Sunday, June 16, 2013


As a music fan and collector, I have subscribed to Rolling Stone magazine off and on since I was a teen.

But even as a teen, I always wished they’d leave the news reporting to people who knew what they were doing. While I had not yet learned how liberal the bias was in the media at large, it was obvious in Rolling Stone, as well as obvious that the alleged “reporting”  was somewhat akin to the newspapers at supermarket checkout that claim Elvis sightings.

But every so often, an article’s title catches my eye, as did a recent story, “The Mad Science Of The National Debt” by Matt Taibbi.

Mr. Taibbi begins his article saying that the vote on the debt ceiling limit is being used by Republicans to manipulate the government into a state of paralysis, implying that the more noble Democrats are simply trying to  run the government.

Taibbi either did not think to check, or has forgotten, that when this issue came up under Bush’s presidency, Democrats (including a certain Senator Obama voted against it, and most Republicans voted for it.

Interesting to note that Ron Paul has voted against raising the debt ceiling regardless of what party sits in the oval office.

In any event, right off the bat, Taibbi screams conspiracy for what is simply partisan politics in America.

Taibbi goes on to say that comparing the US federal budget to a household budget is a fallacy because a household cannot raise money by fiat.

I do not understand Taibbi’s reasoning here. It is true that a household budget generates money through two ways (income or debt), and the federal government can tax, borrow or print money.

How one raises revenue is certainly independent of what one spends money on, and any entity has to limit its spending to be within its means.

When the debt ceiling is raised, the federal government is able to borrow more money, adding to the record deficits that Obama has mounted up.

The federal government will have to pay interest on the debt, and eventually pay it back.

How, then, does the government pay the debt back?

Well it cannot borrow to pay the debt back-that is the logic used on those tee-shirts you used to see in the eighties that read “Can I Pay My Visa With My Mastercard?”

That leaves it with taxation or printing more money.

I will not try to explain why printing more money is simply taxation in disguise, but I would encourage you to read a book called How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes.

The book uses illustration, humor, and accessible storytelling to explain complex topics of economic growth and monetary systems and expose the glaring fallacies that have become so ingrained in our country’s economic conversation.

And while you may not go right out and read that book before finishing this post, I’ll ask you to accept my word that simply printing money is not a good thing for the government to do.

Which leaves us with taxation.

Obama is borrowing trillions from China today. Even if the debt remains outstanding forever, there are semi-annual interest payments that must be made.

No big deal, right-just collect taxes!

Except what is happing to the population in the United States?

After World War II, all of the horny GI’s came home and acted like rabbits with their wives and girlfriends, resulting in what we call the Baby Boomer generation.

But the Baby Boomers, whether they went to Vietnam or to college, benefitted from new birth control methods and free love-they did not need to get married to get laid anymore. Add to this empowered women entering the work force en masse, and the Boomers failed to outproduce their parents in the kids department.

And during the remainder of this decade, the Boomers are retiring.

And according to most studies, they have no retirement savings.

Why is this important?

Many people think that their Social Security contributions are sitting in a trust fund somewhere, but that is not the case. This is a “pay-as-you-go” program, which is why its critics often refer to it as a Ponzi scheme.

In 1960, the last year for the boomers, there were 5.1 wage earners for every Social Security recipient.

In 2007, that number had declined to 3.3, and after the boomers retire, it is expected to plummet to 2.1.

That means that every worker will need to contribute in taxes enough for one-half of an elderly person’s lodging, food, and medical care.

And now Obama expects them to be able to pay interest on the increased debt as well. Not to mention all of the other existing government cash outlays.

So to Mr. Taibbi, and everyone else who wants to government to continue to hide its head in the sand, I say to you that the people who a forcing this discussion are, in fact, patriots.

We need to look at WHAT our government is spending money on and WHY, and not argue about how it should raise the money.

If the federal government limited its excess to things within its Constitutionally-delegated authorities, we may not be in as big a mess as we are.

But the excesses of the last few decades on areas like education, healthcare and saber-rattling around the world have put the countey’s finances in as bad or worse shape than those of the typical boomer.

Maybe the crunch won’t hit critical mass at the end of this decade as many predict, but it is only a matter of time, and Mr. Taibbi’s uninformed rants will not change that fact.
The fact is, every President since Nixon has known that our spending is unsustainable, and every President has ignored that. Only one (Clinton) made any attempt to rein spending in ( look at the relatively stable debt ceiling limit under his reign-he was too busy shtupping interns to spend taxpayer money).
That makes all of them irresponsible at least, if not traitors to the oath they swore.
And they swore that oath to you.
So, America, continue your love affair with Obama while he continues to screw your future behind your back (without the benefit of lubricant).
And keep looking to your atheletes, musicians, and movie stars for guidance. I am sure Matt Taibbi's journalism degree makes him just as much as an economic authority as people like Peter Schiff or Ludwig von Mises. Or even Ron Paul, for that matter.
You keep drinking the Kool Aid.
I'm sure everything will be just fine.



  1. It is pretty clear from the graphs that during Clinton's Presidency was when debt was most level. I don't think that was because of his dalliance with Interns, though that was funny. It might have had more to do with the preceding graph indicating that Republicans controlled Congress during his entire Presidency. What do you think?

    As for present day, I don't know if we can even get the debt down to sustainable levels. The fact that Obama was elected again says to me that most of American is still High on his rhetoric and not willing to actually look at any facts. The media has experienced something of an awakening since the AP/James Rosen Scandals (first) and the IRS, NSA, and other scandals coming in their wake. I think the first hit very close to home and the press finally understands that this Administration does not consider their 1st Amendment rights sacrosanct. What an eye-opener! So, some journalists have jumped off of the "We love Obama Bus" and are actually getting back to Journalism 101. But, plenty cannot quite wrap their feeble brains around the fact that they could be targeted. Who me???

    Add to this equation all of the RINOs. The best way to destroy the Republican party is from the Inside Out. How many Republicans in the Congress and Senate are actually Conservative? I don't know. But, I have my doubts. I think some of them are plants from the Democratic party designed to destroy the Republican Party. How do you destroy a 2-party system? Infiltrate the other party and systemically take the faith away from the voters of said party. How do the Conservative Republicans stand in the face of constant betrayal by their own party? Voter turnout begins to become non-existent. I smell a future Communist Bloc.

    I read in the comments on another blog that if another party doesn't rise up to replace the failing Republican Party, the only way to stop this is for every true Conservative to vote 3rd party in the next legislation. If enough people voted 3rd party, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans could get a majority. It would spin the Electoral College onto it's head. What we need is an upset. What do you think? Is it pie in the sky thinking? Could it actually work? Would people do it?

    1. I agree, Robin-America has shown that they WANT the "free" benefits from the government, so I doubt the spending can be reigned in.

      That's why I fume when people like Taibbi, and even the President, paing the Tea Party conservatives as nuts or traitors. They are the lone patriots in the mix.

      I do not get why Ron Paul did so poorly in both primaries ('08 and '12), unless his numbers reflected the sum total of true conservatives (which means this country is hosed).

      Also agree on the Clinton/Congress situation, although he did seem to show fiscal restraint....even if he was too dumb to inhale when the joint was on his lips...

  2. DiscDude ~
    I had nearly given up hope on ever seeing another blog bit posted at ‘BACK IN THE USSR’.

    This was a good one and worth the wait.

    What you’re addressing here is damned important but so few people realize why. In conjunction with your post, I want to recommend that everyone make an effort to find and view the documentary ‘DEMOGRAPHIC WINTER: The Decline Of The Human Family’ because it’s serious business and it dovetails with the subject of this blog bit.

    Unfortunately, ‘DEMOGRAPHIC WINTER’ is not available for rental from NetFlix (I checked), but inexpensive used DVD copies are available [LINK -] HERE. Maybe it can even be found posted at YouTube or some other video site.

    It’s definitely worth making an effort to see it.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    ‘Loyal American Underground’

    1. Stephen- having seen Demographic Winter, I agree-it is a must watch.

      It has been a while since something stuck in my craw, but that RS article did, and I had to hack it out. I have a couple of other ideas percolating, and will try to make the intermissions briefer.


  3. Unfortunately, the people like Matt Taibbi will do little more with this article than scan for actionable slander and misspelled words. 'Cause that's how they roll. The ones who aren't on an agenda are brainwashed beyond repair or too lazy to look past the easily digestible celebrity newsmakers to give it a second thought. You could meet most of these people at, say, a family function, explain to them in easy-to-understand, irrefutable logic. They would nod their heads and mention to their wife what a jerk you are on the way home.

    That is not to say that you've wasted your time in producing a thoughtful, well written article. If only one mind can be made to question, it is worth it. Each one teach one, they used to say. But it kinda reminds me of Jesus saying, "But when the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the Earth?"

    And I love the card!

    1. I suspect that Taibbi also has to portray a certain slant, whether he agrees or not, just to get the article published in Rolling Stone.

      But I have seen him interviewed on networks, which begs the question why the mainstream media would give credence to a Rolling Stone writer?

      His economic article was full of misinformed liberal rhetoric, venom-spewing at Tea Party conservatives, and groveling at the Obama altar.

      To say that the Federal government financial situation is too complex to understand (his premise) is true....FOR HIM!

      I would concede that the full repercussions of many proposed solutions would not be realized until they were tried (I'm sure there would be short-term pain if the debt ceiling were held level, for example).

      But any educated person MUST concede that the full repercussions of this unrestrained excess will not be realized for quite some time, either.