Skip to content

Presidential Candidates; Debt Solution, Minimum Wage Solution,S.S. and Medicare.

May 18, 2016

Presidential Candidates; Debt Solution, Minimum Wage Solution,S.S. and Medicare.
All are dependent upon one thing-“Where will you get the money ?”
So, How do you lower Federal Personal Income Taxes, increase Social Security,
free Zero Deductible Medicare for vets, while at the same time lower the national debt?

Fractalerts
Counting Down Debt
How the Presidential candidates will address the increasing US national debt…
https://www.fractalerts.com/blog/3788-counting-down-debt
Let’s get this disclaimer out here now; we do not endorse any political party. We have written this piece as a way of introducing how the front runners in this year’s US Presidential race will aim to eradicate the government debt, if elected. We have attempted to be balanced and fair, allowing you to make up your own mind from the facts given. If there is something you feel we’ve omitted or failed to omit, get in touch, we’d love to hear from you.
Now onto the blog…..
You Call That A Debt…

The US currently has $19trillion worth of national debt. Okay, admittedly that figure is a little old, but the 1st February 2016 was when the figure clicked over to the $19trillion mark. Sticklers among you should head to the Debt Clock, where you can see the debt rise in real- time [editor: at the time of writing it was around $19,262,145,950,641].
For the purposed of this article we are going to round that number down to a $19trillion even. But that still means that there is around $58,000 worth of debt for each American citizen (including the kids).
And how has the US got to this point? Well, ultimately it’s the way that everyone gets into debt… outgoings are more that incomes. But in this instance there is also the joy of compound interest…
But, some analysts believe that if nothing is done about it, the national debt will be around $30trillion in a decade. And that’s a best case scenario, based on government spending and policy as it currently stands. Arguably, with a figure like that, Presidential nominees are considering how they’ll have to tackle it if they get into the Oval Office.
Trump’s Targets

Donald Trump, arguably one of America’s best known business men and almost certainly the Republican representative for the Presidency, has been outspoken about the ways in which he would tackle the national debt. Firstly, Trump went on the record to say that, given the right tools, he would be able to eradicate the debt in eight years. Citing his business acumen and his experience, he deemed that it was a reasonable expectation.
In response, there was a furor from the left who said that it wasn’t possible. There was a furor from the right, who agreed (most notable Ted Cruz who claimed Trump’s calculator ‘is missing a few keys’). Eventually the noise was such that Trump had to reconsider his position. He suggested that instead of removing the national debt in a period of eight years, he would in fact be able to pay off a “percentage of it” in ten.
Most recently, however, Trump caused more questioning of his policy towards government debt and rocking the bonds market in the process. Last week Trump initially said, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal” to pay bondholders less than full value on the debt owed to them. After the bonds markets went up in arms (and down in price), Trump again clarified his position, and stated that “bonds [are] sacred” and he won’t be using them to move the mountain of government debt.

***********TRUMP PROPOSALS….Maybe, perhaps a better deal..

justaluckyfool, on May 14, 2016 at 9:37 am said:
The Fed has already proven that it can do this at a profit to the US Treasury (“we the people”) and with no increase in the debt (it is an asset purchase).
Make America Great Again !
**Why not Trump ? (RAP) Renaissance for the American People.
Donald J Trump,
Gandhi’s famous quote: ““First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”
You will win with your response to your valid reasoning of ” A Monetary Sovereignty can not default because they are the issuer of the currency…
” if the debt is in their currency”. Period.

OMG, OMG, OMG, Historic opportunity!
Washington,Jefferson,Lincoln and TRUMP??
On the same page.

“Print the Money”: Trump’s “Reckless” Proposal Echoes Franklin and Lincoln
Posted on May 14, 2016 by Ellen Brown
“Print the money” has been called crazy talk, but it may be the only sane solution to a $19 trillion federal debt that has doubled in the last 10 years. The solution of Abraham Lincoln and the American colonists can still work today.
“Reckless,” “alarming,” “disastrous,” “swashbuckling,” “playing with fire,” “crazy talk,” “lost in a forest of nonsense”: these are a few of the labels applied by media commentators to Donald Trump’s latest proposal for dealing with the federal debt. On Monday, May 9th, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate said on CNN, “You print the money.”
The remark was in response to a firestorm created the previous week, when Trump was asked if the US should pay its debt in full or possibly negotiate partial repayment. He replied, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.” Commentators took this to mean a default. On May 9, Trump countered that he was misquoted:
People said I want to go and buy debt and default on debt – these people are crazy. This is the United States government. First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, okay? So there’s never a default.
That remark wasn’t exactly crazy. It echoed one by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who said in 2011:
The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default.
Paying the government’s debts by just issuing the money is as American as apple pie – if you go back far enough. Benjamin Franklin attributed the remarkable growth of the American colonies to this innovative funding solution. Abraham Lincoln revived the colonial system of government-issued money when he endorsed the printing of $450 million in US Notes or “greenbacks” during the Civil War. The greenbacks not only helped the Union win the war but triggered a period of robust national growth and saved the taxpayers about $14 billion in interest payments.
But back to Trump. He went on to explain:
I said if we can buy back government debt at a discount – in other words, if interest rates go up and we can buy bonds back at a discount – if we are liquid enough as a country we should do that.
Apparently he was referring to the fact that when interest rates go up, long-term bonds at the lower rate become available on the secondary market at a discount. Anyone who holds the bonds to maturity still gets full value, but many investors want to cash out early and are willing to take less. As explained on MorningStar.com:
If a bond with a 5% coupon and a ten-year maturity is sold on the secondary market today while newly issued ten-year bonds have a 6% coupon, then the 5% bond will sell for $92.56 (par value $100).
But critics still were not satisfied. In an article titled “Why Donald Trump’s Debt Proposal Is Reckless,” CNNMoney said:
[T]he federal government doesn’t have any money to buy debt back with. The U.S. already has $19 trillion in debt. Trump’s plan would require the U.S. Treasury to issue new debt to buy old debt.
Trump, however, was not talking about borrowing the money. He was talking about printing the money. CNNMoney’s response was:
That can cause inflation (or even hyperinflation), and send prices of everything from food to rent skyrocketing.
The Hyperinflation that Wasn’t
CNN was not alone in calling the notion of printing our way out of debt recklessly inflationary. But would it be? The Federal Reserve has already bought $4.5 trillion in assets, $2.7 trillion of which were federal securities, simply by “printing the money.”
When the Fed’s QE program was initiated, critics called it recklessly hyperinflationary. But it did not even create the modest 2% inflation the Fed was aiming for. QE was combined with ZIRP – zero interest rates for banks – encouraging borrowing for speculation, driving up the stock market and real estate. But the Consumer Price Index, productivity and jobs barely budged.
While the Fed has stopped its QE program for the time being, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan have jumped in, buying back massive amounts of their own governments’ debts by simply issuing the money. There too, the inflation needle has barely budged. As noted on CNBC in February:
Central banks have been pumping money into the global economy without a whole lot to show for it other than sharply higher stock prices, and even that has been on the downturn for the past year.
Growth remains anemic, and worries are escalating that the U.S. and the rest of the world are on the brink of a recession, despite bargain-basement interest rates and trillions in liquidity.
Helicopter Money Goes Mainstream
European economists and central bankers are wringing their hands over what to do about a flagging economy despite radical austerity measures and increasingly unrepayable debt. One suggestion gaining traction is “helicopter money” – just issue money and drop it directly into the economy in some way. In QE as done today, the newly issued money makes it no further than the balance sheets of banks. It does not get into the producing economy or the pockets of consumers, where it would need to go in order to create the demand necessary to stimulate productivity. Helicopter money would create that demand. Proposed alternatives include a universal national dividend; zero or low interest loans to local governments; and “people’s QE” for infrastructure, job creation, student debt relief, etc.
Simply buying back federal securities with money issued by the central bank (or the U.S. Treasury) would also get money into the real economy, if Congress were allowed to increase its budget in tandem. As observed in The Economist on May 1, 2016:
Advocates of helicopter money do not really intend to throw money out of aircraft. Broadly speaking, they argue for fiscal stimulus—in the form of government spending, tax cuts or direct payments to citizens—financed with newly printed money rather than through borrowing or taxation. Quantitative easing (QE) qualifies, so long as the central bank buying the government bonds promises to hold them to maturity, with interest payments and principal remitted back to the government like most central-bank profits.
As Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, wrote in response to the debt ceiling crisis in November 2010:
There is no reason that the Fed can’t just buy this debt (as it is largely doing) and hold it indefinitely. If the Fed holds the debt, there is no interest burden for future taxpayers. The Fed refunds its interest earnings to the Treasury every year. Last year the Fed refunded almost $80 billion in interest to the Treasury, nearly 40 percent of the country’s net interest burden. And the Fed has other tools to ensure that the expansion of the monetary base required to purchase the debt does not lead to inflation.
An even cleaner solution would be to simply void out the debt held by the Fed. That was the 2011 proposal of then-presidential candidate Ron Paul for dealing with the debt ceiling crisis. As his proposal was explained in Time Magazine, today the Treasury pays interest on its securities to the Fed, which returns 90% of these payments to the Treasury. Despite this shell game of payments, the $1.7 trillion in US bonds owned by the Fed is still counted toward the debt ceiling. Paul’s plan:
Get the Fed and the Treasury to rip up that debt. It’s fake debt anyway. And the Fed is legally allowed to return the debt to the Treasury to be destroyed.
Congressman Alan Grayson, a Democrat, also endorsed this proposal.
Financial author Richard Duncan makes a strong case for going further than just monetizing existing debt. He argues that under current market conditions, the US could actually rebuild its collapsing infrastructure by just printing the money, without causing price inflation. Prices go up when demand (money) exceeds supply (goods and services); and with automation and the availability of cheap labor in vast global markets today, supply can keep up with demand for decades to come. Duncan observes:
The combination of fiat money and Globalization creates a unique moment in history where the governments of the developed economies can print money on an aggressive scale without causing inflation. They should take advantage of this once-in-history opportunity . . . .
Returning the Power to Create Money to the People
The right of government to issue its own money was one of the principles for which the American Revolution was fought. Americans are increasingly waking up to the fact that the vast majority of the money supply is no longer issued by the government but is created by private banks when they make loans; and that with that power goes enormous power over the economy itself.
The issue that should be debated is one that dominated political discussion in the 19th century but that few candidates are even aware of today: should creation and control of the money supply be public or private? Donald Trump’s willingness to transgress the conservative taboo against public money creation is a welcome step in opening that debate.
________________
Ellen Brown is an attorney, Founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books, including the best-selling Web of Debt. Her latest book, The Public Bank Solution, explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 300+ blog articles are at EllenBrown.com. She can be heard biweekly on “It’s Our Money with Ellen Brown” on PRN.FM.

WHY not STATE PUBLIC OWNED BANKS (SPOB) with an Honest Central Bank to reverse..”Where We Went Wrong and Fix It.”

Thank you, Ellen Brown for your due examination…

The National Debt: A THING OF BEAUTY.

April 4, 2016
The National Debt: A THING OF BEAUTY.
When a Monetary Sovereignty spends more money than that which it has taken out of its own currency circulation: it must “borrow” (as per US Constitution). This creates the debt of the entire sovereignty,that debt being in that currency.When a Monetary Sovereignty has a debt in its own currency that debt is a deposit in its Central Bank. The owner of the “Debt Deposit” may withdraw upon demand; however the owner then loses the protections and safety of the credit of the sovereignty. Stop paying interest on bank reserves, and stop issuing Treasury bills and bonds with interest payments attached.
Issue USTBB, allow the holders the safety of the American Dollar being held for them until they seek redemption.
Then proceed to pay off the entire Federal Debt?
AN ASSET SWAP:
***The ease with which the government’s debt could be paid in this way was demonstrated in January 2004****
As the chairman of the Coinage Subcommittee observed in the 1980s, the entire federal debt could actually be paid in this way. The Federal Reserve has already established that it can issue $4.5 trillion in accounting-entry QE without triggering hyperinflation. In fact, it has not succeeded in triggering the modest inflation the exercise was designed for. As with QE, paying the federal debt in this way would just be an asset swap, replacing an interest-bearing obligation with a non-interest-bearing one.(” A better aset swap would be “US TREASURY BEARER BONDS” (USTBB)!!!!! The market for goods and services would not be flooded with “new” money that would inflate the prices of consumer goods, because the bond holders would not consider themselves any richer than before. They presumably had their money in bonds in the first place because they wanted to save it rather than spend it. They would no doubt continue to save it,…(surely they would realize safety versus risk concerns.)
The ease with which the government’s debt could be paid in this way was demonstrated in January 2004, when the US Treasury called a 30-year bond issue before its due date. The bonds were redeemed “at par” to avoid a 9-1/8% interest rate, which was then well above market rates. The Treasury’s January 15, 2004 announcement said that payment would be made “in book entry form,” meaning numbers were simply entered into the Treasury’s online money market fund (Treasury Direct). In effect, the money just moved from an online savings account to an online depository account, converting interest-bearing bonds into non-interest-bearing cash.
Where did the Treasury get the money to refinance this $3 billion bond issue at a lower interest rate? Whether it came from the private banking system or from the Federal Reserve, it was no doubt created out of thin air. As Federal Reserve Board Chairman Marriner Eccles testified before the House Banking and Currency Committee in 1935:
When the banks buy a billion dollars of Government bonds as they are offered . . .
they actually create, by a bookkeeping entry, a billion dollars.
The US government can just as easily create this money by a bookkeeping entry
itself. It can and it should, to avoid the interest charges that compound
the national debt and make it unrepayable.
BUT,YOU NEED NOT STOP THERE- CREATE US TREASURY BEARER BONDS:
YOU MAY NEVER, yes, NEVER HAVE TO PRINT ALL THE MONEY !!!!
Quote Thomas Edison, “…Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody…”
But the owners of the debt are now just deposits.

Berning Money…?
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders, (who looks like he isn’t going to be the Democratic nominee but certainly isn’t going down without a fight) has a very different approach to the national debt. His proposals are some of the most ambitious and sweeping of all the presidential candidates, but they are also some of the most expensive.
When you crunch the numbers, the senator from Vermont could end up adding $18trillion to the national debt, with a further $3trillion being tacked on as interest costs.
But unlike Trump, Sander’s isn’t backing up. He knows that it is expensive, but still plans to unleash a single-payer health care system, bump up Social Security, and also introduce paid maternity leave in his “revolution”. Sure these things would be beneficial to some sectors of the population, but they are also going to increase national debt significantly which you simply can’t ignore.

This was Bernies ‘Waterloo, Little Big Horn.

Even with the help of MMTers Bernie did not declare that
the debt ‘need not be paid off. When asked ‘How he was to pay for his proposed increased entitlements, Bernie then created his fatal would: He advocated a tax increase.

Clinton’s Two Cents…

The former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, sees a rising debt liability as a national security issue, limiting the capabilities of the US and causing it to appear weak internationally. But, unfortunately, that’s about all she’s said on the subject. The likely Democratic candidate hasn’t offered much in the way of solutions to getting down the debt, in fact she is fairly tight lipped on the matter. However, despite this, analysts have suggested that her policies, if implemented, would add another $1.9trillion to the already escalating national figure.
Although many think her policies are sound, critics have been quick to point out that Clinton’s ideas make her an “old-fashioned tax-and-spend Democrat”, that is to say that most of her proposals are going to be financed by higher taxes, with other policy proposals like enacting immigration reform making up most of the remaining difference.

YES, the Clinton,s two cents;
that’s all it is worth. The Clinton platform calls for a ‘status quo’ of debt and servitude.

But Why Are People Even Bothering?
Maybe Trump’s plan to eradicate the $19trillion through renegotiating debt is going to win out; perhaps Sanders will go from being the under-dog to the top-dog, wracking up an additional $21trillion in the process; or maybe President Clinton mark II is going to add a little to the escalating debt as she takes office. Either way, why bother?
The IMF suggested last year that the best course of action for some countries – the US included – is to do nothing about their debt burdens. Not one thing. Nothing. Nada.
Their bottom line: the wisest course for some countries would be to stop distorting economies to deliberately pay down national debt, as this only adds to the burden of the debt, rather than reducing it.
So maybe, whoever wins out, it doesn’t matter what they do with the government debt, just so long as the clock keeps ticking.

CONCLUSION.
***** “Believe nothing merely because you have been told it…But whatsoever,
after due examination and analysis,you find to be kind, conducive to the good,
the benefit,the welfare of all beings – that doctrine believe and cling to,and
take it as your guide.”- Buddha[Gautama Siddharta] (563 – 483 BC),
Share and then share again, why would you not want prosperity?

Advertisements
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: