PDA

View Full Version : U.S National Debt: How will it be paid for?




NewUser
12-05-2013, 04:10 AM
Hi all, this has been on my mind for the longest time and I've been unable to find an answer that puts me at ease. The current national debt is $17 trillion and the GDP is just about equal to that. Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano have mentioned how the debt is morally repugnant because the people who will be paying it off will be the future generations.

The Democrats don't even mention the debt as a problem and they're always 'all smiles'. Why is this? Aren't they worried about the national debt? They always seem to be smiling and don't seem the least bit worried.

With our manufacturing industry increasingly going overseas, it appears that it'll only get harder to pay the national debt off. How can it be paid off?

Thanks!

Feeding the Abscess
12-05-2013, 04:12 AM
It can't. If it ever were, it'd be a serious downgrade in standard of living to working people. Serious tax hikes, cuts in social services, a massive dose of austerity, all so the parasitic class that largely was responsible for creating the debt would get theirs.

Repudiation and elimination of as much taxation and government spending as possible is the only option.

Ronin Truth
12-05-2013, 04:20 AM
I assume you mean the government debt. $205+ trillion and counting. It won't be repaid, and can't be repaid. The Feds will finally repudiate the debt and default.

Then they won't be able to borrow anymore. Yippee!

CPUd
12-05-2013, 04:35 AM
http://i.imgur.com/IuqK70y.jpg

DamianTV
12-05-2013, 06:01 AM
Hi all, this has been on my mind for the longest time and I've been unable to find an answer that puts me at ease. The current national debt is $17 trillion and the GDP is just about equal to that. Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano have mentioned how the debt is morally repugnant because the people who will be paying it off will be the future generations.

The Democrats don't even mention the debt as a problem and they're always 'all smiles'. Why is this? Aren't they worried about the national debt? They always seem to be smiling and don't seem the least bit worried.

With our manufacturing industry increasingly going overseas, it appears that it'll only get harder to pay the national debt off. How can it be paid off?

Thanks!

You need to start off by first understanding that our money is based on Debt. Our Govt borrows money into existence, at interest. Thus, even a measley $100 bucks of debt with 10% interest means that $110 bucks worth of debt, but since only $100 bucks exist in total, the debt can NEVER be paid off. Ever. And thus, the banks start to acquire things of Real Value. The things you bought with that $100 bucks to pay for that debt. It is smoke and mirrors with numbers. Its also why Usury was prohibited by EVERY religion, until that religion was corrupted by the power of debt. It is a scam, and the biggest most dangerous scam the world has ever seen.

That is what we call Fiat Currency. It isnt Money. It "leaks" its value over time because more and more of it is printed up.

Look, for us, this is basic stuff and it is at the foundation of the corruption of our Govt, cause of every major War of the 20th century, and will be the cause for every shred of pain you feel in your life. If you dont feel the pain yet, you will. It is inevitable.

As a Basic, you need to go head over to youtube and look for Zeitgeist - The Federal Reserve

This is NOT debt that you pay. That puts money into the hands of an International Banking Cartel. You repudiate this debt as it is acquired under Fraud, and is therefore, invalidated. You take away the Banksters power to issue their poison Fiat Currency, prohibit Fiat Currency, imprison these Banksters and you'll find that Govt is then accountable to the People.

jbauer
12-05-2013, 07:29 AM
We'll reach a point when we can't borrow and/or print (because other nations won't take dollars). At that point we'll get a bailout and be forced into an international currency. It will be explained to the masses that we need to do it or face the consequences of going under. Either way there will be a significant downgrade in the standard of living and a take over of government.

Freedonia
12-05-2013, 08:15 AM
Have a balanced budget and let economic growth reduce the Debt to GDP ratio will do the trick. You will just have to stay out of wars.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GFDGDPA188S_Max_630_378.png

DamianTV
12-05-2013, 08:19 AM
Have a balanced budget and let economic growth reduce the Debt to GDP ratio will do the trick. You will just have to stay out of wars.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GFDGDPA188S_Max_630_378.png

No it wont. The "trick" is on us because their money comes out of their asses, or as they refer to them, printing presses.

Balanced Budget just means they're paying their bills on time, but there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to ever get out of the Real Debt to the Fed. You dont even wanna know how much that is.

(hint: well above 17 trillion)

brandon
12-05-2013, 08:24 AM
The debt doesn't really need to ever be paid off. It can be sustained indefinitely if it's at a manageable amount.

Also what Freedonia said is correct.

Freedonia
12-05-2013, 08:26 AM
Also what Freedonia said is correct. :D

PierzStyx
12-05-2013, 08:31 AM
You need to start off by first understanding that our money is based on Debt. Our Govt borrows money into existence, at interest. Thus, even a measley $100 bucks of debt with 10% interest means that $110 bucks worth of debt, but since only $100 bucks exist in total, the debt can NEVER be paid off. Ever. And thus, the banks start to acquire things of Real Value. The things you bought with that $100 bucks to pay for that debt. It is smoke and mirrors with numbers. Its also why Usury was prohibited by EVERY religion, until that religion was corrupted by the power of debt. It is a scam, and the biggest most dangerous scam the world has ever seen.

That is what we call Fiat Currency. It isnt Money. It "leaks" its value over time because more and more of it is printed up.

Look, for us, this is basic stuff and it is at the foundation of the corruption of our Govt, cause of every major War of the 20th century, and will be the cause for every shred of pain you feel in your life. If you dont feel the pain yet, you will. It is inevitable.

As a Basic, you need to go head over to youtube and look for Zeitgeist - The Federal Reserve

This is NOT debt that you pay. That puts money into the hands of an International Banking Cartel. You repudiate this debt as it is acquired under Fraud, and is therefore, invalidated. You take away the Banksters power to issue their poison Fiat Currency, prohibit Fiat Currency, imprison these Banksters and you'll find that Govt is then accountable to the People.

Usury, or "interest" is the heart of fiat money. Interest creates money out of thin air and gives it to some one. It is the very definition of fiat money as interest created money does not represent real created wealth but is just numbers on paper. If you truly want to get rid of fiat money, you must get rid of usury.

Henry Rogue
12-05-2013, 08:47 AM
You're kidding me, NewUser gets the front page? By the way total government debt is closer to 24 trillion if you include State and municipalities.http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?434444- Total-Debt-of-States-and-Municipalities (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?434444-Total-Debt-of-States-and-Municipalities)Total revenue generation (all levels of government) projected for 2013 = 4.7 trillion. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?434445-Total-tax-revenue-all-levels-of-government

alucard13mm
12-05-2013, 02:01 PM
I live in California... USA can sell California to China for 200 trillion USD worth of gold. lolz.

Zippyjuan
12-05-2013, 03:33 PM
Have a balanced budget and let economic growth reduce the Debt to GDP ratio will do the trick. You will just have to stay out of wars.

Balanced budget only keeps the debt from growing- it isn't getting any smaller. To lower the debt, you need a surplus- more tax revenues than expenses- for many years. Politians don't like a surplus.

Zippyjuan
12-05-2013, 03:34 PM
Usury, or "interest" is the heart of fiat money. Interest creates money out of thin air and gives it to some one. It is the very definition of fiat money as interest created money does not represent real created wealth but is just numbers on paper. If you truly want to get rid of fiat money, you must get rid of usury.

Usury refers to "excessive interest"- not interest in general. Getting rid of interest won't effect your deficits. Debt and deficits come from spending more money than you take in. Fiat or not fiat makes no difference on that.

However, if you banned all interest, people would be less willing to lend you money in the first place (that counts for individuals and businesses as well as governments).

youngbuck
12-05-2013, 03:42 PM
How will it be paid for? Blood, i.e. war.

John F Kennedy III
12-05-2013, 04:18 PM
It can't. If it ever were, it'd be a serious downgrade in standard of living to working people. Serious tax hikes, cuts in social services, a massive dose of austerity, all so the parasitic class that largely was responsible for creating the debt would get theirs.

Repudiation and elimination of as much taxation and government spending as possible is the only option.

This ^

erowe1
12-05-2013, 04:28 PM
The collateral on the debt is 300,000,000 human beings, including you and me.

Natural Citizen
12-05-2013, 04:28 PM
Keep a watchful eye on restructure of the money men as they quietly reshore jobs. They'll "patriotize" it and we'll have the drones all over the www selling it as some kind of miraculous free market recovery on their little keyboards but really just a reconfig of tbtb.

Ronin Truth
12-05-2013, 04:30 PM
$17 Trillion? Actually $205 Trillion - Illinois Review (http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2013/10/17-trillion-actually-205-trillion.html) http://www.ronpaulforums.com/untested.gif (https://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/http%3A//illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2013/10/17-trillion-actually-205-trillion.html?pip=false&premium=false&client_uid=2414309520&client_ver=3.6.4.160&client_type=IEPlugin&suite=false&aff_id=0&locale=en_us&ui=1&os_ver=5.1.3.0)


Oct 23, 2013 ... Stanley Druckenmiller, who is considered one of the most brilliant market
analysts in history, notes, "there's just one little problem" with the ...
illinoisreview.typepad.com/.../17-trillion-actually-205-trillion.html -

helmuth_hubener
12-05-2013, 04:45 PM
PierStyx, we come from the same belief system. So maybe you at least will consider what I have to say.

Interest is not evil. It is not sinful. It is in no way prohibited. There is nothing in our belief system against charging interest.

Economic topics are abstract and often difficult to understand. Certainly banking and the Federal Reserve are very technical. But this topic is not. This is easy. This is simple.

Interest = the price a man charges for loaning you his money. This man would rather just keep his money. Why should he want to loan it to you? Then he has to wait for you to give it back. You may not even ever give it back. Thus, there's a risk involved. There's really nothing in it for him. Only negatives, no positives.

Unless you give him something for it in exchange. Let's say you need money for your farm, and you go to your friend and say "hey, I really need some cash, I'm dying here, but if I can just make it to harvest... If you'll loan me some cash until then, I'll always remember the favor. I'll give you a special price on milk all next year in gratitude, and send you a Christmas card every year." Doesn't that sound reasonable? That milk discount, that Christmas card, that is what we call interest. Interest is just another word for returning the favor. Someone was nice enough to loan you something. You show your appreciation somehow. Among friends and family, you can do this many ways. Among total strangers, there is one main way: you pay them some money. Just as you tell the grocer "hey, thanks for letting me take all this food from your store," by paying him money, so you thank the creditor for loaning you his resources by paying him some money.

This doesn't create money out of thin air. It absolutely doesn't. Interest is just paying for a service. It has absolutely nothing to do with creating money out of thin air. Does paying for your groceries create money out of thin air? No, of course not. Neither does paying interest on a loan.

Fractional reserve banking, on the other hand, including central banking like the Federal Reserve, does create money out of thin air. But that's a totally separate issue.

helmuth_hubener
12-05-2013, 04:46 PM
....

DamianTV
12-05-2013, 04:53 PM
It seems we have some very different opinions in regards to what we think is the real problem.

There seem to be those of us who dont give a shit if the Fed is still around. There are those that appear to think that "everything will be just fine and that we should pay them". There are also those of us who seem to think that the Fed is the source of many of the problems this country faces. We are NOT all on the same page here.

Natural Citizen
12-05-2013, 04:57 PM
It seems we have some very different opinions in regards to what we think is the real problem.

There seem to be those of us who dont give a shit if the Fed is still around. There are those that appear to think that "everything will be just fine and that we should pay them". There are also those of us who seem to think that the Fed is the source of many of the problems this country faces. We are NOT all on the same page here.

Yep. Good point. I think a great deal of "thinking" comes from political narrative (which equates to programming repetitive establishment points into public discussion) as prospective representatives maneuver for position in upcoming election cycle. Now we have read and heard a large portion of the conservative base reframe the end the fed model into the old who do we want to be the fed secretary gag. Among other things discussed.

Ronin Truth
12-05-2013, 04:59 PM
It seems we have some very different opinions in regards to what we think is the real problem.

There seem to be those of us who dont give a shit if the Fed is still around. There are those that appear to think that "everything will be just fine and that we should pay them". There are also those of us who seem to think that the Fed is the source of many of the problems this country faces. We are NOT all on the same page here.
Kinda like herding cats and trying to nail jello to a tree, isn't it?

Personally I'm in the KILL THE FED and repudiate the debt gang.

DamianTV
12-05-2013, 05:10 PM
Kinda like herding cats and trying to nail jello to a tree, isn't it?

Personally I'm in the KILL THE FED and repudiate the debt gang.

Fantastic! Seems those that still think the Fed is a trivial issue unrelated to the problems we face need to at least hear what Ron Paul has to say about the Federal Reserve Bank.

Perhaps we should start ASKING what these people of varying opinions think the Federal Reserve Bank actually is?

Is the Fed a part of the US Govt? Is it there "for our protection"? Does it stablize the Economy? Is Fiat Currency a better store of Value than Gold? Is Usury an Honest means of doing business? Why do we even have a Federal Reserve Bank? What is a Central Bank? Why did we have a Revolutionary War against England in the 1700's? Has the US always had a Central Bank? What are the consequences, both good and bad, of having a Central Bank?

And most importantly, why do they NOT believe the Federal Reserve Bank is a threat to the foundations and principles upon which this country was founded?

helmuth_hubener
12-05-2013, 05:10 PM
$17 Trillion? Actually $205 Trillion - Illinois Review[/URL]

While I am not one to want to minimize the horribleness and irresponsibility of the federal government, it is important to understand there is a difference between debt and unfunded future liabilities, especially in the government's case. The sources that say the debt is 17 Trillion are not wrong. They are not lying. It is an accurate number. 12 Trillion would also be an accurate number, measuring how much debt there is held by the public. It all depends on what you want to measure.

As for 205 Trillion, it is a highly speculative figure. It would not be too far off, in my opinion, to say it is simply a made up number. No one knows how much it's going to cost, total, to pay out Social Security to someone 20 years old today. In 47 years he'll retire. How long will the average 20 year old live? What will the total inflation rate be for the next 50 years? No one knows these things. Yet they're all added in to the 205 Trillion figure, and all the other -- widely varying! -- unfunded liabilities estimates. Like I say: just made-up numbers.

DamianTV
12-05-2013, 05:16 PM
While I am not one to want to minimize the horribleness and irresponsibility of the federal government, it is important to understand there is a difference between debt and unfunded future liabilities, especially in the government's case. The sources that say the debt is 17 Trillion are not wrong. They are not lying. It is an accurate number. 12 Trillion would also be an accurate number, measuring how much debt there is held by the public. It all depends on what you want to measure.

As for 205 Trillion, it is a highly speculative figure. It would not be too far off, in my opinion, to say it is simply a made up number. No one knows how much it's going to cost, total, to pay out Social Security to someone 20 years old today. In 47 years he'll retire. How long will the average 30 year old live? What will the total inflation rate be for the next 30 years? No one knows these things. Yet they're all added in to the 205 Trillion figure, and all the other -- widely varying! -- unfunded liabilities estimates. Like I say: just made-up numbers.

So if there are 205 Trillion in Unfunded Liabilities, how much "money" is in existence? We know it can not be enough to afford all of those unfunded liabilities, which really means: "Who gets the short end of the stick"?

paulbot24
12-05-2013, 05:16 PM
When you consider how we were programmed in school, it exposes how this country accumulates wealth and "prosperity." What happened here after we "saved the world" shortly after WWI? The "roaring 20s." Lots of money, lots of partying, life was just great. Then things slowly deteriorated and we languished in the Great Depression which the Federal Reserve somehow failed to protect us from....BUT...Then came WWII, which pulled us out of the depression (remember, I don't believe this shit, it is just what we were taught) because war is good for the economy.:rolleyes: Then a few years after we victoriously saved the world again came the 50s. Nothing went wrong in the fifties and life was the best ever. Wash, rinse, repeat. (Just make sure you "win" the wars and subjugate the losers with a treaty that puts them in economic paralysis or the formula will not work as planned.)

helmuth_hubener
12-05-2013, 05:19 PM
There seem to be those of us who dont give a hoot if the Fed is still around. We are NOT all on the same page here. Up until this post of yours, no one had expressed any opinions on the Fed, other than myself and yourself. It's a short thread. I re-read it. No one else said anything about it. The national debt, yes, but that is a different, though related, issue.

I am extremely opposed to the existence of the Fed. You are also extremely opposed to the existence of the Fed. So you can't be talking about either of us. You are making accusations which, based solely on this thread, are unwarranted. Zippyjuan, brandon, and Freedonia may have upset you by expressing less than apoplectic, hyperventilating horror at the national debt level, but they have not said they support the Federal Reserve. Indeed, they may not support it. Many people of all backgrounds can admit that the Federal Reserve is not the most ideal system, because the evidence strongly supports this conclusion.

Zippyjuan
12-05-2013, 05:20 PM
It seems we have some very different opinions in regards to what we think is the real problem.

There seem to be those of us who dont give a shit if the Fed is still around. There are those that appear to think that "everything will be just fine and that we should pay them". There are also those of us who seem to think that the Fed is the source of many of the problems this country faces. We are NOT all on the same page here.

How does the Government end up in debt? How is the Federal Reserve involved in that process? Congress writes a budget. They decide what to spend. They also decide how much to tax people and compaines. Once aproved by the House and Senate, the President signs or vetos the budget. If they are spending more money than they take in in taxes, there is a deficit. That deficit gets added to the existing debt. Or if there is a surplus, that is subtracted from the existing debt.

If there is a deficit, they need to borrow. The Congress notifies the US Treasury of how much more money is needed and the Treasury issues debt in the form of Treasury securities. They have an auction and investors bid on the debt. Notes are issued to the winning bidders at the highest price that allows them to raise as much money as needed.

This process will go on even without a Federal Reserve.

acptulsa
12-05-2013, 05:25 PM
There's a distinct possibility that the real humans who hold bonds will be paid off with printed money. At which point there will be so much money printed that it will be about worthless.

So, we might well pay off the debt by devaluing the currency--which is already worth less than a nickel was in 1913 when the Fed was created...

Billion dollar loaves of bread anyone?

At that point, NewUser, the U.S. dollar will become worthless as a means of everyday exchange.

Zippyjuan
12-05-2013, 05:28 PM
Devaluing currency doesn't pay off debt- only paying debt does. If I have a $100k mortgage and my income doubles, the mortgage is more affordable, but I still owe the same amount.

helmuth_hubener
12-05-2013, 05:31 PM
So if there are 205 Trillion in Unfunded Liabilities, how much "money" is in existence? We know it can not be enough to afford all of those unfunded liabilities, which really means: "Who gets the short end of the stick"?

Unfunded liabilities are totally unrelated to the question of how much money is in existence.

Whether there are $205 Trillion in unf'ed liabs, or $70 Trillion, or $128 Trillion (all numbers which have been put forward), we don't know. It could even be a number much, much larger than any of those, if inflation takes off and gets very high at any time in the next 50 years, which is all too conceivable.

But to answer your real question/point: yes, someone will get the short end of the stick. Any realistic analysis will conclude that it is virtually impossible that all entitlement programs can continue as-is with no change for another 50 or 100 years. That is not possible. Benefits will likely be cut, means-testing introduced, taxes raised, and probably a combination of all these.

Zippyjuan
12-05-2013, 05:36 PM
Unfunded liabilities are totally unrelated to the question of how much money is in existence.

Whether there are $205 Trillion in unf'ed liabs, or $70 Trillion, or $128 Trillion (all numbers which have been put forward), we don't know. It could even be a number much, much larger than any of those, if inflation takes off and gets very high at any time in the next 50 years, which is all too conceivable.

But to answer your real question/point: yes, someone will get the short end of the stick. Any realistic analysis will conclude that it is virtually impossible that all entitlement programs can continue as-is with no change for another 50 or 100 years. That is not possible. Benefits will likely be cut, means-testing introduced, taxes raised, and probably a combination of all these.

"Unfunded liablities" are trying to project out 70 years into the future- both costs and tax revenues- both of which will change significantly over time. Budget projections of just three years into the future are often wrong so it is impossible to get any useful information from trying to guess what will happen in 70 years.

DamianTV
12-05-2013, 05:38 PM
How does the Government end up in debt? How is the Federal Reserve involved in that process? Congress writes a budget. They decide what to spend. They also decide how much to tax people and compaines. Once aproved by the House and Senate, the President signs or vetos the budget. If they are spending more money than they take in in taxes, there is a deficit. That deficit gets added to the existing debt. Or if there is a surplus, that is subtracted from the existing debt.

If there is a deficit, they need to borrow. The Congress notifies the US Treasury of how much more money is needed and the Treasury issues debt in the form of Treasury securities. They have an auction and investors bid on the debt. Notes are issued to the winning bidders at the highest price that allows them to raise as much money as needed.

This process will go on even without a Federal Reserve.

Then when you introduce a Central Bank of ANY form, who do those Congressmen and Elected Representatives answer to? The People? Or the Central Bank?

helmuth_hubener
12-05-2013, 05:42 PM
"Unfunded liablities" are trying to project out 70 years into the future- both costs and tax revenues- both of which will change significantly over time. Budget projections of just three years into the future are often wrong so it is impossible to get any useful information from trying to guess what will happen in 70 years.

Exactly, Zippyjuan. You have met the nail and hit it on the head. Like I say: made up numbers. Nothing more.

Zippyjuan
12-05-2013, 05:43 PM
Then when you introduce a Central Bank of ANY form, who do those Congressmen and Elected Representatives answer to? The People? Or the Central Bank?
Can you provide examples of spending and taxes the Fed has directed Congress to enact? Social Security or Medicare or Defense spending perhaps (the largest portions of the budget)?

DamianTV
12-05-2013, 05:47 PM
Can you provide examples of spending and taxes the Fed has directed Congress to enact? Social Security or Medicare or Defense spending perhaps (the largest portions of the budget)?

How about the Central Bank just prints up unlimited cash to pay for the Campaigns of those who will respond to the Central Banks favor? ANY cuts are nullified by the unlimited increase of the money supply.

acptulsa
12-05-2013, 05:47 PM
Devaluing currency doesn't pay off debt- only paying debt does. If I have a $100k mortgage and my income doubles, the mortgage is more affordable, but I still owe the same amount.

Printing money gives you enough money to pay off the debt. Printing money devalues the money.

If you get your bank to agree to take Monopoly money, you go buy a few more Monopoly sets and pay off the mortgage. But there's no way in hell your bank gives you a second mortgage and agrees to take Monopoly money again.

Duh.

acptulsa
12-05-2013, 05:48 PM
..

LibForestPaul
12-05-2013, 05:52 PM
Same way the Roman Empire paid down its debt.

Zippyjuan
12-05-2013, 05:54 PM
How about the Central Bank just prints up unlimited cash to pay for the Campaigns of those who will respond to the Central Banks favor? ANY cuts are nullified by the unlimited increase of the money supply.

Ah- so the Fed funds election campaigns (I have not heard this- can you support the claim)? What sorts of favors does Congress grant the Fed?

helmuth_hubener
12-05-2013, 05:58 PM
Printing money gives you enough money to pay off the debt. True enough. Certainly having a central bank gives the Federal government a freer hand in spending; it allows it to be less constrained. But I think Zippyjuan's point is (correct me if I'm wrong) that just because you ran up a $100,000 debt on your credit card, and if credit cards didn't exist you wouldn't have been able to do that, you still can't really blame the credit card company. They didn't force you, or even ask you, to go on a reckless spending spree. You did that on your own. The credit card company gave you the tool, sure. But it's just a tool. As the saying goes: "Credit cards don't run up debt; people run up debt."

surf
12-05-2013, 06:02 PM
How will it be paid for?

there are two pretty simple answers:
1. End shit and replace it with NOTHING
2. Sell shit

folks throughout this and previous threads can provide endless lists of shit to just end (my preference) or reduce or fix in ways that lower current and future expenditures huge amounts, but this still relies too heavily on revenues as the way to pay for the debt.

which leaves us with only one obvious solution: sell shit. me, i'd begin with military stuff, like Camp Pendleton, Camp David, anything that begins with Camp....

helmuth_hubener
12-05-2013, 06:30 PM
I vote for surf's plan.

Natural Citizen
12-05-2013, 06:34 PM
I vote for surf's plan.

The only thing that is worth anything to those whom we are in debt is our land. What do you think about that, helmuth? I get the impression from other threads that you're all about multi-national business men making our nations decisions. Do you think that the people who have caused our economic destruction for their own personal gain feel any sense of loyalty to this soil? I say no. I think they'd sell it or even give it away in a heartbeat if it meant they got a free pass and a ticket some place else.

69360
12-05-2013, 06:36 PM
How can it be paid off?

It won't be. They will kick the can down the road forever or the whole system will collapse. Pick one.

Natural Citizen
12-05-2013, 06:37 PM
It won't be.

That's correct, I think. Detroit Rock City.....everywhere.

acptulsa
12-05-2013, 06:43 PM
Ah- so the Fed funds election campaigns (I have not heard this- can you support the claim)? What sorts of favors does Congress grant the Fed?

You need proof that Bank of America, Chase, and the other banks that own the Fed pay out incredible amounts in campaign contributions? Really?

You mean favors besides spending more than they bring in year after year after year, and kicking the living shit out of Iraq (twice), Libya (twice), and every other oil oroducing nation that ever threatened to go off of the petrodollar?

Or do you, even after being corrected on the point, still maintain that 'petrodollar' means something other than artificially stimulating demand for the supply of Fednotes by requiring oil producing nations to accept them and them only for oil?

Zippyjuan
12-05-2013, 07:08 PM
You need proof that Bank of America, Chase, and the other banks that own the Fed pay out incredible amounts in campaign contributions? Really?

You mean favors besides spending more than they bring in year after year after year, and kicking the living shit out of Iraq (twice), Libya (twice), and every other oil oroducing nation that ever threatened to go off of the petrodollar?

Or do you, even after being corrected on the point, still maintain that 'petrodollar' means something other than artificially stimulating demand for the supply of Fednotes by requiring oil producing nations to accept them and them only for oil?

Banks like Chase and Bank of America are members of the Federal Reserve system but do not own it. They have no voice in policy. It is true that to become a member bank they are required to purchase shares as a membership fee but the shares cannot be sold to anybody and don't carry any voting rights- they are not like traditional stock shares in publically traded companies.

What did the Fed have to do with Iraq or Libya? How do they benefit from wars? Did the Fed tell or urge Congress and the President to get involved in them?

The term "petrodollar" is dollars used to purchase oil- they are not any distinct currency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar


A petrodollar is a United States dollar earned by a country through the sale of its petroleum (oil) to another country.[1] The term was coined in 1973 by Georgetown University economics professor, Ibrahim Oweiss, who recognized the need for a term that could describe the dollar received by petroleum exporting countries (OPEC) in exchange for oil.

The term petrodollar should not be confused with petrocurrency which refers to the actual national currency of each petroleum exporting country.

In addition to the United States petrodollar, a petrodollar can also refer to the Canadian dollar in transactions that involve the sale of Canadian oil to other nations.

DamianTV
12-05-2013, 07:21 PM
Gotta love the way Zippy always backs up his statements with Propganda issued by the Status Quo. Nuthin to see here, we "need" the Federal Reserve, now move along mundanes.

Im seriously considering just adding Zippy to my Ignore List permanently as he never seems to do anything but support the Corrupting Banksters. Has anyone else put Zippy on their Ignore List already? Just curious...

Zippyjuan
12-05-2013, 07:27 PM
Of course you are free to ignore whatever you choose but can you disprove what I posted?

How would not having a central bank change the ability of a government to borrow money? How would that stop them from running a deficit?

helmuth_hubener
12-05-2013, 07:40 PM
The only thing that is worth anything to those whom we are in debt is our land. What do you think about that, helmuth? I get the impression from other threads that you're all about multi-national business men making our nations decisions. Hi, Citizen! Hey, thanks for talking to me like a human being. I appreciate it.

I do understand you have this impression. I have not done anything to correct it, simply because I don't have the time or the interest. But the impression is actually not right. I am not all about multi-national companies having tons of power and squashing us all. I understand very deeply that many of these companies are quasi-political organizations, entwined and interconnected and interdependent with the government, and that some of the defense contractors in particular go so far they are essentially branches of the government. And I am vehemently opposed to all of that. I hate it.

It is so easy to get the wrong impressions of people, isn't it? For instance, many people have the impression of you as an uneducated simpleton with a crazed mania for every off-the-wall health theory you come across or can dig up. But is that the right impression? Is that really a true description of the real you? Of course not. It is just a hasty and nasty stereotype made by people who don't understand you, and don't really care to.

I appreciate that you are making some effort to understand me (yes, I noticed). Even though, yes, I am strange.



Do you think that the people who have caused our economic destruction for their own personal gain feel any sense of loyalty to this soil? I say no. I think they'd sell it or even give it away in a heartbeat if it meant they got a free pass and a ticket some place else. No, of course they don't care. They are bad people. I do not like them. I think many of them are corrupt, disgusting, sociopaths, utterly twisted and immoral. Though, if I am honest with myself, I must admit that there are probably many in government, even in the highest levels, who are normal men, seeking to do good, perhaps misguided, very misguided, but who care for their family, try to do a good job, and who really are not that much different than you and me. I have an aunt who went to high school with Barack Obama, did you know that? He was a nice kid. Lonely. Maybe a little shy. Did basketball. Pretty normal.

Anyway, it's the system that's the problem. The system is evil, no matter how nice the people manning it may be. I agree with you: we need to end this system. I just have a very rigid (I would say consistent) philosophy on exactly what is wrong with the system and exactly what we should replace it with. That's why, for example, I don't think that having government make more laws is ever the answer, even if human species survival is at stake, even if... no matter what the even if is. I would oppose a government program to go knock an asteroid away to stop it from colliding with the planet. That's how rigid I am.

For the record, I like natural food. I appreciate your positive posts (and others') about the topic. I wish you guys could tell me how to get the stuff in a halfway reasonable way, so I don't have to drive ten miles to pick up organic eggs straight from the farm. And they're fed grain anyway! I just want some grass-fed eggs! Alas, nowhere to be found. I'm a Primal Blueprint convert, but it's a huge stinking pain trying to actually buy food that's "Primal approved".

helmuth_hubener
12-05-2013, 07:40 PM
....

DamianTV
12-05-2013, 07:58 PM
Can you disprove what I posted?

How would not having a central bank change the ability of a government to borrow money? How would that stop them from running a deficit?

How do you disprive the lies you spread with more lies? But you have this habit of distracting from the original topic or supporting your claims with Propoganda, which is also lies. Here are some unemployment statistics. Then you say its always low because all these people dont want to work and point right back to the U3. We say the Federal Reserve Bank has secretive back door ways of manipulating and corrupting every aspect of our Govt and you continue to point in the direction of "its no big deal" or "the problems would exist anyway".

How is anyone supposed to disprove your claims when you appear to do nothing but support the Financial Status Quo. Most of what is out there is misleading information. How is anyone supposed to debate that when all we have to discredit your statement (not you personally) is with more misleading information?

Seriously, are you a Govt Shill that comes here with the intent of spreading this disinformation? Your remarks typically support Central Banks, Fractional Reserve Banking, unrestricted Govt Spending, Usury, downplay the significance of False Unemployment stats, oppose Gold Standards, and act like the Source of Money Creation has absolutely no impact on the world. You seem to reject even Ron Pauls financial ideas at every turn. I swear even Ron Paul himself would have a hard time debating with you, but he'd have a much better chance of pulling it off than most of the crowd around here would, myself included.


How would not having a central bank change the ability of a government to borrow money? How would that stop them from running a deficit?

Not having a Central Bank would be one form of limitation of a Govt to borrow money because then they'd either have to get it from the People (which they dont want as it leads to accountability to the People), or most likely borrow from another countrys Central Bank. Now if there were NO Central Banks, the only way they could borrow money would be from the People.

How would that stop them from running a deficit? Simple. No credit card for u! Heres your allowance. And once its gone, its gone. Of course, their next step would be to either raise taxes (unpopular with the illusion of voting) or print money. Admitted, these solutions are far from perfect, but its a step toward removing the unlimited power of Govt thru unlimited printing of currency. Other steps need to be taken. Prohibit Govt from using Central Banks period. Prohibit Govt from Unlimited Money Printing. Prohibit Fractional Reserve Banking. Prohibit Usury. Corporations are NOT People. Get off of this Socialism / Facism direction. Stop creating an incentive for Govt to go to war to preserve the value of the Dollar with this Petro Dollar crap.

I think this community would be much better off if you quit trying to support the Status Quo with their Propganda at every possible turn. Congress has a 6% approval rating. If people truly understood what has corrupted Congress, not only would there be a Revolution tomorrow, but that stat would drop to 0%. I cant imagine why anyone who understood that Govt Lies are Govt Lies, and those that support Govt Lies with those very same Lies should be approved of in a manner that is much higher than 0%. Confusion and Misdirection are your true talents. You'd be better off doing Magic instead of Economics.

---

Dont bother to respond, Im now adding you to my Ignore List.

(@mods - this is not intended as a personal attack, it is an attack of the ideas that are supported)

Natural Citizen
12-05-2013, 07:59 PM
Hi, Citizen! Hey, thanks for talking to me like a human being. I appreciate it.

I do understand you have this impression. I have not done anything to correct it, simply because I don't have the time or the interest. But the impression is actually not right. I am not all about multi-national companies having tons of power and squashing us all. I understand very deeply that many of these companies are quasi-political organizations, entwined and interconnected and interdependent with the government, and that some of the defense contractors in particular go so far they are essentially branches of the government. And I am vehemently opposed to all of that. I hate it.

It is so easy to get the wrong impressions of people, isn't it? For instance, many people have the impression of you as an uneducated simpleton with a crazed mania for every off-the-wall health theory you come across or can dig up. But is that the right impression? Is that really a true description of the real you? Of course not. It is just a hasty and nasty stereotype made by people who don't understand you, and don't really care to.

I appreciate that you are making some effort to understand me (yes, I noticed). Even though, yes, I am strange.


No, of course they don't care. They are bad people. I do not like them. I think many of them are corrupt, disgusting, sociopaths, utterly twisted and immoral. Though, if I am honest with myself, I must admit that there are probably many in government, even in the highest levels, who are normal men, seeking to do good, perhaps misguided, very misguided, but who care for their family, try to do a good job, and who really are not that much different than you and me. I have an aunt who went to high school with Barack Obama, did you know that? He was a nice kid. Lonely. Maybe a little shy. Did basketball. Pretty normal.

Anyway, it's the system that's the problem. The system is evil, no matter how nice the people manning it may be. I agree with you: we need to end this system. I just have a very rigid (I would say consistent) philosophy on exactly what is wrong with the system and exactly what we should replace it with. That's why, for example, I don't think that having government make more laws is ever the answer, even if human species survival is at stake, even if... no matter what the even if is. I would oppose a government program to go knock an asteroid away to stop it from colliding with the planet. That's how rigid I am.

For the record, I like natural food. I appreciate your positive posts (and others') about the topic. I wish you guys could tell me how to get the stuff in a halfway reasonable way, so I don't have to drive ten miles to pick up organic eggs straight from the farm. And they're fed grain anyway! I just want some grass-fed eggs! Alas, nowhere to be found. I'm a Primal Blueprint convert, but it's a huge stinking pain trying to actually buy food that's "Primal approved".

Hm. Yeah, I'd rather let the asteroid tag us too, helmuth.

Noted on the other stuff. Sorry if I made you feel inferior some place.

Good post, helmuth.

helmuth_hubener
12-05-2013, 08:03 PM
How would not having a central bank change the ability of a government to borrow money? How would that stop them from running a deficit? Zippy, while your points in this thread have all been very true up to now, I must take issue with you somewhat here, if you are implying that having a central bank does not change the ability of a government to borrow money. Having a central bank under their control does change a government's ability to borrow money. Specifically, it makes it easier for them to do so.

Let us say the government of Argentina is low on funds. They already stole everyone's retirement accounts (in what, 2002? 2008? Maybe both!). So they need a new plan. If they were on a hard money standard, with no central bank, there would only be 3 options: tax more money (we define that broadly to include such things as simply seizing everyone's retirement accounts), spend less money, or borrow more money. That's it. And the more money they borrow, the higher interest rate they will have to pay, for one thing because they are going to become a bigger and bigger credit risk and eventually the vast majority of potential creditors might simply see them as too big of a risk. So they can only get so much money from borrowing. There's no particular limit, but it's not exactly unlimited either.

Having a central bank adds a 4th option. They can have El Banco Central de la Republica Argentina create more money and loan it to the government treasury. Phew! They now have some money! They didn't raise taxes. They didn't cut spending. And they didn't have to convince any outside party to loan them money. The BCRA is really just part of the Argentina government. They loaned it to themselves!

So yes, it greatly enhances your ability to borrow money when you can simply create the money and then borrow it from yourself.

But you're absolutely right that a government can still run a deficit even on hard money. Obviously, it happened all the time in the age of the gold standard. It just is more painful and costly, upfront. Having a central bank makes it easier.

acptulsa
12-05-2013, 08:05 PM
Banks like Chase and Bank of America are members of the Federal Reserve system but do not own it. They have no voice in policy. It is true that to become a member bank they are required to purchase shares as a membership fee but the shares cannot be sold to anybody and don't carry any voting rights- they are not like traditional stock shares in publically traded companies.

So, you believe these banks buy shares 'as a membership fee' but do not share in the windfall that comes from printing money? Boy do I have a bridge you'd just love to buy...

So, we have these big, fat banks who aren't known for being interested in doing anything at all that doesn't pay interest. Do you think all these campaign contributions they are clearly known to make every election season are just to get bailouts once in a while? Or is it theoretically possible they buy candidates who will pursue inflationary policies so they can profit more from the Fed making money the old fashioned way--by printing it?

And do you really deny that these banks which demonstrably contribute to every presidential candidate just might have a little bit of an influence over the board whose chair is appointed by the president?


What did the Fed have to do with Iraq or Libya? How do they benefit from wars? Did the Fed tell or urge Congress and the President to get involved in them?

Never mind, for the moment, the inflationary money printing that always goes on during wars. What part of 'demanding that oil producing nations sell oil only for dollars creates an artificial demand for dollars' do you deny and/or not understand? Are you denying and/or pretending not to understand the law of supply and demand? Do you really not see that stimulating demand for dollars allows the Fed to (very profitably) print up a larger supply without creating so much inflation that we revolt? And without paying for those wars which benefit the Fed (and the 'member banks' that actually own it) so very much, because we, the taxpayers pay for the wars?


The term "petrodollar" is dollars used to purchase oil- they are not any distinct currency.

Of course they're not distinct currency, you disingenuous, dissembling, pettifogging propagandist. Why do you keep pretending I say things I don't say? What good would it be to develop a different currency when they make plenty of money printing the snot out of 'dollars'? I said the petrodollar 'policies' (in this case, a polite term for 'wars') create an artificial demand for dollars, allowing them to supply (read 'print') enough to inflate our savings completely away in a month without actually inflating our savings away in a month.

Supply and demand has two sides--supply and demand. They make money the old fashioined way--they print it. The more we pay in tax, debt and blood keeping oil producing nations on the petrodollar, the more demand there is for their printing presses to supply.

Now, pretend that isn't plain and clear enough--I dare you.


Gotta love the way Zippy always backs up his statements with Propganda issued by the Status Quo. Nuthin to see here, we "need" the Federal Reserve, now move along.

He's the best thing since sliced bread. By the time we get through slicing through his attempts to deny these schemes and scams by pretending to be dense, we've created a thread capable of educating any idiot about what's really going on. He's the worst enemy of what he purports to defend that way. God bless him for making us spell it all out so well.

helmuth_hubener
12-05-2013, 08:13 PM
Now if there were NO Central Banks, ... Of course, their next step would be to either raise taxes (unpopular with the illusion of voting) or print money. Umm, I was with you up to here, Damian (more or less), but here you've lost me. Without a central bank, you can't print the money. That's the whole point! That's why eliminating central banks is a good idea! Maybe you just mis-typed?

DamianTV
12-05-2013, 08:22 PM
Umm, I was with you up to here, Damian (more or less), but here you've lost me. Without a central bank, you can't print the money. That's the whole point! That's why eliminating central banks is a good idea! Maybe you just mis-typed?

Yeah, mis-typed. But, not having a Central Bank doesnt guarantee that a Govt cant just create its own Fiat Currency. Example: Greenback / Lincoln / Treasury Issued, not Central Bank. Greenback was a Fiat Currency issued by the US Treasury. Okay, second thought, maybe I didnt mis-type, but I could have explained better...

helmuth_hubener
12-05-2013, 08:31 PM
Hm. Yeah, I'd rather let the asteroid tag us too, helmuth.

Noted on the other stuff. Sorry if I made you feel inferior some place.

Good post, helmuth. No worries. Thanks.

Ender
12-05-2013, 08:37 PM
Yeah, mis-typed. But, not having a Central Bank doesnt guarantee that a Govt cant just create its own Fiat Currency. Example: Greenback / Lincoln / Treasury Issued, not Central Bank. Greenback was a Fiat Currency issued by the US Treasury. Okay, second thought, maybe I didnt mis-type, but I could have explained better...


Let me say that I do believe in the gold standard but- fiat money can work on a local level, if it is not fractionalized. If a community knows and agrees that a dollar is a dollar and its value is not diminished by fractionalization, then that community can prosper.

kcchiefs6465
12-05-2013, 08:43 PM
Let me say that I do believe in the gold standard but- fiat money can work on a local level, if it is not fractionalized. If a community knows and agrees that a dollar is a dollar and its value is not diminished by fractionalization, then that community can prosper.
Matter. of. time.

Ender
12-05-2013, 08:48 PM
Matter. of. time.

In. agreement. ;)

Henry Rogue
12-05-2013, 10:23 PM
Instead of auctioning off Treasury securities to banks, the government could just take the banks money the same way the government takes our money, theft. In fact, The government could auction off the debt to the "Average Joe" and just tax the banks. A little role reversal.

Origanalist
12-05-2013, 11:38 PM
Instead of auctioning off Treasury securities to banks, the government could just take the banks money the same way the government takes our money, theft. In fact, The government could auction off the debt to the "Average Joe" and just tax the banks. A little role reversal.

Thanks Henry, I needed a good laugh.

http://replygif.net/i/669.gif

Henry Rogue
12-06-2013, 09:57 AM
Thanks Henry, I needed a good laugh.

http://replygif.net/i/669.gifYou're welcome. :D Sometimes levity is a great way to illustrate a point, in this case the ridiculous relationship between government, banks and taxpayer. The sad part is the way things are now, it's a cruel joke.

helmuth_hubener
12-06-2013, 12:37 PM
Yeah, mis-typed. But, not having a Central Bank doesnt guarantee that a Govt cant just create its own Fiat Currency. Example: Greenback / Lincoln / Treasury Issued, not Central Bank. Greenback was a Fiat Currency issued by the US Treasury. Okay, second thought, maybe I didnt mis-type, but I could have explained better... Hmm, well what issuing a fiat currency without a central bank amounts to is really just taking the operation in-house. Rather than having a separate or quasi-separate organization that it calls a bank, the government does it directly. I would say that conceptually, it is useful to look at the examples you give as instances of the government acting as a bank itself and issuing bank notes. Indeed, the first government-issued paper money bills in America (and, as far as anyone knows, the world) issued by the various colonies were known as "bills of credit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_American_currency#Colonial_currency)." In other words, bank notes. When the Continental Congress issues Continentals, they are acting identically to the Bank of Pittsburgh issuing Bank of Pittsburgh notes (which is the kind of thing banks used to do, before the system was centralized).

It is generally safe to assume that someone calling for the end of the Fed and of central banking is arguing against any party issuing fiat money, whether they call themselves a bank, or a treasury, or a king, or whatever. It's just a kind of shorthand. There are a few oddballs that are exceptions, but most of the prominent people saying these things are not exceptions, people like Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Judge Napolitano, and Lew Rockwell. When they say "End the Fed!" they are not saying "Let's have the Treasury print the money itself!" Rather, they are calling for an end to fiat money printing and a return to convertible money and, at least for all the men I mentioned, even an eventual return to totally free market money, with the government not involved at all.

PierzStyx
12-06-2013, 08:28 PM
Usury refers to "excessive interest"- not interest in general. Getting rid of interest won't effect your deficits. Debt and deficits come from spending more money than you take in. Fiat or not fiat makes no difference on that.

However, if you banned all interest, people would be less willing to lend you money in the first place (that counts for individuals and businesses as well as governments).


1. Getting rid of interest would have a huge effect on deficits. It would eliminate fractional reserve banking and the fake money that is the foundation for the current system.

2. There are many ways to make money through banking with interest. Interest just allows the banks to milk the poor while masking it as a bonus.

PierzStyx
12-06-2013, 08:30 PM
Yeah, mis-typed. But, not having a Central Bank doesnt guarantee that a Govt cant just create its own Fiat Currency. Example: Greenback / Lincoln / Treasury Issued, not Central Bank. Greenback was a Fiat Currency issued by the US Treasury. Okay, second thought, maybe I didnt mis-type, but I could have explained better...

But without a central bank the US couldn't seize the gold that was already out there. The greenback ultimately failed because it couldn't compete.

MRK
12-07-2013, 12:44 AM
It cannot be paid entirely. It will be outright defaulted (the best option for the American taxpayer) or consolidated in a financial rescue package that perpetuates the system even longer. I suppose the end result of this will be default as well. But as long as people still take dollars the system will perpetuate itself. Endgame is default, but that could be well over a hundred years from now givnn even rescue packages and consolidation. It could be a lot sooner than this too.

helmuth_hubener
12-07-2013, 07:48 AM
1. Getting rid of interest would have a huge effect on deficits. It would eliminate fractional reserve banking and the fake money that is the foundation for the current system.

2. There are many ways to make money through banking with interest. Interest just allows the banks to milk the poor while masking it as a bonus.

Did you read my post to you, PierStyx? Forget about banking for a second (banking is a fairly technical area). In simple person-to-person loans, in a free market, would you be OK with interest being charged?

If not, I take it you want to abolish and outlaw all loaning of money? Because that is, of course, what banning interest would amount to.