Categories
Right Angle

Unimaginable DEBT

“Hello, Average American Taxpayer. This is your Federal Government. Seems you owe us $246,867. When may we expect your check?”

“Hello, Average American Taxpayer. This is your Federal Government. Seems you owe us $246,867. When may we expect your check?”

Bastards. Scott has the story of a man with a plan. 


19 replies on “Unimaginable DEBT”

The required change would be a population that believes in decency and honesty. Without that, anybody who proposes this will be tarred & feathered in the Leftist main-swine-media with pictures of mushroom clouds and wheelchairs being pushed over cliffs.

There is an even better way to solve the problem of the National Debt, and the secret is . . . it all depends on WHO issues the money. This idea comes from Bill Still (The Still Report — see Rumble). Here’s how it works now: When the Federal Reserve pumps money into the system (i.e., lends dollars to the US Gov’t), it issues that money with debt (an interest payment) attached to it. Bill Still’s solution is to not have the Fed issue the money, but the US Government ITSELF issue the money with of course NO DEBT attached to it. I “think” this is how it used to be in the early days of our nation. Bill says doing it this way would save Billions of dollars annually which could and should be used to pay down the National Debt. If you do the math — with negative compounding since the National Debt becomes smaller each year — the time required to pay down the Debt is amazingly short. WHO issues the money makes the difference and its simple to do.

We need to get past the notion that “mandatory” spending is actually mandatory, just because we gave it that label.

What makes mandatory spending mandatory? Legislation. What is a budget bill? Legislation. If you pass a spending bill that doesn’t fund mandatory spending, guess what doesn’t get funded?

The problem with the National Debt being nearly 50% going to entitlements is that the Democrat Left keep using the National Treasury to buy votes. Social security is bad enough, it’s for all practical purposes a Ponzi Scheme. There are a lot of entitlement expenditures besides Social Security.

Social Security was originally sold as the type of self funding program Scott’s talking about. It was supposed to pay for itself with investment income outpacing payouts. The problem is that it then became a large pool of money that Democrats could ‘borrow’ from to pay for even more entitlements and the Social Security program was bankrupted thereby.

The Democrats weren’t the only ones greedily eying that large pool of money. Republicans also viewed that money as an emergency slush fund. The difference being that Republican raiding of the Social Security account was actually applied to needed measures for American security and wellbeing (sometimes fairly specious excuses were offered but that’s the idea) while the Democrats used the money to expand other entitlements and buy votes.

The only way entitlements are going to be brought under control is if a Republican administration decides to do it. The Democrats will lose voters if they trim back entitlements while the Republicans will likely not lose many voters if they do the same. This is because the Democrats created the entitlements and that’s a big reason why people vote for the Democrats. On the contrary, Republicans did not create the bulk of entitlement programs so they would lose far fewer voters if they made the effort to clip entitlements.

At the end of the day, Democrats created the problem but only Republicans can fix it.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for Republicans to fix this. This is one of the many reasons I no longer call myself a Republican.

Wow, Steve … you are sounding more and more like my friend Severian … and deep down, I think you’re probably right. The whole thing is going to have to collapse – and that prospect isn’t a fun thing, nor is it a guarantee that we emerge with anything like our original founding vision. In fact, I’m afraid it’ll be more like what the people who have been TRYING to collapse the system want. Because too many people want to be rescued, and will rally behind he who promises prosperity … for THEM.

“Glide Path” is a gentle way of putting it. The “driving off the cliff into the brick wall while in a dumpster fire” is probably closer.

A couple impractical suggestions: no bill longer than 100 pages. All appropriations must be designated based on the growth of GDP only. Interest/debt must be paid down until the debt is 5%. Useless federal agencies must be eliminated. Money saved can be used to update the electronics used by the government. Of course none of this will happen.

I have tried to push a similar idea limiting the size of bills. For every page of a bill they must post it on line 5 hours, for every page, before any vote can take place on said bill. So a 1000 page bill, (short by today’s standard), would have to be posted online 5000 hours prior to any vote. Give the people time to review and contact their reps in either house. I would like to limit the federal government to 20 percent of the previous years non governmental GDP, if exceeded all congressional salaries stop or other compensations and do not accrue or get replaced in any fashion, until the budget is brought into line with that limit.

When I think back to Obama’s speech scolding G.W. Bush for giving him an economy that was “only” 9 trillion dollars in debt, it makes me sick. When he left the White House in ’16, it was almost 21 trillion if I remember correctly. The very definition of a hypocrite.
It’s very easy to spend someone else’s money if there are zero repercussions.

While scotus abdicated on the question regarding what the “general welfare” clause meant, the Framers defined what they meant in the various Federalist (and Anti-Federalist) papers, and it isn’t the current welfare state.

That author is not playing by the rules. Quoting Woodrow Wilson and Sen Joseph Robinette Biden is just way too Marquis of Queensbury for the Left to allow. I predict his cancelation is just days away.

I stopped caring a decade ago. We had a referendum on the debt in the 2012 Presidential election and we lost. Half of the Republicans are incapable of talking like adults on the subject, and no Democrats are. I’m with Steve here, in that the Dems are driving our car off the cliff at 120 MPH, while Republicns are looking for bipartisan solutions to send us over at 55 MPH. Either way the Thelma & Louise ending is inevitable, so let’s rip off the band aid. Once enough Americans feel real pain the politicos will have to get serious

This budget can be brought under control. The federal government, by law, gets 7-10% more each year. Just holding spending to today’s bloated budget would balance things in a surprisingly short amount of time. Coolidge did more. He cut 20% of the federal government.
Spending on entitlement programs could be achievable if nearly half our tax monies were not being spent on the interest on our debt.
And the real truth is that we are getting a free pass due to the fact that we are the world’s default currency. Because we spend more sensibly than the rest of the world’s currencies we are immune. TO A POINT. I’m pretty sure that financial powers that be would be working to help get us more responsible if we were currently in trouble. Instead, the stock market goes up when Dems get elected, at least initially.

Article V of the Constitution gives the States the power to call a Convention of States to amend the Constitution. The States, not the Congress, then have the duty to oversee the operation of the federal government; thus there are elections, in which the people choose those to represent them locally within the State and then the State nationally. All well and good. But when the federal government begins to behave as if the States and The People are subordinate to the federal government in all manners and matters only amendments to the Constitution can correct that federal government behavior.
If a child friviously spends the allowance, but then needs dental work to correct the caries the parent or rather the insurance pay for. However, the child has to live with the dental work and as an adult will have to pay for future dentalwork themself. AND if the child had used the stipend wiser because the parent had corrected the frivious behavior the outcome would be better.
Now, I submit this that to correct a behavior someone must be in charge and it cannot be the one misbehaving; therefore, if congress misbehaves using the exiting Constitution, then an amendment is a requirement.

Leave a Reply