This is the core issue. The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE institution and does not answer to .gov or the taxpayers. To paraphrase Rothschild, "If I control the money, I care not who controls the world."
This is the core issue. The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE institution and does not answer to .gov or the taxpayers. To paraphrase Rothschild, "If I control the money, I care not who controls the world."
The government WILL go into default.
Maybe the interest will get paid to our Chinese banker friends but somebody will be defaulted on.
It might be seniors on SS.
It might be vendors who provide products to the government.
It might be be hospitals and healthcare providers.
But Somebody won't get paid on time.
That 19% in "discretionary" spending needs to be severely curtailed. We CAN cut the defense budget if we stop paying for every one else's security. We can say that we will incur no more new debt and funnel all our "discretionary" spending into reducing the debt.
We are going to have to raise taxes, pure and simple. It should be for a limited period of time. It should effect EVERY American regardless of economic status. If you don't pay any taxes, it should be a commensurate reduction in social services recieved. All revenues from the increase and all funds diverted from the reduction in services should be fenced exclusively to service the debt.
Regardless of whether you wanted it or not, every American and a large segment of the rest of the world benefitted from the wild and wanton spending binge Congress has been on for the past few decades. Now that the bill is due, no one should be indignant and expecting a pass. In this case, individualism should take a back seat to nationalism, if only for a brief time. Once the ship has been righted, THEN we can get back to the business of self.
Anyone who says debt is good is a charlatan who wants to sell you something. he does not have your best interests at heart. A government should never be in debt, because that makes them beholden to someone they shouldn't be. The only creditors the .gov should answer to is the voters. We extend them credit for every penny in taxes they collect. They need to be made to remember that, always.
You are probably right, but have we ever seen a temporary tax in this country? Have we ever seen a rollback in social services recieved?
I don't think Obama, or anyone in Congress who relies on the 50% of American's who don't pay federal income tax for their voting base, is going to vote for that.
We were warned.
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance."
James Madison
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties
than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to
control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will grow up [around the banks] will deprive
the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the
continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the
banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
_Thomas Jefferson_
(http://www.quotatio nspage.com/ quotes/Thomas_ Jefferson/) , Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
We do them all the time at the local level. If properly restricted, there's no reason to think that it couldn't work on a federal level. The real problem is keeping the sticky fingers out of the pie. As everyone knows, that isn't going to be possible because the policy wonks on the hill have no integrity.
Didn't anyone see Ron Paul put Bernanke in his place today. Here is a link to the story.
http://blogs.forbes.com/afontevecch...-fights-ron-paul-in-congress-golds-not-money/
http://blogs.forbes.com/afontevecch...-fights-ron-paul-in-congress-golds-not-money/
Too bad Bernanke doesn't work for Ron Paul or anyone else in Congress...just more name calling.
I'm bitter. Nothing is going to change.
Won't matter. Paul doesn't have any power to put Bernanke where he belongs (on the street).
To say that the government cannot responsibly cut spending is drug addict thinking. We are harming our future and our grandkids by refusing to shrink the federal government. It is wrong headed. Those who have been inside the beltway too long have not simply gotten "out of touch" with reality they are dangerously addicted to spending and need to be voted out.
Republican candidates and the new House members are now fixated not on voters in general, who want the parties to co-operate, but on the more ideological ones who will vote in the primaries. Many of these do not want the debt ceiling to rise.
Why not? In part because, fifth, the theory assumes that voters understand what the debt ceiling is. This assumption is almost certainly false. Many are under the misapprehension that it is a vote to authorise new spending, not permission to pay the bills that this and earlier Congresses have already run up. According to Gallup, 60% of Republicans, 46% of independents and 21% of Democrats oppose increasing the debt ceiling at all.
http://www.economist.com/node/18958711
