Dem Mayor of "Sanctuary City" NYC says there is no room there for migrants.

[MarathonMike]

I'm not responding to MarathonMike for his sake, because we've already had this discussion many times in the past. I know everything I write to him on this subject will be flippantly dismissed and ignored because that's what he's done in the past, hence I should just ignore him. I write this for the sake of others that might be interested in the truth, not for him.

MarathonMike i.e. MM, obviously hasn't read Marx, because markets are permitted in socialism. Socialism is the earliest stage of communism, and it permits markets, even a certain level of capitalism to exist alongside it, in a mixed, centrally planned economy. Communism can only exist when the material conditions, and the production technology available, allows for it to replace capitalism. Until then, the economy might remain mixed even with extensive central planning:

​

China is a highly regulated, centrally planned economy and yet notice that MM admits that it is an economic powerhouse, rivaling the United States.

Your claim that communism has never worked is false because it did work quite impressively in the Soviet Union until the Soviets in an attempt to end the cold war after the death of Stalin in the early 1950s, tried to regress, into an earlier stage of communism which allows less central planning with capitalist markets. That led to perestroika i.e. "market reforms", in the 1980s and long breadlines, even without a war. Market reforms and less central planning in the 80s, destroyed the Soviet economy and led to ten years of the worst economy in Russia's history in the 1990s!

Until Putin became president and implemented socialist reforms, Russia was on a downward spiral, economically and socially. Putin's nationalization, and centralization of the economy, saved Russia. It has dramatically increased its GDP and economic prosperity in the last 23 years. Putin's socialist reforms saved Russia from balkanization and plunging itself into further socioeconomic chaos.

As far as China, it wasn't "free market" shock therapy, that saved it but rather a mixed economy. Unlike the Soviet Union, China never industrialized as it should've, eventually even becoming an enemy of the USSR early in its development, cutting itself off from the assistance it needed from its much more developed communist neighbor. Maoism was more agrarian and agriculturally oriented, and that is what impeded its growth and success. It was Chinese culture that was the problem not communism.

North Korea i.e. DPRK, on the other hand, did the opposite of Maoist China, maintaining good relations with the Soviets, and in the 1950s, 60s, up to the late 70s, was more industrialized than South Korea and China. People living in the DPRK had a higher standard of living than those in South Korea and China. We don't see a serious downturn in the North Korean economy until it was cut off from its major trading partner, namely the USSR and Eastern Europe, in the early 90s.

GDP in a communist country, isn't really much of a marker or indicator of economic success and efficiency, due to the fact that there aren't any markets in communism. So naturally, the GDP will appear to be lower, even much lower than a capitalist-run economy, despite heavy industrialization and everyone living well in that communist system.

The Soviet Union didn't have markets until later in its history and it was a world superpower, second only to the USA, notwithstanding all of the challenges and obstacles it had to face, due to its many wars with capitalist powers. One can convincingly argue that the Soviet military was superior to that of the United States. The Warsaw Pact military alliance would've eaten NATO alive in a conventional war.

It should be noted that communist countries can trade with one another, even without having a currency. They can even have trade relations with capitalist-run countries. Read Marx. Communists doing that doesn't equate to them being "capitalists". The practice of trading goods existed way before capitalism. Even markets existed before capitalism, so if MM wants to go this route with his rhetoric, he's resorting to nonsensical arguments.

The following quote about the North Korean economy, is from an article written by a rabid defender of capitalism:

ECONOMIC HISTORY OF NORTH KOREA​

"North Koreans were once known as the travelers and traders of Korea. In the 1950s, after the Korean War, the industrialized North Korea was richer than largely agricultural South Korea. By 2002, South Korea had a GDP or $505 billion while North Korea’s was only $15 billion.

Rich in natural resources, the North Korean economy performed quite well during the 1950s and 60s. In the 1960s, per capita income was higher in North Korea than South Korea. With Soviet assistance, the North Korean economy outperformed the economies of both South Korea and China.

In the 1970s North Korea exported locomotives to the Soviet Union, synthetics to China, machine tools to Europe, farm machinery and chemical fertilizers to Africa and Latin America. Much of the country's industry was centered around the Hamhung-Hungham industrial complex.

According to the Columbia Encyclopedia: North Korea has changed from a predominantly agricultural society (in 1946) to an industrial one. With abundant mineral resources and hydropower, 70 percent of its national product is now derived from mining, manufacturing, and services; about 30 percent still comes from agriculture. "

Source: ECONOMIC HISTORY OF NORTH KOREA | Facts and Details

The author of the above article, admits that the DPRK, wasn't doing that badly economically, yet conveniently forgets to mention the brutal sanctions regime against the DPRK i.e. "North Korea", and the fact that it is essentially a nation still at war with the world's most powerful capitalist empire, and its capitalist allies. The Korean war really hasn't ended yet. How can someone be honestly interested in the truth and "forget" to mention that?

Blaming communism for all of the DPRK's problems, without factoring in the fact that it's always economically embargoed and under the threat of nuclear annihilation is a bit RICH.

I end my rant with this.

Capitalism in the United States can't survive without socialism. MM is apparently oblivious to the capitalist business cycle (boom and bust, boom and bust, boom and bust, bubbles and bursts bubbles). When the capitalist business cycle busts or bursts, depending on which analogy you like best, the capitalist run to good ol' Uncle Sam. Oh yes, make your losses public, burdening the American people with your bad business decisions, lest the whole capitalist economy collapses and people go hungry and die.

It's socialist bailout money i.e. Public Funds, that allows capitalist markets to function.​

The US Federal Government has to come in and SAVE capitalism, every seven to twelve years. Just look at the history of our economy since 1776. One boom and bust after another, and who saves the economy from falling apart and plunging the nation into a civil war? Believe me, when people start going hungry the pitchforks come out. That almost happened in the 1930s during our great depression. FDR's New Deal prevented that from happening. Socialist bailouts allow capitalism to survive and thrive. Capitalism without socialism can't exist. That's what history tells us.

​

Just like capitalism took centuries to replace chattel slavery and feudalism, it has taken over a century for communism to replace capitalism. We're now in the transition phase from capitalism to communism, thanks to advanced 21st-century automation technology. It's advanced, computerized, intelligent automation that will provide the critical mass needed to shift from capitalism to high-tech communism.

Fully matured high-communism according to Karl Marx, is a society without a state (or with a very small state), without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. Don't believe me, just read the commonly held definition of communism, by every economist worth his or her salt. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. No need for a state, no need for socioeconomic classes or money. That's what high-tech, automated production results in, whether you like it or not.

View attachment 749315






​

All we communists have to do is sit back, take out the popcorn and watch capitalism dispatch itself with advanced automation. It's hilarious, watching capitalists trying to scare workers, telling them they will replace human labor with robots. Please do! Yes! Awesome! Replace human drudgery with robots! You do that! That's the end of capitalism because without wage labor you have no market. HELLO?

I give you credit for not being a flake. You obviously know your history and subject matter. I don't flippantly dismiss anything. I question everything including every aspect of my government which currently is in complete disarray. There are clearly flaws with Capitalism and it is far from an ideal system. It just happens to be better in implementation than Communism which invariably creates massive wealth, power and corruption for The State. Even in China's hybrid society, the people are treated like cattle and have to fear retaliation from the government.

 

[Red Front]

Trump can only build what's feasible. Walls like this would be hundreds of billions of dollars if not trillions and the Democrats refused to give Trump the 7 billion he asked for. That's besides the fact anybody could walk up that hill and still breach the wall you're showing. A lot of the wall has to be built on private land. Would you want this is your backyard? Then you have the animal rights people to battle, the ecology people, and yes, Democrat supporters all giving resistance.

Borders will not stop everybody, but they can stop most. The walls Trump constructed were planned out by the Army corps of engineers in conjunction with the border patrol. It's the border patrol that suggested to Trump he build barriers they could see through so they can spot trouble before it gets to our border. I would think that they know what works best to stop migrants and drugs than you or I do.

Fencing does not necessarily mean chain link fences. Fence is another word for barrier.

No, it wouldn't Concrete isn't that expensive. We could have a HUUUUUGGGEEE wall like the one in that picture, 1900 miles long, from Texas to California, in about four, maybe six years tops. Vote for me you'll see. Elect me, I'll do it, and it won't cost half a trillion dollars. Even if it did cost that much it would be worth it, but it won't. Cut that figure in half. About 200, maybe 250 billion. We can easily do that, no problem. Our GDP is 22 trillion, and our federal government budget is like three or four trillion. We can easily afford it. Call the fed, and have them deposit the USD in the "border wall account". If congress doesn't allow it, I will have two million MAGA hat-wearing Americans protesting in Washington DC, permanently, making life unbearable for the democrats and whoever else is blocking the funding. I will use my bully pulpit as POTUS to get the funding.

 

[Red Front]

I give you credit for not being a flake. You obviously know your history and subject matter. I don't flippantly dismiss anything. I question everything including every aspect of my government which currently is in complete disarray. There are clearly flaws with Capitalism and it is far from an ideal system. It just happens to be better in implementation than Communism which invariably creates massive wealth, power and corruption for The State. Even in China's hybrid society, the people are treated like cattle and have to fear retaliation from the government.

China isn't a democracy, I never claimed it was. But communism in China is Chinese, not Russian or American. They have their own way of doing communism, and we would have our own American way of doing communism that is compatible with our values, culture, and temperament.

​

There are several capitalist-run tyrannies in the world, Saudi Arabia being one of them, yet no one sees that as invalidating capitalism. Heck the USA isn't a democracy either, we have a plutocracy, ruled by wealthy elites, often at the great expense of the American public. The bottom line is that the state is always a dictatorship. It's either serving and securing the interests of the wealthy class or the working class. Choose. It's either a government-dictatorship for the people (the working class) or a government for the rich and powerful. What do you want?

In order to have anything near a democracy (rule of the people) while there are socioeconomic classes, you need to centralize power in the hands of one workers' party and create what Marx and Lenin called, "The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat". The proletariat is the working class. The vast majority of people in society are of the working class. They need to work to live, or they starve to death.

The word "soviet" in Russian, means "council". The workers' councils or soviets are democratic. You have more power as a worker and member of the workers' party a.k.a. "Communist Party", than you do as a Republican or Democrat here in the USA. You have a vote and if the person you elect into congress to represent you and your district proves to be incompetent or corrupt, you can recall him or her, taking them out of that position of authority. The process of recalling a government official in a communist country that follows Marxist-Leninist ideology or political "doctrine", is much easier than it is to impeach someone from office under our current system here in the US.

If the workers council i.e. soviet, recalls the elected official for an evaluation or even a trial, they have to appear before the soviet (workers council). As a worker and member of the communist party, you would be there with your family, and your comrades, to give your vote after the trial. How is that less democratic than what we have now here in America?

Capitalism can't exist without the state or socialism, yet socialism doesn't need capitalism, it just needs workers who want to be freed from their capitalist masters. Adam Smith the grandfather of modern capitalism, wrote:

" What are the common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour.
It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. "
Source: Adam Smith, Against the masters (1776)

Adam Smith, not Karl Marx, but the often-quoted, grandfather of capitalism, admits that the relationship between capitalist employers and their employees is one of a master over their human labor. Hello? Employer = Exploiter, Employee = Exploitee. A form of slavery is endemic to capitalism, it's part of its very fabric and nature.

American communists have guns. You think just because we adopt a non-profit system of production i.e. communism, we're going to relinquish our rifles? No. This is America, this isn't Soviet Russia or China, this is America. Our communism is American, and that includes firearms and the means to defend ourselves against tyranny, including a communist tyranny. As a communist, I would fight a communist tyranny. That's not what communism is supposed to be. It's power to the people, the workers, rather than a few capitalist masters. The dictatorship of the working class. Working class people, rule. Not the rich at the expense of everybody else. No masters, no slaves, no exploiters, and exploitees, but a state under the heel of the working class. That is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

 

[BS Filter]

Yes.

Its like Houston claiming to be "Space City". You have to know what they mean.

Nicknames of Houston - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

An idiot like you would think that likely means that there is no gravity in Houston.

"Space City". That's the area between your ears?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, it wouldn't Concrete isn't that expensive. We could have a HUUUUUGGGEEE wall like the one in that picture, 1900 miles long, from Texas to California, in about four, maybe six years tops. Vote for me you'll see. Elect me, I'll do it, and it won't cost half a trillion dollars. Even if it did cost that much it would be worth it, but it won't. Cut that figure in half. About 200, maybe 250 billion. We can easily do that, no problem. Our GDP is 22 trillion, and our federal government budget is like three or four trillion. We can easily afford it. Call the fed, and have them deposit the USD in the "border wall account". If congress doesn't allow it, I will have two million MAGA hat-wearing Americans protesting in Washington DC, permanently, making life unbearable for the democrats and whoever else is blocking the funding. I will use my bully pulpit as POTUS to get the funding.

No we can't easily afford it. If we could easily afford it, we wouldn't be 31 trillion in the hole. But now we are faced with paying the bills for the four years of Democrat pork and vote buying, and they are unwilling to negotiate with Republicans who want to stop the unnecessary spending.

 

[Red Front]

No we can't easily afford it. If we could easily afford it, we wouldn't be 31 trillion in the hole. But now we are faced with paying the bills for the four years of Democrat pork and vote buying, and they are unwilling to negotiate with Republicans who want to stop the unnecessary spending.

Educate me, sir, how are we 31 trillion dollars in the hole? Do you know what that means? What are you saying? How can the US federal government be financially "in the hole", please educate me on this.

​

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Educate me, sir, how are we 31 trillion dollars in the hole? Do you know what that means? What are you saying? How can the US federal government be financially in the whole, please educate me on this?

It's called the US national debt. Hundreds of pages on it if you use Google.

 

[Red Front]

It's called the US national debt. Hundreds of pages on it if you use Google.

That's called a cop-out in a forum like this. You're making the claim that our US federal government is in the hole financially. Explain to us here on the forum, what you mean by the US federal government being in the hole financially. If I make a claim here on this forum, I will back it up with evidence, and a thorough explanation. The burden of proof is upon me, not you. Me telling you to go find the answer somewhere on the internet is my failure to establish my case. I apparently don't have a case if my response is "google it". On a discussion forum, you present your case with evidence, that includes a thorough explanation of your claims. You're asserting that the US federal government is in the hole financially i.e. in debt, how is that possible? Explain.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's called a cop-out in a forum like this. You're making the claim that our US federal government is in the hole financially. Explain to us here on the forum, what you mean by the US federal government being in the hole financially. If I make a claim here on this forum, I will back it up with evidence, and a thorough explanation. The burden of proof is upon me, not you. Me telling you to go find the answer somewhere on the internet is my failure to establish my case. I apparently don't have a case if my response is "google it". On a discussion forum, you present your case with evidence, that includes a thorough explanation of your claims. You're asserting that the US federal government is in the hole financially i.e. in debt, how is that possible? Explain.

If you don't even know what the US national debt is, it's not my problem if you're not educated enough to know. I participate in a forum for discussion, not hold class here.

 

[Red Front]

It's called the US national debt. Hundreds of pages on it if you use Google.

Ray's quick response to my inquiry for an explanation of his claim that our US federal government is "in the hole" financially, was "google it". He apparently doesn't know what he's talking about. The US federal government will never be in the hole financially because it can't, provided the US economy has the production capacity to meet the American consumer's demands. The video that I embedded earlier, where Greenspan, the former head of the Fed, educates Paul Ryan on how our monetary system works, due to Ryan's erroneous belief that the US federal government can go insolvent i.e. unable to pay, Social Security, is a good example of Ray's erroneous belief that our government can't afford to pay for A BIG WALL.

What was Greenspan's response to Paul Ryan's ignorance of how the US federal government funds its programs and projects? He simply explained that the US federal government can create as many dollars as it wants, provided that there are enough assets or goods and services for the American consumer to purchase. Hello. Here is the video, again:

​

There is no "national debt", that is a misnomer. A household or a business can be in debt because the householder and the business aren't the exclusive issuers of the US dollar. They are users, not issuers. Ray is conflating, confusing, the microeconomics of the user of a sovereign, fiat currency, which includes "debts", and perhaps even insolvency i.e. the inability to pay those debts due to lack of funds, with the macroeconomics of the exclusive issuer of a sovereign, fiat currency, that can never run out of funds, because it creates the funds ex-nihilo i.e. from nothing.

The so-called "US national debt" is simply a ledger of how much money remains in the hands of the private sector, that's why whenever the US Congress "balances the budget" and eliminates the "US debt", we end up having a serious economic recession, due to the lack of funds in the private sector. The government's red ink is the people's black ink. You can call the so-called "US National Debt" the "American People's Surplus".

Don't believe Ray or me, just examine the evidence for yourself. I'm not going to tell you to "google it", I'm going to provide all of you with evidence and an explanation. The bottom-line is that the US federal government is not in debt, it will never go insolvent, and its yearly budget is constrained and set by our nation's production capacity or GDP. If our GDP is 22 trillion yearly, then our government shouldn't create more money than that, because it can cause run-away inflation. There is a danger of there being too much money in public hands, without the production to meet consumer demands. What does that really mean? It entails that the private and public sectors can't provide paying consumers with the products and services that they need and want, because there isn't enough production.

If the US federal government was to deposit a billion dollars in everyone's checking account today, tens of millions of Americans wouldn't go to work tomorrow morning. They're billionaires! What would happen to the economy? After everyone becomes a billionaire in America, when they go to the store to buy a couple of "smart televisions", they will find all of the shelves empty, assuming the store is even open, because its staff will be at the beach. You go to Walgreens to buy a toothbrush and it now costs $30,000. Production would halt, freeze, and you wouldn't be able to buy anything with your billion bucks. The currency and the economy would collapse in a day or two after everyone becomes a billionaire. So the US federal government can't "print" or create dollars without restraint. There are rules. What are the rules? Keeping budgets within our production capacity and investing in national infrastructure, which increases production. The US federal government allocates funds for the development of national infrastructure (this expands production).

Learn about the "national debt" from those who know what they're talking about:

​

Don't be fooled by those who tell you we don't have "enough money" to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or enough to pay for anything that will benefit the American people, be it social programs to eliminate poverty, infrastructural development, science and technology R&D or building an IMPENETRABLE, HUUUUUGGGEE WALL! The people who tell you that are ignorant of how our economy and monetary system work. Ray doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about when he appeals to the "national debt" to advance his fallacious argument against building a real, huge, impenetrable wall as Trump promised us. We have the dollars and we don't have to depend on Mexico or anyone else to fund it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray's quick response to my inquiry for an explanation of his claim that our US federal government is "in the hole" financially, was "google it". He apparently doesn't know what he's talking about. The US federal government will never be in the hole financially because it can't, provided the US economy has the production capacity to meet the American consumer's demands.

That's what debt means, money we borrowed. When you owe money, you are in the hole.

 

[Red Front]

That's what debt means, money we borrowed. When you owe money, you are in the hole.

Here Ray continues repeating his false belief about the US federal government being "in debt" and financially " in the hole", completely ignoring every point I made, including the evidence presented in my last post. I'm convinced he's a robot.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here Ray continues repeating his false belief about the US federal government being "in debt" and financially " in the hole", completely ignoring every point I made, including the evidence presented in my last post. I'm convinced he's a robot.

View attachment 749700​

I didn't read what you wrote because I don't have time to go through ten page posts with videos nobody will watch, conspiracies or some leftist explanations or opinions. The national debt is how much money we borrowed and can't pay off. It's been called the national debt ever since we've had one and with good reason: it's accurate.

 

[Red Front]

I didn't read what you wrote because I don't have time to go through ten page posts with videos nobody will watch, conspiracies or some leftist explanations or opinions. The national debt is how much money we borrowed and can't pay off. It's been called the national debt ever since we've had one and with good reason: it's accurate.

Ask Ray how the US federal government is going to go insolvent, i.e. run out of dollars to pay its supposed "debt". Simple question. How can the US federal government run out of dollars or funds to pay its supposed debt? The last time someone asked him that simple question, he just told the person to "google it". Ray is oblivious, he doesn't have a clue.

 

[Red Front]

I didn't read what you wrote because I don't have time to go through ten page posts with videos nobody will watch, conspiracies or some leftist explanations or opinions. The national debt is how much money we borrowed and can't pay off. It's been called the national debt ever since we've had one and with good reason: it's accurate.

Here look, check this out. I'm going to ask Ray a very simple question.

Hi Ray, is the US federal government going to run out of dollars? You're saying our federal government is "in the hole" financially and they can't pay their "debt". Are you saying that our federal government is out of dollars? No more USD? Not enough dollars? Come on now, answer that simple question. Is our federal government, out of USD?

Let's see how Ray responds.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here look, check this out. I'm going to ask Ray a very simple question.

Hi Ray, is the US federal government going to run out of dollars? You're saying our federal government is "in the hole" financially and they can't pay their "debt". Are you saying that our federal government is out of dollars? No more USD? Not enough dollars? Come on now, answer that simple question. Is our federal government, out of USD?

Let's see how Ray responds.

They can pay on the debt, but they can't payoff the debt. That's what being in the hole means. You don't have the money to repay what you borrowed in full. You can make payments, but that's about it.

Our government has spent more than it took in. That's how we got into debt. It's how you got into debt in your own home be it a mortgage, a car, an addition to your house, anything. So you are correct, the government doesn't have the money to payoff the 31 trillion we owe. And no, they can't just print money because that weakens the US dollar.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ask Ray how the US federal government is going to go insolvent, i.e. run out of dollars to pay its supposed "debt". Simple question. How can the US federal government run out of dollars or funds to pay its supposed debt? The last time someone asked him that simple question, he just told the person to "google it". Ray is oblivious, he doesn't have a clue.

Our government is going to collapse at this rate of borrowing. Once we can no longer pay the interest on the money we owe, we are bankrupt and nobody in their right mind would lend us a dime after that. I'll be off this planet by then, but if we don't do something now, there is no way to stop it.

 

[Red Front]

Our government is going to collapse at this rate of borrowing. Once we can no longer pay the interest on the money we owe, we are bankrupt and nobody in their right mind would lend us a dime after that. I'll be off this planet by then, but if we don't do something now, there is no way to stop it.

So you believe the US federal government "owes" money to someone? Who or what does the US federal government owe its own dollars to? The dollar that it has an exclusive right to create.

 

[Red Front]

They can pay on the debt, but they can't payoff the debt. That's what being in the hole means. You don't have the money to repay what you borrowed in full. You can make payments, but that's about it.

Our government has spent more than it took in. That's how we got into debt. It's how you got into debt in your own home be it a mortgage, a car, an addition to your house, anything. So you are correct, the government doesn't have the money to payoff the 31 trillion we owe. And no, they can't just print money because that weakens the US dollar.

Sir, let me give you a very short explanation. The so-called "31 trillion dollar debt", is simply the money that you and I have here outside of the government or public sector. The private sector currently has 31 trillion dollars. It's the total assets of the American people, in their checking and savings accounts, in treasury bonds, in factories and machinery, in real estate. etc. It's the money that the US federal government has "printed", created, and hasn't been taxed, but rather is in our hands right now in the form of hard cash or in other forms, whether digital or capital assets. These two economists aren't communists, they will explain it to you:

​

If the US federal government got rid of our assets or the American people's surplus balance, we would be 31 trillion dollars in the hole, for real. Because we're not the exclusive issuers of the currency, the US federal government is. We would really be in the hole financially if the government taxes all of that money out of the private sector.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sir, let me give you a very short explanation. The so-called "31 trillion dollar debt", is simply the money that you and I have here outside of the government or public sector. The private sector currently has 31 trillion dollars. It's the total assets of the American people, in their checking and savings accounts, in treasury bonds, in factories and machinery, in real estate. etc. It's the money that the US federal government has "printed", created, and hasn't been taxed, but rather is in our hands right now in the form of hard cash or in other forms, whether digital or capital assets. These two economists aren't communists, they will explain it to you:

​

If the US federal government got rid of our assets or the American people's surplus balance, we would be 31 trillion dollars in the hole, for real. Because we're not the exclusive issuers of the currency, the US federal government is. We would really be in the hole financially if the government taxes all of that money out of the private sector.

If they did that it would crash the country. Therefore the government can't take money that doesn't belong to them to pay bills they acquired. In your communist world I'm sure you think all money belongs to government, but we don't live in communism, we live in a free Republic. Just because money is out there in private hands doesn't mean government has the right to take it away at will.