"If you believe that inflation will be be high, the best course of action is to borrow lots of money at today's low fixed interest rates, then allow inflation to eat away the real value of your obligation."

Perhaps...IF you assume you will be able to pay those bills AND still have sufficient money for items which you have to pay for on a weekly basis, i.e. food, gasoline, etc. My method would be to get out of debt, save your money up and make sure you have sufficient means to ride out the months (or possible years, given the amount of money they are printing) of inflation.

"This hyper-inflation Obama is heading towards would be a straightforward transfer of wealth from those with assets to those with debt. It should be interesting. Of course, it is still JUST possible that Bernanke will pull on his big boy pants and stop the inflationary madness. We WILL have more recession, either way. The question is will we have hyper-inflation to boot."

This straightforward transfer of wealth ASSUMES those with money will not simply move overseas and take their wealth with them. Case in point is Microsofts mentioning of transferring high paid positions overseas.

A hypothesis which, of course, leads to the inevitable question: If those with large amounts of money and large businesses move overseas, who will finance the expensive plans of this Administration? My answer, unfortunately, is those who have money but cannot afford to move overseas - namely the middle class.

given the current track record of the current Democratic controlled Congress and their current low ratings, I would not be surprised at this possibility at all.

"Tell us, guys, were you this vocal about deficit spending during GW's reign? Or is it fine as long as the money goes to buy tanks and jets?"

As long as the money went to finance a war we were fighting, I had no problem with that. I happen to like making sure our fighting men have the equipment they need to fight and stay safe. BUT if you are talking about the Bush move to bail out the banks, then Yes I did have a problem with that. I thought it was stupid and wrong.

"I wonder where our country would be today if we had elected the fiscal conservative Al Gore rather than the borrow-and-spend administration we got."

The same place we are today, considering that the deregulation of the banking system started in the mid-1990s. The same situation would have resulted because almost no one in Congress wanted to look at what was happening, much less address the problem, until it was too late.

"If we use the money we borrow to create jobs rebuilding our rumbling infra structure and creating new sustainable industries we will be building a future for our society. If we spend the money on war, more gifts to the financial industry and mismanaged healthcare we will be pouring it down the drain.

Debt is not a problem if invested wisely."

Quite correct...as far as it goes. The problem is, when the government creates jobs, they are, for the most part, temporary jobs unless the government continues to finance said jobs.

If the government used the increase in debt to cultivate private owned businesses, as Reagan did in the 1980s, the jobs would become permanent and the tax base would expand, increasing revenues to the government coffers AND increase job creation across the country.

If the government simply creates work without incouraging private industry, it's simply making work which will not sustain itself without continued government intervention.

Given the letters full of vitrol here and the story above...

If I politically disagree with a female politician, I can call her a slut, and can call her kids prostitues. Got it.

So much for degrading women politicians.

We guys are learning ladies...we now know that we can call women we politically disagree with any name we choose and can claim is it simply political discourse.

Better yet, we can make joke about them AND their families. What a DEAL!

Sure...lets just make the REST of the country JUST like California...then we can all be the same and all be miserable together.

If California wants to get out it's own hole, then cut spending and, if you REALLY want to stimulate jobs, then cut taxes as well!

Either that or suffer!

I see you don't care for Arnold. Well, honestly he wasn't very conservative.

But out of curiosity, do you think Grey-out Davis could have done better?

What Californina really needs is a real conservative. Unfortunately, that will never happen...so they will suffer, they will continue to lose businesses to neighboring states, and will sink slowing into obscurity.

Women can have an abortion on demand...OR they can have the child, regardless of what the father has to say about it. And if she chooses to have the child, the father must pay child support.

Ok...so far, that's the way it is and the guy has to just man up and deal with it. Ok.

Now, the father is being told he needs to be part of the child's life, even if he wanted the woman to have an abortion and she didn't and even though he pays child support.

Sorry but men have been told what they say or think is irrelevant. So if they choose NOT to be part of the child's life is the one, final choice that he DOES have some say in.

So I say, deal with it...this was not put into place by the fathers.