Slashdot Mirror

Just for the record here, here is what I could find on the US Tax incomes:

Year US Tax Income ($M) GDP ($B) Tax/GDP
2009 $1,398,542 (a) Not Available ---
2008 $1,602,823 (a) Not Available ---
2007 $1,571,322 (a) Not Available ---
2006 $1,478,945 (a) $11541.614 (b) 0.128140224
2005 $1,339,363 (c) $11163.759 (b) 0.119974200
2004 $ 998,328 (c) $10822.914 (b) 0.092242970
2003 $ 925,477 (c) $10466.951 (b) 0.088418967
2002 $1,006,389 (c) $10095.771 (b) 0.099684214
2001 $1,145,414 (c) $ 9910.034 (b) 0.115581238
2000 $1,211,749 (d) $ 9887.749 (b) 0.122550542
1999 $1,064,160 (d) $ 9671.089 (b) 0.110035178
1998 $1,017,274 (d) $ 9237.081 (b) 0.11012938

(a) source: http://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b2009_4fd.doc
(b) source: http://forecasts.org/data/data/GDPC96.htm (c) source: http://fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b45.pdf
(d) source: http://fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b42.pdf
This, combined with historical information about Congress:

Year House Maj.(e) Senate Maj.(f)
2009 Democrat even
2008 Democrat even
2007 Republican Republican
2006 Republican Republican
2005 Republican Republican
2004 Republican Republican
2003 Republican Republican
2002 Republican even/Democrat
2001 Republican Democrat
2000 Republican Republican
1999 Republican Republican
1998 Republican Republican

(e) source: http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/index.html
(f) source: http://senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

We also note that this is *not* spending, but simply tax income. Keep in mind we should expect that tax income should lag tax law by about a year for the tax law to take effect. The GDP steadily rises, so the main difference is the tax income (total dollars). As a nation, the US tends to hang out around 11%-12% Tax/GDP ratio. There were some low years (2002-2004) which seems to align (with said lag) with the Democratic control of the Senate, although it could also be blamed on the "Bush Tax Cuts" (2001, if I recall correctly).

Short answer, looking at a president, a congress, a party, etc. is potentially a myopic view.

do you think if I donate him $5000 I can get out of paying my taxes?

Since the donations are for the Treasury, my guess is yes as long as your tax bill is less that $5000.
But it looks like my guess is wrong, it is probably handled like other gifts. An account for accepting gifts to the U.S. Treasury was established in 1843. So much for an email suggestion I guess.

The parent is correct, but a bit terse. I thought I'd elaborate a bit:

"Federal Reserve Board data shows that:

* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics."

- http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

The stats don't back up the idea that any public institution or law bears the brunt of the responsibility for problematic lending.

It also doesn't make much sense. Take the fingers pointed at the CRA. It didn't force banks to make risky loans. They could deny an application based on income, credit rating, or any other relevant factors. What it *did* force them to avoid was "red-lining": denying loans based on the current living location (used as a proxy for the applicant's race). A person's race and living location might have some correlation with risk of defaulting, but as we all know here on slashdot, correlation is not causation, and a responsible financial institution would deal with the more directly relevant information: an individual's income/asset information and their credit history.

Here's some other links:

http://www.ptmortgage.com/blog/2008/10/01/pointing-fingers-was-it-cra-and-minority-lending-that-caused-the-mortgage-mess/
http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=73500
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis
http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.html
http://www.ccc.unc.edu/news/news.021809.php
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Commentary/2000/1100.htm
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/ls564.htm

Wikipedia also has a summary.

http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml

not going to dump the whole thing but
"There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy."

The policy does have to be visibly posted but otherwise all bets are off.

Sorry, didn't mean to be a pedant, but I was curious exactly who regulates the fisheries.

There are so many Government agencies that regulate shit, it's hard to keep track and it does occasionally come in handy - like when a bank screws you the folks that they are afraid of is the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. occ.treas.gov

Early 20th century the US government tool ~3% of GDP. ... Government is threatening to take over 40+ to even 50+ % of GDP.

I'm curious as to your source for your facts.

Fact Sheets: Taxes History of the U.S. Tax System
1918 - Tax rates set at 25% of GDP
1920s - Tax rate reduced to 13% of GDP
1932 through 1936 - Tax rates increased, by 1940 tax rate at 6.8% of GDP
1941 - 7.6% of GDP
1944 - 20.9% of GDP
1945 - 20.4% of GDP
1950 - 14.4%
1952 - 19%
1960s through 1970s - 19.4% up to 20.8%
1986 - 17.5%
1990 - 18%
2000 - 20.8%

R Davis' receipts and outlays plots

1950 through 2008 - Tax rate varied from 14.5% to 20.8% of GDP

List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP
United States - Tax rate at 28.2% of GDP

Total Tax Burden Is Rising to Highest Level in History
1965 through 2008 - Tax rate varied from 15.5% to 20.9% of GDP

Even the Heritage Foundation that continually makes mind numbingly brain dead conclusions that in some cases contradict the charts on their own web site don't show future receipts in the 40% to 50% range. Their end of the world predictions only go as high as 25.5%.

It is also telling that the very worst of times seem to be preceded by tax cuts that resulted in some of the lowest tax rates versus GDP. Note the booming 1920s "The economy boomed during the 1920s and increasing revenues from the income tax followed. This allowed Congress to cut taxes five times,", the tax cuts reduced receipts and were followed with the great depression. Note the booming 1990s followed by the tax cuts during the Bush administration, the reduced receipts and, ta da, massive recession on the brink of depression.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reducing tax burdens but lets not jump to conclusions and assume simply cutting taxes will instil wealth and prosperity into the heartland. In fact to the contrary, the facts show that something else is occurring along with the tax cuts that results in a detrimental affect to the working class and their ability to make a living.

Early 20th century the US government tool ~3% of GDP. ... Government is threatening to take over 40+ to even 50+ % of GDP.

I'm curious as to your source for your facts.

Fact Sheets: Taxes History of the U.S. Tax System
1918 - Tax rates set at 25% of GDP
1920s - Tax rate reduced to 13% of GDP
1932 through 1936 - Tax rates increased, by 1940 tax rate at 6.8% of GDP
1941 - 7.6% of GDP
1944 - 20.9% of GDP
1945 - 20.4% of GDP
1950 - 14.4%
1952 - 19%
1960s through 1970s - 19.4% up to 20.8%
1986 - 17.5%
1990 - 18%
2000 - 20.8%

R Davis' receipts and outlays plots

1950 through 2008 - Tax rate varied from 14.5% to 20.8% of GDP

List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP
United States - Tax rate at 28.2% of GDP

Total Tax Burden Is Rising to Highest Level in History
1965 through 2008 - Tax rate varied from 15.5% to 20.9% of GDP

Even the Heritage Foundation that continually makes mind numbingly brain dead conclusions that in some cases contradict the charts on their own web site don't show future receipts in the 40% to 50% range. Their end of the world predictions only go as high as 25.5%.

It is also telling that the very worst of times seem to be preceded by tax cuts that resulted in some of the lowest tax rates versus GDP. Note the booming 1920s "The economy boomed during the 1920s and increasing revenues from the income tax followed. This allowed Congress to cut taxes five times,", the tax cuts reduced receipts and were followed with the great depression. Note the booming 1990s followed by the tax cuts during the Bush administration, the reduced receipts and, ta da, massive recession on the brink of depression.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reducing tax burdens but lets not jump to conclusions and assume simply cutting taxes will instil wealth and prosperity into the heartland. In fact to the contrary, the facts show that something else is occurring along with the tax cuts that results in a detrimental affect to the working class and their ability to make a living.

U.S. Imports from China accounted for about $338 billion in 2008. Exports were about $70 billion. The U.S. GDP in 2008 was about $14.2 trillion, so trade with China accounted for about 2.9% of the U.S. economy. China holds about $800 billion in U.S. treasury securities. Even if you add that (which you shouldn't since it's a dollar amount while the other figures are dollars/year, but let's do it since we're talking about them hypothetically dumping all their securities on the market), China's impact on the U.S. GDP is only 8.5%.

China's GDP in 2008 $3.9-$4.4 trillion, so their trade with the U.S. accounted for about 9.3%-10.5% of their economy.

So economically, China needs the U.S. more than the U.S. needs China.

http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml digitalunity was sort of on the right track, however the private business can make whatever policy that wish on what types of money to accept.

It's called legal tender. In countries where it applies, you cannot be penalized for late payment of a debt if you offer to pay the debt using legal tender.

A lot of countries put a restriction on how much coinage actually counts as legal tender. From a quick google search the treasury claims that legal tender only actually applies to government debts in the US.

None of this applies to buying anything mind you as it only ever applies to debts(you can refuse to sell someone anything you damned well like for pretty much whatever reason isn't specifically prohibited by law), and generally where protections are in place notes of any denomination are not restricted.

Some citations for those interested:
http://www.ccc.unc.edu/news/news.021809.php
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Commentary/2000/1100.htm
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/ls564.htm

All are very clear that the CRA had little to nothing to do with the subprime mortgage foreclosures.

Uhm...do you have the contact information for the Ministry of Fairness, Niceness, and Free Ponies at Taxpayer Expense? I would like a free pony.

Thank you for your interest. Unfortunately, free ponies and free monies are only available to those that control The House, The Senate, and The Executive. Which means of course Goldman Sachs. Thank you for your interest.

AIG FP (the London office) didn't take in huge premiums which is the problem. They failed because most of the derivatives they wrote require collateral to be posted based on AIG's credit rating and the price of the insured risk (or market price of the derivative). Those collateral requirements required about 70 billion in cash payments to escrow accounts (they technically don't go to the counterparties until the default events occur, which hasn't happened yet. Prices have dropped because, it's become obvious that a huge number of home owners are going to default on their mortgage.

Oh and they had $120 billion set aside at the end of 2006. As it turns out it was not nearly enough, but they were setting the revenues aside. Also, they were in compliance with the reserve requirements set by their regulators. The problem wasn't reserves, it was a severe misreading of the risks they took on for the premiums received. However, their pricing was more than sufficient if mortgage holders don't stop paying in numbers like 12%. They misjudged the risk that defaults and late payments would occur in numbers that large, but that doesn't absolve the irresponsible borrowers who are defaulting in droves because they are now realizing that their house bet is a loser (or they were using equity to pay the mortgage). Look at slide 15 on this presentation (warning pdf). People pay keep their mortgage current enough if their house price rises. The next two slides shows how delinquencies rise and fall unrelated to mortgage defaults but house price appreciation is highly correlated with foreclosures, indicating that cash flow issues aren't the main driver of defaults it's people deciding they aren't paying for a losing bet.

I think that table you linked is only for short-term treasuries. Check out this table: http://www.treas.gov/tic/shlptab1.html. My link shows that China holds some 1.2 trillion dollars in total debt and equity. Who knows how accurate this is though, since China may have entrusted a third-party country such as Switzerland to hold some of the instruments.

I admit that my "trillions" comment was a bit overstated, but the actual amount is still almost 10% of the total outstanding U.S. government debt. $1.2 trillion is also approximately 32% of China's GDP. That's hardly insignificant.

The idea that the CRA caused this mess has been debunked repeatedly by every study done on the subject. If you want some real sources on this, I'd suggest studies put out by a university, the Federal Reserve, or the US Treasury Department.

Oh, yeah! _Those_ are impartial sources.

You didn't even try did you? From the overview of sanctions:

o EXPORTING TO CUBA - Except for publications, other informational materials
(such as CDs and works of art), certain donated food, and certain goods licensed
for export or re-export by the U.S. Department of Commerce (such as medicine and
medical supplies, food, and agricultural commodities), no products, technology,
or services may be exported from the United States to Cuba, either directly or
through third countries, such as Canada or Mexico. This prohibition includes
dealing in or assisting the sale of goods or commodities to or from Cuba, even
if done entirely offshore. Such brokering is considered to be dealing in
property in which Cuba has an interest. Provision of consulting services is
also prohibited. Thus, no U.S. citizen or permanent resident alien, wherever
located, and no foreign subsidiary or branch of a U.S. organization may export
products, technology, or services to Cuba or to any Cuban national, wherever
they may be located, or broker the sale of goods or commodities to or from Cuba
or any Cuban national.

But in any case I think restrictions placed on you due to sanctions are probably exempt, I mean, how can a court award damages for GPL violation because you refused to do something criminal?

"Here's an example. The US government probably prevents you from selling your open source software to Cuba"

Where does it say that, there is no mention of the GPL on the U.S. Treasury Cuba Sanctions site.

"I hope the same applies to this theory that Microsoft is forcing people to violate the GPL and therefore lose their rights to the code"

Microsoft claims that the Linux kernel used in Tom Tom devices violates Microsoft own patents. If Tom Tom were to start paying Microsoft royalties for such, that would be in violation of section 7.

'Yes, well, three of the eight patents in this dispute read on the Linux kernel as implemented by TomTom .. What I mean is the patents cover the implementation of the Linux kernel done by TomTom in their products'

First off, your source is not appropriate for a serious argument. It's an op/ed by a columnist with accusations of plagiarism to his name, not a news article.

The loans that caused the vast majority of the current mess were issued by mortgage brokers (firms like Countrywide Financial, Ameriquest Mortgage, and Ditech), not banks. Brokers are not held to the CRA standards. The idea that the CRA caused this mess has been debunked repeatedly by every study done on the subject. If you want some real sources on this, I'd suggest studies put out by a university, the Federal Reserve, or the US Treasury Department.

Some real reasons behind the arguments about the CRA:
1. Banks have hated the CRA for a long time. They were trying to dodge it or get rid of it back in the 1990's as well.
2. Conservatives oppose most government regulation on principle.
3. By blaming the CRA, it absolved the bankers of any role in creating the problem.
4. It creates an image of a foreclosed subprime homes is owned by a black person in a bad urban neighborhood. In reality, the areas with the most subprime loans are in suburbs near LA, San Diego, Denver, and Miami. In short, racism.

Also, the Chinese holding trillions of dollars in U.S. treasuries

You know I've been hearing this for years, so I actually looked it up. As far as I can see China "only" has about $700 billion of US government debt. A huge amount certainly, but really enough to cause the kind of financial armageddon that people talk about?

The legal explanation as provided by the U.S. Treasury:

Q: I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

A: The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

It's linked from the story. It's short and, like all such reports, its has a proforma organization that makes it easy to read. The synopsis tends to have the spin (and that's what got the attention of PC World and the Slashdot folks) but the actual findings are also clearly stated so that you can draw your own conclusions.

The inspectors made three findings.

1. "Intrusion detection systems were deployed effectively."

2. "Access controls over firewall and router system administrator accounts are operating effectively"

3. "Management of firewall and router audit logs needs to be improved."

Under # 3, they found one high-risk error, the only high-risk error in the report. That finding was "Audit logs were not independently reviewed".

The IRS agreed with all findings and promised to fix things.

My personal opinion? I think a report that says, to paraphrase, "All your stuff works fine. However, you aren't regularly running it all past someone not in the normal administrative chain; that failure is a serious error" is certainly something to be taken seriously but it's unlikely to be a career-killer for anyone. I've seen far, far worse reports on many different subjects from amny different agencies. The IRS, however, is really big and touches everyone so a finding that procedures are suboptimal is far more newsworthy than some of the truly horrific crap that passes for security practice at other agencies. I certainly feel no ill will towards those who are publishing this stuff. When you work for the IRS, you get used to seeing bad news (mostly exaggerated bad news) almost exclusively. Such is life.

This isn't really a response to parent. I just saw a lot about federal spending in this thread, and as it happens, I was looking over the numbers for the FY 2007 actual budget the other day.

Following are the top 15 federal expenses which accounted for ~83% of the 2007 budget (all numbers are millions USD, my annotations in [braces]):

If you want a better idea, see here (XLS). Also, the top 34 expenses in that spreadsheet comprised 98.07% of that budget. From looking over all this I basically figured out that most of our top expenses come out of one of three categories:

• Military
• Social welfare of some kind
• Paying interest on our national debt

Now I'm the kind of guy who just loves to rant about how much we waste on the drug war, miniluv, etc. But if you look at the numbers, you see that law enforcement, and even education and highways barely stacks up to these three categories.

If you want to know more about the national debt, first go to the oracle and learn about bills, bonds, and notes. Then you can look here and here for more info on it.

Oh, and /. needs <table>.

Clinton barely managed to balance the budget, and only by using money that eventually we'll have to pay back to social security

Actually, according to both the Congressional Budget Office and the Treasury Department, there was an on-budget (i.e. not including Social Security) surplus in 1999 and 2000. The only argument I have seen disputing this is the fact that the national debt went up each year. I'd be interested in an explanation for this discrepancy, but I haven't seen one.

For example, our deficits have been widely reported at 400-500bn throughout this decade when in fact they've been 700bn+.

Am I reading the data from the Congressional Budget Office wrong? Look at 2007, for example: the chart lists an "On-Budget" deficit of $342.2 billion, a Social Security surplus of $186.5 billion, a Postal Service deficit of $5.1 billion, and a "Total" deficit of 160.7. No year (up to 2007) had a "On-Budget" deficit of greater than $600 billion. You can get basically the same picture from the Treasury Department (you can avoid .doc files by getting the PDF linked at the bottom; see page 19 of the PDF, which has page number 12 in the document).

On the other hand, page 28 of the Treasury Department PDF (the document has page number 21) shows total debt outstanding figures increasing by amounts that tend to be more than the "On-budget" deficit (500-600 billion, but still not 700bn+). I haven't been able to find an explanation for the difference, but the answer doesn't appear to be Social Security.

Additionally, the difference between borrowing from the SS trust fund and the public is that the government has a strong obligation to pay back money borrowed from the public. They have no such obligation to pay themselves back.

Senior citizens tend to have high voter turnout. There is a strong obligation to pay back Social Security.

In fact, there has been a lot of talk about cutting Social Security payments because we're in a "crisis" (whatever). That's just laying the groundwork.

The last attempt to privatize Social Security failed. Obama is likely to win the election. He appears to be against cutting benefits and instead favors imposing new Social Security taxes on those making over $250 thousand per year.

If it weren't for the repeal of Glass-Steagal, how would Bank of America have bought up Merrill Lynch? (Such a thing would have been illegal under the act)

If Glass-Steagall hadn't been repealed, BoA wouldn't have needed to in the first fucking place.

Honestly, this is the dumbest justification I can think of... great talking point, though, for those too stupid to pay attention.

But in terms of causing the crisis in the first place, Glass-Steagal was simply irrelevant.

Bullshit. To quote this document:

The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities.

And now Citigroup is on the ropes. But you're right, that's a small thing. ::rollseyes::

Meanwhile, virtually every economist and analyst I've read cites the repeal of Glass-Steagall as a a strong contributing factor to the current crisis. Somehow, I think I'll trust them over your uncited quote from god knows what source.

Why? Describe the process you're suggesting, and why it wouldn't happen without fractional reserves.

Full reserve banking. Money which is lent out to one party is taken away from the lender for the period of the loan. With fractional reserve lending, the original lender still has access to their money through the bank's reserve, almost doubling the money with each loan. Then there's a race against the debt.

With 100% reserve lending, money is removed from the lender and given to the borrower, the lender no longer has access to the money. It's gone, and if the borrower defaults, the lender loses their money permanently. The money has moved, not grown. Therefore the act of lending itself doesn't cause a boom.

No boom, no bust.

How do you get 95%? AFAICS, even M0:M3 doesn't get to 95%. In what way are notes and coins guaranteed?

1 trillion in physical currency, and M3 estimated 14 trillion. ~95%

The ratio of the total amount of money to notes and coins.
http://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/money-supply

Notes and coins are "legal tender" and must be accepted as payment for a debt, they also don't evaporate in a puff of debt, only in the puff of a government.

You'd have to create an awful lot of new M0. Someone would still have the impossibly difficult decision 'how much?'. And I don't see how this would end boom and bust.

Really. What's the world worth? Everything... Imagine holding it in your left hand. In your right, you have all the money in the world... 1 cent.

Basically this is what Europe did when they switched to the Euro... Not so difficult. Course the Euro is just as fiat as the dollar. The actual amount doesn't really matter, as long as the smallest unit usefully represents the smallest thing one can buy.

First, I don't think any sane person thinks the government is the "main blame" for the subprime crisis. I feel the "main blame" goes to those who made loans and purchased MBSs/CMOs without an accurate risk model (specifically, what happens if home prices start to go down?). However, the government did make things worse.

80% of the loans which were fully or largely outside CRA jurisdiction

But many were. Specifically, after 1995 changes in the CRA banks were pressured to take low-income CRA loans. Don't take my word for it, read what the Comptroller of the Currency said:

Letter states that financial institutions may receive favorable CRA credit for investing in a middle income housing down-payment assistance program if the investment is a "qualified investment" under the CRA regulation...Interagency CRA letter stating that an investment in an MBS bond that is specifically tailored to an institution's CRA requirements appears to be a "qualified investment" under the CRA regulations...purchases of obligations of certain special purpose vehicles backed by affordable housing mortgages...

Again, part of the problem, not all of the problem. Government also enhanced the housing bubble in general through mortgage interest deduction as well as zoning regulations.

Throw in unregulated ratings agencies

You may want to Wikipedia Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization, recognized by the SEC to determine whether securities are "investment quality" or not for regulatory bank and broker-dealer net capital requirements. Years ago people in the investment area started suspecting the NRSROs were screwed up (thus all the Credit Derivative Swap insurance policies), but the SEC didn't do much to reform.

You can blame Bush all you want, but lets also remember Democrats were pushing the GSEs to take on additional alt-A and subprime loans in the name of "affordable housing". They are still talking about bailing out individuals who took out unsustainable loans. I don't think we should bail out Wall Street firms or individuals, lest we reward all of their bad risk taking.

Like all great disasters, there were lots of people and problems contributing to the problem.

What we do know is that the 70,000 pages of new banking regulations published every year did not stop it.

This was linked below from the treasury department. It states while it can be accepted as legal tender it does not have to be accepted by any private organization.

What's the FBI going to do, laugh? The feds use the exact same tactic, under the guise of "Civil Forfeiture".

People don't care, because the government tells them that it is only used against drug dealers and terrorists, not that such allegations generally get proven beyond the assertion that "the guy must be one or else we wouldn't have taken his car/money/chemistry set".

The "official" US budget numbers are misleading, as they are based on "cash" accounting and do not include a couple of key things, like:
  - Special Appropriations (ie. the War)
  - Liabilities from Unsecured IOUs (ie. the surpluses from Social Security which are "invested" in a special series of non-marketable treasury bonds)
  - The NPV of future expenditures, such as Medicare Part D and Social Security

If you re-ran the 2007 budget using the "accrual" method of accounting that corporations must use, the "official" deficit of $163 billion balloons to over $2.4 trillion dollars -- FOR 2007 ALONE!

Don't take my word for it -- read the reports from the US Treasury or read the testimony and presentations given by the former Comptroller of the Currency.

You can get it all from the IRS and the Congressional Budget Office, and also from the Department of the Treasury. In fact, if you look at the 1040 instructions, there is even a pie chart that tells you where federal expenditures are spent (at least there was 10 years ago when I actually needed the instructions).

Here are some links to get you started.

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/factsheetwhopaysmostindividualincometaxes.update.pdf
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

With the Dollar getting so low (I won't go into the politics of it) even Walmart is getting expensive.

I think what is happening is goods from China are price correcting. If you think Wal-mart is getting expensive, maybe you should try shopping there on the pay scale of the people who make the clothes you are buying. For many years now the Yuan has been kept artificially low, giving China a strong advantage in international trading. They kept their currency values (read labor cost) low by buying up US debt, which kept the dollar high, Japan may have done the same thing. In effect, Asia has been subsidizing US consumerism for decades. So the western world moved a huge amount of their manufacturing to China. In 2005 China stopped their policy of keeping the Yuan fixed at 8.28 yuan to the dollar, now it's up to 7 yuan to the dollar so everything made in China costs 18% more. China still maintains some trade advantage as they now have a much better manufacturing infrastructure and labor pool, but the now rising yuan is going to slingshot the standard of living in China up to that of the western world in short order. That means that "Made in China" is soon going to cost just as much as "Made in the USA". Which really just means that the people making it are getting paid a fair living wage, and the item actually costs what it is worth.

Of course, thats not to say that we shouldn't try to reduce the deficit. We should, but thats a different issue...

Sources: http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

That's illegal under U.S. trade and anti-trust law.

Care to link to the appropriate U.S. federal regulation that says so? Because the U.S. Treasury says that businesses can determine whatever payment methods they wish.

XYZ Mall could certainly require the payment terms you specified as part of the lease agreement. And, JCPenney would be free to simply find a different location for their store.

Surely eBay isn't the only place to sell stuff online?

I've actually never been sure that it IS legal for a business not to accept larger bills. It certainly seems that, if I fill up my gas tank and try to pay with a $100 bill they can either accept the payment or forfeit the gas, not have me arrested for failure to pay.

Yeah, if you have already filled up your tank you now owe what you put in your tank. At that point, they HAVE to accept whatever denomination bill you present (in dollars of course). Now if you went in and asked them to turn on the pump and you presented a $100 bill, they could refuse. See this link on the treasury sight that clarifies this. It also implies acceptance of alternative currencies in that if you don't have to accept cash what else is there to accept?

correct me if i'm wrong but in most countries it's ILLEGAL not to accept legal tender as payment.

I cannot speak to the "most" portion of your statement; but, in the U.S., you are not required to accept cash for a sale. Consult the U.S. Treasury Department for more information.

When it says "Legal Tender For All Debts Public And Private" right on the money, it means literally "debts". If I owe you money, you have to take cash. However a Sale != a Debt.

Apple can refuse to accept cash. What you have stated is only true for debts. Purchasing an iphone is clearly does not fall into this category.

Coinage Act of 1965, Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml

I have just read the current sanctions section of that link and notably absent is ANY restriction on the selling of arms to the goverment...If anyone wants to prove this to be incorrect then please be my guest. Post a quote from the document proving me wrong
 
Because the link above is to a summary of the newest batch of sanctions. What you need is the Treasury Dept's complete list:
 
  537.517 Noncommercial, personal remittances.
(a)(1) U.S. depository institutions,U.S. registered brokers or dealers insecurities, and U.S. gistered money transmitters are authorized to process transfers of funds to or from Burma or for or on behalf of an individual ordinarily resident in Burma in cases in which the transfer involves a noncommercial, personal remittance, provided the following conditions are met:
(i) The transfer is not by, to, or through a person whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to 537.201(a), except as explained in 537.404 of this part; and (ii) Total remittances to the territory of Burma in any consecutive 3-month period do not exceed $300 per Burmese household, regardless of the number of individuals comprising the household.
 
So you might get US Customs to let you export weapons to Burma but the Treasury won't let you get paid for them unless you find a local who is willing pretend it's a personal family transfer and to send it to you in chuncks of $300 per calendar quarter.

OFAC (US Office of Foreign Asset Control) has a guide on the US laws relating to trade with Burma. (link):

There is no prohibition on the exportation of goods and services other than financial services to Burma.

Note: there are restrictions on imports from Burma. Perhaps the law should be changed (to prohibit certain or all exports).

It is the Office of Thrift Supervision that has closed NetBank, not FDIC: http://www.ots.treas.gov/docs/7/777071.html

"The Secret Service has exclusive jurisdiction for investigations involving the counterfeiting of United States obligations and securities. This authority to investigate counterfeiting is derived from Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3056. Some of the counterfeited United States obligations and securities commonly dealt with by the Secret Service include U.S. currency and coins; U.S. Treasury checks; Department of Agriculture food coupons and U.S. postage stamps."

Within the US and it's territories, it is illegal not to take US dollars and coins as payment. As it says on the standard US currency "Legal tender for all debts public and private".

This myth came up on an older Best Buy story as well. It is not illegal to refuse to take payment in cash; that's not what 'legal tender' means.

What it does mean is that you can't claim that a person who offered to pay in cash has refused to pay you. Likewise, it doesn't cancel the debt if you offer to pay in cash and it's refused.

"There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services."

http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal- tender.shtml#q1

false, you are still a US citizen, and the embargo still applies. PDF, see heading #2

The answer is no. The Regulations prohibit persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from purchasing, transporting, importing, or otherwise dealing in or engaging in any transactions with respect to any merchandise outside the United States if such merchandise (1) is of Cuban origin; or (2) is or has been located in or transported from or through Cuba; or (3) is made or derived in whole or in part of any article which is the growth, produce or manufacture of Cuba.

The magic words are "probable cause". Much can be accomplished in the name of probable cause, including civil asset freezing / forfeiture. You might need a warrant, but if all you need is probable cause, it's probably not that hard.

I believe the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 raised the burden of proof to "preponderance of the evidence", which is a positive. But I believe they can still freeze for 60 days, pending a court telling them that they can't. They're just required to tell you about it. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have time to read the whole thing right now.

However, the law seems to still be all over the place, as the drug laws and organized crime laws frequently have their own provisions for asset freezing/forfeiture. Beyond that, when you throw in terms like "agent of a foreign nation", it seems like the whole book is thrown out the window (see Reagan/Libya, lots/Iran). Throw in "presidential powers during wartime" and you start reading a whole new book.

Oh, and the Treasury dept. freezes and seizes assets all the time. It's just usually foreign assets, or through the IRS (which I don't believe are warrants, just procedural). Think of all the charities you've possibly heard of the last few years who's assets were frozen due to "suspected terrorist ties". Of course, those were based on an Executive Order as well. I have yet to read a decision by a court that the funds must be unfrozen (not that it doesn't exist, I just haven't seen it).

Note that the CNN article ends with "The grounds for blocking Global Relief's funds would be disclosed in court, the spokesperson said." That suggests to me that they didn't need to explain it before (i.e. get a warrant).

Oh, and the Coast Guard really was a part of the Treasury (most of the time) until 1967. It's on their web page. I didn't know that either.

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

First off, the IEEPA. read it, because that's the limit, safety-valve, maximum, etc. ( the unabridged version is here (PDF format). It says, in a nutshell, that:

1. there is an annual renewal period after the first 12 months, by Congress. This wee presidential order is by nature restricted to that as well.
2. It can be terminated by Congressional legislation at any time
3. There is a list of people which you're not allowed to do biz with (the Wikipedia link shows the current list). If you do biz with those folks under stated conditions, you get your funds seized... not because "they don't like your politics" or other such happy hyperventilated horse excrement. They have to prove you're doing business with someone on that list.

So can we shut down the klaxons now? Or at least show me where (specifically) I may have produced an error (with proof, please).

/P

Here's some more information on these sanctions and other sanctions programs generally. These types of sanctions programs are not new.

http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/

Old (and inaccurate) news: http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/