Sunday, July 17, 2011

The Debt Ceiling - Raise It Higher?


*******

*******
The Emperor of Debt is Naked
The America of the worker and the America of the government. These two Americas are on a collision course
Daniel Greenfield
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
When Benjamin Franklin was asked at the close of the Constitutional Convention, “What have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” His answer was, “A republic, if you can keep it.” What has come out of the debt ceiling talks is not a republic, but tyranny on the installment plan.
The choice today is whether we will have a nation or a pile of debt created by the uncontrolled spending of the ruling elites and their political machines. And the outlook isn’t sunny. The mishandled budget battle has ended in a predictable deal with cosmetic cuts. The issue isn’t just about right vs left. It’s about whether we’ll have a functional nation or a bankrupt welfare state. A nation that has gone so deep into debt to fund social and corporate welfare that it has no chance of recovery.
We have Two Americas, to borrow John Edwards’ stolen slogan. The America of the worker and the America of the government. These two Americas are on a collision course. The debt economy will destroy the America of the worker and leave only the America of the government.
The same thing already happened in Europe. The EU put the eggs of the state into one giant basket. The spending went on and now it’s up to the stronger economies to pick up the tab. But the stronger economies have their limits too. Germany can bail out Portugal and Greece, but sooner or later someone will have to bail out Germany.
And who will bail out America? Forget China. The Chinese economy piggybacks on our own. The Peeps aren’t funding our economic disaster out of the goodness of their hearts. We’re their ladder up. And the prospect of that ladder being sawed off by irresponsible policies frightens them more than anything else. If we go down, then China goes down with us. If Europe goes down, then Russia goes down with it.
The global economy is integrated. The dollar is a global currency. And American companies are the bricks and beams of globalism
The global economy is integrated. The dollar is a global currency. And American companies are the bricks and beams of globalism. For the Third World, America is a major market. For Europe, it’s big brother. Still an isolated American collapse might be survivable, but it won’t be isolated. The trends bringing down America, are also taking down Europe and Japan. So when the house collapses, everything goes.
The problem began when social welfare was used to buy political support and domestic stability. Then foreign aid was employed to do the same thing internationally. Behind these two rivers was a water empire run by the vast apparatus of government tasked with dispensing the money. The men and women who could turn on the tap or turn it off. The more the money flowed, the more their influence grew.
Post WW2 the choices were easy. Widespread death and destruction in Europe made reconstruction inevitable. On both sides of the Atlantic, millions of men returned to work. A wartime economy went back into its domestic mode. Guns were traded in for butter. The war had goosed a worldwide economic depression into an artificial debt funded boom. And post-war, there were fewer men and more jobs. Booming industrial machines looking for something to do crank out.
A wounded Europe turned to more socialism for social stability. Free social services and American GI’s to keep the enemy out. And global trade under the Pax Americana. And so long as profits kept growing, the whole thing could be paid for.
But while revenues fluctuate, spending rises. Once you tie social stability to social spending and international stability to international spending—pulling the plug means taking responsibility for social unrest and global conflicts. Since the problems never really go away, and if they do are replaced with new ones by those who have an interest in perpetuating spending, more money has to be thrown at them.
It’s bread and circuses in reverse. A scam pulled off by the insiders who benefit, using the outsiders as their fronts, and everyone else as their cash cows.
Let’s filter this through the Wall Street model. The American people are investors in a government that promises to pay out more to them than it takes in, through various direct and indirect benefits. The money is invested in various funds, such as welfare, defense, Social Security and the environment. But what if most of that money isn’t actually invested in those funds, but are instead being pocketed by the broker and about a million of his friends?
Government America. And this is the economy that is consuming most of our economy
The governments acts as the broker in our policy investments. And it pockets most of the investment and then only a fraction of the money actually goes directly to the policy. It doesn’t matter what the policy is. Defense, the environment or studying the habits of bats. Most of the money gets spread around to insiders, who spread it around to their friends and their allies. Maybe 10 percent of it goes to the meat of building an airplane or protecting a forest or studying bats. The rest vanishes in fees, grants, payments, union gouging, cost overruns, marketing costs, lobbying salaries and assorted other ways that the insiders get paid.
This is what the economy of the other America looks like. Government America. And this is the economy that is consuming most of our economy.
Every decade has added another layer of complexity to it. More special interest groups, more lobbyists, community organizations, unions, consultants and consultants of consultants (yes they exist). And that adds more to the bottom line. Everyone has to get paid. And everyone does at the expense of the national debt.
Financial magazines gasp at Russia’s culture of corruption, goggle in disbelief at officials openly asking for fur coats or the cost of a meeting with Putin. But we have a tamer version of the same system. We no longer have the grotesque 19th century corruption where everything was for sale, and government service was synonymous with bribes. What we have in its place is honest graft. A system that’s far more expensive, but looks much cleaner.
We don’t slip money to someone under the table for a government job. Instead we pay union dues. And the unions pay out money to friendly politicians. Who recommend people they know for government jobs. See, isn’t that clean?
You don’t bring a briefcase with cash to a meeting with your congressman (unless he’s the trashy sort). No, you hold a fundraiser in your house with some of your friends, who happen to be in your industry, and then you raise that same amount of money. Do it enough times and he might just be grateful enough to give your industry a grant, bail it out or just straight up make buying your product mandatory.
Rig elections? Why bother, when you can just rig entire districts, fill them up with a minority, keep that minority on the economic ropes, and make it clear that if they wander off the plantation, the aid gets cut off.
Raise taxes? Goodness no. People hate that. Instead you create environmental subsidies and regulations that companies have to pay to environmental consultants and green tech firms, who just happen to be your buddies and donors. And the companies grin and pass on the taxes to consumers.
This is what the economy of Government America looks like. It’s an insider’s economy
This is what the economy of Government America looks like. It’s an insider’s economy. A parasite whose pile of debt is eating up everything in sight. The end result of this isn’t Mao, it’s south of the border. Economic and political instability, high crime and left wing and right wing dictators warring with each other. Gated communities for the rich, slums for the poor and a middle class barely hanging on.
The insiders don’t have a problem with this. It’s how they already see things. Their Two Americas is already here.
Their children go to private schools. Yours go to public schools. They live in segregated neighborhoods. They live off the inside track in big government. They know who to pass money to or get money from at the right time. If they need something done, they don’t go through the system, they call in a favor. The law applies to them, but more erratically than it does to you. Every now and then one of them goes down in a big way. But there are countless more to take his place.
They are in their own way a meritocracy. Their ranks are drawn from the best and the brightest. The graduates of the best universities. The smartest people out there who are either dumb enough to believe or smart enough not to let on that they don’t.
The scientists and engineers of yesterday, are the consultants and bureaucrats of today, The writers of yesterday are writing slogans. The artists are directing public information commercials. And it’s only a matter of time until the doctors realize the real money isn’t in medicine, it’s in death panels and diet diagrams.
Government America is incompetent and deep in debt
Like every corrputocracy, Government America is incompetent and deep in debt. It’s also turning to the usual tactics, squeezing some of the rich, manipulating the currency and distracting the public. But the problem is just too big. The global economy runs through America. It can’t afford this irresponsibility.
The insiders don’t care how much they spend. They no longer think of the private economy as anything but a drain on the public economy. An obstacle that prevents them from maximizing public sector revenues. They don’t care about debt either. They are clever enough to know that the global economy is unreal. And stupid enough to think that it means nothing they do matters. That it’s just numbers being moved around.
The emperor is deep in debt and the crisis is approaching. The democrats think that the solution to the crisis is to increase revenues. Their only focus is to harvest more money, whether it’s by borrowing or by taxing. They have no concern for the larger economic picture. If everything implodes, then they get a chance at creating a socialist republic. If it doesn’t, they can keep on spending.
*******
*******
Political R. A. P. E. – Republicans Abandoning Principles & Ethics!
May God bless America before it becomes the Divided States of Amerika!
A.J. Cameron
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
The House vote, approving the fatally flawed debt-ceiling bill, drove a stake into the heart of our country’s financial recovery and long-term sovereignty. It’s a given that the Democrats place their Progressive Party’s agenda ahead of principles, ethics and morals, but, in theory, isn’t the GOP supposed to provide the American citizen/taxpayer an alternative to the Democrats’ Satan-inspired ideology? Sadly, on August 1, 2011, the debt-ceiling vote exposed the fact that too many Progressives within the GOP have more in common with their Democratic Progressive ‘comrades’ than they have with the people they have sworn an oath to serve. It is obvious that Progressive insanity is a communicable disease, across party lines. Once again, the American taxpayer/citizen has been raped, both politically and financially! With this legislative excrement sandwich, we have also been subjected to more promises made by both parties that members of each party acknowledge, almost certainly, will not be kept.
One doesn’t have to be an Ivy Leaguer to realize that the GOP caved to the relentless bashing by our Divider-in-Chief, smarmy Harry Reid, and the fossil media, all of whom dance at the end of the strings of the Bilderberger cabal. Speaker of the House Boehner railed that he stuck his neck out big-time to get a bill that would pass. Isn’t it just as important to craft a bill that provides real solutions to our serious fiscal plight, a plight to which most in Congress and the White House have brought us ? Maybe he would like to change the Party mascot from an elephant to a terrapin, a species of turtle native to the brackish coastal swamps of the Eastern and Southern regions of the United States. It would be the perfect counterpart to the Jackass Party. Whenever the jackasses kick up their hind legs, the terrapins can pull their heads and limbs inside their shells to protect themselves from the kicking heels of the jackasses.
A sincere ‘Thank You’ goes out to those within the GOP who continually honor their oath of office, the pre-TEA Party complete conservatives and the TEA Party contingent. Both groups appear to realize just how damaging this legislation is, in both the short term, and in the long term. It is a shame that, for many within your party, expediency trumps their principles and ethics. Is there any wonder why so many registered voters are registered as Independents, refusing to affiliate with either major party?
Based upon the theatrics of the past several weeks, and the fact that the ‘elephant in the room’ has been pushed past the 2012 election, the big winner is the Divider-in-Chief. It’s apparent his association with ACORN has hardened him to extract what he demands through bitterly partisan, thuggish tactics and dishonesty. Are we marching towards an American Kristallnacht?
With another one in the ‘Loss’ column, will the Progressive GOP ‘leadership’ unleash members of the party to begin addressing the many issues that are being advanced under the cover of the debt-ceiling fiasco? This list is long, including Agenda 21, dictatorial Executive orders, and EPA fiats against our water and energy industries. Can you believe that the regime says our economic malaise is due to forces outside of its control – really!
We shouldn’t be too surprised by the actions of mere politicians. Jesus was betrayed by one of His disciples and abandoned by ten of the remaining eleven disciples at His crucifixion. As lowly citizen/taxpayers, shouldn’t we be surprised when ‘elite’ politicians of the Ruling Class actually honor their oath of office?
Playing ‘kick the can’ as a youngster was a fun way to pass the time of day. Unfortunately, many within Congress have not moved beyond their youthful antics. If we can hang on to our Constitution and sovereignty until November, 2012, which is becoming less of a certainty with each passing day, we need to hold those accountable for kicking the can down the road, once again. Also, if there is one thing we have learned, yet again, it is the fact that politics makes for strange bedfellows. We need to find new, truly conservative dance partners, individuals who will respect us once they are in office! In the meantime, asking for divine intervention might be in order; it is our only chance of surviving the Obama collectivist blitzkrieg! May God bless America before it becomes the Divided States of Amerika!
*******
The Deal is Done—Assessing Winners and Losers
The Census. It was broke before it started. It cost twice what it did 10 years ago, $8 billion more than what was estimated.
Roger Aronoff
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
The voting is in from the House and Senate, but opinions are sharply divided among both conservatives and liberals as to whether or not the debt ceiling deal was a good one for either party or country. Wall Street’s first response was quite negative, with the Dow down 265 points on the day the Senate sent the bill to the White House.
Chris Matthews said the Obama administration “gave in to hostage taking.” As ridiculous and offensive as all this left-wing talk of terrorists and hostages is when characterizing people who wanted to see the country moving toward fiscal sanity rather than off the cliff, the Tea Party people don’t feel victorious at all. A front-page Wall Street Journal article says, “Tea Party sees no triumph in compromise,” with plenty of quotes to back it up.
Matthews said the Democrats “gave away the store” and “turned over the wallet to the mugger.” You see, in Matthews’ fevered mind, those who fought to end the reckless financial path we are on are terrorists or muggers or hostage takers. Supposedly this happened in an environment in which popular opinion was on the Democrats’ side, because some polls showed that a majority wanted a “balanced” solution, meaning revenues as well as cuts.
The situation I described in a recent column got even worse in the final days of this battle. Most of the media continued right through the weekend with their countdown to “default,” when that was never an option, and President Obama knew it. He reportedly conveyed that to Wall Street bankers. Talk of reducing the “deficit” by trillions of dollars continued as well. The deficit refers to a single year, beyond that it is called “debt.”
Conservatives are deeply divided over this. Talk show hosts Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are quite unhappy, along with many Tea Party activists, while The Wall Street Journal, Ann Coulter, Charles Krauthammer and others are saying this was a good deal for conservatives and Republicans, at least as good as they could have hoped to get, while only controlling the House, just one chamber of Congress, and certainly not the White House.
No one seems too happy with this deal, other than the fact that a deal was finally reached. The question for all sides is whether this battle was pivotal and will dictate the direction the country is headed, or whether it was just one fairly minor battle in a much larger ideological war that will be decided in the House, the Senate and the White House in 2012.
Clearly, spending was not brought under control. In the language of Washington politicians and pundits, this was all budget cuts. But in reality, Democrats are counting on those tax hikes, at least in the form of the end of the Bush tax cuts, while spending increases every year, adding an estimated $7 trillion to our accumulated national debt over the next decade. And even to arrive at that figure, it will require robust economic growth. If the Democrats get those large tax hikes, it would almost certainly inflict even more damage on an already weak economy.
And then are these triggers that could be pulled in December. If the House and Senate don’t approve the same legislative agenda by then, it would trigger automatic cuts in Defense, regardless of our threat assessment and military needs. No doubt our military could and should be run more efficiently, but is this any way to run a superpower?
Sen. Tom Coburn, who received some criticism from conservatives for his signing onto the so-called Senate “Gang of Six” plan that included revenue hikes, mainly in the context of tax reform, has been out talking about why this deal doesn’t begin to address the plight we are in. In his speech on the Senate floor over the weekend, he laid it out, item by item. It is not, as he pointed out, the old questions of guns vs. butter. It is a question of massive duplicative and bureaucratic waste, fraud and abuse. You can and should read his full comments here. But here is just a taste:
The average Medicare recipient paid $130,000 into Medicare. The average Medicare recipient takes $350,000 out. How long do we think that can continue?
Medicaid is broke. The reason it is broke is because the States are broke trying to take care of it. We mandate what they must do, and yet the States are choking on Medicaid, and we are choking on matching the amount of dollars. Under the Affordable Care Act, it is now estimated 25 million more people will go into Medicaid. So it is broke.
The Census. It was broke before it started. It cost twice what it did 10 years ago, $8 billion more than what was estimated.
Fannie and Freddie. We know they are broke. They are $190 billion–that you have now committed for, to pay to get them out of hock…It is going to be $300 or $400 billion that …we will be required to pay.
Social Security. People say it is not broke. We have $2.5 trillion worth of IOUs. Well, the fact is, that money is gone. Congress stole it, spent it on other things. Now we lack the ability to go into international financial markets to borrow that money to put that trust fund whole.
What are the problems? We have 100 different programs with 100 sets of bureaucracies for surface transportation alone. Why do we do that? Why have we not fixed it? That is a question the American people ought to be asking.
We have 82 programs to improve the quality of our teachers, run by the Federal Government across 7 different agencies. Only one of them is at the Department of Education. Why are we doing that?
We have 88 economic development programs in 4 agencies, for which we spend $6.8 billion, and we have another 100 economic development programs in 6 other agencies, for which we spend another $4 billion, and not one of them has ever been measured to see if it improves economic activity.
We have 56 programs to teach financial literacy to the American people. First of all, I question whether we ought to be teaching anybody financial literacy as a government when we run it so poorly. But if, in fact, we do, why do we have 56? And, oh, by the way, not one of them has ever been measured to see if it effectively teaches somebody financial literacy.
We have 47 job training programs which cost $18 billion a year, 9 different agencies, 9 different sets of bureaucracies, and all of them but three overlap with the other. That is according to the Government Accountability Office. Why? Why would we do that?
We have 18 programs for food for the hungry. That is something we all want to be involved in. Eighteen? Why 18 sets of bureaucracies? How well are they working? Are they effective? Could we do them better? The question has not even been asked by Congress
******* 
Bipartisan "Russian Roulette" and America's Federal Debt: The Debt Ceiling Is Unconstitutional
by Ellen Brown
Global Research, July 31, 2011
The debt ceiling crisis can be averted by enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment, which mandates the
 government to pay its debts already incurred, including pensions. That means Social Security, which IS an “entitlement,” in the original sense of the word. We’re entitled to it because we’ve paid for it with taxes.
The game of Russian roulette being played with the U.S. federal debt has been called a “grotesque political carnival” and political blackmail. The uproar stems from a statute that is unique to the United States and never did make much sense. First passed in 1917 and revised multiple times since, it imposes a dollar limit on the federal debt. What doesn’t make sense is that the same Congress that voted on the statute votes on the budget, which periodically exceeds the limit, requiring the statute to be revised. The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since 1962, 10 of them since 2001. The most recent increase, to $14.294 trillion by H.J.Res. 45, was signed into law on February 12, 2010.
Taxes aren’t collected until after the annual budget is passed, so Congress can’t know in advance whether or how much additional borrowing will be required. Inevitably, there will be some years that the budget pushes the debt over the limit, requiring new legislation. And inevitably, now that this tactic has been discovered, there will be a costly battle over the increase, wasting congressional time, destabilizing markets, and rattling faith in the American financial and political systems. There will be continual blackmail, arm-twisting and concessions. The situation is untenable and cries out for a definitive resolution.
Fortunately, there is one. A bevy of legal scholars are recommending that the issue be eliminated altogether by playing the Constitutional trump card. The Fourteenth Amendment provides at Section 4:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
Where statute and the Constitution collide, the Constitution prevails. Whether the government should pay the bills it has already incurred is not a matter of negotiation. It is a Constitutional mandate. And those are the bills we are talking about here, as President Obama stressed in his remarks on the issue last Friday. He said:
Raising the debt ceiling simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. I want to emphasize that. The debt ceiling does not determine how much more money we can spend, it simply authorizes us to pay the bills we already have racked up. It gives the United States of America the ability to keep its word.
Ignoring the debt ceiling on Constitutional grounds would not, as Michelle Bachmann declares, make President Obama a “dictator.” It would simply mean he is complying with his Constitutional mandate to pay the government’s bills on time and in full.
Social Security Is Not Welfare. It Is a Debt Due and Owing.
The President could have a clean resolution of the issue, but he is not jumping at the opportunity. Rather, he appears to be ready to throw Granny under the bus by slashing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all in the name of “compromise.”
The Fourteenth Amendment says debts already incurred shall not be questioned, “including debts incurred for payment of pensions.” That includes Social Security, which is an “entitlement” in the true sense of the word: we’re entitled to it because we’ve already paid for it. In fact, the Social Security Act was originally sold to Congress and the nation in 1935 not as a government benefit, but as a retirement savings program. Earlier this year, the Urban Institute published a study evaluating the program in this way, concluding that the average worker who retires today will withdraw from Social Security just about the same amount he put in over the years, with a modest 2% real interest rate (after inflation).
A deal is a deal. We paid for it, we are owed it, and the U.S. government is good for it. To change the terms of the deal ex post facto is both a breach of contract and a violation of the Constitution.
Where to Get the Money: Ron Paul’s Creative Plan
A sovereign nation can always find the money to pay debts owed in its own currency. The U.S. could, if it wished, pay its bills using debt-free U.S. Notes or Greenbacks, just as President Lincoln did to avoid a crippling debt during the Civil War. Alternatively, it could eliminate the deficit with Ron Paul’s plan, which amounts to the same thing. As Stephen Gandel explains Paul’s solution in Time Magazine:
In the last year or two the Fed has been buying up U.S. Treasury bonds in an effort to lower interest rates and boost the economy. The most recent round of that buying has been dubbed QE2, and has come under a good deal of criticism, though most economists agree that it was a generally helpful policy. The result is that the Fed now holds nearly $1.7 trillion in U.S. debt. But that is really phony debt. The Treasury pays the interest on the debt on behalf of the U.S. government to the Fed, which in turn returns 90 percent of the payments it gets back to the Treasury. Nonetheless, that $1.7 trillion in U.S. bonds that the Fed owns, despite the shell game of payments, is still counted in the debt ceiling number, which caps that amount of total federal debt at $14.3 trillion.
Paul's plan: Get the Fed and the Treasury to rip up that debt. It's fake debt anyway. And the Fed is legally allowed to return the debt to the Treasury to be destroyed. A trillion and a half dollars is currently about what spending is expected to exceed tax revenue in 2011.
The biggest drawback to the plan, says Gandel, is just that it “looks bad.” It looks as if the government is paying off its debts by printing money. But that is what government-issued money is: a note acknowledging a debt due and owed from the public, good for an equivalent value from the public, traded in the marketplace. A U.S. Note or Greenback and a Federal Reserve Note or dollar bill are both forms of promissory notes. The government can as easily issue a dollar bill as a dollar note or a dollar bond, as Thomas Edison pointed out in the 1920s.
The objection to that solution is that it would be inflationary, but as economist Richard Koo graphically demonstrates, the Fed’s quantitative easing has had virtually no inflationary effect on the money supply to date:
*******
*******
Misdirected Fed policy has instead caused $1.6 trillion in “excess reserves” to sit on bank balance sheets, as explained in an earlier article. Conveniently, excess reserves can be used as collateral for futures and derivatives contracts, and that is what some banks appear to be doing with the money: backing trades in the financial markets. This sort of speculation, involving money making money without increasing productivity, can and does drive up prices.
If the money had been delivered directly to the government to be spent on the national budget, it might have gotten into the real economy where it could do some good. The government’s budget is spent not on speculation but on goods and services. Increased government “demand” stimulates an increase in “supply,” causing supply and demand to increase together, avoiding price inflation while stimulating economic activity.
Time to Close the Debt Ceiling Loophole
The debt crisis was created, not by a social safety net bought and paid for by the taxpayers, but by a banking system taken over by Wall Street gamblers. The gamblers lost their bets and were bailed out at the expense of the taxpayers; and if anyone should be held to account, it is these gamblers.
The debt ceiling crisis is a manufactured one, engineered to extort concessions that will lock the middle class in debt peonage for decades to come. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to issue the money it needs to pay its debts. Abraham Lincoln did it; Barack Obama could do it. He probably won’t, but he does need to follow his Constitutional mandate to pay the government’s bills as and when due. The statute imposing a ceiling on the national debt is trumped by the Fourteenth Amendment, making it redundant and unnecessary. The statute should be repealed.
*******
The Debt Ceiling Set For Progressive Repealing
by Prof. Michael Hudson
Global Research, July 29, 2011
Mr. Obama’s scare tactics to get Democrats to vote for his Republican Wall Street plan
The Wall Street bailout melodrama should be viewed as a dress rehearsal for today’s debt-ceiling non-crisis.
You know that the debt kerfuffle is as melodramatically staged as a World Wrestling Federation exhibition when Mr. Obama makes the blatantly empty threat that if Congress does not “tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform,” there won’t be money to pay Social Security checks next month. In his debt speech last night (July 25), he threatened that if “we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills – bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.”
This is not remotely true. But it has become the scare theme for over a week now, ever since the President used almost the same words in his interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley.
Of course the government will have enough money to pay the monthly Social Security checks. The Social Security administration has its own savings – in Treasury bills. I realize that lawyers (such as Mr. Obama and indeed most American presidents) rarely understand economics. But this is a legal issue. Mr. Obama certainly must know that Social Security is solvent, with liquid securities to pay for many decades to come. Yet Mr. Obama has put Social Security at the very top of his hit list!
The most reasonable explanation for his empty threat is that he is trying to panic the elderly into hoping that somehow the budget deal he seems to have up his sleeve can save them. The reality, of course, is that they are being led to economic slaughter. (And not a word of correction reminding the President of financial reality from Rubinomics Treasury Secretary Geithner, neoliberal Fed Chairman Bernanke or anyone else in the Wall Street Democrat administration, formerly known as the Democratic Leadership Council.)
It is a con.
Mr. Obama has come to bury Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, not to save them. This was clear
from the outset of his administration when he appointed his Deficit Reduction Commission, headed by avowed enemies of Social Security Republican Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming, and President Clinton’s Rubinomics chief of staff Erskine Bowles. Mr. Obama’s more recent choice of Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats be delegated by Congress to rewrite the tax code on a bipartisan manner – so that it cannot be challenged – is a ploy to pass a tax “reform” that democratically elected representatives never could be expected to do.
The devil is always in the details. And Wall Street lobbyists always have such details tucked away in their briefcases to put in the hands of their favored congressmen and dedicated senators. And in this case they have the President, who has taken their advice as to whom to appoint as his cabinet to act as factotums to capture the government on their behalf and create “socialism for the rich.”
There is no such thing, of course. When governments are run by the rich, it is called oligarchy. Plato’s dialogues made clear that rather than viewing societies as democracies or oligarchies, it was best to view them in motion. Democracies tended to polarize economically (mainly between creditors and debtors) into oligarchies. These in turn tended to make themselves into hereditary aristocracies. In time, leading families would fight among themselves, and one group (such as Kleisthenes in Athens in 507 BC) would “take the people into his party” and create a democracy. And so the eternal political triangle would go on.
This is what is happening today. Instead of enjoying what the Progressive Era anticipated – an evolution into socialism, with government providing basic infrastructure and other needs on a subsidized basis – we are seeing a lapse back into neo-feudalism. The difference, of course, is that this time around society is not controlled by military grabbers of the land. Finance today achieves what military force did in times past. Instead of being tied to the land as under feudalism, families today may live wherever they want – as long as they take on a lifetime of debt to pay the mortgage on whatever home they buy.
And instead of society paying land rent and tribute to conquerors, we pay the bankers. Just as access to the land was a precondition for families to feed themselves under feudalism, one needs access to credit, to water, medical care, pensions or Social Security and other basic needs today – and must pay interest, fees and monopoly rent to the neo-feudal oligarchy that is now making its deft move from the United States to Ireland and Greece.
The U.S. Government has spent $13 trillion in financial bailouts since Lehman Bros. failed in September 2008. But Mr. Obama warns that thirty years from now, the Social Security fund may run a $1 trillion deficit. It is to ward it off that he urges dismantling the plans for such payments now.
It seems that the $13 trillion used up all the money the government really has. The banks and Wall Street firms have taken the money and run. There is not enough to pay for Social Security, Medicare or other social spending that the Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans now plan to cut.
Not right away. The plan will be to “paper over” the current crisis by delegating the plans to a “Deficit Reduction Commission #2,” appointed from Congressional members.
Finally, we have “Change we can believe in.”
*******
*******
Real change is always surprising, after all.
The Faux Crisis
Usually a crisis is needed to create a vacuum into which these toxic details are fed. Wall Street does not like real crises, of course – except to make quick computer-driven speculative gains on the usual fibrillation of today’s zigzagging markets. But when it comes to serious money, the illusion of a crisis is preferred, staged melodramatically to wring the greatest degree of emotion out of the audience much like a good film editor edits a montage sequence. Will the speeding train run over the girl strapped to the tracks? Will she escape in time?
The train is debt; the girl is supposed to be the American economy. But she turns out to be Wall Street in
disguise. The exercise turns out to be a not-so-divine comedy. Mr. Obama offers a plan that looks very Republican. But the Republicans say no. There is an illusion of a real fight. They say Obama is socialist.Democrats express shock at the giveaway being threatened. Many say, “Where is the real Obama?” But it seems that the real Obama turns out to be a Republican Wall Street imposter in Democratic clothing. That is what the Democratic Leadership Committee basically is: Wall Street Democrats.
This is not as much of an oxymoron as it may sound. There is a reason why today’s post-Clinton Democrats are the natural party to undo what FDR and earlier Democrats stood for. A Democratic Senate never would stand for such giveaways to Wall Street and double-cross of their urban constituency if a Republican president would propose what Mr. Obama is putting before them.
Here’s what the next Republican presidential candidate can say: “You know that whatever we Republicans want, Mr. Obama will support us. If you don’t want a Republican policy, they you should vote for me for president. Because a Democratic Congress will oppose a Republican policy if we propose it. But if Mr. Obama proposes it, congress will be de-toothed, and cannot resist.”
It’s the same story in Britain, where the Labour Party is called upon to finish up the job that the Conservatives start but need New Labour to subdue popular opposition to privatizing the railroads and a Public/Private Partnership financial giveaway for the London tube line. And it’s the same story in France, where a Socialist government is supporting the privatization program dictated by the European Central Bank.
Round up the Usual Fallacies
Whenever one finds government officials and the media repeating an economic error as an incessant mantra, there always is a special interest at work. The financial sector in particular seeks to wrong-foot voters into believing that the economy will be plunged into crisis if Wall Street does not get its way – usually by freeing it from taxes and deregulating it.
Mr. Obama’s first fallacy is that the government budget is like a family budget. But families can’t write IOUs and have the rest of the world treat it as money. Only governments can do that. It is a privilege that the banks would now like to obtain – the ability to create credit freely on their computer keyboards, and charge interest for what is almost free, and what governments can indeed create for free. (That is the State Theory of Money. See the UMKC Economics Blog.)
“Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy.” But economies need government money to grow – and this money is provided by running federal budget deficits. This has been the essence of Keynesian counter-cyclical spending for more than half a century. Until the present, it was Democratic Party policy.
It’s true that Pres. Clinton ran a budget surplus. The economy survived by the commercial banking system supplying the credit needed to grow – at interest. To force the economy back into this reliance on Wall Street rather than on government, the government needs to stop running budget deficits. The economy will then have a choice: to shrink sharply, or to turn almost all the economic surplus over to banks as economic rent on their credit-creation privilege.
Mr. Obama also pretends that credit ratings agencies are able to act as mascots for their clients, the large financial underwriters, by making the entire economy pay even higher interest rates on its credit cards and banks. “For the first time in history,” Mr. Obama dissembled, “our country’s Triple A credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, mortgages, and car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people.”
The reality is that running a budget surplus would increase interest rates, by forcing the economy into captivity to the banking system. The Obama administration is now deep into its Orwellian rhetorical phase.
Why Wall Street needs Obama Democrats to shepherd Rubinomics #2 through Congress
During Mr. Obama’s speech I could not help feeling that I had heard it all before. And then I remembered. Back in 2008, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson sought to counter Sheila Bair’s argument that all FDIC-insured depositors would be able to ride out the September crisis, with only the reckless gamblers losing the gains they hoped to make on their free credit. “If the financial system were allowed to collapse,” he warned in his Reagan Library speech, “it is the American people who would pay the price. This never has been just about the banks; it has always been about continued prosperity and opportunity for all Americans.”
But of course, it is all about the banks! Wall Street knows that to get sufficient Congressional votes to roll back the New Deal, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, a Democratic president needs to be in office. A Democratic Congress would block any Republican president trying to make the kind of cuts that Mr. Obama is sponsoring. But Congressional Democratic opposition is paralyzed when President Obama himself – the liberal president par excellence, America’s Tony Blair – acts as cheerleader for cutting back entitlements and other social spending.
So just as the City of London backed Britain’s Labour Party in taking over when the Conservative Party could not take such radical steps as privatizing the railroads and London tube system, and just as Iceland’s Social Democrats sought to plunge the economy into debt peonage to Britain and Holland, and the Greek Socialist Party is leading the fight for privatization and bank bailouts, so in the United States the Democratic Party is to deliver its constituency – urban labor, especially the racial minorities and the poor who are most injured by Pres. Obama’s austerity plan – to Wall Street.
So Mr. Obama is doing what any good demagogue does: delivering his constituency to his campaign contributors on Wall Street. Yves Smith has aptly called it Obama’s Nixon goes to China moment in reverse.
The Republicans help by refraining from putting forth a credible alternative presidential candidate. The effect is to give Mr. Obama room to move far to the right wing of the political spectrum. Far enough so that it is his own Democrats who are most intent on scaling back Social Security, not the Republicans.
This is done most easily under pressure of near panic. This worked after September 2008 with TARP, after all. The Wall Street bailout melodrama should be viewed as a dress rehearsal for today’s debt-ceiling non-crisis.
*******

*******
*******
Democrat Senators Say They Will Refuse to Stop Spending
Marxist-Leninist Sen. Harry Reid and Sen. John McCain continue to blame the various TEA Parties
Sher Zieve
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Despite any and all protestations from the American people—and just as they forced ObamaCare down our throats—Democrat Senators (each and every one of them) have declared they will NOT stop spending We-the-People’s money…period! In fact, in a Wednesday letter sent to Speaker of the House John Boehner, all 53 Marxist-Democrat Senators said they will refuse to pass the House debt ceiling increase ($900 Billions) and spending reductions of about the same amount proposal, even before the revised effort (more spending cuts are now appropriately included in the first year) has been read.
Instead, they are demanding Sen. Harry Reid’s (and apparently also RINO Sen. Mitch McConnell’s) proposal be swallowed; a bill that demands the debt ceiling be raised by $2.7 Trillions! Please note that the spending “cuts” referred to as in the proposal and neither visible nor itemized. By the
way, when was the last tine a Marxist-Democrat cut out any spending at all? And, yet, the CBO is said to favor the Marxist plan? Only the Marxists claim the now wholly-owned Obama CBO is “non-partisan.”
With no additional doubts—whatsoever—Democrat Senators have now come out into the open and are shouting that they rule over us all, they have ended our Republic and that we’d better shut up and get used to taking anything they and their Emperor-and-usurper-in-Chief Obama decide to employ against us. In other words, these beings have openly announced that they now own We-the-People “body and soul,” we can’t do anything about it and “if you want us to be benevolent slave masters, you’d better smile and say ‘Yes Massa’ when we speak and give you one of our new commandments!”
Marxist-Leninist Sen. Harry Reid and Sen. John McCain (with childish Lord of the Rings references) continue to blame the various TEA Parties—who now actually represent the majority of the American people—for not compromising with the aging totalitarian Senate. These reprobates also quietly blame the TEA Parties for the increased political knowledge and savvy of the American people. It’s now much harder for the degenerates to pull the proverbial wool over our eyes. After McCain’s comments on the Senate floor Wednesday, I think this majority wishes that he would return to “middle earth.” This “Armageddon” is totally manufactured by our overseers. As a country, we take in approximately $200Billions/month and can well afford to pay all of our debts and responsibilities. The lies Obama & Co
have been spewing about “no Social Security checks” and “no Medicare” (Obama and the Congressional Democrats have already stolen $500Billions from Medicare to pay for their “We now control your bodies” ObamaCare program) are only due to the fact that the Tyrant Obama can opt NOT to pay them if he so desires. And, a recent poll suggests that at least 40% of polled Americans believe he would do it. Even the majority of those who voted for Obama probably didn’t see this coming.
Folks, we’re quickly approaching—actually being unmercifully pushed into by those we elected to office who now contend they are our “betters”—the time when we will have to actively and physically fight back at our oppressors or live in a police state that we allowed to take us over. Chillingly, we’re almost there and Congress and the dictator-in-chief are working on driving the final nails into our coffin. Be both forewarned and as prepared as possible for yourselves and your families. Unless we stop it, the deep darkness will continue to descend upon us…
*******
Debt Ceiling Intransigence: Unintended Consequences...
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research, July 25, 2011
Which party is responsible for intransigence on raising the debt ceiling? Republicans say the Democrats are, and Democrats say the Republicans are.
One could blame both parties equally, as both have their positions, but as I see it, it is the Republicans who are the most intransigent. The Democrats have shown more willingness to compromise, even offering cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Moreover, the Republicans started the fight, whereas the Democrats were willing to just raise the debt ceiling routinely, as in the past, and to get on with things.
The Republicans created the issue, so they are responsible. In fairness to the Republicans, it is a more important issue for them than for Democrats. The Democrats have always been more relaxed about debt than the Republicans. At the present time, the Democrats figure that if the financial crisis is reason enough for the Federal Reserve to lend $16.1 trillion, that is, $16,100 billion to private banks in the US and Europe--an amount $1.6 trillion larger than the Gross Domestic Product of the US, the US Treasury can afford to borrow another couple of trillion dollars. http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
Citibank alone received $2.5 trillion in government loans, an amount larger than the Gross Domestic Product of Great Britain and larger than the GDP of all but five countries in the world. If one bank can borrow this much from the Fed, the US Treasury should be able to continue borrowing as well.
Nevertheless, one has to respect the Republicans for their concern with debt levels.
Fiscal discipline should never be written off as too much trouble. It is easier to spend money irresponsibly if the money can be borrowed, as many American consumers have learned. One should not denigrate Republicans for wanting to control the growth of the public debt, especially when the debt is consistently growing faster than the GDP.
However, for many, and perhaps most, of the Republicans in Congress, the issue is not merely about debt. It is about using a hyped “debt crisis” to slash the social safety net.
The reason Republicans are intransigent is that they see in the “debt ceiling crisis” the opportunity to return the country to a moral basis by curtailing welfare, handouts, and “Ponzi schemes like Social Security.”
Republicans believe, appropriately in my opinion, that people should support themselves and not be leeches on others or on society. Republicans believe that if given opportunities to become leeches, many will take them, and that the Democrats have created too many opportunities for Americans to abandon self-sufficiency and to become leeches.
Aside from the moral issue, too many leeches mean higher taxes on the productive and/or more debt burdens for our children and grandchildren. In other words, the moral decline from handouts and welfare leads to economic decline.
It would be a mistake to dismiss the Republicans concerns out of hand. It is a fact that Roman bread and circuses produced a large leech class at a time when desperately needed manpower and resources for the Legions was scarce. The issue that I have with Republicans is not their valid concerns, but what Republicans do not take into account.
One important fact that many Republicans overlook is that in a market economy large numbers of people can find themselves without resources through no fault of their own. Ordinary run-of-the-mill business cycles can leave millions jobless. Once jobless, people cannot make mortgage and car payments and become homeless. Unable to pay credit card bills, they have no recourse to credit. No country can simply say, “OK, hard luck, go die in the streets with your wives and children.”
These problems are more acute today, because so many American jobs have been moved abroad to increase profits, thus making the income distribution extremely unequal. There are no longer family farms to which to return, as during the Great Depression of the 1930s.
In the 1930s Marxism was a force. The new Soviet Union and its promises had raised hopes for workers
and the poor, hopes that proved to be unfounded, but the prospect of revolt in America softened hard hearts, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress were able to put in place a social safety net to provide for those who were cast aside by the crises of capitalism.
Many Republicans believe that the “New Deal” was the undoing of the Republic. I know this both because I have spent my life among Republicans and because I am a scholar.
For Republicans, or many of them, everything started going wrong with the New Deal, which created “leechdom,” expanded by President Johnson’s “Great Society” three decades later.
Republicans have been trying to rescue the Republic ever since.
In the early 1980s when I, as Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, was tasked with getting the Reagan tax rate reduction out of his administration and into law, I encountered more opposition from some Republicans than from Democrats. The Democrats could see that something had to be done about stagflation and that they had no solution, so they, or a number of influential ones, got on board. The Republicans, however, or too many of them, opposed the Reagan tax rate reduction on the grounds that it would enlarge the deficit and the national debt.
To bring a number of Republicans onboard, the Reagan administration resorted to a non-economic argument that the tax cuts would starve the government of revenues and force the desired Republican shrinkage of government. I opposed this tactic. I argued that it would confirm the claim that Republicans wanted to take the tax burden off the rich and place it on the poor by curtailing the services from government.
I pointed out that House Speaker Tip O’Neil and the Senate Democrats were prepared to pass the Reagan tax rate reduction and that there were enough House and Senate Republicans and Democrats to carry the vote. But the White House Chief-of-Staff would have none of it. He wanted a Republican “victory” over the Democrats. Thus, a necessary economic policy was misrepresented as a crusade against “big government.”
To summarize, the Reagan tax rate reductions were designed to cure stagflation, and they succeeded. However, in order to garner enough Republican support, Reaganomics was sold to congressional Republicans as a way to shrink the government by denying it revenue. This was not the purpose, and denying the government revenue has nothing whatsoever to do with supply-side economics. Our purpose was to enable the economy to grow without having to pay for the growth with a rising rate of inflation.
Having illustrated the folly to which Republicans can be driven by their obsession with debt and “leechdom,” let us now consider possible unintended consequences of the debt ceiling impasse. This brings us to the most important aspect of the debt ceiling “crisis” that the Republicans are ignoring.
If Republicans become obsessed with their agenda and refuse a reasonable deal, and the Democrats do not
cave, the executive branch will be faced with an inability to continue its operations. This could mean, for example, that the troops in the various wars could not be supplied or paid, that air traffic controllers could not be paid, that the US government could not roll over the debt that comes due or issue the new debt that pays for 43% of federal budget expenditures. Unlike during the Newt Gingrich government shutdown in the 1990s, today “nonessential government” does not total 43% of federal expenditures unless we include the wars, which, of course, the Republicans don’t.
The US dollar could plummet in exchange value and lose its role as world reserve currency. The US would no longer be able to pay its oil bill in its own currency, and as its balance of payments is heavily in the red, the US has no foreign currencies with which to pay its oil import bill. Or its manufactured goods import bill, or any other bill.
We are talking about a crisis beyond anything the world has ever seen. Does anyone think that President
Obama is going to just sit there while the power of the US collapses? He doesn’t have to do so. There are presidential directives and executive orders in place, put there by George W. Bush himself, that President Obama can invoke to declare a national emergency, suspend the debt ceiling limit, and continue to issue Treasury debt. This is exactly what would happen.
The consequences would be that the power of the purse would transfer from Congress to the President. It would be the end of the power of Congress. Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, have already given away to the President Congress’ Constitutional right to decide whether the country goes to war. Now Congress would lose its power over debt, taxes, and the budget itself.
Republicans need to decide whether the advantage of delivering a blow against “leechdom” is worth such extreme risks.
Some readers will say “this could never happen.” But Congress is already emasculating itself as a result of the Republicans’ intransigence over the debt ceiling increase. Republican Mitch McConnell and Democrat Harry Reid have come up with a proposal for a committee of Congress, called a Super Congress, that could fast-track legislation by prohibiting amendments. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%7C80603
In other words, the few members of the Super Congress could bypass any citizen opposition that might still be represented in the ordinary old Congress. The more likely outcomes would be an end to the mortgage interest deduction and the deductions for retirement savings. Legislation to gut the social safety net could not be amended.
A Congress that is willing to destroy its remaining power over a debt ceiling increase that is less than a Federal Reserve loan to one US bank is a Congress moved to folly by Republican intransigence.
*******
Default? Don't Put it Past Them!
by Henry Makow Ph.D.
July 24, 2011
Under Presidents Bush and Obama, the US national debt has risen from six to 14 trillion dollars in just ten years! The Illuminati bankers are using debt to enslave humanity just as they have done throughout history.
"It was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence ... The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all."
Republican Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking & Currency Committee, from 1920 to 1931, a staunch critic of the bankers and the Federal Reserve explains who was responsible for the stock exchange crash.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through...all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague." - Marcus Tullius Cicero
For the past few weeks, the markets have been trading higher on robust corporate earnings and the complacent assumption that the US couldn't possibly default by failing to raise the debt ceiling.
This is an assumption I do not share. After all, we are dealing with a cast of characters who gave us 9-11, which they are still covering up. They gave us the 2008 credit crisis by removing all regulatory supervision. Would you ask Jeffrey Dahmer to babysit your children?
And that's just recent history. The Illuminati bankers are responsible for all wars and depressions. These are mechanisms by which they concentrate power and wealth in their own hands and enact totalitarian social change.
So why wouldn't their puppets default? The Illuminati motto is order out of chaos, isn't it!?
For a New World Order, they need chaos. They need to destroy the US dollar and credit worthiness in order to institute a new one-world currency.
They need to destroy Americans' faith in democracy in order to bring in a new level of international government.
They need to disrupt the economy and cause depression in order to make people so desperate they will accept any solution.
And they need to make all this seem natural and inevitable.
"I think we're going to slide into intensified social conflicts, social hostility, some forms of radicalism; there is just going to be a sense that this is not a just society," Zbigniew Brzezinski told MSNBC July 6, adding that civil unrest would begin when the lower middle class becomes severely affected by the economic fallout and rising unemployment.
In his 1970 book Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, Brzezinski wrote: "The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities."
Accomplices in Our Own Enslavement
Almost six trillion is owed to the Fed. It was created from thin air and should be repaid in kind. Just make a digital notation like they did. The same applies to the nearly $16 Trillion they gave to other banks during the 2008 crisis.
Tony Blizzard, a Patriot veteran, writes that the politicians work for the Illuminati bankers who own and control the corporations. The only way to escape enslavement is to throw them all out and create our own medium of exchange.
Blizzard: "While the federal liars play their "how to keep borrowing" game, which is the crux of all our economic problems (borrowing the medium of exchange into existence), know that there is absolutely NO NEED for any national government to EVER borrow money, much less "credit" (debt), as national governments are the rightful agents to CREATE the nation's money. It is not a right to be handed, free of charge, to a cartel of criminal private bankers such as the federal reserve.
"Moreover, government created money is properly NOT loaned into existence at all but SPENT into circulation for legitimate government projects, there to stay and oil the economic wheels and cogs. The Lincoln greenbacks (United States Notes), even with banker added hindrances, kept the American people afloat using a legitimate medium of exchange and saved them billions in interest before the bankers got those notes totally out of circulation using their prostitute congress.
"Congressman Dennis Kucinich, cut from a different cloth, has introduced a bill into congress which would instantly correct the economic problem without harm to anyone but the banker owned medium never mentions it to you, does it? Check with the American Monetary Institute web site for details.
"There is a hearing on this bill coming up this week. Tell your congress prostitutes of both houses to attend it, listen carefully, and put it in effect or you will see them in hell. They are totally banker owned so it will take drastic and sincere threats to get any right action out of them."
It is comical to see Jesuit- educated Speaker John Boehner championing the cause of debt reduction. Like all politicians he has advanced the Illuminati agenda- getting the country deeper into debt. As Matt Taibbi shows in "The Crying Shame of John Boehner" (Rolling Stone, Jan 2011) the Speaker built his career on being a conduit for public money going to big corporations.
His major accomplishment was the (at least) $700 billion bailout of the big banks (TARP) which he helped punch through, after receiving four million dollars from the financial services industry over his career.
Before that, he helped co-author the "No Child Left Behind Act," a "grotesquely expensive expansion of federal power" which increased federal education spending by 80%. He also passed the obscene Medicare Part D, which Taibbi calls "a staggering $550 billion handout to the pharmaceutical industry."
He helped pass the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy lowering their rate from 40% to 35% - the lowest rate in the history of the USA.
So while pillaging the public for private interests, Boehner and his crew have tied the government's hands in terms of revenue. Then, they have the audacity to oppose "tax hikes."
I doubt Tea Party supporters wanted to shelter huge corporations and the wealthy when they pledged not to raise the debt ceiling.
Obama just has to sit back and let the GOP take the blame for economic chaos. But don't kid yourself, he is Illuminati and he is playing his part in the charade.
Conclusion
Do I think the US will actually default? Maybe. Eventually they will broker a deal; they have to. But not before giving us a harrowing roller coaster ride, and doing considerable damage to US credibility and self-confidence.
"If all bank loans were paid, no one would have a bank deposit and there would not be a dollar of currency or coin in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent monetary system. When one gets a complete grasp upon the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible - but there it is. It (the banking problem) is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it is widely understood and the defects remedied very soon."
- Robert H. Hemphill, for eight years credit manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
*******
A Poll That Barack Would Like to Bury and Ignore
Get that, Barack? Sixty percent, including 44 percent of Democrats, disagree with you on raising the limit!
John Lillpop
Thursday, July 21, 2011
*******
*******
With America at risk of default what with the debt-ceiling crisis, President Obama allegedly suddenly finds comfort and wisdom in what the people want.
In fact, Obama gushed with pride recently while claiming that 80 percent of the American people agree with his “balanced” approach to the crisis.
However, as indicated at the reference, most voters do NOT agree with raising the debt limit and believe that Obama was using missed Social Security checks as a scare tactic:
Most American voters oppose raising the national debt ceiling and think talk of missed Social Security checks is just a scare tactic. Voters are optimistic that a debt deal will be made soon, and if it isn’t they will blame both Republicans and Democrats.
These are just some of the findings from a Fox poll released Wednesday.
Voters were asked to imagine being a lawmaker in Congress who had to cast an up-or-down vote on raising the debt ceiling. The poll found 35 percent would vote in favor of increasing the limit, while 60 percent would vote against it.
Most Tea Partiers (81 percent), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (63 percent) would vote against raising the limit. Views among Democrats are more evenly divided: 50 percent would raise it and 44 percent wouldn’t.”
Get that, Barack? Sixty percent, including 44 percent of Democrats, disagree with you on raising the limit!
*******
Edge of the Spending New Frontier
The social justice cocaine that the left is hooked on, and on which it has hooked the Democratic party, is an insidious corruption
Daniel Greenfield
Thursday, July 21, 2011
The debt ceiling debate is less about spending than it is about the purpose of government. Under the impact of an economic recession, the train of the Great Society is approaching the edge of the New Frontier. Both sides are still trying to work out a New Deal, but another cuts and spending formula is not the solution. What we need is a serious and earnest discussion about why we are compulsively spending money.
A cocaine addict who runs out of money doesn’t have a spending problem, he has a drug problem. Telling him to cut back on how much money he spends on cocaine, or to shop around for cheaper cocaine isn’t the solution. It’s not about how much he’s spending, but about why. The problem isn’t in the math, it’s in the mindset.
Our cocaine is social justice. Like most junkies who are willing to sell anything and everything to keep the supply coming, Obama’s position in the budget debate is take everything—especially the military, but leave the social justice and the big government that administers it on the table. And also like most junkies, he has an endless supply of self-righteous speeches denouncing the people who just want him to stop.
In the rush of words, he postures, conflates compromise with confrontation, threatens and urges everyone to work together. There is no consistent message, only egotistical aggression and defensive need. Strip away the verbiage and you come away with a chorus of, “Mine, My Way, Mine”.
With all addictions, it is important to look for the root cause. The psychological weakness that allows the chemical rush to take over and become the defining principle of life. In this case it is a basic split over the purpose of government.
These competing visions of government are rival philosophies with differing views on human nature. They cannot even agree on what the nature of “fair” is and that makes reconciling on a national agenda nearly impossible. Is fairness socially determined or self-determined. Is it the function of government to spread the wealth or to protect a system where wealth acquisition is accessible. Is the economy a function of individual choices or organizational mandates.
Government as the caretaker of the system and of Big Aunty who uses the system to make society fairer. Both claim populist allegiances but any system that sets out to remake society is doomed to an elitist and totalitarian nature. The only authentic populists are protesting in reaction to Big Aunty and her nanny state.
The functional state is clashing with the utopian state
The functional state is clashing with the utopian state. The functionalists want to trim back the utopian programs of the state and pare it back down to its vital functions. But the utopians don’t even recognize the economy as something apart from the dictates of the state. Spending never has to be regulated, because it is only a micro-function of their system whose negative effects can be nullified through other programs. Or, “Why cut spending when you can just print more money.”
The economic solipsism of the left may be irresponsible lunacy, but it is part and parcel of their approach to everything. Their utopian state and its philosopher-czars are given the power to alter everything without a single ray of light allowed to penetrate the gloom of their dogma.
In the utopian mandate, it is irresponsible to have power and then not to use it to improve the country, just as having wealth without employing it for the betterment of mankind makes you a selfish person. They cannot conceive of reasons not to use power and so their only function becomes total control. Any position or office that they gain is immediately dedicated to the cause.
The functionalists and even many ordinary people see this behavior as frighteningly totalitarian. But the utopians view themselves as reformers, it never occurs to them that the era when they were reformers is long past, and that it is they who are in need of reform.
The New Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society turned on the motor of social justice
The New Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society turned on the motor of social justice. And nothing has managed to shut it off. But we are approaching the point where its spending levels are becoming unsustainable. The debate is no longer philosophical or moral, but a simple question of economic survival.
The Utopian system is approaching a crunch point. Like every leftist experiment before it, its economic solipsism has put it on a collision course with reality. But the philosopher-czars are not about to take their feet off the gas pedal.
A political philosophy that claims to explain everything is like a blindfold. When everything is political, then there is no reality outside the definitions of dogma. Nothing to see “out there” that you cannot find in a politically approved text on the subject. The only way to recognize that something is wrong, is to poke your heads outside. And that is a blasphemous heresy.
So the utopians drive ahead immersed in a detailed subjective reality masquerading as objective reality. But the subjective reality is entirely of their creation. Every element of it, from the media to the economics to the grass roots organizations, is manipulated by them. And this reality appears to be absolutely perfect to them, until elements from the outside world intrude on it.
When those elements intrude, a race is on to explain their appearance in a politically correct manner. “The sky isn’t falling, it’s just a natural phenomena. Just as we predicted.”
The left fails at economics so often because there is so much theory to it, but also an inescapable reality. While they get lost building their castles of air in the upper stories, the reality of the marketplace inevitably catches up to them. Then like most utopians they are forced to realize that control is never total, that the human factor is individualistic and chaotic. That controlling the government, the press and even the clergy is not the same as absolute power.
The left exists only in two phases, as governments and anti-governments. The Nanny State and the anarchist. Both are two sides of the same coin. Either governments are completely just or completely unjust. The self-definition purely in terms of authority, as either for or against, makes it difficult for it to break with its own impulse toward power. And the absolutism is totalitarian in its irreconcilability and its primally dangerous ruthlessness.
Behind the Great Society rhetoric is that same polar dogmatism, the unwillingness to accept the morality of a democratic system that is not aimed at enforcing a just society on their terms. Any system that is not power mad must be unjust. A means of protecting the powerful from the redistributive wrath of the graduating class of Evergreen State College.
So the utopians cannot accept the functionalist notion of government as a means of conducting vital functions on behalf of the people, rather than the utopian tool of transforming the people into a great society with seven academic degrees for everyone and recycling at every curb. Such a system is not a moral one to them and they are duty bound to resist it. And the functionalists similarly cannot accept a system that deprives them of agency by overlaying its political code over every aspect of their lives.
But it is the utopians and their economic policies who have forced their own moment to its crisis. Had Obama not won, they would have been able to comfortably sit back and blame Bush era policies for the mess. But their will to power also undid them. It gave them so much power that they are choking on it. With predictable blindness they exploited the crisis for all it was worth and are now left holding the bag. And their policies are now at the center of the debate.
But deeper still is the question of the place of government in the political and economic life of the American. This moment is a wake up call for a country that has been willing to avoid looking too closely at the fine print of the social programs and the total cost of the national debt. And the real question that drifts out of the debates is not about spending cuts, but about the role of government.
The utopian conception of government is not only a freedom deficit, but a functional deficit. The former is obvious, but the latter is often less obvious. The left is often dinged for its controlling ways, but less often for its incompetence. The debt crisis is a moment to speak about the left’s philosophy of government as not only an assault on freedom, but the destruction of functional government. The public is more forgiving of tyrants, than they are of idiots. More tolerant of trespasses of power, than of foolish incompetence.
The social justice cocaine that the left is hooked on, and on which it has hooked the Democratic party, is an insidious corruption
The social justice cocaine that the left is hooked on, and on which it has hooked the Democratic party, is an insidious corruption. And the dysfunctional Nanny State they have created is not only a devouring monster, but a failure at the essentials. At the edge of the new frontier, to look down is to see the iron carcasses of countless leftist trains and trams that have come this way before. And to look up is to behold a towering pile of debt that they cannot account for or resolve without dismantling the functional government and leaving behind nothing but debt creation and debt collection agencies.
The left has proven that it cannot run a functional government and that it is unable to govern from reality, than from their own little red books. The cliff’s edge is approaching. It’s time for a responsible driver at the wheel.
*******
Debt Ceiling is not made of Glass!
Draw the line and hold fast. Let the liberals like Obama and Hillary try to break the glass ceiling! On Election Day we will teach them how to repair all the damage they caused!
Dr. Phil Taverna
Monday, July 18, 2011
There has been so much talk about the debt ceiling, but most of it appears to be false.
The liberals want you to think that if we don’t raise the debt ceiling we will default on all our bills. And the conservatives seem to think that if we don’t raise the ceiling nothing will happen, well almost. And O’Reilly thinks that the ceiling has to be raised at least once as long as there is a ton of spending cuts and he believes that the economy can’t handle a tax increase. Do you really want to trust politicians to cut spending, and will Obama want to cut spending in a decade instead of tomorrow?
The debt ceiling is a limit imposed on the amount of debt that the federal government is allowed to spend in excess of the revenues collected. In English that means that congress has self-imposed overspending. So when people talk about a balanced budget amendment you should laugh in their faces. Let’s say the Federal government has self-imposed an annual budget of $2 trillion dollars. In English that means that the federal government will spend at least $2 trillion dollars in the next budget calendar no matter what!
It is understandable that when they originally passed this baloney ceiling, that at times the revenues did not meet the expectations so as a result the Feds would spend more than they take in. This is really not a problem if we had responsible politicians. It is kind of like using a credit card when there is not enough cash in the checking account.
But liberals and some other types of politicians see this as a paper goose that laid the golden egg. Why not spend all the money! In the politicians’ districts, state or whatever there is always a hand out that could be useful to win an election or a good payout. Like a great college for their children, tuition free, or a job for a relative.
So naturally as the campaign finance laws are written, the end result is that the more the government spends the better the chances are of getting re-elected or to benefit from a favor in return.
So the debt ceiling is not made of glass. And obviously true politicians want to raise the ceiling as many times as they can. They don’t pay for the spending you do, one way or another.
So the problem is that people really don’t understand the problem. In as few words as possible, almost all governments spend more, sometimes much more than the revenues collected.
It seems it would just be common sense that you don’t raise the debt ceiling. It feels like people are confused between debt ceiling, annual budget, and national debt. The government will still be allowed to spend trillions annually if you don’t let them raise the debt ceiling.
So in other words if you don’t raise the debt ceiling then the annual budget must be reduced to equal or stay below the debt ceiling. So the only way that Obama and his liberal cronies will default is if they out spend the revenues collected by an amount greater then what will fit under the debt ceiling.
In simple terms if you raise the debt ceiling its like being on a diet and your best friend invites you over for a giant hot fudge sundae. So if you planned/budgeted to have only 1000 calories a day like a annual budget if you eat that sundae and I am sure it will taste great, then you will break the debt/diet ceiling.
So when Obama and the liberals are forced to make a decision, the debt ceiling will help them to stay on a diet. Without the debt ceiling the liberals will try to outspend revenue by as much as possible. Please keep in mind the liberal politician like Weiner is not concerned with increasing the national debt. They really don’t care! If they give away enough favors while they are in office, they will be well rewarded when they retire. And in most cases, they will be exempt from all those evil taxes they have planned for you and the rich.
Think of it this way, every dollar that the politicians spend over budget or over revenue collected goes right into the national debt as a dollar owed. And the federal government needs to borrow money to pay for that dollar. And of course the interest alone on the dollar comes due each and every year.
So the debt ceiling says annually you liberals can’t outspend this ceiling. Remember it is not really outspent. It is more like overspend past what the revenues dictate.
Let’s say you want to buy a car. It will cost you $300 bucks a month. Your budget says you can spend comfortably $250 a month. If you buy that car, you are outspending your revenue. What you need to do is borrow more to artificially create cash to pay for the car, or you have to make more money.
So the liberals contrary to Bill Maher’s dopey interpretation are outspending the revenue and there is a limit on the amount they can borrow. It is called the debt ceiling. And obviously the community organizer Obama is too stupid to figure our how to create more jobs which would create more revenue for the liberal politicians to spend.
So its simple don’t ever raise the debt ceiling. The liberals must understand that the national debt has skyrocketed under their liberal programs since Jimmy Carter. If you raise the debt ceiling they will create even more debt. It is time that the liberal politicians learn that there is a limit to how much over-budget/revenue they can spend each and every year.
Unfortunately when you are not looking they will figure out a way to spend money in spite of the debt ceiling. I think it was called Obamacare.
Draw the line and hold fast. Let the liberals like Obama and Hillary try to break the glass ceiling! On Election Day we will teach them how to repair all the damage they caused!
*******
Hitting the ceiling
Obama on Public Debt March, 2006
Richard J. “Sarge” Garwood
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/38391
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.”
Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion top $8.6 trillion. That is “trillion” with a “T”. That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from the American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 Trillion.
Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: this year, the Federal Government will spend $220 Billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation and veterans’ benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal Budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities.” —Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006
This is a shot at a cheap column. I was surfing the net when I ran across this in an archive. It’s proven interesting for me because it’s so seldom I get my point proven by the individuals I try skewering the most often.
We’re facing an economic “crisis”. If you don’t believe it tune into any TV news program. Some economics major drop-out will be happy to let you know how the nation faces potential world-wide repercussions if we don’t raise the debt ceiling. Democrats want it raised. Republicans are ready to sacrifice principles in controversy with the Tea Parties demands to NOT raise the ceiling. All of this to assure the world suffers NO meltdown or a general inflicting of flat feet, falling arches, extreme hair loss or some other major problem like Congressman Boehner not getting enough Hawaiian Tropic Tanning Butter to grease the wheels of political action more efficiently.
So, when you read this tract above, you can be assured your Republican Representation is doing its best to keep us safe from financial dissolution and political dyspepsia. This hardball statement is crafted to get the point across and to assure the people the right people are thinking the right way to get the right thing done.
We should all genuflect now and say words of praise to the great Republican mind extolling the virtues and pro-forma understanding that raising the Debt Ceiling is an ill-advised idea and “a sign of leadership failure”. Who else could have made such a malevolent and caustic statement concerning the misdirection of American fiscal responsibility? Is it not a statement of financial irresponsibility to demand this Debt Ceiling not be raised?
I mean, really!
But wait a minute. This wasn’t written and/or issued by a Republican. It fell from the mellifluous, mellow, soothing and honeyed throat of our own ever-lovin’ President Barack Hussein Obama when he was merely Senator Barack Hussein Obama on March 16, 2006.
The questions arise: was it a lie then; or is it a lie now that he’s changed his tune.
Answer: It doesn’t matter. Self-serving bombast is nothing more than bombast. I use that word because you can’t say bulls**t in a family newspaper.
So go back to the questions and figure it out for yourself.
Thanks for Listening
*******
Obama on Debt Ceiling: 'The Public Isn’t Paying Close Attention'
By Eric Scheiner
July 11, 2011
http://nation.foxnews.com/budget-battle/2011/07/11/obama-debt-ceiling-public-isn-t-paying-close-attention
At a White House press conference today, President Barack Obama said that "professional politicians" understand the debt crisis better than "the public."
*******
*******
Obama was responding to a question from CBS News Reporter Chip Reid. "The latest CBS News poll showed that only 24 percent of Americans said that you should raise the debt limit to avoid an economic catastrophe," said Reid. "There's still 69 percent who oppose raising the debt limit. So, is it the problem that you and others have failed to convince the American people that we have a crisis here and how are you going to change that?"
*******