• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Financially Strapped US Be Funding the IMF?

Should the US be funding the IMF?


  • Total voters
    16

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
More importantly, just why would the Democrats be trying to hide this funding in a must-sign defense allocation bill? Hmmmm? Are they trying to hide from a debate on the matter?

Are they worried the public might think it's a damn stupid idea for a person facing bankruptcy to be co-signing loans to strangers, or worse, known con-men?

Since the US is borrowing money, wouldn't it be wisdom to tell would be borrowers to hitch their poor asses over to China, where we're borrowing our money?

House Republicans Oppose $100B New Line of Credit for IMFRepublicans in the House are lining up to oppose an almost $100 billion war-funding bill if Democrats insist on including in it a new line of credit for the International Monetary Fund.

Democrats may have to scramble to pass the bill in the House, where GOP votes are likely to be needed to make up for about 50 anti-war liberal Democrats who opposed it last month.

At the core of the $98.8 billion House-Senate measure is $79.9 billion for the Pentagon, a figure that's also rankling House Republicans since it represents an almost $5 billion cut from the version that passed the House last month. That measure did not include funding for the IMF.

Responding to media reports that House Democratic negotiators have agreed to include a new $100 billion line of credit to the IMF -- a top priority of President Obama -- the top Republican in the House said Tuesday he would oppose the bill.

"Let's be clear: a troop-funding bill should fund our troops, period," said Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Weighing down this critical legislation with nondefense spending will only drag this process out further and cost it essential Republican support needed for passage."

Obama promised the IMF money at April's G-20 summit to help developing countries deal with the troubled global economy. About $8 billion for an earlier commitment for the IMF will be included.

The actual U.S. costs for the IMF contribution are far less -- $5 billion is the Congressional Budget Office estimate -- since the U.S. government is given interest-bearing assets in return. Still, U.S. debt would have to be issued to provide the money at a time when government borrowing has exploded.

"There is absolutely no reason for the Democrat majority to complicate a bill intended to fund our troops by larding it up with over $108 billion in borrowed money for the IMF," said House GOP Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia.

So much for The Messiah's famed "openness" and "transparency". He's just another shell game con-man from Chicago.


Ooops. Can some friendly mod add a "Yes/No" poll, please?
 
Last edited:
I am torn. I am not sure if I want Obama to continue to spend us into collapse so that we can rebuild from the bottom up or if I would rather someone stop this madness.
 
No. We shouldn't.

But this chicken (among others) will come home to roost in 2010 and 2012.

;)
 
No, we should not be funding the IMF.

And no, this should not be in the Polls section unless one magically appears!:2razz:
 
Moderator's Warning:
Poll added per request
 
The reality is that even if the United States had a budget surplus and zero national debt, it shouldn't be playing World Banker. That's the job of private commercial banks.
 
Methinks that most of the people who reflexively oppose this have absolutely no idea what the IMF is, or what it does. They just think "Internationalism bad. Tax cuts good. I make fire."
 
Last edited:
Methinks that most of the people who reflexively oppose this have absolutely no idea what the IMF is, or what it does. They just think "Internationalism bad. Tax cuts good. I make fire."

Methinks if you support the IMF you sign over your own personal bank account to them.

Debate the logic presented: The United States is enjoying an uprecendent period of fiscal disaster, with trillion dollar deficits for as long as China will let us. Why should the United States continue to pour money into the IMF when we ourselves have to borrow that money to piss it away? Why shouldn't the IMF go to the nation loaning the money to the US directly, instead?
 
Just another chapter in another "pay the banker" presidency.


IMF, Trilateral commission,Buildeberg, Federal Reserve. All ties together.


When you hear someone on the mainstream media praising the governments actions or mitigating a reaction to some inanity check their resume. Several times they are in one or more of those groups cheerleading their own agenda.

I catch it on CNN all the time.

Trilateral globalist thinktank lackeys are the most blatant.

Its better for the US to give the banker the money first so they can then loan us back our own money on interest. Less work that way. For them anyway. Not us.
 
Last edited:
Why shouldn't the IMF go to the nation loaning the money to the US directly, instead?

1) all charities have problems getting loans

2) this particular charity isn't popular enough to function as an actual charity

3) people that feign to be smarter then you deemed this charity is too important to fail, making your opinion moot
 
What has the US's ROI on the IMF been? I'm betting pretty huge. At least double digits on average annually.

After all, the biggest beneficiary of the interest on IMF loans has been the US who's bank account the IMF eventually feeds into.

But you're not suppose to know that.
 
What has the US's ROI on the IMF been?
ROI means "Return On Investment." It means money is coming back to the investor (that's us, in this case).

If the IMF is so damn good that we're getting money back, why do they need more funding?

If we're plowing more money into the IMF, the ROI is necessarily negative, not positive.
 
ROI means "Return On Investment." It means money is coming back to the investor (that's us, in this case).

If the IMF is so damn good that we're getting money back, why do they need more funding?

If we're plowing more money into the IMF, the ROI is necessarily negative, not positive.

Please, sir, don't baffle them with common sense.
 
The IMF is a tool of power and the U.S. is its biggest financial and political contributor. Nothing will change. In fact, the current global recession is prime time for the IMF to find new debtors. Iceland already caved a while ago. It's a shame, I wanted to visit there and see some of its ancient culture. Well, say bye bye to that now.
 
ROI means "Return On Investment." It means money is coming back to the investor (that's us, in this case).

If the IMF is so damn good that we're getting money back, why do they need more funding?

What makes you think that every bank is profitable every year of its existence? Furthermore, one can be making money while requiring new capital. It's really simple. The income a bank produces is less than the necessary total capital required to make the loans it wants to make. Thus, profitable but needs more funding.

If we're plowing more money into the IMF, the ROI is necessarily negative, not positive.

See above.
 
ROI means "Return On Investment." It means money is coming back to the investor (that's us, in this case).

If the IMF is so damn good that we're getting money back, why do they need more funding?

If we're plowing more money into the IMF, the ROI is necessarily negative, not positive.

That makes absolutely no sense. If profitable institutions never needed money, then venture capitalism wouldn't exist. The stock market wouldn't exist. Bank loans wouldn't exist. Etc, etc.
 
If it's that profitable, why isn't private industry demanding to take it over?

Because no private industry has the geopolitical power that the IMF has in its capacity for force countries to do what it wants (Aka Stabilization agreements). That and no private bank has that kind of capital to loan out. What bank have you heard of that makes routine $30 billion loans with much thinking? The IMF gave Mexico a $50 billion stabilization loan. Large double digit billion dollar loans are pretty normal at the IMF and World Bank.

I think the IMF was pretty evil, but when the bank account that countries pay significant interest on goes directly into the US treasury, as a less then moral American, I have a hard time saying no to that.
 
That makes absolutely no sense. If profitable institutions never needed money, then venture capitalism wouldn't exist. The stock market wouldn't exist. Bank loans wouldn't exist. Etc, etc.

I swear, maybe 5 people here understand finance. And it's not the hard righties.

Do you think they realize that profitable institutions are some of the biggest consumers of financing?
 
That makes absolutely no sense. If profitable institutions never needed money, then venture capitalism wouldn't exist. The stock market wouldn't exist. Bank loans wouldn't exist. Etc, etc.
Well, we've established your ignorance of corporate finance, at least.

Institutions that are profitable rarely borrow money except on a short term basis to manage cash flows. When they do borrow, it's for business expansion--i.e., to ramp up a line of business that has yet to turn a profit.

Ditto for raising capital via the stock market: the goal is to grow the business (or segment thereof) to a point of profitability.

Profitable businesses that borrow lots of money generally don't remain profitable for very long.
 
I swear, maybe 5 people here understand finance. And it's not the hard righties.

Do you think they realize that profitable institutions are some of the biggest consumers of financing?

I have not found a single lefty on this sight with a ****ing clue. ~wave
 
I swear, maybe 5 people here understand finance. And it's not the hard righties.

Do you think they realize that profitable institutions are some of the biggest consumers of financing?
I swear, maybe 5 people understand the differences among lines of credit, commercial paper, bonds, preferred stock, and common stock.

Profitable businesses use financing for either short term cash management or long term business expansion.

Non-profitable businesses use financing and venture capital to (hopefully) grow their business towards profitability.
 
The federal reserve made that in excess interest alone in 2005.

Ah, the but the question is on private financing. The Federal Reserve for intensive purposes is the government. While it is financed outside of Congress, its members are approved by Congress and it is subject to Congressional oversight.

Did Citibank make hundreds of double digit billion dollar loans without thinking much of it?
 
Back
Top Bottom