Posted on 09/02/2011 9:00:02 AM PDT by Graewoulf
Noted unprofessional economist, Paul Harvey once said, " WHEN YOUR OUTGO EXCEEDS YOUR INCOME, YOUR UPKEEP WILL BE YOUR DOWNFALL. " That was fine back in the day before we had credit cards, but now we know that " Change [ read: Keynesianism ] has come to America. " At least that is what Professor You Lie said back in January, 2009.
Well, here we are in September, 2011 and 4,000 billion dollars poorer, and still the basic question remains: Are we better off poor and freed from being "To Big to Fail" like those bad old private companies we DID "help" in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 ?
Or, would the idea of living within our income have put America in the very dangerous position of becoming " To Big To Fail " like those bad old private companies that we DID NOT "help" in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 ?
Of course, at least one of these questions are impossible to answer since it falls into the " couldah-wouldah-shouldah " category. However, we can learn from history: " Those who cannot learn from the lessons of History are doomed to repeat them. " ( President Harry Truman )
So, for the sake of our Grandchildren's financial future, should we gleefully increase our National Debt Ceiling, or just live within our means?
How you answer may determine the key to the dreaded " To Big To Fail " smokescreen.
The debt ceiling is not the problem. Our nation has to pay our debts. The problem is running up the debts in the first place.
Ah, but doesn’t one encourage the other?
I don't think so. Most severely irresponsible individuals would love to be able to repudiate their debt.
Good point, and we have lots of them in the District of Corruption.
I thought your first point , “( - - The debt ceiling is not the problem. - - - ), was interesting because both Reagan and 43 said “ Deficits don’t matter. “
A lot of debt-creators helped to dig this VALLEY OF DEBT, so I gotta give credit where credit is due!
” ( - - - Sorry for the reference to drunken sailors - - - ) “
No problem. Some of my best friends were drunken sailors.
I got a chuckle out of the L.I.E. Media claiming that the handling of the debt ceiling discussion was the “problem.”
Handle it anyway you want, just cut the dollar baseline of SPENDING my Grandchildren’s money !
To answer your question, there's two competing versions of America we're trying to finance. Free America and Fair America.
Free America wants businesses big and small to employ people, invent things, provide services, and allow free men and women to provide for themselves and live independently and interdependently. Everyone is able to live free, to succeed or fail on their own merits, and to compete for a better tomorrow for themselves and their families.
Fair America believes that behind any great fortune lies a great crime, and that the pillars of American greatness are built on theft, oppression and injustice . Their solution to this is by redistributing the wealth from those who don't deserve it to the multitudes who were wronged, in accordance with an altruistic central authority that rewards virtue and punishes vice.
The problem is this: You're really talking about two different countries, with different cultures, hopes and aspirations, occupying the same real estate, and functioning through the same government.
These competing systems are at odds over the desired outcomes, to say nothing of the methods used.
The 'Unlimited national debt burden' is desired by Fair America, because any tool that serves the redistribution of wealth in a civicly and environmentally virtuous way is not only valid, but mandatory. It would be a sin for them not to keep spending until their goals are reached.
Free America is more like a garden that needs to be tended now and then, but otherwise doesn't need much tinkering. It grows on its own, in the proper conditions. It also can be stifled, crushed or torn up in the wrong conditions.
That's where we're at now. Fair America wants to cover the garden from sunlight, divert the water, and pave the ground. Free America wants to grow free and natural, with the occasional diligent pruning, weeding and watering.
You can only make allowances for each other for so long before it becomes clear that there's not enough room, physically or monetarily, for the both of us.
It helps Hussein move America closer to third world status.
Does that put us in the not to big to fail camp?
Very, VERY, well said!
I think Americans are coming to terms with this reality.
A lot of us knew it was coming but no alarm bells were set off by our government — not that you’d notice. No one wants to be the bearer of bad news.
Now that we know how dire it is, we are beating down their congressional office doors, emailing their offices, phoning their offices, marching outside of their palace — I think there will be — “living within our budget” tremors felt all across the country (states balance their budgets — well CA thinks they’re a country) and we will turn this around.
” ( - - - No one wants to be the bearer of bad news. - - - ) “
Unless it is their job to do so.
Don’t we elect and pay these people to be our eyes and ears and then alert us to impending financial danger?
If this is not the case then why do we need ANY regulators?
“The debt ceiling is not the problem. Our nation has to pay our debts”
Why do these sentences run together like this? I can’t tell what you’re saying.
“I don’t think so. Most severely irresponsible individuals would love to be able to repudiate their debt”
Again, I have trouble figuring what you mean. Raising the debt ceiling does not mean repudiating your debt, but it at least means deferring it. You seem to imply there’s some connection between raising the debt ceiling and paying off the debt, which there isn’t.
Grammar aside, ( remember FR is in a lot of time zones ), what do you think of the questions in the article?
This “Fair” America is a sham — a free America deals with fairness problems quite well on its own, but without a gummit micromanager.
Better a little austerity now than a crushing implosion later. It is not a foregone conclusion that government has to be all things to all people. It is, in fact, insanity. The debt cap issue is only a matter of side effects.
Note to self: make notes.
You are correct , the “Fairness Doctrine” was invented by Dick Gephardt to protect Slick Willy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.