November 4, 2015 at 2:29 pm #44841
When you look at the graft that shows who owns the debt it shows why all the retirement plans are running out of money.
30.4% U. S. Individuals & Institutions
16.7% U. S. Social Security Trust Fund
10.8% U. S. Federal Reserve
5.6% U. S. Civil Service Retirement Fund
2.4% U. S. Military Retirement Fund
They taxed us and then borrowed it to pay for there spending.November 4, 2015 at 8:16 pm #44864
That’s absolutely the wrong question. The question that SHOULD be asked (and answered by way of explanation to the American people) is, who OWES the national debt. Who is it that’s responsible for paying back all those bond holders that LOANED the money to FedGov? A T-Bond or T-Bill is nothing more than an IOU. In this case, the IOUs are held by the above-mentioned entities. So who is it that’s responsible for PAYING that debt? That’s the question. (The answer doesn’t go down well, but is all too painfully obvious.)November 4, 2015 at 9:57 pm #44867
Interestingly enough , there comes a point when a debtor nation , becomes stronger than a lender nation . THis is because IF the lender nation DOESNT continue to loan , its economy will collapse , because they have too much invested in the debtor nation , so if one falls ………….they all do . We are seeing that play out in the EU now . We cant afford to piss off China and others too much at this point , and they cant afford to let us default .THat is why Greece should have stuck to their guns and not caved in , the Commies in Germany would have been forced to relent , had they dug in and waited . Once a lender nation allows the situation to get past the point of the debtor nation’s ability to repay , they are screwed . Typically , debts are nullified , by either the countries government changing hands , or war between those countries . Default is inevitable , all the around the world .November 4, 2015 at 10:16 pm #44868
Tolik, Yes it will come to a default. We will see what China will do at that point.November 4, 2015 at 10:25 pm #44869
This is all smoke and mirrors. The unfunded liability is over 100 trillion maybe 200 trillion. There is no conceivable way to pay it to the designated recipients. No one in their right mind will lend to a country with 100 trillion debt.November 5, 2015 at 4:03 am #44872
This is all smoke and mirrors. The unfunded liability is over 100 trillion maybe 200 trillion. There is no conceivable way to pay it to the designated recipients. No one in their right mind will lend to a country with 100 trillion debt.
Last I read, over 300.November 5, 2015 at 4:26 am #44873
Here’s a good riddle for y’all. The Federal Reserve, a non-government entity, owns a large amount of the US debt.
How can that be? What did they use to pay for it, since they don’t print money?November 5, 2015 at 4:31 am #44874
“No one in their right mind will lend to a country with 100 trillion debt.”
No one ever accused the Fed of being in its right mind, but if “dollars” can be “created” by the billions (trillions?) at a time, at no greater cost than to pay an authorized minion, sitting at a computer, to type the numbers, then why not “lend” (at interest) any corporate nation in existence, any amount that they might promise to squeeze out of their
subjectscitizens. The only thing worse that could happen, is that that nation fails to pay. Then the bank claims ownership of the bankrupt corporation, and installs its own people in the national offices, to liquidate both the assets (land, infrastructure. etc), and the liabilities (including, perhaps, dissenting citizens) to discharge the “debt.” What’s not to like?
So why do “citizens of THE UNITED STATES (inc.)” owe whatever unrealistic amount their government may choose to “borrow” from its chosen issuer of currency, the privately owned bank cartel known as the Federal Reserve System? Simple: they’re (we’re) part of the collateral on the (unpayable) loan. As a “citizen of THE UNITED STATES (inc.)” you are subject to the laws of the corporate nation to which you, yourself, are subject, i.e., the one headquartered in Washington, D.C. Under its bylaws (called “The Constitution of the United States) Congress has “exclusive legislative jurisdiction” over its territory (and any citizens thereof, including those, wherever domiciled, who claim nationality in the corporation known as”THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”)
All “constitutional” under the bylaws of the corporation ….
Cry, "Treason!"November 5, 2015 at 4:32 am #44875
“The Federal Reserve, a non-government entity, owns a large amount of the US debt.
How can that be? What did they use to pay for it, since they don’t print money?”
The corporate fedgov prints it for them, and sells it to them at cost (~&0.03/ note, irrespective of denomination.) They “pay for it” with a numerically appropriate computer entry on the fedgov’s account. That much, at least, is on the level, to the extent that the “money” they pay is “real.” But the bulk of the debt they own is “paid for” in interest-bearing loans of the same kind of “money,” equally as “valuable,” (because the governing corporation says so.) So why is the interest rate on current loans zero? Because the Fed needs a base of operation. If they raised the rate, everyone would understand that the corporate fedgov would be unable to pay, therefore, bancarota! If they had another well-armed base of operation, able to make everyone else pay up, they might try it. But where?
The power of the purse is always backed by the power of the sword, at least, until that sword proves unable or unwilling to do so. So the canny international banker makes loans to other states as well, expecting that whenever the wielder of the sword in question either refuses to pay up, or more likely, goes into competition by printing,or otherwise issuing, his own interest free “money” (e.g., Lincoln, Hitler, Kennedy, each to varying degrees) at least some of those other nations will, for reasons of their own, and with “generous” loans, arm themselves with the collective sword-power needed to bring the “outlaw” to heel.
Cry, "Treason!"November 5, 2015 at 7:55 pm #44891
You know if operated our budgets like they do, our preps would be that much easier to finance. The Fed is once again talking out of both sides of it’s mouth on interest rates. They floated the possibility of negative interest rates, then they came out with we may have to raise interest rates. I get nervous when the Chairperson of the Fed begins to sound like a weatherman.November 5, 2015 at 9:33 pm #44893
“The Fed is once again talking out of both sides of it’s mouth on interest rates.”
They’ve painted themselves into a corner. In the past, they’d have been happy to have some other nation, or alliance of nations come kick the USA’s butt, and take us over to pay off all the (hot air and electrons) “money” they’ve loaned us, since their endgame is always to end up owning (controlling) everything, through proxies. But for now, there’s no combination of powers, military and economic, able to do that, without suffering equally.
(My guess: that’s why ISIS is the farm team they’re building up, to take over Europe, because in the hands of Europeans, Europe wouldn’t try to dominate us militarily. Eurabia, in the hands of crazies who love a glorious death, the way we love a glorious life, might be willing to try, or at least, might push us where the banksters want us to go.).
But the Fed can’t afford to admit that they’ve almost de-fanged themselves by loaning to the only real power base they have, more “money” than the entire planet could ever pay back, so they put in their Dracula teeth, and growl that they’ll raise rates next month, while keeping them at zero for now, on the way to negative rates. The Fed is the barking minion for international banksters, so über-rich that their money has made them crazy.
Back in the days of low technology, such people could live an entire level (or two, or three) above not only the commoners, but above the kings and emperors they made through finance. Technology ruined that exclusivity for them. With electric power, automobiles, telephony, modern medicine, etc., we “ordinaries” can live better, healthier, and longer, than kings could, in the bad old days. Liberty and capitalism have made inventors and competitors, not only possible, but numerous. It drives those who want to own it all, insane. When you’ve reached the top of the ladder, where the attempt to live a higher style of life would kill you, the only thing you can do to keep others from joining you, and ruining your claim to superiority, is to break some of the rungs between you and them.
Yeah, Roadracer, If we could just put our names on a piece of paper, and write a nice big number, and call it “money,” we could buy all kinds of stuff. Problem is, so could everyone else, and that game would be over, almost as soon as it had begun. Question is, why would we want to allow our politicians to give such a privilege away to a handful of people (mostly foreigners) with inherited fortunes? If they can do that, who are they really working for? But that’s what was sneaked through the CONgress at the end of 1912, and nobody, including the Extreme Court, has ever successfully called BS on them. We have the finest government (funny) money can buy. If the vast majority of sheepizens want to sit still for their shearing, only to become the “guests of honor” at the upcoming Lamb-Roast, there’s not much we can do, except make plans & preps for unauthorized survival.
Cry, "Treason!"November 5, 2015 at 11:30 pm #44895
Roadracer, I also read the negative interest rates. That would mean if you have money in a savings account it will cost you to keep it in the bank and the rich which would get a loan would get more money then what they have to pay back, Wow!November 6, 2015 at 5:18 am #44896
Technically, so I’m told (I don’t have a reference), the US is barred by law from issuing debt at negative rates, unlike other nations that have already done so. I posted elsewhere some details of that, including a 10-year bond issued by the Swiss.November 6, 2015 at 9:42 am #44898
Even if it were true, in today’s political climate a law is only enforcrd or observed at the discretion of the authority having jurisdiction.November 6, 2015 at 10:12 pm #44916
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.