Does anyone understand the seriousness of the word "debt"?

Are there other readers who understand the seriousness of
the state of the economy of the United States of America?
In the last eighteen months, more paper currency has been
printed than all of the other prior administrations put together.
[Hint: remember, there is no silver or gold backing this paper
currency]
With the current stimulus proposed by the administration,
the amount of debt that the United States has been pledged
to is within a few points of the gross national income.
Does anyone else foresee the problems inherent in
the amount of debt the current administration has incurred
for the United States of America?

Originally posted by Freedom of Thought
Are there other readers who understand the seriousness of
the state of the economy of the United States of America?
In the last eighteen months, more paper currency has been
printed than all of the other prior administrations put together.
[Hint: remember, there is no silver or gold backing this paper
currency]
With the current stimulus proposed by the administration,
the amount of debt that the United States has been pledged
to is within a few points of the gross national income.
Does anyone else foresee the problems inherent in
the amount of debt the current administration has incurred
for the United States of America?

Now what kind of debt are you talking about?

There are two types of debts foreign and national debt.

Together these things make up the Public debt

reply to post by Freedom of Thought


I know exactly what kind of debt you're talking about and this guy in this explains it all out what it is, the system, and how to get out of debt and the system. It's quite excellent. As soon, as I get my money right and understand the legalese aswell as he does I will be getting same I.D.s that the guy has, my own...

video.google.com...#

As of the Transnational Banking Cartels installation of fractional reserve systems the process began and has finally nearly encompassed the entire globe (think Empire) ... in today's world

Debt = Currency.

Trade is in debt, investors in real wealth are limited to a handful of collectives, none of which are true nation states.

Originally posted by Returners

Now what kind of debt are you talking about?

There are two types of debts foreign and national debt.

Together these things make up the Public debt

In particular I am talking about the first $3 trillion 'stimulus'
package by Obama, and the 2nd one that he is currently
working on nowl

My understanding is the first package was heavily endorsed
by China; that they have to be re-secured (re-signed) every
12 months. That China has been dumping these 'bonds'
as part of a ploy to devalue the dollar.

Originally posted by agentofchaos
reply to post by Freedom of Thought

 

I know exactly what kind of debt you're talking about and this guy in this explains it all out what it is, the system, and how to get out of debt and the system. It's quite excellent. As soon, as I get my money right and understand the legalese aswell as he does I will be getting same I.D.s that the guy has, my own...

video.google.com...#

Is there something I am missing on this video link. It starts out with the commentator
talking about light, electricity and water...??

Originally posted by Maxmars
As of the Transnational Banking Cartels installation of fractional reserve systems the process began and has finally nearly encompassed the entire globe (think Empire) ... in today's world

Debt = Currency.

Trade is in debt, investors in real wealth are limited to a handful of collectives, none of which are true nation states.

OK. I did a google search on Transnational Banking Cartels; didn't come up with much. I am aware
of how political familes (Rothschild's, etc.) control ecomic wealth.
There is a book called Shadows of Power that explains in great detail how all these people control
most of the events in the world and through history.
I think I understand what you are talking about when you mention 'fractional reserve systems"..that banks
actually only have to have a certain percentage of actual money on hand. Have heard reports from
money newsletters that the current administration is thinking of increasing the percentage that U.S.
banks have to have on hand.
"Debt=Currency". Yeah, I know the more money this idiot prints put us deeper in debt (U.S.)
because there is not enough manufacturing and economic income being produced to take care
of the debt.

Originally posted by Freedom of Thought

Originally posted by Returners

Now what kind of debt are you talking about?

There are two types of debts foreign and national debt.

Together these things make up the Public debt

In particular I am talking about the first $3 trillion 'stimulus'
package by Obama, and the 2nd one that he is currently
working on nowl

My understanding is the first package was heavily endorsed
by China; that they have to be re-secured (re-signed) every
12 months. That China has been dumping these 'bonds'
as part of a ploy to devalue the dollar.

Look they have two types of debt NATIONAL DEBT and FOREIGN DEBT

When the GOVT needs money they print out bonds, when people BUY BONDS the price of the DOLLAR INCREASES. When people SELL BONDS the price of the DOLLAR DECREASES.

China is FORCED to buy USA T-bills, they don't have a choice.

When China sends over $500 dollars worth of goods they have the option of getting $500 dollars worth of goods and services from the USA or investing the $500 dollars in the USA by buying T-bills or somethign similar.

The USA has nothing that China really wants, so whats their only option? They are forced to buy T-bills. That 2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves? Its a #load of T-bills.

The danger now is if China gets scared and realizes that the USA will never create a good or service that the chinese need and they start dumping T-bills, the danger here is that other countries might be afraid that they will also lose their investment so they start dumping theirs. Think of T-bills as stocks. The value of the USA dollar could drop very low overnight.

This is the danger of Foreign Debt.

Theres also a danger in National Debt, National Debt is money that the govt owns to the people. One example is Social Security, pensions, retirement funds the money that you put in is supposed to be returned back. When people die the national debt decreases, when people work the national debt increases. The danger of being unable to pay back these debts is that many people who paid their social security and worked for their pensions won't get anything back. This is the crisis that Japan is facing, their national debt is almost 200% of the GDP as a result there are 80 year old Japanese women working at Mcdonalds because the govt blew their pensions/social security money. The danger of this is civil unrest.

reply to post by Freedom of Thought


The answer to your question is simple.
No.

People don't understand the real meaning of 'debt'.

You know why?
Because we live in a culture where you have to go into debt to buy anything.
Literally.
You can't buy a home without going into debt. (if you pay cash, they question where you got it from)
You can't purchase a new vehicle without going into debt. (any purchase over $10k is reported to the IRS)
The list goes on.

With the media blasting away about how 'debt' is a good thing, i.e., credit cards, mortgages, etc...
It's a no-brainer.

We are bombarded with the idea that debt isn't a bad thing.

That is the exact reason why I eliminated all of my debt. (well...all the cards at least)

if somehow the people could get back in control of the government, we could declare the money owed as an Odious Debt

en.wikipedia.org...

"When a despotic regime contracts a debt, not for the needs or in the interests of the state, but rather to strengthen itself, to suppress a popular insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the entire state. This debt does not bind the nation; it is a debt of the regime, a personal debt contracted by the ruler, and consequently it falls with the demise of the regime. The reason why these odious debts cannot attach to the territory of the state is that they do not fulfil one of the conditions determining the lawfulness of State debts, namely that State debts must be incurred, and the proceeds used, for the needs and in the interests of the State. Odious debts, contracted and utilised for purposes which, to the lenders' knowledge, are contrary to the needs and the interests of the nation, are not binding on the nation – when it succeeds in overthrowing the government that contracted them – unless the debt is within the limits of real advantages that these debts might have afforded. The lenders have committed a hostile act against the people, they cannot expect a nation which has freed itself of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts, which are the personal debts of the ruler.[1]"

reply to post by Freedom of Thought


I'm not too surprised that a you didn't have much luck with the Transnational Banking Cartel search. Frankly, it seems I am one of the few people who use the phrase. Not that I have any specific knowledge that others lack, it just seems self-evident to me that they (or it) exists.

Looking at the development of the banking industry through history, it is clear that they benefited greatly from elevating their position as mere money changers to policy-makers. Rumors of truly abhorrent business practices on their part abound, namely blackmail, or extortion, price fixing, shadow accounting, and secret transnational 'agreements' between the institutions led to a consolidation of their 'agenda.'

The IMF, the Worlds Settlement Bank, the "World Trade Organization" and the lot of national reserve banks across the globe have in the last couple of centuries convinced the world that they MUST be the middlemen between all capital exchanges. With adroit subtlety they managed to contrive a culture which made it impossible to trade without their direct involvement - and any effort to establish a rational monetary system that relied on the maxim of 'serving' the communities which actually produced the wealth was torpedoed effectively by machinery in society that owed their existence to the banks themselves.

The debate is clearly moot. Most economic theory is fundamentally flawed because it accommodates the concept of the Banking system's status quo as a given. The value of human labor has declined steadily as they have encroached into our global community so effectively that even private citizens cannot function without their direct involvement ("everybody should know their credit score, right?")

Nations whose populations are destitute and whose efforts to produce and maintain their lifestyles do not support the banking paradigm are inevitably absorbed into the fold by way of immense 'loans' their governments are obliged to take if they wish to remain in power. The taxation of the people, just as in the United States, invariably serves ONLY to service those loans, so no nation - as a nation - can increase its wealth.

In the end the conduits of wealth are all tapped by the banks who meet internationally now... (Group of 8 anyone?) along with hundreds of Finance Ministers all of whom are either members of the industry itself or are 'on loan' (pun intended) from the industry in contrived positions of political appointee-ship.

With a global derivative market in the hundreds of trillions, why aren't the nation leaders of the planet defying them all in outrage and righteous indignation? Why is it acceptable that the monetary policy of nearly every nation on Earth (save North Korea perhaps) is dictated by a banker or a "former and soon to return to the job" - banker? How is it possible that mathematical certainty NEVER SEEMS TO BE WITHIN GRASP of any nations economy? 1+1 = 2. Yet we can never get a straight answer out of bankers who are supposed to be the 'experts' in such matters? How is it 'reasonable' that a bank holding a million currency units can magically loan out billions, and subsequently, based on those fictional billions, loan out MORE billions?

Because it is to them a game of chance, with statistical manipulation taking the place of certainy. But they play with the wealth of others. And they are paid for the privilege - over and over, interest upon interest. Unfailingly, we see that the banking communities are the only true beneficiaries of monetary policy, and the governments remain beholden to them somehow.

We had a few presidents in the US who knew the truth and made feeble attempts to address it. Andrew Jackson, who is said to have regarded the Banking Reserve movement as a many-headed serpent; Lincoln - with his issuance of true currency in "Greenbacks" in defiance of usurious rates the banks demanded to fund the war; Wilson, who could have said "No" to the establishment of the Federal Reserve had it not been for his total dependence on them for political support; Kennedy, who sought to restore wealth to the Nation via "Silver Certificates" are all examples worth considering.

In the end they bought the press, bought some political whores, and moved into the business of setting interest rates and holding a monopoly on currency. There is no, and never has been, a single financial crisis that wasn't totally under the control of these bankers. Wars serves them, famine serves them, oppression serves them, and now the mass-media serves them as well. Soon they will control the educational system outright.

Our problem has never been anything short of the concept of currency without banking.... banking on "trust" and "confidence" .. and the market games of 'investors' who produce NOTHING, yet get first pick at prime wealth.

I could ramble on like this for a while.. but I suspect there's a lot in here that many will disagree with. Occasionally, it's good to vent ...

reply to post by BlesUTP


Which is precisely what the President of Ecuador did.... now there are many organizations laboring to destabilize and or destroy his ability to govern... all the while evoking the same anti-socialist rhetoric like a new McCarthyism....

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by Freedom of Thought

 

I

'Looking at the development of the banking industry through history, it is clear that they benefited greatly from elevating their position as mere money changers to policy-makers. Rumors of truly abhorrent business practices on their part abound, namely blackmail, or extortion, price fixing, shadow accounting, and secret transnational 'agreements' between the institutions led to a consolidation of their 'agenda.'

This I know is true. In 1995, a lady in New York placed a nation wide ad in all the newspapers, and
said that anybody that wrote for it would get a free book. Thus, THE SHADOWS OF POWER
by James Perloff (The Council on Foreign Relations and The American Decline) 1988.
published by Western Islands, Appleton, Wisconsin.

This book explained the financial power in the world, and all those connected to it;
who the members were, the media that helped promote lies about the truth of these people.


"Nations whose populations are destitute and whose efforts to produce and maintain their lifestyles do not support the banking paradigm are inevitably absorbed into the fold by way of immense 'loans' their governments are obliged to take if they wish to remain in power. "

I know that this is true, and even is going on today. Only the heads of the Medusa have grown; it
includes using USDA and its alliance with Monsanto to entrap and ensnare the poverty stricken of
India, Mexico, etc. Any loans or aid to countries are only made with the presupposition that the
country involved will do what the United States (ie. Private Mega-Companies) want them to do,
for their own further self-interest.

"In. (Group of 8 anyone?) along with hundreds of Finance Ministers all of whom are either members of the industry itself or are 'on loan' (pun intended) from the industry in contrived positions of political appointee-ship."
maybe you could start a thread on the Group of 8 for those who have yet to be exposed
to the machinations of their manipulations

"We had a few presidents in the US who knew the truth and made feeble attempts to address it. Andrew Jackson, who is said to have regarded the Banking Reserve movement as a many-headed serpent; Lincoln - with his issuance of true currency in "Greenbacks" in defiance of usurious rates the banks demanded to fund the war; Wilson, who could have said "No" to the establishment of the Federal Reserve had it not been for his total dependence on them for political support; Kennedy, who sought to restore wealth to the Nation via "Silver Certificates" are all examples worth considering."

Actually many sources I read said that is the real reason John F. Kennedy and his brother were killed
by these guys; because the Kennedy brothers were going to eliminate the Federal Reserve.

" There is no, and never has been, a single financial crisis that wasn't totally under the control of these bankers. "

This is absolutely, totally true. Including the Vietnam War, and all stock market crashes, including the
one of 1929.


" Wars serves them, famine serves them, oppression serves them, and now the mass-media serves them as well. Soon they will control the educational system outright. "

Well, I would consider they already control the educational system. Hillary Clinton working behind the
scenes in the United Nations since 1996 to have all American Public School books changed so that
the words: American Sovereignty, individuality, creativity, etc. no longer exist in public school books.
She is also responsible for the latest changes in the College Board Tests.

". and the market games of 'investors' who produce NOTHING, yet get first pick at prime wealth."

which is why smart people learn how to live outside of the system, and learn how to grow their
own food, put it up, get some solar panels, etc.

"I could ramble on like this for a while.. but I suspect there's a lot in here that many will disagree with. Occasionally, it's good to vent ...

"

Personally, I couldn't find anything that I disagreed with. Perhaps you should "vent" more and
educate some more people.

reply to post by Freedom of Thought


Did you only watch like the first 5 minutes? Just listen to the whole thing, he starts explaining and it's quite excellent. Trust me, he lays the foundation from which all conspiracy thrives from.