America's Debts

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
Watcher
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 46 min ago
Joined: 03/23/2008 - 12:32pm
America's Debts

A recent publication by JustFacts reveals that our 2017 deficit is much higher than reported by the government. The government uses false and fake accounting methods to arrive at a debt figure that is fraudulently low. The Government says that businesses MUST use accrual accounting (that means, essentially, that debts such as pensions, medicare etc are recorded as expenses liabilities when they are earned) and not cashwhere they are only recorded when paid out. For example, my daughter's Social Security is not recorded on the books because she is too young to claim her benefit. Absent her early death, the amount due her at age 62 or later is a debt that is owed. That assumes the government does not change the law. This requirement, the government says, is the only way to really know what the fiscal status is. Our government completely ignore their own rules and prefer to lie.

You will note in the article that the Treasury Report data was published over two weeks ago but not a single media outlet has published or commented on it...including Fox.

This money can never be paid an will never be paid.

Until Debt do us part

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 35 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
Calling YKW. Or yunohu

Calling YKW. Or yunohu

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Social Security was never

Social Security was never intended to fulfill the commitment that was made to initiate it. It was a tax pure and simple. Touted as a security blanket for the elderly and the unemployed by calling it a trust was ridiculous on its face because by actuarial standards, few would ever collect. The fact the government was spending most of the income on other programs seemed to have escaped the public. The life expectancy of an American in 1936 was 56.6 for males and slightly higher for females. The workforce was predominantly male but ironically the first recipient of this largess was a woman. The chance of you collecting was remote to say the least.

The law was challenged in the courts as unconstitutional, but as many others before it was upheld by a court packed by Democrat appointed judges. The problem, after reading the cases is the opponents challenged it on the wrong grounds. That the States and the federal government have the power to tax is written in their constitutions. The constitutions of all the states and of the federal government are also prohibited from enacting Bills of Attainder, that is laws that single out certain individuals and groups for their application. In the case of the Social Security Act, it exempted farmer workers, and employers of less than eight employees. That is what makes it unconstitutional.

This provisions was written into the Magna Carta agreed to buy the English Monarch and intended to prevent the King from singling out any of his lords and apply laws only to one or more of them. In simple terms, the government has the power to make law, but it must apply to everyone. Because of these decisions the entire tax code of the States and the federal government are unconstitutional and have become a means that allows the government to unequally distribute nature's assets.

Since the decision by Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch versus Maryland, the limits imposed by the Constitution on the Congress, the President and the Supreme Court itself, nearly anything the Congress does is permissible if it is not prohibited by the Constitution. That decision and the power to determine what is and what isn't constitutional that was given to the President alone but was assumed by the Supreme Court by an act of the very first Congress in violation of the powers vested in it in the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court was established to settle disputes, nothing more. If you don't believe me just read Article 3. It states they have appellate jurisdiction, both to law and to fact but that does not mean it can make law or determine the intent of Congress when it enacted it.

Following the signing of the Constitution Thomas Jefferson and James Madison penned the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions which were submitted by their respective legislature claiming the right of the States to challenge the constitutionality of the onerous laws, mainly tariff acts that were strongly in favor of the North. They obviously got no support from the North and the Congress was completely controlled by the northern States. It was a further exercise of the overwhelming power of the North at the expense of the South that continued and oppressed the South with each new passage of the Tariff Acts to finance an ever growing federal bureaucracy. As you are aware it culminated with secession and the Civil War. It has always been claimed as a war over slavery but in reality it was a war between and agricultural economy and a mercantile economy, in other words over money.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 35 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
Did I say before that this is

Did I say before that this is how Seinfeld was motivated to come up with the "yada, yada, yada" punch line?

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 26 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
WTF 1

WTF 1

Economike
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 54 min ago
Joined: 11/28/2006 - 9:09am
Watcher -

Watcher -

Congratulations for this discovery! You are now one of the 53,579 voters who understand that the federal government has trillions in unfunded liabilities that don't show on the books.

Watcher
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 46 min ago
Joined: 03/23/2008 - 12:32pm
Thanks Econ. I knew we had

Thanks Econ. I knew we had scads of unfunded liabilities but did not know the scope of the problem and the depths of corruption in Washington trying to hide it to get re-elected..

Economike
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 54 min ago
Joined: 11/28/2006 - 9:09am
You're welcome, Watcher.

You're welcome, Watcher.

Sincerely, I believe the looming debt crisis of the United States (and many other developed countries) is the essential political crisis of our time.

One side are the interests that require accreted government power for their existence. This is the broker/client state that began with the New Deal. Its politicians hold power by collecting and distributing other people's money to their supporting and dependent factions. Big Government chooses winners and losers.

The other side is the less organized, but productive, enterprising, and inclined toward personal independence. These are the various "other people" whose money is targeted for increased taxation when the government's spiraling debt crisis unfolds.

Just as the eventual reckoning over chattel slavery dominated an increasingly bitter and divided nation in the generations preceding the Civil War, the inevitable reckoning between the winners and losers of the looming fiscal crisis is driving an increasingly rancorous and partisan politics now. As the stakes rise, elections become desperate "winner take all" contests.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
The debt is not the problem

The debt is not the problem and can be continually increased until the point where what really backs the dollar reaches a point where all of the backing being produced is consumed. This is occurring because the current economic system is measured by a currency that accumulates and therefore its actual value decreases with every new issue. The real "full faith and credit" of the United States is that we produce more human fuel (food) than our population consumes and can play the "dollar" game so long as that is the case. We are engaged in a virtual reality game of Monopoly but where the bank runs out of money and can no longer pay you when you pass go.

This is hard to grasp because we have never gotten to that point yet because the world has not run out of surplus food but countries have and you are witnessing the result of its unequal distribution with the civil wars and mass migrations. It is what has kept our heads in the sand as to the real problem to come. When machines started replacing horses, we stopped breeding horses for work. When we started replacing humans with machines we not only did not stop the production of humans, we increased it.

Robert Malthus gave us the warning back in the 1700s and we failed to heed it. I have been spouting it since I discovered why he was right. Just keep ignoring it as if it doesn't exist when the evidence is all around you. Ask yourself why, if we are the richest country in the world, why do we have to have food banks, food stamps, Good Will and the Salvation Army?

I've presented my case to you in my post Bears Don't Need Money and what was the response? WTF Read it again and tell me where it is wrong.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 35 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
OK, folks. Shred currency

OK, folks. Shred currency you have on hand, and find a way to reduce population.

On the latter point, Malthus the second assures us that we are headed to that automatically; so shouldn't he be happy?

Birth rates are already way down compared to historic levels; shouldn't that be enough? What are the alternatives, Malthus the second?

Preventing currency accumulation seems easy enough; as I said; just burn or shred it. You're doing your part, aren't you?

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 26 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
It is just another long

It is just another long winded pontification based on your opinion that the Constitution is wrong .
There is no sense in attempting to tell you anything since it has been established by you that only you are correct
Read it again ? Why in end it says the same thing , just with more words.

Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 22 min ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
The real backing of currency

The real backing of currency is the value of work performed, not specie (gold, silver, Kcals, government promises, etc.).

Since there are more and more people, there is more and more potential work... so an increase in the amount of currency circulating is necessary to represent that additional work value. Failure to expand the available currency would cause chaos, something that has happened several times in America's past. Expanding it too much does the same. One of the most important functions of a central bank is regulating the money supply - possibly more important than setting interest rates.

What actually threatens this system is freeloading...

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 18 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
No, the problem is that

No, the problem is that democracies are run by vocal minorities. Alt right, Bernie-left, NRA, transgenders, labor unions and big banks... but the most vocal and powerful is old people.

They vote and they want their social security to the point where even whispering the notion of raising the retirement age to 67 is enough to get you kicked out of office.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Toolsmith: You forget that

Toolsmith: You forget that machines have taken the place of humans in the performance of work and research and development buy employers is constantly working to reduce the need for them now in the information age. When we replace the horse with a machine we stopped breeding horse. When machines started replacing humans we not only didn't stop producing humans we increased production.

In order to perform work, humans need fuel (food and the energy value contained in it). The currency is backed by the value of the food we produce and when we borrow more than is being generated by nature we insure that some time in the now not so distant future we will be consuming more than we produce. You can now, from our own government statistics, determine when that will occur. As to our government's calculations regarding employment, unemployment and even the number of people in the country consuming or producing this fuel, they haven't a clue and haven't since the founding. The very first census counted only those over the age of 21 and of that only white males were allowed to vote. Excluded were the negroes, paupers Indians not taxed and of course women and children. It omitted nearly ten or eleven million actual people living in the United States because it was predicated on those who actually could pay taxes. Based on actual food consumption and allowing for 20% waste and a diet of 2500 kcal per day, there may be as many as 450 million people living in the United States alone. That is a census error of nearly 40%.

JackStrawFromWichita
Offline
Last seen: 54 min 44 sec ago
Joined: 02/05/2014 - 6:17pm
"They vote and they want

"They vote and they want their social security to the point where even whispering the notion of raising the retirement age to 67 is enough to get you kicked out of office"

Ahhh, full retirement benefits currently is 67 for anyone born 1960+.

What you do is raise it down the road to make it more actuarially sound today but the people it impacts real don't care.

When they last did it, I went from 65 to 66 and 4 months. I was still in my 20s-"65, 66 and 4 months what difference does it make, what am I doing this weekend?". I turned 62 this week, it does make a difference...

Watcher
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 46 min ago
Joined: 03/23/2008 - 12:32pm
When Social Security was

When Social Security was established in 1935 and it starting paying out at age 65, the average America life expectancy was 61.7 years. That means that that scheming lout, Roosevelt, knew almost nobody would live to collect. The life expectancy today is near 80. Any wonder why this Ponzi scheme is coming to a close?

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 26 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Jackstraw...

Jackstraw...
..
I like your comment . It is very true,I learned this from working with a lot of 20 year olds.
Retirement in any form is not on their agenda .

Economike
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 54 min ago
Joined: 11/28/2006 - 9:09am
John Cochrane has an

John Cochrane has an interesting post on the debt crisis. Here's a sample:

We have known for decades that the fundamental US problem is promised entitlement spending far beyond what our current tax system can fund. Markets have, sensibly I think, presumed that the US would fix this problem sooner or later. It's not that hard as a matter of economics......Markets have a right to think perhaps America is so fractured we won't be able to fix this in time. Or, more accurately, markets have a right to worry that next year's markets will have that worry, and get out now.

Source:

https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2018/02/tremors.html

I'm skeptical that either "freeloading" or "old people" serve as a plausible explanation for our looming sovereign debt crisis.

I suppose that if one intended "freeloading" to mean , as Bastiat expressed it, “The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” then, yes, freeloading is an underlying dynamic of the debt crisis.

And, yes, whenever any politician talks about sensible entitlement reform, he or she is piled on by the liberal establishment, including the unions, the media, and AARP. No question that the Social Security system has popular, bipartisan support, including among old people. But I don't see old people as the faction that drives this result. Despite attempts to mislead them, their benefits are secure. No one suggests a reform that will reduce current benefits.

As I wrote, resistance to mitigating our debt crisis is greater and more insidious than one or two vocal interests. Resistance arises from the interests that require accreted government power for their existence. This is the Big Government interest. Its politicians hold power by collecting and distributing other people's money to their supporting and dependent factions, who are legion: labor unions (including teachers), health care providers, current and prospective beneficiaries of entitlements. Everyone who entertains, however vaguely, the notion that our current style of government must continue on course for his future livelihood is a member of this interest.

Of course, most people don't fall exclusively into this one interest group. For example, many people who expect to collect Social Security and Medicare also own defined contribution plans that are threatened by increased taxes to pay the government's debts. People like to keep what they earn, and believe government spending is a lot less beneficial than their own spending. I think Jack Straw's remarks are relevant here: younger workers aren't so invested in entitlements as older ones. In sum, the electorate is profoundly divided over the entitlement/sovereign debt problem.

I know I'm speculating. I believe that the electorate senses - even though many will not express it this way - that it will take a political upheaval to solve the debt crisis. It's an uneasy feeling that government is going to change, and its role as the electorate's financial intermediary will shrink. This is why the inevitable reckoning between the winners and losers of the looming fiscal crisis is driving an increasingly rancorous and partisan politics now.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Political upheaval will not

Political upheaval will not solve the debt crisis because in the past all overthrown governments have continued to employ the capitalist economic model where the currency of exchange accumulates and thereby decreases in value with each new issue. I cite Brazil, Japan and Argentina as classic examples. They devalued their currency against the dollar to stay solvent but did not change their economic system and are now locked into a dollar economy for their trade but still are able to export enough to feed their population even if many of them have to rummage through other's garbage to survive. Japan has avoided the problem of the others by containing, if not reducing their population. The others haven't and soon China will be among them, saved only by the fact they have a huge trade surplus that allows them to buy, like Saudi Arabia for example, food, not only to feed their own but the millions of paid slaves they have imported to do most of the work. It is at best only a temporary solution.

What the mercantilists (money economy) fail to realize it is the agricultural economy (barter) that fuels their economy.
The Constitution requires that the government tax to pay its debts and to fund the defense of the country. Not only has the government undertaken myriad programs and expenditures that are not constitutionally authorized, it is doing so by borrowing, essentially from the private banks in order to do so which in itself is breaking the law.

Log in to post comments