The Debt Ceiling crisis is entering Phase Two of its existence. That would be the phase where every American citizen awakens to the knowledge he’s had the wool pulled over his eyes once again.
Mr. Obama pulled us from the brink of falling nowhere. The precipice is still there and his solution, to extend the Debt Ceiling endlessly upward, has proven you can actually spend more of the people’s money than originally expected. The base of the precipice is eroding by the minute.
In a copyrighted story in the Washington Times (3 August 2011,) Correspondent Stephen Dinan shows where $239 Billion dollars in spending took place on Tuesday (3 August 2011). The United States indebtedness rose from $14.294 Trillion to $14.532 Trillion and indicated an approximately 60% usage of a $400 Billion dollar allowance. This nearly overtook the NEW debt limit of $14.694 Trillion.
So what did we avoid? Nothing.
Obama’s done more to change America than any other President. He advertised change and we’ve definitely changed economically from somewhat solvent and sort-of economically sound to crippled with debt and incapable of commanding the high ground where it involves international economics. The idiots in the Republican Party are no better as this all started in pre-historic times, those times before we were blessed with the First of Firsts. This isn’t a racist or prejudicial statement. It merely indicates the burgeoning equality of American political reality.
That would be that a wealthy, half-caste, multi-racially created, overly educated, under-experienced political entity can be as incompetent as any other political wannabe out there. Yes it is possible, when you approach a subject from a position of truth as opposed to Political Correctness, to understand where the problem originated. And it wasn’t in the prior administration.
Obama was a theoretical wunderkind. He’s got a great educational resume’. But, he’s got no practical experience in the real world. He’s never held a job where management skills were required. He was a teacher, a man taking other people’s theories and handing them out daily to people accepting his oratory as proof he knows and understands how all of the theories work. But he never said he made those theories work, he never put those hypotheses into action. He’s never made the result become an issue. It’s all about putting the theory out there and blaming the people expected to make it work, when the theory fails.
“They/you obviously did something wrong, but let’s move on now.” That’s the kind of statement you get when a theoretician can’t get practical results from students trying to make it all come together. The argument then switches to one of blaming the other guy but offering nothing to correct a faulty hypothesis.
Obama and the Democratic Party have written a series of theoretical checks their politically practical butts can’t cover. Keynesian Economic theory was challenged from its inception because it didn’t allow for the human element (avarice, political chicanery, insider positioning and power-mongering at the expense of the public) were never factored into the raw theoretical program offered. This skewed data has yet to produce the results suggested. The only thing gave the whole idea buoyancy was Franklin Roosevelt’s butt-licking pandering to Joseph Stalin and the fact Progressive political/economic allowed for a free –world development of Socialist economic development.
The State became the mommy and everybody was supposed to line up, be comforted and cuddled and breast feed from her endless bounty. With ever climbing inflation, never –ending debt-limit increases, soaring unemployment and borrowing 40% of every dollar from countries antithetical and antagonistic to American financial and world leadership positions we must ask: is this the change you hoped for?
Now for the “Reality Check” mentioned in the title: republicans are no better at administering over this country. The base theory of economic endeavor is still based on badly flawed assumptions. It bases economic development and its practical applications to be respective and acceptant of one major concept: the morality of political dogma and the individual integrity of that dogma’s adherents.
Neither postulate is confirmable or provable in fact. In many ways it appears they’re non-existent because of the elasticity of the participant’s ethics.
Thanks for listening.