Dem president they got now. How much could Romney get done? I suspect he'll spend less money that did Obama, but I don't see meaningful, long-term, bipartisan agreement on what needs to be done to put ourselves on a sustainable path to fiscal sanity. Without an agreement like I described, we're basically a rudderless ship tacking left then right, and will eventually end up beached on a deserted island with nothin'. I think Mauldin is right about one thing, if we don't arrive at bipartisan solutions PDQ then bad times are coming and the longer we screw around the worse it'll be when the shit hits the fan. And with that, I'm going to bed, sweet dreams everybody LOL.