Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
All hearsay!American patriot Mike Zullo can say anything he wants. It's nobody's business. Get over it.How do you know it's a bribe? Do you have the conversation transcript between American patriot Mike Zullo and the thoughtful giftee?None. There's no law against a private citizen taking bribes as part of a sham investigation.
That's exactly my point. If Zullo had been an *actual* cop and did the same thing, he'd be in jail for corruption and fired for ethics violations. The reason Zullo isn't in jail.....is that he isn't a cop.
The fact that he's taking bribes and being paid to shill birther propoganda.....and then trying to cover it up? That's just a demonstration that Zullo isn't a credible investigator and a corrupt piece of shit.
But given his boss is sending investigators to stalk the wife of any federal judge that rules agianst him, and using public money in more 'sham' investigations to get himself elected.......Zullo is clearly just following Sheriff's Joes lead.
Let hope Zullo does better than the last poor fool to follow Sheriff Joes lead: Prosecutor Thomas was disbarred for being part of those sham investigations.
I leave that for the viewer to decide for themselves. Perhaps its just a grand coincidence that immediately after receiving a secret $10,000 payment, Zullo's 'findings' matched exactly the narrative of the man who paid him. Perhaps Zullo tyring to cover up that payment and the corruption of his entire investigation was also a coincidence. Perhaps Zullo lying about it to the press was a coincidence.
But its much more likely that Zullo is a corrupt, lying piece of shit that is being paid to shill birther propaganda.
Says you. Any objective person looking at Zullo and Apaio's actions would be immediately suspect. Abusive, self serving sham 'investigations' at the people's expense, stalking judge's wives, sham charges, and concept of court for Apaio. And a comprimised investigation, 5 figure bribes, a cover up, and lies to the press for Zullo.
And these corrupt fucks are your sources?
Surely you can understand why I hold the State of Hawaii in far higher regard.
Assets can be used to pay debt. You sound as foolish as the person who wrote the OP article.I've proven several times the one percent alone has enough to pay off the debt and still have enough left over to run the government for another six months.Prove it with figures.
From the link:Did you know that if you took every single penny away from everyone in the United States that it still would not be enough to pay off the national debt?
False. The dumbass is way, way, way off.
You can see on page 25 of this document that total US wealth is over $83 trillion: https://publications.credit-suisse....fm?fileid=25EC6CF2-0407-67D9-AAEAAE8BDFEDE378
Net worth is not always the same as cash, which is used to make payments on debt obligations.
All right. We can throw in Texas.No, it won't. We can always sell Alaska or eliminate all tax expenditures.The debt doesn't really need to be paid off, or down some. It just needs to be shown that it can be serviced.
Right now, with interest rates at historic lows for the historic length of duration, paying interests and principle on the debt is doable. However, interest rates can't stay where they are for very long without adverse consequences. When rates rise, paying down, off or some of the debt will be mathematically impossible.
If we go with the latter, we would have a huge surplus.
You might as well say that you'll sell Walgreens. The GDP of Alaska only generates enough funds to keep the government running for probably two weeks.
Assets can be used to pay debt. You sound as foolish as the person who wrote the OP article.I've proven several times the one percent alone has enough to pay off the debt and still have enough left over to run the government for another six months.Prove it with figures.
From the link:Did you know that if you took every single penny away from everyone in the United States that it still would not be enough to pay off the national debt?
False. The dumbass is way, way, way off.
You can see on page 25 of this document that total US wealth is over $83 trillion: https://publications.credit-suisse....fm?fileid=25EC6CF2-0407-67D9-AAEAAE8BDFEDE378
Net worth is not always the same as cash, which is used to make payments on debt obligations.
any
All right. We can throw in Texas.No, it won't. We can always sell Alaska or eliminate all tax expenditures.The debt doesn't really need to be paid off, or down some. It just needs to be shown that it can be serviced.
Right now, with interest rates at historic lows for the historic length of duration, paying interests an
any
All right. We can throw in Texas.No, it won't. We can always sell Alaska or eliminate all tax expenditures.The debt doesn't really need to be paid off, or down some. It just needs to be shown that it can be serviced.
Right now, with interest rates at historic lows for the historic length of duration, paying interests and principle on the debt is doable. However, interest rates can't stay where they are for very long without adverse consequences. When rates rise, paying down, off or some of the debt will be mathematically impossible.
If we go with the latter, we would have a huge surplus.
You might as well say that you'll sell Walgreens. The GDP of Alaska only generates enough funds to keep the government running for probably two weeks.
d principle on the debt is doable. However, interest rates can't stay where they are for very long without adverse consequences. When rates rise, paying down, off or some of the debt will be mathematically impossible.
If we go with the latter, we would have a huge surplus.
You might as well say that you'll sell Walgreens. The GDP of Alaska only generates enough funds to keep the government running for probably two weeks.
You are making more and more a fool of yourself. $83 trillion of wealth means it is not mathematically impossible to pay off the debt. Even a retard should see that.Assets can be used to pay debt. You sound as foolish as the person who wrote the OP article.I've proven several times the one percent alone has enough to pay off the debt and still have enough left over to run the government for another six months.Prove it with figures.From the link: False. The dumbass is way, way, way off.
You can see on page 25 of this document that total US wealth is over $83 trillion: https://publications.credit-suisse....fm?fileid=25EC6CF2-0407-67D9-AAEAAE8BDFEDE378
Net worth is not always the same as cash, which is used to make payments on debt obligations.
Not at all. You SELL assets to pay off debt, with cash. You're probably new to the whole concept of investing, but people invest to make money. An asset is merely a tool to accomplish that.
The debt doesn't really need to be paid off, or down some. It just needs to be shown that it can be serviced.
Right now, with interest rates at historic lows for the historic length of duration, paying interests and principle on the debt is doable. However, interest rates can't stay where they are for very long without adverse consequences. When rates rise, paying down, off or some of the debt will be mathematically impossible.
If interest rates rise, that 2.75% bond becomes like an underwater mortgage. The Fed would not be able to sell them to soak up inflation without taking a loss.The debt doesn't really need to be paid off, or down some. It just needs to be shown that it can be serviced.
Right now, with interest rates at historic lows for the historic length of duration, paying interests and principle on the debt is doable. However, interest rates can't stay where they are for very long without adverse consequences. When rates rise, paying down, off or some of the debt will be mathematically impossible.
T-bills aren't adjustable rate. They are fixed rate. Whatever rate they were lent is what is owed. So take a 30 year treasury bond at 2.75%. That's 27.50 in interest for every $1000 of the bond. If intererest rates skyrocket, that bond is2.65% still 27.50 every year for $1000 of the bond. And it will remain exactly that for the life of the bond.
So the higher intertest rates bonds only count for newly issued bonds. Not for those that have already been issued. The 'mathematically impossible' bonds would be at a higher interest rate for a maximum of 30 years. Then they'd be reset at whatever the rate was when the principle came due and the bond is reissued.
For your scenario to occur, we;d have to have enormously high interest rates for generations. And that's really unlikely.
The debt doesn't really need to be paid off, or down some. It just needs to be shown that it can be serviced.
Right now, with interest rates at historic lows for the historic length of duration, paying interests and principle on the debt is doable. However, interest rates can't stay where they are for very long without adverse consequences. When rates rise, paying down, off or some of the debt will be mathematically impossible.
T-bills aren't adjustable rate. They are fixed rate. Whatever rate they were lent is what is owed. So take a 30 year treasury bond at 2.75%. That's 27.50 in interest for every $1000 of the bond. If intererest rates skyrocket, that bond is still 27.50 every year for $1000 of the bond. And it will remain exactly that for the life of the bond.
So the higher intertest rates bonds only count for newly issued bonds. Not for those that have already been issued. The 'mathematically impossible' bonds would be at a higher interest rate for a maximum of 30 years. Then they'd be reset at whatever the rate was when the principle came due and the bond is reissued.
For your scenario to occur, we;d have to have enormously high interest rates for generations. And that's really unlikely.
You are making more and more a fool of yourself. $83 trillion of wealth means it is not mathematically impossible to pay off the debt. Even a retard should see that.Assets can be used to pay debt. You sound as foolish as the person who wrote the OP article.I've proven several times the one percent alone has enough to pay off the debt and still have enough left over to run the government for another six months.Prove it with figures.
You can see on page 25 of this document that total US wealth is over $83 trillion: https://publications.credit-suisse....fm?fileid=25EC6CF2-0407-67D9-AAEAAE8BDFEDE378
Net worth is not always the same as cash, which is used to make payments on debt obligations.
Not at all. You SELL assets to pay off debt, with cash. You're probably new to the whole concept of investing, but people invest to make money. An asset is merely a tool to accomplish that.
Zullo broke no law.All hearsay!American patriot Mike Zullo can say anything he wants. It's nobody's business. Get over it.How do you know it's a bribe? Do you have the conversation transcript between American patriot Mike Zullo and the thoughtful giftee?
I leave that for the viewer to decide for themselves. Perhaps its just a grand coincidence that immediately after receiving a secret $10,000 payment, Zullo's 'findings' matched exactly the narrative of the man who paid him. Perhaps Zullo tyring to cover up that payment and the corruption of his entire investigation was also a coincidence. Perhaps Zullo lying about it to the press was a coincidence.
But its much more likely that Zullo is a corrupt, lying piece of shit that is being paid to shill birther propaganda.
Says you. Any objective person looking at Zullo and Apaio's actions would be immediately suspect. Abusive, self serving sham 'investigations' at the people's expense, stalking judge's wives, sham charges, and concept of court for Apaio. And a comprimised investigation, 5 figure bribes, a cover up, and lies to the press for Zullo.
And these corrupt fucks are your sources?
Surely you can understand why I hold the State of Hawaii in far higher regard.
Oh, no. Apaio has admitted to all of it. Zullo's lies are documented by the press. And Zullo has admitted to taking payments from a birther. And then quoting that birther word for word as part of Zullo's 'findings' AFTER taking the payments.
This has all been admitted to. You're the one trying to deny it.
The debt doesn't really need to be paid off, or down some. It just needs to be shown that it can be serviced.
Right now, with interest rates at historic lows for the historic length of duration, paying interests and principle on the debt is doable. However, interest rates can't stay where they are for very long without adverse consequences. When rates rise, paying down, off or some of the debt will be mathematically impossible.
T-bills aren't adjustable rate. They are fixed rate. Whatever rate they were lent is what is owed. So take a 30 year treasury bond at 2.75%. That's 27.50 in interest for every $1000 of the bond. If intererest rates skyrocket, that bond is still 27.50 every year for $1000 of the bond. And it will remain exactly that for the life of the bond.
So the higher intertest rates bonds only count for newly issued bonds. Not for those that have already been issued. The 'mathematically impossible' bonds would be at a higher interest rate for a maximum of 30 years. Then they'd be reset at whatever the rate was when the principle came due and the bond is reissued.
Everyday at least 60 million of debt comes due and most treasuries mature anywhere from 15 weeks to 3 years. Raising interest rates affects these T-Bills greatly.
Zullo broke no law.All hearsay!American patriot Mike Zullo can say anything he wants. It's nobody's business. Get over it.I leave that for the viewer to decide for themselves. Perhaps its just a grand coincidence that immediately after receiving a secret $10,000 payment, Zullo's 'findings' matched exactly the narrative of the man who paid him. Perhaps Zullo tyring to cover up that payment and the corruption of his entire investigation was also a coincidence. Perhaps Zullo lying about it to the press was a coincidence.
But its much more likely that Zullo is a corrupt, lying piece of shit that is being paid to shill birther propaganda.
Says you. Any objective person looking at Zullo and Apaio's actions would be immediately suspect. Abusive, self serving sham 'investigations' at the people's expense, stalking judge's wives, sham charges, and concept of court for Apaio. And a comprimised investigation, 5 figure bribes, a cover up, and lies to the press for Zullo.
And these corrupt fucks are your sources?
Surely you can understand why I hold the State of Hawaii in far higher regard.
Oh, no. Apaio has admitted to all of it. Zullo's lies are documented by the press. And Zullo has admitted to taking payments from a birther. And then quoting that birther word for word as part of Zullo's 'findings' AFTER taking the payments.
This has all been admitted to. You're the one trying to deny it.
The debt doesn't really need to be paid off, or down some. It just needs to be shown that it can be serviced.
Right now, with interest rates at historic lows for the historic length of duration, paying interests and principle on the debt is doable. However, interest rates can't stay where they are for very long without adverse consequences. When rates rise, paying down, off or some of the debt will be mathematically impossible.
T-bills aren't adjustable rate. They are fixed rate. Whatever rate they were lent is what is owed. So take a 30 year treasury bond at 2.75%. That's 27.50 in interest for every $1000 of the bond. If intererest rates skyrocket, that bond is still 27.50 every year for $1000 of the bond. And it will remain exactly that for the life of the bond.
So the higher intertest rates bonds only count for newly issued bonds. Not for those that have already been issued. The 'mathematically impossible' bonds would be at a higher interest rate for a maximum of 30 years. Then they'd be reset at whatever the rate was when the principle came due and the bond is reissued.
Everyday at least 60 million of debt comes due and most treasuries mature anywhere from 15 weeks to 3 years. Raising interest rates affects these T-Bills greatly.
Then falling interest rates would effect them just as fully. Interest rates rise and fall. So any argument about our debt becoming 'mathematically impossible' if interest rates were higher would be a temporary situation. As we'd be able take advantage of lower interest rates very quickly.
If interest rates rise, that 2.75% bond becomes like an underwater mortgage. The Fed would not be able to sell them to soak up inflation without taking a loss.The debt doesn't really need to be paid off, or down some. It just needs to be shown that it can be serviced.
Right now, with interest rates at historic lows for the historic length of duration, paying interests and principle on the debt is doable. However, interest rates can't stay where they are for very long without adverse consequences. When rates rise, paying down, off or some of the debt will be mathematically impossible.
T-bills aren't adjustable rate. They are fixed rate. Whatever rate they were lent is what is owed. So take a 30 year treasury bond at 2.75%. That's 27.50 in interest for every $1000 of the bond. If intererest rates skyrocket, that bond is2.65% still 27.50 every year for $1000 of the bond. And it will remain exactly that for the life of the bond.
So the higher intertest rates bonds only count for newly issued bonds. Not for those that have already been issued. The 'mathematically impossible' bonds would be at a higher interest rate for a maximum of 30 years. Then they'd be reset at whatever the rate was when the principle came due and the bond is reissued.
For your scenario to occur, we;d have to have enormously high interest rates for generations. And that's really unlikely.
The debt doesn't really need to be paid off, or down some. It just needs to be shown that it can be serviced.
Right now, with interest rates at historic lows for the historic length of duration, paying interests and principle on the debt is doable. However, interest rates can't stay where they are for very long without adverse consequences. When rates rise, paying down, off or some of the debt will be mathematically impossible.
T-bills aren't adjustable rate. They are fixed rate. Whatever rate they were lent is what is owed. So take a 30 year treasury bond at 2.75%. That's 27.50 in interest for every $1000 of the bond. If intererest rates skyrocket, that bond is still 27.50 every year for $1000 of the bond. And it will remain exactly that for the life of the bond.
So the higher intertest rates bonds only count for newly issued bonds. Not for those that have already been issued. The 'mathematically impossible' bonds would be at a higher interest rate for a maximum of 30 years. Then they'd be reset at whatever the rate was when the principle came due and the bond is reissued.
Everyday at least 60 million of debt comes due and most treasuries mature anywhere from 15 weeks to 3 years. Raising interest rates affects these T-Bills greatly.
Then falling interest rates would effect them just as fully. Interest rates rise and fall. So any argument about our debt becoming 'mathematically impossible' if interest rates were higher would be a temporary situation. As we'd be able take advantage of lower interest rates very quickly.
There is very little that can be done to effect the yield curve of existing maturities, so even lower rates would be a stretch. There isn't much of a direction yields can maneuver in except up. When interest rates rise, yields will rise with them. It will only be a temporary situation if the Fed decides to undo their rate hikes. If anything, we should be taking advantage of lower interest rates while they are still low.
I am merely pointing out the OP article writer is an idiot. He said if we confiscated all wealth, there isn't enough to pay off the debt. He was WAAAAAAAAY off. That's a fact.You are making more and more a fool of yourself. $83 trillion of wealth means it is not mathematically impossible to pay off the debt. Even a retard should see that.Assets can be used to pay debt. You sound as foolish as the person who wrote the OP article.I've proven several times the one percent alone has enough to pay off the debt and still have enough left over to run the government for another six months.
You can see on page 25 of this document that total US wealth is over $83 trillion: https://publications.credit-suisse....fm?fileid=25EC6CF2-0407-67D9-AAEAAE8BDFEDE378
Net worth is not always the same as cash, which is used to make payments on debt obligations.
Not at all. You SELL assets to pay off debt, with cash. You're probably new to the whole concept of investing, but people invest to make money. An asset is merely a tool to accomplish that.
That $83 trillion in net worth you are referring to is owned by the private sector. The public sector needs to repay the private sector, not the other way around...
If the US government decides to nationalize everything or create a wealth tax, your claims may be possible. Although, that is not how things work in the real world.
I am merely pointing out the OP article writer is an idiot. He said if we confiscated all wealth, there isn't enough to pay off the debt. He was WAAAAAAAAY off. That's a fact.You are making more and more a fool of yourself. $83 trillion of wealth means it is not mathematically impossible to pay off the debt. Even a retard should see that.Assets can be used to pay debt. You sound as foolish as the person who wrote the OP article.Net worth is not always the same as cash, which is used to make payments on debt obligations.
Not at all. You SELL assets to pay off debt, with cash. You're probably new to the whole concept of investing, but people invest to make money. An asset is merely a tool to accomplish that.
That $83 trillion in net worth you are referring to is owned by the private sector. The public sector needs to repay the private sector, not the other way around...
If the US government decides to nationalize everything or create a wealth tax, your claims may be possible. Although, that is not how things work in the real world.
You don't understand.If interest rates rise, that 2.75% bond becomes like an underwater mortgage. The Fed would not be able to sell them to soak up inflation without taking a loss.The debt doesn't really need to be paid off, or down some. It just needs to be shown that it can be serviced.
Right now, with interest rates at historic lows for the historic length of duration, paying interests and principle on the debt is doable. However, interest rates can't stay where they are for very long without adverse consequences. When rates rise, paying down, off or some of the debt will be mathematically impossible.
T-bills aren't adjustable rate. They are fixed rate. Whatever rate they were lent is what is owed. So take a 30 year treasury bond at 2.75%. That's 27.50 in interest for every $1000 of the bond. If intererest rates skyrocket, that bond is2.65% still 27.50 every year for $1000 of the bond. And it will remain exactly that for the life of the bond.
So the higher intertest rates bonds only count for newly issued bonds. Not for those that have already been issued. The 'mathematically impossible' bonds would be at a higher interest rate for a maximum of 30 years. Then they'd be reset at whatever the rate was when the principle came due and the bond is reissued.
For your scenario to occur, we;d have to have enormously high interest rates for generations. And that's really unlikely.
Depends on the length of the bond, the stability of the market, and who is offering the higher rates. The Fed's bonds are Aaa rating, which means they can offer less interest, as they are considered a rock solid safe investment. But assuming that interest rates rose high enough that even the Aaa rating wouldn't be enough for 2.75%.......you're still only dealing with newly sold bonds.
Those that have already sold BEFORE the interest rates go up would be unaffected. And if we're talking about a 30 year bond, that could have been quite a while ago.
Interest rates only effect newly floated debt. They're irrelevant on debt that's already been sold. Well, irrelevant to the US. On the secondary markets it would be very relevant.
I am merely pointing out the OP article writer is an idiot. He said if we confiscated all wealth, there isn't enough to pay off the debt. He was WAAAAAAAAY off. That's a fact.You are making more and more a fool of yourself. $83 trillion of wealth means it is not mathematically impossible to pay off the debt. Even a retard should see that.Assets can be used to pay debt. You sound as foolish as the person who wrote the OP article.Net worth is not always the same as cash, which is used to make payments on debt obligations.
Not at all. You SELL assets to pay off debt, with cash. You're probably new to the whole concept of investing, but people invest to make money. An asset is merely a tool to accomplish that.
That $83 trillion in net worth you are referring to is owned by the private sector. The public sector needs to repay the private sector, not the other way around...
If the US government decides to nationalize everything or create a wealth tax, your claims may be possible. Although, that is not how things work in the real world.
