50 :]

Capitol Punishment: When big theives hang the little ones.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14965
https://youtube.com/watch?v=0YZCdHgUILI
http://lawofnations.blogspot.com/200...can-union.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=50618
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15017

Lots of good reading on this.

im an american, but im pretty sure our debt is way more then the billions, i was under the impression it was in the trillions, oh well number one for now, i hope i die before it falls, because well, i like it here

bullseye

Aga. And South America now has almost the union. Ecuador annd other countries have signed visa free agreement.

ummm the last i checked, the US has the best credit rating of any world government.. and its other govenrments who put their money into US treasuries.. as it is considered jsut about the safest place to invest... and there is a reason for that..

there is a WHOLE bunch of sheeple ready and willing to lineup and pay their hard earned money in taxes with absolute regularity!

unwantingly - i am but one of the sad bunch who do.

Do you really think the US would do that? :) Not like they aren't already funding enough wars they can't afford. That would bring it to civil war.

NEW WORLD ORDER? with the US ? HAHAHA! thats totally laughable!

as stated.. South America is forming a union, Europe formed a union, did anyone suggest the Euros were out to conquer the world? why not, they've tried before!

I think you mean ODOR.. peeeyeewwww :winkwink:

Some facts for ya. Governments lend money to other governments, - not invest it. Investing is for a marketplace. Governments also lend money not because it's the "safest place to invest" - they even give the stuff away.

The US government has been constantly borrowing money from other nations since the late sixties and using it to pay the national credit card. There has also never been a trade surplus since the late 1960's.

As at September 2004, the U.S. government has a negative net worth of over 7.7 trillion dollars. That is according to Uncle Sam's accounting and this does not include intragovernmental debts nor accrued liabilities such as any provision for pensions, social security and other commitments.

It's more than fair to say the balance sheet grossly understates the enormity of the U.S. government’s deficit net worth position.

Meanwhile, current borrowings continue at levels where this has played a part in the low value of the dollar and in the region of $8 billion/day. Between $2-3 billion a day is being loaned by the Central Bank of China alone.

The question of "credit rating" does not even enter into the scenario. If the US was a corp, US Inc, it would be operating illegally and insolvently with a deficit exceeding $7.7 trillion dollars and the officers thrown into jail for violation of corporate laws.

Keep playing your taxes - far higher rates are needed before solvency or break-even is in sight :pimp

Very well put and TOTALLY frightening. just the more reason to buy gold :2 cents:

It is kinda frightening - even now when the dollar happens to be low, any prospect of eg China dumping some of their billions in US dollar currencies can screw the dollar even more.

There is little interest in China doing this, but they have been trying to pass out dollars into other currencies for a few years - and the current lowish value has got to be tempting from them to dump more.

Flipside, it's all a game and a matter of keeping a balance. It's not in anyone's interest to see any country be damaged economically, and that includes the main creditor, China.

But... bottom line, it's obvious (and has been for a number of years) that the current scenario is not sustainable. The US seriously needs to earn hardcore asset value and this would prob come from having a trade surplus over a sustained period.

Well, if the idea is to crush the USA financially then liquidate our main assets, they are certainly setting it up well. then comes the American Union and the "Amero" crayola currency..

Jeez...

Page 4 of the Treasury's Balance Sheet for 2004 actually states the liabilities re "including Medicare and Social Security payments, pensions and benefits for Federal employees and veterans, and other financial responsibilities"
which, for some strange reason are not included in the balance sheet.

The total of the above social and pension commitments is $45,892 billion dollars - add that to the quoted balance sheet deficit of 7,710 billion and the real deficit (tho who knows if that's all there is?) is in excess of $52 trillion dollars.

I'm gonna have a drink and a think about the value of dollars :1orglaugh

Man that fucking sucks. My dad and grandma live off their social security check each month and literally have no savings :( If that check stops.. fuckus.

That wouldn't happen, the news is a shit:(

:D You guys are making me wish I'd kept up on world economics. Great subject.

This makes me miss college

Sure.. they worked for that pension and fully entitled to every dime.

It's not just the US where that scenario is likely to arise ForteCash. The abuse govts have for pension funds that don't actually belong to them is amazing. They spend their way thru other peoples pension money as tho it belonged to them.

There are elements of that elsewhere, including the EU. The UK govt is much the same. If the same funds were invested into a balanced range of markets, the pension level would have been a lot higher. In recent years there has been a push for everyone to make their own pension provisions - only two reasons exist for that:

(a) the govt has already spent the pension fund and the pot is empty.
(b) the govt now think it's a wonderful idea that everyone should have control of their pension funds (sales pitch, but a bit late for that :) ) - and in the process absolve them of their previous commitments to pensions.


PS Next they'll be charging taxes for annual appreciation of private pension funds :winkwink:

Ugg.. It just keeps getting worse.. :( :mad:

How does it don't work in the EU?

But I agree, it wouldn't work in north america probably, because the differences between US&Canada and Mexico are way too big. Not talking about economics, but also about culture, people, etc.

That depends on what country of the EU you're looking at, at the moment property prices in Spain are higher than in the UK, 10 years ago that would've been unthinkable.

So it is working exactly the way they predicted, the countries that were rich have pretty much stayed in place and the poorer one have benefitted

And when all countries are on a similar level, all will benefit from it, because the market will be huge. More customers for everyone.

mexico would jump at the chance to take yankee dollars, i would laugh if canada even considered though

Neither could do anything about it if the globalists want it done. :2 cents:

That is where you would be wrong. Yes, Canada is currently the US's major trade partner, but the resources we provide to you could just as easily be sold to other countries. It was political BS sparked by George Bush that caused the Canadian government to sell the largest share in the oil sands to CHINA, and believe me Canada has been expanding it's boundries as far as trade. Do some reseach before you jump to assumptions. Remember, the Euro spends as easily (and goes further) than the greenback right now.

thats not the best idea ever

You also have a neighbor that could make you their absolute bitch at the whim of our mad-men leaders :2 cents:

Thank Japan and China for what the US has right now. :)
http://www.investmentadvisor.com/art...p?article=6007

If China or Japan were to pull out of the reserves, the US would be in a spectacular amount of trouble. (They have already threatened to do so)

The US economy is nowhere NEAR #1. Try #9.

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...d=Unitedstates

Dude shut up.. You're a moron.

The USA should just take over the whole of the americas and get it over and done with.

Right. And when does your mother take the camera on your cam site today?

What? Thanks for proving my point.:thumbsup

You can bump my thread all you want :2 cents:

Okay penis pill boy. Here's another.

It's NOT Pills!!!! heh, I used to have to tell people "It's not pumps!", but now "pills" enter peoples minds when they here penis enlargement. They are exercise techniques you perform with your hands. :thumbsup

see sig.. :winkwink:

Independent Task Force on North America
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from North American Union)
Jump to: navigation, search
To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page, or replace this tag with a more specific message. Editing help is available.
This article has been tagged since September 2006.

The Independent Task Force on North America was a project organized by the United States Council on Foreign Relations, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. It was chaired by former Canadian politician John Manley and advocates a North American Union, entailing a greater integration between Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

It was launched in October 2004 and published two documents - Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010 (March 2005) and its final report Building a North American Community[1] (May 2005).

The final report proposed increased international cooperation between the nations of Canada, the United States, and Mexico, similar in some respects to that of the European Union.

Some Internet sources claim that this report, despite its own language rejecting a political union, would create a North American Union.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 History
* 2 Current debate
* 3 Geography
* 4 Status
* 5 See also
o 5.1 NAU precursors and alternatives
o 5.2 Other regional blocs
o 5.3 More information
* 6 External links
o 6.1 Pro - In Favor of NAU
+ 6.1.1 Regional foreign policy think tanks
+ 6.1.2 Other Sources Supportive of Expanded Trilateral Relations
o 6.2 Neutral - Information About NAU
o 6.3 Con - Opposed to NAU

[edit] History

In recent times, the three North American nation-states have been increasing their economic ties, accelerating the process with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

In response to the demands of increasing globalization and shared concerns from abroad, such as the increasing clout of other economic spheres such as the European Union and China, the leaders of the three nations agreed in 2005 to work more cooperatively on shared North American concerns. To this end, they agreed to establish the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). [2]

[edit] Current debate

Robert Pastor, a vice chairman of the CFR task force that produced the report Building a North American Union, has suggested that a hypothetical common currency might be called the "Amero", which would be similar in concept to the Euro, the common currency of the EU. [3]

The third major country, Mexico, uses the peso, which is also a dollar-like currency (although it is currently trading at an exchange rate significantly lower relative to the dollar currencies of both Canada and the USA). (At one time, one silver dollar equaled exactly one peso, which was in turn based on the Spanish dollar.)

The Full Disclosure Network(tm) coverage of the July 2006 National Council of La Raza Convention in Los Angeles offered this video blog debate on the concept of a North American Union. NCLR delegates and Hispanic leaders offered their opinions. Available for viewing 24/7, on demand, at this URL: http://www.fulldisclosure.net/flash/...ideoBlog32.php as a public service of the Full Disclosure Network(tm)

Opponents of the current government in Canada, such as Jack Layton of the NDP, see the North American Union proposal, referred to as deep integration, as compromising Canadian sovereignty, potentially paving the way for Canada's total annexation by the United States. [4]

On 28 September 2006, HCR 487 was introduced to declare that the US Congress should not construct the NAFTA Superhighway or enter into the North American Union.[5]

[edit] Geography

The North American Union would currently (as of 2006) have a total population of around 436,020,884 citizens. For comparison, the European Union currently (as of 2006) has an estimated population of 457,514,494.

The NAU population would be divided among the three constituent nations as follows:
North American Population By Country Country Population
USA 300,050,259
Mexico 107,449,525
Canada 31,021,100

[edit] Status

To date, the three governments have taken no official action on the proposal, either to endorse or reject it. Some opponents have, however, alleged that international discussions around economic and security matters, for instance, fit within the context of the proposal and are designed to pave the way for a formal set of negotiations on the union.

[edit] See also

[edit] NAU precursors and alternatives

* NAFTA - North American Free Trade Agreement
* North American SuperCorridor Coalition
* Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
* United North America

[edit] Other regional blocs

* Eurasia Party
* Continental union
o African Union
o Asian Union
o European Union
o Pacific Union
o South American Community of Nations

* Caribbean Community
* South American Community of Nations
* Arab League

[edit] More information

* International Mid-Continent Trade Corridor
* Trans-Texas Corridor
* North American SuperCorridor Coalition

[edit] External links

[edit] Pro - In Favor of NAU

[edit] Regional foreign policy think tanks

* (USA) Council on Foreign Relations
o Council on Foreign Relations - Building a North American Community
o Building a North American Community by Council on Foreign Relations
* (Canada) Canadian Council of Chief Executives
* (Mexico) Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales

[edit] Other Sources Supportive of Expanded Trilateral Relations

* The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
* Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America
* NASCO, North America's SuperCorridor Coalition
* USINFO Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

[edit] Neutral - Information About NAU

* North American Union Documents
* United North America.org

[edit] Con - Opposed to NAU

* Lou Dobbs
* Alex Jones
* Howard Phillips - The Conservative Caucus on NAU
* Deanna Spingola
* Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D.
* Jerome R. Corsi (2)
* 1000+ SPP/NAU Documents Released by FOIA Request by Jermome R. Corsi
* The Cancun Summit Mandated The North American Union by 2007
* Bush Administration Quietly Plans NAFTA Super Highway
* The North American Union "Matrix"
* CFR/Bilderberg Plan To Erase US Borders Finally Gets Attention
* Continental Integration of Military Command Structures: A Threat to Canada's Sovereignty
* Abolishing The USA
* More On ?Merger?: Three Nations Under God?
* The Bell Tolls For Canada
* The SPP: Similar To Rebuilding Of America?s Defenses
* Articles Critical Of The North American Union Provided By Age Of Tyranny News
* Articles Critical Of The North American Union Provided By Eagle Forum
* Articles Critical Of The North American Union Provided By Jerome R. Corsi
* Vive le Canada Sovereignty Watch Articles
* An anti North American Union Discussion Forum (Note that this blog, as of 2006-07-04, has a total of 5 members.)
* Americans Against A North American Union
* MEXAMERICANADA: It?s Coming By Robert B. Murray
* H. CON. RES. 487
* Corridor Watch
* Texas Toll Party

Bump for thoughts and feedback :thumbsup

That would be amazing!!!...if it were true.

this is fucking ridiculous.

u got it ! :thumbsup

I wonder if this thread will make it to 100 posts? :)

I vote yes! unless Bush wasn't the laws in MX to be the same as US..

The plan to unite Canada, US and Mexico is a very real idea from this administration and plans using the Texas super highway is part of that. It frightens the hell out of me.

Yeah exactly, the biggest inland port is right here in Kansas City, Missouri!!

The NAFTA super highway, transamerican coridoor or something to that effect.

Wouldn't need to come to that.
Canada supplies the midwest with water, the eastern seaboard with power and the shipping lanes from alaska (oil) are within easy mining distance. And given the level of USA's overseas military commitment now, and the fact that they're losing two wars at the moment, and that china and korea would back canada just to see the USA fall flat, it would be very unwise for the states to alienate it's allies, risk it's oil/electric/water supply, or give korea and china ideas by moving on canada.

In addition, the USA would be turfed from NATO and the UN. Loans would be called, or denied and the US economy wouldn't be able to afford to roll out the tanks. If you can't pay/feed your soldiers you can't fight a war, and the US economy is so overstretched right now that without outside money they could not sustain that kind of action. And given that our land mass/climate is much the same type that the nazi's floundered in during world war 2 (with a much larger force I might add, and simpler equipment less prone to freezing solid) and the studies the US military did on the likelyhood of winning a land war in the USSR, I doubt they'd attempt it.

Not to mention, it's political suicide for the president that gives the ok for it.

That's the kind of war that could end without a single shot being fired.

Doing a search on globalization I found a site that talkes of a world currency already printed called the "Phoenix" which will be mostly an electronic currency, no paper. Wild!

You're an idiot.

Blacklisted!


Check me out on http://moreniche.com/testimonials.html

I'm Brandon, owner of MensForte.com and already have 175 bucks in commissions this morning

This high quality traffic of mine will never go anywhere near you guys, nor any company you are affiliated with. :thumbsup

But I do love GFY :thumbsup