Debt Ceiling Hooey

Conservative columnists are spilling a lot of ink concerning the "leverage" House Republicans have in the debt ceiling battle coming this February. It's all a load of hooey.

It's more likely House Speaker John Boehner and President Obama will hammer out a "grand bargain" that heaps trillions more debt on future generations of indentured state servants with a promise to cut, say, $1 trillion over the next two centuries, while spending hundreds of trillions within the same time-frame. What makes conservative pundits think the debt-ceiling result will differ from that of the fiscal cliff?

I'm quite sure Republican talk radio will herald the debt ceiling result, whatever it may be, as a triumph for the GOP, while Karl Rovian compassionate conservatives bleat that it is the best of achievable outcomes.

To say modern American conservatism is against the ropes is an understatement. Jonah Goldberg of National Review asks in a Commentary magazine article, "Will enough Americans remain committed, or at least open, to the bundle of principles that define modern American conservatism to sustain the movement and the Republican Party, which imperfectly carries its banner? My short answer is an equivocal yes."

Goldberg credits his equivocation to America's shifting "demographics" and the "changing nature of the economy." In other words, America's entitlement-addicted middle class, coupled with an army of unskilled illegal immigrants raising politically powerful generations dependent on government services from birth, create a center of political gravity nothing can escape. And that grip becomes tighter as government stimulus spending and the manipulation of monetary policy becomes the primary engine of the U.S. economy.

From Main Street and the poorest neighborhoods in East Los Angeles - to the boardrooms on Wall Street - government is the primary financial lifeline.

America's Founders designed a constitutional government restrained by "enumerated powers" to prevent the national government from ever attaining such authoritarian reach. Many congressional actions and Supreme Court rulings later, these restraints are no more.

Goldberg offers a powerful insight, "... What allows the Democrats to seem more libertarian isn't just cultural marketing, but a widespread acceptance of the idea that positive liberty is more important than negative liberty. The former, an idea near to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's heart, is that you can't be free unless the state gives you the material aid necessary to enjoy life to its fullest. This was the point of his 'economic bill of rights.' Negative liberty, an idea dear to the Founders, defines freedom as independence from government intrusion and meddling."

And with that, Goldberg confronts the insoluble problem confronting modern conservatism: Progressives shower "free" goodies on their constituents by rifling the incomes of successful Americans, while conservatives tinker with marginal tax rates so the successful may keep a little more of what they earn. In short, the debate is limited to money and stays within the bounds set by the Progressive tax system, which allows an all-powerful government to serve as final arbiter and banker. Both arguments are wrong. The reason? They are materialistic and not moral.

"Thou shalt not ..." precedes most of the Old Testament's Ten Commandments. These negative injunctions are moral laws intended to protect the individual from harming his fellow man. He is prevented not only from taking his neighbor's possessions, but from coveting them. He may not deprive his neighbor of life nor threaten his liberty by "bearing false witness against him."

If this sounds a bit familiar, that's because its variant is found in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration on behalf of the individual's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Freedom is not an economic right, but the moral right of Americans to "assume among the powers of the Earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them."

Only after Jefferson declares on behalf of moral order does he define legitimate government: "... that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The immoral Progressive system has robbed America of much more than money. It's robbed us of our freedom by centralizing power in Washington. A free people cannot "consent" to be governed when, as Jonah Goldberg observed, "... You can't be free unless the state gives you the material aid necessary to enjoy life to its fullest." And when in all of human history has government achieved that end? Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cuba ... Greece?

If conservatism is to survive as an idea, it needs to abandon the Progressive-Lite nonsense of "compassionate conservatism." That turn of phrase was invented to legitimize the immoral strain running through the GOP's Progressive establishment.

The Revolution of 1776 was not economic but moral. Defeating materialistic Progressives with materialistic arguments is a complete waste of time. The fight is not between Right and Left ... it's between Right and Wrong. And the Wrong has the nation's financial resources at its authoritarian command ... until, like Greece, it has spent it all.

They also said that Republicans had a lot of “leverage” in the fiscal cliff debate. That didn’t work out. Right now, I believe the GOP will surrender on the debt ceiling too. I don’t have much faith in our side. They are scared to death of the media.

It's more likely House Speaker John Boehner and President Obama will hammer out a "grand bargain" that heaps trillions more debt on future generations of indentured state servants

If they were actually borrowing the money, then this statement would be true. However, this is not the case. Instead of borrowing money, they are simply expanding the money supply. So instead of heaping debt on future generations, they are simply stealing value from current generations.

The next time you go to the grocery store, take a good look at what sits in your shopping cart. If you spent the same as you spent this time four years ago, then you will have only two-thirds the groceries you were able to purchase then. And where did the other one-third of your groceries go? They ended up in the carts of all those people with EBT cards. One third of your grocery money has been stolen from you and given to others in exchange for political power. This isn't about future generations. We are getting ripped off right now.

Instead of borrowing money, they are simply expanding the money supply

So why has our national debt increased by $6 trillion since Obama took office? Why are we paying debt servicing costs of about $200 billion a year?

Most of the $6 trillion we have 'borrowed' since Obama took office is new money that has been issued by the Fed. We supposedly now owe this money to the Fed at an interest rate that is virtually zero. When it comes time to pay it back, the Treasury will supposedly turn that money back over to the Fed (i.e. take that money out of circulation) which effectively means that the money will be destroyed.

Of course you know and I know that the government would not dare destroy money that it has when it could spend it instead, so that money will never be paid back. Seriously, what's going to happen? The Fed is going to demand their money back? What for? They can simply print up more.

As for your $200 billion, that is money that is needed to retire existing debt that becomes due each year. This is money that is owed to bond holders who actually do want their money back - primarily foreign investors. Right now, the government handles these repayments by telling the Fed to issue more money. So the Fed adds more money to the money supply, and the government is the first to get their hands on it.

This should explain it better: Quantitative Easing Explained

Instead of borrowing money, they are simply expanding the money supply. So instead of heaping debt on future generations, they are simply stealing value from current generations.

Actually they are both borrowing and inflating the currency. But you are wrong that it's stealing from the future gnerations. They will simply refuse to pay it. So it's stealing from the fools who buy US Teasury junk bonds, and from everyone in for form of devalued money.

In order to stop government it is important to show, via TV advertising, where it does not work PROPERLY. Start with rules for spotted Owl, the forest industry lost 90,000 jobs but there are fewer owls today. Next go to car mileage, cars get better milage, the cost of repairs for a minor accident is twice the cost of gasoline savings and more people DIE from cars today than 20 years ago. Now try electric lights - the old one was cheap and worked, it was easy to throw out when finished. The new ones are expensive, and a health hazard.

This is three from me - I bet if we start a chain we can list many hundreds of "bad ideas" that cost us because government gets it wrong ....try some things for schools!

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.