Wikipedia also has a good article (and thorough debunking) of this topic - just google on 'amero'. That "D" that he references on the obverse of the medallion (it is a private issue artifact and not a coin!) does not refer to the Denver mint. It is part of "DC" referring to Daniel Carr, the designer who sells these medallions, and to his company, Designs Computed. Notice that the video is far to blurry to see this discrepancy. The real question is: Does this psychopath really believe this garbage or does he just think there is an audience stupid enough to fall for it? One wonders if the government agents who supposedly closed down his radio program arrived in black helicopters.
My understanding is that about 52% of our $10,000,000,000,000 debt is owed to the Social Security administration. The law establishing the SSA restricts it to purchasing only US government bonds for the reserve it establishes from SS 'taxes' (they really should be called Insurance Premiums so that our senators and congresspeople don't get too confused) against future obligations, i. e., social security and medicare benefits.
Every year, well over $1 trillion of this debt becomes due and about $400 billion in interest has to be paid. Since our government has no ability or intention to pay these amounts through earnings (i. e., taxes), it just borrows more money through the sale of more bonds to pay that each year. In other words, the worlds most powerful government with its largest economy is now financed through a Ponzi* scheme. This is called Reaganomics.
*Wiki also has a fascinating article on "Ponzi Scheme" and the life of the man for whom it is named.
Are we going to one day just all agree to simply forget the national debt is there at all?
I don't think that the people who rely on social security and medicare, which "owns" half the national debt, are simply going to forget that it is there. Nor are the insurance companies and retirement funds (or the Chinese for that matter) that have major holdings in US treasury bonds (the physical form of our national debt) likely to forget. Unfortunately, governments have a very easy way to effectively retire a substantial fraction of their debt, by adopting economic policies that lead to hyper-inflation. Small underdeveloped countries will sometimes do this by just printing piles of money to pay off their debt and fund exorbitant programs.
This always leads to such hyper-inflation that the economy is essentially destroyed and the country effectively returns to a barter system, so I can't imagine the US ever being so fiscally irresponsible. But there are less drastic policies, including some that are now being considered to lift the US out of its financial troubles, that are supposed to "prime the pump" or inject fluidity (cash) into the financial markets, but run the risk of high inflation.
This approach of retiring the debt through inflation has its limits in that the government has to constantly refinance its debt (the Ponzi scheme aspect I alluded to) and lenders will demand interest rates commensurate with anticipated inflation. So the inflation gambit has to be done fast and furious, say 10% to 15% inflation for a few years. It's the people on fixed and low income - primarily the elderly - who effectively pay off the debt and get totally screwed over, but perhaps that's the penalty for not paying attention in civics class and tolerating a Reaganomics driven series of administrations that drive the debt from $1 Trillion to $10 Trillion in so short a time. (Buzsaw, are you listening?)
'Borrow 'til we're broke' Reaganomics has now run its course.
And note, during the 90s, those horrible, evil 90s under the Clinton administration, things were getting better.
Then Bush got into office and we went back to Reagan policies and things went to hell again.
The economy has always done better under a Democratic administration than a Republican one.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
In my opinion the [thumb=300] command is much better than [img] because it centers the picture and allows you to size it (500 is about as high as one normally needs to go.
Let's see.. Reagan entered office in '81.. What the...
yes, January 1981
Shrubya 2001 to 2008 (and soon to be over) Clinton 1993 to 2000 Bush the 1st 1989 to 1992 Reagan 1981 to 1988 Carter 1977 to 1980 Ford 08-74 to 1976 Nixon 1969 to 08-74 Johnson 11-63 to 1968 Kennedy 1961 to 11-63
It isn't just republican or democrat presidents though that set public spending. They just make the budget, congress passes it.
quote:I got this in an e-mail and thought it was funny. The child was drawing a picture about what his mother does for a living. The mother works at Home Depot and the picture depicts the mother selling a shovel.
Obamaâ€™s Use of Complete Sentences Stirs Controversy Stunning Break with Last Eight Years
In the first two weeks since the election, President-elect Barack Obama has broken with a tradition established over the past eight years through his controversial use of complete sentences, political observers say.
Millions of Americans who watched Mr. Obama's appearance on CBS' "Sixty Minutes" on Sunday witnessed the president-elect's unorthodox verbal tick, which had Mr. Obama employing grammatically correct sentences virtually every time he opened his mouth.
But Mr. Obama's decision to use complete sentences in his public pronouncements carries with it certain risks, since after the last eight years many Americans may find his odd speaking style jarring.
According to presidential historian Davis Logsdon of the University of Minnesota, some Americans might find it "alienating" to have a President who speaks English as if it were his first language.
"Every time Obama opens his mouth, his subjects and verbs are in agreement," says Mr. Logsdon. "If he keeps it up, he is running the risk of sounding like an elitist."
The historian said that if Mr. Obama insists on using complete sentences in his speeches, the public may find itself saying, "Okay, subject, predicate, subject predicate - we get it, stop showing off."
The President-elect's stubborn insistence on using complete sentences has already attracted a rebuke from one of his harshest critics, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.
"Talking with complete sentences there and also too talking in a way that ordinary Americans like Joe the Plumber and Tito the Builder can't really do there, I think needing to do that isn't tapping into what Americans are needing also," she said.