I don’t know who won, but I do know I lost.

One of the reasons WWII was a stimulus is that the government wound up returning a lot of money to the private sector–steel mills, arms manufacturers, railroads, some textile mills–all were running at full capacity, as we armed and clothed millions of soldiers.

I lived through the 1970′s , and remember well the kind of economy that was produced by high taxes and massive government spending. It wasn’t pretty. I also remember how quickly Reagan’s tax cuts turned the whole thing around, for almost everybody.

If the average income is $70k, the average federal tax is about $8000, which is less than the interest on the federal debt. So again, how will it be paid?

Perhaps it will be paid by massive inflation. When the dollar loses value and the debt number remains fixed, payment of the debt becomes easier. This is how the WWII debt was paid off. But for this to happen inflation would have to be severe. Perhaps the dollar would have to lose half or more of its value. Savings accounts and retirement accounts would be reduced by half or more.

Suppose the US just manages to pay interest on the debt by does not experience inflation. Then no money is left for entitlements, etc.

Would it not be better to reduce federal spending rather than increase it? Would it not be better for the government to live within its means, as every family must do.

If the average income is $70k, the average federal tax is about $8000, which is less than the interest on the federal debt. So again, how will it be paid?

Perhaps it will be paid by massive inflation. When the dollar loses value and the debt number remains fixed, payment of the debt becomes easier. This is how the WWII debt was paid off. But for this to happen inflation would have to be severe. Perhaps the dollar would have to lose half or more of its value. Savings accounts and retirement accounts would be reduced by half or more.

Suppose the US just manages to pay interest on the debt by does not experience inflation. Then no money is left for entitlements, etc.

Would it not be better to reduce federal spending rather than increase it? Would it not be better for the government to live within its means, as every family must do.

You cannot spend your way out of a recession nor can you borrow your way out of debt. I get this, most people in America that don’t live on credit cards and home equity lines of credit get this and, it appears that most leaders of the EU get this…pull your head out man.

I have spent over twelve years as a scientific researcher….the thing about research…it takes time. Green technologies are largely research projects. Sooooo…if you want to let the government experiment with your taxes, 401K and stock go for it. Personally, I’d prefer to opt out. I’m choosing this option because I know – from EXPERIENCE – that there will be mistakes made, wrong directions taken and millions of dollars spent that we cannot afford to spend at this time on researching green technologies.

Rule of thumb: when the crap is hitting the fan, stick with what we know works…we should experiment when we have time and money to do so.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the jackasses in the House of Representatives should take a few minutes from their busy day of pandering and screwing the US taxpayer to reread their oath of office. They should follow that up with a quick overview of the Constitution….cliff notes might be required for this crew…congressional and excecutive branch action regarding TARP, GM, AIG bonus debacle/bill of attainder are all unconstitutional. Perhaps an impeachment or two would clear things up for people who are so “busy” with the people’s business that they don’t read the legislation they pass.