talk.politics.misc

On Aug 9, 11:58 am, Charles Aulds wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:57:58 -0700, patmpowers wrote:
> > The interest rate when Carter left office was about the same as the
> > interest rate when he entered office. The whole inflation thing was
> > supposed to be due to fighting the Viet Nam war without raising
> > taxes. Of course we learned our lesson and would never make such a
> > silly mistake again.
>
> That true ... Vietnam was funded by increasing the number of US dollars in
> circulation (often called "printing more money", which led to the
> inflationary pressures on prices and wages.
>
> This go round (in Iraq and Afghanistan), that mistake has been avoided ...
> instead of increasing the amount of US dollars in circulation, the money
> is being obtained by borrowing existing dollars which are mostly owned by
> foreign banks and governments ... we are paying for these wars by
> borrowing; which hasn't led to inflation but, in the long term, will
> probably have any more of a negative effect on the economy; it is what is
> resulting in the loss of value of the US dollar in relation to other
> currencies. It's unsound fiscal management.
>

I could be wrong, but I have always felt that wasting large amounts of
money was suboptimal practice. I think the payback will be political
leverage of China over the US. Once the debt hits 2 trillion then
Taiwan is history.

> What did you buy for your $1,000,000,000,000 wars, America?
>
> Charles

Look at it from the point of view of a congressman. Much of that
spending is pleasing to people who will be happy to reward you in the
future. One year after you leave money they may shower you with cash
and favors. It is OPM (Other People's Money.)

But that is true of any war. The main reason for this war is that
Saudi Arabia is threatened by revolution and the presence of US troops
was destabilizing the place. Where could they go? Hmmm......