On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote:
No Steven, what you say is not the issue. The issue is that money has been > lent to the US in various forms and by various people and they want their > money back eventually. Meanwhile they want to be paid interest. The US is > rapidly approaching a level of debt such that if the interest rates rose to > normal levels, we could not pay the interest without shutting down > significant parts of the government. The US is presently printing dollars > to cover this expense. As a result, the debt is growing because this money > is borrowed from the Federal Reserve, which is a private bank owned by > individuals who want to be paid. At some point in the near future, the debt > will be so large, it simply can not be paid. At that point, the US is in > default, and the financial system of the world collapses. This means > starvation and civil strife. The problem is serous and can not be solved > without great pain, which means further loss of jobs. The fools in Congress > over the last 20 years have created a no win situation that very few people > understand. > I should clarify an earlier remark I made about people who propose deep budget cuts not wanting to think through the implications. This is obviously not the case for everyone making such a proposal, as Ed's thoughtful analysis here shows. What becomes clear is that there is a complex situation that must be carefully worked through. I see no need to slash government entitlements that are basically self-funding and which, if anything, help to bring down costs. But I also appreciate the reasoning behind calls to limit the amount of US government debt that has been issued. As with any complex problem, there are no simple solutions. Eric
