Declination of credit to Congress <g>

Dave Siciliano

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
6,434
Location
Dallas, Texas
Display Name

Display name:
Dave Siciliano
This is reflective of my feelings on this matter.


Best,


Dave
================================================



The Honorable _________
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable _________
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. or Ms. _______,
Thank you for your interest in the American Public Trust's Gold Card credit program. Rest assured your application has been given thorough and careful consideration by the American people.
After reviewing the information provided in your application as well as your credit report, we regret to say that we are unable to extend you further credit at this time. The reasons for our decision are as follows:
(1) Inadequate income.Our records indicate that your annual income for the 2011 taxable year was $2,170,000,000,000. You have requested a credit limit of $17,000,000,000,000. These figures exceed the American Public's debt-to-income guidelines for credit issuance.
(2) Excessive spending. The receipts you provided indicate your annual expenditures for the 2011 fiscal year total $3,820,000,000,000, or $1,650,000,000,000 more than your total income for the year. The American Public prefers that its members of Congress maintain a positive or neutral rather than a negative cash flow.
(3) High debt utilization. Your credit report indicates that you have a credit limit of $14,300,000,000,000, and of that amount you have utilized $14,300,000,000,000, for a debt utilization ratio of 100 percent. Consumer banking industry guidelines recommend a debt utilization ratio of no greater than 30 percent for standard creditworthiness, and 10 percent for exemplary creditworthiness. A debt utilization rate of 100 percent meets our classification of "You're *&^%$#@! kidding, right?"
(4) High credit activity. Our records indicate you have credit accounts open with the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States, the Social Security Administration, the People's Bank of China, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank, the Bank of the Republic of Burundi, Bank Frick & Co. AG Liechtensteiner Privatbank, Quik-Cash Loans, Three Gold Balls Pawn Shop (Ann Arbor, Mich.), MyFast Loan.com (Antigua), paydayloans-r-us.com (Cayman Islands), Frank the bartender (Old Towne Tavern), and several members of the extended family of Salvatore "Sammy Meatballs" Montigliano of Montclair, N.J. While account activity threshholds vary by lender, your activity exceeds American Public guidelines for further credit issuance.
(5) Multiple recent credit inquiries. Records indicate your credit report has been accessed more than 6,437 times in the past 60 days. Inquiries may be triggered by applications for credit, employment or both and represent one factor in determining an applicant's loan risk to a credit issuer. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), as amended, requires businesses to have legitimate grounds for requesting your credit history. If you feel your credit information is inaccurate or has been accessed for unacceptable reasons, you may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission.
(6) Multiple account charge-offs. Balances left unpaid for more than sixty (60) days may affect your creditworthiness. Your credit report indicates unpaid balances from Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq); Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan); the Troubled Asset Relief Program; the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act; the Cash for Clunkers Extension Act; the Worker, Homeowner, and Business Assistance Act of 2009; the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010; and others too numerous to list.
Member of Congress, please understand that the American people's decision was based on information obtained from a report from one of the following three consumer credit reporting agencies: Equifax, Experian, or Trans-Union. The reporting agency did not make the credit decision.
You have the right under the amended Fair Credit Reporting Act to request a free copy of your credit report once each calendar year from each of the three major credit reporting agencies listed above. You can order your report from annualcreditreport.com or the Annual Credit Report Request Service, P.O. Box 105281, Atlanta, GA 30348-5281.
You may also wish to contact a consumer credit counseling agency. The National Foundation for Credit Counseling can help you locate a reputable counseling agency in your area. You may also wish to visit the NFCC's website for helpful tips on such subjects as
•drawing up a budget
•living within your means
•saving during tough economic times
•steps to take when your finances get out of control
In the event that you can provide documentation of changes to your credit status, we will be happy to evaluate another application for credit from you at that time. We hope to have the opportunity to meet your credit needs in the future.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the American people during regular business hours. Please do not contact us at home. If you call us after 9 p.m. and wake the baby, there will be hell to pay.
Sincerely yours,
We the People
[FONT=&quot]http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/20/dear-congress-your-credit-appl[/FONT]
 
If government debt offerings were held to SEC standards, the risk section would be bigger than the NYC phone book.
 
The world is doomed,,,,,,,,, people are starting to think like me.
 
Ron Paul needs to bring the Fed to heel. The printing of 1.3 trillion dollars (1,300 of BILLIONS) under the guise "quantitative easing" was just ROBBERY, nothing less.
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul needs to bring the Fed to heel. The printing of 1.3 trillions dollars unde the guise "quantitative easing" was just ROBBERY, nothing less.

Inflation is Robbery, guess what causes it, and who does it harm most?
 
Ron Paul needs to bring the Fed to heel. The printing of 1.3 trillion dollars (1,300 of BILLIONS) under the guise "quantitative easing" was just ROBBERY, nothing less.
I love the fact that so many of my fellow pilots are wise - sadly unlike many other segments of the population.

Ryan
 
but

but

but

I thought we should spend our way out of debt????

Isn't an unemployment check the best job program in the world?

Doesn't issuing more debt, make the exisiting debt worth less and therefore, reduce the actual debt?
 
I love inflation! When it comes around, I'll just pay my house off with a 1 bazillion dollar bill and tell them to keep the change.
 
I love inflation! When it comes around, I'll just pay my house off with a 1 bazillion dollar bill and tell them to keep the change.

The problem with your theory is, your pay check does not get inflated to earn your bazillion dollar bill.

The retired folks on a fixed income get poorer by the minute.
 
Last edited:
I'd be happy to point out the many untruths and fallacies posted here, but I don't know how to respond to partisan political discussion in a forum that doesn't allow partisan political discussion.
-harry
 
Given the choice, give me inflation every time. It can be dealt with monetarily, whereas deflation can't. We had a tiny taste in real estate. Bitter indeed.
 
The problem with your theory is, your pay check does not get inflated to earn your bazillion dollar bill.

The retired folks on a fixed income get poorer by the minute.

While I 100% agree with the sentiment, and think that we as a society treat our elderly like dirt, it's really rare to find a person truly on a "fixed income". Social Security has crappy COLA increases regularly. Normal retirement investments in normal markets would make interest and or dividends. Pensions might be the one exception.

Whenever I hear "fixed income" I immediately wonder which political party is about to pitch me on something, because they always start with that un-truth and fry up a big Whopper from there...

(When it was both big political party's fault that Social Security is horribly and utterly broken. They like breaking things so we all can feel like we helped them fix it later on when we vote the idiots back in.)
 
While I 100% agree with the sentiment, and think that we as a society treat our elderly like dirt, it's really rare to find a person truly on a "fixed income". Social Security has crappy COLA increases regularly. Normal retirement investments in normal markets would make interest and or dividends. Pensions might be the one exception.

Problems are the COLAs never keep up, and there hasn't been any for 2 years

Whenever I hear "fixed income" I immediately wonder which political party is about to pitch me on something, because they always start with that un-truth and fry up a big Whopper from there..

Get one thing right,,,,,,,,, there are no differences between one party or the other both have continued the social tactics that got us here.


(When it was both big political party's fault that Social Security is horribly and utterly broken. They like breaking things so we all can feel like we helped them fix it later on when we vote the idiots back in.)

I whole heatedly agree, the more people who are dependent upon the government the more power the government has over the people.

Some smart ass said that socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money. and that is where we are now.
 
Last edited:
Given the choice, give me inflation every time. It can be dealt with monetarily, whereas deflation can't. We had a tiny taste in real estate. Bitter indeed.

Some times the bitter pill is the better medicine
 
Yup. Frequently misquoted in the manner you did.

She wasn't commenting on socialism in general but rather a number of specific British governments of the 60s and 70s. 'Socialist governments traditionally make a financial mess. They always run out of other peoples money to spend.'
Most folks like you confuse a social Democracy with a true socialist form of government (like Nazi Germany and early Russia) What we have now is not the true Marxist form of social government, what we have now is a social democracy, where we elect who will feed and care for us.

but both forms lead to the same end, that is more entitlements than the tax base will support.

Belgium is an example of a social Democracy, research their tax system,find out how much tax it requires to support that system and see if you would like to pay that much.

There is a lesson here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY
 
Last edited:
Because it is being disused rationally.

"Non-aviation related topics on Politics and Religion are automatically "Spin Zone" topics..."

I've found that most people consider their own statements as "rational". If some who are exercising restraint were to join in on the conversation and provide opposing viewpoints, I wonder if you would view the discussion as being less rational than before?
-harry
 
I'd be happy to point out the many untruths and fallacies posted here, but I don't know how to respond to partisan political discussion in a forum that doesn't allow partisan political discussion.
-harry

Oh, are you here to tell us that the US gov't is not in debt? :rolleyes:
 
So you can't point out how the US gov't isn't in debt. Got it. Thanks.
 
So you can't point out how the US gov't isn't in debt. Got it. Thanks.
Find the logical fallacy:
You say: "A, B, C, D, E, F, G"
I say: "not all of those are true"
You say: "How can you claim that D isn't true?"​
-harry
 
Now we are in the SZ

Bye
 
many = one in your world?

Yes, I am quite sure the list in (4) is supposed to be humorous. Thank you for pointing out that fallacy. Speaking of humor, maybe that's something you should look into obtaining a sense of before you get a serious infestation of Emerald Ash Borers in your upper GI.
 
So you can't point out how the US gov't isn't in debt. Got it. Thanks.

Seems to me that the issue is somewhat more...complicated.

To really have a discussion about the U.S. debt, you've got to have a discussion about everything from how that debt is funded, who funds it, how the U.S. economy works, and a whole host of other factors that I'm simply not intelligent enough to even begin to understand.
 
Seems to me that the issue is somewhat more...complicated.

To really have a discussion about the U.S. debt, you've got to have a discussion about everything from how that debt is funded, who funds it, how the U.S. economy works, and a whole host of other factors that I'm simply not intelligent enough to even begin to understand.

I dunno debt is pretty simple to me. The minuses outpace the plusses. Maybe that's why gov't is so F'ed up. They take something simple and make it uber-complicated.
 
I dunno debt is pretty simple to me. The minuses outpace the plusses. Maybe that's why gov't is so F'ed up. They take something simple and make it uber-complicated.

Or perhaps you could say that the problem is a continuous need to simplify the uber-complex.

There are a whole lot of incredibly complex things out there, inlcuding aviation, that the average person has neither the time nor the inclination to try to understand. That's not meant to call anybody stupid, just to point out that, when the work-day is done, most of us aren't interested in going home to learn about things like meteorology or the issuance of bonds - especially when we can explain these things, to the extent necessary, by saying that "blobs on the weather radar means rain" and "if I buy a $25 bond now, I'll get $50 back in X years."

Just consider the legal discussions that occur here from time to time. I frequently give two answers: 1) the simple one that explains nothing; and 2) the actual explanation. The latter doesn't seem to generate much interest, except among those who have some desire to know about it.
 
Or perhaps you could say that the problem is a continuous need to simplify the uber-complex.

There are a whole lot of incredibly complex things out there, inlcuding aviation, that the average person has neither the time nor the inclination to try to understand. That's not meant to call anybody stupid, just to point out that, when the work-day is done, most of us aren't interested in going home to learn about things like meteorology or the issuance of bonds - especially when we can explain these things, to the extent necessary, by saying that "blobs on the weather radar means rain" and "if I buy a $25 bond now, I'll get $50 back in X years."

Just consider the legal discussions that occur here from time to time. I frequently give two answers: 1) the simple one that explains nothing; and 2) the actual explanation. The latter doesn't seem to generate much interest, except among those who have some desire to know about it.

Debt is pretty simple to understand, it must be paid off some day, but in the mean time we pay interest on the debt, which is money that we could put to much better use.
 
If people want to sound off about government policies (which sounds like a political topic to me) we have a great forum for doing so -- it's called Spin Zone. Why put the moderators in the position of having to judge a controversial topic? Just put it in SZ from the get go so they don't have to worry about it.
 
It can be a very complex discussion, but parts of it can be simplified.

Debt is used to purchase something today and pay for it in the future. We seem to be doing too much of this. Debt as a percentage of GNP is higher than at any time since WWII in which we were fighting for our future as a nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

If one looks at our annual income and compares it to our national debt, We took in 2,162 billion in tax receipts in FY 2010 and spent 3,456 Billion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

As everyone knows, we are about to hit the proposed debt ceiling of $14.3 Trillion!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hEkfx_bpGC-zVoeKNR38gWLcjXdw

So, each year, we are spending much more than we take in. One can then look at what the money is being spent on and find many social programs will continue to increase in cost and can't continue on with promised benefits without increasing the deficit more. We're in two wars and have an active campaign in Lybia that hasn't yet received Congressional approval.

So, to directions to go: increase national income (basically increase taxes) at a time when our economy is showing signs of slowing and when we have record real estate foreclosures and high levels of consumer debt, or cut expenditures. Or, of course, some combination of the two.

I don't support increasing national debt until we get our spending under control. Seems to me, every time we give the government more income, they spend more than we give them even with the new income.

Best,

Dave
 
Last edited:
Most folks like you confuse a social Democracy with a true socialist form of government (like Nazi Germany and early Russia) What we have now is not the true Marxist form of social government, what we have now is a social democracy, where we elect who will feed and care for us.

but both forms lead to the same end, that is more entitlements than the tax base will support.

Belgium is an example of a social Democracy, research their tax system,find out how much tax it requires to support that system and see if you would like to pay that much.

There is a lesson here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

And most Belgians would rather live there than here, and most Americans would rather live here than there. Sounds like things are working fairly well in both places.
 
And most Belgians would rather live there than here, and most Americans would rather live here than there. Sounds like things are working fairly well in both places.
It's just a case of what you knew as normal...

that's why we have several generations of welfare dependent families
That is why we have Ghettos those who live there know no better.
 
I dunno debt is pretty simple to me. The minuses outpace the plusses. Maybe that's why gov't is so F'ed up. They take something simple and make it uber-complicated.

Without a national debt, the United States would still swear allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II
 
Without a national debt, the United States would still swear allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II
That seems to assume a particular outcome for WWII, in which the US funded its participation with borrowed money.
-harry
 
Back
Top