Whether or not to raise the debt ceiling is a quandry played out in a two-dimensional question. On one side we have the hope of enabling the government to do it’s job, which requires not only more debt, but more taxes to cover it. In the other camp, spending is decried the real problem, the solution not paying for it in the first place. The people are being told on one hand it’s for their own good to borrow (and take from the “rich” as they please) and everything will be alright. On the other, they are told they should not have to pay for the excesses and inefficiencies of their government — our children will inherit the debt after all.
Even moderates frame the debate in these terms. Progressive taxation for economic justice. The failure or merits of [[Trickle-down economics]]. Bailouts to the entities behind special interest groups. Stimilus effectiveness and undisclosed earmarks. Threats to cut social programs.
None of it makes sense. But it’s great theatre if you keep your eye on the scene. The banks who bought Obama his election (Goldman Sachs was one of his biggest contributors) are vilified for receiving huge sums of money. Obama uses the age-old ploy of threatening to shut down government areas where people will be hurt the most. Instead of grounding Air Force One for a few vacations (saving many millions) or putting off grant money to study insect mating rituals, he holds a gun to senior citizens, balming the “obstructionist” conservativevs for making him do it, forgetting Social Security is supposed to be SELF-FUNDED. It seems a certain party’s stance on lack of public support being blamed on the public’s ignorance or stupidity isn’t just an excuse any more for bad ratings in the polls — they’re actually hoping it will help them in this case.
So the taxpayer is caught in the middle, expected to take sides, not realizing the most important question is not being addressed. We might ask who REALLY benefits from federal debt, but we are looking for the answer in the wrong direction. Instead of looking where the money is going, look at where it’s coming from.
No one asks this question because we think of money itself as an object, rather than what it is — debt. A dollar bill is a promissary note, and it would actually mean something if it were backed by gold. Long gone are those days. No, wealth is not made by obtaining money, but lending it. So if all this money is to be “raised”, where does it come from? We haven’t had more than a couple balanced budgets in decades since Fort Knox became irrelevant. TRILLIONS of dollars in bailouts in 2008 did not come from the taxpayers. We are just the ones who have to pay back the INTEREST on these things. We and our children have become beholden to what — until recently — even my quite intelligent daughter didn’t reralize was a private bank. The most powerful bank in history in fact.
I’m talking about the Federal Reserve.
We should know where all those billions of bank loans went through the unaccountable Fed that even the Senators don’t know. When the Fed was finally audited thanks to pressure from Senators such as presidential hopeful [[Ron Paul]], the recipients of trillions were the usual suspects.
But how about we not spend any more or tax any more until we understand more clearly where the debt trail leads? I say the people voting for raising the debt celieng are on the SIDE of the banks. Seriously, WHO DO YOU THINK BENEFITS MOST FROM THIS? Even if we were all taxed into oblivion, it would not pay the bills at this point. The bills are no longer being paid by us anyway — they are being paid by borrowing money we can only pay interest on for the next several generations.
Yes, raising the debt cieling has done what the law can ordinarily protect us individually from — inheriting the debts of our ancestors. Instead, we are left with the multi-generational economic servitude of the American People. We have no choice and most of us either don’t care or aren’t aware. But nonetheless, we’ve been sold out by the idealistic naivate or evil intentions of politicians who will never be held accountable in the current system.
Can we even “End the Fed” and simply wipe out the debt with the same meaninglessness by which we print unbacked money in the first place? Will that strengthen or weaken our standing in the world economy? Or will only printing and using backed money that we actually have put us in a position of not needing a national credit score in the first place?
Regardless of the outcome, if and when a revolution comes, we may want to criminally try every legislator who supported this deed. The only regret will be that there there is no punishment great enough to fit the crime.
Side Note: Many of us do not buy the position that trickle-down economics are a fallacy, and in fact have seen it play out otherwise in real life experience. You can frame history to suit either side of the argument, crediting one admin and praising another in either direction easily, but in the end, it’s just another generalization to vilify those who make things run because some of them abuse and control the system thanks to the mechanisms of big government.