posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 11:06 AM
reply to post by charles1952
I think the issue in regards to paying the interest is that in order to reach any ability to pay interest the US will need to significantly cut
through it's expenditures, but in so doing they will significantly reduce the nations ability raise funds. The reason being is that a reduction in
programs such as Social Security coupled with raising taxes will lower the amount of money available to the public for spending causing the private
sector to suffer profit losses leading to higher unemployment which then leads to less money in public hands leading to additional profit short falls
more job cuts and even less money flowing. With all the job losses and profit losses the nation looses out in the form of tax income thus reducing
its ability to pay bills.
So the government cannot pay bills now, but the manner by which they raise the funds in order to do so actually reduces their ability to pay the
bills. The world's financial engine has already burned up all of its oil, we're just watching it seize now.
reply to post by kwakakev
I tend to agree with you here. Just earlier I was remarking to myself how Obama's health plan seems like an odd addition is such shaky financial
times, but it makes more sense as a measure to provide for the masses if they're all out of work and without health insurance.
As far as war, I would imagine there could be a civil war or some form of large scale domestic unrest. The citizenry is already increasingly
dissatisfied with their government, add in spending cuts, more taxes, additional job losses, not too mention the gun control issue and we're likely to
see that dissatisfaction turn into pure rage. In what form that rage manifests is anyone's guess at this point I suppose, probably why we hear
stories of martial law signs and domestic terrorism training popping up here and there. It's not that the government is expecting it, but planning on
the plausibility of such measures becoming useful in the not too distant future.
Now that I think about it when we take a look at the American Civil War the issue at hand was states rights, but the federal government made sure that
the issue really came to a head with slavery. The strategic value in doing so painted the rebels in a very poor light. We can probably see the same
thing going on with gun control. Again the issue we're looking at with civil unrest is boiling down to states right, but the federal government is
ensuring that the issue comes to a head on what can be painted as a humane issue. Painting guns as evil thus those who would fight to keep them must
be evil too. Again the strategic value here is that those who would fight for states rights end up being vilified.
edit on 20-1-2013 by
Symbiot because: (no reason given)