Slashdot Mirror
New IMF Head Says US Must Raise Debt Limit, or Face 'Nasty Consequences'
fysdt writes with this from an article on ABC News: "The International Monetary Fund's new chief foresees 'real nasty consequences' for the U.S. and global economies if the U.S. fails to raise its borrowing limit. Christine Lagarde, the first woman to head the lending institution, said in an interview broadcast Sunday that it would cause interest rates to rise and stock markets to fall. That would threaten an important IMF goal, which is preserving stability in the world economy, she said. The U.S. borrowing limit is $14.3 trillion. Obama administration officials say the U.S. would begin to default without an agreement by Aug. 2."
When are we going to get rid of this garbage money system and get rid of the entire idea of taxation? Just let the government create money when they want to do something. All money is is allocation of resources.
Sig: I stole this sig.
Central Banks owned by one family (Rothshild) have the private right to create money out of nothing, through fractional reserve banking.
Thus creating:
DEBT
INFLATION
SLAVERY
Collecting debt on money created out of nothing = ponzi scheme.
Giving people lower interest on saving accounts than real inflation (look at shadowstats) = slavery.
Giving people raises based on fake inflation (index = +- 3%) compared to real inflation (10%) = theft.
You could literally confiscate every dime the wealthy earned last year, and still be nowhere near closing our yearly deficits.
The simple fact is the US already taxes high-earners very progressively. More so than many other developed countries. The law of diminishing returns is going to prevent us from solving this problem primarily by soaking the rich - there just aren't enough high-earners to tax. We will no doubt squeeze the last bit we can out of them, but it will not be enough. Attempting to fix the deficit via tax increases will thus primarily hit the middle class, because in aggregate that's where the money is.
Fixating on the wealthy is simply a red herring deployed by politicians to mask the real choice at hand, which are tough choices and votes on whose sacred cow spending gets cut.
How much do we cut defense? Does it make sense to be waging 3 wars of dubious strategic value when we're broke?
How much do we cut entitlements? In an era of aging populations and financial trouble, does it make sense to expect young workers, struggling to build careers and families, to pay an ever-increasing tax burden so that perfectly able older, wealthier people can enjoy taxpayer-financed retirement and health care for 20 or 30 years?
How much do we cut the countless other government programs, which grew dramatically under Bush, but which each have a dedicated special interest to defend them?
Nobody likes those questions, because they mean everybody does not get everything they want. But it's the unfortunate financial reality.
Better yet, instead of googling and finding an echo chamber of left websites explaining what 'the consipiracy' is doing, just get involved. go undercover and participate in a few Tea Party events.
Of course, you'll discover they are regular mainstream boring people, with a few loonies thrown in who everybody else ignores.
Or, just stick to reading the left's websites. It wouldn't be as fun if the 'teabaggers' just seemed like the ordinary boring people they are.
I look forward to shooting dumb fucks like you when they come for my land and property in the name of fairness.
Try fighting your way up from a net worth of $0.00 and living in a homeless shelter up to the middle class.
Been there, done that.
With rheumatoid arthritis & emphysema.
And without government help.
And without college.
Now I own my own business. And run a neighborhood soup kitchen & charity secondhand clothing outlet for the homeless.
Quit your damned whining and get to work, son.