By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Obama wants unlimited credit? Sounds crazy-

SpartenOmega117 said:
Metallicube said:
So we're gonna settle the problem of debt with more debt? Sounds logical to me... -_-


I don't think the United States was ever not in debt

One year from 8th January 1835.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/04/15/135423586/when-the-u-s-paid-off-the-entire-national-debt-and-why-it-didnt-last



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Around the Network
RedInker said:
Oi Obama. Americas debt is big enough. How about giving yourself some space from the ceiling by actually paying some of it back? Or do you really want to be the new Greece?

This is silly.

America is never going to become Greece because America retains the means to pay back its debt. It still has the second highest credit rating and it's still growing at a reasonably impressive rate.

And they can't pay back the debt because they have all suddenly developed an aversion to spending cuts and can't balance a budget.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

sperrico87 said:
Metalli was being sarcastic, and it wasn't a Keynesian statement, it was very much a pro-Austrian economics statement, about how ridiculous it is that so many people think we can solve our debt problem by spending even more money.  It's nutty.

I know, it's ridiculous, right? Like how people think that getting money to start a business makes sense. You get money from a business, you don't put money into it, am I right? Oh, wait...

Yeah, sweeping statements like that make you sound stupid. Learn to love nuance, and to avoid sweeping generalisations. Spending more money can help you to get out of debt, sometimes. Other times, it will just get you into more debt. Careful spending is what matters - spending on the right things, rather than more or less spending, is the solution. When you cut the bad spending to a minimum, and identify new forms of good spending and implement them, you might come out with less net spending, or more net spending, but either way, you'll improve the result.



Branko2166 said:
@Kasz216

http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-the-federal-reserve/10489

There are plenty of links on both sides. But my point is still valid, even if the US central bank is a truly federal bank and not privately owned as you claim.

and the links on the other side are completely false.

The decisions made by the Federa Reserve are decided by the council, which is majorily apointed by the President.   Hence it is federally owned.

The federal reserve sends an profits over 6% directly to the national treasury and congress to be used by the government.

If Obama fired the Federal Reserve board and put in place Ron Paul and a bunch of his friends or communists or whatever, the private banks would be SOL.

 

The Federal Reserve  is more or less like Medicare or Social Security, but for banks.  (Also this program makes a profit for the government.)



Kasz216 said:
The decisions made by the Federa Reserve are decided by the council, which is majorily apointed by the President.   Hence it is federally owned.

I'm sorry, but that logic doesn't make any sense. One person can own a company, but another person can manage it. I'm not saying that the Federal Reserve isn't owned by the government, nor am I saying that it is. I'm saying that you'll have to do better than the argument you gave here.



Around the Network
Aielyn said:
Kasz216 said:
The decisions made by the Federa Reserve are decided by the council, which is majorily apointed by the President.   Hence it is federally owned.

I'm sorry, but that logic doesn't make any sense. One person can own a company, but another person can manage it. I'm not saying that the Federal Reserve isn't owned by the government, nor am I saying that it is. I'm saying that you'll have to do better than the argument you gave here.

Actually no, no they can't.

If you can't exercise ownership rights, you don't own anything.

The whole point of ownership is that you either alone, or in concert with other owners have control over what you own.

 

If I told you I'd sell you my company, and in return, I'll still make every decision, you can't argue or have any recourse about any decison i make, and I will pay you... whatever i really felt like, and spend the rest of the profits on my family and paying off my bills....

Would you say i was offering to sell you the company or I was conning you? 

 

This is the same situation, except the US government isn't even trying to con the banks.  It's simply "If you want the support of the Federal Reserve, you have to buy in."


It's essentially just a selective taxation plan.  It's function is government is pretty similar to that of the Supreme Courts, except the sitting president holds a bit more influence,  and if you want to have support from it, you have to pony up some cash upfront.

 


From their own website...

"

The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government.  It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."

The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."



spurgeonryan said:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/120612-636088-obama-seeks-power-to-raise-debt-ceiling.htm?p=full

 

Does this sound like a good idea to you guys? I think we need some responsibility and accountability.

Once again you post something that makes you sound like you have no clue what  your talking about. CONGRESS SPENDS THE MONEY. Which means they can stop spending the money. The president has nothing to do with it.

It's like me going to the store buying a bunch of sh-t, go put it into my car but when I go into the store I refuse to pay for what I bought. The congress spent the money, now they have to pay for it.  Then I blame the driver of the car that was never even in the store. The fact that you can't grasp this idea is really funny.

You however did go watch fox news to report this. TAKE F'ING CIVICS CLASS!!! YOU NEED IT BAD!

The republicans held congress through most of bush's term. They got us into 2 wars while not even putting them on the debt, also lowered tax's at the same time. All they had to do was nothing and our debt would have been paid off in ten years. However they spent like a drunkin sailor and once dems took the congress for 2 years, they started screaming about the debt they created. They also crashed us and caused a majority of the spending in the after math. Once again I have to teach you. What is wrong with this picture?

 





The congress spends the money, not the president. So people who blame the president for the debt are pretty stupid.

Article I, Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.



Kasz216 said:
Actually no, no they can't.

If you can't exercise ownership rights, you don't own anything.

The whole point of ownership is that you either alone, or in concert with other owners have control over what you own.

Ever heard of a contract?

Putting it another way, it's kind of like how the managers of a publicly-traded company are legally obliged to make every effort to make profits for their investors. The investors are the ones who own the company, but they don't have a direct say in its operation.

And as I understand it, while the board is chosen by the president and confirmed by the senate, they have an advisory council from the banks. If I were to describe the system as it stands, I would describe it as "public-private". It's majority public-owned, but with private ownership as well. So it's not quite so easily put in black-and-white terms that you Americans seem to love so much.



 

I think that the debt ceiling is actually unconstitutional. The congress spent the money and now don't want to pay. They want to use it for political purposes to trick people into blaming the president of the united states. Rather the congress needs to pay for what it has spent, not hold social programs and the poor accountable for there actions. The republicans created all of this mess with in the 8 years under bush. They controlled both house's and spent like drunkin sailors and used war and fear to do so. Now they want to b-tch.

The 14th Amendment

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.