Just Voting No Doesn’t Fix the Problem
Last week congress passed a two-year, bipartisan budget deal. Now if the calculations are correct, this budget will add $300 billion in additional federal spending, unmatched by revenues. That means the national debt will continue to accelerate, ironically, while majorities of “fiscal conservative” Republicans populate both houses.
Now am I the only one who just doesn’t care anymore? I have been hearing that the national debt is unsustainable since Reagan ran for office…the first time. I recall the same political points being scored, each side against the other, when Reagan’s national debt approached…drumroll…one trillion dollars.
And so, except for use in academia, or maybe political theater, it’s almost like the US national debt, now over $20 trillion, just really doesn’t matter. I mean, what’s in a number? I ask because, whatever the national debt might be at any particular moment is just a number on a computer screen. That’s all it has ever been, friends. Nothing has changed. And regardless of the magnitude of that number, you likely have a decent place to live, a job if you want one, food on the table, big flat screen TV, right? So what the heck difference does this number, a measure of the US national debt, really make? And if it is significant, wouldn’t our representatives in Congress finally do something about it? (There is sarcasm here, friends.)
Speaking of whom, predictably, regarding that budget vote, our 7th and 9th District US Representatives Rob Woodall and Doug Collins voted yes without hesitation. I guess, maybe like me, they just figure, what’s another $300 billion anyway? Obviously, Forsyth County’s dynamic duo do not believe the national debt is a concern. And if they aren’t worried, why should we be, right? (More sarcasm)
But there were certain notable dissenters to what became otherwise a budgetary rubber stamp. Among them were three liberty-minded members of congress, Rand Paul (Sen-R Ky), Thomas Massie (Rep-R WV) and Justin Amash (Rep-R MI).
After the vote, various fiscal conservatives among us hailed the libertarian threesome as courageous heroes. But when pressed concerning any real effect those largely symbolic votes registered against increased spending, the hawks could only rejoin, “Well, at least they did something.” Speaking to his chamber mates, Senator Paul offered that his real purpose in dissenting was merely to make them “feel uncomfortable." He wanted the “hypocrites” to have to answer, “How come you were against President Obama's deficits, and then how come you're for Republican deficits?”
Folks, getting back to real here, I hate to say it, but at this point I fault the three "no's," Paul, Amash and Massie, just as much as Woodall and Collins. That is because none of them did anything to solve the real problem. The problem is not “spending” per se. The problem is that we spend currency we do not own. The currency owners are the Federal Reserve Banks, who loan their only product, dollars, to the American people, at interest. They also loan dollars to the US Government. Our entire money supply is borrowed at interest from private banks. We trade in borrowed dollars. And that is why there are never enough dollars to pay all the bills. That is why we keep having to borrow more, why America is a debtor nation, and for that matter why we even have an income tax. In voting no, these three had a prime opportunity to discuss their dissent in terms of the systematic fraud being perpetrated against the American people. But they didn't. They only explained their votes claiming that the American government is, “spending too much.” Well, that's not the problem, and where does that discussion even end? At what decreased level of spending would the three amigos ever agree to vote yes? Likely none.
And let's just assume the Musketeers had their way and the Republicans toed the line on spending, maybe even decreased it. What then? Well, under the systematic fraud we are forced to live under, that would be the fastest way for the American and world economies to descend into a chaos. That is because under the private Federal Reserve system, to replace the dollars the bankers’ remove and take for themselves there must always be a mechanism to borrow more dollars, thus injecting replacement liquidity into circulation to keep the economy going, regardless the level of outstanding debt. If that mechanism is removed, the result would be economic meltdown; very few would know why and the Republicans and Trump would receive blame. Under this wretched system, deficit spending is all that keeps our economy afloat, each next day.
Now if our three freedom fighters want to become true agents of change, and explain that they refuse to go along with spending increases until the real problem is fixed, and explain to the people what that problem is, then I would support them 100%. But to merely vote no to increased spending, without taking any initiative to truly solve the problem, or even educate the people regarding what that problem is, is no better than just voting to increase spending, just like Woodall and Collins. At least if congress increases spending to cover the interest on the entire American money supply, they put off the inevitable economic collapse…a little while longer.
I am not content to send our elected to DC just to vote no. I want them understanding the real problems and working for real solutions. If they do not identify the fundamental problems, they cannot fix them.
Now am I the only one who just doesn’t care anymore? I have been hearing that the national debt is unsustainable since Reagan ran for office…the first time. I recall the same political points being scored, each side against the other, when Reagan’s national debt approached…drumroll…one trillion dollars.
And so, except for use in academia, or maybe political theater, it’s almost like the US national debt, now over $20 trillion, just really doesn’t matter. I mean, what’s in a number? I ask because, whatever the national debt might be at any particular moment is just a number on a computer screen. That’s all it has ever been, friends. Nothing has changed. And regardless of the magnitude of that number, you likely have a decent place to live, a job if you want one, food on the table, big flat screen TV, right? So what the heck difference does this number, a measure of the US national debt, really make? And if it is significant, wouldn’t our representatives in Congress finally do something about it? (There is sarcasm here, friends.)
Speaking of whom, predictably, regarding that budget vote, our 7th and 9th District US Representatives Rob Woodall and Doug Collins voted yes without hesitation. I guess, maybe like me, they just figure, what’s another $300 billion anyway? Obviously, Forsyth County’s dynamic duo do not believe the national debt is a concern. And if they aren’t worried, why should we be, right? (More sarcasm)
After the vote, various fiscal conservatives among us hailed the libertarian threesome as courageous heroes. But when pressed concerning any real effect those largely symbolic votes registered against increased spending, the hawks could only rejoin, “Well, at least they did something.” Speaking to his chamber mates, Senator Paul offered that his real purpose in dissenting was merely to make them “feel uncomfortable." He wanted the “hypocrites” to have to answer, “How come you were against President Obama's deficits, and then how come you're for Republican deficits?”
Folks, getting back to real here, I hate to say it, but at this point I fault the three "no's," Paul, Amash and Massie, just as much as Woodall and Collins. That is because none of them did anything to solve the real problem. The problem is not “spending” per se. The problem is that we spend currency we do not own. The currency owners are the Federal Reserve Banks, who loan their only product, dollars, to the American people, at interest. They also loan dollars to the US Government. Our entire money supply is borrowed at interest from private banks. We trade in borrowed dollars. And that is why there are never enough dollars to pay all the bills. That is why we keep having to borrow more, why America is a debtor nation, and for that matter why we even have an income tax. In voting no, these three had a prime opportunity to discuss their dissent in terms of the systematic fraud being perpetrated against the American people. But they didn't. They only explained their votes claiming that the American government is, “spending too much.” Well, that's not the problem, and where does that discussion even end? At what decreased level of spending would the three amigos ever agree to vote yes? Likely none.
And let's just assume the Musketeers had their way and the Republicans toed the line on spending, maybe even decreased it. What then? Well, under the systematic fraud we are forced to live under, that would be the fastest way for the American and world economies to descend into a chaos. That is because under the private Federal Reserve system, to replace the dollars the bankers’ remove and take for themselves there must always be a mechanism to borrow more dollars, thus injecting replacement liquidity into circulation to keep the economy going, regardless the level of outstanding debt. If that mechanism is removed, the result would be economic meltdown; very few would know why and the Republicans and Trump would receive blame. Under this wretched system, deficit spending is all that keeps our economy afloat, each next day.
Now if our three freedom fighters want to become true agents of change, and explain that they refuse to go along with spending increases until the real problem is fixed, and explain to the people what that problem is, then I would support them 100%. But to merely vote no to increased spending, without taking any initiative to truly solve the problem, or even educate the people regarding what that problem is, is no better than just voting to increase spending, just like Woodall and Collins. At least if congress increases spending to cover the interest on the entire American money supply, they put off the inevitable economic collapse…a little while longer.
I am not content to send our elected to DC just to vote no. I want them understanding the real problems and working for real solutions. If they do not identify the fundamental problems, they cannot fix them.
Comments
Post a Comment