Ron Paul constantly reminds us that money is created out of thin air, which is to say it's an illusion. Therefore, the debt must be an illusion too, correct? Yet, fiscal conservatives still use the debt as a tool of fear to make budget cuts that they selectively deem expendable.
Sure, they may think these cuts make them look "responsible," but ultimately it is still collectivism -- just more on their terms. Make no mistake; budget cuts in our corrupt system are just another form of wealth redistribution. After all, that money is being eliminated to pay off the debt, right? Thus, that money is removed from programs that employ people to pay off the issuers of credit (banks).
Additionally, the costs of the national debt, bank bailouts, war costs, and unfunded liabilities are fundamentally impossible to pay off. So, the notion that cutting a "historical" $100 billion will have any positive affect on the long-term economy is absolute fiction. And although many conservative lawmakers feel like it's the right thing to do, they know it will have no measurable affect on the debt. It's a scam, and if the history of modern lawmaking is any indicator, the establishment will surely stick it to the poor and middle classes with these cuts while the oligarchs continue to flourish.
Don't get me wrong; I am in full agreement with the philosophy of less government across the board. The fact that taxpayer funded subsidies, earmarks, foreign aid, and most domestic spending warps the free market is undeniable. In turn, this collectivized system has become so entrenched that determining genuine price discovery of anything is nearly impossible. This lack of price discovery deters private investment into the economy, which leaves the state as the primary economic driver.
When an economy is fundamentally bankrupt and no longer has a competitive productive capacity, government spending is the only thing propping up the economy. However doomed the system may be, government spending does indeed represent jobs. For example, even the flabby-assed NSA peon who is monitoring Internet activists all day still eats lunch, gets his lawn mowed, paints his house, raises a family, etc. In other words, his needless job creates other jobs and supports other economic activity in the matrix. So, if you cut his position, which I fully support doing, you bring economic hardship on him and the countless people his income contributes to. This is simply a fact, and if the lost job isn't replaced in the private sector the economy will further contract.
Therefore, sadly, the debate about what to cut and what not to cut doesn't really matter. The controlled demolition of the economy will persist. Since the U.S. is undoubtedly facing economic decline, and perhaps even a dramatic collapse, the private sector is unlikely to pick up the slack created by any public spending cuts. And if there is one steadfast indicator, or instigator, of all recessions and depressions, it's that the available money supply in the economy shrinks.
Yes, despite the cranked-up printing presses at the Fed, the real money supply in America is shrinking to levels not seen since the Great Depression, leading some conservatives to call it "frightening." And it will continue to shrink even more with these proposed budget cuts. It appears that most of the money printing is just being absorbed by the fraudulent financial system itself, and while the Fed's balance sheet continues to grow, inflation drives the price of essential goods like food and energy higher and higher. In other words, inflation hits main street where it hurts at a time when main street has less dollars to spend. It's the ultimate pinch.
Inversely, the budget cuts may indeed spur some short-term dollar strengthening in the matrix as the international banks will likely hype them as responsible governing. This may cause dollar-based commodities to decline in price, which may temporarily simmer the outrage over record prices for food and other spiking commodities. However, this manufactured bliss for the dollar will be short-lived, as, again, the endless debt is not going away -- at least not until total default occurs.
Unfortunately, it seems that a return to a true free-market economy with sound money and limited government is only possible pending the total collapse of the current system. Perhaps free-market fiscal conservatives believe they can pragmatically chip away at entrenched collectivism of the State by incrementally de-funding the system. However, it would seem to only accelerate the slow demolition approach, and it definitely won't prevent the catastrophic debt-induced meltdown that America is headed for. What's more, budget cuts don't address the monopolistic control big business has over all industries. Therefore, it appears unlikely that genuine free markets will manifest even after the money-illusion collapses so long as the global cartels control the real resources.
As much as I would like to believe these budget cuts will somehow erode the corporate collectivist state, it appears they will only cause more suffering to a good many people who had nothing to do with creating the suffocating national debt. In addition, the economic injustice in the recent past has been too great to believe those seeking these cuts have the people's interest at heart. Ultimately, I fear that the painful fallout will be used to discredit advocates for small government, and global corporate Statism will sprint to the endgame unchallenged.
Watch video below for an interesting perspective on the national debt and collapse of the State:
Stefan Molyneux: Freedomain Radio
Read more Eric Blair Articles Here