Debt is Good…for Obama and the Left

Leave it to some idiotic Leftist finance “guru” to get behind the “smartest president ever” in explaining why debt and money created ‘out of thin air’ are necessary, not evil.

That is the title of an article by Paul Solman, and here is an excerpt:

Let’s say I’m unemployed. The government of my society creates some more money and gives it to me in return for providing a service like filling costly potholes, which are getting more costly to fix with every passing day.

My fellow citizens get a service they can’t buy on their own, and I can now spend the money I get on their goods or services. That should, in turn, encourage them to provide more.

Do you spot the flaws? Let me help.

Government needs to give the money to somebody willing to WORK!

Our government gives money to people for doing absolutely nothing. And the better you are at gaming the system, the more you get. If people did create a product, or perform a needed service, then Solman might have a point…but not necessarily.

“Filling costly potholes” doesn’t require the overhead of government. Put another way: the private sector can do just fine filling potholes; it’s not sending a man to Mars.

Furthermore, what does filling potholes have to do with anything that the Constitution requires of government? Nothing. It’s government overreach and the reason potholes don’t get filled!

In answer to the question of “Where would the money come from?” — here is how the author explained it.

Suffice it to say, in this answer, that when the government (via the U.S. Treasury) borrows from the government (via the Federal Reserve), the Fed creates the money, aka “monetizing the debt.”

The money comes from the American taxpayer, who is not represented in this statement in any way. This is the definition of the fox watching the hen house.

What caustic thinking.

Leftists treat government as the goose that lays the golden eggs. Their ability to wholly disregard the producers of wealth is stunning. Their attitudes remind me of how city dwellers see shopping. They see food in cute little containers without even the slightest notion of how the products get to the supermarket shelves.

This type of thinking diminishes hard work. Which brings me back to the original premise. The author of the piece sees “government” filling potholes. But where did all this originate?

An entrepreneur started a company before there were roads. He needed to get his product to the most people, so he loaded up his wagon, and headed to homesteads. The entrepreneur found this tedious, going house to house. Eventually, he charted a course to get to the most people, his wagon forming trails with the wagon ruts.

As word spread of this man’s product or service, people began to amass in order to take advantage of the product. Eventually small towns and villages formed, and other entrepreneurs began the same process with different products. The trails became more defined.

Fast-forward to the modern age.

Having tired of muddy dirt trails, modern man saw the need for better trails, known as roads. We involved government to help solve the problem. Where should the roads be built and by whom. Elected representatives agreed that the public would benefit from better roads, and that all citizens would bear the costs of building and maintaining roads.

And now that the roads are built and include provisions from maintenance, the government still sees the need to step in? Because we need our unemployed to fill potholes?

The government’s job has ended. The private sector can fill potholes, and we don’t need government to “solve” a problem that’s already been solved.

What the article showcases is the government’s need to control the money and who gets it. In this scenario, the government wants to be seen as the problem-solver. Government has both helped the citizen with repair of potholes, AND provided employment to the unemployed.

So think of it. If half the country were unemployed, and the government provides jobs to the unemployed to fill potholes, who gets the credit?

What we have is government essentially saying give us the money, and we will fix everything. But if that were the case, why in places where the government is in control do we get rampant unemployment and lots of potholes?





Back to top button