HIROSHIMA, Japan— During a press conference in the beautiful nation of Japan, “Sleepy Joe” Biden whined that he should not be held accountable if the United States were to default on its debt in the near future. This statement came after months of the White House dismissing the need for negotiations on the matter, but the pressure from congressional Republicans finally forced Biden to engage in discussions.
Biden’s argument centered around the conspiracy that certain “MAGA Republicans” were intentionally seeking a default to undermine the economy before his potential reelection. He asserted that he had done his part and it was time for the other side to adjust their positions, as much of what they had proposed was unacceptable.
When questioned by a Fox News journalist about whether he would be blameless in the event of a default, Biden responded that on the merits of his offered solutions, he would be blameless. However, he acknowledged that from a political perspective, no one would be blameless. He suggested that some House Republicans aligned with the MAGA movement understood the detrimental impact a default would have on the economy and that they sought to assign blame to Biden as the president, thus hindering his chances of reelection.
Legal experts, however, question Biden’s assertion that the 14th Amendment grants him the unilateral power to raise the debt ceiling. While he acknowledged that the legal dispute would render any action futile, Biden argued that the appeals process would delay a final ruling and subsequently postpone the default date.
Republicans have emphasized their desire to make cuts to the “discretionary” side of spending, which refers to the portion of the budget that Congress controls through annual appropriations. The White House spokesperson highlighted the potential for a responsible bipartisan budget agreement if both sides negotiate in good faith and recognize the need for compromise.
Senator Ted Cruz criticized Biden for what he deemed “scaremongering” about the national debt and accused the president of being unwilling to make deals or negotiate with Republicans, suggesting that Biden prioritized politics over the nation’s well-being. Cruz contended that Biden should be in Washington, D.C., actively working out a compromise instead of being in Hiroshima.
Ultimately, the debate surrounding the debt ceiling and negotiations highlights the ideological and political tensions between the two parties, with each side positioning themselves to protect their interests and advance their agenda. And as the debt ceiling debate rages on, the United States finds itself at a critical juncture.
The potential consequences of default loom large, threatening to disrupt not only the nation’s financial stability but also its global standing. But both “parties” refuse to delve deeper into the underlying economic problems that have led to the unsustainable trajectory of both public, $31.78 trillion, and private debt, $90 trillion because neither party cares about America or the working class.
Obviously the lack of serious discussion in Congress regarding these issues and arguments against proposed solutions that fail to address the root causes of our economic and financial health. One of the glaring shortcomings of the debt ceiling debate is the lack of serious discussion about the underlying economic problems plaguing the nation such as the decline of manufacturing, stagnating wages, and the pressing crises in energy, water management, and transportation.
Unsurprising and unfortunately, Congress persists in the same tired refrain of “cutting spending” as a panacea for our economic woes. This approach is nothing more than a hollow charade, deceiving the gullible. While certain programs and initiatives, such as the misguided “Green Agenda” and Anti-American and anti-White “Woke” programs, could be defunded, true economic and financial recovery requires a more comprehensive approach.
The proposals to cut Medicaid or reduce support for programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) fail to address the fundamental causes of our economic malaise. Instead, they exacerbate human suffering and contribute to a higher mortality rate. It is essential to discern that those who advocate for these cuts are the same individuals who authorized significant aid to Ukraine in 2022, highlighting their misplaced priorities and lack of a coherent vision for our nation’s prosperity.
Because of mass immigration and outsourcing of manufacturing, Americans become more dependent on government programs. The United States had 17.2 million manufacturing employment in 1960. Despite the fact that the population has nearly doubled (from 179 million to 332 million) in the last 63 years, there are currently 13.1 million industrial jobs. Our cities have been hollowed out and left to rot, and our annual trade deficit has risen to $1.2 trillion. The infrastructure of our country is withering and falling beneath our feet. Rationing of water and outages of electricity have become commonplace in several states.
Furthermore, as highlighted earlier, the mounting burden of corporate and consumer debt presents a grave and impending danger, comparable to a ticking time bomb on the verge of detonation. The path we are currently treading inexorably guides us toward the grips of a calamitous financial and economic catastrophe. Presently, innumerable Americans discover themselves trapped as captives of debt, ensnared by the chains of credit card obligations. However, lamentably, the impending calamity we confront is even graver, surpassing the adversities we presently endure by a substantial margin.
It is time to shift away from short-term fixes and embrace long-term investments that promote physical improvement in the economy. The American people have been praying for leaders like Donald Trump prior to 2018, who would encourage national investment in critical infrastructure projects, such as transportation, energy, and water management systems. By prioritizing these investments, the nation can enhance its productive capacity, create jobs, and ensure the long-term sustainability of essential services. Additionally, these investments should be made with a focus on local procurement, further supporting domestic industries and fostering economic self-reliance.
In today’s discussions, the term “globalization” has gathered negative associations throughout the political spectrum, transcending ideological boundaries. While populists on sides of the political spectrum often critique platforms like Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum, they do so without fully comprehending the underlying dynamics at play. It is crucial to widen our perspective beyond events like Davos or the annual Jackson Hole Economic Symposiums hosted by the U.S. Federal Reserve. The ongoing meeting of the Bilderberg Group in Lisbon, Portugal, and the policies pursued by the European Central Bank provide additional insights.
By examining the roster of participants, one finds a diverse mix of central bankers, financial elites hailing from major cities, representatives of Silicon Valley’s billionaire tech figures, individuals associated with intelligence communities, and various personalities aligned with oligarchical forces. Although some may mistakenly refer to these individuals as “elites” or “globalizers,” a more accurate term would be an International Banking System. This oligarchy exercises control over nation-states, imposing an ultramontane system of monetary imperialism.
From a constitutional standpoint, the United States is a nation founded on the principle of “We the People,” with the government being accountable solely to its citizens. The Republic holds absolute sovereignty in matters of finance, and no private banking or monetary interests should wield the authority to dictate its operational rules. Proponents of imperial finance argue that their speculative finance “free market” operates independently from the government elected by the people, asserting that nations are subservient to the so-called “laws” of the financial marketplace. This flawed perspective, echoed by many in Congress, allows for cuts to programs like Social Security while deeming the payment of interest on the National Debt as sacrosanct.
Previous American generations possessed a clear understanding that the American Republic enjoyed full sovereignty over banking and financial affairs. From Thomas Jefferson’s fierce opposition to Alexander Hamilton’s National Bank to Andrew Jackson’s successful dismantling of the Second Bank of the United States, these leaders recognized the potential dangers of centralized financial control. They believed in the importance of preserving the sovereignty and independence of the American Republic in monetary matters.
Their rejection of hegemonic banking stemmed from a commitment to safeguarding the principles of individual liberty, economic self-determination, and a decentralized system of governance. These leaders understood that central banking could concentrate power in the hands of a few, potentially leading to corruption, economic instability, and a threat to the democratic fabric of the nation. Their steadfast resistance to hegemonic banking serves as a testament to their dedication to protecting the interests and rights of the American people.
The principles adopted in 1776 and 1788 establish that all monetary policy should be determined through agreements among unequivocally sovereign nations. The domestic financial policy must be guided by a sacred bond between the people and their elected representatives. No allegedly autonomous private financial power should wield any authority—of any nature—over this constitutional system. In accordance with the principles established in 1776, the United States Constitution does not include any reference to a “budget” for the national government.
It may be surprising to learn that for the initial 145 years of our Republic’s existence, spanning the leadership of notable figures such as George Washington, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, and William McKinley, the concept of a national budget did not exist. Remarkably, even during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln successfully led the nation and catalyzed the most significant industrial revolution in human history without relying on a national budget.
The prevailing practice during that era involved Congress enacting specific projects while identifying the necessary income streams to fund them. This approach fostered a dynamic economic landscape and allowed for the realization of transformative initiatives without the constraints of a formalized budgetary system. The United States Constitution does not make any mention of a “budget” for the national government, a fact that might surprise some.
For the first 145 years of the Republic, from the leadership of George Washington to Abraham Lincoln and beyond, the concept of a national budget did not exist. Remarkably, Abraham Lincoln successfully navigated the challenges of the Civil War and spearheaded an extraordinary industrial revolution without relying on a national budget. Instead, Congress would enact specific projects and identify the necessary income streams to finance them, prioritizing the nation’s economic development in sectors like manufacturing, agriculture, and science.
However, the introduction of the idea of a federal budget by Woodrow Wilson and its subsequent consolidation under the influence of the Federal Reserve in 1921 signaled a shift towards prioritizing financial interests over economic growth. This change ultimately undermined the American principle of Public Credit, as exemplified by Alexander Hamilton’s vision, and hindered the potential for future transformative initiatives such as Lincoln’s Greenback policy.
In the realm of economic governance, it is widely recognized that the existing method of achieving a balanced budget falls short of its intended purpose. This approach, amalgamating immediate and enduring financial considerations into a single budgetary framework, has been devised by forces that harbor ill intentions toward our nation.
History has concluded that a prudent solution lies within the restoration of a time-honored tradition, one that finds resonance with prosperous commercial enterprises of yore—the implementation of a distinct Capital Budget. This revitalized practice would effectively allocate resources exclusively towards fostering long-term investments and promoting tangible advancements in our physical infrastructure.
From a perspective that values the well-being of local communities and the nation as a whole, it is imperative to strategically allocate a significant portion of economic output toward long-term investments. These investments would encompass critical areas such as infrastructure, energy, water, transportation, and the cultivation of private entrepreneurship. The underlying objective is to counteract the prevailing influence of the “services economy,” which emerged after 1968, and reestablish a foundation of tangible productivity.
Albeit, it is essential to recognize that the existing budget process and speculative financial practices employed by the Federal Reserve are ill-suited for facilitating this transformative shift. These mechanisms lack the necessary efficacy and foresight to effectively direct resources toward these long-term investments. As a result, alternative approaches are required to ensure the successful realization of this transformation. Within this framework, the focus lies on championing the interests of local communities and the nation.
This entails a monetary policy rooted in the fundamental principle that the creation and issuance of legal currency are the exclusive responsibilities of the Federal government. Legitimately, money exists as a creation and responsibility of the sovereign nation-state republic, accountable to the collective welfare of the people rather than financial oligarchies. Elected representatives are bound by the supreme Constitutional principle of promoting the general welfare of all present and future generations. A monetary policy that enhances economic resilience and promotes national self-sufficiency would promote growth would be that incorporates natural gas, gold, and silver. By considering the unique characteristics and potential of these resources, a monetary system can be designed to support local communities and foster economic stability.
Natural gas, being an abundant and domestically available energy source, can serve as a valuable asset in a monetary policy framework. Its inclusion can provide a basis for energy independence and sustainability, reducing dependence on foreign energy sources. By recognizing natural gas as a form of wealth and incorporating it into the monetary system, its value can contribute to economic stability and bolster local industries that rely on energy. Additionally, the inclusion of gold and silver in the monetary policy aligns with historical precedents and their recognized value as precious metals. Gold and silver have long been regarded as storehouses of wealth and mediums of exchange. Integrating them into the monetary system can help preserve the value of the currency and provide a stable foundation for trade and commerce. Furthermore, their limited supply and enduring desirability can contribute to long-term economic stability and discourage inflationary practices.
By combining natural gas, gold, and silver within a monetary policy framework, the aim is to establish a system that values local resources, encourages self-sufficiency, and safeguards against volatile financial practices. Such a policy support principles by promoting the equitable distribution of wealth and fostering local entrepreneurship. Moreover, it prioritizes the nation’s economic interests and reduces dependence on external factors, and creates strategies that enable the financing of critical projects through the establishment of new institutions. By doing so, we can overcome the limitations of the current budget process and mitigate the risks associated with speculative financial practices. It is through these innovative approaches that we can pave the way for a sustainable and prosperous future, driven by long-term investments and a revitalized sense of physical productivity.
The underlying principle of utilizing natural gas, gold, and silver is rooted in the belief that a nation’s monetary system should reflect its tangible resources and prioritize the well-being of its citizens and communities. To further drive economic recovery, additional measures must be taken, including a banking trust-busting and regulation to end destructive financial practices and restore sound commercial banking. The significant commercial and private debt burden of $60 trillion needs to be addressed as well, recognizing that some of it may need to be written off as part of a banking trust-busting and regulation reorganization.
These steps are necessary to free businesses from strangling debt, alleviate poverty, and eliminate the need for government assistance for millions of American families. As the productive economy rebounds and wages and profits rise, tax revenues should prove more than sufficient to cover day-to-day government expenses, pay down the existing federal debt, and eventually eliminate it. Simultaneously, this economic growth will enable millions of individuals to escape poverty, reducing reliance on government support. By combining these economic measures, will build a stronger future and advance opportunities for our people. Finally, this holistic approach will not only solve the “debt ceiling crisis” but also Make America Great Again.