It's the Debt, Stupid!

Professor Anthony Davies of Duquesne University recently put together this informative video for LearnLiberty.org about the dangers of too much national debt.  As you watch it, remember that President Obama asked for an additional $1 TRILLION in debt within the past year.



Related Posts:
Budget Cuts Across The Board

It's Simple Math

Bill Whittle has recently posted another very insightful video in his Afterburner segment on PJTV.com. He points out that President Obama, while being touted as the smartest man ever to hold the office, doesn't seem to be able to do simple arithmetic.   The mounting debt we face is unsustainable, and yet Obama has asked for an additional $1 TRILLION in debt.

As Whittle puts it:

We're just gonna have to face the arithmetic.  All the money in the world is gone!  It's been pillaged by the weak-willed, power hungry elitists who have stolen it to buy votes and stay in power.  That's the arithmetic."

While he does not believe it will be as bad as past collapses, we will have to pull together, tighten our belts, sacrifice some things we now think are important, and work through it together. "You are the people that's going to get this country, and the rest of the world, out of this mess...not our leaders...not our celebrities...not political pundits and talking heads.  You are...you and me...all of us."



Related Posts:
The National Debt in Perspective
The Keynesian Perpetual Motion Machine

JFK: Right-Wing Radical?

Could John F. Kennedy be supported by today's far-left Democratic Party?

Certainly not for his views on taxes and the economy.

The Largesse of the Democratic Party

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." ~  Attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler. Unverified

Senator Jim DeMint speaks of the difficulty of getting a Balanced Budget Amendment passed through Congress in the video below.  This could also be applied to the Democratic contempt for the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act offered earlier last year by the House.  But, can we survive the continued largesse of an out-of-control Federal budget?

Related Link:

The National Debt in Perspective

Rich vs. Poor

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." This phrase, attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, seems quite applicable to many areas of politics...none more than the subject of the poor.

Much political capital has been gained by espousing the view that, "the rich keep getting richer, while the poor get poorer."  This is a standard, and quite effective weapon of the class warriors.  Those who view themselves as poor are driven to envy and resentment against the rich by such phrases...and this resentment drives their voting choices.

But what is the truth? Are the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor? Are the poor getting poorer over the years? Steve Horwitz, economics professor at St. Lawrence University, explains the facts behind the rhetoric in this video for LearnLiberty.org.

Related Post:
How Poor Are Our Poor?

Power and Corruption

Just a brief thought:

If the maxim "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" was true in 1887 when Lord Acton first penned it, how much more is the corruption today when the potential for power is so much greater? It is even more important today to keep power decentralized, as the Founding Fathers intended, than it was in the beginning of our republic.

Were The Anti-Federalists Right?

In a great series on PJTV called Freedom's Charter, Scott Ott has succinctly laid out the original intent of the scope of our Federal Government, and where it all went wrong in a chapter called Madison Was Wrong (see below).

Remember, in the original debates on the constitution, there were those who wanted a very limited Federal government (The Federalists), and those who wanted an even more limited Federal government (The Anti-Federalists).  The Anti-Federalists argued that there were not enough restrictions and checks on the power of the central, Federal government as proposed by the Federalists.  They believed such a central government could and would eventually usurp the authority of the States.

It seems the Anti-Federalists may have been right.  But, is the reason lack of checks built into the constitution?  Or, is it that the States have ceded their authority and failed in their role to limit the central power?  Ott gets right to the point:

"In the first quarter of 2009, for the first time in history, the Federal government became the largest source of income for State governments.  James Madison's generation feared Federal bullies with bullets.  They apparently didn't anticipate that tyranny could stroll in on a green carpet of cash...welcomed by the passively subdued States that had created the Federal Government."

RelatedPosts:

Balance of Power:

The Utility of Federalism:

The Federalism Series - A Primer

Why Feed the Pig:

Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!