What If We Paid Off The Debt (in 2000)?

[InTradePro]

It sounds ridiculous today. But not so long ago(2000), the prospect of a debt-free U.S. was seen as a real possibility with the potential to upset the global financial system. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/...ernment-report

Pdf of the Clinton administration’s report—Life After Debt. http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011...eAfterDebt.pdf. Bill Clinton choose not to pay back the debt.

iOn comments (http://informationfarm.blogspot.co.u...s-to-ions.html) for one thing governments false reasoning was more debt makes more money which makes bigger government. Clinton could justify that he "saved" the apparatus of (big) government? ... well, for a minute. (Meaning that big governments days are numbered! )

[Zippyjuan]

Interesting article about possible implications of no debt (not necessarily a bad problem to try to deal with!) I do disagree with some of their "problems" but don't have time to get into it now. Clinton did, though, want to continue to pay down the debt. Bush said that the money should go back to the people so he cut taxes- and then emarked on two wars without paying for them and quickly wiped out any hint of a balanced budget.

Also shows how wrong projections into the future can be (and how unreliable any efforts to project often are):
http://www.businessinsider.com/clint...r-debt-2011-10


New York Times estimates of what caused us to get to where we are now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...es_public_debt

Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
New policies from President Obama (10%).

Pew Center estimates:

Revenue declines due to the recession, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%
Defense spending increases: 15%
Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13%
Increases in net interest: 11%
Other non-defense spending: 10%
Other tax cuts: 8%
Obama Stimulus: 6%
Medicare Part D: 2%
Other reasons: 7%[39]

[cubical]

The last half of the 90s was an illusion(partly) with the stock market bubble. We were would not have come close to paying off the debt.

[LibForestPaul]

define debt what is it measured in?
pay off with what commodity?

[DamianTV]

We didnt pay off the debt, we just got caught up on our Late Payments to the Federal Reserve Bank. It doesnt mean that the Govt wouldnt owe more next year.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

We didnt pay off the debt, we just got caught up on our Late Payments to the Federal Reserve Bank. It doesnt mean that the Govt wouldnt owe more next year.

*sigh*
It has been explained many times on these forums that government does NOT necessarily "pay" Fed because all of Fed's "profits" are returned to the Treasury (which includes interest supposedly "paid" by Treasury to Fed + Fed's other incomes)
It appalling how many people even on RPF buy into this theory when a little research on this forum or even through Google could yield simple facts

[Travlyr]

*sigh*
It has been explained many times on these forums that government does NOT necessarily "pay" Fed because all of Fed's "profits" are returned to the Treasury (which includes interest supposedly "paid" by Treasury to Fed + Fed's other incomes)
It appalling how many people even on RPF buy into this theory when a little research on this forum or even through Google could yield simple facts

Sure they do. What is even more appalling is people making this ^^ claim while the Fed has never been audited. Sure they do.

Why don't you answer these questions Paul or Nothing II,

define debt what is it measured in?
pay off with what commodity?

[enoch150]

define debt what is it measured in?
pay off with what commodity?

Measured and paid off in dollars. I must be missing something. Why is this a question?

[Travlyr]

Measured and paid off in dollars. I must be missing something. Why is this a question?

Because the dollar is undefined. What is a dollar?

This?

DOLLAR --each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver.

Or paper things? Or electronic entries?

[Liberty74]

There was no surplus to pay off the debt back then. Clinton and the Republicans STOLE from SS and Medicare trust funds to give this illusion that there was a tiny tiny surplus for a whole 3 years. BIG FREAKING DEAL!!! The general budget was still running a deficit.

The nasdaq internet bubble went pop in the late 90s which caused a mild recession left to Bush in 2001 leaving no imaginary surplus. On 9/11 the stock market crashed, spending kept increasing and two wars followed causing a wider deficit, hence more debt. The Left protected the FED policy to keeping interest rates low and protected their precious "affordable housing" plans that caused the housing bubble. It went pop and we got govt bailouts and the fed printed $15 trillion ($5 trillion went overseas). Nancy, Harry and Obama went ape $#@! and spent spent spent pushing federal spending from 19% of GDP to 24%. Nancy in just 4 years in power is responsible for a third of the entire debt, in just 4 freaking years people out of 100 since 1913 when the fed came to be and the stealing of Americans via the income tax system.

We are in trouble!!! The government will collapse financially. We just don't know when.

Whenever these douche bags give any projections years out, they are always always always wrong in the wrong direction. America keeps getting screwed because the beast is out of control.

[Travlyr]

There was no surplus to pay off the debt back then. Clinton and the Republicans STOLE from SS and Medicare trust funds to give this illusion that there was a tiny tiny surplus for a whole 3 years. BIG FREAKING DEAL!!! The general budget was still running a deficit.

The nasdaq internet bubble went pop in the late 90s which caused a mild recession left to Bush in 2001 leaving no imaginary surplus. On 9/11 the stock market crashed, spending kept increasing and two wars followed causing a wider deficit, hence more debt. The Left protected the FED policy to keeping interest rates low and protected their precious "affordable housing" plans that caused the housing bubble. It went pop and we got govt bailouts and the fed printed $15 trillion ($5 trillion went overseas). Nancy, Harry and Obama went ape $#@! and spent spent spent pushing federal spending from 19% of GDP to 24%. Nancy in just 4 years in power is responsible for a third of the entire debt, in just 4 freaking years people out of 100 since 1913 when the fed came to be and the stealing of Americans via the income tax system.

We are in trouble!!! The government will collapse financially. We just don't know when.

Whenever these douche bags give any projections years out, they are always always always wrong in the wrong direction. America keeps getting screwed because the beast is out of control.

Yep, it is all an illusion until the dollar is clearly defined. It will be better if we implement honest sound money before the collapse. The more people who understand sound money, the better. "The Purse & The Sword"

Competing currencies, repudiate the debt, and force employers and governments to use honest sound money.

[enoch150]

Because the dollar is undefined. What is a dollar?

This?

Or paper things? Or electronic entries?

I guess I should have said Federal Reserve Notes. "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private".

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Sure they do. What is even more appalling is people making this ^^ claim while the Fed has never been audited. Sure they do.

Why don't you answer these questions Paul or Nothing II,

My simple point is that the perception spread by some conspiracy theorists on the Internet that - Fed is looting the helpless government - is fallacious, the fact is that Fed IS part of the government & it's the government that ultimately reaps the benefits of all this money-creation & everything, including the "profits" that Fed makes

This is why Ron Paul always blames the GOVERNMENT just as much as he blames Fed because he understands that Fed is just another part of government's trickery

It has to be understood that many are spreading this "Fed is looting the helpless government" perception to push their agenda of Congress-issued paper-money, which is more of the same, & therefore the real nature of the relationship between Fed & government needs to be brought out at every instance

[Travlyr]

I guess I should have said Federal Reserve Notes. "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private".

I'd be fine with paying off the debt in Federal Reserve Notes as long as they quit putting people in jail for using other currencies, working without licenses or permits, or growing weeds. As a matter of fact, the Fed could write the entire debt off with one big note. Just accurately calculate the amount of the debt, print it out on nice letterhead stationary, hand it to the creditors, and call it paid in full.

[Travlyr]

My simple point is that the perception spread by some conspiracy theorists on the Internet that - Fed is looting the helpless government - is fallacious, the fact is that Fed IS part of the government & it's the government that ultimately reaps the benefits of all this money-creation & everything, including the "profits" that Fed makes

This is why Ron Paul always blames the GOVERNMENT just as much as he blames Fed because he understands that Fed is just another part of government's trickery

It has to be understood that many are spreading this "Fed is looting the helpless government" perception to push their agenda of Congress-issued paper-money, which is more of the same, & therefore the real nature of the relationship between Fed & government needs to be brought out at every instance

I would have preferred that you answer his questions. Are you referring to what Ellen Brown and Bill Still advocate?

In any case, the Federal Reserve System was designed by international banker Paul Warburg in conspiracy with Senator Nelson Aldrich, et.al. to create the Fed. That conspiracy did take place at Jekyll Island in November 1910. The conspirators admitted it.

Nonetheless, the Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional organization. We don't need to end the government. As a matter of fact we can't end the government, but we can force businesses and government to use constitutional honest sound money.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

There was no surplus to pay off the debt back then. Clinton and the Republicans STOLE from SS and Medicare trust funds to give this illusion that there was a tiny tiny surplus for a whole 3 years. BIG FREAKING DEAL!!! The general budget was still running a deficit.

The nasdaq internet bubble went pop in the late 90s which caused a mild recession left to Bush in 2001 leaving no imaginary surplus. On 9/11 the stock market crashed, spending kept increasing and two wars followed causing a wider deficit, hence more debt. The Left protected the FED policy to keeping interest rates low and protected their precious "affordable housing" plans that caused the housing bubble. It went pop and we got govt bailouts and the fed printed $15 trillion ($5 trillion went overseas). Nancy, Harry and Obama went ape $#@! and spent spent spent pushing federal spending from 19% of GDP to 24%. Nancy in just 4 years in power is responsible for a third of the entire debt, in just 4 freaking years people out of 100 since 1913 when the fed came to be and the stealing of Americans via the income tax system.

We are in trouble!!! The government will collapse financially. We just don't know when.

Whenever these douche bags give any projections years out, they are always always always wrong in the wrong direction. America keeps getting screwed because the beast is out of control.

+1

Nicely said

Yep, it is all an illusion until the dollar is clearly defined. It will be better if we implement honest sound money before the collapse. The more people who understand sound money, the better. "The Purse & The Sword"

Competing currencies, repudiate the debt, and force employers and governments to use honest sound money.

The concept of "dollar" needs to be rendered irrelevant & destroyed & that's exactly what Ron Paul believes & hopes to do by establishing competing currencies, which then would be measured in weights - grams & ounces for gold/silver/etc - & the concept of "dollar" would no longer be needed anyway

Competing currencies is good

Repudiation of national debt might spark WWIII if many of the sovereign-nations are still holding billions & trillions in US debt - but I'm not opposed to such repudiation in principle since it's NOT a voluntary contract & hence anti-liberty

There's nothing wrong with people mandating the government to accept certain currency

BUT employers or ANYBODY should NOT be FORCED to accept anything as money, it should be left up to private individuals & their private contracts to decide upon the currencies they want to deal in

[Travlyr]

+1

Nicely said



The concept of "dollar" needs to be rendered irrelevant & destroyed & that's exactly what Ron Paul believes & hopes to do by establishing competing currencies, which then would be measured in weights - grams & ounces for gold/silver/etc - & the concept of "dollar" would no longer be needed anyway

Competing currencies is good

Repudiation of national debt might spark WWIII if many of the sovereign-nations are still holding billions & trillions in US debt - but I'm not opposed to such repudiation in principle since it's NOT a voluntary contract & hence anti-liberty

There's nothing wrong with people mandating the government to accept certain currency

BUT employers or ANYBODY should NOT be FORCED to accept anything as money, it should be left up to private individuals & their private contracts to decide upon the currencies they want to deal in

Contracts have to be enforced. That is what I meant by force business and employers to deal honestly with the public.

[enoch150]

I'd be fine with paying off the debt in Federal Reserve Notes as long as they quit putting people in jail for using other currencies, working without licenses or permits, or growing weeds. As a matter of fact, the Fed could write the entire debt off with one big note. Just accurately calculate the amount of the debt, print it out on nice letterhead stationary, hand it to the creditors, and call it paid in full.

Ok. But that doesn't answer my question:

define debt what is it measured in?
pay off with what commodity?

It's measured and paid off in Federal Reserve Notes. Why is this a question?

[Travlyr]

Ok. But that doesn't answer my question:

define debt what is it measured in?
pay off with what commodity?

It's measured and paid off in Federal Reserve Notes. Why is this a question?

Federal Reserve Notes are undefined too. They have different values today than they did yesterday (inflation).

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Just accurately calculate the amount of the debt, print it out on nice letterhead stationary, hand it to the creditors, and call it paid in full.

That would cause hyperinflation & possibly WWIII since so many of the sovereign-nations are holding billions & trillions worth of US-debt as well as dollar-reserves, which would be worthless all of a sudden

In fact, Germany tried to do a similar thing after WWI & tried to pay off by just creating more & more money & it was one of the worst hyperinflations in history, it pretty much destroyed the country & then people, being impoverished & helpless, looking for answers, fell for the promises of socialism & Hitler

This is exactly what Paul is trying to PREVENT by constantly railing about collapse of the dollar

[Travlyr]

That would cause hyperinflation & possibly WWIII since so many of the sovereign-nations are holding billions & trillions worth of US-debt as well as dollar-reserves, which would be worthless all of a sudden

In fact, Germany tried to do a similar thing after WWI & tried to pay off by just creating more & more money & it was one of the worst hyperinflations in history, it pretty much destroyed the country & then people, being impoverished & helpless, looking for answers, fell for the promises of socialism & Hitler

This is exactly what Paul is trying to PREVENT by constantly railing about collapse of the dollar

I'm not saying that hyperinflation is the best way to end the scam, but I would be fine with it as long as the government quit putting people in jail or fining them for non-violent actions. I strongly advocate competing currencies, legalizing freedom, and strictly obeying the constitution.

That is what "The Purse & The Sword" is about as well.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Know what I love? Ron was voting against defense budgets when they were like $200 billion during the Clinton years.

[enoch150]

Federal Reserve Notes are undefined too. They have different values today than they did yesterday (inflation).

That doesn't change the fact that the debt is measured in Federal Reserve Notes, and that is what will be used to pay the debt off.

[Travlyr]

That doesn't change the fact that the debt is measured in Federal Reserve Notes, and that is what will be used to pay the debt off.

Right. Irredeemable notes. Which answers the second question: pay off with what commodity?? Nothing of value.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Are you referring to what Ellen Brown and Bill Still advocate?

Of course & there are many others out there who are trying to portray that "government is a victim of Fed's debt & interest burden" & using it as a launching-pad to advance their vile issue of "government-issued paper-money"
Well, they should know that Fed IS part of government so "government-issued paper-money" is ALREADY exists, & that biggest beneficiary of the current system is the government itself since all this money-creation, inflation & Fed's profits go to the government anyway

In any case, the Federal Reserve System was designed by international banker Paul Warburg in conspiracy with Senator Nelson Aldrich, et.al. to create the Fed. That conspiracy did take place at Jekyll Island in November 1910. The conspirators admitted it.

And why did government go along with it? Because as I've said, nobody benefits as much from existence of Fed as the government, with all this "money out of thin air"; the argument that banks benefit from Fed's existence is pretty spurious because they benefit largely when there's a disaster, & even in that case, it's the BIG BANKS TBTF that largely benefit, smaller ones are left to die anyway, on the other hand, government ALWAYS benefits from Fed so there's little point differentiating government & Fed when it comes to the bigger picture

Nonetheless, the Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional organization. We don't need to end the government. As a matter of fact we can't end the government, but we can force businesses and government to use constitutional honest sound money.

Well, government has been ended many times in many places so there's little doubt that it CAN be ended but then I don't deem anarcho-capitalism sustainable, at least at this point, but at the same time, if one truly wishes to be a CONSISTENT advocate of liberty then one must acknowledge that all people should have the same rights, & thereby people in government should NOT have the right to steal or coerce other individuals in any way, & therefore, government must EVENTUALLY (not in immediate future ) be supported by voluntary funding

I'm not saying that hyperinflation is the best way to end the scam, but I would be fine with it as long as the government quit putting people in jail or fining them for non-violent actions. I strongly advocate competing currencies, legalizing freedom, and strictly obeying the constitution.

That is what "The Purse & The Sword" is about as well.

It's not that easy because a big chunk of the debt is owned by countries allover the world, plus, they have dollar-reserves & they'll pissed as anything if their investments become confetti all of a sudden & their people are going to want to be hoping to spend that money on their country

Another big chunk is owned by various government funds like Social Security, Military, etc & then there are State government & local governments & so on & again, there will be civil unrest if that debt is simply repudiated

There's some which is owned by institutions & individuals, which COULD be repudiated but politicians are unlikely to vote for it because it could have electoral ramifications

The easiest part of all could be the Fed-owned debt because it's not really "debt" per se because if that were paid then money goes from Treasury-Fed-Treasury so essentially that debt doesn't really exist for the most part

Just creating more money & causing hyperinflation will be disastrous for the economy, as hyperinflation destroyes & nearly all smoothly functioning aspects of the society & overthrows trade & industry, & there could be civil unrest, impending misery may quickly push the country in the ultra-socialist direction, may be dictatorship, just like so many countries in the past that have been, even America under Great Depression
So willingly causing hyperinflation would be "off the table" & that's precisely what Ron Paul has been wanting to accomplish by railing about the possible of collapse of the dollar so there could be a smooth transition from the current to a new better system

So again, there are no quick fixes, it's damage-control all the way

[LibForestPaul]

I'd be fine with paying off the debt in Federal Reserve Notes as long as they quit putting people in jail for using other currencies, working without licenses or permits, or growing weeds. As a matter of fact, the Fed could write the entire debt off with one big note. Just accurately calculate the amount of the debt, print it out on nice letterhead stationary, hand it to the creditors, and call it paid in full.

See, that is why I started another thread. I am looking at Treasury.gov...it really sounds like the debt issued is in a different 'currency'. One is US dollars debt issued, yet it is purchased with Fed Reserve Notes. i.e. debt is on the books as real money, yet credit is issued in fiat currency. The bonds say US treasury, nothing about Fed Reserve System. Bonds are issued by the United States Treasury and backed by United States Gov (whatever that means), whereas Fed Reserve notes are issued by the Board of Governors and backed by...thin air.

[enoch150]

Right. Irredeemable notes. Which answers the second question: pay off with what commodity?? Nothing of value.

Nothing of value to you, maybe. In which case, you should not accumulate federal reserve notes nor lend them to the government for the purpose of being repaid in more federal reserve notes. However, federal reserve notes clearly have some value to the people who loan them to the government.

The debt is measured in federal reserve notes and paid in federal reserve notes (legal tender for all debts, public and private), and have value to those who loan federal reserve notes to the government.

It's easy to argue that the transaction is immoral or foolish, but the two questions asked by LibForestPaul seem to have clear answers, in my mind. That's why I don't understand why they were asked.

[Travlyr]

See, that is why I started another thread. I am looking at Treasury.gov...it really sounds like the debt issued is in a different 'currency'. One is US dollars debt issued, yet it is purchased with Fed Reserve Notes. i.e. debt is on the books as real money, yet credit is issued in fiat currency. The bonds say US treasury, nothing about Fed Reserve System. Bonds are issued by the United States Treasury and backed by United States Gov (whatever that means), whereas Fed Reserve notes are issued by the Board of Governors and backed by...thin air.

They did that during the Civil War too. It was a huge transfer of wealth from the people to the bankers. They paid for the war with paper bonds & 'Greenbacks' and President Grant paid them back with gold.

[Travlyr]

Of course & there are many others out there who are trying to portray that "government is a victim of Fed's debt & interest burden" & using it as a launching-pad to advance their vile issue of "government-issued paper-money"
Well, they should know that Fed IS part of government so "government-issued paper-money" is ALREADY exists, & that biggest beneficiary of the current system is the government itself since all this money-creation, inflation & Fed's profits go to the government anyway



And why did government go along with it? Because as I've said, nobody benefits as much from existence of Fed as the government, with all this "money out of thin air"; the argument that banks benefit from Fed's existence is pretty spurious because they benefit largely when there's a disaster, & even in that case, it's the BIG BANKS TBTF that largely benefit, smaller ones are left to die anyway, on the other hand, government ALWAYS benefits from Fed so there's little point differentiating government & Fed when it comes to the bigger picture



Well, government has been ended many times in many places so there's little doubt that it CAN be ended but then I don't deem anarcho-capitalism sustainable, at least at this point, but at the same time, if one truly wishes to be a CONSISTENT advocate of liberty then one must acknowledge that all people should have the same rights, & thereby people in government should NOT have the right to steal or coerce other individuals in any way, & therefore, government must EVENTUALLY (not in immediate future ) be supported by voluntary funding



It's not that easy because a big chunk of the debt is owned by countries allover the world, plus, they have dollar-reserves & they'll pissed as anything if their investments become confetti all of a sudden & their people are going to want to be hoping to spend that money on their country

Another big chunk is owned by various government funds like Social Security, Military, etc & then there are State government & local governments & so on & again, there will be civil unrest if that debt is simply repudiated

There's some which is owned by institutions & individuals, which COULD be repudiated but politicians are unlikely to vote for it because it could have electoral ramifications

The easiest part of all could be the Fed-owned debt because it's not really "debt" per se because if that were paid then money goes from Treasury-Fed-Treasury so essentially that debt doesn't really exist for the most part

Just creating more money & causing hyperinflation will be disastrous for the economy, as hyperinflation destroyes & nearly all smoothly functioning aspects of the society & overthrows trade & industry, & there could be civil unrest, impending misery may quickly push the country in the ultra-socialist direction, may be dictatorship, just like so many countries in the past that have been, even America under Great Depression
So willingly causing hyperinflation would be "off the table" & that's precisely what Ron Paul has been wanting to accomplish by railing about the possible of collapse of the dollar so there could be a smooth transition from the current to a new better system

So again, there are no quick fixes, it's damage-control all the way

Government must exist no matter how much people don't like it. The real problem is they are empowered with the right to coin money or print money since 1861. Separate the power of money from government and the major problems of government are solved. Even the tax issue is virtually solved because people would see firsthand how taxation is theft and resist paying the taxman unless they were getting their money's worth.

Quick fix:

• Strictly obey the Constitution.
• Amend the Constitution to allow competing currencies.
• Let people work unencumbered by government regulations.
• Homestead out the Fed's 650 million acres of land.
• Legalize industrial hemp.

That way the economy is no longer under the control of government. Peace and prosperity return to the people.

[Travlyr]

Nothing of value to you, maybe. In which case, you should not accumulate federal reserve notes nor lend them to the government for the purpose of being repaid in more federal reserve notes. However, federal reserve notes clearly have some value to the people who loan them to the government.

The debt is measured in federal reserve notes and paid in federal reserve notes (legal tender for all debts, public and private), and have value to those who loan federal reserve notes to the government.

It's easy to argue that the transaction is immoral or foolish, but the two questions asked by LibForestPaul seem to have clear answers, in my mind. That's why I don't understand why they were asked.

FRNs still have value today, but if they print enough of them to pay off the debt it is my opinion that they would be worth even less then than they are now. In inflationary times it is better to hold commodities, imo.