There are no good courses of action the US can take in Syria. No matter what we do, it will be wrong.

In a surprise that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, it turns out that Assad, the vicious dictator of Syria, is our natural ally, at least more so than the (primarily) al Qaeda insurgents trying to overthrow him.

And yet it makes no sense to support him since he is not only the ally of Iran, but succoring him also provides the Russians, not the US with biggest benefit by securing their Middle East interests and the only naval seaport they have in the region.

Providing humanitarian aid is a good, albeit weak strategy and make the US look weak. Meanwhile, insurgents who are of a moderate bent are being decimated in a civil war triangle by the increasingly powerful al Qaeda insurgents who most benefit by US aid.

But now we have unfortunate "red line" of alleged chemical weapons use by the Syrian government. If it proves true the US cannot ignore it and must take swift and decisive punitive action. What are the options?

1) Step up arming and training the rebels with good weapons including shoulder-fired munitions for taking down aircraft. This option has the advantage of being cheap and easy to implement, but it will be seen as impotent and will take time to have any effect and Assad may win before it pays dividend.
Cost: a few billion dollars
Time to success: months or even years, one year minimum, victory in doubt
Casualties: US, none: Syrians, in the thousands or tens of thousands
Estimated success probability: 40 - 60, currently Assad has the upper hand, and their is no guarantee the US support will not be used by the insurgent factions against each other or be timely enough to win the war

2) Bomb various targets with missiles from a distance to punish Assad, degrade his infrastructure but not overthrow the regime. While more costly than aid, and decisive, this mechanism is still cheaper than invasion and limits US involvement, but it sure to anger the Russians and Chinese who may actually step up their support of the Assad regime

Cost: probably 20 billion dollars
Time to success: Depending on the intensity or frequency, the goal may be achievable quickly if the goal is simply to punish Assad. More far reaching goals such as regime change would not be guaranteed and take longer, more bombings
Casualties: US, a few from downed aircraft, mistakes and accidents and mechanical failure; Syrians: in the hundreds or low thousands including civilians
Success Probability: Depends on the goal. It is high if the goal is simply punishment; much lower if the goal is regime change. Air wars alone rarely change governments.

3) Bomb and invade the country, topple Assad and leave immediately. This option is much more costly and will also result in US casualties. It also must be concluded within 90 days or so or incur the need to secure Congressional support, something that is not guaranteed. It also results in a power vacuum, chaos and potential all out civil war, from which only al Qaeda benefits. On the other hand, it has the potential of deterring Iran and forcing them to the bargaining table or it may just speed up their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.

Cost: $50 - $200 billion minimum, and this is if it takes a month or less to accomplish the goal. This is based on the cost of the war in Iraq. The initial assault was extremely costly since war is done as a rapid, "damn the expense" pace.
Time: Assume one month regardless of outcome
Casualties: US, 50 - 100, plus 1000 wounded (roughly what happened in Iraq). Syrians, 10,000 killed and wounded including women and children
Probability of success: Short term, very high; long term, doubtful. In the aftermath there will be a free for all with the US, al Qaeda, the Russians and the Chinese trying to get a piece of the pie, not to mention Iranian interests

4) Bomb, invade and occupy. Like we are going to do that. George Bush wasted any possibility the US has to wage any kind of long term war. Not only is our military on a draw-down, we still have not replaced the equipments destroyed and damaged in Iraq and won't be able to for some time, especially under the sequester.
Cost: 250 billions minimum
Time: One year minimum
Casualties: US 100s - 1000s including killed and wounded; Syrians 10s of 1000s depending on their resistance.
Probability of success: What does victory look like? Once we leave civil war will break out and al Qaeda is best positioned to win, so US probability of success is low longterm

In the end, we need to define what success and victory looks like to the US. If is simply the establishment of a new government, regardless of what it looks like, we can quickly do that -- assuming the Russians and Iranians don't become involved. But if it means stability, a contained al Qaeda and democracy, then we will fail, just as we have failed in Iraq, a land where Iran rules and democracy is a joke.

What Has To Happen

What has to happen

Almost every ill that America suffers comes back to one thing: Jobs.

If everyone had a job, then most problems would go away. Jobs create success and prosperity. When there are jobs, there are fewer idle people with nothing to do but cause trouble. When there are jobs there are less despondent people taking drugs to dull their pain. When there are jobs, it creates more jobs and satisfaction. There is more possibility for racial integration and movement up the class ladder.

For decades, since the 1960s at least, we have been shipping our jobs elsewhere. Why? Because we get paid too much. Why pay a guy in Connecticut 25 dollars an hour to make good quality leather shoes that sell for 60 bucks a pair when you can pay some Chink 1 dollar a day to make a cheap pair for 5 dollars. Who cares if it only lasts a season? Four pair are still less than one good pair, and you get the satisfaction of buying something new and changing style regularly.

We accelerated our job destruction program with every decade, while opening our borders to every one else's products regardless of whether or not they allowed ours in their country.

Now we are in the current situation.

So what we must do, one of two things, is this:

1) Employ anyone who needs a job in a huge factory making an extremely complex thing. Doesn't matter what it is. Ship it across the country to another huge factory where people are employed to dismantle it and the pieces recycled or returned to build more of the thing. Repeat over and over.

This would employe shippers and builders, accountants, managers, janitors, suppliers and all the support industries like diners and cardboard box makers and so on.

Even if the government is paying them, it still would get a quarter of their earnings back in the form of income taxes.

2) The alternative is similar, but at least would work towards a goal. Since the Mississippi is flooding cities every year, employ an enormous program of building a massive man-made lake in Oklahoma or Kansas or somewhere and then pipe off all the excess water every spring into the lake, which stores the water for irrigation in the summer or for recreation, etc. People would be employed digging the lake, making steel and concrete pipe, digging ditches, driving trucks, and they would be good engineering jobs with a worthwhile goal attached, serving the purpose also of restoring many failing midwest towns. After the thing is done, many would be employed maintaining the pipes and cleaning sediment out, etc.

In either case, if you don't have native job creation because your manufacturing is not competitive, then something MUST be done with all the idle people standing around or you get drugs, crime, unrest and racial issues. This is one of the major causes of the unrest that caused the Arab Spring -- the lack of jobs.

Even though the government would be paying and it would be a government spending program, the programs are no worse than Defense spending where thousands of tanks are made and parked and never used. We have entire graveyards of ships, planes, tanks and other things that were made and never used, but that employed millions in their construction, upkeep, storage and so on.

In the end we have to have jobs.

"Can't We Just Be Friends?"

"What if I told you that women are not machines that if you keep putting in kindness coins, sex falls out?"
- Lawrence Fishburne Internet Meme on "Reddit"

In this world there are two kinds of people, victors and victims. The victor takes what he wants. The victim gives it up, whether he wants to or not. Hitler once said that right and wrong have no meaning -- only victory matters. He is right. It doesn't matter if you are on the side of the angels when you lose and the other guy is evil, rapes and pillages. He won. That's all that counts. He can write up the history any way he wants. Or, he can force the victim to write up history any way the victor wants it to read. What's the victim going to do? Cry? Someone once said that the tiger never loses sleep over the opinion of sheep. And why should he? He is their lord and master. They die so he can eat. They lose so he can succeed. Play for the cat is death for the mouse. Such is the way of life. Such is the way of love.

Let's face the facts...when it comes to romance or love, everyone wants what they want but at the end of the day when the good looking “bad” guy comes along the bad looking “good” guy ALWAYS gets thrown under the bus. Women talk a good game when they ask "where are all the NICE guys" but other than fat women who will take anything they can get because very few people really want them anyway, women seek money or looks or attitude when it comes to romance  -- good values, or "niceness" come in close to the bottom of the barrel. Women always CLAIM that they want the “good” or the "nice" guy but it's almost never about being good or nice. Good guys ALWAYS finish last. And Of COURSE the good guys finish last... it's part of the evolutionary cycle. As I mentioned earlier, in life there are Victors and there are Victims. Bad guys are the Victors. Good guys are the Victims. Good guys are weak. Bad guys are strong. At least that's the perception of them by women and how women are wired. They MUST be with the strong man because their wiring demands it. In the "caveman days" the stronger man was the surer bet when it came to survival. It didn't matter if he beat you or starved you or ignored you -- all those things were better than being dead. So the woman would gravitate to the strong.  

Even when women KNOW it’s a mistake, they’ll make that same mistake over and over and over again. The strong bad guy doesn’t even have to be that strong physically. He doesn't even have to be that good looking.  Women equate mean-ness, abuse and contempt with strength. They equate manners, deference, kindness and consideration with weakness. How many times have you seen an attractive woman with an ugly, abusive man and asked yourself, "Why?" Perhaps it's because he has the confidence to treat her like dirt. Throughout her life she has endured a lifetime of toadying, scheming, sycophantic weaklings trying to get into her pants, and then she meets a guy who acts as if she's a dishrag. Unless he were really strong, why would he do that? If he is really strong, then she is attracted to him. The more he denigrates her, the stronger he appears and the more she wants him, even through her tears of pain and humiliation.

Now it is true that everyone wants the "good" guy around because he makes society work, but women, especially attractive women ALWAYS want to be with the strong bad man. Good guys are no competition for bad guys. Good guys are losers. Good guys are victims. They do the work of slaves or as slaves. Bad guys reap the rewards. To truly succeed in life, if you want something, you don't ask – you take it. Whether it's a kiss, a promotion, twenty dollars left on the counter or your friend's wife, TAKE IT. Good guys are losers. Bad guys get laid. The good guy helps his girl "friend" (who he wants really badly) move her refrigerator. He gets a pizza. The bad guy comes when the job is done. He gets the blowjob. 

And when a woman ditches the good guy and says she “hopes we can still be friends”, it is the consolation prize for suckers. In this case, if the good guy is foolish enough to accept that kind of friendship in the forlorn hope he can convince her that he’s worth it, what he gets to experience is the pain and humiliation of doing all the work while watching the bad guy get everything that the good guy wanted and seeing her give the bad guy everything the good guy deserved. 

Get used to it. 

The movies and books may show it working out differently with the good guy somehow winning but real life is NEVER like this. EVER. If you can’t change the power equation so that you are MUCH stronger than she is, or at least perceived to be stronger than the competition, then you have no choice but to cut your losses and move on to stamp collecting and jerking off. Or settling for the fat bitch. You will not win this kind of war EVER. And make no mistake, it is indeed a war – a desperate, bitter war. If you want to win with a woman, any woman, then treat her like shit. It will work far more often than treating her well. The trick is to learn to match the correct level of abuse with her level of esteem. All women suffer low self esteem, but the lower it is, the worse you can treat them and the worse you treat them, the more they will love you.  It is just as Al Pacino said in “Scarface” – “First you get the money, then you get the power, and then you get the pussy.”  It’s been this way forever. It will be this way forever.

The Sensible Role of "Gun Control"

The current hysteria surrounding "gun control" is ridiculous on both sides. President Obama really missed a huge opportunity with his current plan, which is neither well thought out or even well meaning. He should focus on a "No one is taking your guns" approach that emphasizes responsibility and punishes the lack of it. Meanwhile, the hysterical antics of the NRA in the wake not just of Sandy Hook but at least a half-dozen other high profile shooting sprees since, only serves to make them look churlish at best and insane at worst.

"Gun control" isn't about taking anyone's guns. No one should be thinking about taking guns. Neither should it be about "bad looking" guns or magazine capacity. Limiting capacity or restricting guns because of how they look is stupid. What difference does it make if a school yard of kids is slaughtered by a maniac with a cute "Hello Kitty" rifle with a dozen 10 round mags or an "assault gun" with a couple of 30s? Guns are made to kill people. Guns are made to swap out mags fast. Hell, my Sig even blows the mag out of the gun when I push the release so I don't even have to touch the empty one, just jam in the new one.

What needs to be done is this:

1) Control licensing. Because of the 2nd Amendment, if a person wants a gun and is qualified, he should be able to get a license, period. However, that licensing, like that of a car, needs to be predicated on certain requirements such as passing a background check, having passed a comprehensive written test and qualifying on a gun range with a pistol, rifle and shotgun. Those who can't pass the qualifier might be eligible for a "collector only" license that does not allow them to purchase ammunition. But if they pass those checks, then they SHOULD be given that license -- current laws give too much discretion to police chiefs.

By the way -- the current 209A restraining order laws need to be amended because they allow police to take your guns without due process. In the heat of the moment that should be ok...but it should expire, and you get your guns back, within (say) 30 days unless you fail a safety hearing. (That has to be managed too but I can't think of how -- since divorce courts are biased towards woman, why wouldn't the safety hearing also?)

2) Control liability -- require gun owners, on getting their license, to purchase a liability policy. This would be a high payout policy used to payoff various people in case the gun is used badly, is stolen or if the shooter, while shooting at a bad guy, kills or injures a good guy or damages property.

3) Storage -- require that gun owners purchase a gun safe, one that must be anchored securely to a premise and cannot be easily carried away. Make gun owners liable financially and criminally if their guns are stolen from a home or business and it can be shown that they were not stored properly. Require all gun dealers to sell guns with gun locks such as through-the-barrel wires. Trigger locks are just stupid and easily defeated. I think it would be a good idea to require a Gun Safe Certificate at the time of a gun purchase, but that might be seen as interfering with the 2nd Amendment.

4) Control transfer -- require that all gun transfers require that the transfer go through an FFL, that includes gifts to family and inheritance guns. Make the penalties for giving or selling the gun to another person a federal offense with high fine and/or prison sentence. The fine or prison sentence is required because you KNOW the first person to be caught doing something illegal in this regard is a kindly grand dad who is not going to be sent to jail. Nevertheless, he should then be forced to pay the fine.

5) Put a high tax on ammunition, even higher on certain kinds of ammunition. If you are going to be storing up 10,000 rounds of SS109 armor piercing rifle ammunition then the question becomes -- WHY? If you are storing up 12 gauge mortar rounds or flame thrower rounds, the questions becomes -- WHY? Nevertheless, if you want to do it -- ok. But is SHOULD cost you more to discourage sales even a little. High taxation would do that quite well.

These rules don't take guns of any kind, or even restrict their sales. But it does make the buyers and owners more responsible for the results of those purchases.

The Year 2035

I have been doing a great deal of reading and as a result I have discovered that the year 2035 looms large. It's only 20 years away and yet it is around this time that so much in the world will have changed from now that we would be greatly surprised is we woke up and it was that year. Here are some of the things I have learned are expected to occur around then:

- the last US WW2 veteran will have died

- the last newspaper, probably the Wall Street Journal, will be published

- there will be no more paper and stamp greeting cards

- the US Postal Service will be gone or vastly changed

- cars will drive themselves, at least most of the time

- elephants, rhinos and hippos will be extinct except possibly for a few specimens in zoos

- we will have gone to Mars, or be about to (that is, the Chinese will be going there)

- New Orleans will be largely abandoned because it will be largely underwater

- Provincetown, Massachusetts, will be an island no longer attached to the Mass.

- there will be no more paper books published, at least none in large quantities

- TV/Computers will be paper-thin and wall sized, with screens in every room

- John Roberts will be the last of the Supreme Court justices we know today still on the court

- phones will be adhesive strips attached to the skin, with special glasses or even contact lenses providing heads up display...where people look weird talking to themselves on Bluetooth today, they will look even stranger talking AND stabbing at invisible keyboards while they walk around

These are not really predictions. Predictions are guesses that are made from trends mostly based on imagination. The above things that actually will happen. It would be as if you lived in 1912 and said the following:

- horses will dwindle in number and be rarely seen

- people will travel around the world in huge aircraft, possibly zeppelins and maybe small private aircraft for the well off

- horsewhips will disappear

And so on. In those days, I think most people would not have been able to conceive of a world where horses were not everywhere. In fact, it had been theorized at the time that New York City would become bankrupt just dealing with the amount of horse manure generated in the city on a daily basis. The auto actually saved NYC from disaster. In those days, it was necessary for the city to set aside large tracts for stables and livery, for the transport of enormous quantities of hay and feed, there was a huge leather industry supporting saddles and harnesses, there were cranes to lift and remove dead horses from the street, and sweepers to pick up manure. There was a massive fleet of open air wagons just to move the manure away and the flies and stench, especially on hot days, was said to be horrific. On rainy days it was possible to become covered with filth just from splashing wagons as they went by. And when zoodemics struck, the need for vet services far exceeded supply. The city came to a standstill. Even into the 1930s my father was driving a milk truck pulled by horses through the city of Boston to make deliveries at 4AM and the city kept horse drawn fire engines in reserve until 1938.

The changes that technology made to NYC and Boston made it more livable, cleaner, less smelly and more healthy. Will the upcoming changes do the same thing?

One thing is certain -- there will be alot more people in 2035. The UN's best estimate is 8.5 billion versus 7 now. Perhaps electronics will make that more people more tolerable. Many people spend their time today in cubicles, not moving far. Perhaps that trend will continue, with people locked to their TV/Computers so they would need less room.

So with these changes, the good and the bad, what else can we expect as a result?

- less pressure on the forests as the demand for paper pulp declines
- extinction of the library as a repository of information
- increasing pressure and hostility of the elements and minerals needed for our electronics
- large increases in the price of gasoline as the population grows and supplies shrink

Even by 2035 the very vast majority of vehicles will be gasoline powered. But on the other hand, it may also be that the price of fuel drives mass transit, bicycle use and smaller vehicles

Also expected are much, much hotter summers down south. Willis Carrier made the south possible with his invention of air conditioning but perhaps it will become just too much and there will be a migration back north where it is cooler. Perhaps Canada will become a more desirable place to live as it will still maintain the temperatures most Americans remember, making life more pleasant and more comfortable for more of the year.

It's likely that if it gets too much hotter, perhaps even Las Vegas will change. If there is no water -- then there is no Las Vegas. Look at Lake Meade...already down many, many feet, it may reach the stage where it can no longer produce electricity. People WILL migrate to where there is water.

As for fish -- well, I don't think the fish are going to last too much longer. All over the world countries are fishing the oceans to extinction as fast as they can, it's a race to the bottom to see who gets there first.

In 2035 some people will live in a world of high technology and wonder. But many, many others will be living in a world of want, immobility and darkness.

A Tale of Two Presidencies

There is a headline story of a Texas county judge who declared that if Obama wins the election we should prepare for civil war. I was waiting for someone else to say it. The funny thing is -- idiots like that judge believe somehow that if Romney wins, no one from a "Blue" state should prepare for civil war. It also doesn't matter that if Obama wins it means he at least won the majority of electoral votes, if not the popular vote.

But what does happen if either side wins?

Can we say, "well if Obama wins, we've already seen what will happen over the past 4 years. We know what to expect.". Possibly. Obama is a feckless and inept leader. He is not inspirational. He has not changed much of anything. Granted, the Republican held congress has made certain that he can't accomplish much but Obama has not made use of the bully pulpit and has not used his ability to speak out at all. One might say he has been trying to mend fences, or that he didn't want to increase the division but he surely must have realized long ago that he lost that battle. He could have and should have been angrily denouncing the Republicans when they failed to pass policy. He did not. He is just not a leader.

So what would 4 more years bring? We have to assume that the Republicans are going to take the Senate. That is a big problem for Obama. He can no longer rely on Harry Reid to fend off every stupid Republican position. The Congress and the Senate in the Republican hands make for a powerful weapon to club Obama with. He will be able to rule by edict as long as he wants, but those rules last only until the next president comes in. What would he do, domestically and internationally? I believe that a man with nothing to lose can do almost anything. He could, for example, eliminate many of the pro-gun policies of the past Republican administrations and allow all kinds of recording and statistical analysis that now prevents serious gun rules from having teeth. He could, by edict, enforce stricter pollution controls. He could, for awhile, fight small wars.

Eventually the congress will try to impeach him. They will not have the power to complete the task however but they will strive to hurt him as much as possible. There will be gridlock and there will be lots of budget issues. The Democrats will only be able to use the filibuster in the Senate to slow down the Republicans. Eventually, the Republicans will vote the filibuster away.  Nevertheless, Obama still has the power of the veto, and the Republicans do not have the power to over-ride it. The result will be gridlock.

As for the economy, we are going into recession, possibly depression. It's going to be bad and this is what the Republicans want anyway, especially during a Democratic administration. Obama will not have the power to spend, and the Fed can only create so much money. And with a Republican congress, the Fed better be scared. So we will see 4 years of limping and economic pain, until 2014 when things revamp for the elections. The Republicans will be fighting to get over-ride power or the power to impeach. Obama will be struggling for the ability to maintain sanity on science, civil rights, women's rights, and the environment. It will be a hard four years until the next cycle. The most important thing will be Obama's chance to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. She's going to die of cancer soon. In any event, it will be hard for Obama to complete four years if the Republicans win more seats in Congress and can actually impeach.

As for foreign policy, it's likely someone will go to war with Iran, be it Israel or the US. I doubt it would be the US under Obama, but in the next 5 years, Iran is going to demonstrate it's nuclear weapon. That will be a disaster for Obama or any president. What do you do then? Nuke Iran? I doubt the US will do anything once Iran announces the bomb. How can you?

What about a Romney presidency? If Romney wins, it will be like 2000 again -- the Republicans will control the house, the senate, the supreme court and the Presidency. One of the first things that will happen will be that the senate will vote away the filibuster. There will be no check against the Republicans. We will see the end of the EPA as a cabinet, it will become toothless. It will be a good time for coal and oil stocks. We will see a scale down of any green technology. We will see a hard attack on civil rights, affirmative action, abortion. There will be nothing to slow down the Republican agenda. The big issues will be foreign policy and the economy. Romney has promised to be more belligerent versus Russia and could foment a war with Iran. If there is a confrontation with Iran, it will have to be early in the administration. Any kind of shooting war will cost at least 150 billion dollars -- and that's for six weeks of fighting. If that happens, the Russians and Chinese will not be sitting idle -- the Chinese get alot of oil from Iran. I also expect further antagonism towards the UN from a Romney administration. As for the economy, the Republicans will no longer put up even a token fight against raising the debt limit, and will suddenly embrace Keynesian spending. If they don't or Romney does cut the budget 500 billion dollars as he suggests he will, then we will be in an extremely deep depression in no time. Cutting 500 billion dollars would mean the end of the Education Dept, the EPA, the Dept of Energy, and consolidation of the Dept of Agriculture and Interior. Meanwhile, Romney plans to increase Defense spending. The only way he can accomplish these goals is to eliminate Medicare or Social Security or both, transforming them as he has said he would. The impact will be devastating. Meanwhile, it would mean the end of Section 8, SSI, Foodstamps, Welfare, WIC and so on. Not on paper -- they would still exist on paper, but at the end of 4 years, we would have plenty of starving children living on the street.

Neither presidency is going to be fun. With one we get gridlock, a depression and possible civil war. With another we get war, starvation and depression. It's a poor choice.

On Economic Policy and Myths: Romney vs Obama

People keep talking about debt and jobs and economy as if they have some idea of what they are talking about. They don't. They get talking points with no background from Newsmax and Fox "News" and MSNBC and Paul Krugman. These sites and people provide no context. How many times have you heard someone compare the US to Greece? Get real. Greece could fit in America's back pocket with room to spare. Their situation does not approximate ours in any way. If you want to compare yourself to a country you have to compare yourself with England, the last great superpower. They ran huge deficits for 600 years and still ruled the world until they lost their international hegemonic possessions. The US is far more like England than Greece.

How many times have you heard "we can't keep borrowing forever."? Well, guess what? We can continue to borrow for quite some time to come. You see interest rates keep falling. That's because everyone in the world is buying US bonds -- even at the lowest rates in history. As long as they do, we can borrow as much as we like. Is it smart? No. It's stupid. We need to fix our problems. But we aren't in crisis mode and things were MUCH worse debt-wise after World War 2 than they are now.

There are only a limited number of actions the US can take at the moment:

1) Cut spending
2) Raise taxes
3) Create inflation
4) Create growth
5) Default and Balance

That's it folks. And guess what? None of them is viable in the short run. We could NEVER cut spending enough to balance the budge, not realistically. We could NEVER raise taxes enough and so on.

There's an iron rule of economics that never fails -- cut spending or raise taxes and you slow the economy. Slow the economy enough and you get recession, or worse, depression.

What Romney doesn't tell you is that even if he cuts all the spending he wants, he will suffer 4 - 5 years of massive recession, perhaps depression. There is no other option under his plan. Even if his plan works in the long run, and there is no way to prove it will, we suffer HUGE misery. If you want to compare yourself to Greece, the current situation there is the right comparison under the Romney plan. They've cut spending like crazy, still haven't balanced the budget AND they are in recession. That is what Romney's plan does to us. When the US bailed out the auto industry it cost about $100 Billion and save a million jobs directly and 5 million indirectly. What do you think would happen if the US cut spending, say, $500 Billion next year? 10 million jobs lost? And then what?

On the other hand, the current Administration's plan is neither fish nor fowl -- it does not lessen the severity of the recession AND it creates more debt. It does not accomplish its goals and it makes things worse. Nevertheless, you NEVER heard ANYONE complain about passing debt to their grandchildren when WW2 debt was worse, and we paid that off in 1980. It is not a disaster. Yet.

The biggest problem isn't even government debt. It's private debt. Lazy Americans owe $900 Billion on credit cards; $1.2 Trillion on school loans, $500 Billion on autos and more than $2 trillion on mortgages. I think 1/3 of our GNP is built on credit. The government accounting office believes a quarter to a third of all income is used just to maintenance private debt. We pumped up the economy using credit cards, now when we have to pay it back, we can't unless we stop buying shit. Of COURSE the economy is going to slow down. Of COURSE jobs are going to suffer. In real terms, China passes America in REAL GNP, probably in 2008.

And the bullshit about the debt ceiling -- does anyone even know what this is? It was made during WW1 to HELP the government raise money. NOTHING anyone, Republicans OR Democrats EVER do is going to lower the debt ceiling. EVER. Even if we stopped spending completely as a government -- no army, no highways, no government employees, etc -- the debt would go up. The debt limit is a political chimera that has no applicability to real life. It is just used as a political hammer to hurt the Administration. If Romney wins the election, you will never again hear of any negative discussion about the debt ceiling and the votes will happen quick and painless as they always have.

The only way out of our current condition is strict reform and discipline. Neither of these will happen. No one is seriously going to cut Social Security -- old people vote. No Americans are seriously going to cut back on boats and second cars and Ipads. As long as they have credit cards, they will live on debt.

Eventually, we will have high interest, mega inflation, collapse of commercial loan market -- no one is going to buy a car or house at 10 percent interest. The US as a reserve currency is finished, perhaps in the next 10 years. The US as a superpower is finished.

If you want to contrast the economic policy if Obama wins vs Romney, assuming they actually implement their plans, then Obama gives us 4 more years of what we already know -- slow or no growth, debt build-up, discontent. Romney gives us Greece -- misery, unemployment and depression, at least for the first 4 years. It might fix the economy 20 years down the road. It HAS to work that way. You can't legislate away the rain, and you can't pretend the iron laws of economics don't work.The thing is Romney is never going to tell you that his plan puts 15 million people out of work and Obama is never going to tell you that things just don't get any better.