RT is at it again

Nat debt 08

The item above is an actual article from Russia Today, which is always gloating about the U.S. government’s fake “debt crisis.”

Nat debt 00

I say gloating because Russia Today (RT) is funded by the Russian government, which is now in a cold War with the USA and the West. The U.S. government’s fake “debt crisis” is a favorite topic of RT.

Russia’s “national debt” is supposedly 11.3 trillion rubles (USD $ 143.6 billion). That’s a “crisis” too, ain’t it?

This equals an additional $70,000 in net federal borrowing for each of the 117,480,000 American households, according to Census Bureau estimates.

About $13.7 trillion makes up public debt, and the rest comes from government borrowing.

Huh? What is the difference between “public debt” and “government borrowing”? This is meaningless.

The US currently functions without a debt ceiling. Legislation in November suspended it through March 2017 so borrowing can continue without a limit until that time.

We’re doomed!

First of all, the “debt ceiling” is an arbitrary limit to the number of T-securities the U.S. government can sell.  The limit is dreamed up by Republicans in Congress, and agreed to by Democrats. It is meaningless, since the U.S. government does not borrow any of its spending money.  The government creates its spending money out of thin air by electronically instructing banks to credit  accounts. The “debt” ceiling is a total charade.

charade

Thus, whenever there is a “debt ceiling crisis,” the U.S. Treasury claims that in order to keep paying the U.S. government’s bills, the Treasury must resort to “extraordinary means.” The corporate media outlets never define “extraordinary means,” since the subject is complex and very technical — i.e. it is bullshit. Translated, it signifies that the U.S. government will be forced to continue  creating money out of thin air like it always does.  And the Fed will be forced to continue creating money out of thin air to pay the interest on T-securities like it always does.

Second, the only sense in which the U.S. government (in this case the Fed) “borrows” is by accepting deposits into Fed savings accounts. When you buy a T-security, your purchase money is deposited in a Fed savings account in your name. You lend your money to the Fed. When your T-security matures, you can collect your money, plus interest. Or you can “roll it over”; i.e. set your Fed savings account so that it automatically purchases another T-security each time the old one expires, so that interest accrues continually.

According to former Comptroller General of the United States [the director of the Government Accountability Office] David Walker, analysts understate the real extent of the US government’s financial commitments, which in reality exceed $65 trillion.

Oh no! Where will we ever get $ 65 TRILLION?

Actually the U.S. government creates about $3.6 trillion a year out of thin air. So, over the next century, starting today, the U.S. government’s “financial commitments” (at the current rate) will total $360 trillion!

panic 01panic 02munch

Walker served as the U.S. government’s top accountant bullshitter in 1998-2008. “You have to consider the debt we owe to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, as well as the huge unfunded obligations for our social insurance programs. When you add all those numbers up, the number is over $65 trillion, rather than the lower numbers a lot of the economists want to talk about.”

Wow. Good thing we have this guy…

bunny

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

CHANGE OF TOPIC…

I saw the image below on the Internet. It is an example of how most people think about money.

Fed

I presume this means that the Fed (or the Treasury, or both) should create fewer dollars, and also tax more dollars out of the U.S. economy, so that there are fewer dollars in circulation. That is, we need even more austerity than we have now.

Is there lead in your city’s water supply? The U.S. government can create money to fix it, but this would cause dollars to become worthless, right? And worthless dollars can’t fix anything. Right?

illogic01illogic02

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to RT is at it again

  1. coolslim says:

    I agree with this article, except for the idea that the Russian government is in a new ‘Cold War’ with the US. The original cold war was fake and so is this one. I’ve never heard Putin talk about the scam of 9/11, if Putin genuinely wanted to cause problems for America, he would mention that.

    Like

    • Thanks for visiting and commenting.
      In what way was the Cold War fake? Also, Europe and the USA have imposed sanctions on Russia, which has responded with counter-sanctions. In what way are these sanctions fake?

      Regarding the 9-11 scam, if Putin called it a false flag or an inside job, then average Americans would hate him.

      Like

  2. coolslim says:

    I say the Cold War was fake because I believe that nuclear weapons are a fraud. I’ve watched videos of ‘nuclear tests’ on youtube and they look very fake to me. Photos of Hiroshima/Nagasaki show evidence of firebombing and there were flowers growing in Hiroshima one week later.

    The sanctions imposed on Russia could be designed to give the impression that the USA and Russia are opposed, I need to see more evidence before I decide on whether this is true or not. There have been wars in the past where both sides are funded by the same people.

    Average Americans have already been taught by the media to hate Putin, if Putin talked about 9/11 he could make Americans distrustful of their politicians.

    Like

    • Thanks for responding.

      You believe that nuclear weapons are a fraud? I’ve never heard that one. I myself was a Nuclear Weapons Specialist for the U.S. Air Force (my actual job title). The physics seemed pretty straightforward to me.

      A nuclear weapon is an incendiary device. The metal at its core (e.g. plutonium) burns like a thermite torch, but far hotter. (Thermite is a mixture of metals.) With so much heat occurring so rapidly, the air around the weapon expands, creating a concussion wave. This wave (also known as blast overpressure) is not as powerful as most people believe. In those old films of houses being blown up at the Nevada Test Site, those were little more than match-stick houses. There are no cars flying through the air, since the blast wave is not powerful enough to do that, unless the cars are very close to the blast. In real life (not Hollywood movies) a nuclear weapon cannot knock over a modern building made out of reinforced concrete, unless the building is within two miles of the blast. And even then, most buildings will remain standing. However a nuke blast can knock aircraft out of the sky. And a blast underwater is destructive, since water is an excellent blast medium.

      With atmospheric blasts, the actual threat is the heat and radiation. A nuclear weapon will destroy a city not with a concussion wave, but with ordinary fire. A nuke is the world’s largest incendiary device. One nuke can ignite a city-wide fire storm. The heat-flash is incredible.

      The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 226,000 people at most. (Some estimates are much lower.) By contrast, the U.S. firebombing raids on Japan (beginning on 10 March 1943) killed over 500,000 people, forced 3.5 million to be evacuated, and left 7.5 million homeless. Whole cities were razed to the ground, except for a few structures made of stone or concrete.

      Fire kills.

      Everyone thinks that the warheads in the U.S. nuclear arsenal are only aimed at Russian cities, dams, and so on. In the U.S. Air Force, I learned that some of the rocket-warheads are aimed at Russian forests, because a nuke can ignite the world’s largest forest fires, depriving Russia of an important resource (wood).

      People who witnessed nuke tests in the South Pacific reported that the noise and concussion were not nearly as powerful as they expected, but the heat was phenomenal, even twenty miles away.

      The 1998 movie “Armageddon” got it right. If you detonate a nuke near the surface of an asteroid, you might vaporize a small percentage of its surface, but there will be no concussion wave, since there is no medium such as air or water. Instead, you would have to detonate the nuke at the asteroid’s core, or at a critical fracture point. The expansion caused by the heat would do the job.

      From 1958 to 1962 the USA detonated almost fifty nukes at very high altitude, including outer space. The physicists didn’t realize what they were doing until Operation Starfish Prime (9 July 1962, yield 1.4 MT). That nuke and some of the others added a radiation belt to the earth in the form of beta particles (high-energy electrons) which damaged three satellites in orbit, and which remained in the upper atmosphere for five years. Also the EMP pulse damaged some electronic equipment on the earth’s surface. When scientists realized what they had been doing, they stopped all high-altitude testing.

      See the film below from 1958. And that was a very small device ( 8kt). Does it seem fake to you?

      Again

      A different underwater test

      Regarding Russia, it and the USA competitors in some ways.

      Like

      • coolslim says:

        All of these explosions could be produced by TNT. In the second video, shouldn’t there be a slight delay in hearing the blast after seeing the explosion at 0:30? The third video is strange in that the ships don’t seem to be moved by the explosion.

        The problem I have with nukes is that the story keeps changing. First they say that fallout will render an area off bounds for thousands of years, then they say fallout is only produced when the bomb is detonated on the ground. I will keep researching nukes though and thank you for your reply.

        Like

        • Speaking of fakes, I strongly suspect that Pakistan’s and North Korea’s nuke detonations are hoaxes, perpetrated for political reasons. (“See how awesome we are!”) Where is the proof? Where are the facilities to manufacture nukes? Pakistan has no uranium ore. Where did Pakistan supposedly get plutonium?

          Like

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