Could we please have a little bit of intellecual honesty here? Is that asking too much? What part of personal responsibility even remotely implies the victimization of others? Isn't being responsible exactly the oposite of victimizing someone? Please try to be civil and honest with your responses because they can obscure the validity of any points you may have.
Reagan made tought decisions. But never mind the fact that we didn't arm Saddam (Russia, China, and France did, or did you forget about the Stockholm's Institute for World Peace report about the matter?). The Russian threat of nuclear anihilation and of the Mullahs was just a little more pressing at the time than the status quo of a then-two-bit dictator.
By support, I mean Britain Poland, Spain, Italy, Australia, Japan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc. (50 countries in all at the time). Sadly, some didn't stay the course for various reasons, but 50 countries in all is not chopped liver.
Read a little history. The US pissed the whole world during the 80's, but in the end we won the cold war despite the world complaining that they were victims of the evil US of A. Did you forget the anti-US demostrations world-wide that occured then?
Your arguments are not new and have been proven invalid in the past. Reagan, now regarded as one of the best presidents of all time was at the time often called a cowboy and a war-monger, out to benefit a few in the military-industrial complex at the expense of poor defenseless victims all around the world. Reagan's message was one of personal responsibility, of not playing the victim, a stark contrast to Carter's "malaise" approach.
Countries work together only insofar as it benefits all parties. When Russia, China, and France stood to lose the revenues of a crooked "oil for food" scam, war did not benefit them. You may have not noticed that the first-world countries that weren't caught with their hand in that cookie jar did, for the most part, support the Iraq invasion.
That is the flaw with your "let's work together approach": Countries are always self-serving because the US is beholden to the US, and France is beholden to France. The UN has that insurmountable problem built-in because it is the nature of the beast. France and Germany are just as self-serving as the US, or Britain. The difference is that one set whines about their tough luck and their bad position in the world. The othe side just goes out there and pursues what it feels it must.
Going back to my original point, there is no doubt that elections in Russia affect the US at a certain level, or for that matter elections in Australia (where the US-supporting government just got reelected), or anywhere else. But no one in the US whines if those elections go one way or the other, because these matters belong to their respective contries. The world is inter-related, but at the same time comprised of sovereign nations. You can choose to accept this fact and work within your possibilities to improve your condition, or uselessly whine about things that you can't control.
If you are another country, US politics may affect you, but nothing affects you more than your own attitudes and actions.
Of course they make a difference. Don't be dense. My point is that an advantage can turn into a disadvantage (It's hard for Japan to attack the US, but hard for the US to attack Japan). And that's what circumstances often are: Neutral, until we make either the best or worst of it.
Instead of investing huge amounts of resources in a nuclear program, we could have lived in a perpetual stalemate with Japan. Instead of risking thermonuclear war we could have yielded to the Russians during the Cuban missile crisis (or worse yet, have gone to the UN to request usesless resolution after resolution). But acting like that is defeatist, playing the victim, blaming others, and also letting other countries dictate your own fate.
Look, I'm not saying that there isn't such a thing as luck. But the bottom line is that you can either hope to rely on it, or rely on yourself instead.
In your great depression example, we learned the lesson of Keynesian economics from it, so that we haven't had any major depressions since (including the one in the past year which could have become a large depression but thanks to Keynesian macroeconomics, it was just a very shallow recession). Having the right attitude means learning from your mistakes, but not blaming them on someone else.
I am not advocating stepping on everyone else to get on top. Indeed, that leads to nowhere (ask WWII Germany, Japan, cold-era Russia, etc). In reality, it is to the benefit of the US that the rest of the world becomes richer, because wealth does not need to be finite (resources are, wealth is not), but I'm digressing and that's another discussion dealing heavily in economic theory.
But you do have the impression that the US steps over everyone else to get it's way. I don't, and that's why your idea of victimization is so different from mine. My main point is that the US is not out to actively victimize anyone, and the only countries that feel like victims are those that can't rise to their own challenges and need a scapegoat. Indivdual people can and are sometimes victims, but entire countries cannot.
Yep, the ocean is always sure protection against all significant threats. That's why we weren't able to defeat ocean-surrounded Japan during the war, right?
Once again the same defeatist attitude that blames problems on circumstance and luck. Poor Europeans, victims of circumstance! It's not like the League of nations could do anything while the German threat was amassing! And once again, Damned Americans and their stinking good luck at building an industrial empire that came in handy just as the war broke out.
I'm glad that most of Europe didn't think as you did, since they rebuilt and once again became players in the world stage.
And that disagrees with my point, how? Isn't confronting and coming out of a problematic situation relatively unscathed a good thing?
Besides, what does your response say to those countries that rolled-up their sleeves and became world leaders despite the ravages of war? That they should have remained victims?
So let me get this straight. The world knows more about the current American president than current Americans? On the flip side, do Americans know more about Tony Blair than the British? Or are you taking the tired old Michael Moore approach that only Americans are stupid, and the rest of the world are geniuses?
But as an American that thinks that people tend to favor whoever is in their best interest and that the best interest of Americans may not be the same as that of the rest of the world, I must be stupid too, since you've not mentioned the effect of "best interest" in your clearly erudite, elite, and enlightened post.
Oh, you poor little victim! Why is the world so unfair? Do you need a hanky?
Here in the US, if we have a problem, we deal with it. As it's been pointed out to you, the US is the world leader because of this "I am not a victim" attitude, an attitude that it has fostered ever since it was little more than a loose collection of British colonies standing up to a world-class empire.
If the US is truly your problem, you should confront it and we'll let the chips fall where they may. However, I suspect that you may not do that because the true source of your problem could in reality very well lay elsewhere, but your ego may be blocking your view.
How about polarization? IIRC, isn't laser light essentially polarized light? Maybe windows polarized in random directions could lessen the chance of laser light getting through at full strength and causing damage to the pilots. It might not be perfect, but it would be significantly better than nothing.
The only way that your arithmetic can add up is if the people that are infertile happen to be the same people that are gay, which by and large is not the case. If we take 20 people, odds are that two are sterile, and two are gay. If gay marriage is allowed, that is 2 couples' worth of burden. If gay marriage is not allowed, that's only 1 couple worth of burden. The problem is that in the former case there is no clear benefit to allow gay marriage, while in the latter childless heterosexual marriages are allowed because in general heterosexual marriages do produce children and since otherwise the government would have to intrude into people's medical, social, and personal life before issuing a certificate, a proposition that is expensive, illegal, and immoral.
So in general, reproduction and child-rearing are the only valid reasons that the government has to intrude into marriage, and they are why government will sanction your future heterosexual marriage. Not because you have to have children, but because your marriage will have a potential that the government has a vested interest on. If the government didn't intrude into marriage at all, then the whole debate would be a moot point and gay marriage wouldn't be a problem. The issue at hand however, is government sanction of gay marriage without a valid reason (love is not the government's business, just as it is not for heterosexual marriages either), a sanction that will furthermore go against the only principle that the government can use to justify it's regulation of marriage.
Once again, what evidence do you have that Afghanistan is run by warlords? What percentage? Are some isolated warlords magically in charge of the entire country? I haven't changed my position, I still question your assertion, just like I did with my first post.
I've never said that there are no warlords, I question whether or not they run the country, whether or not the country is a mess as you proclaim. I haven't made any assertions about Afghanistan either way. You have. You are painting a picture of negativity and utter despair. What sources do you have that you can be so certain of that bold claim? Don't try to turn this around. You made the comments about Afghanistan's state of affairs. It's your burden of proof, just like it's the burden of proof of the administration to come up with WMD evidence after they based the Iraq invation on its existance.
Healthy skepticism. When was the last time that you heard about statistics on new schools? Percentage of the country with newly available water and electricity? We haven't heard of those statistics even from Iraq, which is an item more on the forefront of world interest, let alone from Afghanistan. The way certain aspects of the situation are being underreported you'd think that not a single electric line has been installed, or a single school become active since the war ended. How can anyone get a realistic picture of the situation when there's no complete info in which to base that picture?
News and human rights organizations have a way of reporting and emphasizing the negative aspects only because it's what naturally best serves their interests. I don't purport to know that Afghanistan is a paradise, and I don't make a claim either way. You however, seem to be certain that it is a hellhole even after admitting that you have very little in terms of real substance to base an opinion on either way.
The only pieces of information that the media and other organizations seem to be reporting on: Al Quaeda is holed-up in some remote regions, there is fighting, and there are warlords that struggle for control in some areas as to be expected, and there is an overwhelming number of people registering to vote. Notice how little information that actually is, and how they are at odds with each other. No one can have a rough, let alone accurate picture about the state of the country based on those few crumbs of data.
I could tell you that civilians get killed in California virtually every day and that there are criminal gangs that vie for control in every major city. I can also tell you that in the last election the voter turnout was good. Does that give you an accurate picture of the entire state that is California? Of the economic and anemic state of its people? Of its infrastructure or its culture?
Fair enough. Thanks for that information. However, I still have some qualms. How many of these "civilian" deaths are actually either terrorist or Saddam holdover fighters? Terrorists don't wear uniforms. Just as a reliable figure cannot be found for civilians, neither can a figure be found for terrorists and fighters killed in Iraq. My point is that some of the sources you quoted mix up civilians with terrorist deaths, and don't show any distinction. The sources that claim their body count is merely composed of civilians are for the most part anti-war sources. And of those that are civilians, how many have been killed by terrorists?
The IBC itself does not publish citations for the sources of its study, and uses a method that has been proven to overestimate figures. I'm too lazy to make a link and even though the source is conservative, it explains the faults of the system: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/002/554awdqo.asp
Quoting that there are 10,000 civilian deaths may or may not be accurate, but stating that there are 10,000 specifically innocent deaths is a claim that few dare to make, except on slashdot of course.
No, simply that there is no genetic diversity benefit to gay marriage. It's nice that you tried to read way more into my point than there is and tried to stretch it to the point of absurdity, but remaining intellectually honest actually works better when people are trying to have a discussion.
What if I voted democrat? I'd be pissed if my taxes went to pay for a republican president's salary. What's your point?
Notice how you conveniently left qualifiers such as "for the most part", "theoretical ideal" out of "my" definition. Here it is again in case your reading comprehension skills fail you once more: In general traditional marriage is the most efficient way to ensure a healthy next generation. There are cases where traditional marriage won't accomplish that, but you don't stop supporting an entire institution because of a few exceptions.
I do however, partially agree on your last point: The burden would be similar as it already is for sterile couples. However, that's the extent of our agreement. The more sterile couples, the greater the burden. If we allow same-sex marriage, the burden grows without any additional returns. If the burden is limited to heterosexual, the burden will increase if more couples get married, but so will the benefit. It's simple arithmetic.
Loaded question. Where is exactly your source that you can state with such confidence that the 10,000 deaths are innocent people? What are you implying, that soldiers don't shoot at terrorists but they shoot at civilians? That there are no terrorists? That tooth fairies are shooting at American soldiers and blowing themselves up in car bombs?
Are you also implying that Saddam's political and terror-inspired atrocities against civilians are interchangeable with a republican guard batallion finding itself at the business end of a daisy cutter during battle?
Seriously, who moderates this pro-terrorist propagandist tripe as insightful? Are Slashdot moderators gone so far off the deep end?
Ideally, traditional marriage helps perpetuate the species (I say ideally because not everyone can have or wants kids). Perpetuation of the Society is currently a large part what the government endorses when it comes to marriage.
You can have children without marriage, but for a healthy society two separate sexes coming together, having kids, and committing to taking care of them is the ideal in that it wastes as few resources as possible given the desired output (no "welfare" single parents, theoretically a better upbringing, etc). Marriage is the most efficient way to ensure a relatively healthy next generation. That is a very good reason in and of itself for the government to take notice.
This element is, typically, missing from same-sex couples. Same sex couples may make great parents, but they can't reproduce: From a genetically-diverse point of view, they are inefficient (just like polygamy or inbreeding). From a number-wise point of view, well, they can't reproduce period. There are no equivalent benefits for endorsing same sex-couples as they are for endorsing traditional marriage.
Love is not a sufficient requirement for government endorsement. It has never been. If it was, we wouldn't have anti-relative-marriage laws, age-of-consent-laws, anti-marry-your-dog laws, etc. Since love, though important, is by itself not enough to provide any practical advantage over the traditional next-generation rearing institution ("co-ed" marriage), same-sex marriage can be seen as a burden of society (by taking resources such as taxes, etc, but contributing nothing in return).
Having said that, I agree that same-sex couples should be able to "marry," but asking the government to carry the burden with its sanction is another matter.
Taxes are worse? Abortion is worse? OK, so maybe the economy is not red-hot, but considering that we went through the Enron/Worldcom scandal, terrorist attacks and war, it's doing alright.
I call bullshit on your assertion that you voted for Bush, because clearly you can't see that the issues that you supposedly voted for have actually improved.
There is currently $7.4 trillion dollars of investment capital tied up in the freaking debt.
I thought that you said you understood economics? Government borrowing is not captial investment until the government spends what it borrows, which it has done. Isn't that also a Government investment in the economy? Please read the second part of the Fiscal Policy theory, the part that explains how government expenditures can also pump-up the economy.
Though I'd also prefer that we didn't have a deficit, governments naturally tend to spend more in order to revitalize a lagging economy, such as during a recession. Debts can be managed much more easily than a sluggish economy, especially since debts tend to devaluate over time due to factors such as inflation.
In reality, there aren't $7.4 trillion out of circulation. The issue can be seen instead as $7.4 trillion MORE than there would normally be in the economy, plus a multiplier factor (because of banks tendency to "create" money as borrowing and spending takes place, another keynesian concept). So those $7.5 trillion may mean $22.2 trillion available for investment to the general economy, assuming a conservative multiplier of 3.
But of course, there is never such a thing as a free lunch. The whole process can be understood in terms of spending money to make money. In this case, the government spends money in interest payments and runs up a debt while cutting taxes (the Federal Reserve also does its part through Monetary Policy), to avoid a deepening recession, and it actually seems to be working. During next economic boom cycle, if properly managed, we could get rid of many deficit problems, such as Clinton did during the 90's. If the boom grows too fast, another way to put the brakes and avoid runaway inflation is through increased taxes and/or higher interest rates.
There are times to cut taxes, times to increase them, times to run a deficit, and times to run a surplus. These just happen to be deficit/cut-taxes/low-interest/low-reserve-rate times.
Please google-up "Fiscal Policy" and read a little bit. What the original poster refers to is a well-understood Keynesian Macroeconomics phenomenon, and a widely-accepted method of stimulating economic growth via lower tax rates (both Reagan and JFK used it). Most of the people that oppose it seem to be politicians or other people with no economic training.
If people will wake up and realize that voting for Bush without understanding the issues is killing our country, then perhapse they will change... but until then bush can look forward to having all the bible thumpers under his belt...
Right. What do poor, bible-thumpers have anything to do with the issues? Everyone knows that they are dolts that can be broadly stereotyped as brainless sheep. But you, by contrast, understand the issues so well. Bush raising taxes? Destroying the environment? Draft? War against Candada and Mexico? Yep, you've got the issues down, alright.
Nothing to see here folks, just the typical Slashdot snobbery modded up as insightful.
Slashdot Mirror
Reagan made tought decisions. But never mind the fact that we didn't arm Saddam (Russia, China, and France did, or did you forget about the Stockholm's Institute for World Peace report about the matter?). The Russian threat of nuclear anihilation and of the Mullahs was just a little more pressing at the time than the status quo of a then-two-bit dictator.
By support, I mean Britain Poland, Spain, Italy, Australia, Japan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc. (50 countries in all at the time). Sadly, some didn't stay the course for various reasons, but 50 countries in all is not chopped liver.
Your arguments are not new and have been proven invalid in the past. Reagan, now regarded as one of the best presidents of all time was at the time often called a cowboy and a war-monger, out to benefit a few in the military-industrial complex at the expense of poor defenseless victims all around the world. Reagan's message was one of personal responsibility, of not playing the victim, a stark contrast to Carter's "malaise" approach.
Countries work together only insofar as it benefits all parties. When Russia, China, and France stood to lose the revenues of a crooked "oil for food" scam, war did not benefit them. You may have not noticed that the first-world countries that weren't caught with their hand in that cookie jar did, for the most part, support the Iraq invasion.
That is the flaw with your "let's work together approach": Countries are always self-serving because the US is beholden to the US, and France is beholden to France. The UN has that insurmountable problem built-in because it is the nature of the beast. France and Germany are just as self-serving as the US, or Britain. The difference is that one set whines about their tough luck and their bad position in the world. The othe side just goes out there and pursues what it feels it must.
Going back to my original point, there is no doubt that elections in Russia affect the US at a certain level, or for that matter elections in Australia (where the US-supporting government just got reelected), or anywhere else. But no one in the US whines if those elections go one way or the other, because these matters belong to their respective contries. The world is inter-related, but at the same time comprised of sovereign nations. You can choose to accept this fact and work within your possibilities to improve your condition, or uselessly whine about things that you can't control.
If you are another country, US politics may affect you, but nothing affects you more than your own attitudes and actions.
Instead of investing huge amounts of resources in a nuclear program, we could have lived in a perpetual stalemate with Japan. Instead of risking thermonuclear war we could have yielded to the Russians during the Cuban missile crisis (or worse yet, have gone to the UN to request usesless resolution after resolution). But acting like that is defeatist, playing the victim, blaming others, and also letting other countries dictate your own fate.
In your great depression example, we learned the lesson of Keynesian economics from it, so that we haven't had any major depressions since (including the one in the past year which could have become a large depression but thanks to Keynesian macroeconomics, it was just a very shallow recession). Having the right attitude means learning from your mistakes, but not blaming them on someone else.
I am not advocating stepping on everyone else to get on top. Indeed, that leads to nowhere (ask WWII Germany, Japan, cold-era Russia, etc). In reality, it is to the benefit of the US that the rest of the world becomes richer, because wealth does not need to be finite (resources are, wealth is not), but I'm digressing and that's another discussion dealing heavily in economic theory.
But you do have the impression that the US steps over everyone else to get it's way. I don't, and that's why your idea of victimization is so different from mine. My main point is that the US is not out to actively victimize anyone, and the only countries that feel like victims are those that can't rise to their own challenges and need a scapegoat. Indivdual people can and are sometimes victims, but entire countries cannot.
Yep, the ocean is always sure protection against all significant threats. That's why we weren't able to defeat ocean-surrounded Japan during the war, right?
I'm glad that most of Europe didn't think as you did, since they rebuilt and once again became players in the world stage.
Besides, what does your response say to those countries that rolled-up their sleeves and became world leaders despite the ravages of war? That they should have remained victims?
But as an American that thinks that people tend to favor whoever is in their best interest and that the best interest of Americans may not be the same as that of the rest of the world, I must be stupid too, since you've not mentioned the effect of "best interest" in your clearly erudite, elite, and enlightened post.
Here in the US, if we have a problem, we deal with it. As it's been pointed out to you, the US is the world leader because of this "I am not a victim" attitude, an attitude that it has fostered ever since it was little more than a loose collection of British colonies standing up to a world-class empire.
If the US is truly your problem, you should confront it and we'll let the chips fall where they may. However, I suspect that you may not do that because the true source of your problem could in reality very well lay elsewhere, but your ego may be blocking your view.
The US put the Taliban in charge? That's quite a wild claim. Care to back that up with any references?
How about polarization? IIRC, isn't laser light essentially polarized light? Maybe windows polarized in random directions could lessen the chance of laser light getting through at full strength and causing damage to the pilots. It might not be perfect, but it would be significantly better than nothing.
So in general, reproduction and child-rearing are the only valid reasons that the government has to intrude into marriage, and they are why government will sanction your future heterosexual marriage. Not because you have to have children, but because your marriage will have a potential that the government has a vested interest on. If the government didn't intrude into marriage at all, then the whole debate would be a moot point and gay marriage wouldn't be a problem. The issue at hand however, is government sanction of gay marriage without a valid reason (love is not the government's business, just as it is not for heterosexual marriages either), a sanction that will furthermore go against the only principle that the government can use to justify it's regulation of marriage.
I've never said that there are no warlords, I question whether or not they run the country, whether or not the country is a mess as you proclaim. I haven't made any assertions about Afghanistan either way. You have. You are painting a picture of negativity and utter despair. What sources do you have that you can be so certain of that bold claim? Don't try to turn this around. You made the comments about Afghanistan's state of affairs. It's your burden of proof, just like it's the burden of proof of the administration to come up with WMD evidence after they based the Iraq invation on its existance.
News and human rights organizations have a way of reporting and emphasizing the negative aspects only because it's what naturally best serves their interests. I don't purport to know that Afghanistan is a paradise, and I don't make a claim either way. You however, seem to be certain that it is a hellhole even after admitting that you have very little in terms of real substance to base an opinion on either way.
The only pieces of information that the media and other organizations seem to be reporting on: Al Quaeda is holed-up in some remote regions, there is fighting, and there are warlords that struggle for control in some areas as to be expected, and there is an overwhelming number of people registering to vote. Notice how little information that actually is, and how they are at odds with each other. No one can have a rough, let alone accurate picture about the state of the country based on those few crumbs of data.
I could tell you that civilians get killed in California virtually every day and that there are criminal gangs that vie for control in every major city. I can also tell you that in the last election the voter turnout was good. Does that give you an accurate picture of the entire state that is California? Of the economic and anemic state of its people? Of its infrastructure or its culture?
So if there are so little news from Afghanistan, what do you base your assertion on?
The IBC itself does not publish citations for the sources of its study, and uses a method that has been proven to overestimate figures. I'm too lazy to make a link and even though the source is conservative, it explains the faults of the system: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/002/554awdqo.asp
Quoting that there are 10,000 civilian deaths may or may not be accurate, but stating that there are 10,000 specifically innocent deaths is a claim that few dare to make, except on slashdot of course.
What if I voted democrat? I'd be pissed if my taxes went to pay for a republican president's salary. What's your point?
Notice how you conveniently left qualifiers such as "for the most part", "theoretical ideal" out of "my" definition. Here it is again in case your reading comprehension skills fail you once more: In general traditional marriage is the most efficient way to ensure a healthy next generation. There are cases where traditional marriage won't accomplish that, but you don't stop supporting an entire institution because of a few exceptions.
I do however, partially agree on your last point: The burden would be similar as it already is for sterile couples. However, that's the extent of our agreement. The more sterile couples, the greater the burden. If we allow same-sex marriage, the burden grows without any additional returns. If the burden is limited to heterosexual, the burden will increase if more couples get married, but so will the benefit. It's simple arithmetic.
Are you also implying that Saddam's political and terror-inspired atrocities against civilians are interchangeable with a republican guard batallion finding itself at the business end of a daisy cutter during battle?
Seriously, who moderates this pro-terrorist propagandist tripe as insightful? Are Slashdot moderators gone so far off the deep end?
Again, care to back that up with any sort of figures?
Ideally, traditional marriage helps perpetuate the species (I say ideally because not everyone can have or wants kids). Perpetuation of the Society is currently a large part what the government endorses when it comes to marriage.
You can have children without marriage, but for a healthy society two separate sexes coming together, having kids, and committing to taking care of them is the ideal in that it wastes as few resources as possible given the desired output (no "welfare" single parents, theoretically a better upbringing, etc). Marriage is the most efficient way to ensure a relatively healthy next generation. That is a very good reason in and of itself for the government to take notice.
This element is, typically, missing from same-sex couples. Same sex couples may make great parents, but they can't reproduce: From a genetically-diverse point of view, they are inefficient (just like polygamy or inbreeding). From a number-wise point of view, well, they can't reproduce period. There are no equivalent benefits for endorsing same sex-couples as they are for endorsing traditional marriage.
Love is not a sufficient requirement for government endorsement. It has never been. If it was, we wouldn't have anti-relative-marriage laws, age-of-consent-laws, anti-marry-your-dog laws, etc. Since love, though important, is by itself not enough to provide any practical advantage over the traditional next-generation rearing institution ("co-ed" marriage), same-sex marriage can be seen as a burden of society (by taking resources such as taxes, etc, but contributing nothing in return).
Having said that, I agree that same-sex couples should be able to "marry," but asking the government to carry the burden with its sanction is another matter.
Care to support that with any type of statistics?
I call bullshit on your assertion that you voted for Bush, because clearly you can't see that the issues that you supposedly voted for have actually improved.
I thought that you said you understood economics? Government borrowing is not captial investment until the government spends what it borrows, which it has done. Isn't that also a Government investment in the economy? Please read the second part of the Fiscal Policy theory, the part that explains how government expenditures can also pump-up the economy.
Though I'd also prefer that we didn't have a deficit, governments naturally tend to spend more in order to revitalize a lagging economy, such as during a recession. Debts can be managed much more easily than a sluggish economy, especially since debts tend to devaluate over time due to factors such as inflation.
In reality, there aren't $7.4 trillion out of circulation. The issue can be seen instead as $7.4 trillion MORE than there would normally be in the economy, plus a multiplier factor (because of banks tendency to "create" money as borrowing and spending takes place, another keynesian concept). So those $7.5 trillion may mean $22.2 trillion available for investment to the general economy, assuming a conservative multiplier of 3.
But of course, there is never such a thing as a free lunch. The whole process can be understood in terms of spending money to make money. In this case, the government spends money in interest payments and runs up a debt while cutting taxes (the Federal Reserve also does its part through Monetary Policy), to avoid a deepening recession, and it actually seems to be working. During next economic boom cycle, if properly managed, we could get rid of many deficit problems, such as Clinton did during the 90's. If the boom grows too fast, another way to put the brakes and avoid runaway inflation is through increased taxes and/or higher interest rates.
There are times to cut taxes, times to increase them, times to run a deficit, and times to run a surplus. These just happen to be deficit/cut-taxes/low-interest/low-reserve-rate times.
Please google-up "Fiscal Policy" and read a little bit. What the original poster refers to is a well-understood Keynesian Macroeconomics phenomenon, and a widely-accepted method of stimulating economic growth via lower tax rates (both Reagan and JFK used it). Most of the people that oppose it seem to be politicians or other people with no economic training.
Right. What do poor, bible-thumpers have anything to do with the issues? Everyone knows that they are dolts that can be broadly stereotyped as brainless sheep. But you, by contrast, understand the issues so well. Bush raising taxes? Destroying the environment? Draft? War against Candada and Mexico? Yep, you've got the issues down, alright.
Nothing to see here folks, just the typical Slashdot snobbery modded up as insightful.