This election offers an opportunity to throw a grenade at an establishment that well deserves it. This election, unfortunately, will not “cure” the multiple illnesses besetting this country. They’re terminal.
Submitted by Robert Gore at Straight Line Logic
When electroshock revives a heart attack victim, nobody pretends the resuscitation has cured the patient, it has only prevented him from dying. The heart attack may have been caused by overeating, smoking, stress, drinking, or lack of exercise. The physician will prescribe various drugs, but a true cure requires dramatic lifestyle changes and perhaps counseling to understand why the patient engages in self-destructive behavior.
A good portion of the American electorate wants to administer electroshock to a bloated, sclerotic government. A smaller percentage recognize that the patient’s symptoms will be terminal absent drastic and immediate changes. A relative handful are interested in diagnosing the philosophical and intellectual root causes responsible for the morbid deterioration.
Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of the disease, the obese grotesquerie who fills two trays at the all-you-can-eat buffet and goes back for seconds, thirds, desserts, and multiple refills of the Diet Coke. She has never met a domestic program or a foreign war she didn’t embrace, and the chance that she would shrink the government’s girth and power is infinitesimal. The corpulent state has made her and her husband quite wealthy and rewarded their cronies. Hillary and her party stand for nothing more than more: government, power, and corruption. Any noises she might make about curbing the government are just that—noise—the Diet Coke washing down the feast.
That’s not to say that the other party is any less committed to more government. While it has bloviated for decades about entitlement and welfare reform, such spending—even during years it controlled Congress and the presidency—has risen without interruption. The welfare and warfare states are the apples of Democrats’ and Republicans’ eyes, respectively, but in grand “bipartisanship,” or more correctly unipartyism, both branches support each other’s profligate pandering, prevarication, and payola.
Supposed flame thrower Donald Trump has already pledged not to cut Social Security, which is now the largest item in the federal budget, pays out more than it takes in, and will suck up an additional $60 billion every year as the baby boomers reach their golden years. Where, the Cato Institute asks, will the money come from? “Pointing only to ‘waste, fraud, and abuse,” as Trump does, wastes our time, abuses our intelligence, and is a fraudulent story line to peddle,” is its derisive reply. Has there been an election the last 50 years where candidates have not promised to fund their promises by eliminating that unholy trinity? Has the unholy trinity done anything but grow?
This election’s “solutions” to symptoms of American decay and decline are palliatives that fail to identify even immediate causes, much less philosophical defaults. Immigration is Donald Trump’s signature issue. (Hillary Clinton does not have a signature issue, other than the necessity for a woman president.) A rational immigration policy would welcome capable immigrants with valuable skills, including entrepreneurial know-how, and exclude people most likely to soak up benefits, commit crimes, or wreak terrorist havoc. The US does not have a rational policy, and Trump has made political hay highlighting some of its deficiencies.
However, a wall on the Mexican border and prohibiting Muslim entry into the US are bandaids, and neither Trump nor any of the other remaining candidates have detailed the reasons for unwanted immigration. Hand out freebies and both citizens and immigrants—some of whom have entered the country illegally—will line up. If you fight never ending wars against drugs and terror that turn foreign lands into hellholes you shouldn’t be too surprised when immigrants from those lands show up on your doorstep. Some of them may not appreciate the justice of your cause, or may consider you an infidel, or may have arrived with the express purpose of destroying your way of life, and may take subversive or violent actions against you.
If Trump wants to dispel his image as a shoot-from-the-hip intellectual lightweight and really inflame the powers that be, he should question the welfare state and the wars on drugs and terror, not just on practical but philosophical grounds. On the practical side, they are bankrupting the country and destroying the economy. None of the candidates are talking much about the US’s $19 trillion plus stated debt, or its somewhere between $100 and $200 trillion in unfunded pension and medical liabilities, even as Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Puerto Rico et al. provide previews of coming attractions. None of them are pointing out the obvious: debt has become a millstone dragging down the US, and global, economy. Instead, all of the candidates’ proposals would add to government’s debt. They have their fingers crossed, hoping that the Federal Reserve perpetual-motion exchange of it’s thin air debt for the government’s will somehow delay the reckoning for their eight-years.
It won’t; it probably won’t delay it for the eight months before the election. When it arrives, bandaids won’t work. Somebody is going to have to do the intellectual heavy lifting, addressing the issue: what should a government do? That entails philosophic toil, and the correct answers rest on a foundation of reason, individual rights, and subordinated, limited government. If some are to be robbed to provide for others, then there are no individual, equal rights: we can’t all claim a “right” to be supported. Liberty is a dead letter when a government intervenes in every aspect of its people’s lives, including what they put in their own bodies, and employs bribery, espionage, subversion, and warfare to reorder the rest of the world according to its dictates. Civil liberties and rights cannot coexist with mass surveillance and suppression of expression deemed politically incorrect. There is no such thing as “minority rights” that justifiably infringe individual rights; the smallest minority is one, the individual.
To the best of their reasoning powers, the founding fathers wrestled with questions of individual rights and the design of a government that would protect them. None of this campaign’s candidates are going beyond bromides and slogans, superficially addressing problems while not considering even the first order reasons for those problems. They are not within nuclear blast range of the underlying philosophical decay and neglect that has put the nation in extremis.
Saying you will make America great again, or that America is still great, means nothing if you have no idea what actually made America great in the first place. It had nothing to do with “more” or cradle-to-grave, the American Imperium, democratic socialism, time for a woman, or the art of the deal. If this is to be a campaign of slogans, it would at least offer a measure of solace if baseball hats read: Get the Hell Out of Our Way!, Leave Us Alone!, or Don’t Tread on Me! Unfortunately, such truly revolutionary sentiments are not on display, much less a truly revolutionary philosophy. Anyone expecting revolutionary results will be sorely disappointed.
So let’s fight to legalize cannabis nationwide. Then, at least, we won’t care.
Maybe Huxley was right.
Much truth in this piece, and truth be known, even the Captain has thought about hocking his shield for a couple of attractive virgins with cooking acumen.
However, as our ancestors stood at Gettysburg, Vicksville, Normandy, Pork chop Hill…they all felt some extra sense of urgency to protect the Republic. Yes, we are now a nation of whores who cry rape when your dick is too small, and the fags, and troglodytes alike have turned melanin and failure in to virtues.
But, some of the detritus that finds its way here, is escaping evils far worse. And they work, and they save, and they smile, and they open up Vietnamese banks, Mexican restaurants and Korean markets. And, then, they send their kids to business school, and create min Soros’ and Kissinger’s, ready to become the next centuries malevolent beings.
My Joycian rant is to pass on one thing, “same as it ever was.” Or, “everybody’s had to fight to be free.”
Buy a gun. Buy some ammo. Targets. Head gear if you want to hear what your nagging wife is saying, a decade from now. Stop writing. Stop posting. Stop reading. Stop appeasing. Become a murderous badass. An, Arch-Angel.
https://youtu.be/I1wg1DNHbNU
Certainly we and any democracy is doomed. An apposite point is made by an article I saw recently that stated that the Puerto Ricans are moving to Florida to escape the bankrupt PR and that will help the Democrats. So basically having voted for leftist redistributionists and thieves and having to escape the inevitable results, they will move to a new place and vote for what destroyed the old. Reminds me of a group of locusts. That is why we are doomed, the average human is greedy, lazy, and easily fooled/convinced that taking from others is moral. You even have academics now arguing that taking from the productive and giving to drones and printing money will lead to a better economy in spite of centuries of evidence to the contrary.
Governments run deficits in order to put money into circulation. Counterintuitive as that is it is what governments do. Under Clinton there was budget surpluses. The Romans, the reserve currency of the day, expanded empire thru govt debt, foreign follies, but with all fiat monetary systems, was doomed to fail. Something is really wrong with this model but politicians follow this anyway…keeps them in office and their coffers full. Damn the torpedoes.
No, Clinton ran no surpluses – it was more accounting tricks, where “I cut the RATE of spending increase, so I ran a surplus”. Not really. And even if he did, Obozo has more than made up for it, to the tune of DOUBLING the national debt in eight years.
Governments run deficits to make promises they can’t keep seem less immediately laughable. For instance, Senator Foghorn will propose something that will run a surplus and start paying back its costs in five years. In five years no one will remember the promise, it won’t happen anyway, and “unforeseeable circumstances” will interfere to the extent that it runs 200% over budget, wastes time, money and resources, and CANNOT BE KILLED because too many people now depend upon it!
Governments print fiat money because they can; they force people to take it (try asking your employer to be paid in gold / silver, for example) and to delay the day of reckoning when the bills catch up to the (insufficient) revenues. USGov is bankrupt by any meaningful accounting system, and lies about it to keep up “confidence” in the Ponzi scheme. “Full faith and credit” of the US isn’t worth a plugged nickel now, and government employees and elected types are the reason. Put your SAVINGS in hard assets, precious metals, real estate (probably somewhere else like Chile / Colombia / your pick besides US) and keep just enough currency to pay expenses. Anything else will be “bailed in” to your bankers’ pockets when it all falls apart.
Best of luck – we’re all going to need it.
JtW
KB – Clinton had budget surpluses only because of Newt Gingrich’s, and the GOP’s, 1994 (midterm) “Contract With America”.
This was from an era back when conservatives had balls. Not like today.
Just sayin’…
Greetings,
An Empire that is a bit long in the tooth should be thought of as an old car. We’re a 1974 Oldsmobile Delta 98 – a gas guzzling working man’s luxury car in its day but now a rusted horror show traveling down the I-405. We could fix up our car and make it new again, but why? The cost of fixing anything would be more than the value of the car even after it was fixed.
See, we could fix our crumbling roads and bridges but that just means that the TSA workers get to the airport without knocking the fillings out of their teeth and the police can only be 15 minutes late instead of the usual 30. We could pound a trillion or more into our electrical grid and maybe do something about the nuclear power plants that are now at the end of their lives yet still running. We could do that but since we cant eat electricity then that shouldn’t be on the top of our list.
We could reform government but that will get messy with civil unrest destroying the infrastructure that we already cant afford to fix. Nothing we try to fix will help.
Seems to me the solution is to just go get that new car. Wipe the slate entirely clean and start over. After all, who doesn’t love that New Car Smell?
For starters, we could epudiate the debt. No debt, no problem. Simple really. The next president should not let the sociopaths drag the US down. Boot them all to the curb and let the rats consume them.
The Clinton ‘surpluses’ are a myth. The national debt went UP every single year under Clinton, according to US Treasury figures. If total indebtedness increases from year to year, it’s mathematically impossible to have run a surplus, except under phony governmental unicorn accounting.
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
Robert Gore, get your head out of your ass. None of the candidates are talking about the debt? That’s factually dishonest, Trump talks about it in every speech, and most interviews. So you are either lying, or not real smart. If trump wants to dispel his image as an intellectual lightweight he would think just like you? Please. Get a mirror if you want to ponder lightweight.
Downvote, sure. But refute my point? Not going to happen
a man with a million dollar loan, who pays 0.25 interest per year ($2500) on the debt,
invests it to make 5% ($50k) and pays earned income tax of %15
is richer than a man with no debt, who earns $50k per year and pays %28 in federal income and maybe another %7 in state income.
it pays to be rich, as they say.
the lesson is that Debt is perceived to be more valuable than savings.
this is the world we live in, and until the above paradigm changes, or we all become investment bankers, nothing will change.
Robert Core , if the Donald really wanted to be a flame thrower he would immediately sign an executive order to take back control of the nation’s currency from the private banks ( Federal Reserve ).He would immediately ban all fractional reserve banking and he would abolished the IRS replacing it with a consumption tax.
Robert , you do have potential but you gotta pull your head out of your butt.Guys like you are always wondering around in left field when the problem and solutions are right before your eyes.
BB and starfcker,
My head may be firmly ensconced in my rectum, but here’s a response. SF, Trump may mention the debt, but he’s made the biggest item in the budget, Social Security, sacrosanct. While his foreign policy, if he succeeds in reducing America’s foreign commitments, might save a dime or two, putting SS off limits means he’s not serious about the debt. You cannot deal with the debt without dealing with entitlements, and SS is the largest entitlement.
BB, thanks for acknowledging my potential. I doubt Trump or any other president could abolish the Fed, fractional reserve banking, and the IRS with a stroke of a pen and have it hold up in court. Would we want a president to have the power to overturn duly passed legislation, no matter how bad (and I am no fan of the Fed, fractional reserve banking, or the IRS) on a whim with an executive order? I would not.
Thanks for the comments, keep them coming.
Robert Gore
Yup. Trump is quite clueless in many areas. But, not all.
Would you agree that one of these four WILL be POTUS; Trump, Cruz, Clinton, Sanders. I’m sure you do.
So, if not Trump, then who? More of the same?
Stucky,
I don’t generally vote, but if I do this time, I’ll vote for Trump. As I said in my intro to this piece, he’s a well-deserved hand grenade thrown at TPTB.
Robert, thanks for the response. Social Security is your beef. Most people like it. Lots of better ways to balance e the books than dump granny off the cliff. Projections twenty years into the future don’t scare me. Again, big props for responding, look forward to your next article.
Let me give you one example, robert. Wouldn’t cutting the cost of Medicare health care in half be just as effective as cutting the benefit in half? Hmmmm…
Starfcker,
I’m not saying, even at this late date, that the entitlements mess, primarily Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, could not be straightened out. However, it would inflict pain and break promises, although like you I don’t think grannies and grandpas are the ones to whom we should be breaking promises. My approach to SS would be some sort of funding from general revenues for current recipients and those close to the eligibility age and a gradual phase out with a sliding scale of percentages of current benefits based on age. I would couple that with tax advantaged private savings accounts. It would be expensive but gradually the cost would go down until all pensions are privately funded and indigent older people are cared for out of general welfare. As for the medical programs, I would get the government out of medical care entirely, except for perhaps providing vouchers for the indigent so they can purchase their own insurance and medical care. Getting government out of medical care would go a long way towards cutting its cost. My bias is always towards the private sector and individualism and away from government.
If Cankles and Combover rush to the WH for an emergency bank bailout of $1.6 Tril, then we will know it is business as usual.
As my buddy put it, they will bend you over and sodomize you up your butt.