It does line someone's pockets. Maintaining and enforcing a no-fly list costs money. Follow the money.
There was a time, believe it or not, when profitable companies would generally not layoff people because the company was, uh, profitable. If a company did layoff people the stock market usually took it as an indication that something was wrong (which it generally was).
Ah yes, I can remember those times as if they were a few hours ago - maybe because they were: Cisco to cut 4,000 jobs; stock falls 10%
It already is happening. The amount of interest we pay as a % of total tax revenue collected has been steadily rising and is at a a 10 year high even though the interest rate on treasury bonds is at relatively low levels. In other words the money we're borrowing is really cheap, yet we're borrowing so much of it that we're still paying more in interest relative to total revenues collected than we have in the past decade and there's no reason to believe that we will be able to continue to borrow money cheaply especially if we increase our public debt too much.
We will never send real resources backwards in time in order to "repay" public debts.
Who said anything about sending resources back in time? We'll send our resources to our creditors and as the debt and interest increase future generations will have to send more of it to our creditors than we do now. You seem to think that increased spending leads to increased output but that's debatable and even if you do get an increase in output you can't guarantee that it will be domestic output.
In the sciences, we are now uniquely priviledged to sit side by side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand. -- Gerald Holton
