How Do You Solve a Problem like the National Debt?
Something has to be done.
This is something.
Therefore, this has to be done.
Could the “debt crisis” be at least postponed? Apparently so:
According to The Bipartisan Policy Center, the Treasury will take in $172.4 billion in revenue next month. It only is obligated to pay $29 billion in interest on the debt. The Treasury also has to honor hundreds of billion in maturing securities. But for every security it pays off, the total debt the Treasury owes is reduced by an equal amount. So Treasury can borrow that money right back.
Meanwhile, the government has hundreds of billions in other assets. The U.S. owns $370 billion in gold. That would be more than enough money to cover all of the federal government’s scheduled $306.7 August spending. Geithner has refused to sell any of these assets. He told Congress that any sale of U.S. assets “would be damaging to financial markets and the economy and would undermine confidence in the United States.”
As damaging as not making interest payments on the debt?
Half-fast (or something like that) arguments have been offered that the president can just go ahead and pay the national debt unilaterally when and as due — without causing Geithner to have a conniption fit — because the Fourteenth Amendment gives him that power. Arguments have been advanced here to counter them.
Left-wing pundits like Keith Olbermann (Current TV), Lawrence O’Donnell (MSNBC), and Katrina vanden Heuvel (Washington Post) practically drool at the recent claim that President Obama can unilaterally declare the debt-ceiling law unconstitutional, break off negotiations with Republicans, and order the Treasury secretary to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars without consulting Congress.
O’Donnell revels in the Eureka! moment as he realizes Obama doesn’t need to negotiate with stubborn Republicans, he can just dictate terms thanks to this “nuclear option.” Vanden Heuvel thinks the president should threaten to deploy it ASAP, “as a last resort,” to save those who have become dependent upon government for their comfort and care.
Claims that the Fourteenth Amendment authorizes the executive branch to ignore the debt limit are not only specious, they are ludicrous. They are reminiscent of the famous biblical quotation whimsically said to demand fratricide: “Cain slew Abel . . . . Go thou and do likewise.”
The Fourteenth Amendment directive does permit the executive to do that if you read it upside down in dim light through a fog of silliness. Even then, it permits it only upon the passage by the Congress of appropriate legislation. The amendment provides, in relevant part,
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. (emphasis added)
The Fourteenth Amendment vests authority in the Congress, by appropriate legislation, not the president unilaterally, to enforce its provisions. Nor can such legislation be effective if vetoed by the president unless the Congress overrides his veto, just as the executive has no constitutional authority to enforce it without legislation. Hence, the provisions of Article I respecting the powers of the Congress are not affected, including these:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; . . . (emphasis added)
Although the Fourteenth Amendment is not inconsistent with, and therefore does not displace, Article I, it does displace all inconsistent provisions of the original Constitution as well as all inconsistent amendments ratified before it was. Any amendment ratified subsequently to the Fourteenth, to the extent inconsistent with it, displaces the Fourteenth. Statutes also displace previously enacted federal laws inconsistent with them, but not (of course!) provisions in the Constitution which, as many still recognize, is the supreme law of the land.
As an experiment in reductio ad absurdum, consider whether the Fourteenth Amendment to some extent eliminates the First Amendment provision guaranteeing freedom of speech. Why not?
listen to sarah
The problem we’re dealing with is two fold. First, folks can’t seem to understand the difference between “deficit” and “debt”. Second, Liberals refuse to draw a distinction between “debt” and “expense”.
I just read a story about the administration saying that if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, they would not have money for Pell grants! Grants! Democrats lump Pell grants in with debt!
We need to eliminate deficits, not cut them. We need to pay off debt, not “pay a credit card with a credit card”. We need to cut expenses, like Pell grants. Oh, but education is the golden ticket? Yeah, tell that to the 1 in 5 recent grads who can’t find a job and the others who can’t find work in their field of study!
Yes, they want to pay interest by borrowing more. It is pretty amazing to listen to. So if they can’t even balance the budget, when are they going to actually reduce the debt? Do they really expect it to be easier when the debt is even bigger and the cuts have to be even deeper.
Unfortunately we all know how this is going to end. The gutless republicans will fold and they will cut a deal where the debt will grow a little slower.
The only way Congress will stop the excessive spending is by the people forcing them to with a balanced budget amendment. Congress & the Pres will put a Band-Aid on the debt ceiling to get us through 2011, and perhaps 2012, but the spending will continue until the people rise up and say “Enough!” and pass a balanced budget amendment.
“Spending other people’s money is to a politician like heroin is to a drug addict.”
Can’t drown gubbermint in a bathtub if you turn off the water at the street
Cut the size and scope, and reach of government. Here is a tiny portion of the size of the big bloated bureaucracy of government. I think Reagan said once the closest thing to enteral life is a government program. He nailed, and we see it! Just think of all their golden parachute benefits they receive as well!
•Administration for Children and Families (ACF) •Administrative Committee of the Federal Register •Administrative Conference of the United States•African Development Foundation •Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry •Agricultural Marketing Service •Agricultural Research Service •AMTRAK (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) •Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service •Appalachian Regional Commission•Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) •Arctic Research Commission •Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee •Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation •Bonneville Power Administration •Botanic Garden administration •Broadcasting Board of Governors (Voice of America, Radio|TV Marti and more) •Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (DHS) •Bureau of Industry and Security (formerly the Bureau of Export Administration) •Bureau of International Labor Affairs•Capitol Visitor Center •Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration)•Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion• Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board•Chief Information Officers Council •Cities, Counties, and Towns in the United States •Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee•Commission of Fine Arts •Commission on International Religious Freedom •Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission)
outstanding list
All you have to do is pass a law that mandates a reduction in spending by each department; a minimum of 5% (every year). Anything saved above the 5% will be split with employees as pay raises(saved 9% so current employees get a 2% raise) . Any year it’s not achieved you reduce their budget by the % they came up short and no raises…
Think about it; the greed to REDUCE their own budget as to profit personally would be a huge incentive
The bad news; some departments would have fewer employees with huge salaries.
————————————————————————-
How it works now in the military: at the end of each fiscal years F16s go up and dump fuel at altitudes where it vaporizes. This allows the base commander to request a larger budget for the upcoming year. Ask any former military pilot
OUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
Sir, your ignorance of military budgets is staggering. Firstly, I do have to agree that the tendency is that if you don’t spend what you got last year, the unit may get less this year. On that we can agree. But going up to altitude to “dump fuel” is a foolish assumption on your part. I managed a mere one million dollar budget for two years in the USAF and every expense and needed item had to be meticulously accounted for. There often had to be justification letters when an unusual request was made. Even though the money “belonged” to the unit, the chain of command had to be involved. And for the record, the F-16 cannot dump fuel. But to suggest that the military arbitrarily does such things with a “wink and a nod” is proof that you have no experience in the military. Commanders, be they good or bad, are all acutely aware of where the money comes from and take care to not waste it. I am no fan of the USAF…but I served for eleven years and although you can say there are a lot of things wrong with it, how they spend money isn’t really one of them.
The Democrats are proceeding from the same logic on the debt that they did on ObamaCare; every Dem I talk to justifies the healthcare bill by saying something along the lines of, “Well, something needed to be done … it’s not a perfect bill, but it’s better than nothing.” I don’t understand how you can justify spending that kind of money, and making those kinds of changes, on “well, it’s better than nothing.”
Those kinds of rationalizations are the province of teenagers and 5 year olds – not adults who should know better.
We expect better from our leaders than this, and we demand that our voices and opinions be heard and considered. Almost every poll shows the American people want our nation’s debt resolved sooner rather than later. That won’t be done by raising taxes, but by cutting the budget and reducing the size of government. Democrats can use every trick in the book, and phrase it any way they want … but the voters understand what’s at stake here.
And if we have to change administrations in order to express our will, as I suspect is necessary, that will happen.
Dems seem to think that, as long as they do whatever it takes to stay in power – even if those tactics risk the health and safety of the Republic – then it’s OK. They’re wrong, and November 2010 was a strong reminder of that.
We need Cut, Cap, and Balance as a way out of this mess – and the Republicans are the only ones who understand that. Whether they have the intestinal fortitude to make it happen, is another question. Most of the people who do, are in the Tea Party … or are Tea Party candidates.
Are you listening, Obama? Are you paying attention?
NWBILL – Next time a lib says anything positive about Obamascare: Why do you have to mandate change on the entire industry to cover the 22% not covered ? (many of those by choice)
Could have just billed the 22% not covered and for those who could not pay add a premium to all insurance companies. Its nothing more than an excuse to takeover the biggest industry in corporate america. Will change Hospitals-Doctors-Nurses-Outpatient care -Drug Stores-Pharmaceutical and ALL Medical Sales.
See how the libs feel after standing in line at the DMV to apply for Govt. coverage
Im paying my MD $1,000 per year as he’s limiting his practice and not taking anymore new medicare/medicade patients. My employer has warned us about cutting coverage or higher premiums
“There are enough assets in Social Security and Medicare to pay the benefits of those programs for several years.”–DeMint
Are there?
Perhaps the senator would like to give us a list of exactly what these “assets” are.
It’s jam of course, as in “jam tomorrow”
The “assets” are IOUs Congress has been putting in there so they could take out the actual cash to spend it on other things, like Washington76′s list.
We solve this problem by cutting the budget. Period. And we cut below the zero deficit point and apply the real savings to the debt. There is no other way until we get manufacturing and jobs back. Any argument to the contrary is nonsence.
Pick a number of federal employees that matches back to when the budget was balanced. That is the new maximum of federal employees. Next, determine if entire departments must be eliminated or just portions. Next you pick your battles. Having our military in every continent is crazy. And keep working the list in this way.
Any decent project manager or engineer can solve this problem. Either we take these necessary steps or wait for the economy to crash and then starve to death.
You knew with all these weeks of endless yakkity yak the current standoff (we now have government by standoff) was going to come down to Obama demanding tax increases versus Republican refusal to raise taxes in a recession. (Obama himself said in 2009 that raising taxes in a recession was “the last thing you want to do” but he also voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2007 as a Senator, so what can you say ?)
After his version of government got skunked in November 2010, he had to cave to Congress on extending the Bush tax rates. But that Chicago style guy isn’t gonna budge again, no way josé.
It’s hard to have sympathy for the tax aspirations (“it’s time to eat your peas”) of an individual who has literally wasted trillions in taxpayer money in 2 1/2 years.
For the guy who has wasted billions traveling about the planet at taxpayer expense, including of late nearly nonstop fund-raising junkets to shake campaign cash out of remaining supporters.
A guy who has appointed himself overseer of when you’ve made “enough”, his judgment extended today to “best selling authors” who, apparently, owe that tax and spend junkie a bigger chunk of their profits.
I knew he would do this. I knew he would spend like crazy, and then finally when the heat was really getting loud, he would all of a sudden talk about doing something about the debt. Like he ever cared.
The problem is the static modeling used. I don’t know if it’s willful or not, but static models inherently encode liberal – and wrong – assumptions.
By failing to account for responses to changes in the tax rate, it overstates the ability for tax increases to enhance revenues since it ignores incremental incentives to avoid taxes, or the potential for increased prosperity to offset or overshadow what was lost in the rates.
It also fails to capture prosperity increases that may occur through diminished regulation, as barriers to the formation and activity of business are pared down.
Finally, it assumes that longer-term cuts will be maintained. This is ignorant of political reality, and are used to present the fool’s gold of future austerity as equal to more immediate cuts. This illusion needs to be shattered; when has Congress kept a promise to reduce future spending, or decided against renewing some expensive program without replacing it with something even more expensive and broken?
We also need to recapture the debate as it regards cuts. While entitlements need to be cut, there is not a 1:1 translation from cuts to what is provided. Even more importantly, there is not a 1:1 translation from cuts to other areas to the level of service provided; elimination of waste, and using restricted budgets to learn how to do more with less mean that the cuts will be far less significant than advertised to anyone not currently on a government payroll.
Sarah Palin’s writing on Facebook was masterful.
The Sugar Daddy Has Run Out of Sugar
Don’t worry. There’s plenty of money for everything important.
That should be more than enough to pull us out of a
recessiondepression.Somehow, I’m reminded that if we weren’t all crazy we’d all go insane. Three cheers for insanity! And, of course, for Fruitcakes. Sometimes, when I think I’m uniquely nuts, I listen to Jimmy Buffett and am reassured that it’s endemic.
Wrote a note said I’d be back in a minute,
Bought a boat and I sailed off in it,
Don’t think anyody gonna miss me anyway.
Mind on a permanent vacation
The ocean is my only medication
Wishing my condition ain’t ever gonna go away.
Zac Brown Band, Knee Deep.
Whew! I was getting concerned there for a while … I was hoping that my tax dollars were being used by CIA to conduct and collect intelligence for my nation’s defense; but my fears are allayed because instead they are supporting gay advocacy in the military.
Now I can sleep better at night, knowing that the lifestyles of some of the members of the military created to protect me are having their “issues” “advocated.”
Joy, joy, happy joy.
“but the solution is neither to provide a free chicken in every pot nor even free pot in every chick.”
no wonder.. since the ‘American Dream’ is a communist ideal..
hmmm.. I remember Greenspan being fearful because America was going surplus during the Bush years.. anyone else remember that moment?
One way to help solve the debt problem is to put the entire budget of the United States on line for every department, office, organization, and unit down to the paper clip with exceptions only for national security. One problem is that We the People have no idea how our money is being spent. All we know, for example is that the Dept of Education has a 20 billion dollar budget with no idea where all that money goes. If it were on line not only would many of us be outraged at how our money is being wasted but We the People could find the savings that the politicians refuse to.
How many acres of supercomputers does it take to account the national debt? That number on the debt clock, which we all have watched, has tended to try to convice me, that there is a running total of every dollar. Can the all wise CBO actually be up to the second on every layer of every accumulation of every promissory note? Watching the fed at work for many years, I would guess that there is also an obfuscation factor built into the system as well as slush factors and hidden costs. Perhaps the reason that the fed wants a blank check is that they do not know or want us to know how bad it is.
The count at usdebtclock.org is a linear interpolation of data points. It isn’t real- just an approximation based on monthly data. The actual count is on the Treasury Department’s website, and truthfully, it doesn’t take a supercomputer to calculate the total. A single computer with a reasonable amount of memory can tally it up daily without any trouble.
Our country has turned so far left that even many Pubs are scootching to the left.
This is frightening on so many levels.
Did anyone call people a racist for saying “Jimmeh Carteh” was a POS failure? Nope. And, yet, every chance the Lefties have, they excoriate people with the “RACIST” crap and not only take away the true meaning of racism and make it useless, but, they take away ANY serious critique of the mulatto prezzydent because they are so afraid he might just be the biggest buffoon ever elected.
Oh my. *CRY*
This article is rather curious to me, a liberal climb’d down from the Democratic tree. Should not the author be celebrating the approaching breech of the debt ceiling? Was it not the purpose of those newly elected conservative congressmen to bring down the Obama administration? You have made the case again and again for a smaller, more limited government, and now it appears it may come to pass. If the debt ceiling is not raised, the government will only have enough revenue to fund approximately 55% of it’s outstanding obligations. As long as the debt ceiling remains at it’s current level, the federal government will be forced to shrink (and it will have to keep getting as more money is committed to paying rising interest rates). This is what you have asked for, is it not? Why are not you more excited? The economy will be terrible, and Obama will not win reelection. Should you not be celebrating? Dancing in the streets?
Should you not be celebrating? Dancing in the streets?
I shall do that when President Obama loses and we win in 2012. Until then, it’s premature. In the meantime, I’ll do the only things I can do, vote for the best conservative who can be elected and just continue writing.
I’m there with you, Mr. M … shoulder to shoulder. Speaking of shoulders, I slightly injured mine collapsing at the watching of President Obama’s press conference this morning. Not to worry, though … that’s happened a lot lo these past couple of years, and the docs tell me I’ve kinda developed what they call “musculus Obamatitis.”
Should be fine in a day or two … and heal up completely on January 20th, 2013 … when President Bachmann takes the Oath.
“breech of the debt ceiling”
Perhaps you meant breach of the debt ceiling, not an infant coming out of the womb wrong end first.
“Was it not the purpose of those newly elected conservative congressmen to bring down the Obama administration?’
Hardly. It was to get our fiscal house in order. It was to stop the tax and spend madman whose “redistributive” agenda only caters to fools and idiotlogues.
“If the debt ceiling is not raised, the government will only have enough revenue to fund approximately 55% of it’s outstanding obligations.”
You know this how, the 55 % figure ? You’re completely sure the government can’t meet its debt obligations without increasing those obligations through more borrowing and printing of money ?
“This is what you have asked for, is it not?’
Hardly.
@tanstaafl :
so the 55% approximation comes from a study done by the Bipartisan Policy Center, released this month and available at http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/library/staff-paper/debt-limit-analysis
The paper outlines some scenarios for what might happen in the event that the debt ceiling is not raised. The crux of the matter is that the government is obligated, under current policies, to spend more than it is scheduled to take in in revenues. normally this would be paid for with more borrowing, but that option is not currently available. This means that the President will have to prioritize payments to outstanding government obligations. we can pay the interest on our debt, but we can’t pay everything that congress has obligated us to pay next month. when that happens, buyers of treasury bonds (some of which mature every month and must be rolled over into new bonds) will demand higher interest rates, since we cannot seem to get it together politically to actually meet all of our obligations.
The good news for conservatives (at least as far as I can tell) is that this will force the government to stop spending as much money. The budget will be balanced, in a way.
Again, Obama suffers a massive, humiliating defeat, and faces an economy that will virtually guarantee a republican win next november. And in the meantime the federal government will face a dramatic shortfall in funding, thus forcing it to become smaller, and much more limited.
granted, you’re giving up on Afghanistan and Iraq, and the loss of the world’s reserve currency, and most of our credibility, and almost all of our influence internationally. and then there will be the millions more who lose their jobs, and their insurance, and their savings, but I assume you know all that- you’re all market actors, you should be capable of rational expectations and decisions. So then all that is surely worth whatever it is you’re getting out of it.
The debt ceiling has been raised close to 20 times in the past 20 years.
Obama opposed raising it as a Senator in 2007. He voted nay.
I’ve listened and read (as much as I can stand to) and have have seen all kinds of conflicting stuff as to whether or not we can meet/re-structure our obligations in the event it isn’t raised.
It’s time for a line in the sand and some kind of fiscal controls on the federal government’s out-of-control spending, QE whatevers, which quantitative easing sounds fancy but just amounts to printing more money and destroying further the value of our currency.
I’ll look at your link.
Over and out.
All Americans need to confront the obvious. The simple reality is that our government spends more—about $1.5 trillion more each year—than we take in in revenue. This gap between our appetites and our willingness to pay for those appetites, a chronic condition that has been with us for decades, has led us to borrow the difference, hence our mammoth national debt and the huge and growing interest payments that come with it. Assuming that the borrowing cannot go on, the question becomes one of spending AND taxes. How much of the government that we want are we prepared to pay for? Do we like our Medicare, Social Security, an expensive and expansive military establishment, to say nothing of myriad agencies and programs too numerous to count? Fine, then let’s pay for them. Unwilling even to think about higher taxes? Fine, then which programs shall we cut or eliminate? We the entitled people have wanted it both ways for too long, and our politicians, always eager to accommodate us in the interests of re-election, have been our all-too-willing agents. Until we can have an honest conversation about the size, role and, yes, the cost of government, the current “debates” will remain little more than rhetorical posturing by leaders who increasingly resemble cartoon characters. Entertaining it might be; responsible governance it isn’t.
The important fact is that Obama and the Democrats are addicts. They are addicted to public spending – spending other people’s money. Every addict must stop his habit or the addict ends up in Hell. The USA must stop Obama’s addiction or the USA will be dragged into Hell. Raising the debt ceiling allows the addiction to continue. Raising taxes allows the addiction to continue. The GOP must rescue the USA by refusing to allow either of those two things. The GOP must also tell the public what is going on. It seems that Obama is winning the debate because the people do not understand he is an addict. There are plenty of graphs that reveal his addiction. Graphs which show the rise in public spending and its falling usefulness, graphs which show the US Federal Government is much more in debt than the business sector or the household sector. The truth must set us free.
…the people do not understand he is an addict.
I’d have to disagree and point to what the people said in the Nov. 2010 election at the very least.
There are plenty of graphs…
A picture’s worth 1000 words
re: our govt’s inability to pay its debts absent raising the debt ceiling.
Our govt owns vast tracts of land (30% of the US land mass), thousands of unused buildings, millions of tons of unused vehicles and equipment, tons and tons of gold and other valuable elements (not counting strategic assets). Why doesn’t the govt consider selling some of these assets to help pay its bills?
What will it take to pay off the federal debt. Answer, Each person in the country must pay about $45,000. $14 Trillion/310 Million People = $45,161 per person.
However of the 310 million people in the country only 180 million submit a income tax return. So $14 Trillion/180 Million Taxpayers = $77,777.78 per taxpayer.
Then next time a politician says we all have to pay our fair share, this is what they mean.
Hang obama and his gang of czars and and all the people he has appointed to do his bidding!!
1. Reduce Federal spending by 5% every year until total federal expenditures equal 10% of GDP. Total state and local expenditures can take up to 8% of GDP combined. Let Congress, State and Local governments do what they’re supposed to do: Set priorities within an allowable total. No bailouts of any kind for anybody.
2. Replace the entire federal tax code with a 1% transaction tax with no exemptions and no exceptions. Tax the velocity of money, rather than income, sales or any other type of federal tax. Everyone pays the same rate. No individual, corporation, institution, organization or transaction is exempt. If 1% is not enough to extinguish the national debt in 10 years, raise it. When the debt is paid off, lower it. Reserve sales and property taxes for state and local governments. If they want to tax their citizens and businesses into the next town or across the state line, it’s up to them.
3. Selective default on the unsupportable obligations and entitlements that politicians of both parties have promised in exchange for votes since the days of The New Deal. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and similar programs should be capped and transformed to self-funded savings programs in which individuals have a property interest. No more of Congress tapping SSA funds for their pet vote-buying programs. Gold-plated public employee pensions and health care benefits should be repudiated.
4. Our corrupt politics must be reformed: End Gerrymandering at all levels of government. The voters get to select their representatives, not the other way around. Term limits for all, including Judges. Ending tenure in education would not be a bad idea either. Finally, The Rule of Judges must end. I could go on, but you get the idea.
The Impending Debt Star
Thomas Carlyle characterized economics as “the dismal science” in the eighteenth century. It hasn’t changed much in the twentieth, particularly as it relates to our federal government’s handling of the economy and most particularly as it concerns the current debt crisis.
That “handling” has, in fact, gone beyond dismal and has breached the realm of the hopelessly bleak as a result the ongoing, contentious debate over the so-called “debt ceiling,” that is, to raise it for the umpteenth time and burden our children and grandchildren with even more debt or to stop the fiscal insanity of borrowing even more money from people like the Chinese to pay our bills.
Running our households like government runs our government would eventually bankrupt individuals just as the feds and local politicians are bankrupting the country and any number of states.
Washington, of course, has a unique advantage over places such as New Jersey and Wisconsin in that in D.C. they have an alternative to all that borrowing: They can simply print more dollars when they exhaust the national treasury or when China indicates it holds too much of our insecure notes.
If Joe Blow or Joe the Plumber had access to dollar printing presses, both Joes would be accused of counterfeiting yet politicians get away with it.
The issues most Americans understandably refuse to confront are unpalatable and painful.
After all, this is America, exceptional, invincible, wealthy, and wise. We can’t, we refuse to believe we can go bankrupt! We can’t undergo anything akin to post-World War I Germany when it took a wheelbarrow full of virtually worthless papiermarks to buy a loaf of bread! We refuse to accept that our paper bucks, the value of which is based not on anything with intrinsic value such as gold but on the full faith and credit of the United States of America, will succumb to hyper-inflation!
It simply can’t happen here!
To paraphrase the chief architect of our fiscal plight: Yes, it can.
Daniel J. Flynn in “Five Falsehoods of the Debt Debate” lists only the most recent “falsehoods,” a euphemism for lies, perpetrated by that architect.
They include . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5037)