7 Comments
User's avatar
Kevin Wood's avatar

Let's put people who have no knowledge of economics in charge of spending. What could go wrong?

Tom Langdon's avatar

Not sure I understand, are not those people already in charge?

An Ol' LSO's avatar

Tom, that is Kevin's point. Just saying........

Tom Langdon's avatar

Yes I know, just having a little fun.

James ( Jim) Marshall's avatar

It seems to me that every time someone "HAS" to sell something for quick cask, it is usually at a loss. IF, all those assets could be sold for what the government believes is a GOOD price, then WE would be slaves to whoever bought the land! Plus, we would be taken over by some people who really don't like us very much. WHO EVER DREAMED UP THIS CRAZY SCHEME MUST BE BRAIN DEAD! The only real chance for economic survival is to "live in our pay grade". What ever lies ahead isn't going to be pretty. "DON'T SELL ANY GOLD"!!!!

Yes I know I am crazy for thinking we could ever adjust our spending...but I can dream.

Jim Marshall

Jimm Roberts's avatar

The solution is simple:

Enable the private sector to produce more while the Federal government spends less.

After all, the former is the wealth-maker; the latter consumes it.

Therefore, more wealth minus less wealth consumption = declining national deficit

Robert's avatar

Good Morning Bill. For many decades I have been hearing this same argument that there is no problem with our debt because of all the natural resources and different types of property that the government owns. It never seemed right to me, but I was never able to put why it didn't. You have broken the economics down so that it finally makes sense. Thank you again. Sincerely, Bob