The Devious
Manipulation of the Budget Debate
Obama's
national debt rate on track to double ... President Obama likes to say that
raising the nation's borrowing limit "won't add a dime" to the
federal debt, but he neglects to mention that the government already has
borrowed the equivalent of more than 60 trillion dimes since he took office. When Mr.
Obama became president in January 2009, the
total federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion. This week, it hit $16.7 trillion —
an increase of 57 percent. In the same time frame under President
George W. Bush, total federal debt rose 38 percent. Under President Clinton, it
rose 32 percent. – Washington Times
The
budget debate is a huge watershed in US history. The fate of a nation is being
decided.
We can see
from this article in the Washington
Times, excerpted above, just how scripted the current budget debate
really is. The federal debt is out of
control; the argument over the government shutdown surely avoids the larger
issues.
Republicans
have made a step toward resolving the impasse as of this writing. It may be
greeted as a "victory" for President Barack Obama, but as we pointed
out yesterday in an article about the budget, the trends that generated the
impasse are neither ephemeral nor unserious.
The
Tea Party movement in the United States is much more than any specific or
organized event. It springs up from the psyche of the US culture.
Its spoken and unspoken certainties are the peculiar product of US history. It
is the result of what we like to call the Internet Reformation and it is being
played out in different ways in other countries, as well.
That
the GOP attempted to co-opt it and its "members" has little do with
its ultimate reality. It is real. And it was unanticipated, as best we can
tell. It is a harbinger of a further cultural unraveling that makes the future
direction of the US uncertain, to say the least.
It likely wasn't supposed to be this way. The power
elite with its increasingly powerful banking base has spent about 300 years trying
to globalize money control and power. The modern efforts, from what we can
tell, really took off about 100 years
ago with the creation of the Federal Reserve.
Of course,
it was the Civil War and the resolution in favor of the federal government as
to whether or not states could secede that set the modern process in
motion. Once this was decided, further
centralization proceeded inevitably. The federal government got bigger
and bigger, and corporations were
bestowed a corporate shield which generated today's mercantilist environment.
Buoyed by the ability to print endless
amounts of money-from-nothing, the US government and those who stood behind it
began to spread federal authority throughout the land and eventually throughout
the world. Wars were launched and control was consolidated. History was
rewritten. Education was modified; science was controlled; dominant social
themes were launched to control minds and lives.
It is this
scenario within which the current debate must be analyzed. Of course, there is
no doubt that the US is indeed facing a crisis. The Washington Times story makes this quite clear, as follows:
The
administration says the government will run out of authority to pay its bills
by Oct. 17 unless Congress raises the debt limit again to allow more borrowing.
The president portrays the move as one of simple responsibility. "It does
not increase our debt," Mr. Obama said. "It does not grow our
deficits. All it does is allow the Treasury Department to pay for what Congress
has already spent." The president
rarely mentions that he, by law, approves congressional spending, and his
argument glosses over the nation's burgeoning total debt. "It's certainly
not the whole story," said Alex Brill, a budget specialist at the American
Enterprise Institute. "We've seen a dramatic increase in the debt held by
the public in the last four or five years, and it's projected to only get
worse."
On Oct. 4, the debt held by the public
— not including Social Security and Medicare — had risen 89.3 percent since Mr.
Obama took office, according to FactCheck.org, a nonprofit project of the
Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The administration recently projected an annual deficit of $750
billion in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 and $626 billion the year after
that.
In the increasingly contentious showdown with Congress, Mr. Obama also
is fond of pointing out that budget deficits — the annual red ink that
contributes to the total debt — have been falling at the fastest pace in 60
years. That's true largely because spending rose dramatically in his first term
as the administration tried to blunt the impact of the Great Recession.
Although a "grand bargain" on spending and entitlements
eluded the president and congressional Republicans in 2011, Mr. Brill said, it
is the kind of approach still needed to get the debt under control. "It's
logical and appropriate what we're hearing from many Republicans that we need
to not only deal with the debt limit itself but we need to deal with the
underlying cause of this pressure to increase the debt," he said.
"That means we need to deal with entitlements."
It's nice to
speculate about getting the "debt" under control, but anyone who
wants to examine the reality of the West's slide toward insolvency (and that
includes the US) has to conclude that these are, in a sense, managed policies. Consider
that a free people are independent of the government and likely want to stay
that way. The South fought a war over it. To take a free people and subjugate
them is a difficult task and one that does not occur all at once. It is the
product of considerable planning and effort.
Today in the
US there are 40 million people on food stamps and tens of millions
taking advantage of other government programs including Medicare, Medicaid
and soon, Obamacare. The actual obligations of the US government are something
like US$200 trillion, all told. If the US is to get out of debt, it will have
to inflate, but even that promises considerable insolvency.
Under Bill
Clinton, the US enjoyed a more secure financial situation. It was George Bush
who destabilized US finances once again with ambitious social programs and then
with war. Surely, for anyone studying
the situation closely, it will soon become clear that the US is not in the
position it is in by happenstance.
There
is a force for globalism in this world, and it is this group, a variety of
internationalists from all fields, that has worked steadily to undermine
sovereignty and solvency both in Europe and the US. In the EU, we can see the
results of this undermining. Austerity is merely an excuse to further blur the
boundaries between nation-states and Brussels. The top have bluntly said as
much.
Let the US
resolve its current debt crisis and this process shall take place in North
America, too. Which brings us to the issue of the North American Union... There
is a reason why immigration has suddenly re-emerged as a significant issue. The
strategy is apparently one that involves a pincer: As the US's economy erodes,
so will its borders. The plan, from
what we can see, is to gradually draw Mexico and Canada closer to the US before
declaring a formal union.
For
investors, this brings up certain considerations. First of all, the economy and
stock market will probably go up again, participating in one last
"party" before a further collapse. And the collapse itself shall
perhaps bring on a number of changes, including a more forceful EU and the
possibility of a viable North American Union. Multinational corporations spanning all three countries will doubtless
reap the rewards of pan nationalism.
I'm not a
fan of this, mind you, but spend time reading the "tea leaves." The US's current condition is likely part of
a larger series of maneuvers and each one fits together within the other if one
analyzes the entire trend from a globalist perspective.
What makes
this scenario problematic, if anything, is what I wrote about yesterday
regarding the rise of the Tea Party and the persistence of the Internet
Reformation. Globalist plans are not
so difficult to recognize these days and generally, once people understand,
they resist manipulation.
Whether the
Union that is being contemplated apparently by the top North American elite
proves viable will depend a great deal
on the outcome of the educative process provided by the Internet and the
catastrophes manufactured by international elites.
No comments:
Post a Comment