Here is a clear example of why the US should not run ongoing debt

[Revmitchell]

Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, reports NYT.

According to NYT, Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com...reasury-holdings-if-congress-passes-9-11-bill

 

[InTheLight]

Who will buy them?

And if they sell them, so what?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Benjamin]

Who will buy them?

And if they sell them, so what?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Was thinking the same thing.

...And that we are always looking for a good deal on buying back OUR assets!

...And if they are proven responsible for the attacks here we ought to be taking our assets backs either way.

...And there's probably little they can do about.

Sent from my HP Laptop using Keyboard

 

[Don]

Who will buy them?

And if they sell them, so what?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I think the implied threat is selling them to Russia or China.

 

[InTheLight]

I think the implied threat is selling them to Russia or China.

And again I ask, so?

Instead of paying interest to the Saudis we pay it to someone else.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Benjamin]

And again I ask, so?

Instead of paying interest to the Saudis we pay it to someone else.

You asked, "And if they sell them, so what?"

So, in selling our debt to others the Saudis are then able to escape being held financially responsible, correct? Isn't that the idea? No problem with that?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Save for less than a handful of years, The Feds have been running a deficit since the Washington administration.

 

[InTheLight]

You asked, "And if they sell them, so what?"

So, in selling our debt to others the Saudis are then able to escape being held financially responsible, correct? Isn't that the idea? No problem with that?

Yes I have a problem with not being able to freeze those payments to the Saudis if their government is found to be directly culpable for 911.

However, the OP was about why the US should not run ongoing debt. A couple of points.

1.If the Saudis did not hold this debt we would have no leverage over them in this investigation.

2. The debt is already out there. If the Saudis sell it to someone else the US still has to pay it off.

I'm not seeing the point of the OP.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Revmitchell]

Proverbs 22:7 .......... the borrower is servant to the lender.

 

[Benjamin]

Yes I have a problem with not being able to freeze those payments to the Saudis if their government is found to be directly culpable for 911.

However, the OP was about why the US should not run ongoing debt. A couple of points.

1.If the Saudis did not hold this debt we would have no leverage over them in this investigation.

2. The debt is already out there. If the Saudis sell it to someone else the US still has to pay it off.

Hmm, perhaps we should be upfront and direct and could declare that we perceive the selling of these debts as an attempt to escape responsibility should it found they are culpable and therefore stipulate that we intend to use any payments toward any debts currently held by the Saudis, should there be a judgement against the holders of these debts, that any new bearer of these debts should beware that any claim against these current debt holders will follow the debt and subsequent payment withholding will still be in effect regardless of the transfer. Should make any perspective buyer think twice...

Just a thought.

 

[Aaron]

Proverbs 22:7 .......... the borrower is servant to the lender.

Discussion over.

 

[InTheLight]

Hmm, perhaps we should be upfront and direct and could declare that we perceive the selling of these debts as an attempt to escape responsibility should it found they are culpable and therefore stipulate that we intend to use any payments toward any debts currently held by the Saudis, should there be a judgement against the holders of these debts, that any new bearer of these debts should beware that any claim against these current debt holders will follow the debt and subsequent payment withholding will still be in effect regardless of the transfer. Should make any perspective buyer think twice...

Just a thought.

Putting additional conditions on the payback of debt after its issuance would have disastrous effects on the US credit rating. Just a thought.

 

[Benjamin]

Putting additional conditions on the payback of debt after its issuance would have disastrous effects on the US credit rating. Just a thought.

That is true and worth weighing in, although putting a freeze on a debt in the past hasn't seemed to have that effect. Perhaps this could be considered a preliminary freeze condition?

 

[InTheLight]

That is true and worth weighing in, although putting a freeze on a debt in the past hasn't seemed to have that effect. Perhaps this could be considered a preliminary freeze condition?

any new bearer of these debts should beware that any claim against these current debt holders will follow the debt and subsequent payment withholding will still be in effect regardless of the transfer.

If the U.S. could do this quietly get this message across without other nations finding out about it, it would be worth doing, yes.

 

[Benjamin]

If the U.S. could do this quietly get this message across without other nations finding out about it, it would be worth doing, yes.

Sorry, you lost me on that one. The point of a "preliminary freeze condition" would be stop the Saudis from selling the debts, before the matters of responsibility are decided, because any perspective buyers knowing of the condition and not wanting to take the risk. So I don't see how there is any value toward stopping the Saudis from selling if other countries, perspective buyers don't know about it?

 

[InTheLight]

Sorry, you lost me on that one. The point of a "preliminary freeze condition" would be stop the Saudis from selling the debts, before the matters of responsibility are decided, because any perspective buyers knowing of the condition and not wanting to take the risk. So I don't see how there is any value toward stopping the Saudis from selling if other countries, perspective buyers don't know about it?

I meant to quietly inform prospective buyers, like Japan or China that if they buy these securities they will be subject to being frozen. Don't tell other nations like the European nations and require secrecy from the prospective buyers.

 

[Zaac]

Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, reports NYT.

According to NYT, Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com...reasury-holdings-if-congress-passes-9-11-bill

I guess this and a handful of other things explains why we didn't bomb Saudi Arabia and went after an Iraqi state that hadn't attacked us in NYC.

I wonder if another reason we attacked Shia Iraq was because Sunni Saudi Arabia threatened to sell our debt if we retaliated against them?