It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who honestly believes the U.S. can pull itself out of a 16 trillion debt?

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GD21D
Current public debt: $15,879,685,991,358.94Current est U.S. population: 313,237,833Per person: $50,695.30And people are concerned with just balancing the budget? I think it's going to take a little more than just balancing the budget. It would take years and years of surplus. It's virtually impossible.Debt clock


I had a passing thought on this earlier today. Are we going to have to sell off a couple of states (Alaska and Hawaii)? Would that do it?




posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
The reality is paying off the debt isn't really that big a deal. One thing you have to keep in mind is that once you start paying it down you can eliminate alot of the interest that is ballooning it. The part that is problematic is getting a Congress that will actually do anything about it. Cutting spending alone isn't going to do much but cause more problems sorry folks we are going to have to increase taxes and we are going to have to address our trade deficits.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GD21D
Current public debt: $15,879,685,991,358.94Current est U.S. population: 313,237,833Per person: $50,695.30And people are concerned with just balancing the budget? I think it's going to take a little more than just balancing the budget. It would take years and years of surplus. It's virtually impossible.Debt clock


I think, yes, it is entirely possible to get out of the debt we are in...personally, I feel that people look at the wrong aspect of the debt by looking at the dollar amount; what people should be looking at is debt as a percentage of GDP. Or in other words, debt versus the overall strength of the economy. What you then find is that, emerging from WW2, we had far greater debt in our economy, though it was not greater in actual "dollar" value.

If American politicians REALLY wanted to lower the debt, they would replicate what was done post-WW2. That is, raise tariffs and taxes and promote domestic production by PUNISHING outsourcing.

But you won't see that happen. Not because it is impossible, but because this nation was ruined by 1980s corporate piracy, the collapse of our industrial base, the expansion of big finance and the proliferation of Reaganomics. Hint, hint; Reaganomics worked exactly as it was meant to, but the public was sold a false bill of goods...you cut taxes for the rich, they're not going to voluntarily make jobs, they are going to consolidate that wealth and live extravagantly.

Consolidated wealth begets consolidated power.
Consolidated power craves more wealth and control.

Anyone who thinks otherwise hasnt paid attention to history.

But to get back to the point, yes, the debt COULD be paid off, over a long period of time, like the debt left over from WW2(every president from FDR to Carter left with less debt than the last, btw) but you would have to go back to a system which was working...so what changed in 1981?

Taxes..

Reagan re-wrote the tax code and all we have seen since has been debt, debt and more debt for the people and profits, profits and more profits for the already rich...except when Clinton, slightly, raised taxes...even HW Bush knew that the path Reagan put us on was unsustainable...and that realisation cost him his second term.

But hey, let's all be doom and gloom and ignore the neon elephant in the room...

Now back to our regularly scheduled program; because Milton Friedman was sigh a bright guy.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
We will never be able to get out of debt and I will tell you why.

Our debt equates, more or less, to monies created and in circulation. If we were to try and balance the budget then we would cause a drastic shortage of cash flow somewhere.

I only know of three times in the history of the United States in which a true surplus existed.
Twice under Eisenhower and once at the end of Jackson's presidency.

Eisenhower was able to run a true surplus in 1956 and 1957 because of the inflow of money from European countries devastated due to WWII.
That was back when the US was the world's China.
Andrew Jackson's "in your face" to the bankers allowed him to pay off the debt.
When he left office we had a balanced budget.
No more... no less.
But we also suffered an ungodly recession.

Our debt reflects the amount of money in circulation.
Unless we take a substantially large amount of money out of circulation from the world economy, then we will never be able to run a truly balanced budget, much less a freaking surplus.

The years that Clinton ran his faux-surplus immediately lead to a recession, because the money that we saw as surplus was actually taken out of the economy.
Deflation leads to recession. ALWAYS.
The very first thing that Bush did as President was return that money to the economy, and then some through financing his war debt with our social security holdings.

I have heard endless comments referring to the fact that our social security is gone and that is not true.
Instead of cash, we now own treasuries, aka US Government IOU's.

I would rather have the cash.

Look at the dollar bill. This is told to you on every Federal Reserve note.
This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.
Each dollar bill represents DEBT it does not represent WEALTH.

We live in a debt based economy. Pay off the debt and you essentially destroy the economy.

This is why economics is taught as an art and not a hard science.

I would even go as far as to say that actual economics is no longer taught.
The same goes for logic, reason and civics.

We have been dumbed down folks.

This is why.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
A lot of it is fake debt created by derivatives. We do not owe it.

But no, we cannot mathematically pay it off...this is why crying about the deficit is pointless



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Virtually? No, it IS impossible.

I do not believe for one minute I will live to see the day when the US's debt is @ $0

Unless people actually stand up to the Federal "corporation" and do something about it of course...



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
obammy believes it... he is marching us off the cliff handing us funny money before we step over the edge.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
How come the huge national debt is now so much in the limelight. It was there when Obama took office. It grew fast because of the lost jobs by the collapse of the economy in 2008 lowered the governments income and there was a couple of billion spent to stimulate the economy. Half of that stimulus was used by states to fund projects they were supposed to do but couldn't because of the great recession. This kept some states from going bankrupt. That's good.

They unhid some of the debt when Obama took over also which makes the debts growth seem bigger. It was just a paperwork thing. There is probably another three trillion still hidden somewhere, I doubt if they will release that info till after the recession ends. I'm pretty sure the economy is going to collapse yet anyway, the Magician is out of rabbits. We won't be alone anyway, lots of other countries are going down also.

How did congress get us into this mess anyway? Their pet projects to boost the economy when we didn't need it were like teenager tactics, make everything look pretty and make all the voters happy with unneeded building projects. Meanwhile the things we really needed got left without maintenance so the communities could get more federal and state funding for worse roads. It was like a bunch of Piranhas after goldfish in a fishtank. City managers were paid big bucks if they were good at getting grants to help pay for things that weren't really needed. What happened to electing a mayor to look over the city. Still got the mayor but got the high price city managers bankrupting the communities.....Just lay off three city workers to pay his wages.

Why is economic growth so important anyway, I know it keeps the interest rates down for loans to our government , but we wouldn't need loans if we weren't blowing all that money. It's a skam that our government bought into.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 



Why is economic growth so important anyway, I know it keeps the interest rates down for loans to our government , but we wouldn't need loans if we weren't blowing all that money. It's a skam that our government bought into.


Economic growth isn't really important.
Economic balance is, in truth, more important as long as money is a tangible commodity/asset; however, as long as we run a debt based economy, growth is needed.
It is actually imperative.

This is why everyone talks about it.

For every dollar placed into circulation some odd number of percentage is added onto that by the banks issuing the money.
Fed notes enter the economy in one and only of only two ways... through bank loans or government spending, which is a government loan from the Federal Reserve.

So if you are even half-assed at math then the scenario becomes obvious.

If more money is required to pay off the debt than is in circulation, then it necessitates producing more money, constantly.
Because as the debt grows, so does the interest on top not yet put into circulation.
We are hamsters on a wheel, literally, except we are not hamsters.

Back when Bush took office, we needed to grow the economy.
This was supposedly needed because we were in a recession.

Recession equates to deflation. Deflation means less money in the economic system.

Bush & co. put this needed money into circulation by repealing the Clinton-era tax code and using the surplus of money earmarked for Social Security payments to buy treasuries.
Do you remember all the "lock box" talk by Al Gore?
This was because he was saying that he would have taken the surplus FICA money and put it into a "locked box" that could not be opened or used for any reason.
Like a war.
Which is exactly what Bush did.
By Bush doing this, anyone in the know who understood the economy knew that it must grow to meet the maturing treasuries invested in by Bush... in order to fund the war on Iraq...
you remember....
in order to get those weapons of mass destruction.
Whatever.

To stimulate the economy, interest rates were lowered.
This gave the illusion that the economy grew, but all it did was inflate.

Inflation equals more money in circulation.

But this money came with a pound of flesh, so to speak, because ALL debt based money does.

Either a business gets loaned money to grow the economy and then pays back this loan due to a return on investment, or someone is loaned money based on collateral.

We were loaned money to grow the economy based on collateral, for houses that most couldn't afford and were ridiculously overpriced to begin with.

Thus the housing bubble.

Derivatives are a whole nuther mess unto itself.

Those things are not even on the freaking books.
They are not even listed as a part of the national debt obligation.
Word is that the amount of derivatives is in the QUADrillions.

Yes... with a Q.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Yes.

I'm going to keep this short, there has been many good ideas for financial balance. By far this is the best start I've seen, and have supported for some time now. Mind you, this isn't a surefire cureall magic bullet solution, but it is a good start. Video linked is one our government representatives should see and then do.

Why haven't they done this already...


The focus of that was distributing the oreos (money) from the Pentagon onto other areas like education. They just moved the money, and that's spending the same amount.

I guess I'm missing something.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


The money changers must have known this would happen. Maybe they really are planning to start WW3.

I mean...nothing short of something drastic on a global scale will stop these people. I am more likely to believe in a nuclear holocaust than alien intervention that saves us.

Nice signature BTW. So much conflict could be avoided if people were okay with admitting they don't know, instead of swearing they do (when they don't).



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by GD21D
 


I'm going to the bank when they open to get a loan for my share. (Maybe I'll qualify for a government loan.)

I'll be the first in line.


To answer your question.......no.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


So my conservative guess that there is three trillion more hid is just the tip of the iceberg. I read somewhere where with the banks involvement the overall combination including the issuance of money was a little over 665 trillion dollars. From what you are saying it could be a lot more than that. The recession during bush's administration was mild, it didn't need nearly as much stimulation as they gave it.

In the past the USA recalled it's money, allowing ten grand maximum for regular people for their savings. This was after their personal debt was subtracted from their savings. This law seems not to have applied to the businesses at the time. Somehow their money was protected. Some of the Elite lost their money while others still had money. In the case now, I don't think that can work because of the involvement of so much loans owed to entities outside our country. I cannot even totally comprehend what would happen.

I don't own my land, I only lease it from the government. I don't own anything in this reality. This reality is sort of like hell, only if you are willing to deceive others can you get ahead. Hard work begets hard work till you wear out. Make more money and society requires you to spend it on things you do not need to fit in. If you have the newest and the best people think you are successful, moderation and sensibility have left the country.

So what is the conclusion to your post, I see a collapse of many economies on the horizon. Is there a rabbit left to pull out?



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 



I don't own my land, I only lease it from the government. I don't own anything in this reality. This reality is sort of like hell, only if you are willing to deceive others can you get ahead. Hard work begets hard work till you wear out. Make more money and society requires you to spend it on things you do not need to fit in. If you have the newest and the best people think you are successful, moderation and sensibility have left the country.


Yes... You are correct.

I don't really mean to be preaching an econ 101 course in my posts to you, because in all reality I get the feeling that you probably already knew this information.
I sincerely hope that some of the other people reading take the time to understand how fiat money works.

You are right that you do not own your land.
The government does, and people can argue that the founding fathers wrote taxes into the Constitution, but they also denied the government the ability to seize your property save a very few minor circumstances and in those, the owner had to be paid fair market value.

And this only applied to the federal government anyway.
Things have changed... and this change can be traced to 3 specific events.

-the war between the States.
-1933 and the Great Depression
-of course 9/11.

During each of these events, financial circumstances lead to an upheaval in society that was without parallel.

Everybody discussing 9/11 talks about the Patriot Act, but no one discusses the fact that the SEC's office was destroyed in building 7.
Taking with it evidence against Enron, Worldcom, and a host of others.

Don't even get me started on the war between the States. It was not a civil war.
That is yet another historical lie.
A civil war is fought within a country over power for control of the entire country.
The South wanted to secede. They didn't want control of the US. They wanted out.

Thanks to that war, the mechanism allowing unchecked growth of the federal government was put into place due to DC forming an incorporated municipality for the federal government.
The united States became THE UNITED STATES INC., and it happened because of untenable war debt.

And the great depression was caused by a dollar that was overinflated relative to the amount of gold backing it.
At that time paper money equaled gold, and congress had overspent America to the point where our outstanding contracts were not equal to the amount of gold in reserve.
When other countries caught wind of this, they began to call in their dollars for gold, so the Fed did what it thought was necessary.
The Fed began to deflate the economy.
This was thought to give more value to the dollar because less dollars in circulation equaled more gold per dollar, but what happened was the Great Depression.

When it became obvious that our government was bankrupt, FDR called a bank holiday and then signed the Gold Confiscation Act. This reset the dollar with the newly acquired, er.... confiscated... gold.
But that still wasn't enough, so what he did was sign the Social Security Administration Act.
This allowed for everyone under the Act, and it was voluntary to begin with no matter what some SSA website says (I will argue this point and win with people), to be pledged as collateral because their future earnings could be counted on through taxation.

Funny we are never taught this stuff in school.

Dumbed down.


So what is the conclusion to your post, I see a collapse of many economies on the horizon. Is there a rabbit left to pull out?


The way I see it we have three choices:
1) default- horrible nightmare.
2) hyperinflation- eventually a horrible nightmare.
3) the USA inc. starts releasing all this technology hidden under state secret privilege and we see a revolution that dwarfs the industrial revolution.

I vote number three.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Well, I know a little about these things, enough to question what's going on anyway. You have a lot more specific knowledge of these things. I have been researching the building 7 and state secret privileged evidence that you mentioned. I heard of building seven but wasn't aware that all the evidence was destroyed, what, no backup off site? I knew a little of the state secret privacy laws but wasn't aware that they had changed it's available use that much over the last thirty years. You have a lot more knowledge of this subject than I.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I believe we can and will pull ourselves out of that debt when it pleases the fully informed to do so. However, that does not mean that it might not have consequences.

1. Consideration of Gold as currency reserve by World Bank. Is our debt ridden fiat going to go away?
2. War, what is it good for? Reneging on debt!
3. Technically the Federal Reserve is in debt, not the U.S. Yes it generally amounts to the same thing but it
does leave a touch of wiggle room.
4. I cannot believe that they didn't see this coming. Therefore, there is a plan. I am not saying that we will like the
plan but it is probably there and while it could include tremendous change (including of currency), the U.S. will
continue more or less as we know it.


As asides to all of these points, inflation is a great way to get rid of debt. It would restore the balance sheet value of the foreclosures, right the people who are underwater on their homes, and eventually either end the currency or resolve. I really do think it is coming. Lock in your payments now folks!

I also can't stop connecting the increasingly common currency parity. The U.S. Dollar/The Canadian Dollar/ and now coming down to equal them, the Euro. If they are all equal they could be combined and replaced right?

The atomic bomb wasn't an accident. It took tremendous brain power and dedication to achieve. I am not saying that this is a good thing but the government who pulled that off isn't going to let a *cough* silly little thing like trillions upon trillions of debt to bring it down.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Well, I know a little about these things, enough to question what's going on anyway. You have a lot more specific knowledge of these things. I have been researching the building 7 and state secret privileged evidence that you mentioned. I heard of building seven but wasn't aware that all the evidence was destroyed, what, no backup off site?


This is a quote from Wikipedia, so you know that it is as vanilla as possible.
In my opinion, Wikipedia isn't necessarily wrong about their information, but many times they are guilty of PR maneuvers... like lying by omission, or minimizing the truth with generalized statements.
In this quote, the truth is most definitely minimized through a generalized statement.


Files relating to numerous federal investigations had been housed in 7 World Trade Center. The files for thousands of SEC cases were destroyed, though the SEC has said MOST of the important files were backed up or could be reconstructed.
(emphasis added)

This statement makes it seem as if the information lost is harmless, but if that was the case, then why use the word MOST?!?!?!

Most is such a general term that is entirely relative to perspective.
Most as relative to what?
Most of the meaningless files could be reconstructed or were backed up?
Most of the already accessible knowledge in public domain could be reconstructed or backed up?

I think that you see my point.

THEN check out this very next set of statements...

Salomon Brothers, a subsidiary of Citigroup, lost files later requested by the SEC concerning its connection with the WorldCom scandal.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission estimated over 10,000 of its cases were affected. Investigative files in the Secret Service's largest field office were also lost in the collapse, with one Secret Service agent saying, "All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building."

link to source

Maybe it's just me, but this sure appears like the Wiki author used to word most because they were either completely ignorant of its true meaning, or they were deliberately applying public relations strategy to minimize the true extent of the losses.

I gotta say too that the building 7 collapse was super convenient for all those corporate big wigs who were about to lose their collective arses.

All you need to do is google..."SEC office destroyed in building seven in 9/11 evidence lost"

Here , I did it for you-
link to google

Have a field day with this.


Cheers mate.
edit on 2/8/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I believe the debt can be dealt with. All it will take is Republicans in every branch of Government, obviously Democrats are the worst of the problem.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


What I can't figure out about the trade center incident is that once they got a break from ongoing investigations they went right back to what they were doing. That's why we're in a depression. If they would have started being sensible after our attention was steered away from their deceit this thing would have blown over. They didn't learn a thing in fact I feel the reassurance made them worse. We need to get rid of those people, strip them of their wealth and crudentials and put them to work on a prison farm so they can find out what life is about. My question is did they hit the wrong building with the planes or was one supposed to hit building seven? That buildings destruction is more interesting than the trade centers for a conspiracy.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
The irony is, we owe most of this to ourselves or the Federal Reserve. I say we do like any empire, forgive the debt to ourselves, seize the fed (our financial enemy) and wipe out our debt to them...debt erased.

Social Security and entitlement plans are needed but they must be streamlined and improved. The bureaucracy to run these agencies eats revenue like a ravenous monster from hell.

Then HERE IS the biggie. We know our anticipated revenue intake every year....guess what? You don't spend more than that! Ever! Spend less and put the leftovers toward what we owe foreign countries...

But we know...this would require cutting all kinda government subsidies to big business, foreign aid (that prob ends up in the representing ambassador's pocket) and massive cuts to military spending. So this of course is not going to happen.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join