Slashdot Mirror

If you want to reduce the federal debt, you can always make a contribution! Come on, if we all chip in it will be gone in no time. If we each make a $30,000 contribution then will at least have payed off our share of the debt. No big deal, right?

I have to disagree. Osama made it clear that he intends to bankrupt America.

The vast majority of federal debt instruments are held by the American government itself, states, private investors, pension funds, corporations, and the like. So we owe most of the national debt to ourselves.

Only about $2T is owed to foreign investors, and I would think that Americans hold a comparable amount of foreign government securities.

U.S. Treasuries are still the worldwide standard for what is considered a risk-free investment. All other bonds are benchmarked against Treasuries, worldwide. Financiers don't do this out of habit or because they trust the U.S. Congress; they've actually run the numbers and concluded that the risk of the U.S. government defaulting on its financial obligations is still lower than that of any other government, corporation, municipality, etc. worldwide.

The Federal Reserve system prints NO MONEY that is the job of US Bureau of Engraving and Printing

ALL banks deal with the Fed as it is part of the job of the Fed to supervise, regulate, and rate ALL banks. There is no "members only" choice in the matter. Sheesh!

People have faith in the system because... well... it has been working "pretty good" so far since they transfer about 93 TRILLION dollars a day.

And if you want to know more, it's called a Suspicious Activity Report. Also see the US Code it falls under.... Don't forget the user manual!!

And if you want to know more, it's called a Suspicious Activity Report. Also see the US Code it falls under.... Don't forget the user manual!!

• Investigating credit and debit card fraud, computer fraud, and electronic fund transfer fraud

There currently are a few countries which must obtain an annual presidential waiver or extension of a waiver to continue their NTR status. China is the most important country in this group which must obtain an annual waiver to maintain NTR. The waiver for China has been in effect since 1980. Every year, since 1989, legislation has been introduced in Congress to disapprove the President's waiver. The legislation has sought to tie China's NTR renewal to meeting certain human rights conditions that go beyond freedom of emigration. Through 1998, attempts to deny China NTR have failed. NTR is likely to be approved for China in 1999 as well.

Under NTR both parties agree not to extend to any third party nation any trade preferences that are more favorable than those available under the agreement concluded between them unless they simultaneously make the same provisions available to each other. Although NTR is a reciprocal agreement, it must be negotiated separately with each country. Furthermore, each individual agreement must include additional and specific provisions that take into account national security, dispute settlement procedures, trade promotion, and various other considerations.

You can always look at the bottom line: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

While Clinton didn't balance the budget, I think it is fair to say that deficit growth was largely constrained at the end of the 90s. That these numbers piggybacked off of capital growth is something that should be taken into consideration.

Regardless of how serious we were about limiting the deficit THEN, we are certainly fairly cavalier about growing it NOW. (for we = America).

The Treasury Department computes its finances to 15 decimal places.

P.S. Incidentally they've just reached the current legal debt ceiling of $8.184 trillion and wont be able to issue new bonds until Congress raises it.

Question: 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?

Answer: 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.

The Democrats balanced the budget, you fucktard. Clinton singlehandedly pushed though a balanced budget when he was in office.

This is a myth. The budget was balanced only if you ignore "off budget" spending. Minor things like social security obligations. Really, the government's accounting practices put Enron to shame.

National debt figures for 1987-2005. Do you see any decreases? I don't.

I agree with the dumping of their US bills and the affect on the exchange rate of the US dollar, but on calling in the bonds, ah, no. You can't do that. A bond is in a way a contract: it's like a mortgage. A bank can't just say to themsleves, well, we need the money, let's call his mortgage in. If you're in default, then they can do that. It's the same with Bonds. Maybe you meant that by if there was a Chinese economic war, then the US would default on their bonds. The US economy is HUGE. Let's put this way, if the entire world pulled all of their money to buy the US out, they'd come up quite short.

OTOH, some bonds can be called in by the Treasury. See here.

If only it were true. He seems to be able to lie us into a war, shred the constitution, hand out important government jobs like stocking stuffers to incompetent nitwits, give aid and comfort to our enemies in time of war, suppress political descent, and run up enormous debt in our name to enrich his backers, and there doesn't seem to be anything the hand wringing "opposition" party can do to stop him.

If only he sucked , he's be out of there so fast his head would spin.

--MarkusQ

I think you mean debt, not deficit. Budget surplus is the opposite of budget deficit.

Or maybe DHS is such a new agency they're still learning the ropes. I mean, you can't be a well-oiled machine like the FBI or ATF in just a matter of a few years. Come on now.

If the inflation got too out of hand, the money markets would devalue the US$ so you'd need more of them to repay the debt.

Eh... well, for some of the debt. Virtually all of the debt (from the U.S. federal government to things other than the U.S. federal government) is held in bonds, most with fixed interest, and some with variable interest rates. They only pay off in U.S. dollars, though.

Funnily enough, almost half of the debt is still held... to other portion of the federal government. (Mostly Social Security.) Here's the relevant web page.

AGI | average charitable donation (in dollars, and as percentage of AGI)
 
less than 10k_____1201_____12.0
10k to 20k________1723_____8.6
20k to 30k________1890_____6.3
30k to 40k________1946_____4.9
40k to 50k________2057_____4.1
50k to 75k________2332_____3.1
75k to 100k_______2844_____2.8
100k to 200k______3875_____1.9
200k to 500k______8634_____1.7
500k to 1M_______21718_____2.2

Federal govt receipts:
1998 : 1.747 B
1999 : 1.857 B
2000 : 2.043 B (Last year of Clinton's presidency)
2001 : 1.994 B
2002 : 1.814 B
2003 : 1.795 B
2004 : 1.926 B

IANAE, but it looks to me that if the tax cuts had not been implemented, there wouldn't have been such a dramatic fall in revenues.... Laffer curve? I'm laughing so hard, I'm begining to cry....

Probably illegal I'd guess in the United States, to deface money?

According to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, it's only illegal if it's done "with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued." Since this type of modification is made with the intent to keep the bill in circulation, it's perfectly legal.

Which is why they haven't shut down sites like Where's George.

For those who want to look it up and learn for themselves a good start is http://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b35.pdf

The amount of the total debt per person is on on the order of $30000. Using the parent poster's figures for "rest of the world debt", it comes out to closer to $7000 a head (not $700). The "persons" included in that figure include children and retirees. If you assume one breadwinner and 3 dependents per household, the numbers become $120000/$28000 per household respectively. Factor in an aging work force and the numbers shift to more dependents and less breadwinners. Social security and other forms of "intragovernmental debt" also become more significant with a smaller tax base. For those looking for a simple explanation between the debt types, a good article is http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7421288/.

Use Tax

In addition to the sales tax, many states also have a use tax. A use tax is very similar to a sales tax and is imposed for the storage, use, or purchase of personal property which is not covered by the sales tax. Usually, it is applied to lease or rental transactions, or to major items purchased outside of the state, such as automobiles.

You say that taxation never drops, and yet, the feds. have implemented numerous tax cuts (that is taxation dropped) over the last 5 years.

"In God we Trust" according to http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currenc y/in-god-we-trust.shtml
"The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864"

"Under God" according to
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/
"In 1954, Congress added the words "under God," after pressure by the Knights of Columbus and other groups. Another modification was to change "my flag" to "the flag of the United States of America.""

Not what I would consider "recent" since the majority of the people on this forum weren't even alive then.

Sorry. You are right. Mea Culpa. I missed that entirely.

That was pretty stupid.

Untrue.

If they let you stay there and then you go to pay with cash, they can't refuse it for payment of your bill.

But as a private company, they have every right to refuse to do business with you for practically any reason (race and gender discrimination excepted). And they can certainly require a credit card beforehand.

IOW, if you actually have a debt with them, you can use legal tender to pay it. But they have no obligation to let you run up a debt in the first place.

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

Maybe this is just a symptom of the apathy of the American people and I'm just making mountains out of molehills. Maybe not. I don't really know.

Maybe this is just a symptom of the apathy of the American people and I'm just making mountains out of molehills. Maybe not. I don't really know.

BS.. "In addition, U.S. multinational corporations are now responsible for more than one-quarter of U.S. output and about 15 percent of U.S. employment." source I remember it mentioned in econ courses that around 70% of US employment is in small business, not multinational conglomerates.

"Are the governments in question operating with the consent of the governed, or aren't they? They are signing treaties with the US, and the people are tolerating this, if not adamantly supporting it."

They are impovershed and possibly going hungry. They are being pushed into this under duress and you know it.

"Okay, you want to shoot people as a step to resolving social order. Who would you shoot, and how exactly would that help achieve your goal?"

I hope youre only thinking in the hypothetical. While it may be fun to think hypethetically of horrible ways in which those you disagree with may die, death is pretty gruesome, and I choose not to think of them on slashdot. The patriot act was recently extended, and I like being outside of prison thank you very much.

"If you're suggesting what I think you are, that is, advocating violent rebellion against the state as a corrective action against tyranny, then would you care to explain exactly what issues you believe are so fundamentally divisive as to be intolerable to so many people that they would consider forfeiting their lives in order to try to bring an end to the tyranny? This is a necessary condition before your notion become appropriate or workable."

Ok.. let's start with the fact that while IP lobbyists point at p2p and scream "commies!", the central ownership of nearly all information by a consolidated cartel, and the denial of people's right to personally own information they've bought (i.e. the abolishment of fair use laws, and legal protections of DRM which allow corporations to personally govern people's private property "for" them) actually represents something much closer to the oppressive form of communism practiced in soviet russia.

Then there is the fact that neither democrats nor republicans represent our views, yet they've rigged the system so it's virtually impossible for third parties to get on the ballot. (more connected with that in a sec)

Then there is the fact that the court system has been, for the last 7-10 years, slowly refusing to uphold the constitution, culminating in eldred v. ashcroft (limited copyright clause) and the famous souter emminent domain ruling (government seizure of private property). There are plenty which support ludicrous contractual limitations to what should be personal private property, such as the ability to sue someone for modding an xbox.

Then there is the fact that the so called "mainstream press" is owned by a number of people small enough to fit in a minivan, and who are all very chummy with the incumbent politicians and the corporations to which they schill... a monopoly on information.. which curiously fails to give third party or alternative candidates proper coverage, opting instead to treat them as "illegitimate vote wastes" and pour all over the incumbent parties.

There is the establishment of "free speech zones" which are in the middle of nowhere which were held up as constitutional despite the inalienable freedom to assemble provided by the constitution, and the fact that even in those "zones", in which protestors are guaranteed as little access to the public or press as possible, they are still harrassed, unfairly arrested, and tossed into cells.

Then there is the fact that the FCC, FTC, and antitrust groups refuse to act unless beaten over the head with a baseball bat, then slap such abusive monopolies as microsoft(huge list) and the RIAA(price fixing) with pocket change fines and penalties which in the long run actually INCREASE their unfair market adv

Proof these missions will never happen

Recently, while looking thru the US Savings Bonds web site, I came across this link. A WinXX only Savings Bond Wizard.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/sav/sbwizins.htm

Speaketh the page further: "The Wizard is a Windows® application. If you don't have Windows, or if you prefer not to download & install a program, try our online Savings Bond Calculator."

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/sav/savcalc.htm

Looks like the US Govt appreciates -some level- of tech independance, but eliminates functionality for non WinXX users.

Choice of platform should not dictate level of support. Are Non-WinXX users second class citizens?

Standards have value when we leverage them. They add confusion when they are not used despite the value that would otherwise be realized.

Are there any members of the US Senate or House of Representatives that can imagine how much $$$ we'd save if we promoted and leveraged communication standards?

Lets avoid making our documentation legacy in the National Archives (IIRC - at Foggy Bottom Train stop in Wash DC) into a tower (or cave) of Babel!

Or... is that the interpretation of "Foggy Bottom" - the location of the US National archives?

Have a great day! John the JWPenguin

Recently, while looking thru the US Savings Bonds web site, I came across this link. A WinXX only Savings Bond Wizard.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/sav/sbwizins.htm

Speaketh the page further: "The Wizard is a Windows® application. If you don't have Windows, or if you prefer not to download & install a program, try our online Savings Bond Calculator."

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/sav/savcalc.htm

Looks like the US Govt appreciates -some level- of tech independance, but eliminates functionality for non WinXX users.

Choice of platform should not dictate level of support. Are Non-WinXX users second class citizens?

Standards have value when we leverage them. They add confusion when they are not used despite the value that would otherwise be realized.

Are there any members of the US Senate or House of Representatives that can imagine how much $$$ we'd save if we promoted and leveraged communication standards?

Lets avoid making our documentation legacy in the National Archives (IIRC - at Foggy Bottom Train stop in Wash DC) into a tower (or cave) of Babel!

Or... is that the interpretation of "Foggy Bottom" - the location of the US National archives?

Have a great day! John the JWPenguin

Pretty sure counterfeiting is still under the domain of the Treasury Dept. http://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acd/

Umm, actually I was wrong and per August 2004 you can legally import zilch, permit or not. This is straight from the the source (sorry, PDF). I quote:

There is now an across the board ban on the importation into the United States of Cuban-origin cigars and other Cuban-origin tobacco products, as well as most other products of Cuban origin. This prohibition extends to such products acquired in Cuba, irrespective of whether a traveler is licensed by OFAC to engage in Cuba travelrelated transactions, and to such products acquired in third countries by any U.S. traveler, including purchases at duty free shops. Importation of these Cuban goods is prohibited whether the goods are purchased directly by the importer or given to the importer as a gift. Similarly, the import ban extends to Cuban-origin tobacco products offered for sale over the Internet or through the catalog mail purchases. Prior to August 1, 2004, persons returning to the United States who were licensed under the Regulations to engage in Cuba travel-related transactions were authorized by general license to import up to $100 worth of Cuban merchandise as accompanied baggage. Cuban tobacco and alcohol products were included in that general license. That general license was removed from the Regulations.

But yeah, you can most certainly get them from a reliable oversea source, just not legally.

! 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. [Emphasis mine]

Source

Like you said though, Windows products may be getting to Cuba through a foreign reseller (Microsoft sells to a Mexican based wholesaler, which then sells to Cuba). But, they cannot legally flow through a subsidiary directly to Cuba.

Hey try here:
http://www.atf.treas.gov/

In another culture, these guys would be called BrownShirts or Gestapo. The tax department has its own armed force. Ministry of Justice eh?

end up with violent revolutions.

The 'poor' here are extremely unlikely to revolt until the tide rises for the third world. The US is the best place in the world to live in terms of opportunity and resources. They poor won't revolt until they have no hope. Some Americans have little or no hope for their future, but not many.

the top 5% control 95% of the wealth but pay less then 50% of the taxes

I guess it depends where you get your facts. The treasury dept says

"In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income."
Sounds pretty nuts to me. Why should the rich bother?
Speaking of the top 50% of wage earners in the country, the report continues:
"In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total."

96% of taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners!

Why should you penalize those who work hard by taking what they have earned?

Apparently earning less than $130K is enough to qualify someone as being in the top 5% of wage earners. Is $130K/year 'rich?'

FWIW - I'd bet that most people who earn that much are in debt more than those who earn less - even after adjusted as a percentage of AGI.

I grew up 'poor' by US standards. I got my first job at age 9 (paper route) and worked continuously until today. I worked my way through college, and have carefully chosen to budget my resources so that I have very little debt. I choose to drive used cars, live in a conservative home, and I save money.

I don't earn that much, but proably will in my lifetime. Will I deserve to have my assets taken once I hit that level?

I suppose if you want to live in a world of 'us' and 'them' then thinking in terms of income redistribution is a great idea, until you become 'them.'

I'm reminded of a friend who worked as a union laborer for a grocery chain to pay his way through college. He definitely had an 'us' and 'them' mentality. I tried to explain that by becoming college educated, and seeking a professional job, he BECAME one of THEM. I don't think he understood that at the time.

I'm also reminded of the man I met who was a time/motion study expert representing a union of upholsterers. He genuinely believed that the manufacturer set the price of the goods independently of the manufacturing costs, and regardless of the rest of the market! Wow.

Income redistribution is a scam to make people who have little feel worse about themselves by thinking that the only way to achieve is to 'stick it to the man' and take from him.

I live in a world where opportunity stretches before me - where achievement is related to the disciplined application of my gifts and talents.

I started out as one of 'us' and through hard work, discipline, and good choices have become one of 'them.' You can too.

If you want to live in a world where the boots of 'the man' are on your neck, go ahead. Seems a shame to me, but it's your life...

Respectfully,
Anomaly

the word sponsor just leaves a bad taste.... (Score:5, Insightful)
by VMaN (164134) on Thursday April 28, @09:22AM (#12370591) ....in my mouth..

I just can't understand how "buying" laws is considered perfectly natural and good legislation... (I know that's not exactly the context the word was used in, but still)

Five years ago, we had plenty of money, and we were paying down the national debt, to the consternation of the debt holders.

Gotta call bullshit on this one again. The national debt has not gone down any year since 1960. Just ask the people who manage the debt. Mr. Clinton set new record debt levels every year just like all the presidents before him back to Kennedy. Until the government stops spending more than it takes in (minus the interest due on the debt), it will continue to rise.

The tax rate for the options is probably going to roll in at 15% - certainly a lower tax rate than had it been 'earned income' (salary), but much more than zero.

If they cash them all at once, and don't have any capital losses. But if they cash in just enough each year to cover their capital losses, their personal exemption, the standard deduction (or more likely their itemized deductions), and any real estate losses they're taking (up to $25,000 a year). In 2008 they can cash in an additional $10000 or so tax free when the lower capital gains rate goes to zero.

At some point Page and Brin will diversify, but we don't know what their personal situations are like.

Presumably they have at least some wealth already outside of their stock, and even if not they can borrow, using their stock as collateral, to diversify. And as they have capital losses on those other stocks, which they certainly will, they can move out of one and into the other. They can reduce their capital gains up to 50% by donating appreciated stock to charity. The list goes on and on.

If you've thought of the loophole, the feds have figured out how to get a piece of the pie. It's not _that_ easy!

Some loopholes are there intentionally. The biggest one is rental property. Other ones, like incentive stock options (which is what this is all about), is known by the feds, but they haven't figured out how to resolve it yet. See this IRS press release. "Under Notice 2002-47, the IRS will not assess FICA or FUTA taxes, or impose federal income tax withholding, on the exercise of any statutory stock option or the disposition of any stock acquired by exercising a statutory stock option. This moratorium will remain in place until the IRS completes its review of comments on recent proposed regulations and issues future guidance, which would apply only on a prospective basis."

The article poster stated that you don't pay FICA tax (another word for social security tax), medicare tax or income tax on stock appreciations. That is completely true

You don't pay FICA tax on stock appreciations (though, you do pay it on nonqualified stock options and you're supposed to pay it on incentive stock options according to the law, but the IRS has temporarily suspended enforcement of that rule). Medicare tax is part of FICA tax, so that's redundant. And capital gains tax is part of income tax, so, well, that part's just untrue.

Pressing charges against the false arrest would be a valid course of action. Pressing charges against not accepting "legal tender" would not fly. A private business has the right to make a policy refusing any denomination according to the US Treasury. He might be able to claim that this was a repayment of a debt, but then it would probably come down to the courts deciding if Best Buy is acting as a credito in this instance. I am not familiar with any tort law that defines this.

All coins and currency are legal tender for all debts, there are no official limitations on what amounts you can pay with what denominations. However, if a place of business has a policy to refuse some of the coins and currency, that is fine. In this case, there was no policy for refusing pennies prior to the customer trying to pay the debt with them, so I would say the guy had to accept the pennies in payment of the debt.

Ofcourse, you want links. The US treasury. Title 31, section 5103.

The cashier noticed smearing of the ink - which apparently was actually there. The $2 bills may have been the first thing that got her notice but the smeared ink on them is what she claims made her suspicious enough to call her manager.

Interestingly enough, real US currency often looks "smudgy." It's the counterfit that is extra crisp. I realize this is counter-intuitive.

My sister was a secret service for a decade or so. (The secret service's primary role is to protect the treasury. Click here for government propoganda.) Field agents often have a kit with both real and counterfit currency so that they can train folks on how to distinguish between them. I've seen counterfit bills whose quality is "too good."

While it may sound reasonable at some level that the bills were suspicious because they were smeared, this is just further ignorance on the part of cashier. While the feds provide a number of things to check, smeared ink is not one of them.

The cashier noticed smearing of the ink - which apparently was actually there. The $2 bills may have been the first thing that got her notice but the smeared ink on them is what she claims made her suspicious enough to call her manager.

Interestingly enough, real US currency often looks "smudgy." It's the counterfit that is extra crisp. I realize this is counter-intuitive.

My sister was a secret service for a decade or so. (The secret service's primary role is to protect the treasury. Click here for government propoganda.) Field agents often have a kit with both real and counterfit currency so that they can train folks on how to distinguish between them. I've seen counterfit bills whose quality is "too good."

While it may sound reasonable at some level that the bills were suspicious because they were smeared, this is just further ignorance on the part of cashier. While the feds provide a number of things to check, smeared ink is not one of them.

The security thread was introduced in 1990. I have two 1995 series $2 bills in my hands, and they do not have security threads; no doubt the $2 bill was excluded from the change for the same reason the $1 bill was, and in addition because there are so few in circulation, relatively speaking, that there was no sense of a need to add the security thread. The $2 bill has not been discontinued.

The security thread was introduced in 1990. I have two 1995 series $2 bills in my hands, and they do not have security threads; no doubt the $2 bill was excluded from the change for the same reason the $1 bill was, and in addition because there are so few in circulation, relatively speaking, that there was no sense of a need to add the security thread. The $2 bill has not been discontinued.

It exists. It's still in circulation. They still print them, occasionally.

So what you say? Guess which dead president lived in Monticello. Guess which dead president is on the $2 bill

It was debt at that point and not an up front transaction, so Best Buy had to accept anything, even pennies apparently. See the definition for legal tender.