Date: Oct 29, 2012 3:02 AM
Author: Paul A. Tanner III
Subject: Re: Speachless In New York (or, another OMG moment)

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:04 AM, kirby urner <> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Paul Tanner <> wrote:

>>> Are you talking in absolute dollar terms or as a percent of GDP or
>>> what? In absolute terms, many nations will barely register just
>>> because they're so small, even if they're drowning in debt, as you
>>> know.

>> It does not matter, since either way, I was addressing what you wrote,
>> "...Uncle Sam knocks at the door, himself in rags, holding that
>> begging bowl, debtor to the world." Perhaps you should address your
>> above questions to yourself.

> Doesn't sound like you know.

Of course I know.

> I was just making the point that Uncle
> Sam is broke,

Which is why I said it does not matter. That is, you claim he's broke
- - no matter how we measure being broke, or you wouldn't flat out claim
he's broke.

Thing is, I do not agree that he's broke - by any measure.

It's still not even close yet. Unless you want to redefine "broke".

> but when he goes knocking on doors of supranational
> corporations, they have a way of showing domestic losses. Empty
> pockets here, sorry.

>>> Here's a fun graph:

>> I reply with what I said,
>> along with the observation that had the tax code essentially stayed
>> the same as it was before Reagan and all those conned by his con
>> screwed everything up, with perhaps only some elimination of some
>> loopholes, none of the debt or deficit problems that have occurred
>> starting with Reagan would have occurred.

> Another one:
> Used in this same article:
> Hypothesis contrary to fact arguments are always hard to bolster.
> Science fiction = what might have been.

This second graph you give is public debt in absolute terms - next to
meaningless, since it could be going up forever even if the public
debt as percentage of GDP gets always closer to 0. The first graph you
gave is in terms of percentage of GDP, much more meaningful. And it
shows exactly what I said below.

>> Note that that graph you gave above shows that since WWII the national
>> debt has trended up in a meaningful way under and only under the tax
>> codes created under the Republicans Reagan and Bush, and has trended
>> down under and only under the tax codes created under the Democrats
>> Roosevelt and Clinton.

> A lot of the debt increase relates to Treasury bonds sold to
> non-nationals and/or private investors.
> Taxes are not the only source of revenue.

In the US is it the vast majority.

> Tax payers should not take
> credit for all the publicly funded programs they see, as they do not
> cover the costs by themselves.
> I agree with Romney that China is sponsoring a lot of US government
> activities, such as NPR.

One wonders why that Bozo does not ask himself where the federal
government of China ultimately gets all that money to not only spend
at home but abroad as well - like lending money of the US government.
That is, what the original source actually is. Hint to answer: It is
not from revenue from their own economy. (Another hint: Gold standard
junkies are clueless as to the answer.)

Maybe he does know where all that money comes from, given that we have
the same type of ultimate source as they do, but just cannot handle
the truth that the only reason we don't do for ourselves what they do
for themselves is that there are enough conservatives like him
standing in the way. I repeat that China's modern economy is clearly
modeled on Norway's per-capita-twice-as-large-as-the-US economy (and
is not modeled on the US's economy) at least in terms of creation of
money and where it goes into the economy (public banking) as well as
government ownership of corporations, each country's government owning
a majority of the shares of roughly 1/3 of all publicly traded
corporations as well as fully owning more corporations.

In this light, I reiterate everything I said in


including all the facts with respect to public banking I link to.