Thread: Just a Quick Question...

Originally Posted by NorthOfTheCity

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

All of this presumes that the purpose is to lower wages in the first place. As previously stated, I believe that the more likely impetus for the waves of immigration, illegal and otherwise, is the creation of additional credit (a higher debt ceiling) for the federal government by monetizing the immigrants via SSNs and ITINs.

With an out of control U.S. central bank creating credit out of thin air and China / Asia still more than willing to loan us back the money we send over to them when Walmart buys their slave labor produced junk, our government regards the tax collectable from our own slave labor pool to be of little consequence. It's all about cheap labor for their corporate partners and cheap votes for themselves.

I don't think that you understand what I am saying. What happens when you as an individual have more expenses going out than wages you are bringing in? You have to borrow miney, right? But there is a limit to how much money you can borrow. On a credit card it is your credit limit. Well, the government has the same problem. It has things it wants to accomplish and obligations that it must pay, but it has a set credit limit that will not increase without either and increase in revenues, property or other collateral. Human chattel is an increasing part of that collateral. Lower wages don't really help the situation because they lead to lower per capita tax revenue. Furthermore, waves of illegals increase long-term obligations, which has an effect similar to the lowering of a bond rating.

Looking at all this, there are only a couple of conclusions that may be reasonably drawn. The first is that we are in such serious financial dire straits that it is necessary to leverage our future to stave off immediate financial collapse. Given that we had to be bailed out to the tune of a half-trillion dollars by the Chinese just to stave off insolvency before the 1996 election, and given that the "War on Terror" demanded huge amounts of money at the same time that masked inflation collapsed markets and necessitated tax cuts to stave off a depression, I would say that this is a likely scenario.

The other scenario is that the predictable result of the current course is itself the goal. That is to say, circumstances are being intentionally manipulated so as to bring about the collapse of this nation.

Now, it is possible that both are simultaneously true. Just like a chess player being suckered in by a well-conceived gambit, our leaders may be finding themselves in a no-win situation in which one scenario is disastrous while the other is calamitous. The choice may well be immediate financial ruin versus near future financial ruin. That's why something like the Wanta plan is more vitally important to this nation than almost anyone recognizes. It's also why we MUST get ourselves out of this damned debt money fraud immediately, even if it takes a war and a renewal of isolationism to do it.

Originally Posted by mkfarnam

CrocketsGhost wrote:

All of this presumes that the purpose is to lower wages in the first place. As previously stated, I believe that the more likely impetus for the waves of immigration, illegal and otherwise, is the creation of additional credit (a higher debt ceiling) for the federal government by monetizing the immigrants via SSNs and ITINs.

Putting them in debt makes up for a % off unpaid taxes.

In So California, 27% of the houses sold in 2005-2006 are now in foreclosure.

That's not what I'm talking about. I am talking about the federal government registering them as chattel and gaining its own increase in available national debt by doing so. Foreclosures are personal problems for the buyers or for the banks. They don't directly affect the federal government.

Well, the government has the same problem. It has things it wants to accomplish and obligations that it must pay, but it has a set credit limit that will not increase without either and increase in revenues, property or other collateral.

With all due respect sir, you are completely wrong about the U.S. government having a credit limit. Do you realize that it can and does create credit for itself out of thin air on a daily basis? China and Asia buy up all the debt our government sells. It is only through the sale of debt to China that the gov't can operate at all. On a cash basis our debt is nearly 9 trillion. In accrual terms (future payables to SS recpients) it is nearly 60 trillion. That's one helluva credit limit.

Don't confuse the proper way you handle your personal finances with the way the fed government runs its show.

And it will only continue to go on as long as the masses allow it to go on.

Originally Posted by NorthOfTheCity

Well, the government has the same problem. It has things it wants to accomplish and obligations that it must pay, but it has a set credit limit that will not increase without either and increase in revenues, property or other collateral.

With all due respect sir, you are completely wrong about the U.S. government having a credit limit. Do you realize that it can and does create credit for itself out of thin air on a daily basis? China and Asia buy up all the debt our government sells. It is only through the sale of debt to China that the gov't can operate at all. On a cash basis our debt is nearly 9 trillion. In accrual terms (future payables to SS recpients) it is nearly 60 trillion. That's one helluva credit limit.

Don't confuse the proper way you handle your personal finances with the way the fed government runs its show.

Fella, I'm sorry, but you haven't a clue. Try looking up "debt ceiling." And no, someone has steered you wrong if you believe that "it is only through the sale of debt to China that the gov't can operate at all." That's only supplemental credit, and even that is not "created out of thin air," as the continued ability to sell bonds is predicated on the bond rating, which is in turn predicated on the calculated ability to repay. That's why governments at every level have bond ratings. Most of the debt is held not by China, but by European banks, and their willingness to lend is reflected in the calculated debt ceiling.

You are also misunderstanding the nature of SS obligations. Potential future obligations to SS and other entitlement programs do not constitute actual debt. Furthermore, the federal government is sitting on a number of massive superfunds worth tens of trillions. A single fund created by the Reagan administration (the Wanta Fund) is worth several tens of trillions itself. These are all separate issues from the debt ceiling and the availability of credit.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Fella, I'm sorry, but you haven't a clue. Try looking up "debt ceiling." And no, someone has steered you wrong if you believe that "it is only through the sale of debt to China that the gov't can operate at all." That's only supplemental credit, and even that is not "created out of thin air," as the continued ability to sell bonds is predicated on the bond rating, which is in turn predicated on the calculated ability to repay.

The "debt ceiling" is nothing more than a procedural concept used by the gov't to make it appear they are trying mightily to keep a lid on debt. The debt ceiling is raised at will because it is an artificial barrier. It's a side show.

The continued ability of the U.S. to sell bonds (debt) is predicated only on the willingness of China and other nations to purchase them. These countries continue to purchase U.S. debt even though they've no doubt surmised that the U.S. won't be able to repay it. They have their reasons for doing this; in China's case to keep the American gravy train running until it can build up its own consumer mass.

That's why governments at every level have bond ratings. Most of the debt is held not by China, but by European banks, and their willingness to lend is reflected in the calculated debt ceiling.

Their willingness to lend is a function of the calculated benefit to themselves of doing so, nothing more.

You are also misunderstanding the nature of SS obligations. Potential future obligations to SS and other entitlement programs do not constitute actual debt.

The federal government borrows money from taxpayers via FICA paycheck withholdings. When it does this, the gov't is now obliged to repay it to the taxpayers when they retire. It has accrued a future debt to said taxpayers. When viewed from this accrual perspective, the federal government's debt is near 60 Trillion.

The IRS requires corporations to report their finances on an accrual basis, so I find it interesting that the gov't insists on reporting its finacial state of affairs not on an accrual basis like corporations, but on a cash basis. Of course, from the cash perspective, the debt level is only 9 Trillion...

That is why the put in a GUEST WORKER PROGRAM, to keep the flow, flowing!!

Originally Posted by NorthOfTheCity

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Fella, I'm sorry, but you haven't a clue. Try looking up "debt ceiling." And no, someone has steered you wrong if you believe that "it is only through the sale of debt to China that the gov't can operate at all." That's only supplemental credit, and even that is not "created out of thin air," as the continued ability to sell bonds is predicated on the bond rating, which is in turn predicated on the calculated ability to repay.

The "debt ceiling" is nothing more than a procedural concept used by the gov't to make it appear they are trying mightily to keep a lid on debt. The debt ceiling is raised at will because it is an artificial barrier. It's a side show.

The continued ability of the U.S. to sell bonds (debt) is predicated only on the willingness of China and other nations to purchase them. These countries continue to purchase U.S. debt even though they've no doubt surmised that the U.S. won't be able to repay it. They have their reasons for doing this; in China's case to keep the American gravy train running until it can build up its own consumer mass.

That's why governments at every level have bond ratings. Most of the debt is held not by China, but by European banks, and their willingness to lend is reflected in the calculated debt ceiling.

Their willingness to lend is a function of the calculated benefit to themselves of doing so, nothing more.

[quotey3w9xcj] You are also misunderstanding the nature of SS obligations. Potential future obligations to SS and other entitlement programs do not constitute actual debt.

The federal government borrows money from taxpayers via FICA paycheck withholdings. When it does this, the gov't is now obliged to repay it to the taxpayers when they retire. It has accrued a future debt to said taxpayers. When viewed from this accrual perspective, the federal government's debt is near 60 Trillion.

The IRS requires corporations to report their finances on an accrual basis, so I find it interesting that the gov't insists on reporting its finacial state of affairs not on an accrual basis like corporations, but on a cash basis. Of course, from the cash perspective, the debt level is only 9 Trillion...[/quotey3w9xcj]

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

First off, federal bond ratings and the debt ceiling are quite real and are overseen by the IMF. That you are unaware of the inner working of the system does not make it any less real.

I note that you have taken the approach of choosing to address the blatant error in claiming that "most of the US debt" is held by China by not addressing. The claim was wrong. Period. Yes, China has been suspiciously willing to buy what amounts to junk bonds from the US, and that should be cause for concern, but I would like to see your evidence that China holds the majority of US debt. Cite please.

Now, your claim that the federal government borrows money from taxpayers when it uses funds from FICA for other purposes is blatantly false. The Social Security Act specifically states that revenues generated through the taxes it creates go into the general fund and may be used for payment of benefits or for any other purpose. The "debt" to FICA is just an internal accounting game played by the federal government. There is no actual liability whatsoever. And the FICA funds do not belong to "taxpayers," so they cannot be borrowed from them (see Flemming v. Nestor). Once taxes are collected, they are the property of the federal government to do with as it sees fit. The idea of a Social Security "trust fund" or "lockbox" is nothing more than a myth propagated by sleazy politicians to keep people from realizing how badly they are being screwed by the SS program. Here and here and here are a few short articles on the subject. But don't take my word for it. Send off a written request to the Social Security Administration for clarification of the issue, asking them specifically if there is an actual trust fund or account with funds earmarked for you benefit payouts, or whether there are binding "I.O.U.'s" for the funds appropriated from the FICA taxes for other purposes.

Y'know, you don't even have to go through the process of tracking the actual laws relating to SS and its funding system (though I have). All you have to do to figure out what a load of baloney the claim of a "truat fund" is, is to consider that none of us have predictable accruals. Many people pay in all their lives just to drop dead the year before benefits kick in. Others have scarcely worked at all, yet live to collect 35 years or so of benefits. That's because the idea of linking your monthly payment to your pay-in is just another accounting trick to make it seem as though there is some account somewhere accruing all your payments. That's nonsense, and the Social Security Act itself says so. The fact is that the New Deal was a BAD DEAL that we're still saddled with. SS is a cash cow that the federal government uses to avoid having to pay interest on loans. The aggregate payouts in SS benefits are a minute fraction of the compounded value of the revenues paid in via payroll taxes.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

First off, federal bond ratings and the debt ceiling are quite real and are overseen by the IMF. That you are unaware of the inner working of the system does not make it any less real.

I agree that bond ratings and the debt ceiling are indeed real. But their value as measured by the results makes them, in effect, nothing more than procedural side shows, a corrupt IMF notwithstanding.

China and other nations continue to buy U.S. debt on a daily basis. If they were concerned merely with debt ceilings and bond ratings, do you think they'd continue to purchase our debt?

I note that you have taken the approach of choosing to address the blatant error in claiming that "most of the US debt" is held by China by not addressing. The claim was wrong. Period. Yes, China has been suspiciously willing to buy what amounts to junk bonds from the US, and that should be cause for concern, but I would like to see your evidence that China holds the majority of US debt. Cite please.

I never said China holds most of the U.S. debt. I said "China and Asia buy up all the debt our government sells", which was meant figuratively. The important point regarding China are its motives.

Now, your claim that the federal government borrows money from taxpayers when it uses funds from FICA for other purposes is blatantly false. The Social Security Act specifically states that revenues generated through the taxes it creates go into the general fund and may be used for payment of benefits or for any other purpose. The "debt" to FICA is just an internal accounting game played by the federal government. There is no actual liability whatsoever. And the FICA funds do not belong to "taxpayers," so they cannot be borrowed from them (see Flemming v. Nestor).

The government takes money via FICA from every paycheck of every American worker. When that worker retires they are supposed to get a monthly check back from the government. IN EFFECT, the government borrows the money from the worker and therefore accrues a debt liability that must be paid back. If a corporation did the same thing, it would have to carry that debt on its books. Now, I realize the gov't and courts don't see it that way and therein lies part of the problem.

The idea of a Social Security "trust fund" or "lockbox" is nothing more than a myth propagated by sleazy politicians to keep people from realizing how badly they are being screwed by the SS program.

Here is where we totally agree. SS revenue is sucked into the general fund where it is squandered along with tax revenue. There is no trust fund or lock box. This does not mean however, that the gov't has not accrued a liability debt to contributing workers.

The fact is that the New Deal was a BAD DEAL that we're still saddled with. SS is a cash cow that the federal government uses to avoid having to pay interest on loans. The aggregate payouts in SS benefits are a minute fraction of the compounded value of the revenues paid in via payroll taxes.

Not sure about your last statement, but there is no doubt that socialist security was a fraud from the beginning. The only ones who made out were the first benefit recpients who paid little or nothing into the system. Baby boomers who have paid into that system all their working lives will get little or nothing in return.

Originally Posted by NorthOfTheCity

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

First off, federal bond ratings and the debt ceiling are quite real and are overseen by the IMF. That you are unaware of the inner working of the system does not make it any less real.

I agree that bond ratings and the debt ceiling are indeed real. But their value as measured by the results makes them, in effect, nothing more than procedural side shows, a corrupt IMF notwithstanding.

China and other nations continue to buy U.S. debt on a daily basis. If they were concerned merely with debt ceilings and bond ratings, do you think they'd continue to purchase our debt?

Yes, I think that they would continue to purchase our debt so long as we remain the most likely entity on Earth to repay that debt. Beyond that, there are certainly uterior motives for the purchase of federal debt.

Originally Posted by NorthOfTheCity

I note that you have taken the approach of choosing to address the blatant error in claiming that "most of the US debt" is held by China by not addressing. The claim was wrong. Period. Yes, China has been suspiciously willing to buy what amounts to junk bonds from the US, and that should be cause for concern, but I would like to see your evidence that China holds the majority of US debt. Cite please.

I never said China holds most of the U.S. debt. I said "China and Asia buy up all the debt our government sells", which was meant figuratively. The important point regarding China are its motives.

You said that it was "only through the sale of debt to China that this government can operate at all." That is not true. China has become a convenient (if dangerous) creditor. Without China, there are always other avenues for credit. Even if all avenues of credit were shut down, the federal government is sitting on enough real assets in various superfunds (over $70 trillion and growing last time I checked, which was about five years ago) to pay off its debts and remain liquid for generations. As amatter of fact, we could probably operate the government at current levels tax-free just by taking the earning off of those superfunds and leaving the principal untouched. The reason that we don't do that is that taxes are a control mechanism, and that the government is not being run in the interest of America and Americans, but rather in the interest of multinational bankers who hope to continue selling us credit until we are forced to remit those cash funds.

Originally Posted by NorthOfTheCity

Now, your claim that the federal government borrows money from taxpayers when it uses funds from FICA for other purposes is blatantly false. The Social Security Act specifically states that revenues generated through the taxes it creates go into the general fund and may be used for payment of benefits or for any other purpose. The "debt" to FICA is just an internal accounting game played by the federal government. There is no actual liability whatsoever. And the FICA funds do not belong to "taxpayers," so they cannot be borrowed from them (see Flemming v. Nestor).

The government takes money via FICA from every paycheck of every American worker. When that worker retires they are supposed to get a monthly check back from the government. IN EFFECT, the government borrows the money from the worker and therefore accrues a debt liability that must be paid back. If a corporation did the same thing, it would have to carry that debt on its books. Now, I realize the gov't and courts don't see it that way and therein lies part of the problem.

That is completely different from borrowing money from American taxpayers. What appears to be happening and what is happening from a legal and accounting standpoint are two totally separate things. The appearances are kept as they are because most Americans appear to be content to pretend that they have a safe retirement account from the government. Nevermind that the same assets placed in a private account would yield many times the SS payout in interest alone and would leave a cash value that could be passed along to heirs.

Originally Posted by NorthOfTheCity

The idea of a Social Security "trust fund" or "lockbox" is nothing more than a myth propagated by sleazy politicians to keep people from realizing how badly they are being screwed by the SS program.

Here is where we totally agree. SS revenue is sucked into the general fund where it is squandered along with tax revenue. There is no trust fund or lock box. This does not mean however, that the gov't has not accrued a liability debt to contributing workers.

Depends on what you mean by "liability." There is only a political liability. There is no legal liability whatsoever.

Originally Posted by NorthOfTheCity

The fact is that the New Deal was a BAD DEAL that we're still saddled with. SS is a cash cow that the federal government uses to avoid having to pay interest on loans. The aggregate payouts in SS benefits are a minute fraction of the compounded value of the revenues paid in via payroll taxes.

Not sure about your last statement, but there is no doubt that socialist security was a fraud from the beginning. The only ones who made out were the first benefit recpients who paid little or nothing into the system. Baby boomers who have paid into that system all their working lives will get little or nothing in return.

What I mean is that SS was never about providing a reasonable retirement account, and that it was always understood by its creators to be an excuse for a massive tax, the majority of which would go for other purposes than providing benefits to the alleged intended recipients. This became obvious as early as 1939, when there was a minor revolt against the system, resulting in superficial changes to the program that had no effect on its confiscatory nature.