Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
advertisement
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Askari's column >>

ASKARI

Home Page
Conscious Truth Seeker and Light Bringer
Articles Posted: 18  Links Seeded: 45
Member Since: 6/2008  Last Seen: 1/31/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Betting Against America: The Debt Ceiling Farce

Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:46 PM EDT
politics, money, barack-obama, congress, government, finance, taxes, budget, president-obama, banks, medicare, social-security, foreign-policy, currency, corporations, tax-cuts, debt-ceiling, patriot-act, eric-cantor, citizens-united, treason, citizens, cbo, deficit-spending, us-debt, treasury-bonds, credit-limit
By Askari
advertisement

I had not paid much attention about the debt ceiling until the story broke that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) had to remove himself from debt ceiling negotiation talks due to his short bet against the U.S. dollar.  I first heard about this on Free Speech TV's "The Thom Hartmann Show" over a week ago and since that time, very few people are comprehending the gravity of this situation.  A CONGRESSMAN IS BETTING AGAINST HIS OWN COUNTRY'S CURRENCY AND ECONOMY!!!  Representative Cantor's bet is tantamount to treason and you can best believe that he is the NOT the only congress member betting against America.

Just a few weeks ago, Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) was forced by his own party to resign over him sending pictures of his penis to an online acquaintance.  Though he made the fatal mistake of lying about the incident to every news outlet that put a microphone in front of him, the offense had NOTHING to do with his job performance nor did the incident take place during work hours as far as we know.  Yet, this story proliferated every news broadcast for 3 weeks.  Now, we have this bombshell about a congressman in a key leadership position who has broken his sworn oath of office and is actively betting against U.S. currency but NO ONE is calling for Eric Cantor's resignation or indictment!  How could this be?    Well,  the debt ceiling talks is the  latest act in the kabuki theater of American politics and we citizens continue on as a helpless, clueless audience seemingly paralyzed to say or do anything about the unfolding drama happening before our very eyes.

Perhaps a lot of us don't understand the whole concept of our national debt and debt ceiling talks, so let me make it plain for you. The U.S. total debt is currently over $54 trillion and the interest on that debt is well over $3 trillion (source:  U.S. National Debt Clock website).  Currently, the U.S. has a $14.294 trillion credit limit which was raised from the previous $12.394 trillion credit limit back in February 2010 (source:  Treasury Direct website).  Our country is $100 billion away from reaching the new credit limit and we only have a little over $3 trillion in tax and state revenue coming in which will only cover our interest payment.  The gross domestic product or total market value of final goods and services produced in our country which serves as our collateral for obtaining loans is currently at $14.7 trillion.  Looking at this from a personal finance perspective, our country is a horrible credit risk (even though Moody's Investors Service gives the US a AAA credit rating just like they gave all the toxic assets that led to the 2008 financial crisis) and would be extremely hard-pressed to get a loan.  However, congress and the president have the exclusive privilege of raising the country's credit limit infinitely despite our inability to pay off the ever-increasing debt.  Once the new credit limit is agreed upon, our government goes about the business of selling treasury bonds (debt) to individuals, corporations and other countries such as China, Japan, and Russia.  Our country also sells large amounts of its debt to other countries that export oil (Ecuador, Venezuela, Indonesia, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Gabon, Libya, and Nigeria) and serve as banking centers (Bahamas, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Netherlands Antilles, Panama and the British Virgin Islands).  The countries that are designated in bold happen to be places that are in conflict either with the U.S. or internally.  Who in their right mind borrows money from their alleged enemies?

Why is it that Republicans are giving President Obama such a hard time  about raising the debt ceiling when it could mean that America defaults on its loans?  I am only calling out the republican party because other than Representative Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Democrats have done little to fire up bi-partisan working class support for increasing taxes on the wealthy.  Most economists and many business leaders believe that an inability to raise the debt ceiling would have damaging and potentially catastrophic economic consequences.  Certainly, an already vulnerable American public would suffer, with increased interest rates, delays in payment for military personnel and the elderly, as well as a suspension of a variety of other vital services.  Since our nation is currently occupying/fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya, there also is a serious risk to our nation's troops overseas and to our strategic international interests. The evidence is strong that our nation would suffer immediate and irreparable harm if the debt ceiling is not raised.  President Obama could issue an emergency executive order to suspend the debt limit since the criteria has been met to do so but what does this mean for our country's escalating debt?  It means that we will continue to wallow in this debt until the countries we owe money call it in and herein lies the farce all of this foolishness.

The world operates on a fiat currency system meaning that the top currencies such as the U.S. dollar, European euro, the Japanese yuan and British pound have no intrinsic value, i.e. they are not based on any physical commodity, but their worth depends on people's faith in them. If people lose faith in a fiat currency, it will stop holding any value and will become no more precious than the paper it was printed on.  Seeing as the House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has a bet against the dollar, it would appear that one of the very people who is paid and entrusted with "bearing true faith and allegiance" to his country, has forsaken it.  The deafening silence about this traitorous act leads me believe that the rest of congress is in on the same bet.  Sadly enough, average citizens are the ones who have to shoulder the overwhelming burden of endless debt.  Yet, when it comes time to print up our "funny money"  or borrow it from other countries, that same congress always votes to give the majority of it to banks, corporations and wealthy individuals via bailouts, tax breaks and subsidies aka corporate welfare.  President Obama has proposed $4 trillion in deficit spending cuts (nobody seems to give a damn about the $54+ trillion principal) that come from social safety programs such as Social Security and Medicare.  The diabolical formula is to gradually raise the full eligibility age to 70 for workers born in 1973 and thereafter, that would cut Social Security outlays by 12 percent by 2050, which would equate to massive savings in dollar terms.  But, as the Congressional Budget Office has noted, an increase in the eligibility age is, in effect, a cut in the benefits which people are expecting to get.  “Forcing people with lower-than-average life expectancies to delay claiming benefits would reduce their lifetime benefits.” CBO said in a report last March. “For example, someone who died at 68 would collect benefits for four years rather than six. And because people with lower earnings tend to have shorter life expectancies, they would be more likely to be harmed by the change.” Source:  Reducing the Deficit:  Spending and Revenue Options - CBO March 2011

It would seem that the people who are supposed to be working toward our best interests would rather see us die than to force their obscenely rich friends to pay up on a little income tax.  Instead, they keep citizens at each others' throats with nonsense such as democrat vs. republican, left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal, gay vs. straight, red state vs. blue state, etc.   Meanwhile, the entities who have bought our leadership lock, stock and barrel, laugh at how ignorant, apathetic and self-defeating the only people who can put an end to the suffering, oppression, poverty and war that they inflict upon us.  Though President Obama has backtracked on many things he said on the campaign trail, one thing is true -- he can't do this alone.  Everybody needs to get involved in how this country is being run.  Step #1 - Get educated on what's ACTUALLY happening and how the world has been working without the input of everyday people like you and I.   The executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government are being paid by corporations and banks to screw over the very people who pay their base salary and benefits.

Our government has already legalized torture, wiretapping, occupation of sovereign nations, bribery and discrimination via the Patriot Act, foreign policy and the Citizens United decision.  How long is it going to take us to do something about any of the myriad problems we face before we find ourselves unable to do so?  Time is ticking very fast.  I hope that Republicans are not "playing chicken" with our economy and that the debt ceiling will be raised before we go into default.   But until then, Security Exchange Commission, Department of Justice, Congressional Ethics Committee, get your damn hands out of the cookie jar and start investigating, indicting and sentencing U.S. elected officials who are betting against America!!!!

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Askari's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Citizens Against Apathy, Free Thinkers, Grounded for Life, Left of Center, Living with Less, Political Analysis, Politics in USA, rationalists, RightsVine, The Truth Network, Writers
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (25)
Askari

Newsvine Code of Honor enforced here.

  • 2 votes
Reply#1 - Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:48 PM EDT
dcstone01

You are being too kind...I don't think EC left the negotiation table because of the story of his 'stocks/funds'...I think he did it on purpose to drive his stocks/funds up...that one particular stock did 'happen' to go up at least 3% that day...connected?...Who really knows...

I wrote these following comments in another article...since you don't speak of it, you might find it interesting...Contact your representative and encourage them to take this resolution to the House floor...It isn't much, a wrist slap really, but it will have political fallout...Since the 'media' seems to be 'ignoring' it, even though it is hot online...

"I don't know if you have seen this yet...but there are some in DC that have written a 'Resolution' that they want to have presented to Housee and read...They are trying to find someone 'willing' to do it...Contact your reps maybe one of them will...

Eric Cantor Hit By Democrats For Potentially Profiting From U.S. Default

House Democrats are circulating a resolution accusing House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) of having a conflict of interest in the debt ceiling debate, a move that could provide an awkward C-SPAN moment for one of the lead Republicans in the budget negotiations.

The resolution goes after Cantor's investment in ProShares Trust Ultrashort 20+ Year Treasury ETF, a fund that "takes a short position in long-dated government bonds."...

The Democratic resolution, obtained by The Huffington Post from a Democratic source on the Hill, argues that Cantor "stands to profit from U.S. treasury default, which thereby raises the appearance of a conflict of interest," and that he "may be sabotaging [debt ceiling] negotiations for his own personal gain." It's not clear how widely the measure was being circulated, with a House Democratic aide saying they hadn't seen the resolution or heard it being discussed.

"Majority Leader Cantor has compromised the dignity and integrity of the Members of the House by raising the appearance of a conflict of interest in negotiations with the executive branch over raising the debt ceiling," adds the measure....

Of course his spokesmen is trying to play it off as a 'misunderstanding of financial details'...sure...

The link to the downloadable copy of the resolution...

And I stated later on...

"

Insider trading, conflict of interest, direlection of duty, ...you name it...

From the article I linked...

The resolution is a question of privilege, which deals with the rights, dignity, safety and integrity of the proceedings of the House of Representatives.

From the qop link...

1. Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings; and second, those affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner, individually, in their representative capacity only."

Now, of course people are going to quibble and say "well, it's ONLY $15,000..." Sure, Sure, they turn a blind eye to the fact that a person in a position of authority to negotiate at the budget table directly influences their own 'wallets' and they say it's ok...Well, it isn't about the 'amount' of money, it is the 'principle'...

Think about it...

  • 6 votes
#1.1 - Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:14 PM EDT
Askari

dcstone01, I did read your post on another thread about this issue and you can best believe I will take it to my representative even though a couple of months ago he and I had an ugly confrontation in which he flat out lied in my face about something he said that is on video. I felt like Jon Stewart...LOL!

  • 4 votes
#1.2 - Mon Jul 11, 2011 12:30 AM EDT
Mr. Roger Rabbit

Askari - do you have any numbers on how much money we can raise taxing the wealthy if we return to Clinton's era tax rates?

  • 2 votes
#1.3 - Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:17 AM EDT
Askari

Mr. Roger Rabbit, I have no idea what those numbers would be or how we would come up with a formula that would be loophole and asset hiding-proof. Our government and banking systems help them hide LOTS of profit from prying eyes.

  • 2 votes
#1.4 - Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:55 AM EDT
Mr. Roger Rabbit

Mr. Roger Rabbit, I have no idea what those numbers would be or how we would come up with a formula that would be loophole and asset hiding-proof. Our government and banking systems help them hide LOTS of profit from prying eyes.

I see. So let me summurise it for my own sanity - you have no idea what the economic impact of the actions you're advocating would be, but you are sure that is the right thing to do. I would like to see some math, rather than the random numbers you threw togehter to have your article look belilevable. I mean perhaps before you tax people you should consider whom, by what percentage, and how will it help/hurt the economy. Otherwise this is nothing but populistic rhetoric, and we get enough of that crap from the government.

  • 1 vote
#1.5 - Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:57 AM EDT
Askari

Excuse me, but do you actually think that some of the top earning companies in this country like GE not paying any taxes is beneficial. It doesn't take a whole lot of math to know that collecting revenues from corporations the way the government does out of our paychecks before we even get them will help at least a little bit toward paying off tremendous national debt.

By the way, you must not have read/comprehended my article to say I threw together some random numbers. Nothing random about them. If you want those numbers so bad, why don't you formulate an article addressing that?

  • 2 votes
#1.6 - Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:04 AM EDT
Mr. Roger Rabbit

I do not "think" I calcualte. So before this discussion becomes meaningful I need the numbers - something you obviously never had. Thank you for your time and for your theories of "social justice" it worked so well in Soviet Union, and in Cuba.

By the way, you must not have read/comprehended my article to say I By the way, you must not have read/comprehended my article to say I threw together some random numbers.

I have read your article. That is how I know you threw together some random numbers. As for it being comprehensible - sure it is good looking if you already are a liberal, or do not like to look under the hood. Otherwise it is nonsensical, since it contains neither the accurate depiction of the current situation, nor a working propsal on how to solve it. I mean numbers, baby, not BS plattitutdes.

  • 2 votes
#1.7 - Mon Jul 11, 2011 12:08 PM EDT
Askari

That you do not think lets me know that engaging in further conversation with you will be fruitless. As I said, write your own articles and use some spell check function. The article is not about the numbers. It's about our elected officials serving corporate and personal interests.

  • 4 votes
#1.8 - Mon Jul 11, 2011 12:32 PM EDT
Reply
Helpmeunderstand1

Interesting article. Thanks for the education (no sarcasm intended).

  • 5 votes
Reply#2 - Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:27 PM EDT
I'm Ringo

Interest payments? How about sending the bill to the idiots that decided subjecting future generations to massive debt as a price of being born was a good idea.

  • 2 votes
Reply#3 - Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:27 PM EDT
ryoushi12

Hey dingle, most of the "debt" is owed to the SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, so we owe the money to OURSELVES.

Repubs are just trying to stiff working men and women out of their just social security payments, while demanding rich parasitic scum and chinese COMMUNISTS are paid off in full.

  • 2 votes
#3.1 - Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:17 PM EDT
I'm Ringo

Hey dingle, most of the "debt" is owed to the SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, so we owe the money to OURSELVES.

Ah, so since you lack anything intelligent to contribute, you come up with idiotic nonsense like 'dingle'.

You didn't even get the concept correct. The government started giving people money for a new program called social security without ever bothering to raise that money in the first place. The money I am paying in now is not for any debt towards myself, but to pay for previous generations.

That is only part of our debt as a nation. The debt that a bunch of idiots decided to leave future generations without ever even consulting them. 'Congrats on being born, here's the bill we ran up.....don't worry, we told them you'd cover it.'

Repubs are just trying to stiff working men and women out of their just social security payments, while demanding rich parasitic scum and chinese COMMUNISTS are paid off in full.

Republicans, Democrats....not much difference, and they both refuse to put away the credit card.

In reality, the debt belongs solely to those that created it, not on those of us that never consented.

  • 2 votes
#3.2 - Mon Jul 11, 2011 12:13 AM EDT
Reply
jusbkoz

You've made a lot of noise, most of it political and if all that is washed away what have you? The collapse of the US Dollar and you can then paper your walls with the stuff and tell yourself how very smart you are. Buy gold and silver, something the government can't print.

Reply#4 - Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:32 PM EDT
jtrunner76

why not bet against America askair? as pathetic and worthless as the politicians are in D.C. the odds are pretty good wouldn't you agree???

  • 1 vote
Reply#5 - Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:36 PM EDT
Askari

jusbkoz, gold and silver have arbitrary value attached to them as well. Average citizens would still not have the input into the rules governing that type of system either. Already tried that way and it was dismantled by Richard Nixon.

  • 4 votes
Reply#6 - Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:40 PM EDT
ryoushi12

Plus using gold would so constrict the supply of money it would start a deflationary spiral that would make the Great Depression look like a lark.

There is simply not enough gold in circulation to meet basic market and trading needs, and any idoit who has read ANY economic history knows this has been an issue since gold was FIRST used as a currency.

  • 2 votes
#6.1 - Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:20 PM EDT
Lisafrequency

plus after the 15th of this month you will not be able to purchase gold stock or bars legally.

  • 2 votes
#6.2 - Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:23 AM EDT
Reply
Felicitie

The executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government are being paid by corporations and banks to screw over the very people who pay their base salary and benefits.

Too true, Sir. My question is: If taxing the rich will pay down the debt, why on earth did the stimulus go to financial institutions and car companies? If these institutions don't have a trickle down effect, why give them money at all? In the estimation of the democrats, they will not trickle the money down to anyone and help the economy. President Obama puts the lie to Keynsian theory all on his own. I likey.

  • 1 vote
Reply#7 - Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:40 AM EDT
dcstone01

If taxing the rich will pay down the debt, why on earth did the stimulus go to financial institutions and car companies?

I think you are mixing up the TARP (money to the 'banksters' put in place by GWB) and the stimulus...the stimulus was part tax cuts (to supposedly encourage 'job creation' which is something the GOP in Congress pushed for) and part actual money sent to each state to spend on programs...how each state handled those funds is traceable through the website Recovery.gov. If your state didn't use the money how you wanted then it is up to you to talk to your state leaders...

As for the 'car companies'...everyone knows that the money is being repaid by GM. And the gov made a little profit on it...it also saved not only the jobs of those employees (thereby keeping money circulating through their spending) but kept open all the related suppliers business's open too saving millions of jobs (and thus keeping their money circulating through the economy)...Any way you look at it, I call that a good investment

  • 2 votes
#7.1 - Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:16 AM EDT
Felicitie

*guffaw* GM paid back the loan:

Herbert M. Allison Jr., assistant [Treasury] secretary for financial stability, confirmed that the money G.M. used to repay its bailout loan had come from a taxpayer-financed escrow account held for the automaker at the Treasury.

Emphasizing that the cash in the account was “the property of G.M.,” Mr. Allison said that the department had approved the company’s use of the money to retire the original debt because it was “consistent with Treasury’s goal of recovering funds for the taxpayer and exiting TARP investments as soon as practicable.”

So, the escrow money was not a loan but a gift; it’s the “property of GM,” not a debt owed to us by GM. The feds for all intents and purposes have written off that $13.4 billion, or at least the portion which GM already has spent.

Just something to keep in mind in the coming weeks as Congress debates new policy that will or won’t lead to future bailouts.

Whatever the result, the process was to give money to big industry so that the money would trickle down to individuals. Why, now that the Republicans want to do the same thing, is that a bad idea?

#7.2 - Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:32 AM EDT
dcstone01

Why, now that the Republicans want to do the same thing, is that a bad idea?

Which Reps. and which industry's?...I haven't heard of them wanting to 'rescue' any other business's lately...

  • 1 vote
#7.3 - Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:48 AM EDT
Felicitie

Republicans want to allow industry to keep more of their own money so that the money can then be used to hire more workers. President Obama/Democrats want to tax industry more. Why? They thought industry was pretty useful for hiring when the bailouts were executed. Why change horses now?

#7.4 - Mon Jul 11, 2011 12:03 PM EDT
Reply
Askari

Felicitie, I was one of hundreds of thousands of people who was against giving these institutions money that we don't have. You are correct that trickle down economics won't help the economy. However, it does help those who have more than enough wealth as it is.

  • 3 votes
Reply#8 - Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:08 AM EDT
Lisafrequency

sounds like a safe bet to me....

Reply#9 - Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:58 PM EDT
Leave a Comment:
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
(XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
Newsvine Privacy Statement
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
FUN STUFF:
  • Leaderboard |
  • E-Mail Alerts |
  • Top of the Vine |
  • Newsvine Live |
  • Newsvine Archives |
  • The Greenhouse |
COMPANY STUFF:
  • Code of Honor |
  • Company Info |
  • Contact Us |
  • Jobs |
  • User Agreement |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • About our ads
LEGAL STUFF:
  • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
  • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
  • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com