Why I Support Ron Paul

1.       Politics:

Ron Paul doesn’t play politics.  He’s unique in that he has principles that he doesn’t veer from – whether it is politically expedient for him or not.  He’s been saying the exact same thing for over 30 years (the political world just finally caught up to him!)  In short – he won’t flip/flop and he can’t be bought.

2.       Monetary Policy:

Ron Paul wants to restore the US dollar to a fixed value (the gold standard) and end the Federal Reserve’s power to print (inflate) money.  He argues that every time more money is printed, the dollar is devalued and everybody loses!

3.       Size and Scope of Government:

Ron Paul is the only candidate who I can guarantee would shrink the size and scope of government.  He is a strict constitutionalist who believes that the federal government should not be involved in half of the things it has involved itself in.  He is advocating ending whole departments.  He would end the Department of Education (created in the 70’s… just look at our test scores to gauge its effectiveness!) and a whole host of other departments.  His budget plan calls for $1 trillion in cuts the first year.  And these are not “cuts in growth” that politicians falsely call “cuts”; these are real cuts in spending.

4.       Foreign Policy:

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist (he is not an isolationist.)  What that means is that he wants the US to butt out of other nations affairs, but he does not advocate that we restrict trade between private US businesses and other countries.   He is also against all foreign aid. 

5.       Militarism:

Ron Paul would end our military presence in all 130 countries we are currently in (almost 900 bases!) and bring all the troops home to defend our own borders.  He also would not deploy troops unless there is a constitutional declaration of war (something that hasn’t happened since WWII!)  Once there is a constitutional declaration of war however, he would fight that war to WIN IT!!  There would be no long troop deployments with undefined mission goals under a Ron Paul presidency.  (This is probably why he receives more donations from active duty military than all the other Republican candidates combined!) 

6.       Israel:

Ron Paul would end all aid to Israel’s enemies and agree to never sell weapons to a nation hostile to Israel.  He would also cut the apron strings and quit trying to control Israel.  Many have called him “anti-Semitic” because he would end foreign aid to Israel as well, but they don’t consider how our foreign aid hinders Israel’s efforts to attain peace on its own terms.  He is the only candidate who would honor Israel’s sovereignty and allow the Jewish nation to live in its region, amongst its neighbors, in a way that only the people of Israel have a right to decide.

7.       Drugs:

Ron Paul would end the federal “War on Drugs” (States would still have the right to do as they wish regarding drugs.)  His policy would end ridiculous situations like the one in California where federal drug agents are raiding medical marijuana facilities that are legal in the State of California.  One lesson that we failed to learn during prohibition is that whenever you outlaw something popular, a black-market will immediately pop up to profit from it.  When we outlawed alcohol, gangsters made money running booze.  As soon as we legalized it again, the black market disappeared.  We have spent trillions on a war we can’t win and drug cartels are the only entity to profit from it.  It’s time to end the war on drugs.

8.       Other:

There are lots of other reasons I support Ron Paul, but I’ll leave it at that for now.  Any discussion on these issues is welcome!

On "Spending Cuts"

Right now the congressional "super committee" is negotiating over a series of (what Washington calls) "spending cuts".  What they won't tell you is that these are not cuts at all - they are reductions in the growth of government.

The truth is that even the "deepest" cuts being negotiated would cut less (far less as a matter of fact) than a simple spending freeze!!!

They are negotiating an estimated $1.2 trillion in spending reductions over the next ten years - a period in which government spending will automatically grow by somewhere around $6 trillion!!!  So a $1.2 trillion "cut" is actually a $4.8 trillion increase in spending!  By this logic, a spending freeze would be a 6 trillion dollar cut!!!

No wonder nothing gets done in Washington!

A Reasonable Faith

It is reasonable, (as shown extensively by Thomas Aquinas and others), to believe in God.

It is reasonable to believe that God is absolute goodness.

It is reasonable therefore to conclude that all other beings are necessarily less good than God.

It is reasonable to believe that a God who is absolutely good would have to be absolutely just.

It is reasonable to believe that an absolutely just God would have to punish every instance of evil (i.e. lack of goodness.)

It is reasonable to believe that an absolute good and an absolute just God would also be an absolutely forgiving God.

It is reasonable to believe therefore that God would offer a solution that would satisfy both His justice and His forgiveness.

It is reasonable to believe in Jesus.

What to do about Social Security

So everyone wants to "save" Social Security, but I think I have a better idea.

Here's my proposal:

Part 1.  Anyone who is currently on Social Security, and is over 65 years of age or legitimately disabled (no drug addict/alcoholic 'disabilities' allowed), stays on Social Security until they die.

Part 2.  Everyone else gets their money back!

So part 2 is the kicker.  Whatever you have paid into Social Security over the years is totaled up by the US government which then sends you a one-time check for that amount.  Take the money and invest for your retirement, or go blow it - it doesn't matter - it's your money! 

As for part 1: Social Security payments for those currently on it will come out of the general fund until everyone currently on it is dead.  Then that's it.  It's over.

So what happens when the people not currently on Social Security retire?  Well, if  they've planned ahead and invested wisely, they'll live as comfortably as they can from that income.  And if they haven't done all that?  Well then they don't retire, or they move in with their kids and their kids support them.  That's how it used to be in America before we became addicted to government. 

Isn't it time to return to that all-American concept called 'personal responsibility'?

Obama's War On Jobs

Barack Obama doesn't get it.  He really doesn't.  His "pass this bill now" speech shows a profound ignorance of the government's role in job creation.  He thinks the way to create jobs is to a) spend more money on government jobs and contracts, b) pay people not to work, and c) cut some taxes.  Of these, only "c" is even close.

So the President wants to spend (correction: borrow) $400+ billion in money we don't have (and can never pay back) - and for what?  Does he honestly expect the results to be different from his $1 trillion stimulus that already produced a net job loss?  Come on!  (You know what they say about the definition of "insanity"!)  You don't create jobs by taking money from the producers, filtering it through the bureaucratic nightmare that is the Federal Government, and then handing out the pittance that remains to a few favored unions and contractors.  That's crony capitalism, or, as it's more commonly known: "theft".

What the President fails to understand is that the government's role in creating jobs is precisely this: GET OUT OF THE WAY!!!!

Here's an example:  If the government were to simply allow energy companies to drill for all the oil and natural gas, and mine for all the coal and oil shale that sits under the ground on American property, estimates are that this industry alone would add 1.8 million jobs to the economy virtually overnight!!  And how much would it cost the taxpayer?  $0.00!!!!!!!  Yep, that's right - zero dollars to add 1.8 million jobs with just the stroke of the pen.  Plus, the added workers would start paying taxes - thus adding to - not subtracting from - the federal coffers.  It's a win-win. 

And that's just one industry.  There are literally thousands of industries in this country that cannot expand, that cannot add jobs, that cannot build new plants because they are buried under a mountain of government regulations!  And the trend under Obama is for more regulation not less.  He thinks these businesses are evil because they produce that evil substance "carbon" (the same substance you and I produce by breathing!)  So his EPA, and myriad other federal agencies, are doing everything in their power to keep these "evil businesses" from doing anything!!!  If the government would just GET OUT OF THE WAY, these industries could thrive as well.

It's Economics 101.  Unfortunately it's something the President doesn't understand.  It's time to vote him out of there and to vote someone in who understands the role of government.  It's time for a "Change we can believe in"!

On Race and Racism

I'm white so I'm probably not allowed to say this but does anyone else see the racism of the "black leaders" (Sharpton, Jackson, et.al.) in this country?

Now I'm not talking about reverse racism or how they view whites, I'm talking about how they view blacks!  For centuries people of various skin colors have been fighting stereotypes and insisting that skin color does not determine how one thinks or acts.  This was at the heart of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's message personified in his "I have a dream" speech.  His dream was that his "children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

The central tenet of racism is that skin color determines character, that skin color determines intelligence, that skin color determines how a person will act.  The Ku Klux Klan was famous for pronouncements lumping all blacks into a single category based solely on skin color.  That is racism.

And that is exactly what today's so called "leaders of the black community" are doing.  They are famous for speaking about blacks as if their skin color made them all fall in lock step with whatever political agenda they're selling!  That's racism... on a par, and equal to, the racism of the KKK... and it's just not true.  Black people do not all think alike just as white people don't all think alike, just as brown people, yellow people and red people don't all think alike.  Every person on this planet is an individual and makes their own choices.  Nobody makes choices because their skin color forces them to do so!!!

To insist otherwise is nothing more than racism.

Ron Paul is the Michael Savage of Politics

Ron Paul came within a couple percentage points of winning the Iowa straw poll last Saturday but you wouldn't know that by watching the news coverage - even on Fox News.  This is because Ron Paul, like Michael Savage, is persona non grata to the American media.

So why have these two conservatives - each with their own legion of devoted followers - been blacklisted by the American media and especially by the "conservative" Fox News Network?  They're dangerous that's why! 

Both Ron Paul and Michael Savage are considered dangerous by the establishment "conservatives" because neither one of them fits neatly into the establishment's war-mongering, corporatist, globalist, theocratic box: Savage, because he savages so-called conservatives for their double-speak and fair-weather conservatism; and Paul because he stands for limited government in all areas - including foreign policy, social issues and defense.  But what really scares them is that these two men can't be bought - no matter the price!!

That scares the establisment types to death!!  It's a mindset they just can't understand.

I am proud to support both of these true-to-their-roots conservatives.  The best medicine for a sickly America right now is a healthy dose of Savage's "borders, language and culture" and Paul's "liberty and constitutionally limited government".

Amen.

Nature: God’s Artifact

The Fifth Way teaches us that the telos in nature does not come from matter but from mind.  Thus, the matter that makes up a human being does not have, on its own – of itself – the goal of sustaining a human body.  That telos, that goal is the product of the divine mind.  That is the lesson of the Fifth Way.  So, in this way, nature is no different from the artificer’s watch whose pieces do not, of themselves, have a propensity for timekeeping.  Just as the watch’s form or final cause is imposed upon it by a designer’s intellect, so too the form and final cause of nature’s wonders are imposed on them by the Designer’s intellect.

Now the argument (made by many Thomists - including Edward Feser) against this is that – although they ultimately come from God – these forms, natures, or essences are inherent in natural things and thus are not cobbled together artifacts like the watch.  But is that really the case?  Let me ask two questions:  Is the form of the watch a product of its parts?  Is the form of a worm the product of its parts?   I think we can safely answer “no” to both questions.  So the form of something – be it human artifact or natural – does not depend on its constituent parts but rather on an idea, a concept of mind. 

But, it is argued, the constituent parts of a worm do have it in their natures to sustain the overall well-being of the worm while the watches parts do not.  Yes and No.  Although the constituent parts of a worm have it in their nature to sustain the worm, they do not do this on their own.  Their natures are imposed on them by the form of the worm – which is ultimately the product of the divine mind as well.  The arrow (to use Aquinas’ example) does not move toward the target unless shot there by an agent.  Why does matter obey form?  It does so because it is “shot there”.  In this way, the constituent parts of the worm are no different than the constituent parts of the watch – both are “shot there” by an action of mind.

Now the term “artifact” carries with it the connotation “artificial” and man’s artifacts are artificial in that they are natural objects with unnatural forms imposed upon them.  So what of God’s artifacts?  What would be “artificial” to God?  Well, God is immaterial and exists supernaturally (that is, outside of nature) so for God, nature itself – the material world – is, in a sense, “artificial” and the natural world can, in this light, be called God’s artifact. 

Ultimately this discussion boils down to the differing capabilities of the supernatural mind vs. the natural mind.  A natural mind can only take that which is natural and develop it into some other form.  A supernatural mind can form nature itself however it sees fit.  A natural mind is limited – it can only work within nature.  To be sure, a natural mind can impose new forms on natural objects – as it does on the natural elements it shapes into a watch.  What it cannot do is impose new natures on objects – because the natural mind itself exists within the confines of nature.  The supernatural mind is unlimited – it can impose forms on nature from outside nature.  The supernatural mind can instill new natures into substances.  It is not limited by nature – in fact it sets the limits of nature.  Still, what’s behind all of it are ideas, concepts, planning, goals – mind. 

Nature is God’s idea (and life is just God showing off a bit!)

Why I'm Starting to HATE the Republicans!

Even though I am (tentatively) a registered member of the GOP, I'm really starting to hate Republicans!  Why?  Because they're a bunch of pansies - that's why!! 

Think about it... when the Democrats were in power, they rammed through health care, they rammed through stimulus, they stuck to their ideology in spite of public opinion, in spite of the ramifications (which were all too real.)   Many of them lost their jobs over it, but they felt that this was the opportune time and they weren't going to miss it.  And now, for better or worse, they may not have their jobs but they have a legacy.  Health care is law!  Stimulus is spent!  When the liberals had a chance to advance liberalism in government - they took it!  In short, the Democrats had the balls to put ideology before re-election.

Now take the Republicans...  Voted into office vowing to stop debt, reduce spending and shrink the size of government, and---with the debt limit hit---given the perfect opportunity to do just that, what do they do?  They immediately start to cave!!  They're knocking each other over trying to come up with new ways to compromise with the Democrats!  They're offering plan after plan that all end up raising the debt ceiling when they have, in their hot little hands, the silver bullet to kill the government debt beast!!  All they have to do is nothing.  All it would take to stop debt, reduce spending and shrink the size of government is for the Republican controlled House to stick to their guns and refuse to raise the debt ceiling no matter what.  If they were true conservatives, they'd ignore the "impending doom" stories of government default and bad credit ratings, ignore the opinion polls, ignore everything that contradicts their conservative ideals and just take a principled stand for cryin' out loud!

If the Republicans in the House stand their ground, the government would not default, nor would it shut down, it would (get this) be forced to prioritize spending to exist on the $200+ billion that comes in every month.  The debt would (by law) be paid first - so there's no danger of default.  Social Security, the troops' salaries and Medicare could be paid next - so that part of the scare tactics melts away also.  And then---with what's left over---the rest of the government gets paid for on an "essential services only" basis.  Budgets would have to be slashed.  Agencies would be discontinued.  Government would shrink down to a manageable size that makes sense.  Isn't that what conservatives want?  Why then the rush to throw away the advantage and just give up?

Come on Republicans - get some balls!!

J.Lo Hints at Divorce... Stock Market Reacts!

Why do news organizations constantly report some random news story then follow it by saying "the stock market reacted to the news in such and such a way" - as if the two events are connected?  Who decides what news causes the stock market to react?  If the Obama administration decides to have a press conference on debt, does that cause a bunch of random traders to go "I need to buy some Dell stock"?  How can anyone say the entire market reacted to some news story?  Who decides such things?  How do they know it's not something as random as J.Lo hinting at divorce?  I mean really.

Is it Time for a Libertarian President?

I think so.  Yes.  The Republicans had their shot with the middle-of-the-road, compassionate conservative, George W. Bush and the debt rose and government got bigger.  Then the Democrats gave us their messiah, the Marxist/Leninist, throw-money-at-everything, government-is-the-solution, Barack H. Obama and the debt rises and the government gets bigger.

Now, even the Republicans are waving the white flag when it comes to the debt ceiling saying things like "we have to raise it" - as if it was a moral imperative to saddle our grandchildren with more debt just to keep their careers afloat.

Meanwhile, Libertarian candidates for President (on the Republican side) Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are the only ones saying "NO!" to more debt. 

We've tried the "radical middle" Republican way, we've tried the "radical left" Democrat way, why not give the "radical right" a shot?

A Fool's Philosophy

So, I'm having this ongoing conversation with "Thought Provoker" in my Intelligent Design According to Thomas Aquinas thread and I'm trying to explain to him how you must counter philosophical arguments by disputing the premises or by showing that the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premises.  Now Thought Provoker (like most atheists) doesn't have much use for philosophy, so he brings up the following "philosophical" argument and then challenges me to "try to prove my premise is false or that my conclusion doesn't follow the premise".  So here goes...

Premise - I think, therefore I am.

The truth is what I think is reality is actually reality.

Conclusion - whatever I conclude is correct.

So let's examine this one statement at a time:

"Premise - I think, therefore I am."  First off, this isn't a premise, it's a conclusion based on a condition - one frought with unintended implications.  "I think, therefore I am" implies that thought is necessary for existence, and that "whatever doesn't think, doesn't exist".  Perhaps he didn't mean it that way though.  Perhaps our friend Thought Provoker just meant that thinking is evidence of existence?  So, when he says "I (Thought Provoker) think, therefore I (Thought Provoker) am" he's essentially just saying "I (Thought Provoker) exist".  Well, since I know he exists, I'll grant his first premise:  "Thought Provoker exists".

Thought Provoker's second premise then is: "The truth is what I think is reality is actually reality".  Well, not in a rational universe it isn't.  In a rational universe, truth is demonstrable.  If someone gets drunk and sees pink elephants in the room, the rest of us can be sure that he is delusional.  That's because, in a rational universe, just because he sees pink elephants it doesn't mean those elephants are actually there.  We can see that there are no pink elephants in the room and we know from biology that pink elephants don't exist (unless painted that way).  However, in an irrational universe, truth is not demonstrable.  We can't know, in an irrational universe, whether there really are pink elephants or not.  That's because, in an irrational universe, everything can be true and nothing can be true (remember it's irrational!)  So Thought Provoker's second premise is only true in an irrational universe.

So what of his conclusion: "whatever I conclude is correct"?  Well let's restate his argument and see if the conclusion logically follows:

"I (Thought Provoker) exist in an irrational universe, therefore whatever I conclude is correct."

Wow!  What do you know?  His conclusion does follow from his premises!

Why I'm for the Legalization of Marijuana (maybe)

I've heard lots of arguments pro and con today on the bill introduced in Congress by Barney Frank and Ron Paul to allow the states to legalize marijuana without federal interference, so I thought I'd throw my two cents out there.

I think the best argument for the legalization of marijuana is not the civil liberties one, nor is it the "it's only fair" argument.  To me, the best argument is that it takes money out of the hands of the drug cartels and puts it into American coffers.

In the 1920's America experimented with prohibition - the illegalization of alcohol - and all it did was make gangsters richer and make average citizens criminals.  It's the same today with marijuana.  Back then, once the country wised up and re-legalized alcohol, the gangsters got out of the liquor business and had to find another source of revenue (for most it was drugs.)  So (the argument goes) let's legalize marijuana and give today's gangsters one less source of revenue.

It's a powerful argument - one that almost has me convinced!

 

Intelligent Design According to Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas, (arguably Christianity's foremost intellect since the apostle Paul), famously submitted five proofs of Gods existence.  (See Article 3. "Whether God exists?" here)  Of the "Five Ways", my favorite - and the one most relevant to ID - is the Fifth Way.

In Aquinas' own words:

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

What Aquinas is saying here, put simply, is that:

A) We observe in nature, things with no mind or intelligence, acting as if they have intention, purpose or goals.

B) It is a truth that only a being with a mind can truly have intentions.

C) Therefore, an intelligent being must be responsible for the intentionality we observe in nature.

There, in just a few sentences, Aquinas submits a rational proof that all of nature is intelligently designed!  There is no need to argue, as most ID proponents do, that it is complexity and sophistication in nature that requires design.  No, to Aquinas; even the rocks cry out "Design"!  And this is true of nature everywhere we look!  Everything we see, everything made of matter, has bits and particles within it whose job seems to be simply to maintain and sustain that very thing that they are a part of.  There is absolutely no materialist explanation for this.

It's a beautiful thing.  What's more, if one understands the full implications of Aquinas' simple proof, the designer must itself be outside nature.  You can't cite nature to explain all of nature - so the explanation must be something separate from nature.  Hmm... an intelligent being outside nature... I wonder who that could be?

Which leads me to the other attractive aspect of Aquinas Fifth Way: the fact that it points explicitly to God - not some other being who "may or may not be" God (as ID theory is so fond of saying.) 

It's refreshing to be able to unequivocally say that all of nature (not just the complex stuff) is designed and that this designer must be God.

The further implications of this is that it reduces questions of evolution and abiogenesis strictly to scientific inquiry.  Whether or not nature can produce a lifeform from non-living material has no implications philosophically or theologically.  Either way, God was behind it.  The same goes for the evolution of new biological types.  It's all design, all the way down.

More on the Debt Ceiling

Ever notice how nobody tells us what would really happen if we don't raise the debt ceiling?

We hear constantly how the US is going to "default on its obligations", but no one explains how not raising the debt ceiling means automatic default.  I have to believe that the US government can continue to pay the interest on its debt (yes, that's all we're obligated to pay - if you can believe it!) out of the measly $250 billion we take in in tax revenue per month.

What's more, if we are constitutionally prohibited from borrowing any more money, we will be forced to get our financial house in order.  Our government would have a mandate to live within its means (well, its means plus $14.3 trillion of debt) and would have to make tough decisions about which programs are essential and which are not.  It would seem that any small government conservative politician would recognize this and steadfastly refuse to vote to raise the debt ceiling - no matter how deep the spending cuts proposed!  It seems, however, that---while any small government conservative knows this---the "small government conservative" politicians are having trouble with the concept.

We really need to watch this debate in the upcoming months and voice our opinions to our elected representatives about the foolishness---the fiscal suicide---of taking on any more debt as a nation.

I'm a Calvin Coolidge Conservative

Calvin Coolidge, the 30th President of the United States, presided over what was, in my opinion, the last true conservative government this nation has seen.

His was a government of reduced spending, reduced regulations, and lower taxes - all the things modern conservatives cheer.  But his government was also one of high tariffs, protectionism and isolationist policies - things modern "free trade" conservatives decry.

But... when did conservatism become incompatible with 'America first'?

When did protecting American businesses, (who pay a fair living wage), from unfair competition with foreign businesses, (who utilize cheap overseas labor), become anathema to conservatives?

If America doesn't wake up and protect its own - who will?

And if America loses the manufacturing battle (as it will without either protection -or- some form of legalized slavery) what will we do when the inevitable invasion comes. Ask yourself this: If the rest of the world declares war on America tomorrow, will we have the manufacturing capacity to defend ourselves?

That should be the focus of American conservatism - not global trade markets.

Thomistic ID

I'm going to put forth the hypothesis that Otto H. Schindewolf's "types" and Aristotle's "forms" are equivalent terms when it comes to biological organisms.

This marriage of Schindewolf's saltational theory of evolution with Aristotelian metaphysics is my attempt at building a framework for, what I would call "Thomistic ID".  "Thomistic" because Thomas Aquinas (possibly the greatest Christian philosopher of all time) took Aristotle one step further - fully integrating Aristotelian metaphysics into Christian theology - and "ID" because the questions I'm going to ask are scientific questions (though in a metaphysical framework) directly related to the Intelligent Design debate.

First off, Aquinas settled for himself (and a lot of others) the proof of God's existence and the design of nature in his "Five Ways" or "Five proofs of God's existence", so there is no need for the Thomist to speculate about whether something that is "complex" has to be designed.  That's not what this is about.  This is all about "potential".  I'd like to focus in particular on Aquinas' concept of active and passive potential:  In Aquinas' view, something that has active potential to become something else can do so without the need for God's intervention, but something that has only passive potential to be something else can only do so if God intervenes.  

Schindewolf, arguably Europe's foremost paleontologist of the mid 20th century, outlined his basic theory regarding the evolution of "types" (characterized by "basic orgainizational and structural differences") which was based on the sudden appearances of major types in the fossil record.  In his view, Darwinian evolution could not account for the appearance of new types.

These then are the 2 big questions I have for science:

1.  Does one form have the active potential to evolve into another?

2.  Do non-living materials have the active potential to become living organisms?

The answers can only be settled by scientific inquiry - through experimentation and observation.  If we, or any other created force, can cause either of these things to occur, then (according to thomism) God's direct intervention was not required.  If we cannot, through repeated attempts, make either of these happen, we can then assume that these things possess only passive potential and must therfore (again, according to thomism) be activated by God.

My New Blog

I will be posting new thoughts and old (like the one I just posted from my old blog) in the coming months.  I've had two previous blogs - one under a ficticious name and one that closed shop - I'm hoping that this will be my permanent home!

Raise the Debt Ceiling Why?

A whole slew of politicians and pundits are harping about how we "have to" raise the debt ceiling (think of it as the national credit card limit - which is currently set at $14.294 trillion!!!) They all act as if the economy will collapse if we don't allow them to borrow more money.

Yeah right.

What they forget to tell us is that if we don't raise the debt ceiling, but instead actually pay off some of the debt, they can still borrow money - as long as the total owed is not over $14.294 trillion. So essentially the debt ceiling is a hard cap.

So why raise it?

I'll tell you why. Our politicians are addicted to spending. That's it. Imagine for a moment that you were so irresponsible that you completely maxed out your credit cards.  Then imagine that you had the power to magically raise your credit limit on your own.  What would you do?  Well, most responsible people would never put themselves in that position in the first place so it’s hard for us to imagine such a thing, but these politicians are not responsible.  They’re like shopaholics who can continually raise their own credit limit!  All they'll ever want is MORE!!!


It's time to put a stop to it. If the debt ceiling is not raised, it will force these money-grubbers to stop the spending spree and start to pay off the massive debt we already owe. Then what we should do is periodically lower the debt ceiling until we get it to zero! 

So I say, any politician who votes to raise the debt ceiling - for any reason - should be currently serving their last term in office.