http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yiw8Lyw1XGc&feature=g-high-u

"The government cannot run out of money."

That's true, but every unbacked emission of credit degrades the value of all units of that credit and currency in the marketplace.

This is not only mathematically trivial to prove it's empirically obvious in the results.

On what "should be spent" she responds: "That's part of the democratic process."

My response: So how much to steal is about democracy?  That sounds a lot like two wolves and a sheep arguing over what's for dinner!  The truth is that we're not a democracy; we're a constitutional republic.

Stephanie has a severe problem with reality -- she is arguing that there is a free lunch.

There is no such thing.  Dilution of the credit and money stock, no matter who does it, is exactly identical economically to imposing a tax in that it is purchasing power that matters to people, not the number of "dollars" (or quatloos, or Euros, or whatever) that one happens to possess.

Stephanie talks about how we don't need "shared sacrifice" to solve these problems.  Oh really?  So if I have saved money that will buy 100 gallons of gasoline, and the government deficit spends thereby increasing the quantity such that I can now only buy 50 gallons, is Stephanie going to argue that I did not have to sacrifice?

The "sacrifice" is identical whether I have my purchasing power robbed from me by debasement or whether I have it robbed from me by direct taxation. 

Either way I get robbed but in one Stephanie claims I didn't have to "sacrifice"!

Oh yeah, she finally does tip to "inflation is the constraint."  Gee, been to the store over the last four years Stephanie or do you have some hired help to go do your shopping for you -- with someone else's money?

How do you get a position such as hers while publicly demonstrating that you failed 10th grade Algebra?