Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
You are a debt don’t matter guy, right? Pretty hard to support this administration and play the debt card. Or is all the debt the fault of Democrats and those immigrants?
|
No, I am not a debt don't matter guy. Not sure how you can know what I am if you don't read my posts or watch my videos. I am a Congress-is-responsible-for-the-debt guy. But more so, I'm a Federal-Government-is-constitutionally-limited guy.
There is no possibility that Congress will eliminate the national debt, nor keep it within reason, so long as Progressive policies, regulations, and programs remain in place, and are continuously added to. And I don't attach Progressivism only to Democrats. Republicans have created their own share of Progressive policy. The first Progressive President was a Republican. And there have followed others who were mostly or partially (enough to do the damage) Progressive. And just as bad, if not worse, SCOTUS has "interpreted" the Constitution out of its limited Federal Government shell and not held in check, as is its duty, the unconstitutional Progressivism which has been the driving force behind unhampered government spending.
I don't think you want to discuss any of that. From a lot of your writing, it is apparent that you favor a barely limited, if at all, central government to control much of the core civil functions including health care, welfare, the economy, and control most of all the essential individual responsibilities which can affect those broader issues, which ultimately can be Progressively interpreted to encompass every aspect of our lives.
At any rate, the steadily and constantly expanding needs of the people that progressives manufacture every election cycle, and which they claim the Federal Government must provide, regulate, and pay for, as well as the miraculous expansion of the current ones which never, somehow, actually ever get fixed but constantly, somehow, get worse, all require more programs, regulations, and to be paid for.
Now, a careful reading of the Constitution would reveal that it does not delegate any actual power to the Federal Government to create these programs. And if the Constitution were followed, they wouldn't do so and would not have done so. Which would mean that the major part of the Federal government spending would be, and would have been, eliminated. Which would mean that the debt would be minimal, if at all.
I think that it's the Progressive, socialistic, Marxist, Communist (they are varying degrees of the same thing) approach to governing that is the type which is not concerned with the notion of government debt. That approach does not limit how much money the government owns. It creates as much as it needs. It believes that, in reality, it controls (or should) pretty much everything and that it owns the money it prints and much (if not ultimately most) of what individuals think is theirs, ergo all transactions are under its sanctions, so the money it borrows is its own and the debt is to itself--the central banks being part of the scheme and profiting mightily. And if borrowed from another country, it can pay it back in the same way it pays itself ("borrow it" from itself). It never really even pays itself since, in our case, it never pays down the principle, just pays what interest is owed per month. And who gets to keep those interest payments, why the central banks, the Federal Reserve, who are part of the scheme.
We are assured, by the currently still expanding Progressive governance, that, no, the government truly is limited, is within constitutional bounds. And most want to believe that and are willingly persuaded by "reports" of Court opinions and decisions that they are come by proper constitutional "interpretation." Honest study and honest scholars know that is not true. But better, given where we have come (and where they want to take us), to let the fiction be "true."
The actual, true, trajectory is fully unlimited government power. And we're going to get there either by the ultimate financial crisis in which the government will have to grab total power in order to prevent catastrophe, or by the actual catastrophe which will have, per force, the same resolution. Creeping unsustainable debt may be the ultimate, peaceful, way to unlimited government.
That is, so long as there is not a revolution. Successful gun control can help prevent that. And an ever evolving socialization process in which each new generation accepts the government it has as how it should be will make the transition easier. And that evolution has already developed to the point where the existing younger generations no longer even have an attachment to the founding constitutional system of government. And they are losing any faith or belief in free market capitalism. Socialism has lost its stigma for them. It is even preferred by more and more of them. And, after all, if the Federal government didn't create and pay for all those presumably necessary programs, what would happen to the people. The states surely could not provide them. (Yeah they and their people, if free to do so, could provide better for themselves what is suited to their needs and in differing ways which create workable models or models to avoid.)
What does that all portend for the notion of an unsustainable national debt? I don't think the new generations, if this continues, will care about such a thing. They didn't create it. They won't want to squander what ever resources they have left to pay them off. They will be perfectly satisfied that the debt will simply be erased, and that the musty old institutions that are owed the money can just fold up shop and join them in the new world of benevolent government which will provide the structure for what society needs to be done and employ everyone, all paid relatively equally by government fiat money if money will still be used, in that endeavor.