I have long noticed a tendency, as TV news gets worse and worse, for “reporters” to try to hog the camera as long as possible, trying to fill the whole time available with their question, droning on and on and on, with dependent clauses multiplying, never getting to the point – - – oops! I just did it myself.

This guy just never shuts up. An actual example of a “nattering nabob of negativism.”

I live in Pete Stark’s district and he’s “my” congressman, though I’ve never voted for him in my entire life. Yes, he was a banker before he ran for office, but that doesn’t mean he understands money and finance at all. He’s been in Washington since 1973 and is one of those “lifetime” politicians who will never lose another election because the district has been gerrymandered to secure it for any Democratic candidate who runs. It just so happens that Stark runs essentially unopposed every year because it makes no sense for anyone to challenge him. He is notoriously rude to journalists because he knows he will never lose an election, so he doesn’t have to pretend to be civil to anyone.

I have been in political forums with him and several other candidates, and he is always condescending like this. He rarely appears at any campaign event that isn’t choreographed by his staff, or if he appears at a League of Women Voters event, it is usually at a senior citizens center where he is popular for his longstanding support of social security and medicare or at a university where he knows the left-leaning students will not dare to challenge him or, if anyone does, he can dismiss them as idiots and never suffer any political damage.

He was a banker before running for office.

If you try to understand in context the point he makes, you would be richer for it.

Moderation in all things.

What worth wisdom if my idols must be smashed?

I would change “will” to “should” in your argument.

Basic premise:
Since the government will only take on an amount of debt proportional to how much it can pay back in interest, the heavier the apparent debt load, the better the economy is.

Also:
When a country’s economy appears more stable, foreign bond investors are more likely to want to buy that country’s bonds — higher demand = lower interest rate. So, when debt is accrued during times of economic boom, it’s possible to get a overall lower repayment than when it’s done when people aren’t as sure about the government’s financial health. In other words — better credit rating = lower interest rates, so you might be able to get a bigger loan for the same monthly payment amount.

That wasn’t so hard to explain, was it?

Term limits now.

For example, if the budget is 1 billion in the red, takes in 1 billion less than it spends, they sell treasuries to make up the difference, so the money goes out…

Unlike personal debt, the deficit ROBS the economy of the 1 billion, that might have been spend investing in new business etc.

Hence the CBO said the Stimulus, while initially stimulating, eventually depresses the economy, because it robs it of investment capital.

Interesting Stark interpreted the ability to spend the money anyway, as meaning we are richer by spending it…that explains why these fools won’t stop spending money.

But in the REAL world, this is a bad situation that is getting worse. When the rest of the world stops lending money to the USA, you guys are toast. In a non-FRB based system, this would/could not happen.