Homestead mailing list

["Don Bowen" <don.bowen AT earthlink.net>]

> They can't "spend" money they don't have.  Well, yes they do, but that
> could only last for so long if there were no promises of future taxes from
> working people to pay back the money.

"They" are spending future monies without any promise of a return other than
vague and unfounded promises that "As taxes go down, revenues go up."  Power
is gained with the power to spend.  Cutting spending is cutting power and no
politician or bureaucrat is willing to do either.

I have read several things from both liberal and conservative economists
that deficient spending is ok and they temper the approvals with references
to percentage of GNP or GDP or assets and so forth.  I have read just as
much about how bad deficient spending is and the numbers are about equal on
both sides.

It cannot continue.  Next year promises to be close to $1T.  We are spending
almost $1T to bail out the financial system, again with vague promises about
how we will make money in the end and that is not all of it.  The Auto
companies are looking for $25B.  Bernanke has already committed close to $1T
for some very shaky assets.  Where does this money come from?  China has
been a willing lender as have the oil rich countries but all they are doing
is lending the money back to us that we gave them for oil and cheap DVDs.

When will a country that cannot declare bankruptcy realize that it is
bankrupt?  Don't think for a moment that the $10T is all.  If the government
were forced to use the same accounting rules it forces on businesses the
real total is well over $30T.

Don Bowen  KI6DIU
http://www.braingarage.com/Dons/Travels/journal/Journal.html