> Being
> immersed in the news as I am, I find their
> mindset hard to share.

Maybe if you weren't so immersed in the news you would be able to see a positive outcome.

Think about it... a bus carrying 70 people has a head on crash with an oil tanker in the middle of a crowded shopping district.

Somehow, the oil tanker does not blow up and kill hundreds of shoppers. Somehow everyone survives bar one... a 19 year old man/woman.

Technically, the 19 year old is not an adult but a child.

The news will thus report "Child Dies In Horrific Bus Crash" for no other reason than to get your attention.

The fact that 69 people on the bus lived and disaster was avoided does not matter. The news looks for the bad in everything. And if they can't find it, they put a "bad" slant on the news they do report.

If you are concerned about the stock market - and the news media knows you are - they will focus on the bad stocks and bad possible outlooks. They know, you will buy their newspapers and watch their TV shows by catering to the thing you are worried about.

It's the old story about the uneducated hotdog salesman and his university educated son talking about the recessions (what recession?), in living color.

> You brought up a good point when you asked
> how the U.S. was planning on paying for the
> several wars we've committed ourselves to.

Theory: The US NEEDS war because war means spending. Spending means money circulating in the economy. Money circulating means growing economy.

Where will the money come from? Delayed payments. Spend now, go into deficit (which has happened) and make the money back at a future date from taxes as the money filters through the economy.

Remember also, the government prints the money. So if they don't have enough "in the bank" they can just print some off and pay the contractors with printed money. To counteract the inflationary effect this has, anti-inflation policies are put in place.

Michael Ross