Users who Dugg This
ONOLAST CARD
3682 Followers
kirby humphrey
966 Followers
Frank / honestlyFrank
695 Followers
Igor Vibik
831 Followers
Abdulahnis
164 Followers
Anees Saddique
1638 Followers
lbuchaMay 31, 2011
"Caribbean Banking Centers" just sounds shady.
kimballoMay 31, 2011Submitter
lol, yeah kind of
ghengiskhan1May 31, 2011
"Miss me yet?"
--- Bill Clinton.
njdoo7May 31, 2011
"Miss me yet?"
--Non-debt based monetary system
Due to the nature of our debt-based money system, our economy cannot grow without increasing levels of debt.
theonewhoknowsMay 31, 2011
Corrections in all caps:
Due to the nature of our debt-based money system, our economy cannot APPEAR TO grow (WHEN IT ISN'T ACTUALLY GROWING) without increasing levels of debt.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njdoo7May 31, 2011
Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.
With the exception of people who save (which is the vast minority today).
-Companies need loans (debt) to grow their businesses.
-Consumers need loans (debt) to buy homes.
-Consumers need loans (debt) to go to college.
-Government needs loans (debt) to fund ongoing operations.
-etc
stk198323May 31, 2011
In theory people are supposed to pay back those loans you know...
In which it means they pay back the loan + interests!
And if someone takes a loan this year, some other person is supposed to pay back his/her this year too.
Also there is a difference between passive assets (a home) and debt. If you take a 250k mortgage on an home, it should be worth 250k meaning that if you can't payback then you have the house to cover up your ''debt''. This is just transferring from an active to a passive balance.
And companies doesn't NEED loans in order to grow, the current model encourage it, but it's not needed, in fact if a company would need it ... by it's very definition, said business would be bankrupted already. The difference is that sometime a company can have a financial incentive to take a loan (which will hopefully be repaid too) to make more interest then what the loan is costing them.
Consumers need loans to go to college... those too will be repaid...
Government NEEDS loans to fund ongoing operations? That's the difference between the US and other nations which have a more healthy balance sheet: income taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, commercial and industrial taxes, etc. should cover the government income instead of loans.
njdoo7May 31, 2011
You still haven't addressed the fact that the economy cannot grow without more debt.
I agree with your analysis of loans being paid out and back, but disagree with the possibility of this when too many loans are made.
All those loans are made with 10% reserves due to fractional reserve banking. A lot of them were made solely because they were backed by government guarantee and not borrower ability to repay (housing, student loans, etc).
The issue of monetary velocity (money circulating through the economy..for instance joe could use the same 1$ bill to repay his loan from bob who uses it to repay his loan from bill) must be examined.
Your analysis of the ability for this debt-based system to function assumes that velocity can pace with the amount of debt issued..both relative to inflation. At a certain point, money velocity hits a limit. People can only work so many hours a week. There are only so many resources in the world...etc.
We are at about this limit now..regardless of attempts to increase it by working more hours, more spending / less saving, subsidies/interest rates to increase spending (cash for clunkers, housing equiv, etc), etc.
If you can suggest a way that monetary velocity can increase exponentially indefinitely as the amount of debt HAS to, then I would have one less issue with debt-money.
theonewhoknowsMay 31, 2011
When the government uses borrowed money to seed the economy, it is exactly as I describe.
The economic growth isn't realy "growth" if the money is borrowed.
njdoo7May 31, 2011
I agree with that statement.
Q1 nominal GDP = 0.5% growth
Q1 inflation = ~2-2.5% (measured by MIT billions prices project)
I guess I didn't understand what you meant by "appear to grow" since most people would see 0.5% nominal gdp growth and think the economy grew...even if it took 2.5% inflation to get it.
ikorkyiMay 31, 2011
if a bank gives you a loan at 5% interest and you use this money to make 30% profit - is your business growing?
njdoo7May 31, 2011
@ikorkyi
Yes, but we are talking about a situation where you business grew by less than the amount borrowed.
For example, if you borrow 5% of what your business is worth but it only grows 2% after all is said and done...did your business grow?
ikorkyiJun 1, 2011
"The economic growth isn't realy "growth" if the money is borrowed."
This is not correct, as i stated.
and im not sure anyone can say that borrowing 5% didn't save us from losing 40% even though we only made 2% - to speak in the current example. We avoided a depression - whether that was going to happen or not - and the economy is improving - although very slowlyComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njdoo7Jun 1, 2011
You completely overlook the long-term sustainability of current policy. Current growth depends on debt. As debt levels are increasing, the accompanying growth has diminishing returns.
America's "tolerance" has increased, and it needs more debt to get the same euphoric high. This is a big problem, and your denial does not change that.
The US experiment of this voodoo economic policy has FAILED. Not only has it failed in the US, but it has failed in EVERY country that has tried it to date. History of monetary policy in the 20th century alone should be enough to convince you of this, but evidence goes back centuries prior.
Closed AccountJun 1, 2011
@njdoo "History of monetary policy in the 20th century alone should be enough to convince you of this, but evidence goes back centuries prior."
Liberals aren't concerned with trivial things like FACTS and HISTORY when it comes between them and their gravy train.
ikorkyiMay 31, 2011
you sound like one of those people who rack up thousands of dollars in debt on credit cards then run around telling people how they financially ruin you and are the root of all evil.
credit is essential to business. like all things, it can be abused.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njdoo7May 31, 2011
I didn't say debt was a bad idea in general. I said it was a bad idea to base a money system entirely on debt. Please re-refer to my original comment:
"Due to the nature of our debt-based money system, our economy cannot grow without increasing levels of debt."
You sound like one of those people that attack/judge people for saying something you don't like or understand, without making an effort to understand why they said it.
ikorkyiMay 31, 2011
"Due to the nature of our debt-based money system, our economy cannot grow without increasing levels of debt."
this isn't true.
it will grow most with an optimum amount of debt...which is not promised to be 0% or 100% but can be. fiat currency gives us the ability to use monetary policy. too much debt is a bad thing, but too little debt is a dollar left unearned.
i wouldn't argue against that we have too much debt right now and that people are "taught" to incur it to too large of an extent - but lets not get carried away here and claim our economy is dependent on it to the point of not growing at all without it.
njdoo7May 31, 2011
That is a very true statement, as all federal reserve notes (often called us dollars) originate from debt. I suggest learning more about the money system if this isn't clear.
The same concept applies to the rest of the world as well, as about all currencies are debt-based. This issue of debt needing to grow for the economy to grow is also the fundamental reason why the world economic forum concluded:
"Credit levels will need to double over the next 10 years, growing by US$ 103 trillion, to support consensus-projected economic growth."
http://www.weforum.org/news/over-us-100-trillion-additional-credit-needed-support-global-growth?fo=1
ikorkyiJun 1, 2011
that isn't to say that it won't stay the same per capita or as a portion of world GDP. $20,000 with $100,000 income is less debt to me than $40,000 debt with $300,000 income.
the amount of dollars may increase, but it would be foolish to not consider the scale.
for instance - on average there are more deaths per year than ever before in human history (excluding the plague, etc.)...because there are more people. this doesn't mean that the world is a more dangerous place.
theonewhoknowsMay 31, 2011
You are thinking microeconimically, while Njdoo is speaking macroeconomically.
Closed AccountJun 1, 2011
And this would be a reason why ndjoo is on my list because I value the words he has to say and why almost every other person that has ever argued with him, is not (or if it was old digg would be on my ban list).
Closed AccountMay 31, 2011
why would anyone miss bill "i rode the .com bubble and spent all the surplus from SS and other public funds to pay down the debt then dumped it all on bush" clinton???
he didn't do s**t to help the economy, he was the benficiary of thousands of miles of copper and fiber being laid, of 5-10% of the population having cell phones to over 55%, of high speed internet being pushed, of hundreds of thousand of start up .com companies.
ronald mcdonald could have been president and the economy would have boomed, except ronald mcdonald wouldn't have raided our public funds!!!
theonewhoknowsMay 31, 2011
Ehh...
He did mostly the right thing with the extra cash that just happened to be there cause the time was right. He could have just as easily spent it all and not paid down the debt, etc...
The probelem is not that the ecomomy tanked with Bush, it is with Bush's response to it... borrow more and spend even more... that is why I fault him.
njdoo7May 31, 2011
If "Caribbean Banking Centers" are included in this list of nations (as it is not a nation), why is the federal reserve not included?
The fed owns 1.5 trillion in treasuries, ~32% more than China:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/fed-treasury-holdings-pass-15-trillion
njdoo7May 31, 2011
While unaudited interest payments on the fed's holdings are remitted to the treasury, the largest holder should not be ignored.
Additionally, the fed gets to keep the value it inflated out of our dollars to purchase these treasuries. And the cartel of primary dealers got to keep the spread from buying these treasuries from the treasury and selling most to fed within a week to a month. The fed should just start buying these directly to save money that goes to primary dealers, and to make their nearly direct treasury purchases less hidden.
treehugger87May 31, 2011
Does the fact that non-foreign sources hold almost 70% of that debt ever get broad coverage? Do most people who are supporting the Republican/Tea Party in their attempt to prevent the debt ceiling from being increased understand this? I feel like every time I hear about it there is just hyperbole about all of this debt belonging to foreign countries.
Closed AccountMay 31, 2011
American economy is on a downhill ride
spatula7Jun 1, 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png
rickthebrickJun 1, 2011
I predict by November of 2012 no bill to extend the Bush tax cut will have passed. It will be a major issue in the election. Tea Party will split with Republicans and run their own presidential candidate. This will backfire as Obama will win in 2012 and democrats will also keep control of the senate. Tea Party congress members will refuse to vote for Boehner so Pelosi will get the most votes and will again be speaker of the house. In 2014 people will tire of the no compromise Tea Party and the Democrats will again win a majority in the congress but by than the tax cut will still not pass in the senate since Democrats will still not have more than 60 votes. By 2016 people will again be use to the increased tax rates so no one will push for it again. Each party will blame the other for the tax increase but will try to claim credit for the decrease in the yearly deficit. Before 2014 a conservative Supreme Court Justice will retire. Republicans will refuse to vote for any person Obama will appoint so Supreme Court will go with 8 Justices for several years. Since a lot of issues will split Supreme Court 4 to 4, it will effectively nullify the Supreme Court until a new president is elected in 2016.
kaegroJun 1, 2011
That is the most well thought out, logical and down to earth statement I have seen on Digg.com's political thread.
...get out...
/jk
Closed AccountMay 31, 2011
The United States has not seen a balanced budget since 2001.
Who took over office around then? I forgot....
linuxpersonMay 31, 2011
Wrong.
09/01/2000 Public Debt = 5,676,516,679,692.56
08/31/2001 Public Debt = 5,769,875,781,034.48
From FY 2000 to FY 2001, public debt (i.e. government debt) increased by over $100 billion dollars. In other words, the budget was not balanced in any way shape or form. Stop believing your gods in the Democratic party and do some independent research.
Feel free to start your research here:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
njdoo7May 31, 2011
But what if I want to believe clinton ran a budget surplus in 00-01!?
Ahh..I still can, but that doesn't make it real.
linuxpersonMay 31, 2011
"But what if I want to believe clinton ran a budget surplus in 00-01!? "
Anybody who believes that is a dyed in the wool Democrat.
jhw539May 31, 2011
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/HistoricalTables.pdf
Where, specifically, is the fraud in the final accounting of revenue versus spending?
And why did Dick Cheney suggest people go to factcheck to read up on Edward's lies during the VP debate if they were "dyed in the wool Democrats"?
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
Closed AccountMay 31, 2011
They circle jerk with their lies. Typical extremist tardation
linuxpersonMay 31, 2011
I'll go with the numbers that represent actual money taken in versus money paid out. Cut and dry numbers without all the accounting gimmicks... straight forward, simple to understand, undeniable fact.
The CBO discounts very relevant things like intergovernmental holdings (i.e. loans from one government department to another) which, according to accounting standards that responsible and accountable organizations employ, are considered a liability.
jhw539May 31, 2011
Nice cherry picking. How about dealing with reality? Like the final CBO numbers, that include all revenue and liabilities - which clearly show the actual debt declined:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/HistoricalTables.pdf
Or if the real numbers are scary, how about going to the site Cheney famously suggested you check out during his VP debate in 2004?
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
And last I checked Clinton wasn't president through August of 2001. Although if you bothered to use the real numbers rather than a widget from the savings bonds sales division, I think that year also showed a surplus.
PS Even your $100 billion deficit is better than _any_ year under the Republican Congress and Whitehouse.
linuxpersonMay 31, 2011
"And last I checked Clinton wasn't president through August of 2001."
FY 2001 was the last budget Clinton signed into office. Basic knowledge here guy, you should know it before establishing an argument formulated by googling for things you think support your partisan perspective.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/00Budget/index.html
Now that I've wasted my time on this sophomoric s**t, any other takers?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spatula7Jun 1, 2011
Yup - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png
mikelistJun 1, 2011
at least he got the sophomoric s**t out of the way.
linuxpersonJun 1, 2011
This has nothing to do with my argument, thanks for the link though.
Closed AccountMay 31, 2011
It's from the title article douche.
Closed AccountMay 31, 2011
And you DO realize balanced means incoming = outgoing right?
Oh, wait, you missed the entire point of the article your posting in.
Closed AccountMay 31, 2011
first off it was only a balanced budget on PAPER, in reality we still had debt.
second, bush took office then and INHERITED the .com BUST because clinton didn't do s**t to regulate it!
at least bush TRIED regulating the GES's before he handed the housing bubble burst to obama...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonMay 31, 2011
Actually it wasn't even balanced on paper. It was only balanced in the minds of impressionable shills who buy into the notion that their political party is fiscally responsible.
And do tell us how exactly Bush was supposed to regulate the .com bubble, I'd be really interested to know.
Closed AccountMay 31, 2011
no that's what i'm saying, clinton should have done some regulating of the .com bubble-bush couldn't have-but at least bush tried to regulate the GSE's during the housing boom:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.htmlComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonMay 31, 2011
That's a different issue altogether.
What I'm interested in is your belief that the .com bubble could have been regulated out of existence. I just don't buy that theory because it was an organic bubble that was a natural product of the market.
The housing bubble, on the other hand, was not entirely organic.
adaguyMay 31, 2011
Bulls**t! Every time regulation is mentioned, the republickins scream "free market!"
These are the very assh**es that brought us all this financial DEREGULATION that caused the mess we are now in!
Oh yeah, I forgot, no one expects the republickins to follow their own rules.
This group of worthless bastards have, in the last 30 years, destroyed the economy of this nation, all in the name of big business!
peppermintpigJun 2, 2011
Regulation, deregulation, either way it is people in government manipulating businesses or allowing for corruption by the corporatocracy. The government cannot be a savior when it allows for so much harm.
jhw539May 31, 2011
Quit lying. It was balanced. Go ahead and credit the Republican Congress, or the luck of the net boom, but for gods sake quit trying to ignore documented reality.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/HistoricalTables.pdf
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
njdoo7May 31, 2011
Your source is the CBO; his is the Treasury.
Both are documented. The question is why are they different? Without knowing the exact details of the calculation, we cannot really tell which is more accurate.
linuxpersonMay 31, 2011
The numbers are different because the CBO doesn't count intergovernmental holdings as a liability. Voodoo accounting.
When you look at mathematical reality, the Federal government paid out far more than it took in every year single year of Clinton's presidency. Hence why the Treasury posted a deficit.
jhw539May 31, 2011
The treasury does not account for 'cash on hand'. They account for the value of outstanding bonds, which fluctuates a bit from actual accounts depending when bonds are cashed and the specific dates of auctions. If you troll through carefully enough, you can find month to month drops in the debt around tax time.
The retroactive CBO numbers are the accurate numbers of expenditure versus revenue.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jhw539May 31, 2011
"The numbers are different because the CBO doesn't count intergovernmental holdings as a liability."
This is why I call you a liar. You make up s**t that was directly addressed and refuted in the citation I provided. Or should I just call you ignorant, partisan and lazy?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonMay 31, 2011
In case you missed it, my source is the Treasury. Therefore if you are accusing me of lying, then you are in effect accusing your precious Federal government of lying.
You really show off your partisan colors by suggesting that I'm a Republican for stating something that most Democratic shills don't want to hear given that I openly attack Republicans on a frequent basis here on digg.
Now please explain to me why the Treasury numbers are wrong.
jhw539May 31, 2011
The treasury does not account for 'cash on hand'. They account for the value of outstanding bonds, which fluctuates a bit from actual accounts depending when bonds are cashed and the specific dates of auctions.
Now explain to me why the retroactive CBO numbers (their forecasts are crap), accepted by both parties, are wrong.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonMay 31, 2011
Because the CBO overlooks things like raiding the social security fund. They just count it like normal income, without actually accounting for the liability like an accountable organization.
jhw539Jun 1, 2011
"Because the CBO overlooks things like raiding the social security fund. "
Now you're just trolling me. Even if you remove Social Security revenue from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000.
But good jorb doing a great impersonation of a mindless partisan with no care about actual reality (or ability to comprehend the citations provided).
linuxpersonJun 1, 2011
I've never voted for any individual claiming to be apart of any political party. Can you make the same claim without lying through your partisan shill teeth?
For the sake of argument lets just say you are correct and that the Federal government did have a surplus in FY 2001 (or any other fiscal year Clinton was in office). What that means then is that despite having a budget surplus, the Federal government's debt actually increased.
In other words, even if the Federal government has more money than it needs, it will still find ways to blow it without paying down its debt.
So which is it Mr. Democrat Worshiper... did your precious Democrat/Republican gods lie to about the surplus or is the Federal government completely unable to repay its debt even when its running a surplus?
Closed AccountMay 31, 2011
Balanced budget means incoming funds = outgoing
.... I can't believe I even have to explain that to you.
linuxpersonMay 31, 2011
Which was NEVER the case during a single year of Clinton's presidency.
Not so ironically, I can believe I had to explain that to you given that the President in question is a Democrat. If it were a Republican, you would be totally down with the facts.
Sad.
Closed AccountJun 1, 2011
There are like 5 links above that say it was. Nice try, get more patriots tard.
Closed AccountJun 1, 2011
one link is from the CBO which doesn't take into account intergovermental holding-which makes it meaningless.
the factcheck link doesn't take into account the money borrowed from public funds.
another one is federal expense vs GDP which has nothing to do with actual debt.
meanwhile, linux and i are going off of the US TREASURY departments numbers, you know, the department that keeps track of our DEBT, but hey why listen to them....
so it's exactly like i said, it was balanced on PAPER but in reality, ACCORDING TO YORU OWN TREASURY DEPARTMENT, we NEVER had a surplus.
once again, you're completely wrong and i am 100% right, now go back to playing WoW and let the adults discuss politics....
Closed AccountJun 1, 2011
once again you prove to be nothing but a partisan MORON:
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
"Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:
Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.
As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.
Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.
Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:
Fiscal
Year End
Date Claimed
Surplus Public
Debt Intra-gov
Holdings Total National
Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T $55.8B $1.792328T $168.9B $5.526193T $113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T $97.8B $2.020166T $227.8B $5.656270T $130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T $230.8B $2.268874T $248.7B $5.674178T $17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T $66.0B $2.468153T $199.3B $5.807463T $133.3B
Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.
When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security)."
I know you get easily confused by small numbers so maybe it's these big numbers that are really confusing you.....
RookusMay 31, 2011
If Owe Bummer wins in 2012 and he's in a lame duck session,you haven't seen debt like this before.This want to be king will put this nation in more debt that we have ever seen.Again lets go back to his quote in 2009."America is the greatest country on earth and I want you to help me change that."End quote.This guy and now big ass wife are nut cases.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kaegroJun 1, 2011
There is so much stupid in that "paragraph" that I'm not sure where to begin.
"If Owe Bummer wins in 2012 and he's in a lame duck session,you haven't seen debt like this before."
I'm pretty sure you mean that it's just going to get worst, but seriously.
"This want to be king will put this nation in more debt that we have ever seen."
If he wants to be king, wouldn't want his country to prosper?
"Again lets go back to his quote in 2009."America is the greatest country on earth and I want you to help me change that."
He actually did not say that. I looked for about an hour and all I could find were blogs on how it's not true and a single yahoo.answer that says that he did. The link that was posed was down.
"This guy and now big ass wife are nut cases."
Now you're just calling out names like a drunken 12 year old.The only nut I see is you and your crazy ass comment history...actually " Member Since 04/22/11 " Mollidog, is that you?
JustSayNoPartyJun 1, 2011
Whenever you throw in the words 'owe bummer' it completely destroys my ability to take you seriously.
dmashakJun 1, 2011
I believe the America's crushing debt is not happenstance, nor is the deadlock in in congress real, this crush debt is a contrivance to collapse the USA and get rid of its constitution, which expressly declares the USA will not be subservient to any other Government aka the NEW WORLD ORDER
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak
tomh1971Jun 1, 2011
anyone know who holds the UK debt? and how can the UK hold so much US debt when it has lots of its own debt?
rudegarMay 31, 2011
but is michael bay movies the road out of the debt?