10 votes

Ron Paul: Obama Using Scare Tactics to Force Deal on Debt Limit (video)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Debt

A contrast to the 'Dawes Allotment Act' can be entertained imo. ie. what is going on yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Other than that, I do not think a significant strike as those in Greece will occur due to the shear magnitude of the land mass and population size. Therefore, RP is correct and a deal will be reached and what we view today is just theatre imo. Thus the bubble will be again inflated to provide cover till after the next election. After that it is anyone's guess and most likely the beginning of either a major war or the flight of capital imo.

donvino

SS trust fund is what??

what is the truth about the SS trust fund..does it exist as an account that is iou's or bonds??? exaxtly what is the SS trust fund comprised of..Does anyone really know or is this another gold in ft knox ..

There is nothing in the SS

There is nothing in the SS trust fund, a fund does not exist. I heard an interesting segment from the Peter Schiff radio show regarding this issue.

In the segment Schiff interviews Charles Blahous who is one of two public trustees for Social Security. He himself admits that there is no money is social security. It's a very insightful listen. Here's the link: http://youtu.be/ITMEZImvNio

I'm RealHarrySeaward on YouTube and @JayToTheDee on Twitter.

The "trust fund" is nothing

The "trust fund" is nothing more than an entry in a ledger. It is, in the strictest legal sense a trust fund, just like your bank account is, in the strictest legal sense a form of trust, but ultimately the money is piled in with everybody else's in both cases.

There are IOU's I'm sure but

Social Security as stated by the IRS code is just an extension of the income tax, and is deposited straight to the Treasury, and does not really go into a special account, or trust.

Correct. There are actually two taxes.

One is an excise on employers.

The other is an income tax on employees.

If you are "self-employed" you get to pay both taxes.

The money is not earmarked into any special account. It goes into the general fund and can be spent however Congress wants.

There is NO mandate in law to print and issue SS checks to anyone. The Secretary of the Treasury is merely authorized to do so, if he thinks it is in the interest of the general welfare.

To create the scam, while the "premiums" are really just taxes, they are accounted for "off budget." In the 60's they created the veil of the "Trust Fund" to fool people into thinking that the surplus was being protected for the day when the math no longer worked. (originally there were 17 tax payers to every retiree. Now there is 3 to 1.)

Congress of course spent all the money as it has the power to do. To facilitate the Trust Fund scam, they created some fancy accounting and some special Bonds from the Treasury that are non-transferable. They can only be "sold" to the Trust Fund and can only be redeemed by it - at Congress' discretion of course.

Technically, these bonds are NOT obligations of the U.S. Treasury, but are merely fancy accounting gimmicks disguised as debt instruments. No one holding them has any legal claim to be paid.

There is no Trust Fund

There are no Trustees

You have no Account

You haven't paid into anything

You paid a tax.

Congress spent it.

The End.

we are scrod

The pluperfect subjunctive, we have been scrod.

The Democrats' game is to

The Democrats' game is to "negotiate" hard and "compromise" self-sacrificingly with the Republicans about raising the debt ceiling (cutting government spending, raising revenue, balancing the budget, even trimming entitlements, and all that), in other words, calling the Republicans on their intransigent obstructionism, their willingness to paralyze the government to gain political points. And then the Democrats will get to say, "See, they wouldn't give an inch in favor of sensible, salvaging legislation. We just had to save the country anyway."

The Republicans game--having realized that "just say 'no' " is a winning political strategy--is to continue to "just say 'no' " hoping to run on, "See, we didn't give an inch on our principles, and they steamrolled us."

Either way, the Party in Power wins, thus perpetuating the left-right paradigm! Everybody in Washington, including Ron Paul, knows this is how the game is played.

You also left out that if the Party in Power shifts, then they

will promptly proceed to implement everything they fought against while the minority.

And not only will they not repeal or abolish a bureaucracy once begun, they will enlarge it and grow it and give it more power.

Exactly right!

Exactly right!

Ron needs to start doing ads

Ron needs to start doing ads attacking all politicians for bankrupting the country engaging in illegal and unnecessary wars while that money could be used to pay down the national debt. That if we weren't fighting these wars and occupying 170+ countries, we could eliminate the income tax, and save social security and medicare.

Part of his transition to getting us off medicare and social security, as it's obviously an unsustainable ponzi scheme, should be to create a real social security and medicare trust fund that Congress is forbidden from borrowing. These are the types of ads that should be run now while Obama's making hollow threats to stop social security checks.

If he does run ads on SS

I hope he points to Chile and Galveston and the success they've had over the crap FDR shoved down our throats. Either way, the time to be running ads about SS is too early. I think the campaign is on track by running ads about the impending economic issue aka debt ceiling.

Social security could

Social security could conceivably work as long as it just saves the money and we go back to using precious metals instead of paper and metal backed paper (which is still just paper).

In that scenario, it's just a savings account, and with a finite money supply it will always appreciate even if it doesn't earn interest, but it requires that we strictly prohibit the government from spending it.

All treasury securities pay a negative interest rate over the long term, even the ones with triple digit interest rates because the government distorts the economy and always results in diminished buying power.

Saving money is good because it removes money from circulation, lowering the money base and causes price deflation, which increases buying power for everyone. It acts like an investment in the economy as a whole. Keynes was absolutely wrong when he claimed eliminating savings would stimulate the economy because in reality it does exactly the opposite.

Still, I don't believe the government should run a mandatory savings program because sometimes taking money out of circulation results in needed capital not being available for good investments, but only individuals can make those judgments, not bureaucrats.

We all agree on where we want to go (total abolition), but the debate is on how to get there.

No on the Trust Fund. The Transition is to be towards

the States to handle as they see fit.

It is neither "Necessary" nor "Proper" for Congress to have passed any laws with respect to an individual's retirement security.

A totally separate and de

A totally separate and de jure trust fund operated by an independent agency is a way to move it over to the states. You isolate the money and then create an interstate commission run by the states to control it, then the states, or even individuals, can opt out as they see fit.

Interstate compacts are allowed by the constitution if authorized by Congress, and this is a prime example of one.

You do with it however you see fit. Social Security is your problem.

Why is all of that necessary?

Why not just phase it out and end it?

If a State wants to emulate the mess, let them do it in their own territory, with their own internal tax revenue, and leave other States out of it.

There's no need for a Trust Fund or an Interstate Compact.

The reason it's "necessary"

The reason it's "necessary" is because we've taught people to be dependent on the system. A slow and gradual method is really the only way to abolish it.

I agree it should've been gone yesterday, but the reality is the politicians would never go along with it, and it doesn't look like we're going to have any success suing to get rid of it since the courts have ruled it's a tax, so we need to look for another solution.

That being said, as private citizens, we should work towards using physical metals to transact well outside of the banking system so Uncle Sam cannot exact his pound of flesh and goes bankrupt sooner.

ron must deliver ..More "vigor"

his own special message with more JFK "VIGOR" ..I think thats what jfk called it..thats it ..more "VIGOR"..didnt jfk also want to close the fed///this would really roil the dems to copt a theme from a fallen american hero and past president ..

No JFK did not want to close the Fed. He was a friend of the

bankers. His family was well in bed with them.

That is a "patriot myth" spread around for some decades now on a misreading of an executive order and the taking out of context a speech on secrecy.

JFK signed legislation to end and retire United States Notes, Silver Certificates, Silver Coinage, and he authorized the printing of the "one dollar" Federal Reserve Note. (until 1963, the smallest FRN was a Five)

One would hardly find those actions in line with wanting to "close the Fed."

re - VIGOR, with bat.

joe, you see well, what is needed, e.g. JFK, pls also fore-see, when it will come. Vigor will come in Time, when RP reaches that threshold, where there is "Righteous Indignation", and RP grabs a stick =(you may have seen the other DP thread = about - RP goes to bat / baseball).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righteous_indignation

The president can, under the

The president can, under the Constitution, unilaterally raise the debt ceiling; in fact, he has a responsibility, under his oath of office, to do so. In the past a president has never been called upon to use this authority. Many times in each recent president's administration the Congress has ceremoniously raised the debt ceiling; it's a John-Marshall move: as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court--which had close to zero power when he took up the position in 1801--Marshall repeatedly made major rulings asserting the power of the Court to decide something the way it was going to be done anyway. When he was done, the Supreme Court was seen as awesomely powerful. So, Congress has always ceremoniously raised the debt ceiling, hoping people would come to think that only Congress can do it.

No he can't. The phrase

No he can't. The phrase "authorized by law" requires that Congress approve it.

I broke down this clause in a different post that explains exactly what it means.

Nope - that clause of the 14th amendment - read in its

entirety is quite plainly about which debts are valid and those not valid with respect to the Civil War. Go read it.

Second, even if the phrase about validity not being questioned is still applicable, all that means is that the President has to PAY the debt. Paying the debt and BORROWING more debt are NOT the same thing.

This means Obama would not be able to take on new debt to pay the old one off. He'd have to just actually pay it out of revenue.

Congress has the power, not the president, to "borrow money on the Credit of the United States."

So Obama can't borrow more than the debt ceiling allows. If he reaches that limit, he can't choose not to pay the debt as it becomes due, and he can't take on new debt to do it, he has to actually just pay it.

Wrong!

This was an idea someone in the Obama administration and Timmy Geithner tried to float. Even Democratic jurist Lawrence Tribe disagreed. Tribe's opinion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/opinion/08tribe.html?_r=2&hp

power of congress.

I heard RP in a recent video = "only Congress has the authority to raise the debt-ceiling". There are some jokers who are proposing that let us delegate it to the President, - as they had done previously ,= delegating to the president the power / authority to wage war. RP opposes it, rightly.

All spending appropriations MUST

originate in the House.

right, per Constitution.

pw, this is what RP is insisting upon, and its Constitutional.
Some House members want to delegate it to the President, as they did before with war-powers.

Update by RP.

tele-p, RP's soft attitude is so endearing. he is not hungry for office. his talks are educational, here he is giving us an update, or a round-up of whats going on in the govt & the House,= re blame games, - the debts & wars, and as the title says the scare tactics to raise the debt limit.
At 4:40 minutes he mentions about the "real problems", the attitude to print & over-spend, and get into wars.
In conclusion the lady says "good luck with the campaign".
Thanks.

It would be catastrophic if

It would be catastrophic if the debt ceiling were not raised and the U.S. defaulted on the money it owes (interest on the U.S. debt would rise, the stock market would crash, banks would fail, the whole economy would come crashing down, the unemployment rate would sore, etc.)

First, please stop parroting what you hear the bobbleheads

spew on the Tele.

Now, please explain how not allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to borrow unlimited amounts of money results in a default on the present debt.

Second, please explain why a rise in the yield on U.S. Treasuries would cause either of:

  1. A stock market crash
  2. Banks to fail
  3. The whole economy come crashing down
  4. The Unemployment rate to soar
  5. etc.

Third, has the yield on U.S. Treasuries ever risen or has it always only fallen?

If there were times where the yield rose from a certain point, please show with evidence that each of 1-5 above occurred each and every time the yield went up.

Fourth, is this with respect to ALL yields on all Treasury securities or just some?

Fifth, what is the threshold of pain that can be tolerated if any, on a rising yield, and over what time period, if applicable, in order to trigger the 1-5 signs of the apocalypse you have noted?

Thank you in advance for your serious approach to these important matters and for not further devolving into water cooler jabber.