The following commentary comes from an independent investor or market observer as part of TheStreet's guest contributor program, which is separate from the company's news coverage.

NEW YORK (

Bullion Bulls Canada

) -- Mercifully, it appears that the U.S. debt-ceiling farce

has at last ended

-- with an anticlimactic "thud."

It is only fitting that the "two-faced" government that negotiated the deal should present us with a scenario with two distinct interpretations.

Before I discuss those interpretations, I'd like to review the actual deal, which can only be defined as another complete failure for the hopelessly dysfunctional U.S. government.

Although talking heads in mainstream media will do their best to spin it as "the best compromise available," the government's mere failure to commit suicide cannot be construed as a "victory" when the deadbeat U.S. economy teeters on the brink of bankruptcy.

The ability of the

Federal Reserve

to (supposedly) "fund" the U.S. government via its magic printing press ends permanently once hyperinflation officially drags

the worthless greenback to zero

.

As I have detailed previously, in unofficial terms, the "fundamental" value of the dollar

has already reached zero

.

Because this absurd "deal" does nothing to reduce the steady stream of the truckloads of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's confetti, in any/every meaningful way it is a complete failure.

As is always the case with governments that only wish to pretend to be engaging in fiscal tightening, this deal is heavily "back-loaded," meaning that any noticeable reduction in the deficit doesn't commence until 2016, while virtually nothing is being done until 2013.

When a chronic deadbeat solemnly proclaims his intent to start acting responsibly two years from now, this impresses no one.

Indeed, in the first year of this "deficit reduction" a mere $200 billion is being trimmed from the latest, massive increase in U.S. debt. Given the $1.6-plus trillion size of the current deficit, this is nothing more than a rounding error.

With the relentlessly (and intentionally?) optimistic revenue projections that this government offers, by the time the first year of this supposed deficit-reduction is finished, the unexpected increase in the size of the U.S.'s annual deficit could easily exceed the total amount of deficit reduction. Translation: In the first year of this deficit fighting, the U.S. deficit will very likely increase rather than decrease.

This becomes more probable by the day. With this credit junkie economy now (apparently) deprived of additional stimulus and more of the Fed's easy money, it had already sagged noticeably in anticipation of its next fix.

When the withdrawal really begins to set in, this debt-crippled economy will once again plummet like a rock.

Given that the optimists in the U.S. government have outlined expectations for a stronger second half in 2011, the actual numbers for this revenue-starved economy are sure to be a "disappointment."

This makes the mere failure of this new deal the best-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is that this feeble attempt at "deficit fighting" will be abandoned before "the ink is even dry" with either more government stimulus, more Fed money-printing, or both.

In short, U.S. politician's totally juvenile posturing over the past six months will likely have a shelf life no longer than the latest "victory strategy" for Afghanistan.

The indictment of how the Republocrats arrived at this deal is equally scathing.

Interpretation No. 1 is that this was an exercise in pure cynicism. Every credible economist has already concluded unequivocally that it will never be possible to substantially reduce the massive U.S. deficit without significant increases in revenues (i.e., higher taxes).

More specifically, as I regularly point out in my own writing, the U.S. government is currently experiencing its worst revenue crisis in history.

With the bottom 80% of the U.S. population already squeezed dry, that leaves tax increases for the rich (and/or the multinational corporate deadbeats) as the only, possible source of additional revenues.

However, the Republocrats have already been instructed by their masters that no such tax increases would be allowed. Thus, this last six months of political theater have been undertaken solely to prevent the rich from suffering even the tiniest dent in their wealth hoards.

The role of the Republican half of this tag-team was a simple one (commensurate with their abilities): "no tax increases for Americans."

The reality that only the top-20% have anything left to tax is a subtlety beyond the comprehension of the Republican base. That the vast majority of Americans have supported tax increases for the rich in recent polling is irrelevant to Republicans -- as they only need the support of their "base" to retain their own jobs in severely gerrymandered election districts.

The "role" assigned to the Democrats was a more difficult one, given that it involved openly and intentionally betraying the party's own "base". At least the Republicans are able to pretend that they are serving the interests of their loyal flock of sheep.

The Democrats have no such political cover. Their complete and utter capitulation in this pseudo-negotiation cannot be hidden: no tax increases of any kind for the rich, despite the clear message from their own supporters.

What this means is that from the first day this entire debt-ceiling farce began, it had already been decided that no agreement would be reached until (literally) the day before default.

Thus, the lame excuse that would be put forward now by the limp-wristed "leadership" of the Democrat Party is that they were "forced to capitulate" because the hopelessly and obviously deluded "Tea Party" zealots in the Republican Party were genuinely prepared to "crash" the U.S. economy if they didn't get their own way.

Fortunately,

The Daily Show's

ever-astute Jon Stewart immediately poked holes in this excuse.

Stewart pointed out that if the Democrats were incapable of "standing up" to the Republicans in a debt-ceiling showdown, than they could have simply used a previous golden opportunity to secure a debt-ceiling increase.

When was this "golden opportunity"? A little more than six months ago when the Democrats caved in to the Republicans on taxation policy -- by extending the massive windfall to the wealthy known as the Bush tax cuts (and again betrayed their own supporters).

Stewart pointed out that unlike the latest capitulation (where the Democrats can point to the increase in the debt ceiling), when the Democrats capitulated on the Bush tax cuts they obtained absolutely nothing in return.

With the fast-approaching U.S. debt ceiling

already an issue

when Obama broke yet another campaign promise on the Bush tax cuts, it is absolutely impossible for the Democrats to claim that they had "forgotten about" that deadline the last time they rolled over and played dead.

If that first interpretation of the Republocrat deal on the debt ceiling reeks of corruption, deception, and cynicism, the second interpretation is simply frightening.

That's because the only other possible way to view these events is that the capitulation by the Democrats on the debt ceiling was not an act. Rather, the clueless ideologues in the Republican Party were not bluffing as they held the debt-ceiling "gun" to their heads, but were fully prepared to pull the trigger.

Understand the dynamics here. This is the same Republican Party in which virtually every one of its "stalwarts" fervently believes that the U.S. can "balance its budget" with nothing but spending cuts -- despite the fact that all leading economists have concluded this is mathematically impossible.

Clearly not one of these numerical simpletons would have the slightest idea of the actual consequences of simply refusing to increase the U.S. debt ceiling.

Despite their complete ignorance on the result of their own actions, and "stern warnings" from literally all over the world as to the idiocy and recklessness of such an act, these zealots were prepared to risk the complete destruction of their own economy -- simply to blindly pursue their own ideological dogma.

Readers are free to pick their own, favorite interpretation. Was this simply another example that the Democrats have become spineless, devious hypocrites; or does the Republican Party now represent the most dangerously incompetent group to ever obtain "high office" in a Western democracy?

Readers are also free to select "all of the above."

This commentary comes from an independent investor or market observer as part of TheStreet guest contributor program. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of TheStreet or its management.