Let us imagine for a moment that you go to a
restaurant, you place an order for a hamburger. The proprietor of the
restaurant tells you the cost is $5 for the hamburger, and you pay $5 for the
hamburger. You get your food. No problems. Well worth the money you paid for
it. No complaints.
Then when you are done eating, the owner of
the restaurant shows up at your table, apologizes profusely, explains that he
underestimated the real cost of providing you with the hamburger he agreed to
serve you and hands you a bill for an additional sum he had to borrow in order
to provide the meal plus interest since the start of your meal. Do you pay it?
Of course not. You, the customer, entered into a verbal contract with the
proprietor of the restaurant to provide you with your meal at the price agreed
to by all parties prior to the transaction.
If the proprietor of the restaurant has
miscalculated the cost of meeting his agreed-to obligation to the customer, is
the customer obligated to cover the shortfall? No. The proprietor of the
restaurant is responsible for the error, and if he cannot meet his agreed-to
obligations for the agreed-upon price, he should declare bankruptcy, go out of
business, and make way for a new restaurant with better fiscal sense.
Simple common sense.
Let us imagine for a moment that you live
in a nation, and you request some benefits. The government tells you the cost
is $500 for the benefits, and you pay $500 in taxes for the benefits. You get
your benefits. No problems. Well worth the money you paid for them. No
complaints.
Then when you have your benefits, the
government shows up at your door, apologizes profusely, explains that it
underestimated the real cost of providing you with the benefits it agreed to
provide and hands you a bill for an additional sum it had to borrow in order to
provide the services, plus interest since the start of your use of the
benefits. Do you pay it? Of course not. You, the citizen, entered into a verbal
contract with the government to provide you with your benefits at the taxes
agreed to by all parties prior to the transaction.
If the government has miscalculated the
cost of meeting the agreed-to obligation to the citizen, is the citizen
obligated to cover the shortfall? No. The government is responsible for the
error, and if it cannot meet it's agreed-to obligations for the agreed-upon
price, it should declare bankruptcy, go out of business, and make way for a new
government with better fiscal sense.
The claim is constantly made that
"we" (meaning the citizens) have already spent the almost 6 trillion
dollars that the Federal Government owes and that therefore "we"
(meaning the citizens) must repay it.* This is nonsense. No taxpayer alive now
ever voted or otherwise agreed to allow the government to borrow money on their
behalf and agreed to underwrite the resultant ruinous interest obligation. No
citizen spent that money. The government spent it, to keep promises it had no
business making in the first place.
The Federal Reserve Act (Otherwise known as
the currency act) was voted into law
No taxpayer alive today had anything to say
about repaying any money the government borrowed to keep it's promises. We did
not have any choice in the matter. We did not choose to accept this obligation.
It has been forced on us. It was manufactured for us.
Certainly the young people who are becoming
voters and taxpayers this year have had no say at all about the almost 6
trillion dollar debt that our government hands to them and says, "This
thou shalt pay". To so encumber our children without their permission is
at best indentured servitude; at the worst outright slavery.
We The People didn't borrow that 6 trillion
dollars. We The People, those of us alive today, paying taxes today, have never
had the opportunity to decide whether or not we are obligated to cover the bad
debts of a government that gets elected by selling $5 dollar hamburgers, only
to tell us after election day that they really cost $7 and we are now obligated
for that additional $2.
Every man, woman, retired senior citizen
and even the tiniest newborn baby are being told that they owe $22,556 extra
for services that were bought and paid for by an agreed-to tax rate.
Are those tiny newborn babies really
obligated for $22,556 because of a law passed 84 years before they were born?
Are those tiny newborn babies really
obligated for $22,556 because our government makes promises it cannot keep?
Or is it time for the Federal Government to
declare bankruptcy and make way for something better?
* To conceal the true size of the debt
problem, the Federal Government has been returning less money to the states,
forcing the states to borrow to meet their obligations. This transfers the debt
from the Federal Government to the States. Taken together, the debt of the
states and the debt of the Federal Government totals approximately $14
trillion. Guess who they want to pay it?
(Taken from http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ndebt.html)