I was asked to start this post, and to do so thusly:
“A government debt is a government claim against personal income and private property – an unpaid tax bill.”
– Hans Sennholz
However, I was also told I could add my own commentary to this thread, so I will avail myself of this opportunity to point out a few of my own observations in regards to this topic.
1 — Deficit spending is immoral as it A – taxes people who are not even born. This amounts to nothing less than slavery: the forcing of one person to work against their will for the benefit of another. B – taxes people who are not represented because they have yet to be born and, thus, could not vote for their own representatives.
2 — These deficits are the result of government and politicians bribing voters with their own money. It is also being used to wage class warfare. The government is spending without restraint, yet blaming supposed ‘greedy rich people and corporations’ for the deficit. This is an effective – and evil – ploy as there is a good deal of truth in it: businesses and wealthy individuals ARE benefiting from this deficit spending. HOWEVER, the reality is that the majority of the deficit spending is a wealth transfer from the young to the elderly and from the middle class to the poor.
3 — Finally, this is a socialist patsy scheme designed to blame capitalism and the free market for the eventual economic/financial collapse. In reality, the collapse is by design. The plan was designed by Cloward and Piven, the same people you will see standing behind President Clinton in the video of him signing the Motor Voter Bill. What’s more, this whole notion that capitalism is the cause of this coming collapse is built on a fallacious argument. it is known as:
If you have enough evidence to affirm the consequent of a conditional and then suppose that as a result you have sufficient reason for affirming the antecedent, your reasoning contains the fallacy of affirming the consequent. This formal fallacy is often mistaken for modus ponens, which is a valid form of reasoning also using a conditional. A conditional is an if-then statement; the if-part is the antecedent, and the then-part is the consequent. The following argument affirms the consequent that she does speaks Portuguese.
If she’s Brazilian, then she speaks Portuguese. Hey, she does speak Portuguese. So, she is Brazilian.
If the arguer believes or suggests that the premises definitely establish that she is Brazilian, then the argumentation contains the fallacy. See the non sequitur fallacy for more discussion of this point.
In this case, the argument goes something like this:
If capitalism runs on greed, then the nation will suffer an economic collapse, then she speaks Portuguese. Hey, the nation is on the verge of an economic collapse. So, capitalism does run on greed.
The majority of our social, economic and political problems stem from trying to operate outside the laws of nature. No matter how hard one tries nor how much one wills it to be otherwise, these laws are eternal and immutable: sooner or later, everyone who tries to live contrary to them will pay the piper. It is just that simple. Unfortunately, in this case, one glance at the graph posted above should be enough to tell the rational among us that we are about to pay the piper for having ignored the natural laws of economics for so long.
But not to worry: if you think this is bad, just wait until you see the solutions we are going to be sold by the very same people who created this coming crash.