By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The U.S. national debt has reached a record $38 trillion, the fastest accumulation of a trillion dollars in debt outside of the COVID-19 pandemic. This growing debt, as highlighted in the latest Treasury Department report, leads to higher inflation, eroding Americans’ purchasing power and increasing borrowing costs. Experts note the impact of rising debt includes increased interest costs, which crowd out important public and private investments. While some officials claim policies are working to slow spending, the Joint Economic Committee estimates the national debt has grown by tens of thousands of dollars per second over the past year.
Read the original article here
U.S. hits $38 trillion in debt, after the fastest accumulation of $1 trillion outside of the pandemic… Can someone remind me, what was the point of DOGE and the draconian cuts to the Federal Government?
Well, let’s unpack this, shall we? This isn’t just a number; it’s a headline screaming about the state of the nation’s finances. The debt clock is ticking faster than ever, and the question on everyone’s mind is, “What was the plan?” It’s natural to wonder about the connections between specific events and the broader economic picture. Let’s delve into the idea of DOGE and the cuts.
It appears the narrative around DOGE and the cuts is deeply intertwined with the idea of data extraction and wealth transfer. The common thread seems to be a redirection of resources and power. It’s almost like a financial sleight of hand. The alleged actions involved dismantling regulatory agencies, diverting funds, and accumulating vast amounts of sensitive data. It’s hard to ignore the claims that these actions primarily benefited a select few, specifically the ultra-wealthy and their associated companies.
The rhetoric suggests that actions were not about genuine fiscal responsibility or improved governance. Instead, it was framed as a means to achieve specific objectives. Actions such as cutting public services and reducing oversight were not about fiscal health, but about empowering certain entities. The focus shifted away from the needs of the general population and towards the interests of a small elite.
There’s talk of DOGE being a kind of smokescreen or a distraction. While attention was diverted, the argument goes, significant shifts were underway, like transferring wealth upwards. This involved dismantling investigative bodies, reducing regulations, and using the data acquired for purposes that are not exactly transparent. Essentially, the narrative suggests a systematic weakening of government functions that are then leveraged to the advantage of the well-connected.
So, when we look at the debt rising at an unprecedented rate, the question is, where did the money go? Did the cuts actually help the average person? The answer appears to be no. Instead, it was a re-prioritization, not just a trimming of fat. Resources were funneled in different directions, and the implications, according to the narrative, are pretty far-reaching.
It’s crucial to recognize the claims that DOGE was a tool used to facilitate these actions, specifically for gathering data and eliminating oversight of certain companies and the individual, Elon Musk. The argument is that this data collection and deregulation were not just collateral effects, but the very core of the plan.
This perspective paints a picture of deliberate action rather than a series of unfortunate events. The cuts to government services and the surge in debt are presented as two sides of the same coin. The former aimed at weakening the government’s ability to operate effectively and the latter served as an opportunity to further enrich the privileged few.
The narrative also highlights an alleged connection between these financial moves and political manipulation. The aim wasn’t just about economics, but about power. It’s about who controls the information, who benefits, and who suffers. This is not about the theoretical benefits of reducing the size of government. This is a targeted effort to undermine specific agencies and transfer wealth upwards.
It’s easy to see the contrast between the promises made (like economic prosperity and fiscal responsibility) and the reality. It is claimed that actions taken resulted in increasing debt, enriching the few, and dismantling systems that safeguard the interests of the general public.
In essence, the argument boils down to this: DOGE and the cuts to the government were not about improving the country. They were about consolidating wealth, power, and information in the hands of a select group of individuals. As the national debt continues to climb, it makes you wonder: who’s truly benefitting from this?