yes, you are right, i probably shouldn't take a jibe at your expense but that's because you started it first, with your calling everyone else ignorant, uneducated, can't make money, not a financier and so forth, that was what surprised me as you normally don't do that and shouldn't as you haven't the least clue what the background of the other posters here are, as you generally make better than good comments
Ron Paul: "The U.S. Government Must Admit It Is Bankrupt"
- Thread starter bearice
- Start date
yes, you are right, i probably shouldn't take a jibe at your expense but that's because you started it first, with your calling everyone else ignorant, uneducated, can't make money, not a financier and so forth, that was what surprised me as you normally don't do that and shouldn't as you haven't the least clue what the background of the other posters here are, as you generally make better than good comments
trefoil, the relevance, the 'difference it makes', is that you knew it was book entry of debt but you wrote that Soc. Sec. was the largest holder of U.S. Treasury Securities. That is not true. The Soc. Sec. has something short of an asset, an i.o.u.?, but not actual securities...and the Treasury does not have counter vailing treasury security liabilities....its more of a contingent liability. A modification of that liability would not constitute a default with regard to Treasury Securities. If there is no difference then why doesn't Soc. Security have actual treasury secuities?
We should soon see. Formerly, he was merely a "principled voice against the wind". Now, he's in a position where he should have an impact.
For those who don't know world and US financial history.... (1) The Founders were ADAMANTLY AGAINST THE US EVER HAVING A CENTRAL BANK, and (2) there have been 2 prior central banks in America's history which became defunct. Whatever happens in the way of downsizing/eliminating the Fed (if any) won't be without precedent.
And let me say.... FUCK WOODROW WILSON for giving us the curse of our current Federal Reserve... may he be ROTTING IN HELL!!
At some point America is going to have to say, "NO MAS" to increasing debt.. and deal with the consequences. Or, continuing deficit spending until the world protests, "no mas" on America's borrow-and-spend policies.
So, which will it be?
Hint... if we wait until the world calls "no mas" upon us.. WE'RE FUCKED.. WITH NO DESIRABLE OPTIONS!... and GREATER PAIN TO BE SUFFERED BY ALL OF US.
When I worked at the bank, we had book entry CDs, and the only practical difference was that the certificate wasn't physically delivered. The liability and everything else was exactly the same.
So, as Social Security has to invest in something, that something is Treasury debt. The fact it's a book entry should make no difference at all.
Also, why wouldn't the Treasury have a liability? This makes no sense to me.
Do you have any proof that the legal treatment for Treasury debt held by Social Security is different from the legal treatment for Treasury debt held by a citizen via a Savings Bond?
I do not know what this means. make your own decision.
Geithner Says U.S. Insolvent
The U.S. government is insolvent. Who says so? Timothy F. Geithner, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.
Geithner sent a letter to Congress on Jan. 6, 2011 asking for the debt limit to be raised. If it is not raised, he warned, the U.S. will default on its debt. In his words:
Never in our history has Congress failed to increase the debt limit when necessary. Failure to raise the limit would precipitate a default by the United States."
He didnât say that the government will be inconvenienced. He didnât say that the government would be forced to muddle through by delaying payments, raising taxes, and cutting non-obligatory programs and services. He said the government will default. This means that the government doesnât have enough cash to pay its obligations to the many and sundry persons to whom it owes cash unless Congress authorizes an issue of even more debt.
After the government issues the new debt, its overall debt will be even higher than before. Unless its obligations that require cash payments are reduced, or unless it finds new sources of revenue, or unless the interest rates that it pays decline, the same situation will surely occur again and occur even faster because its overall debt will have risen. It will run short of cash to pay its obligations.
Suppose that you had a debt of $10,000 that required a payment of $500 in order to stave off your creditorsâ seizing your assets. Suppose that you didnât have the $500. One way out would be to borrow $500 from a new lender and use that $500 to pay off the old lenders. That buys you time. However, now you have debts of $10,500. You have to find ways of lowering this or else you will again be faced with an even worse situation.
Complete article:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff338.html
Geithner Says U.S. Insolvent
The U.S. government is insolvent. Who says so? Timothy F. Geithner, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.
Geithner sent a letter to Congress on Jan. 6, 2011 asking for the debt limit to be raised. If it is not raised, he warned, the U.S. will default on its debt. In his words:
Never in our history has Congress failed to increase the debt limit when necessary. Failure to raise the limit would precipitate a default by the United States."
He didnât say that the government will be inconvenienced. He didnât say that the government would be forced to muddle through by delaying payments, raising taxes, and cutting non-obligatory programs and services. He said the government will default. This means that the government doesnât have enough cash to pay its obligations to the many and sundry persons to whom it owes cash unless Congress authorizes an issue of even more debt.
After the government issues the new debt, its overall debt will be even higher than before. Unless its obligations that require cash payments are reduced, or unless it finds new sources of revenue, or unless the interest rates that it pays decline, the same situation will surely occur again and occur even faster because its overall debt will have risen. It will run short of cash to pay its obligations.
Suppose that you had a debt of $10,000 that required a payment of $500 in order to stave off your creditorsâ seizing your assets. Suppose that you didnât have the $500. One way out would be to borrow $500 from a new lender and use that $500 to pay off the old lenders. That buys you time. However, now you have debts of $10,500. You have to find ways of lowering this or else you will again be faced with an even worse situation.
Complete article:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff338.html