The National Debt, Our Elephant in the Room

The country Obama described last night is not the country we are living in. He said we have to be careful not to return to the policies of the past, which caused the housing bubble and the financial crisis, which is right—we can’t ‘return’ to those policies, because we never left them to begin with. The Fed has even lower interest rates than at the origin of the crisis, and the President asks for our permission to allow the hiring of MORE bureaucracy to ‘police’ the financial environment, so we will continue to implement the very policies the President is criticizing in his speech. Payroll tax cuts without cuts in spending do not benefit us, despite what any progressive spender may tout. Where will that money come from? It will be borrowed, as is all money we don’t have, which is spent on things that aren’t necessities, like war, and on a federal government bureaucracy that is in dire need of curtailing. We may be able to hold on to some extra money from our paychecks each week, but it will be worth even less, and that tax cut without any cuts in spending simply prolongs our enslavement to the Federal Reserve, which didn’t make it into his speech, just as our ever-growing national debt didn’t make it. Not talking about the elephant in the room does not mean it ceases to exist. It’s there, and it will be impossible to ignore for much longer if we do not address the problem. Our debt will be the end of us, and we must be willing to accept the fact that serious cuts need to be made on our country’s budget, and we must be willing to accept the fact that we must live within our means, rather than ignoring the issue and continuing to nurture our debt-financed prosperity. The only way to begin digging our way out of this debt is to adopt some much-needed frugality, and we will suffer for a while, perhaps more than we’ve suffered in a very long time, but it’s a more reasonable option than continue to spend both our dollar and our national sovereignty into oblivion. The collapse of the dollar promises chaos of proportions we dare not attempt to even conceive, and it is that chaos which those financiers lending us the funny money to go to war and to pay the bloated federal bureaucracy may well exploit to pitch their ‘solution’, an unchallenged world system of banking, free of regulations, and on their terms, and I, for one, am willing to do the impossible to avoid that from ever having any opportunity to rear its head.

J. González Solorio

7 thoughts on “The National Debt, Our Elephant in the Room

  1. Candidate Paul’s party is and has been the traditional party of anti-regulations when it comes to the stock market and banking. Again, candidate Paul is against capital gains taxes. This is more of the same, corporate business-friendly deregulation.

    How convenient to overlook a main point of Obama’s speech calling for the increase in taxes on the wealthiest. Want to make money? Try that.

    How convenient of the broken-record / Paul bots to willfully overlook and ignore the positives in the current president’s track record, and the efforts being made to make things right.

    “The only way to begin digging our way out of debt?” That’s preposterous. Again, tax the wealthiest. Debt is a necessary mechanism and a way of life in this country. People need to use debt spending for housing and the cars that we’re so dependent on.

    Want to become less dependent on cars? Promote improved public mass transit. Obama already demonstrated a commitment to the future of transit by funding in part LA Metro’s creation of the LAX / Crenshaw corridor, and the California High Speed Rail.

  2. Yes, Ron Paul is against all the government meddling, it’s that very meddling, lowering interest rates, which tricked people that should have never been buying homes into buying homes. The free market allows individuals to decide what holds value. We don’t need a meddling nanny state protecting us from ourselves, cradle to grave. Big government passes laws and regulations that will perpetuate its existence, it relies on people’s reliance on big government. It simply gives the hungry fish (bought on credit), but never teaches them to fish, so there will be a day when they do not need big government.

    It matters little what token actions the President takes when he refuses to cut spending. The entire system of operating on debt is ridiculous. People are burdened enough with their own debt, when purchasing cars or homes, they do not need a runaway government spending trillions on needless war and on a never-ending expanding federal government. Obama raising taxes for the rich without ever considering cuts in spending is the equivalent of a husband, whose household is deeply in debt due to a shopaholic wife, getting a raise at work, while his wife continues to spend like the is no tomorrow. There will be no progress made until her grave problem is addressed and treated.

    1. Not all credit spending is capricious now is it? It is also incorrect to generalize about all credit spending. This is a basic principal of finance. People will continue needing credit. As far as the realization of the wild libertarian dream of lawlessness and no government, good luck, no strike that… no chance.

      1. Regulate the companies that lower interest rates to lure buyers! There needs to be government to regulate that. And people would dare demonize Obama for giving people a chance to refinance their home instead of losing it? Outrageous.

  3. Who controls the interest rates to begin with? —The Fed, which is out of our control, at least as it has stood for decades, with a bought Congress that dare not even demand an audit. You trust the government to regulate itself? It’s like the authorities who were given the right to write their own search warrants with the Patriot Act (not saying Obama brought us the Patriot Act, so we don’t start on that argument). Government will not regulate itself, because it would stand to lose revenue, and stand to lose power.

    1. To me it seems like an oversimplification and a blurring of the line between commercial banks and government. Those who advocate for free market non regulation won’t want government telling commercial banks to set their interest rates. Commercial banks made up their own minds, enjoying the tenet of non regulation, overextended themselves, and yes, screwed up. Then the FDIC performed its function to back up people’s investments.

  4. …and I do believe debt is a part of life, but the level of debt, which has more than doubled during the three years Obama has been in office, is out of control, with requests to raise the debt ceiling coming all the time now. The country teeters on the edge when we reach the heights of debt we’ve reached, and that is a much greater risk to our national security than any threat the absurd, ambiguous facade we call the ‘war on terror’ is supposed to protect us from. The ‘war on terror’ is a terrorist act, on the people of the United States. No family operates on debts of this proportion, and no country can survive under those same conditions either.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s