Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

U.S. IN TECHNICAL DEFAULT

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU
 
G2099 Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 10:30 AM
Original message
U.S. IN TECHNICAL DEFAULT
In a shocking development, the Treasury Department website is openly stating that as of January 24, 2006 our national debt stood at $8,185.3 billion and on January 26th at $8,190.5 billion.

Yet the US national debt ‘ceiling’, the maximum amount of debt the US government may hold at any one time, stands at $8,184 billion – a full $5.5 billion less. Although called upon by John Snow, Congress has not yet passed an expansion of the debt ceiling and so the US government is now operating in technical default.

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2006/0127b.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. Now there's a ringing endorsement of bush to all the world's leaders.
It just gets worse and worse ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Is it good for the foreign customers of the Carlyle Group? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
3. this is NOT "DEFAULT"
default is when you don't pay your obligations. that's not happening here.

what's happening (assuming the numbers are correct) is that the treasury department has exceeded its statutory borrowing limitations.

in other words, shrub is exceeding his authority. again. nothing new here. but it's not "default".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G2099 Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. Feedback from Dr. Chris Martenson On Use of term "Default"
If you go to the article there is a "email" link at the end of the article. If you email Dr. Chris Martenson, as you can see from his reply below, he will reply.


Thanks for the feedback.

I used the term 'technical default' for a reason.

Legally, the US government cannot borrow above its statutory limits.

Accordingly, there are only 3 options when the limit is approached.

1) Raise the limit.

2) Shut down government operations

3) Default on credit obligations.

Since #1 and #2 were not done, yet we've breached the ceiling we are, technically, left with #3.

Do you have a better term than "technical default" for illegal borrowing?

Should you be interested, may I refer you to an excellent 2 pager by the Concord Coalition?

http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/fedbudget/old-doc/030224debtceiling.pdf

Specifically, this phrase regarding the time we bumped up against the debt ceiling in 2003: The Treasury has had to rely on unusual financial maneuvers to avoid breaching the debt ceiling and defaulting on the national debt.

All the best,
Dr. Chris Martenson

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. i like the term "illegal borrowing" to describe illegal borrowing
but we're getting into semantics.

the point is that with shrub's attitude toward the law, the treasury can just go ahead and borrow in excess of the legally authorized limits. shrub will just say that shutting down government operations is not an option and that as commander-in-chief in a post 9/11 world fighting a war on terror, he can authorize borrowing beyond the statutory limits in order to fight the terrorists.

or something like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
4. Maybe I am financially ignorant here but
isn't $8,185 bln actually $8.18 TRILLION dollars?

Can someone please help me on this?

Thanks!

In peace and hope,
V
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Yep, it sure is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Thank you. More newspeak I guess. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
6. Nope -not in default - and not exceeding limit-but in another week or two!
Edited on Sat Jan-28-06 11:05 AM by papau
The Total Public Debt Outstanding represents the total face amount or principal amount of marketable and nonmarketable securities currently outstanding.

The Total Public Debt Subject to Limit is the maximum amount of money the Government is allowed to borrow without receiving additional authority from Congress. Furthermore, the Total Public Debt Subject to Limit is the Total Public Debt Outstanding adjusted for Unamortized Discount on Treasury Bills and Zero-Coupon Treasury Bonds, Miscellaneous debt (very old debt), Debt held by the Federal Financing Bank and Guaranteed Debt.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skids Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Hrm... any chance it might go over a bit faster than that?

Like, say, during a senate fillibuster? :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. :-) I hope there is such a timely crisis! :-)
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-30-06 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. just to be clear, the senate can raise the limit "during" a filibuster
filibusters no longer bring the entire senate to a halt, they merely table the one issue being filibustered.

it might make good press for us to have a debt ceiling discussion in the news while they're also being slammed with the filibuster, but there's no procedural connection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
umass1993 Donating Member (302 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
12. I believe this is wrong....
not all debt counts against the statutory limit. To see this, look at a monthly update. On the second table, you will see that the total public debt is about $73 billion higher than the debt that count against the ceiling.

In short, we have about $60 billion to go. Around the end of February, we will hit the ceiling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solve_et_Coagula Donating Member (42 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
14. The proposed Iranian Oil Bourse will accelerate the fall of the US Empire
The proposed Iranian Oil Bourse will accelerate the fall of the American Empire

Krassimir Petrov, Ph. D. January 17, 2006

I. Economics of Empires

A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations. The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military. One part of the subject taxes went to improve the living standards of the empire; the other part went to strengthen the military dominance necessary to enforce the collection of those taxes.

Historically, taxing the subject state has been in various forms - usually gold and silver, where those were considered money, but also slaves, soldiers, crops, cattle, or other agricultural and natural resources, whatever economic goods the empire demanded and the subject-state could deliver. Historically, imperial taxation has always been direct: the subject state handed over the economic goods directly to the empire.
For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was able to tax the world indirectly, through inflation. It did not enforce the direct payment of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but distributed instead its own fiat currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods - the difference capturing the U.S. imperial tax. Here is how this happened.

Early in the 20th century, the U.S. economy began to dominate the world economy. The U.S. dollar was tied to gold, so that the value of the dollar neither increased, nor decreased, but remained the same amount of gold. The Great Depression, with its preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 and its subsequent ballooning government deficits, had substantially increased the amount of currency in circulation, and thus rendered the backing of U.S. dollars by gold impossible. This led Roosevelt to decouple the dollar from gold in 1932. Up to this point, the U.S. may have well dominated the world economy, but from an economic point of view, it was not an empire. The fixed value of the dollar did not allow the Americans to extract economic benefits from other countries by supplying them with dollars convertible to gold.

Economically, the American Empire was born with Bretton Woods in 1945. The U.S. dollar was not fully convertible to gold, but was made convertible to gold only to foreign governments. This established the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. It was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with provisions, demanding gold as payment, thus accumulating significant portion of the world's gold. An Empire would not have been possible if, following the Bretton Woods arrangement, the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold, so as to fully exchange back dollars for gold. However, the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960's was an imperial one: the dollar supply was relentlessly increased to finance Vietnam and LBJ's Great Society. Most of those dollars were handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods, without the prospect of buying them back at the same value. The increase in dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a tax - the classical inflation tax that a country imposes on its own citizens, this time around an inflation tax that U.S. imposed on rest of the world.

Continue to read:
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/petrov/petrov011706.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jemmons Donating Member (407 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. make the Great Depression of the 1930’s look like a bounced check?

If you are skeptical regarding the meaning of oil being purchased with euros versus dollars and the devastating impact it will have on the economy of the United States, consider the historic move by the Federal Reserve to begin hiding information pertaining to the U.S. dollar money supply starting in March 2006. Since 1913, the year the abomination known as the Federal Reserve came to power, the supply of U.S. dollars was measured and publicly revealed through an index referred to as M-3. M-3 has been the main staple of money supply measurement and transparent disclosure since the Fed was founded. In his report, What’s the Fed up to with the money supply?, Robert McHugh writes, “On November 10, 2005, shortly after appointing Bernanke to replace Greenbackspan, the Fed mysteriously announced with little comment and no palatable justification that they will hide M-3 effective March 2006.” (To learn more about Robert McHugh's work, please visit https://www.technicalindicatorindex.com/Default.asp)



Is it mere coincidence that the Fed will begin hiding M-3 the same month that Iran will launch its Iran Oil Bourse, or is there a direct threat to the stability of the U.S. dollar, the U.S. economy, and the U.S. standard of living? Are Americans being set up for a collapse in our economy that will make the Great Depression of the 1930’s look like a bounced check? If you cannot or will not make the value and stability of the U.S. currency of personal importance, if you are unwilling to demand from your elected officials, an immediate abolishment of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the fiat money scheme that the banking cartel has used for nearly a century now to keep our government and our people in a state of perpetual debt, than you are faced with but two alternatives, abject poverty, or invading Iran.


Source and more:
http://www.teamliberty.net/id209.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
15. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Jemmons Donating Member (407 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. added $18.0 billion in reserves
What's the Fed Up To With the Money Supply?
by Robert McHugh


Over the past two days, December 21st - when our first Hindenburg Omen (of whatever cluster is coming) - and Thursday December 22nd, the Federal Reserve has conducted one of the largest two-day Repo injections of money into the system since back in September 2001. On Wednesday they added $18.0 billion in reserves and on Thursday they added another $20.0 billion. Is this a coincidence, coming right as we get another Hindenburg Omen? Probably not. Is something high-risk going on behind the scenes here? Let's review some facts at the Fed. On November 10th, 2005, shortly after appointing Bernanke to replace Greenbackspan, the Fed mysteriously announced with little comment and no palatable justification that they will hide M-3 effective March 2006. M-3 has been the main staple of money supply measurement and transparent disclosure since the Fed was founded back in 1913. It is the key monetary aggregate that includes Fed Repo transactions, that mechanism whereby the Fed increases reserves. The date when M-3 will start being hidden also happens to be the exact month that Iran will declare economic war against the U.S. Dollar by trading its oil in Petro-Euros on its new bourse.


Source AND MORE:
http://www.safehaven.com/showarticle.cfm?id=4331&pv=1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jemmons Donating Member (407 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. The following is pure educated speculation:
The following is pure educated speculation: What if Iran goes through with its threat to sell oil for Euros instead of U.S. Dollars? Well, then Dollars won't help you much if you want to buy oil from Iran. So, you sell the Dollars you are holding for Euros. Whenever anything is sold en masse, its value drops. This means less demand for Dollars, which means the Fed will not be able to print excessive amounts of Dollars without further driving down the Dollar's value. There would simply be too much supply. Right now, the Fed can print all the Dollars they want because the demand for Dollars has been on the rise, especially as the cost of oil has risen. In other words, lately it has taken more Dollars to buy oil, so the demand for Dollars has been up. Again, this extra demand has allowed the Fed to print all it feels like with little consequent damage to the Dollar.


Source and more:
http://www.safehaven.com/article-4403.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC