One things for sure, we cannot continue to remain in Iraq and we certainly cannot afford to attack Iran.

I agree with you here. Spending has been ridiculous. Obama's spending proposals should give everyone pause, too. The ramifications of sweeping tax increases could be devastating.

The data show this claim is not correct. The principal way that analysts measure trends in federal spending and revenues over time is as a share of the U.S. economy (that is, as a share of the gross domestic product). The data show that while federal spending has risen since 2001, it remains lower as a share of the economy than its average level over the last 30 years, even when expenditures for Iraq, Afghanistan, and relief from the recent hurricanes are included. In short, federal spending is not unusually high. (Of course, the fact that outlays are near the historical average does not establish whether they are at an appropriate level, which requires a substantive policy judgment. But claims that spending has “exploded” are incorrect.) http://www.cbpp.org/budget-slideshow.htm

I know it appears like it’s just an inflammatory rhetorical question, but I am trying to be serious here. Why do Conservatives and Republican Party members insist on being habitually misinformed and ignorant?

Nearly all of my extended family members are proud card-carrying Conservative Republicans. Consequently, I have lived my entire life with an imitate perspective into how Republicans think and into what makes a Republican a Republican. What I found is that the beliefs, attitudes, and motivations of my Republican family members  dovetail almost seamlessly with those of the national Republican Party at large – much more so that those of Democrats I know (who generally tend to think more deeply about the issues and are far more nuanced in their acceptance of the national party platform).

There are essentially only 2 main factors that drive the Republican Party and drive Americans to stay Republican or become Republican – even when it’s clearly against their own best interest. Those two factors are Fear and Ignorance. Allow me to provide a few examples of what I am talking about. 99.9% of Republicans are Republicans are one-issue voters who can be categorized as follows:

1.   EVANGELICALS – These are Republicans who vote Republican based solely on Abortion and Gay Marriage.
2.   REDNECKS – These are Republicans who vote Republican based solely on Gun Rights.
3.   RICH PEOPLE – These are Republicans who vote Republican based solely on Tax Policy.

99.9% of Republicans are one or two issue voters that can quickly and easily be separated into one of the 3 categories above. Luckily, for Republicans, all 3 groups are extremely fearful of Muslims. Evangelicals are afraid of Muslims because they view Islam as a dangerous threat to Christianity. Rednecks are fearful of Muslims because they don’t know any Muslims, are ignorant of Islam, and as a result are racist against Muslims. Rich people are fearful of Muslims because the threat of terrorism and our dependence on foreign oil threatens their checking account, their investments, and their overall personal wealth.

 Consequently, getting  their base to turn out on election day is a no-brainer for Republican leaders. All they need to do is continue fostering this misplaced fear and ignorance among their constituency.  Don’t believe me? In the last two campaign cycles (2004 & now), look at all the Republican and/or Conservative emails you have received in a mass distribution list, then look at how many of them were not fear-based. I am certain the answer is zero. In 2004, it was that a vote for John Kerry was a vote for another terrorist attack on the United States. Today it is that Barack Obama is a radical Muslim and a vote for Barack Obama means putting a radical Muslim in charge of the country.

Such a strategy would never work in the Democratic Party because such a ludicrously stupid and false suggestion about the opposition candidate would never stick – regardless of how badly Democrats wanted to believe it. Democrats, as a whole, are simply too well informed for such tactics to work. 

Yet in the Republican Party, despite well documented and widespread overwhelming evidence to the contrary, false accusations stick like glue – because their party members are so ill informed, uneducated, and generally ignorant. My question is why?

Yet another intellectually lazy response. Just because a comment is a stereotype does not automatically mean it's incorrect. Saying that Muslims are more likely to commit acts of terrorism than any other ethnic group is a stereotype but it's also true. Saying women are physically weaker than than men is a stereotype but it's also true. Saying a young African-American male has a better chance of ending up in Prison than ending up in College is a stereotype, but it's a stereotype that has plenty of evidence to support it.

1. Do non-Muslim ethnic groups commit acts of terrorism? Of course.
2. Are some women physically stronger than some men? Certainly.
3. Do some young African-American men go to college instead of prision? Absolutely.

However, in any matter, it is impossible to operate off of or draw accurate conclusions based upon the exceptions. It's no different in politics. Certainly there are some extremely intelligent, insightful, and well-educated members of the Republican Party who vote for their candidate based upon a in-depth examination of that candidate's stance on many different issues.

Unfortunately, the Party is not defined by these members nor does the Republican establishment and leadership cater to these members. It is universially agreed - let me repeat - UNIVERSIALLY AGREED that in 2004 Dr. James Dobson and Dr. James Dobson alone single-handily handed George W. Bush a 2nd term in office by turning out millions of single-issue (abortion / gay marriage) Evangelical voters who went to the polls and pulled the lever for George W. Bush based SOLELY and ONLY upon the single issue of Abortion and/or the single issue Gay Marriage without any consideration whatsoever for Bush's position on the economy, on the war, on healthcare, on education, or any other major issue.  

In fact, after the election, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney picked up the phone and called Dr. Dobson to PERSONALLY thank him for handing them a 2nd term in the White House. That kind of single-issue power simply does not exist on the Democrat side - and thank God for that - because it's possibly the most frighteningly ignorant form of political participation a person can practice.

The problem with social security as it is structured, is it is essentially a ponzi scheme.  It has been a very successful one over the last 70 years or so, because it has enjoyed over that entire time that element which makes such a scheme successful - growth.  Any ponzi scheme works fabulously for its investors as long as it has more people paying in than taking out.  Soon however, more people will be taking out, and will be taking out for longer periods as people live longer.  Remember, SS recipients are guaranteed to receive benefits for their lifetime, not just until the amount they contributed over their working life runs out.  When the amount people are being paid overuns the amounts people paid in plus the interest earned, the system will be insolvent.  Simple math.  The question is when this will occur.

Personally, I think Bush's plan is not the correct one as it changes the nature of the system too much and potentially destroys the insurance aspect of it.  I however feel no compunction to lie about his plan in order to make that argument.

Only people who are intellectually incapable of constructing an intelligent response to an argument feel it necessary to attack the person making the argument - again much like children do.