.:SonicBomb:.
    Login or Register
::  Home  ::  Videos  ::  Your Account  ::  Forums  ::  RSS Feed  ::
 
 
::Content::
  • Atomic
  • - Aviation
    - Aircraft
    - Military
    - Explosions
    - WW2
    - Various
    - Hi-Def
    - Photos

    - Wallpaper

    - Nuclear

    - WWI

    - WWII

    Advertisment
    Search
    Custom Search
    User Info
    Welcome, Anonymous
    Nickname
    Password
    (Register)
    Membership:
    Latest: Jogoma
    New Today: 1
    New Yesterday: 0
    Overall: 721

    People Online:
    Visitors: 0
    Members: 0
    Total: 0

    sonicbomb.com :: View topic - Visualization of U.S. Debt

    Forum FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    Post new topic Reply to topic  sonicbomb.com Forum Index » General discussion
    Author Message
    sonicbomb
    Forum Admin
    Forum Admin


    Joined: Aug 06, 2006
    Posts: 1731
    Location: UK

    PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:11 pm Reply with quote

    Visualization of the 14.3 trillion US national debt using the $100 bill.

    http://www.mediadump.com/hosted-id266-a-visualization-of-us-debt-in-bills-of-100.html


    Before anyone points the "US basher" finger at me, it's worth mentioning that the EU is a close second with 13.7 trillion, and the UK a close runner up with 8.9...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt
    View user's profile Send private message
    Teller25
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Aug 22, 2007
    Posts: 254
    Location: Spain

    PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 1:21 pm Reply with quote

    It reminds me of a funny Onion Video



    That money hole is called Department of Defense, it is absurd that for example U.S. forces in Europe remain at Cold War levels as if Russia was going to cross the borders with tanks tomorrow, also Billions spent each year on weapons that are never to be used, just built to rot in storage until the next generation of more expensive weapons replaces them, it does nothing good to the economy...
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1588
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:36 pm Reply with quote

    Such spin, to only focus on USA debt, which was actually created by USA liberal progressives and their lighter version socialist neocons (who also exploded debt with their hugely socialistic policies of vastly expanding the Medicare program entitlements), added to war that both parties pushed and condoned for years.

    Look at charts of Eurozone debt, and this is only PART of it, while the entire Euro currency faces collapse because of astronomical Eurozone debt:

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/02/weekinreview/02marsh.html

    Look at the insane levels of debt for countries analogous to USA individual states in land area.

    Eurozone's ideological cousins to USA progressives, the social democrats, are mostly to blame for this Eurozone mess.

    The USA's Federal Reserve is also totally controlled by progressives, and always has been. It was also established under among the most rabidly progressive administrations in USA history: Woodrow Wilson's. Even the Rothschild's main legal representative, Paul Warburg, a hugely ideologically progressive German banker, was present at Jekyll Island, when the super secret meeting for forming the fed, took place.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1588
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:03 pm Reply with quote

    karlaa wrote:
    that s a sign obama should leave washington and let romney seat on the big chair


    This won't change anything, since he is also big-time in political bed with big money interests, like everyone else (except possibly Ron Paul). The political machinery behind both the parties has no interest in making genuine, wider-ranging improvements to the country.

    He would be a gesture to improving business community and employment, but only that.

    Obama is hostile to sensible employment, since he is ideologically stuck on government directing employment (when it has never been once successful in history) based on his progressive ideology, while he silently is controlled by the man with the world-record profit for a single day, George Soros. Soros even staffed the White House with his Center for American Progress, through his appointed leader of the center, John Podesta, who also was Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff.

    Quote:
    Prior to founding the Center in 2003, Podesta served as White House chief of staff to President William J. Clinton. He served in the president's cabinet and as a principal on the National Security Council. While in the White House, he also served as both an assistant to the president and deputy chief of staff, as well as staff secretary and a senior policy advisor on government information, privacy, telecommunications security, and regulatory policy.

    Most recently, Podesta served as co-chair of President Obama’s transition, where he coordinated the priorities of the incoming administration’s agenda, oversaw the development of its policies, and spearheaded its appointments of major cabinet secretaries and political appointees. SOURCE: http://www.americanprogress.org/experts/PodestaJohn.html
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1588
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:10 pm Reply with quote

    child wrote:
    i am a newer here


    Please follow the thread's topic.

    There is a new member section in this forum, to say hellos:

    Reception and Introduction Area
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1588
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:19 pm Reply with quote

    Blitheheha wrote:
    Quote:
    Even the Rothschild's main legal representative, Paul Warburg, a hugely ideologically progressive German banker, was present at Jekyll Island, when the super secret meeting for forming the fed, took place.


    I am so cusious about this...


    SOURCE (yet highly whitewashed): http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3815

    The Jekyll Island Expedition

    One evening in early November 1910, Warburg and a small party of men from New York quietly boarded Sen. Aldrich's private railway car, ostensibly for a trip south to an exclusive hunting club on an island off the coast of Georgia.

    In addition to Warburg and Aldrich, the others, all highly regarded in the New York banking community, were: Frank Vanderlip, president of National City Bank; Harry P. Davison, a J.P. Morgan partner; Benjamin Strong, vice president of Banker's Trust Co.; and A. Piatt Andrew, former secretary of the National Monetary Commission and now assistant secretary of the Treasury. The real purpose of this historic "duck hunt" was to formulate a plan for US banking and currency reform that Aldrich could present to Congress.

    Even Warburg at first questioned the motives of this gathering, not knowing if he was included because the group knew what he preached and was interested in what he had to offer, or if he was to be involved as a conspirator in order to be muzzled. He soon saw that the Jekyll Island conference was pulled together because, as Warburg later wrote, Aldrich was "bewildered at all that he had absorbed abroad and he was faced with the difficult task of writing a highly technical bill while being harassed by the daily grind of his parliamentary duties."

    The group was secluded on Jekyll Island for about 10 days. All the participants came to the conference with strong views on the subject and did not agree on the exact shape a US central bank should take. Vanderlip noted: "Of course we knew that what we simply had to have was a more elastic currency through a bank that would hold the reserves of all banks." But there were many other questions that needed to be answered. If it was to be a central bank, how was it to be owned: by the banks, by the government, or jointly? Should there be a number of institutions or only one? Should the rate of interest be the same for the whole nation, or would it be higher in a community that was expanding too fast and lower in another that was lagging? In what open market operations should the bank be engaged?

    Warburg realized that he had not been able to persuade the senator that if a central banking organization was to be created, it had to be a modified scheme based on the European models. In fact, Warburg, "the best equipped man there in the academic sense," according to Vanderlip, "was so intense ... and apparently felt a little antagonism towards Aldrich," so that there were some moments of strain that had to be eased by the others. Aldrich had his mind set on a European-style central bank, "a model he seemed loath to abandon," according to Warburg, and the senator strongly believed that the proposed central bank should be kept out of politics. Warburg and the others felt that whatever the theoretical justification for such a central bank, American conditions would require some sort of compromise and that concessions should be made considering government influence and representation. Aldrich, yielding somewhat, allowed that the government should be represented on the board of directors and have full knowledge of the bank's affairs, but a majority of the directors were to be chosen, directly or indirectly, by the members of the association.

    Warburg also didn't agree with Aldrich's position on note issuance, conditions of membership of state banks and trust companies, or on the need for a uniform discount rate. Aldrich insisted, however, that a central bank should maintain a uniform rate of discount throughout the United States. He thought such a measure politically wise because it would refute the charges that other "great financial centres" would attempt to establish favorable rates for themselves in different regions to the disadvantage of other localities in the country.

    Eventually all of the individuals at the Jekyll Island conference had to modify their views on a central bank plan. Nonetheless, Aldrich got out of the conference just what he intended—a banking scheme that rested upon a consensus of opinion representing the best-informed bankers of this country.

    The banking bill the group brought north, which came to be known as the "Aldrich Plan," called for the establishment of a central bank in Washington, to be named the "National Reserve Association," meaning a central reserve organization with an elastic note issue based on gold and commercial paper. The association was to have 15 branches at geographically strategic locations throughout the country. The bank was to serve as fiscal agent for the US government and, by mobilizing the reserves of its member banks, become a lender of last resort to the American banking system. The association as a whole was to serve as a bank of rediscount, that is, it was empowered to discount a second time commercial paper that members of the association had already discounted. By rediscounting, the association could issue new money that might stay in circulation so long as the paper for which it was issued was not redeemed.

    No one person was responsible for the final draft bill that was written. It was a record of their composite views. Yet Vanderlip regarded Warburg as having made significant and important contributions to the final result: "As a philosophical student of banking he was first among us at that time." Warburg was satisfied that the Aldrich Plan was not a central bank in the European sense. "It was strictly a bankers' bank with branches under the control of separate directorates having supervision over the rediscount operations with member banks," he said.

    Warburg viewed the result of the Jekyll Island meeting as pivotal: "The period during which nonpolitical thought held the leadership in the banking reform movement may be considered as having ended with this conference." Up until then, bank reform had been an educational campaign carried on by individuals and groups; but at that point, the movement assumed a national character. Warburg saw Senator Aldrich as being the standard-bearer of a political proposal for a central bank. Said Warburg: "From then on until the final passage of the Federal Reserve Act, the generalship was in the hands of political leaders, while the role of banking reformers was to aid the movement by educational campaigns and, at the same time, to do their utmost to prevent fundamental parts of the nonpolitical plan from being disfigured by concessions born of political expediency." Aldrich presented his draft plan to the public in January 1911. One year later, on Jan. 19, 1912, the National Monetary Commission presented its report and endorsed the Aldrich Plan.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Display posts from previous:   
    Post new topic Reply to topic

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum


    Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
    | Privacy Policy || Contact us |

    Page Generation: 0.10 Seconds
    :: In the future we will all be robots ::