Good times...good times...

Smart analyst totally disagrees with my view on economy. It helps to have a good working knowledge of macroeconomics for this one.

More on Greek debt s**t storm and views on whether it will spread over here.

More on Greece.

And this:

Deficit to Explode with Obama’s Spending Plans Even with Recovery

Sunday, 14 Feb 2010 Financial Times

. . . It's bad enough that Greece's debt problems have rattled global financial markets. In the world's largest economic and military power, there's a far more serious debt dilemma.

For the U.S., the crushing weight of its debt threatens to overwhelm everything the federal government does, even in the short-term, best-case financial scenario — a full recovery and a return to prerecession employment levels.

The government already has made so many promises to so many expanding "mandatory" programs. Just keeping these commitments, without major changes in taxing and spending, will lead to deficits that cannot be sustained.

Take Social Security, Medicare and other benefits. Add in interest payments on a national debt that now exceeds $12.3 trillion. It all will gobble up 80 percent of all federal revenues by 2020, government economists project.

That doesn't leave room for much else. What's left is the entire rest of the government. . ."

One note on this quote. I believe I have shown you the math. There is no combination of cuts (which would have to be 98% of the federal budget) or tax increases (which would have to entail a 68% increase just to stabilize, though it wouldn't because that would cause a depression) that will make our new insane national debt work.

Some readers may have noticed that I often refer to articles on the Market Oracle website. This is not nearly as narrow a reference as it might appear. They are an aggregator of articles from 400 economists, traders, advisors, and analysts. They select the best of the 400 and I select the best and most relevant for you.

Also, I wanted to mention my philosophy about references. Sometimes I provide them, and sometimes I don't. I often just opine about things. This is an opinion blog, after all. The way I make the decision whether to provide a link or reference has to do with my philosophy about it. If I found some instructive financial charts and good explanation with them, for example, I provide a link or reference, and you can judge their value. I am fulfilling my role in wading through the world of information that is going to affect you, and bringing just the best bits to you.

When it comes to something like whether the primary actors in the global warming charade are politicians and have a tremendous amount to gain by persuading you (and whether it's true or not is irrelevant to them), I want to force you to research it yourself by not providing a quick link to prove the point. I may alert you that there is a new wave of information, or give you some points to think about, but I wouldn't want anyone to take my word for it, any more than I would want someone to take (God forbid) Al Gore's word for it. In that kind of situation, I hope you will research for yourself and see if they have ever proven any of their case in terms of verifiable science.