Why not? Kids have a clean slate when it comes to credit scores. Sure, they don’t have a long history, but you can help with that.
And you can buy that 56-inch 3D LED TV you’ve been craving. In a few months, you might even be able to buy a new car—on your kid’s credit.
Best of all, you really don’t need to pay it off. Let your kids pay that loan.
They can get out of the loan for your Hummer, though. And if they love you, they’ll be happy to help.
Besides, you need the Hummer to haul the kids and their friends around to malls and soccer practice, right?
Plus you’re establishing their credit for them.
Only one problem: pretending to be your kids by stealing their identity is identity theft. And sort of like financial molestation.
So why isn’t federal borrowing a crime?
The US government has borrowed $14+ trillion using my Social Security number and yours. The same government has bribed older generations to buy their silence—even their complicity.
Worse, most of this debt has been charged to the accounts of Millennials. And their kids.
Where’s the outrage?
Thomas Jefferson showed appropriate fury at the notion of borrowing to benefit the present generation at the expense of future generations.
I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater that may be paid during the course of its own existence.
If you were born after 1982 (Millennial Generation), I’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter. How do you feel about entering the workforce almost $50,000 in debt for things no one every asked you about?
We talk about liberty, limited government, freedom, Constitutional principles, and the like. Those are all relevant to the purposes of the conservative grassroots movement. But are they ends? Or are they just means?
I believe they are means. In the founders’ writings we find clues to the end, even they don’t state it explicitly. Jefferson did. Jay came close. And Adams implicitly understood that end.
Let me ask this: what’s the point of all the work we did in the past two years? I mean, some of us lost friends, homes, financial security, jobs, and family relationships over this tea party thing. Some of us switched careers.
Why? Why go through this?
If the end is good government, then by what yardstick do we measure “good government?” And what sane person would put himself out for a better government in Washington?
In the end, we are doing this for ourselves as individuals and for our family and community. We are doing this to improve our own lives, and with ours, everyone’s. But, again, to what end? How do we measure better lives?
The answer is in the Declaration and in dozens (if not hundreds) of writings from around the time of the American Revolution. It involves a state of mind and a state of being, not a station or a title.
Find for that end, pursue that end, and demand that government permit you to pursue that end. You’ll end up fighting for precisely what the Tea Party came about to promote. But you’ll recognize those things as means, not ends.
Finally, let me put it this way: if all of our stated objectives are met and we’re still miserable, we will have failed.
Please leave your thoughts in the comments section.