Exploding debt threatens America

[Buffalo Roam]

I know that, I just can't figure out where those numbers are coming from or how Obama would be responsible for anything like that.

W's tax policy and spending practices were projected to double the national debt, on their own, before 2012, for example. That was before W's TARP bailout of the Republican bankers. Are these projections from the same tax assumptions as those? Because relabeling the current taxation setup as "Obama" policy is a bit strange, but what other assumptions can there be?

The numbers come from the CBO, and the tax policies are from both parties, started when FDR saved the world from depression.

Smoke and Mirrors, smoke and mirrors, there never was a surplus, that was all projected numbers in the out years, and the spending never slowed down from either the Democrats or the Republicans in the last 16 years.

And now Obama has just added 1.8 trillion dollars to the debt from His own budget and spending programs in the last 100+ days all voted and passed by Democrats.

Obama is not the C&C, and it is His responsibility and what is He doing? spending even faster than the Democrats under George Bush in the last 4 years.

 

[EmeraldAxe]

A fair amount of people seem interested in debt and "paying the bills" but no one responds to my post on Auditing the Fed. Who do you think issues the money for this debt? The money has to come from somewhere. You can decrease spending (not politically feasible most of the time), raise taxes (they're already quite high), or print money. Obama and Bush both probably don't understand our banking and money system. Stop trying to find a scapegoat and start trying to come to a real solution.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

A fair amount of people seem interested in debt and "paying the bills" but no one responds to my post on Auditing the Fed. Who do you think issues the money for this debt? The money has to come from somewhere. You can decrease spending (not politically feasible most of the time), raise taxes (they're already quite high), or print money. Obama and Bush both probably don't understand our banking and money system. Stop trying to find a scapegoat and start trying to come to a real solution.

The answer to that is the money come from the printing press.

FDR issued Executive Order 6073, which brought licensed Banks, and from that point on you couldn't open a bank with out Federal Authority.

And that Authority was then vested in the Federal Reserve, and only that could issue money.

The funny thing is that every President who has been assassinated, or a attempt has been made on, tried to reduce the power of the Federal Reserve to be the sole source of Money in America.

1963: On June 4th President John F. Kennedy (the 35th President of the United States 1961 – 1963) signs Executive Order 11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Rosthchilds owned Federal Reserve.

February 25, 1862 President Lincoln signed the First Legal Tender Act which authorized the issuance of United States Notes as a Legal Tender.

Back in late 1985, the US Congress authorized the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985 which President Ronald Reagan promptly signed into law. It ordered the US Treasury, through its US Mint branch, to start producing gold bullion coins.

James A. Garfield, wanted all paper money issued by the government to be secured by gold or silver.

Yes, a interesting set of coincident.

 

[iceaura]

And now Obama has just added 1.8 trillion dollars to the debt from His own budget and spending programs in the last 100+ days all voted and passed by Democrats.

Much of that is leftover W programs - like the war in Iraq, and the bank bailout, and the interest on W's record borrowing, and the contracting of privatized stuff - and a consequence of W's tax structure (to be fair, Reagan laid the foundation), where the richest pay the lowest tax rates at the same time as they accumulate a greater percentage of the economic surplus.

Next year's budget will be the first one to show Obama's policies substantially, and the first one Obama has real control over will be the year after.

 

[joepistole]

The answer to that is the money come from the printing press.

FDR issued Executive Order 6073, which brought licensed Banks, and from that point on you couldn't open a bank with out Federal Authority.

And that Authority was then vested in the Federal Reserve, and only that could issue money.

The funny thing is that every President who has been assassinated, or a attempt has been made on, tried to reduce the power of the Federal Reserve to be the sole source of Money in America.

1963: On June 4th President John F. Kennedy (the 35th President of the United States 1961 – 1963) signs Executive Order 11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Rosthchilds owned Federal Reserve.

February 25, 1862 President Lincoln signed the First Legal Tender Act which authorized the issuance of United States Notes as a Legal Tender.

Back in late 1985, the US Congress authorized the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985 which President Ronald Reagan promptly signed into law. It ordered the US Treasury, through its US Mint branch, to start producing gold bullion coins.

James A. Garfield, wanted all paper money issued by the government to be secured by gold or silver.

Yes, a interesting set of coincident.

It is pretty obvious you have been hitting the koolaid pretty hard. By the way, the Rothchilds do not own the Federal Reserve. And the FDR Executive order authorized the Treasury to issue silver certificates. It became very clear in subsequent years that a precious metal backing to the US Dollar was just not realistic nor desirable for reasons stated in other threads.

 

[GAY!]

Hm...a lot of people seem to have no idea what goes on in their government? Bush not to blame...two wars, trillion dollar spending, as he brought us into unspeakable debt? And there is no blame on Bush? There's plenty of blame on that Administration. Obama is no better...spending MORE AND MORE money is not going to solve the problem just make it worse.

You don't continue the same actions to alleviate the problem, if it's not working the first time....it won't work the next 700 or so billion dollars you spend later. Obama has proposed new spending that is get this...15 times greater than the current monetary system...do people realize how INSANE this is? That means our dollar will devalue at a factor of 15! A loaf of bread that's a dollar will be 15 dollars. That's not gonna happen instantaneously but just wait till next year when you guys feel the effect of the defacing of our dollar that's currently happening.

This isn't a new system...this is the same old rhetoric and bullshit that we've all been through, taking money from the poor and putting it in the hands of the rich is nothing new....and Obama is doing nothing different, face reality. A new system would have been him putting this money into alternative resources, creating new corporations, and what not...but he's putting it in the SAME corporations in the SAME hands that the money's always been.

Nothing is fucking new.

 

[Pandaemoni]

And 100 per cent inflation would, of course, mean a 100 per cent depreciation of the dollar.

That is a silly mistake and the FT should feel silly for printing it. 100% inflation means that a $5 sandwich suddenly costs $10. If you have $5, then it can be traded for one sandwich pre-inflation and half a sandwich post, which is a 50% depreciation. For the dollar to depreciate 100% means the dollar is worth nothing at all, and the related rate of inflation is infinite.

I certainly do agree that if America stays on her present course for 10-15 years, then we will likely have a crisis in our ability to borrow. I don't know any people who think the status quo is long-run sustainable. That doesn't mean that is cannot be good in the short run. It's one thing to take medicine for five days when you develop the flu. Its another thing to take the same medicine every day, for years on end, even after the flu goes away.

The real problem, as I see it, is that we have set ourselves up as the ultimate global policeman, and have no strategy to getting out of that position. Plus, just as we are in a position to get a handle on our debt, medicare and social security will become more of a burden. In good years we might borrower our way out of that, but it's money we likely won't have.

Let this be our lesson though, that we cannot have long term massive debt in the boom years, because that is the cushion that we can use to soften the fall in the lean ones. That's a lesson for Obama and, more importantly, the Democrats, but also one for Bush/Cheney and the Republicans. It's nice that we take care of the elderly and farmers and fund faith-based initiatives, but not at the cost of our financial well being. It was nice of us to bring democracy to Iraq, and its nice that we saber rattle against Iran and South Korea, but we actually can't afford to let such adventures turn military, because we we can't easily get the funds through taxation or borrowing.

 

[joepistole]

That is a silly mistake and the FT should feel silly for printing it. 100% inflation means that a $5 sandwich suddenly costs $10. If you have $5, then it can be traded for one sandwich pre-inflation and half a sandwich post, which is a 50% depreciation. For the dollar to depreciate 100% means the dollar is worth nothing at all, and the related rate of inflation is infinite.

I certainly do agree that if America stays on her present course for 10-15 years, then we will likely have a crisis in our ability to borrow. I don't know any people who think the status quo is long-run sustainable. That doesn't mean that is cannot be good in the short run. It's one thing to take medicine for five days when you develop the flu. Its another thing to take the same medicine every day, for years on end, even after the flu goes away.

The real problem, as I see it, is that we have set ourselves up as the ultimate global policeman, and have no strategy to getting out of that position. Plus, just as we are in a position to get a handle on our debt, medicare and social security will become more of a burden. In good years we might borrower our way out of that, but it's money we likely won't have.

Let this be our lesson though, that we cannot have long term massive debt in the boom years, because that is the cushion that we can use to soften the fall in the lean ones. That's a lesson for Obama and, more importantly, the Democrats, but also one for Bush/Cheney and the Republicans. It's nice that we take care of the elderly and farmers and fund faith-based initiatives, but not at the cost of our financial well being. It was nice of us to bring democracy to Iraq, and its nice that we saber rattle against Iran and South Korea, but we actually can't afford to let such adventures turn military, because we we can't easily get the funds through taxation or borrowing.

No the problem is that the US has failed to tax those who can pay taxes...the wealthiest of its citizens while continually adding to its financail commitments. The US in short especially under the George II administration has failed to govern. The logical result of this failure is chaos. But there is light, and his name is Obama. It is too early to tell if he is the light at the end of the tunnel or lights on an oncoming train.

But thus far I have been very impressed with the way he has handled himself. He thus far is doing all the right things.

 

[Pandaemoni]

He thus far is doing all the right things.

I think he is doing all the right things, but I am also certain that no one can say where we would be (for good or for bad) if we had balanced the budget on the backs of the wealthy. Taxes do tend to retard economic growth, and the notion of spending the same amounts as we have, all funded by taxes and none by spending cuts seems burdensome.

It was ultimately the product of political failure, because it was far easier to borrow than to tell any political constituency that they programs were being cut or their taxes hiked. The only voices brave enough to share the truth with the voters (on either side of the political spectrum) were protected from fallout by their own inability to do anything to change the way revenue was raised.

Obama happens to be faced with the fallout of the American "leave no government program behind (or unfunded)" system. Hios choices are to either (i) let the economy crash and burn now (as it seems madanthonywayne may prefer) and hope that it is stronger later when additional hard choices regarding a relatively modest debt need to be made or (ii) spur the economy now, even though that makes the long run challenge of the debt obviously harder. The challenge the debt poses though, if ultimately the challenge of another time of economic turmoil, making the choices:

(i) (A) truly horrible bad times in the short term, (B) possible weak hope in the medium term followed by (C) moderately bad times following that now and moderate bad times later

versus

(ii) (A) moderately bad times now, (B) a good chance of hope in the medium term followed by (C) truly horrible prospects after that.

At least with Obama's choice, option (ii), you have some chance of trading off medium term prosperity to lessen the severity of the looming debt crisis. In any event, on a present value basis, shifting the worst of the crisis into the future is a good idea.

At the very least it is clear that massive tax cuts would not have made anything better under either scenario. Tax cuts are just a possible way of implementing option (ii), but generally regarded as an inferior mechanism by economists.

 

[joepistole]

I think it is clear that taxes must eventually rise. And when one looks at the total tax burden as a percent of income. The social group with the most disposable income is the wealthy...the ones that benefited greatly under George II. They are most able to pay and in many ways responsible for this huge failure of governement.

The effect of taxation on the economy depends on who is taxed. Since most of the economic activity in the US is driven by the middle and lower income classes, a tax increase on those groups has a much more negative impact than on the wealthiest of tax payers. At the moment when you look at TOTAL TAX BURDEN, the middle class and lower income classes pay less that the wealthy, those earning over 250k per year.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

I think it is clear that taxes must eventually rise. And when one looks at the total tax burden as a percent of income. The social group with the most disposable income is the wealthy...the ones that benefited greatly under George II. They are most able to pay and in many ways responsible for this huge failure of governement.

The effect of taxation on the economy depends on who is taxed. Since most of the economic activity in the US is driven by the middle and lower income classes, a tax increase on those groups has a much more negative impact than on the wealthiest of tax payers. At the moment when you look at TOTAL TAX BURDEN, the middle class and lower income classes pay less that the wealthy, those earning over 250k per year.

joe you could confiscate every dime the so called rich posses and still not have enough money to pay for Obamas budget and bail outs.

It isn't that we are Taxed to little, it is that the Government spends to much, and most of that spending is not Constitutionally Legal.

They may have passed the XVI Amendment, but they did not Repeal the IV, IX, or X Amendments.

And nowhere in the Constitution is the right given to the Federal Government to confiscate money form one person and give it to another to fund their retirement or pay for their health care, subsidies their housing, send their children to school, or feed their children.

The is why there is a thing called Family, and Charity, and if the Government kept its hand out of my pockets, I would be able to send my children to school, afford their health care, and pay for my own retirement, and pass the bounty to my children, not the government, and make my next generation just that much more successful and prosperous.

So no we are not Taxed to little, the Government spend to much on things not Constitutional.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

It is pretty obvious you have been hitting the koolaid pretty hard. By the way, the Rothchilds do not own the Federal Reserve. And the FDR Executive order authorized the Treasury to issue silver certificates. It became very clear in subsequent years that a precious metal backing to the US Dollar was just not realistic nor desirable for reasons stated in other threads.

Now where did I state that the Rothchilds owned the Federal Reserve?

Yes, and from the Silver Certificate were did we end up, fiat money from the Federal Reserve.

Now think really, really, reeaaalllly, hard, and see if you can see a pattern that lead to the Federal Reserve being the issuing agency of money for the U.S.

Now enjoy your kool aid.

 

[madanthonywayne]

The effect of taxation on the economy depends on who is taxed.

I disagree. While there is some truth to what you say, no matter who you tax you are removing money from the private sector. Less money=less economic activity.

 

[joepistole]

Now where did I state that the Rothchilds owned the Federal Reserve?

Yes, and from the Silver Certificate were did we end up, fiat money from the Federal Reserve.

Now think really, really, reeaaalllly, hard, and see if you can see a pattern that lead to the Federal Reserve being the issuing agency of money for the U.S.

Now enjoy your kool aid.

As for Rothchild please see my previous post where you were quoted.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2265967&postcount=25

We wound up with fiat money because it is better than the commodity backed system for reasons previously stated.

As for tax, perhaps instead of raising taxes on those who can afford to pay them...perhaps we should just discontinue your federal health and federal retirement benefits as has happened to many in the private sector.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

As for Rothchild please see my previous post where you were quoted.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2265967&postcount=25

We wound up with fiat money because it is better than the commodity backed system for reasons previously stated.

As for tax, perhaps instead of raising taxes on those who can afford to pay them...perhaps we should just discontinue your federal health and federal retirement benefits as has happened to many in the private sector.

Again, were did I claim the Rothchild owned the Federal Reserve?

You have a bad habbit of putting other peoples word in my mouth.

Seems that is a quote from some one else as to who owns the Federal Reserve.

I have made no reference to who owns the Federal Reserve, all I was doing was pointing out that there is a strong coincidental factor that Presidents who have been attacked and or assassinated all have challenged the Federal Reserve in some manner.

I really don't care who owns the Federal Reserve as it isn't a Constitutionally approved entity in the first place.

 

[S.A.M.]

Again, were did I claim the Rothchild owned the Federal Reserve?

Right here:

1963: On June 4th President John F. Kennedy (the 35th President of the United States 1961 – 1963) signs Executive Order 11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Rosthchilds owned Federal Reserve.

From this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2265738&postcount=23

You did not cite a source, which makes it your claim.

 

[pjdude1219]

Again, were did I claim the Rothchild owned the Federal Reserve?

Originally Posted by Buffalo Roam
The answer to that is the money come from the printing press.

FDR issued Executive Order 6073, which brought licensed Banks, and from that point on you couldn't open a bank with out Federal Authority.

And that Authority was then vested in the Federal Reserve, and only that could issue money.

The funny thing is that every President who has been assassinated, or a attempt has been made on, tried to reduce the power of the Federal Reserve to be the sole source of Money in America.

1963: On June 4th President John F. Kennedy (the 35th President of the United States 1961 – 1963) signs Executive Order 11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Rosthchilds owned Federal Reserve.

February 25, 1862 President Lincoln signed the First Legal Tender Act which authorized the issuance of United States Notes as a Legal Tender.

Back in late 1985, the US Congress authorized the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985 which President Ronald Reagan promptly signed into law. It ordered the US Treasury, through its US Mint branch, to start producing gold bullion coins.

James A. Garfield, wanted all paper money issued by the government to be secured by gold or silver.

Yes, a interesting set of coincident.

You have a bad habit of putting other peoples word in my mouth.

You have a bad habit of forgetting your own posts and using other peoples words as your own.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Originally Posted by Buffalo Roam
The answer to that is the money come from the printing press.

FDR issued Executive Order 6073, which brought licensed Banks, and from that point on you couldn't open a bank with out Federal Authority.

And that Authority was then vested in the Federal Reserve, and only that could issue money.

The funny thing is that every President who has been assassinated, or a attempt has been made on, tried to reduce the power of the Federal Reserve to be the sole source of Money in America.

1963: On June 4th President John F. Kennedy (the 35th President of the United States 1961 – 1963) signs Executive Order 11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Rosthchilds owned Federal Reserve.

February 25, 1862 President Lincoln signed the First Legal Tender Act which authorized the issuance of United States Notes as a Legal Tender.

Back in late 1985, the US Congress authorized the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985 which President Ronald Reagan promptly signed into law. It ordered the US Treasury, through its US Mint branch, to start producing gold bullion coins.

James A. Garfield, wanted all paper money issued by the government to be secured by gold or silver.

Yes, a interesting set of coincident.

You have a bad habit of forgetting your own posts and using other peoples words as your own.

And you don't happen to understand quotes, I quoted a source who believes that, I never made that statement, or made any statement that I believed such fact.

I was pointing out that every President who has been attacked or assassinated stepped on the toes of the Fed and their power to control the money supply.

Yes, pjdude, your logic and reading comprehension doesn't exist.

 

[S.A.M.]

Why were you quoting from an obviously antisemitic source? It seems rather contradictory to your position.

 

[joepistole]

I disagree. While there is some truth to what you say, no matter who you tax you are removing money from the private sector. Less money=less economic activity.

It is true that taxation will remove money from the private sector. And that will be the thing to do in the not too distant future. The Federal Reserve and Treasury have pumped a lot of cash into the economy by purchasing assets in order to keep markets liquid and prevent an economic disaster.

But as the economy recovers, the government will need to shrink the money supply in order to keep interest rates at acceptable levels and moderate inflation. When that time comes, next two to three years, it will be necessary to increase taxes in addition to reducing federal spending and selling the assets they have and are now purchasing.