US now Bankrupt
Update March 24, 2009
The FED announced this week that they are going to print a second Trillion Dollars to fund the bankrupt Obamanation. The bankrupt US government is rapidly heading toward runaway inflation. If you are holding dollars, you have very little time left to switch to hard currency, or material such as whiskey, food, or real property.
Original Article March 18, 2009
The news report reads, “WASHINGTON – The Federal Reserve announced Wednesday it will spend up to $300 billion over the next six months to buy long-term government bonds, a new step aimed at lifting the country out of recession by lowering rates on mortgages and other consumer debt.”
What that means is that the US Government is now officially bankrupt. For most of the past century the US Treasury has held a weekly bond auction selling its debts to anyone who would lend them the money. The auction price of bonds translates into the interest rate that must be paid on the money. For several decades the US Government starts by selling enough bonds to pay back the short term bonds that are due this week. Then they sell more bonds to finance new government spending beyond its means. That has worked as long as there were people willing to lend them money, people who believed that they could pay the money back by collecting taxes or selling new bonds. Holders of US Treasury bonds are private investors, international banks, and the governments of several nations like China and Saudi Arabia.
In the past few weeks the Obamanation has spent money far beyond the ability of the US Government to borrow. Investors at the bond auction are not buying the bonds as fast as Obama can print them. Investors, including foreign governments, do not believe that the US can pay back the bonds. So they haven’t been buying bonds, aren’t willing to lend more cash down a rat hole.
The announcement that the Federal Reserve Bank will buy bonds is an announcement that the government can no longer pay back its debts. The FED is the keeper of US money. This announcement means that the FED will “print” money for the US government. By “print” money it means that they will write some really big numbers with a lot of zeros on a checking account of the Department of the Treasury. The “money” just appears out of thin air by the stroke of a keyboard at the FED, but it has grave consequences for the rest of us. They are writing worthless checks from a checking account that has no money.
It is clear evidence that big money investors and other nations no longer believe that the US dollar is sound enough to pay back its debts, and in fact it is not. It means that every dollar you own and have in your account just shrank by a proportional value. It means that the government is desperate. The Titanic has hit an iceberg, its sinking fast, and its watertight bulkheads have not kept it afloat. Run to the lifeboats. Hoard food and trade goods.
The FED announced this week that they are going to print a second Trillion Dollars to fund the bankrupt Obamanation. The bankrupt US government is rapidly heading toward runaway inflation. If you are holding dollars, you have very little time left to switch to hard currency, or material such as whiskey, food, or real property.
Original Article March 18, 2009
The news report reads, “WASHINGTON – The Federal Reserve announced Wednesday it will spend up to $300 billion over the next six months to buy long-term government bonds, a new step aimed at lifting the country out of recession by lowering rates on mortgages and other consumer debt.”
What that means is that the US Government is now officially bankrupt. For most of the past century the US Treasury has held a weekly bond auction selling its debts to anyone who would lend them the money. The auction price of bonds translates into the interest rate that must be paid on the money. For several decades the US Government starts by selling enough bonds to pay back the short term bonds that are due this week. Then they sell more bonds to finance new government spending beyond its means. That has worked as long as there were people willing to lend them money, people who believed that they could pay the money back by collecting taxes or selling new bonds. Holders of US Treasury bonds are private investors, international banks, and the governments of several nations like China and Saudi Arabia.
In the past few weeks the Obamanation has spent money far beyond the ability of the US Government to borrow. Investors at the bond auction are not buying the bonds as fast as Obama can print them. Investors, including foreign governments, do not believe that the US can pay back the bonds. So they haven’t been buying bonds, aren’t willing to lend more cash down a rat hole.
The announcement that the Federal Reserve Bank will buy bonds is an announcement that the government can no longer pay back its debts. The FED is the keeper of US money. This announcement means that the FED will “print” money for the US government. By “print” money it means that they will write some really big numbers with a lot of zeros on a checking account of the Department of the Treasury. The “money” just appears out of thin air by the stroke of a keyboard at the FED, but it has grave consequences for the rest of us. They are writing worthless checks from a checking account that has no money.
It is clear evidence that big money investors and other nations no longer believe that the US dollar is sound enough to pay back its debts, and in fact it is not. It means that every dollar you own and have in your account just shrank by a proportional value. It means that the government is desperate. The Titanic has hit an iceberg, its sinking fast, and its watertight bulkheads have not kept it afloat. Run to the lifeboats. Hoard food and trade goods.
Labels: conspiracy, Constitution, elections, government, government tyranny, illegal aliens, Investments, Obama, Obamanation, police state, Politics, revolution
posted by Bob | Wednesday, March 18, 2009
34 Comments:
The U.S. has been bankrupt since 1929
Isn't the media coverage of the girlfriend-beating rapper great? Young people, for some reason, look up to rappers and pop stars. I don't know why. But this case is a good one. It shows young people that rappers can be scumbags, and this case is a good one to show that men who beat women are scum. The coverage is universally negative, as it should be, and kids are seeing that violence is a bad, bad thing. The scumbag rapper is getting all the negative publicity, and the girl is getting all the sympathy. It's a good, good case to teach kids!
Anonymous March 19, 2009 11:44AM: Go fuck yourself.
Go fuck yourself.
March 19, 2009 2:09 PM
That's what we teach our children to say. It is a mature reaction to frustration.
Telling someone "Go fuck yourself" is a shameful obscenity and violates Bob's rule against personal abuse of other posters.
If you've got credit card debt,
stocks or bonds, 401K, adjustable rate mortgages, a regular mortgage where the value of your property has dropped 125,000$ over the past years but yet you have to pay more per month on your mortgage payments as the value of your property decreases, you can thank the professional lawyers and bankers for ruining this country.
Anyone in debt is fucked to bankers or lawyers is fucked.
Car loans? Fucked!
Property loans? Fucked!
Credit card debt? Fucked!
401K? What 401K, you're fucked!
Get gold! Get guns! Stay alive!
NSW Fair Trading Minister Virginia Judge offered sex toy so she could 'go screw herself'
Link
Bob, do you think happiness is a zero-sum game? Can men and women both be happy, or just one or the other?
Note to anonymous:
Having good families and good lives is beneficial to men and women. The ill gotten gains of feminism has been destructive to both men and women. The feminists have caused a lot of unhappy frustrated females as well as hurting uncounted millions of children and men.
People have been hurting since ancient times. Many religious and social groups expressed disdain towards females, thoroughly distrusting them. Long before modern women's rights, many men complained as Bob does in their writings. When people are miserable it doesn't make sense to blame feminism 100%. Often that misery is of the man's own making, notwithstanding genuine abuses he suffered in his past.
Who says you can't have wonderful families, good lives and healthy societies in today's world? Many people manage it. And they don't spend their life griping that humanism has made that impossible, when in fact it has signifcantly helped the human race. Bad things happen in spite of, not because of, human rights of which feminism is an element.
This article re the Federal Reserve begs some questions. What entities, exactly, comprise the Federal Reserve? The Federal Reserve is as federal as Federal Express. Where's their balance sheet and why have they yet to be audited? Should the US dollar tank, the global economy will follow accordingly. This may well lead to war and a One World police state.
"People have been hurting since ancient times. Many religious and social groups expressed disdain towards [the huns], thoroughly distrusting them. Long before [the] modern [hord], many men complained as Bob does in their writings. When people are miserable it doesn't make sense to blame [the huns] 100%. Often that misery is of the man's own making, notwithstanding genuine abuses he suffered in his past."
-- Attila the Hun
Who says you can't have wonderful families, good lives and healthy societies in today's world? Many people manage it. And they don't spend their life griping that humanism has made that impossible, when in fact it has signifcantly helped the human race. Bad things happen in spite of, not because of, human rights of which feminism is an element.
I'm never quite sure what to make of such comments. Bob seems pretty humanistic to me. Where exactly does he use theology and religion to make his case? Or, perhaps you mean humanitarian or something like that...? Feminism is not an element of human rights. It is the exploitation of a good cause for pure profit. Almost all of modern civil rights is. So, is class warfare, Marxism, and practically everything else that has come along since the 19th century.
As for having good lives, I suppose that is the point of contention, isn't it? So, you can't just sit there and baldly assert it. And, you can't sit there and talk about a feminist utopia as "the good life". You would have to explain how the male chauvenist gets along quite well in the world. But, isn't that the point of feminism? To stamp out male chauvenism?
So, stop acting like you're not attacking traditional men, traditional women that place their husbands as the head of household, and that whole way of life, in general, as if feminism (or modern liberalism, in general) is some kind of live-and-let-live doctrine. It is the most outrageously intrusive and domineering movement of all time. It doesn't limit itself to just controlling people's actions in public, but seeks to use the most extreme legal force and social intimidation to labotomize every man, woman, and child of any thoughts, beliefs or ideas that could possibly be deemed racist, sexist, intolerant or even mean.
Adrian, how have you been hurt by other people (Blacks, women) having the rights to vote, attend college, get good jobs? Feminism is about securing those rights that were in the past, denied to various groups.
Adrian, how have you been hurt by other people (Blacks, women) having the rights to vote, attend college, get good jobs? Feminism is about securing those rights that were in the past, denied to various groups.
That's not what feminism is about, nor is it what civil rights were really ever about, either. Nevertheless, if that is the case, then we're done. We're more than done. So, all the feminists can disband....
Glad Adrian approves the original humanist/ feminist goals of voting, jobs etc.
What does the "new wave" of radical feminism do, that prompts you to call for it to disband? Abortion? The homosexual agenda especially gay marriages being legalized? Lifting restrictions on adult sex with minors? (nabla)
Anonymous March 19, 2009 11:44 AM,
What about female-on-male doemestic violence?
Anonymous March 20, 2009 5:55 PM,
Females and feminism are being recognized as true malivant forces. You should be the last to bitch with political correctness silencing anyone critical of feminism and might make some cunt cry. Thanks to feminism all we have is cunts and manginas and it is sickening.
Adrian,
How has feminism had legitimacy whatsoever? What positive things has it accomplished?
Agreed MM,
But despite the good fight that guys like you and Bob are doing, I think the battle against feminism has long been over with here. I know this because everyone these days, even the average conservative is a feminist with out even realizing it? Just listen to faux news, newsmax, and the radio "conservatives" sometime and those of you who can still think for yourselves know what I mean.
Short of joining a fundamental religion like the Amish or other similar groups that refrain from the outside world
(No access to any outside form of media or propaganda is the key here)you simply cannot escape feminism anywhere you go short of leaving the country, and thanks to the Wests increasing influence on the rest of the world, these areas are becoming more scarce!
How has feminism had legitimacy whatsoever? What positive things has it accomplished?
The anonymous poster is almost surely being sarcastic. Or, they are just really stupid. I said, for instance:
"Feminism is not an element of human rights. It is the exploitation of a good cause for pure profit. Almost all of modern civil rights is. So, is class warfare, Marxism, and practically everything else that has come along since the 19th century."
Perhaps the allusion to a "good cause" was a little confusing. Basically, everything that has come along since the 19th century has been people trying to profit off of the "equality" of all persons under the moral law. They deliberately misconstrue this "equality" to entail one thing or another at other people's expense for their own crass profiteering self-interests.
Glad Adrian approves the original humanist/ feminist goals of voting, jobs etc.
You are misusing the word "humanism". It has nothing to do with voting, jobs, etc.
adrian, why deny basic civil rights to any one group of people?
Note to anonymous:
Your term "basic civil rights" has come to be a euphemism for anti-white, anti-men bigotry. That kind of hateful bigotry is very offensive.
And, more importantly, not even voting is a bsic civil right. Being secure in your person and possessions is a basic civil right. Freedom is a basic civil right. Voting is a legal right and a social and civil privilege. Democracy is not freedom -- it is power. And, yes, I would deny the power to rule over others to most people in the world.
We have given away this "civil right" of yours, and now we live in a police state. Of course, I am sure you don't think it is one -- you're like the die hard communists rotting in Stalin's gulag, certain that once Stalin is aware of the horrible mistake that has been made, you will be instantly released. But we do nevertheless live in a society in which everyone's actions are highly monitored and regulated. Most people in most states can't just mind their own business and have their family in peace. They have to answer to everyone about how they raise their kids, what they teach their children and so on. Heaven help you if you have your 12 year old work with you on the farm. Why, you would be one of those evil child slave labor masters from the 19th century if you did that. There was a time in this country when there was no income tax let alone a social security or medicare tax. Such a thing is unimaginable today.
We regulate everything from whether you put your child face down in its crib to whether you wear your seat belt to if you smoke or drink too much. This is a vile tyranny. There is no place in the west that is free. And, it is largely thanks to modern liberalism and especially feminism and other "civil rights" agitation over the last hundred years which has never been more than anything but a crass profiteering grab by one group of people for stuff that belonged to another group of people. All it has ever been is social and political corruption.
Adrian:
"And, more importantly, not even voting is a bsic civil right."
It is an important right that surely YOU would not wish to surrender. It means you have a voice in what will be done to you.
"Being secure in your person and possessions is a basic civil right."
How are you not secure, Adrian? Give specifics in your case.
"Voting is a legal right and a social and civil privilege."
Yes... and should not be denied except to illegal aliens or those serving time in prison.
" And, yes, I would deny the power to rule over others to most people in the world."
Would you deny that power to YOURSELF, Adrian?
If you deem yourself qualified to rule over others via the vote, state specifically what qualifies YOU.
Humanism is a good thing. It has everything to do with voting, and other legal rights formerly denied to all but rich white males.
Note to anonymous:
Your recitation of anti-white, anti-men bigotry is typical of the false "civil rights" you pretend to support. Any further examples will be summarily deleted.
[The right to vote] is an important right that surely YOU would not wish to surrender. It means you have a voice in what will be done to you.
I have no voice. My votes have had almost no influence over society or the legal system. On the other hand, the right to vote has given a whole lot of other people a voice in a whole lot of other things about me and many others that they never had a right to. Most things are not up for a vote. But, we let people vote on it anyway, and they use it to abuse their neighbors and enrich themselves.
How are you not secure, Adrian? Give specifics in your case.
Are you serious? And, obviously you were not paying attention...
"Most people in most states can't just mind their own business and have their family in peace. They have to answer to everyone about how they raise their kids, what they teach their children and so on. Heaven help you if you have your 12 year old work with you on the farm. Why, you would be one of those evil child slave labor masters from the 19th century if you did that. There was a time in this country when there was no income tax let alone a social security or medicare tax. Such a thing is unimaginable today.
"We regulate everything from whether you put your child face down in its crib to whether you wear your seat belt to if you smoke or drink too much. This is a vile tyranny. There is no place in the west that is free. And, it is largely thanks to modern liberalism and especially feminism and other "civil rights" agitation over the last hundred years which has never been more than anything but a crass profiteering grab by one group of people for stuff that belonged to another group of people. All it has ever been is social and political corruption."
The list goes on forever. I know you think these are all good things and that they are all justified. But, don't act like it is free or something.
To get even more specific, I "own" a home. The housing bubble was created by two government sponsored companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, largely designed for a bunch of corrupt Democrats to fraudulently make millions off of. This dramatically hurt everyone's property values, including mine, thus diminishing my property. And, that's not even the half of what those agencies and the government at large has done to people's property by meddling in the economy, lately. And, all of it was done under the pretense of helping out these minorities you keep mentioning and empowering them with "rights" even though it really never happened because of any of that but was always just a corrupt fiasco all along.
Additionally, there are plenty of ways in which I can lose my house to the government at any time. I can lose it through eminent domain where they take it just because they have better plans for the property than to let me have it (even though it is rightfully mine). I can lose it if I don't pay my already high property taxes which all my neighbors get to raise to infinity if they like because of their wonderful voting rights. Both of these scenarios have happened and continue to happen. And, they are not the only way the government is able to just take my house whenever they want to. So, while no one has come to take my house yet, I am certainly not secure in my property -- they could take it any time.
Would you deny that power to YOURSELF, Adrian?
Yes.
I'll be fair about this. Bob can vote, but the rest of us can't.
Seriously, I would. And, I do. I consistently vote (to no avail) for all variety of issues to return to the state of not being up for a vote. I consistently try to vote away people's rights to vote over probably more than 75% of the things people think they have a right to vote on. This is the way it ought to be, and it used to be this way. I strive for it, and, under the right circumstances, I would entirely give up my right to vote on anything if it meant that everyone else would have to give up theirs.
Humanism is a good thing. It has everything to do with voting, and other legal rights formerly denied to all but rich white males.
Humanism refers to using reason, science and rationality as opposed to theological or religious arguments -- a "human" as opposed to a divine basis for making moral arguments. It has nothing to do with voting or jobs. You can easily make humanistic arguments for monarchy, for instance. Above all, it has nothing to do with rights or any other of the actual conclusions you might draw this way. It is about the manner in which you draw conclusions not about the actual conclusions you draw.
Democracy is just mob rule. It's fine if your views agree with the majority but if not, then you may as well be living in a fascist state. And you can have your say without living in a democracy. It's called freedom of speech.
Note to anonymous:
Your racist comment was deleted.
It was not germane to the topic either.
Please review Bob's rules for comments on the left column.
Adrian:
You cited the traditional family where husband is Head of Household.
Are you a married Head? if yes, is this from religious requirements or just what you and Mrs. want because it works best for you? (if some other arrangement suits other families, shouldn't they be left alone and we not worry about them?)
While traditional families are seen less frequently, from what I read there are people with strong religious views who insist on husbands as heads. Check out Jonathan Lindvall.
"...is this from religious requirements..."
Eh. Nah.
I did it all for the Nookie.
"if some other arrangement suits other families, shouldn't they be left alone and we not worry about them?"
The very premise of that question makes Adrian's point. The key words are, "left alone." That is THE fundamental human right.
I, personally, am strongly opposed to homosexual marriage. I feel it's the usurpation of an existing term, in order to promote the logical fallacy that a homosexual couple is the equivalent of a heterosexual one. (It can't possibly be, as all homosexual couples are, by definition, sterile) But here's the important part. There exists NO pretense under which I can rationally claim any authority to stop them. I can THINK whatever I want. But I lose any claim to my own freedom, if I attempt to limit theirs.
The problem isn't in homosexuals marrying, or me not liking it. The problem comes from the government claiming authority to put such things up to a vote. And that problem is entirely solved, not by democracy, but by minding our own business.
Every "right" claimed by the government, whether by vote or usurpation, is a right WE can no longer exercise. Adrian's point, and mine, is that all rights legitimately belong to INDIVIDUALS, where every "vote" ends with a unanimous, 0-1 decision.
Democracy has evolved into nothing more than a tool to add an aura of legitimacy to the destruction of those human rights you so strongly support.
21 down...just 3 to go!
Shalom!
Post a Comment
<< Home