Let's see... I'll pick a few articles from the Ludwig von Mises Institute, (you know, those economic idiots who YOU are going to lecture with you superior knowledge)-
From an article written by Murray N. Rothbard (professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and vice-president for academic affairs at the Ludwig von Mises Institute) back in 1992.
... Unfortunately, paying off a national debt that will soon reach $4 trillion would quickly bankrupt the entire country. Think about the consequences of imposing new taxes of $4 trillion in the United States next year! Another way, and almost as devastating, a way to pay off the public debt would be to print $4 trillion of new money—either in paper dollars or by creating new bank credit. This method would be extraordinarily inflationary, and prices would quickly skyrocket, ruining all groups whose earnings did not increase to the same extent, and destroying the value of the dollar. ...
And here's one discussing how federal debt actually comes into existance, (much deeper discusssion than your childish understanding) -
... The fallacious argument here runs like this: 'If the government wants to increase its borrowing, it must induce people to lend to it. This means it must offer higher interest rates. Then everyone else must offer a higher interest rate in order to remain competitive.' The mistaken notion underlying this argument is that if Dick wants Jane to lend him a dollar at the prevailing rate of 10 percent, and if she is reluctant to do so, then Dick must offer a higher interest rate to get Jane to change her mind.
"Not so. There is another way to change Jane's mind. Dick can offer to lend Jane a dollar at 10 percent interest, in exchange for her making an identical loan to him. Indeed, Dick can convince her to lend him any amount at all as long as he lends her the same amount, at the same interest rate without producing any upward pressure on that rate.
"This example is not as fanciful as it sounds. Whenever the government wants to borrow a dollar, it simultaneously lends a dollar, just as Dick does. After all, why does the government borrow? It does so to avoid raising your taxes for the time being in effect lending you back the taxes it would ordinarily assess.
"Unlike the borrowing of an individual, government borrowing is always accompanied by an implicit loan to the taxpayers. The government, like Dick, borrows from the public (or Jane), while simultaneously lending the same amount at the same rate. Like Dick and Jane, the government and the public can carry this on at any level without having any effect on the rate of interest."
Economists call this the "Ricardian Equivalence" argument. It asserts that taxpayers recognize that bond-financed deficit spending implies the present-value-equivalent of future taxes. With any increase in government borrowing, taxpayers will increase their savings just enough to negate any effect on interest rates. Taxpayers will purchase any additional amount of government bonds without reluctance at the existing yield, because they recognize that if government is selling more bonds, then the taxpayers need to acquire more bonds in order to afford their (or their heirs') higher future taxes. If the government sells $1 billion in perpetual bonds at 10 percent per annum, then it must increase taxes by $100 million per year. The anticipation of those taxes creates the demand for exactly $1 billion in government bonds paying 10 percent per annum. Landsburg and Feinstone assert the savings imperative forcefully: "Knowing that you are committed to making payments of [$100 million] a year forever, you will be forced to set aside a fund from which to make these payments."
Ricardian Equivalence (with intergenerational bequests that vary one-for-one with the size of the inherited government debt) provides a useful theoretical benchmark. It gives us a logically possible limiting case in which deficits would not affect interest rates. Those who argue that "the government must offer higher interest rates when it borrows more" would thus be uttering a fallacy (as Landsburg and Feinstone say) if by "must" they were to mean that no other result is logically possible. But if, as we believe is the case, they only mean, "must, given the world as it actually is," then the argument is not fallacious. The Landsburg Feinstone critique is misplaced.
Does Ricardian Equivalence actually hold in the world as it is? That's an empirical question, and there is an ongoing debate among economists over which side's evidence is weaker. Perfect Ricardian Equivalence seems unlikely on the face of it.
I've never considered any of the savants at the Mises Institute any sorts of "Economic Idiots". If you're intent on putting Words in my mouth, shall I return the favor? On second thought, I can't do that -- I'm a Christian, and it is UnBiblical for me to Bear False Witness. I can't help it if you're a hell-bound Christ-Rejector who willingly Bears False Witness; I suppose that's your own business.
At any rate, let's attend to your quoted Rothbard article:
It is clear from the Rothbard article that he is talking about the economic dislocations which would be suffered by paying off the Entire National Debt IN ONE YEAR.
OKAY, GRANTED!! Paying off the Entire National Debt IN ONE YEAR would indeed impose EXTREME immediate Burdens upon the Taxpayers (although some hard-bitten Moralists might argue that it would be more Honorable for Americans today to suffer through a couple years of bread and water, sackcloth and ashes, than to pass on these Debts to our Children and Grandchildren)... however, that is NOT what Ron Paul is Proposing!
AT WORST Ron Paul is proposing that(at least for his first year in office) we merely reduce Government Spending to the highest Level of the Largest BILL CLINTON Budget -- which would produce Spending Reductions sufficient to Pay Off the entire National Debt in about 15 or 20 years!!
But in the last 7 years, the philosophy of "Conservatism" has been so utterly betrayed by the ruling Bush Family "Big Government Conservatives" that y'all now think it is somehow Madness even to Cut Government back to its Biggest Budget during the CLINTON Years!!
And here's one discussing how federal debt actually comes into existance, (much deeper discusssion than your childish understanding) -
Um... Okay. Did you not notice that everything in White and Garrison's discussion agrees with my posted Arguments?
Can you not even SEE that?
What's your "reading comprehension" score? When White and Garrison observe that "The Landsburg Feinstone critique is misplaced" in regard to Governmental cross-lending, I can understand exactly what they're saying... and it leads right back to Debt-Free Austrian Economics. Can YOU explain to ME why this is the case?
No, you can't. You're arguing an idiotic economic position (that Government Debt is somehow "good"), and you're not even perfectly versed in your own Marxist-Keynesian argumentation in order to make your case.
In other words, you're not even a perfect idiot.