“My fellow Americans, I come to you today with a heavy heart. We have a crisis on our hands. It is one of our own making. And it is one that leaves us with no good choices.
For many years, our nation’s government has lived beyond its means...We have not faced the hard reality of budget arithmetic.
The seeds of this crisis were planted long ago, by previous generations. Our parents and grandparents had noble aims. They saw poverty among the elderly and created Social Security. They saw sickness and created Medicare and Medicaid. They saw Americans struggle to afford health insurance and embraced health care reform with subsidies for middle-class families.”
This is an excerpt from today’s New York Times article by Greg Mankiw, coming to you from the year 2026, as a Presidential address to a nation that failed to confront the debt while there was still a chance.
Americans refused to cut entitlement spending, the baby-boomers retired, and instead of paying the cost of these programs, politicians found it convenient to push the problems into the future. Until now.
“This morning, the Treasury Department released a detailed report about the nature of the problem. To put it most simply, the bond market no longer trusts us.”
Mankiw goes on to paint a picture by which the IMF (newly located in Beijing) will make structured loans to the United States based on the following conditions:
The article does a nice job of painting a picture important for Americans to think about. Avoiding regret in the future is a powerful prompt to taking costly action in the present. However, two primary issues seem to be missing from the 2026 picture: the dangerous and costly military aggressions in which the U.S. continues to be active and the economic growth possible if dramatic cuts to the budget and to the debt are adopted sooner rather than later.
The budget proposal MyGovCost has put forth includes measures that address these problems:
In calling for these changes now, the future of 2026 could look much better than the picture Mankiw paints. Of course many of these changes would require sacrifice, change and adjustment. None of these policies would ensure that the economy experiences an immediate explosion of economic growth.
Nevertheless, implementing these policies now would mean that the children of today’s college graduates would enter a world where the economy was growing stronger than it otherwise would. Their opportunities for employment would not depend primarily on the government. They would not have huge portions of their income taken away to pay for the bureaucratic administration of kidney transplants and hip replacements. In fact, they might actually live in a world where markets are allowed to tackle these problems and go on to work for the Market for Organ Donors Organization (MODO), a non-profit that facilitates market pricing of organ transplants or administers the AIDS vaccine to their children.
Of course these are conjectures about an uncertain and unknowable future. But they are conjectures based on the basic truth that the engine which produces progress and advances well-being is the market process, not government administration. This underlying market process is weighed down by government spending, debt, and increases in the scope of the state and government administration has costs. Much of these costs are unseen because they are forgone opportunities. But just because they are unseen does not make them less real. Future prosperity is contingent on today’s policy choices.
![]()
Kyle is proof of long time brainwashing by our society to think that a country can afford and needs to place its presence clear across the globe. Its simply not sustainable and creates more enemies than cures. America has lost its grip on fundemental critical thinking. Note: simply look around you at other countries that don’t have bases in other countries. Its as easy as that yet America continues to generate large numbers of haters through base propagation. Whats so hard about the idea that countries just want to be left alone.
Electric cars have been thought of as one anewsr to our dependence on fossil fuel burning vehicles. Their main appeal is that they produce no air pollution at the point of use so provide a way of shifting emissions to less polluted areas.Unfortunately also out of sight are the environmental consequences of manufacturing and recycling the lead- acid batteries electric vehicles require to run on.A recent report in Science (Lave et al, vol. 268, p 993. May 1995) drew attention to the problem of lead batteries in electric cars: Smelting and recycling the lead for these batteries will result in substantial releases of lead to the environment . The researchers compared the power, efficiency and environmental effects of electric cars with petrol powered vehicles. Not only are electric cars comparatively slower and far more restricted in the distance they can travel but release more lead into the environment as well.The study showed that an electric car with batteries made from newly mined lead releases 60 times more lead than that of a car using leaded petrol. (Their example uses the relatively high 2.1 g/gallon leaded petrol used in the US in 1972 and in some Australian states up to the 1990).Although the lead discharged in lead smelting and reprocessing is generally less available to humans in the U.S. than that dispersed by leaded petrol cars driving where people are living (only one percent of U.S. petrol sold is leaded) there are still significant hazards. Lead processing facilities release lead into the air and waterways, and lead in solid waste leaches slowly into the environment.Electric car by Alexander Claud aged 10.Clearly electric cars, despite their good for the environment image create far more of a problem than leaded petrol cars. In addition If a large number of electric cars are produced, the demand for lead for batteries will surge, requiring more lead to be mined. (ibid, p.995)Manufacture needs to be halted until an alternative safer power source is found. This rules out current alternatives such as nickel-cadmium and nickel metal hydride batteries which are also highly toxic and far more expensive. Researchers speculate that sodium-sulphur and lithium-polymer technologies may eventually be used.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
“as well as the closure of over 150 military bases abroad.”
You totally lost me right there. I will no longer be a part of your community. It is obvious you don’t realize the true danger that is “abroad”.