It’s Only Money, YOUR Money!

Posted: May 5, 2012 in Political

By R. C. Seely

A couple of weeks ago in my local newspaper there was an article about the National Debt, and in this article the author was referencing a book , Thirteen Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown. I have not read this book, I won’t lie, but if it does follow the article I feel doing so would be a waste of time.

It is the postulation of the author, that such recklessness is not as big an issue as the more parsimonious members of the media make it out to be. I’m going to have to call propaganda here people. I’m not a Republican and I challenge this claim as farcical at best, perilous and deceptive at worst.

First thing that raised concerns with me was that one of the book’s co-author, was the chief economist for the IMF. The article’s writer touts this up as a proof of credentials, for me it’s a red herring. That is an organization that has shown questionable judgment in their discretion of spending in the past themselves. That’s like letting in a burglar to protect your home, oh yes, he knows how to do it, but he has his bias, that has to rendered into the circumstances.

Secondly, there’s more than just the argument for fiscal sanity in this debate. Most choose to ignore that, but the more pressing contemplation here, is the ethical consideration. People are being forced to indorse policy by bureaucrats spending their money into programs they might find subversive or immoral. That’s not necessarily my feelings about the social programs, but others might, in their opinion feel supporting that specific agenda is wrong (my objections are if I know only a small demographic will utilize them, than I have no interest in supporting it financially). So what about all these wars and other policies by the past administration? Why did we have to support to Bush’s agendas? You would be right, in part at least, the last president did cross the line with some of his programs. No child left behind for example. As for the wars I’ll only give you a point on the questionable legality of it. As for the act itself, protection for our nation is not some pet project by a national administrator, but an act of self preservation. It’s one of the few times the government has a duty to step in. Besides, I don’t remember hearing all you anti-war demonstrators when you-know-who suggested invading Libya. Where were you then? This also discredit’s the entrepreneurs, in this country. It spreads the myth that the private market can’t fill the niches the loss of government intervention would leave. I contest there’s not an ounce of truth to that claim as well, if the field was essential to the economy the market will fill it and improve it even, if not it will die out.

The other moral consideration not taken up, is that some of (myself included this time) find it reprehensible, to borrow money from countries who don’t hold the same regard for human life, and civil rights as this nation does. The administration might not hold it’s people hostage ( all evidence concludes that that’s not the case, but that’s not my point), the country’s who we do owe might. You think their heads of state won’t come up with some very inventive way to punish us for leaving them with a worthless IOU. Besides when did we get to the point that it is acceptable to just cut and run on our debtors. When did we get to the point when our moral compass kept heading south?

As for the spending cuts proposed by the Democrats, if the authors referring to the president’s budget, these are cuts in name only. The cuts he’s suggesting cut about three trillion in ten years, while he’s going to INCREASE spending in the billions, now. Yeah, that kind of math makes sense. Ron Paul’s economic plan would call for an actual cut in spending and tax cuts and a change of the tax code. Even Mit Romney’s plan is better, than the president‘s. I’ll go even further and wager Newt Gingrich (imperialist though he is) probably has a better plan. The problem here is that the president supports this concept of, pseudo-social equality economics, and has surrounded himself with yes-men. Bottom line the only valid reason for tax increases is if it’s spent on getting the National Debt down something the president has no intention of doing. To say that the officials of the Democratic party don’t want to hold the American people hostage through the debt is one of the largest myths propagated. Go out and try to find a job right now, the economists might see the numbers, but they don’t see what it’s really like. You don’t have to have a degree to follow economic logic, or to see through political spin, and anyone who is saying the large scale of spending isn’t a problem, is either a fool or swindler. Want to buy a magic bean, anyone?

Check out the author of this article on You Tube at Americanus Libertae. Also look for the author’s book, T.V., Sex, and Violence, available at or check your local bookstores.


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 )

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