Great Analogy of the US National Debt

The term "We the People" is a case of poetic liberty used in the US Constitution. There was never a popular vote for the US Constitution and the People of the United States cannot amend or abolish the US Constitution. That power is reserved exclusively to the States either with 3/4ths of the State Legislature ratifying a Constitutional Amendment or 2/3rds the State Legislature calling for a Constitutional Convention and 3/4ths of those States ratifying either any Amendments or Dissolution of the US Constitution. The People have no vote or referendum process related to federal laws.

Yes, the States could "write off" the entire debt but that would leave tens of millions of Americans to absorb the loss. I don't think that Americans would want that to happen. They would be far more willing to accept ten cents on the dollar by the selling of federal assets than to lose everything. I do see the very real possibility of the States not attempting to redeem any foreign held debt though. Remember that Federal Reserve notes would become instantly worthless if the US were to be desolved by Constitutional Convention. Well, not completely worthless but they would only be worth what the Federal Reserve could redeem them for in species money.

 

There is nothing in it that defines the type of State legislature or the percentage of a State's population necessary to amend:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,..."

The higher percentage gives more safeguards to the people of States, it does not give them a contract. If "the federal government is a contracted entity of the States," it would require 100% of the States to ratify an amendment.

By analogy for you to contract and give another entity the right to say what parasites are naturalized in your body is kind of a sorry contract; you lose your mind and do not know what you contracted for when the pawasites eat into your bwain.

And then in the same sentence to give that entity all power over the subject of Bankruptcies, yep, you got some contract, it ain't nothin like "as with any 'bankruptcy' it would come down to a selling of the assets of the Federal government to repay the lenders to it," there is simply no "any" to it, because they have absolutely nobody and nothing lording such power over them except themselves:

"Since a sovereign government, by definition, controls its own affairs, it cannot be obliged to pay back its debt." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_default

There is no Americans absorbing the loss to it. Floridians are not paying no (*)(*)(*)(*) Blue Belly foreign ass Nation of dang Washington, New York City, or Californeeeye bank squat, y'all an't gettin no ten cents on no dollar, ye git nothin. US ends, what your Nation/State does with what you got is your problem. We be eatin gators, hearts a palm, sea turtles, seagulls, mullet, dolphins, and if a fat plump Blue Belly Bank of America shows up for a pretty penny we be havin a neighborhood barbecue. We are going native. Get that word "American" out of your vocabulary if you are going to play that scenario.

 

Once again we must resort to history. While the original ratification of the original US Constitution required 3/4ths of the States, or 10 of the 13 States, it also required every State that wanted to be a member of the United States to vote for ratification.

Virginia was the 10th State to vote for ratification on June 22, 1788 and at that moment the United States was formed. Three states were not members of the United States at that time and they included New York, which ratified the Constitution the following day and became the 11th member of the United States. Later N Carolina that joined the United States on Nov 21, 1789, and Rhode Island didn't join the United States until May 29. 1790. Remember that each of the original colonies became independent nations with the American Revolution and were only loosely tied together by the Articles of Confederation. Had New York, Virginia and Rhode Island not ratified the US Constitution they would not be members of the United States today.

Of course Article V was a part of the intitial Constitution which was ratified and all of the states agreed that future amendments would be adopted with by a 3/4ths majority. States that have joined the United States since the original 10 have also agreed to Article V so, in effect, we have a 100% agreement by all of the States that they will accept any Constitutional Amendment that meets the 3/4ths ratification requirement.

 

My ancestor signed the Declaration of Independence, I did not; Great...Grandpa cannot make a contract for you; that percentage of States not consenting in the future, is not a contracted entity but a bound one, due to the irrefutable fact that the Congress has control over what parasites are naturalized in your State's body and it is the Federal that has eminent domain (a power reserved to the War fighting entity charged with defending all the land).

In keeping with the Great Analogy:

Imagine your three quarters of the States is in a polygamous marriage, containing a bisexual man, a bisexual woman, a bisexual woman, and a bisexual man, all sucky fracky according to their kind, such that each combination's sexual existence is not demeaned or their destiny controlled; one of them does not have consent to the debt acquired by the others, because according to my Tea Party the responsible State, which is not wanting the irresponsible debt from a Vampire Usurer fornicating in the marriage for a National Treasure Sweepstakes blood bank in the attic, has no rights or has contracted away those rights, and the Tea Party is against the rights of the responsible State whose blood is sucked being able to drive a stake in the heart of the fornicating Vampire Usurer that is soiling the marriage bed of the one flesh and tearing it asunder; yet, in such a union divorce is not an option because it is Holy Matrimony of till death do us part. Now imagine the "Big Love" polygamous compound, where the "prophet" of the religion establishes the contracts of marriage for the offspring, that is according to your understanding the "prophet" is a contracted entity of the states of all future marriages.

Did you get all that? If a vampire enters a home on the invite of one of two and sucks the household blood of the One Flesh, remember, the Tea Party supports such slavery to debt and the destruction of the One Flesh of holy matrimony. And if we do not reelect Gay Saint Obama against the Tea Party slavers, We the People support a future mortgage crisis and bad economy for all where the value of our money cannot be regulated.

Since the States change makeup (people die, and cannot legislate from the grave) and States have no control over what parasites (people) are naturalized in their body, therefore, the federal government is NOT a contracted entity of the States, consequently, it is all about WE THE PEOPLE.

 

"Grandpa" created the "corporation" which is the federal government and in doing so created the Corporate Charter (US Constitution). As an heir to "Grandpa" we accept the Corporate Charter or we change is based upon the criteria of the Corporate Charter. Article V of the US Constitution can be changed at any time by the States if they choose to do so. It is binding because the States continue to submit to it's conditions voluntarily.

While "We the People" have no direct control of the US Constitution or federal laws they have absolute control over their state government. The People can, by referendum, mandate their State legislature to call for a Constitutional Convention and can even mandate the Amendment(s) that are to be proposed.

Where I find the greatest problem is with the failure of the Supreme Court to protect the American People from the actions of our government and in the past I addressed this with a proposed Constitutional Amemdment:

http://www.politicalforum.com/civil...amendment-protect-our-inalienable-rights.html

The primary problems related to our government are caused by Congressional attempts to expand the authority of government beyond that which is enumerated. They depend upon a split Supreme Court to uphold their expansionism of our government where a 5:4 decision will uphold a law or action of dubious Constitutionality. I've read so many Supreme Court decisions where the arguments of the minority established very valid reasons as to why the law or action was unconsitutional. I may not agree with every unanimous Supreme Court decision but I do agree that the minority decision which would strike down a law or government action is valid in all cases.

 

Getting nine people to always agree on everything, or a "unanimous consent of all voting members on the Court," would probably create a tyranny worse than exists or existed.

A State can have a lack of laws too. And that is where the problem really gets nasty. A State could ignore actions by citizens, and get away with it because all they need is one Occupy member on the court.

In a State you have Black liberation movement or "A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY," it is the religion, and a rich person happens to get caught driving while rich and white, the Occupy terrorist in the cute mask cuts off his or her hands, and the one Occupy member of the Supreme Court throws out any Federal Civil Rights case...criminal law...or Lincoln's action of sending in the troops under Lee to put down John Browny's Black Liberation Army...

The phrase "or action" is a killer; you could have zero wars of defense, zero peace treaties, and zero enforcement of any unconstitutional laws protecting the rich thieves who must be beaten with many stripes because of what they have been given...


Such emotional logic will be your undoing.

 

The Court does not have the authority to create law but is restricted to nullifying law (or actions by government). The nullification of law (or government action) cannot create the tyranny of government. The US Supreme Court has numerous examples of unanimous decisions and they only address laws or actions where there is questionable Constitutionality. I would estimate that 99% of all laws passed in the United States are unquestionably Constitutional but the devil is in the 1% which are questionable as to Constitutionality.

If, for example, we address Federal Reserve notes and "legal tender" currency, which is the root problem with our national monetary policies that have created far more debt than the US government can ever hope to pay off, then it would not exist at all. Julliard v Greenman was an 8:1 split decision which would have declared the issuance of legal tender currency unconstitutional under a requirement for unanimous consent. It doesn't mean that we would never have had legal tender currency because the arguments in that case which supported legal tender currency were very rational but it would have resulted in much tighter controls under the Constitution to protect the money of the United States.

There are two fundamental problems with this.

First of all is the fact that necessary laws are always supported by the enumerated powers of government either in the US Constitution or State Constitutions. There are no disputes related to these laws nor have there ever been disputes related to them. It is only when laws directly violate provisions of either the US Constitution or the State Constitutions or when they exceed the enumerated roles and responsibilities in those Constitutions where a dispute arises.

Next is the fact that there are no examples of this every happening to my knowledge. I've read dozens of Supreme Court decisions both for the majority and the minority and whether I agreed with their conclusions each was well established based upon the Constitution and legal precedent. I have never seen an instance where a Supreme Court judge was not acting in "good faith" in fulfilling their responsibilities on the court. What is being proposed is that a judge would not be acting in good faith and that would unquestionably result in that judge being impeached and removed from the court.

Can't happen. This would be a case of Assault and Battery which is addressed under State criminal statutes. This is true whether it's a civil rights violation under Federal law or not. It also assumes that a person would be selected for the Supreme Court and approved for that position which had extremely radical legal views and that's never happened. No Supreme Court justice is going to strike down the criminal statutes against assault and battery. It just won't happen.

Once again this is false. We wouldn't have presidentially authorized wars such as those since WW II but the Constitution does provide for formal declarations of war by Congress. The Constitution also authorizes our government to establish treaties with other countries and gives those treaties the force of law within the United States. It can be logically argued that a treaty which violates any conditions of the US Constitution is unconstitutional and therefore invalid. For example, the President and Congress cannot agree to a treaty that denies the Right to Bear Arms for the citizens of the United States. It would be unconstitutional and void.

The statement on "unconstitutional laws" related to the wealthy is self-defeating because it admits that such laws are unconstitutional and would be struck down as such.

There is no emotion whatsoever in my position. We can live with far fewer laws especially those of questionable Constitutionality. Requiring unanimous consent when a law is questionable does not prevent the tyrannical abuse of government but it greatly limits the ability of government to be tyrannical.

I would offer the following challenge. Name a single law that has been upheld by a split decision of the Supreme Court that we couldn't live without.

 

What could "unquestionably result in that judge being impeached and removed from the court," could happen now more easily than the amendment process. So there is no problem.

The State simply has an unwritten law against killing Moslems, anything else is fair game. It does not try the crime of cutting hands off the rich, because they were not Black Liberation Moslem, it was swine, because there is a "lack of laws." You cannot find the law (that allowed the guy to cut off the hands) unconstitutional because it does not exist. It simply requires Federal Civil Rights action to do anything.

You said: "It also assumes that a person would be selected for the Supreme Court and approved for that position which had extremely radical legal views and that's never happened."

So what is the problem? It has never happened that a Supreme Court justice approved for that position had extremely radical legal views resulting in unconstitutional laws...

Our debt problems exist and most of the bad economy because of a "lack of laws." The Congress has the power to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers...that includes entitlements and creating the Federal Reserve...

Establishing Justice, and insuring domestic Tranquility, requires more than promoting but providing, it has been true since bread was first thrown to the mob, and it just so happens they put the more powerful word "provide" in the enumerated powers.

 

The 14th Amendment requires the equal protection of all people under the laws of the United States. The above case presents a situation where that is not happening and only one Supreme Court justice would be needed to declare discriminatory laws or actions such as those mentioned unconstitutional.

The Congress also has the authority to borrow on the credit of the United States in Article I Section 8 and legal tender currency (i.e. Federal Reserve notes or FRN's) are promissory notes that reflect borrowing. The problem is two fold though related to Federal Reserve notes. First of all Title 12 stipulates that the Federal Reserve and US Treasury must redeem these notes on demand in 'lawful' money (i.e. American Eagle coins or AEC) but they will not. Second is the requirement that all legal tender promissory notes must maintian equal purchasing power with 'lawful money' but that is not being done. A $50 FRN and a $50 AEC.

Once again legal tender currency is based upon a split decision by the Supreme Court. Adoption of the Amendment I proposed would have prevented FRN's from even existing as we know them today. Next is that it would only take one Supreme Court justice to require the Federal Reserve and US Treasury to redeem FRN's as specified under Title 12. In both instances we would not have the national debt we have today which is based upon fiat monetary policies.

 

Whereas now it takes five to rule something unconstitutional, with your change it only take one to rule the action needed to enforce equal protections is unconstitutional. We could just as easily impeach one-of-five as we could one.

You seem to have a big problem with situations where something is not happening now; I am sure Mad King George's opposition would have loved you. As if a State of Taliban or Nation of Islam cannot happen to interpret different Allah's will and form a Black Separatist Nation within our borders. They do not have to codify a single law in a State Constitution, it is Allah who cut off the hands, and you cannot have an action against Allah:

"[8.17] So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them, and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy), but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing." "AL-ANFAL (SPOILS OF WAR, BOOTY)"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okK_UL7cLe0

*****

I probably need and explanation of how the amount we owe has anything to do with the amount of ore mined in the asteroid belt. If something is made more abundant it loses value, and if one day you owe fifty pounds of a metal and the next day they find the mother load (making the metal less valuable) you should just wind up owing more of it.

What is stamped on the thing used for redemption is more valuable than the object stamped. If you owe $50 and the value of what the coin is made of goes from $50 to $80, and you get $80, you just made the Roman Emperor who purged the library of all reference to making Gold think you have a Baghdad battery and are an evil alchemist.

 

Impeachment is limited to judicial malfeasance and is not based upon legal arguments that are well supported. Once again based upon a review of numerous cases where there is a split decision I have found compelling legal arguments on both sides of the case.

The Koran is not a legal document in the United States and Supreme Court decisions are based upon the US Constitution with considerations for prior precedent. We know for a fact that an extremist cannot be appointed and approved to be on the Supreme Court so why do these irrational arguments persist. It can't and won't happnen, end of story.

Mo proposition is merely that "if in doubt the Supreme Court should always error on the side of the People as opposed to any errors on the side of the government." The protection of our inalienable Rights protected by the US Constitution supersede any government authority.

The value of "money" is related to it's value as a commodity. Yes, if a commodity being used as money suddenly becomes more available it's relative value to other commodities is reduced. The only additional value related to "lawful money" is that it is a government certified amount of the commodity. The denomination assigned is relatvely unimportant as it is used as the exchange of one commodity for another commodity in the barter system which is what the free market represents. The value of gold related to other commodities has been relatively unchanged over time. A $50 American Gold Eagle coin will still purchase roughly the same amount of goods that a $20 Double Eagle (which had almost the same gold content) would 100 years ago.

Then we have Federal Reserve notes which are promissory notes just like every other promissory notes. They promise redemption in lawful money (American Eagle coins) under Title 12. The problem is that neither the US Treasury or the Federal Reserve will redeem the promissory notes in accordance with the law. Like any promissory note such as a home mortgage or a credit card account all promissory notes are discounted in the free market based upon the ability of the individual holding the note to redeem the note. Mortgages typically traded at a discount of about 5%-6% because they were secured by real estate but credit card notes, which are unsecured, traded at a whopping 50% discount because collecting on the promissory note was extremely hard. Federal Reserve notes are currently trading at a staggering 97% discount because it's virtually impossible to collect that which the note promises. People have been mislead to believe that the Federal Reserve note establishes the value of the money but they are wrong. It is the American Eagle coins that establish the value of money in the United States.

A person can still purchase a good home in America for $6,000 which was the cost of a home in 1950 if they use lawful money (i.e. American Eagle coins) today to make the purchase as opposed to Federal Reserve notes (this has been completely legal since 1977 when the "gold clause" was reinstated under US law). The "value of lawful money" has not changed since 1950 but Federal Reserve note have been discounted in the free market by 94% since just 1950. The "value of money" has not changed but the value of Federal Reserve notes that promise redemption in money has changed because we can't redeem the notes.

 

Then once again, "there is no problem."

Only if a problem exists is there a reason to amend.

"I have found compelling legal arguments on both sides of the case."

One-of-Nine, then you would have no opinion, and Five-of-Nine (Borg) gets to decide; resistance is futile.

*****

"The value of 'money' is related to it's value as a commodity."

Money is not a commodity (under our Constitution), because you cannot regulate the value of a commodity without becoming a god, corn is a commodity; the value of corn depends upon the gods making it rain.

 

The PEOPLE elect their representatives and president. The president nominates a SC justice and Congress confirms or denies. For those who have a problem with this system, I say get used to it because this process IS NOT going to change. Since politics does play a role in these nominations, it is logical to assume 50% of the voters are going to be pissed off with each new nomination and subsequent appointment. So what?! All the whining in the world is not going to change the system or dismiss stupid politics!

 

The "error" would always be to the benefit of the Rights of the People over the Power of Government. It would limit government tyranny as opposed to allowing tyrnanny.

I have no problem with limiting the tyranny of government.

This reflects a failure to ever read any Supreme Court decisions on the money of the United States as the Supreme Court has always ruled that lawful money being coined under Article I Section 8 Clause 4 is gold and silver coinage.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/

Please note that it states "coin money" which is the manufacture of metallic coins and it is the metal (i.e. gold and silver) that is the actual money. The government has no authority to "create" money as it cannot create gold or silver. It merely "coins" the "money" into a specified size and metallic content (alloy) and certifies those coins as legal tender and designates these coins with a specific denomination value relative to other denominations of coins. For example, currently the "regulated" value of a $1 American Silver Eagle (one ounce of silver) is equal to 1/50th oz of gold contained in a $50 American Gold Eagle. Of course our Congress is incompetent because a $10 Gold Eagle contains 1/4th oz of gold so five $10 dollar Gold Eagles has 1.25 oz of gold but a $50 Gold Eagle only has 1 oz of gold. Congress can't add. Congress does change the value of gold coins which it did in 1985 with the Gold Bullion Coin Act when it changed the denomination of an ounce of gold from a $20 Double Eagle (0.97+ oz) to $50 for an American Eagle (1.0 oz). We can also note that while foreign gold coins, such as a Gold Maple Leaf, are not "legal tender" in the United States they can be used for purchases. There are no laws that prohibit this because "gold is money" because it's a commodity.

I would highly suggest reading the decison in Julliard v Greenman which establishes that gold and silver are lawful money and "Federal Reserve" notes are not money but are legal tender because they represent the borrowing of money under Article I Section 8 Clause 1.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=110&invol=421

 

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

There "No State shall...coin Money," but they can "make...gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." There you have a problem.

So the definition of the word "coin" in conjunction with "Money" comes into play. You cannot exclude the definition of the word "Money," which was certainly understood by the better English speakers and readers of the time.

There is no requirement in the US Constitution that the Federal Government can only "make...gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts," it may coin Money, and Money is paper notes too.

Please look:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=coin

You have to look at the "a wedge" the stamp.

Where the word came from, remember the "c" is pronounced like a "k":

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cuneus

Anyone who has printed thousands of dollars on an offset press, and stuffed into a plastic garbage bag and burned it, is fully aware of deficiencies of such a practice.

 

Currency is not money but is the promise of payment in money but it is legal tender. Legal tender merely refers to the fact that it is authorized by the government for transactions and must be accepted in financial transactions but even that is limited as a "gold clause" can be inserted into any contract requiring payment in legal tender gold coins which excludes payment in paper currency (Federal Reserve notes).

Yes, I do have a problem with the fact that the States are not making their payments in gold and silver coins in compliance with the US Constitution. Under Title 12 they can redeem the Federal Reserve notes they receive in taxation at the Federal Reserve or US Treasury and make payments in gold and silver American Eagle coins. Why aren't they doing that. In Julliard v Greenman the Supreme Court ruled that the allowing of "legal tender" currency under the US Constitution would not in any way prevent the States from making all payments in gold and silver coins. Also of note Title 31 requires the Federal Reserve to ensure the equal purchasing power of the different forms of legal tender in the United States but it obviously isn't doing that.

We have a huge problem when it comes to our monetary system. The US government can borrow "money" on the credit of the United States but it doesn't. It issues Treasury notes to borrow but it doesn't receive "money" (i.e. gold or silver coins/bullion) but instead accepts a promissory notes instead. It's issuing a promissory note for a promissory note. It's like check kiting where there is no actual money being transferred but instead one bad note is being traded for another bad note. Neither the US government or the Federal Reserve can redeem the notes they're issuing and this is fraud. Our entine monetary system today is based upon criminal fraud under contract law.

 

Recently on NOVA, on a segment about gold, they stated that all the gold ever mined and existing today would nicely fit into a cube 60 feet x 60 feet x 60 feet...I found this very interesting...

 

That is true from what I've heard as well. Let's put a perspective on this based upon weight of all the gold ever mined:

Now let's look at the US national debt if it was to be paid off in legal tender American Gold Eagles. With a debt of roughly $15 trillion that would equate to 300,000,000,000 $50 American Gold Eagle coins or 300 billion ounces of pure gold which is
about 68-times more gold than all of the gold ever produced in the history of the world. In short if the US government had access to all of the gold ever produced every year it would require 68 years to pay off the national debt in lawful money.

Of course the US government doesn't have access to all of the gold in the world every year and it would be highly optimistic for the US government to come up with 100 million ounces of gold coins per year to payoff the national debt in which case it would take 3,000 years for our government to pay off the national debt the vast majority of which has been accumulated in the last 11 years. 11 years of spending driving 3,000 years of debt repayment doesn't sound very financially viable to me.....

 

I don't disagree with your concerns about the debt, but I do disagree with your analysis as to its history, at least since WWII.

The fact is, the "greatest generation," paying income taxes at top rates of up to 91%, paid down the debt relative to GDP consistently through 1981. Even during the Vietnam war, the relative size of the debt declined.

That all changed in 1981. If you want to point the figure on what has happened, there is no doubt that the Reagan revolution of low taxes and big military spending, carried on particularly by Bush 2, are the big drivers of the increase in debt, at least up to the Great Recession of 2008-09.

1940 42.4%
1941 38.7%
1942 44.5%
1943 68.5%
1944 91.4%
1945 115.6%
1946 121.0% <-WWII debt
1947 105.7%
1948 93.6%
1949 94.7%
1950 87.5%
1951 75.2%
1952 72.3%
1953 70.1%
1954 73.3% <-Korean war
1955 67.7%
1956 63.3%
1957 59.6%
1958 60.4%
1959 57.2%
1960 55.1%
1961 54.3%
1962 51.7%
1963 50.0%
1964 47.8%
1965 44.6% <-Vietnam war starts
1966 41.8%
1967 41.4%
1968 39.3%
1969 37.4%
1970 37.5%
1971 37.6% <-Heighth of Vietnam war
1972 36.3%
1973 34.0%
1974 32.8%
1975 35.2%
1976 35.8%
1977 35.4%
1978 34.4%
1979 33.0%
1980 33.4%
1981 32.9% <-Reagan Revolution starts
1982 36.8%
1983 39.9%
1984 42.3%
1985 46.1%
1986 47.6%
1987 49.6%
1988 51.0%
1989 52.1%
1990 55.7%
1991 61.2%
1992 64.1%
1993 66.2% <-Clinton tax increase, "peace dividend"
1994 66.2%
1995 67.1%
1996 66.7%
1997 65.0%
1998 62.8%
1999 60.5%
2000 57.0%
2001 56.5% <- Reagan revolution Part Deux
2002 58.5%
2003 60.9%
2004 62.2%
2005 62.8%
2006 63.5%
2007 64.0%
2008 69.4%
2009 83.5% <- Great Recession
2010 92.5%
2011 98.6%

Bottom line: We simply cannot afford another dose of the "Reagan Revolution" which is exactly what Romney proposes.

 

You are comparing apples and oranges.

A promissory note is a promise to pay a sum in the future, usually with interest.

A federal reserve note is not a promissory note, but simply the medium of exchange in our economy.

 

The US government doesn't own the GDP anymore than I own the income of the company I work for. The US government only has it's "revenues" and the national debt has to be evaluated based upon the government's "debt to income" ratio (percentage). Currently the US debt is over 1000% related to it's income*. Economists warn that even a 100% "debt to income" ratio is highly negative and the US government's is ten-times greater than that.

*Note: Government income is limited to "general tax revenues" because FICA/Payroll taxes are dedicated and can't be used to service the national debt.

 

Continuing to fail to read Julliard v Greenman where the US Supreme Court established that "legal tender currency" was a promissory note of borrowing authorized under Article I Section 8 Clause 1 and that a promissory note must, at some point in the future, be redeemed with that which it promises. A Federal Reserve note promises redemption in "lawful money" under Title 12 and we only have one form of lawful money in the United States and that is American Eagle coins. American Eagles are "legal tender" (i.e. lawful) and they are "money" (they are not a promissory note). Of interest a promissory note issued with no intention of being redeemed is an act of criminal fraud under contract law.

 

While I agree it is a useful metric, one doesn't "have to" evaluate the debt based on revenues. Revenues are a measure of current tax policy, and that is not a static. Another useful metric is comparison to GDP, which represents a potential for tax revenues.

For example, the US collects a total of about 25% of GDP in tax revenues. Germany collects 40%. If the US followed the German model, that would be 15 percentage points of GDP more revenue. 15 percentage points would be an addition $2.250 trillion in revenue, which would wipe out the deficit and generate enough of a surplus to pay the debt down by about a trillion dollars a year.

US revenues last year were 2.3 trillion against a $15 trillion debt, which is 750%.

I'm not sure which economist warn that a 100% debt to income ration is "highly negative", but a level of debt equivalent to GDP puts a relative low burden on the economy or Govt.

But they still contribute to the gross income the Govt takes in.

 

I've read Julliard as well as the applicable statutes and case law. You're simply wrong as I an numerous others have pointed out to you before.

I'll provide a link to the analysis to anyone else who is interested.

 

we could start by ending the tax cuts for the rich, that would save our children about a trillion dollars