I wrote: "... also expect the government to stop the ham-fisted interference in the marketplace and let free men and women interact in a voluntary, informed fashion."

You responded:

Sorry. I thought you were a left wing nut, rather than a right wing nut. Look, I can empathize with libertarian leanings. But complaining about something you have no control over is a waste of time. But hey, it's your time to do with, as you please.

I am to understand that I have become "right-wing" because I do not want ham-fisted interference by the federal government in our economic system? And a "nut" to boot? Damn fellow, what definition of left-right are you working from?

I guess you think ham-fisted interference is needed? How so?

welfare for the rich

Ah yes, the root of all evil, real and imagined. Keep in mind that someonehas to pay taxes. That would be the rich primarily. Actually the best thing you could do is agitate for transparency in the off-ballot pork business. That's where pork gets inserted into conference bills without being voted on. Needless to say, if you're counting on Democrats to respect the Constitution, don't.

Sadly, you don't go to government with the politicians you wish you had, but the rather the ones you're stuck with. These days that group is getting smaller and smaller, because most don't want to deal with the kind of abuse dished out here. You're getting the kind of government you deserve.

Notice that I told you what was "welfare for the rich" and you chose not to quote it and then pretend that I was talking tax cuts or something. How dishonest are you going to get with this subject?

I wrote of government favoritism in all its various forms. When the government lets the large corporation write the law governing that corporation's industry, I'll guarantee you that it just became harder for the smaller companies to compete and the poor working taxpayer got fucked again.

As for 65 trilliion dollars debt... gosh. I believe I've seen somewhere that the yearly GDP of the entire world is 49 trillion. I guess then, we are going to have to go bankrupt, stop all transfer payments for pensions and SS, and start all over. Hows that sound? Surely we cannot go on with such an incomprehensibly large debt? What do you say? Let's just walk away from it, darn it all.

On the other hand (US output : public debt) is still smaller than under Clinton. I'd say there's cause for optimism.

-- shooter242

The long term obligations that accounting principles total up yield 65 Trillion at least according to the Treasury Department. At some point you must pay your debts; even a moron can figure that out.

So, as long as China and a few others will buy our debt instruments we can keep maxing out the national credit card but soon even the Chinese will want payment. There are only two ways to pay the dept. Inflation or debt repudiation. Which do you think will happen? Which is better in the long run? Have a taste for a little hyper-inflation? --- you can see it at work in Zimbabwe. "Zimbabwe inflation now over 1 million percent", says Boston.com.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/
2008/05/21/zimbabwe_inflation_now_over_1_million_percent/

Or, perhaps you think we could pay down the debt a "little at the time"? Tell me how that would work.

You can have the last word tonight, but I am sure we will talk again soon.