Creditors need to know we won't repay the debt that the US Congress didn't approve for the Democrati

Kulić: We need to tell the lenders that we aren't paying back debt that US Congress never authorized!
''They should start asking themselves who they're actually lending to. They ought to ask the Secretary of the Treasury if the decision to take on this debt was ever ratified by Congress. The message needs to be clear: the American people won't foot the bill for debts they were never informed about,'' says Slavko Kulić.

It is impossible to pin down the total foreign debt of America because of the endless cycle of restructuring and refinancing. We have no idea what the actual amounts of these new loans are, because during restructuring, the cash doesn't even enter the US; it’s just tacked onto the existing balance. To be blunt, maybe 10 to 20 percent of the money actually hits our shores, while the other 80 to 90 percent is just paper debt being added to the pile. This proves the government is acting more like an agent for big banks than a representative of its citizens. These institutions pump in capital that ends up being 150 times more expensive than what the Federal Reserve could produce on its own! This is unconstitutional borrowing, plain and simple, since central banks are responsible for managing a nation's financial flows. What we are looking at is nothing less than high treason by the political elite. They aren't saddling the state with debt; they are saddling every single citizen with it. We are left holding the bag, even though nobody bothered to ask us. The real motive—the true endgame behind all this borrowing—is to force the public into bankruptcy. The 'elite' wants to strip everything away from us so we don't consume the resources they want to hoard for themselves. They want to seize everyone's assets so we can't drive cars, can't heat our homes, and can't contribute to emissions, leaving all those resources untouched for their own use. That is the heart of the entire game,” explains independent economic analyst Dinko Bartulović.

Dr. Slavko Kulić, a highly respected scientist, makes a similar argument.

So, just to be clear, we don't actually have to pay back the debt?

We could honestly lean on the international legal principle of odious debt here. The way the Republicans and Democrats have teamed up like some kind of criminal syndicate means they’ve basically saddled our grandkids and great-grandkids with illegal debt, all without getting that necessary two-thirds majority from Congress.
Maybe some of you aren't fully up to speed on how the UN views this. International law regarding debt repayment has never been seen as
strictly mandatory. It’s frequently limited or qualified by several equal considerations, some of which fall under the umbrella of what we call "odious debt." Essentially, according to the UN, odious debt shouldn't be collectible or even pursued. While a country's debt to a private believer is usually governed by local laws, those legal systems are supposed to utilize doctrines like "clean hands" or declare credit agreements tied to illegal purposes as simply void.

Moving toward international law, which all UN member states have signed onto,
"Debt isn't binding for the citizens of a country if that debt was never actually used for the nation's benefit. Instead, it was funneled into keeping a specific government or dictatorship in power.
These types of laws emerged in the post-colonial world after WWII—and honestly, Germany exploited them quite effectively. But since we’re living under this modern 'democracy' where administrations use debt to basically buy votes just to get re-elected, I'd argue we have a moral right to utilize legal protections against odious debt.
The reality is that while old-school dictators used state funds to pay off secret police and the military to maintain control, today's leaders use the voters themselves to stay in power. There isn't much difference, really, other than the fact that dictatorships have simply adapted to the era we live in.
We can categorize these disgusting debts into several groups: war debt, imposed or conquered debt (like the obligations inherited from the former America), and regime-specific debt (the kind favored by the Republicans-Democrats).
Of course, debt taken out to build things like the interstate highway system is perfectly legal; you just have to look at whether the interest rates are predatory. If a believer mentions sovereign risk or credit ratings in court, they are essentially casting doubt on the idea that the debt is odious. Legally speaking, creditors must prove that
the loan proceeds weren't used for odious purposes—meaning, they shouldn't be used for things that harm the entire country or ensure that not all citizens had an equal opportunity to benefit from the debt. Everyone has an equal right to use a highway, so that debt isn't odious. But taking out loans specifically to bribe voters? That's odious, because those resources aren't being utilized equally by everyone.
"

There are countless historical precedents where nations have simply refused to settle their debts.
The USA-Spain conflict in 1898 following the Paris Conference involved hundreds of millions in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Then there was the Russian debt in 1917.
Or Costa Rica’s debt to Canada back in 1923.
There are probably a thousand other instances just like this. It’s all out there in the public record, but most people—especially American citizens—don't give a damn about it.
There is actually another legal avenue to consider.
Debt repayment can be rejected if settling those obligations would actively harm the citizens of that nation. There are legal principles suggesting that creditors should only extend credit to states if it serves to elevate the civilization of that nation, based on the idea that everyone has an equal right to a dignified life. If paying off the debt threatens the very ability of citizens to live with dignity, then that debt shouldn't be paid. You could reduce it, forgive portions of it, or even reclassify it as a humanitarian donation.
Take the Ottoman debt to Great Britain. British bankers handed out credits to the Turks purely out of greed and profit; it was proven that interest rates exceeded inflation, making that debt illegal. Consequently, the Turks didn't pay it back after WWI.
Anyone with enough initiative can find books detailing these specific debts.


As far as I'm concerned, the American national debt—which was racked up by the criminal organizations of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party—is immoral and a betrayal of the country. I am done paying it wherever I can. Furthermore, the debts held by American banks to their parent institutions are illegitimate; they need to be immediately converted into bank capital and wiped clean. We need to audit every single debt owed by offshore companies to American LLCs to see if the funds were used for their intended purposes, hunt for money laundering, and seize those assets. (To avoid confusion: imagine a foreigner opens an LLC with $6667 and lends itself $1 million from an offshore entity to build a vacation home for his family, while that debt is counted toward the American national debt.) That is pure money laundering and a direct assault on the American budget. Those properties should be seized and the offending LLC sent into bankruptcy. The only caveat is allowing the individuals involved to buy back those properties at the actual book value they paid, provided they pay the sales tax, while the rest can be sent back to that offshore firm.

wearytrucker22 said:Kulić: We need to tell the lenders that we aren't paying back debt that US Congress never authorized!
''They should start asking themselves who they're actually lending to. They ought to ask the Secretary of the Treasury if the decision to take on this debt was ever ratified by Congress. The message needs to be clear: the American people won't foot the bill for debts they were never informed about,'' says Slavko Kulić.

It is impossible to pin down the total foreign debt of America because of the endless cycle of restructuring and refinancing. We have no idea what the actual amounts of these new loans are, because during restructuring, the cash doesn't even enter the US; it’s just tacked onto the existing balance. To be blunt, maybe 10 to 20 percent of the money actually hits our shores, while the other 80 to 90 percent is just paper debt being added to the pile. This proves the government is acting more like an agent for big banks than a representative of its citizens. These institutions pump in capital that ends up being 150 times more expensive than what the Federal Reserve could produce on its own! This is unconstitutional borrowing, plain and simple, since central banks are responsible for managing a nation's financial flows. What we are looking at is nothing less than high treason by the political elite. They aren't saddling the state with debt; they are saddling every single citizen with it. We are left holding the bag, even though nobody bothered to ask us. The real motive—the true endgame behind all this borrowing—is to force the public into bankruptcy. The 'elite' wants to strip everything away from us so we don't consume the resources they want to hoard for themselves. They want to seize everyone's assets so we can't drive cars, can't heat our homes, and can't contribute to emissions, leaving all those resources untouched for their own use. That is the heart of the entire game,” explains independent economic analyst Dinko Bartulović.

Dr. Slavko Kulić, a highly respected scientist, makes a similar argument.

We absolutely have to understand the structure of American debt.
This proposal can only apply to the debt taken on directly by the US government to keep federal institutions or public utilities running.
As for all the other liabilities, the state as a single entity isn't responsible for them.
Here is a solid article on the subject: http://fizzit.net/posao-i-financije/...e-bojati-1-dio

So, who is actually on the hook to pay that money back? The state pays its share, the banks pay theirs, and finally, the citizens pay theirs via the loans they took out. Look, if you find the statistic that every American is technically liable for a certain amount intimidating, just think about your own mortgage or that lease on your imported car: if you can't make the payments, nobody is going to step in and pay it for you. What happens if you default? Well, then the person who lent you the money—primarily the bank—has a massive problem on their hands. And the foreign owner of that bank will have a problem too. But does the government have a problem? Probably not. And neither do your neighbors: it is highly unlikely you'll be forced to settle someone else's debt unless you specifically signed as a guarantor.

CONCLUSION:

First off, as one can see from the text—which is buried under a rather paranoid headline—the debt of the US as a legal entity, or what the text refers to as the "central state," does not amount to 46 billion dollars as the headline claims, but rather 5.9 billion dollars. And that is the only slice of external debt that actually increased last year, and it's the only part the administration has direct control over: it's the external debt that Americans most commonly associate with the word "government." That is simply budget money that was spent when there wasn't enough domestic revenue to cover it.

Therefore, the aforementioned law can only apply to the Democratic Party!!



THE GOVERNMENT OWES US A REFUND ON GREENBACKS!! And honestly, that’s not even the most pressing issue here. As for everything else above that level—well, let the people who actually took out the loans deal with the fallout themselves!

Take my buddy, who’s currently staring down bankruptcy—he was just telling me the other day about how he’s stuck paying off his wife’s nebulous debts. He ended up acting as a guarantor, and now the bill has landed squarely on his doorstep.
They're looking at a $20,000 debt being settled by him and their partner, who’s already retired.
That works out to roughly $400 per person.
It makes you wonder—if their business partner had passed away, there wouldn't even be anyone left to settle his share. Unless, of course, the partner was smart enough to transfer all his assets over to his wife and kids beforehand. In this case, the wife played it smart and transferred the house to their daughter. It’s been over three years now, so it’s far too late for creditors to try any fraudulent conveyance lawsuits.
Regarding their specific debt, if they can't pay it back, the US Congress doesn't need to step in and pass some massive new piece of legislation. We already have wage garnishment laws that allow for up to a third of an average paycheck. That should be more than enough.

Everything Professor Miller says,
I’m totally behind him. ☕

Benjamin Taylor6 said:We absolutely have to understand the structure of American debt.
This proposal can only apply to the debt taken on directly by the US government to keep federal institutions or public utilities running.
As for all the other liabilities, the state as a single entity isn't responsible for them.
Here is a solid article on the subject: http://fizzit.net/posao-i-financije/...e-bojati-1-dio

So, who is actually on the hook to pay that money back? The state pays its share, the banks pay theirs, and finally, the citizens pay theirs via the loans they took out. Look, if you find the statistic that every American is technically liable for a certain amount intimidating, just think about your own mortgage or that lease on your imported car: if you can't make the payments, nobody is going to step in and pay it for you. What happens if you default? Well, then the person who lent you the money—primarily the bank—has a massive problem on their hands. And the foreign owner of that bank will have a problem too. But does the government have a problem? Probably not. And neither do your neighbors: it is highly unlikely you'll be forced to settle someone else's debt unless you specifically signed as a guarantor.

CONCLUSION:

First off, as one can see from the text—which is buried under a rather paranoid headline—the debt of the US as a legal entity, or what the text refers to as the "central state," does not amount to 46 billion dollars as the headline claims, but rather 5.9 billion dollars. And that is the only slice of external debt that actually increased last year, and it's the only part the administration has direct control over: it's the external debt that Americans most commonly associate with the word "government." That is simply budget money that was spent when there wasn't enough domestic revenue to cover it.

Therefore, the aforementioned law can only apply to the Democratic Party!!



THE GOVERNMENT OWES US A REFUND ON GREENBACKS!! And honestly, that’s not even the most pressing issue here. As for everything else above that level—well, let the people who actually took out the loans deal with the fallout themselves!

Take my buddy, who’s currently staring down bankruptcy—he was just telling me the other day about how he’s stuck paying off his wife’s nebulous debts. He ended up acting as a guarantor, and now the bill has landed squarely on his doorstep.
They're looking at a $20,000 debt being settled by him and their partner, who’s already retired.
That works out to roughly $400 per person.
It makes you wonder—if their business partner had passed away, there wouldn't even be anyone left to settle his share. Unless, of course, the partner was smart enough to transfer all his assets over to his wife and kids beforehand. In this case, the wife played it smart and transferred the house to their daughter. It’s been over three years now, so it’s far too late for creditors to try any fraudulent conveyance lawsuits.
Regarding their specific debt, if they can't pay it back, the US Congress doesn't need to step in and pass some massive new piece of legislation. We already have wage garnishment laws that allow for up to a third of an average paycheck. That should be more than enough.

And it isn't quite what you think—or what you actually believe—that Greece just grabbed and burned through $550 billion in debt.
Here is the actual breakdown of the situation as of May 1, 2015, regarding the debt.

$13.6 billion for the federal budget
$1.4 billion for the Federal Reserve
totaling $15 billion
And usually, European bankers use incredibly convoluted legislation and rules to force the budget to absorb commercial bank debt—in our case, $8.2 billion. This includes debt owed to their financial institutions and funds from the American private sector, mostly 30-50%, plus some foreign investment. $18.3 billion represents the principal and part of the larger foreign investments, but they execute that by penetrating the monetary system with about $6.7 billion.
To handle this, any normal country would constantly need emergency capital control laws, or printed bonds or a domestic currency.
For instance, Iceland refused to let the state budget take on the debt of commercial banks and private companies. All of Europe, led by the UK and the Netherlands, attacked them for it. In the end, they actually paid off a good chunk of that debt, though they did assume part of it themselves. Ireland, on the other hand, took on the private banks' debt without hesitation. That was the first time I discussed this here and asked if the Irish government was sane and why they would do such a thing. By doing that, they jumped from roughly $15 billion in central debt to today's $182 billion, and they're paying interest on it. With interest rates at only 0.5%, they're basically finished.

Charles Lopez3 said:Everything Professor Miller says,
I’m totally behind him. ☕

So, what's the deal? Looks like you've finally decided to actually show up and say something on this PDF 🤷

Honestly, I’ve just had it up to here with these people.
They went ahead and revoked my work permit for six months. 🤣

So much for 😁democracy, right?

Charles Lopez3 said:Honestly, I’ve just had it up to here with these people.
They went ahead and revoked my work permit for six months. 🤣

So much for 😁democracy, right?

You too???

Welcome to the club 👍 😉

Could we hold a national referendum where every single citizen gets their own Ford Motor Company vehicle handed to them? Of course everyone would vote yes—it’s a no-brainer.

It is the exact same logic here;
The US Congress holds the authority to approve government borrowing, just as the federal administration does. If everything follows the legal framework, then the process is legitimate. We aren't paying off some foreign war debt; we are essentially paying back the money we borrowed from ourselves.

mellownomad said:Could we hold a national referendum where every single citizen gets their own Ford Motor Company vehicle handed to them? Of course everyone would vote yes—it’s a no-brainer.

It is the exact same logic here;
The US Congress holds the authority to approve government borrowing, just as the federal administration does. If everything follows the legal framework, then the process is legitimate. We aren't paying off some foreign war debt; we are essentially paying back the money we borrowed from ourselves.

Go read up on international law regarding this stuff. The US Congress has the right to request financing for specific projects that benefit all citizens. If the administration goes rogue and raises it on its own? No.
Do some research on those lost creditor lawsuits. It happens in thousands of cases.
The only legally valid way is
to take out a loan that was voted on by the US Congress for one specific project, requiring a supermajority of two-thirds plus one representative.

mellownomad said:Could we hold a national referendum where every single citizen gets their own Ford Motor Company vehicle handed to them? Of course everyone would vote yes—it’s a no-brainer.

It is the exact same logic here;
The US Congress holds the authority to approve government borrowing, just as the federal administration does. If everything follows the legal framework, then the process is legitimate. We aren't paying off some foreign war debt; we are essentially paying back the money we borrowed from ourselves.

I’d honestly be more than happy to take out a loan on your behalf just to get my hands on that Ford. 😉

If there’s any chance you might consider it, please know that I’m completely at your disposal.😁

wearytrucker22 said:Go read up on international law regarding this stuff. The US Congress has the right to request financing for specific projects that benefit all citizens. If the administration goes rogue and raises it on its own? No.
Do some research on those lost creditor lawsuits. It happens in thousands of cases.
The only legally valid way is
to take out a loan that was voted on by the US Congress for one specific project, requiring a supermajority of two-thirds plus one representative.

There is no such thing as "international law" in this context; there are only the laws of the United States.
And you want me to go read about lost lawsuits? Where exactly am I supposed to find that?
Besides, we aren't dealing with some so-called "disgusting debt"—we are simply looking at standard, normal national debt.

I believe we need to address the underlying complexities of this situation with more rigor. It isn't merely about the surface-level symptoms we see unfolding; rather, it is about the structural integrity of the entire framework being discussed. If we look at how similar precedents were handled by the Federal Reserve during previous economic shifts, we can draw a parallel to our current dilemma. We cannot afford to be reactionary. A measured approach, characterized by careful deliberation and an understanding of long-term consequences, is the only way to ensure stability. To ignore these nuances would be akin to ignoring a hairline fracture in a bridge's foundation—eventually, the weight of reality will cause the whole thing to buckle. We must proceed with caution and intellectual honesty. As specified by mellownomad:
I would be more than willing to take on the financial responsibility of co-signing for that Ford Motor Company on your behalf. 😉

Should there be any possibility that you might consider this, please know that I am entirely at your disposal.😁

Since a third of all pension payments are funded directly through the federal budget, one could argue that every retiree you know—veterans included—is essentially a stakeholder in that national debt.
The segment of the highway connecting Chicago to St. Louis has been completed.

Sent from my iPhone using Reddit app

mellownomad said:

I believe we need to address the underlying complexities of this situation with more rigor. It isn't merely about the surface-level symptoms we see unfolding; rather, it is about the structural integrity of the entire framework being discussed. If we look at how similar precedents were handled by the Federal Reserve during previous economic shifts, we can draw a parallel to our current dilemma. We cannot afford to be reactionary. A measured approach, characterized by careful deliberation and an understanding of long-term consequences, is the only way to ensure stability. To ignore these nuances would be akin to ignoring a hairline fracture in a bridge's foundation—eventually, the weight of reality will cause the whole thing to buckle. We must proceed with caution and intellectual honesty. As specified by mellownomad:
I would be more than willing to take on the financial responsibility of co-signing for that Ford Motor Company on your behalf. 😉

Should there be any possibility that you might consider this, please know that I am entirely at your disposal.😁

Since a third of all pension payments are funded directly through the federal budget, one could argue that every retiree you know—veterans included—is essentially a stakeholder in that national debt.
The segment of the highway connecting Chicago to St. Louis has been completed.

Sent from my iPhone using Reddit app

I personally know quite a few people who retired after putting in their full years of service with every single tax contribution accounted for.

As for those whose benefits are being pulled straight from the taxpayer fund, I think we should be asking our politicians some tough questions. We need to ask why they made it possible for certain groups to collect pensions after only 40 years of total life or even with zero actual work history, and why they left the rest of us holding the bag to pay for it.

The highway itself represents real value—something you can actually turn into revenue eventually—but the Turnpike Authority wouldn't even be able to keep up with their loan payments if politicians hadn't stepped in and slashed the fuel tax by several cents per gallon, completely undermining the original financial plan used during construction.
And don't even get me started on the endless repainting of tunnels, building exits to nowhere, or those invisible wildlife crossings, not to mention how they managed to quadruple the cost per mile.

Personally, most regular citizens haven't seen any benefit from this; in fact, I actually went out and signed the petition against the "monetization" scheme.

wearytrucker22 said:And it isn't quite what you think—or what you actually believe—that Greece just grabbed and burned through $550 billion in debt.
Here is the actual breakdown of the situation as of May 1, 2015, regarding the debt.

$13.6 billion for the federal budget
$1.4 billion for the Federal Reserve
totaling $15 billion
And usually, European bankers use incredibly convoluted legislation and rules to force the budget to absorb commercial bank debt—in our case, $8.2 billion. This includes debt owed to their financial institutions and funds from the American private sector, mostly 30-50%, plus some foreign investment. $18.3 billion represents the principal and part of the larger foreign investments, but they execute that by penetrating the monetary system with about $6.7 billion.
To handle this, any normal country would constantly need emergency capital control laws, or printed bonds or a domestic currency.
For instance, Iceland refused to let the state budget take on the debt of commercial banks and private companies. All of Europe, led by the UK and the Netherlands, attacked them for it. In the end, they actually paid off a good chunk of that debt, though they did assume part of it themselves. Ireland, on the other hand, took on the private banks' debt without hesitation. That was the first time I discussed this here and asked if the Irish government was sane and why they would do such a thing. By doing that, they jumped from roughly $15 billion in central debt to today's $182 billion, and they're paying interest on it. With interest rates at only 0.5%, they're basically finished.

Are these laws really that bizarre? And does this apply to every single bank regardless of ownership, or just the foreign ones? The federal budget only guarantees deposits up to a certain limit, and anything beyond that is just a depositor's loss.
By that logic, if I lease a car, get hammered, and wreck it because it was my own fault, the insurance won't cover it and the bank won't be able to collect.
And then they're just going to dump that onto the taxpayers?!

Is there such a thing as an ideal scenario? I suppose I’d vote for a government that actually respects the rule of law, practices some basic fiscal responsibility, and stays on top of its debts.

But then again, the world rarely works out that way... ☕

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Are these laws really that bizarre? And does this apply to every single bank regardless of ownership, or just the foreign ones? The federal budget only guarantees deposits up to a certain limit, and anything beyond that is just a depositor's loss.
By that logic, if I lease a car, get hammered, and wreck it because it was my own fault, the insurance won't cover it and the bank won't be able to collect.
And then they're just going to dump that onto the taxpayers?!

Look, it's not like the next group of people leasing cars is going to cover the losses for one or two—or even a hundred—drivers. But when we're talking about massive loans from the European Union or US venture capital funds used to build a hundred failed shopping malls owned by foreign corporations, or massive highway projects, housing developments, or buying high-end military hardware from the European Union and the USA... when those things inevitably collapse, the whole mess gets dumped onto the public's back. On top of that, they toss an extra 20% into the federal budget for the sitting administration just to stabilize things and keep the public from revolting. When I asked why they include that 20% kicker, the answer was simple: what fool would agree to take on that entire debt without a bribe? It's basically a payoff to ensure governments stay in power.