Sunday, October 13, 2013

A Little Seen View on the Government Shut Down



I know I am not alone in saying the media is making the shutdown look a lot worse than it is and here's how I know this: can anyone say beyond all doubt their lives are any different now than it was before the shutdown? Did anyone notice any difference?
But still, the question remains: why are the two sides in this fight so adamant not budging? Looking into this, I think the better question is why are we even humoring the notion of compromise? Why should we let the atheist notion of bigger government be taken as a given? (Yes, a giant, bloated government is an atheist notion and I'll tell you why in a moment.)

We've now gotten to the point that government spending cuts--any cuts--are now as taboo as divorce was sixty years ago.  Thankfully, much like divorce, there are brave men and women standing up to this nonsense. Consider this from anchor John Stossel:

I have seen this episode in its entirety and it doesn't surprise me at all no attention is given to  the stupid things government wastes our money on, yet we have been so conditioned to think government remains the answer to all our problems.

Don't think for a moment this is a seal of approval for the Republican Party: I have no doubt in my mind that Republicans will let the White House frame the debate, not call Obama out on anything and therefore lose the moral argument. In fact, they have lost the moral argument for some time: not only have they not said what they would cut when they say they want smaller government, but under every Republican run government since FDR, not one of them has made government smaller.

"So", some may ask me, "if both parties share equal blame for this, how are atheists the true culprits according to you?" That is no different than asking "why does government think they don't have to follow the same rules individuals and businesses do?" Why? Because we have an atheist thinker named John Maynard Keyes to thank for both implied notions.

Keep in mind that when Keynes' writings were popular, America had lost almost all faith in capitalism because of the Great Depression. Then President FDR implemented what became known as the crux of Keynesian economics: unlike the communists who thought government should own the means of production, government would instead moderate the boom and bust cycles of their respective economies. In other words, instead of government being the chief supplier, it would instead be the chief demander of goods and services. Every single Western adopted some form of Keynesianism along with one other key economic principle he presented:

Keynes argued that in order for the government to be the chief demander, it didn't have to worry about how much things cost nor did it have to worry about whether they had the money to even pay for it because---at least according to the theory-- government spending would lead to a multiplication of overall spending in the economy as a whole. (Does this sound familiar regarding the stimulus plan?)

Do you see the two major logical fallacies here? First, of all the things that influence a person's buying decision,  government spending either don't rank very high or is not even considered. Second, since government doesn't earn its own money like a company or an individual, it is impossible for it to increase the money it has to spend into the economy without first taking it out of the economy. The pie's slices may be different sizes but overall the pie isn't any bigger. Yet rather than admit this theory doesn't work (as the 70s and 80s proved) government keeps going along with it since it grants them more power then it deserves...all because an atheist (which Keynes was) thought government doesn't and shouldn't have to follow the same rules everyone else has to.

To his credit, Ronald Reagan did try to stop this trend. During his presidency, he cut the actual funds coming in by lowering taxes and thought this would cause a showdown to cut government spending across the board; the problem was Keynesianism was so ingrained in government thinking by that point, the spending means switched from cash to credit. (Note: when you hear about government wanting to raise the "debt ceiling", they actually mean raising the government's credit limit, even though they have no idea how to pay it off.)

In the end, we must all ask these questions: Who else but an atheist would think it's okay to spend money you don't really have? Who else but an atheist would claim "debt doesn't matter" or "keeping  your word doesn't matter?" Who else but an atheist would say government is the answer, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and thereby making a false idol out of the state?

In fact, Stossel and Dr Ron Paul are the only people most people know of that present the true way the economy is supposed to work, although neither one has it 100% right. The only ones I've seen get the true nature of the economy right are the Catholic Church and an economist out of Dallas named John C Medaille.

For more on Catholic economic teaching click here.
For more on Medaille, click here. says people should have more control over their lives and one says government should have more control. Reasonable people would pick the first; atheists would choose the other....because atheists are idiots!

No comments:

Post a Comment