The Collateral Damage of Austerity

People here don't know the horror of this kind of capitalism we have in the US

People here don’t know about Camden NJ

I bid anyone here to visit that place, maybe when your on your way to Atlantic city to gamble, but please keep your windows up and doors locked and make sure your battery is well charged!


People don’t know of Newark NJ



Chicago either but only what we read in the Newspaper


People don’t know about Detroit where if you go down some streets you will be turned away unless your there to buy drugs


People here don’t know that this country is falling apart…no has fallen apart and all that is left is for something to kick the door down

The only kind of welfare that works is a good job but your leaders gave them all away to China,India and Mexico

originally posted by: Edumakated
The problem is if you are a lender, why would you lend money in the future if what you are owed could be "forgiven". Forgiven by whom?

Forgiven by everyone in the entire world, to everyone in the world.

It would be a one time thing.

And once announced, yes people would stop lending.
and an immediate moratorium on collections would have to ensue.

But once it was over, lending would resume.

It could save the entire world economically, and yes people will pay a price for saving the economy of the world.

One can't expect to dig ones way out of a hole without getting dirty.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: FyreByrd

I have no problem with the idea of a jubilee, I've given up on the idea that they will ever do it, but it solve alot of problems..
my question was if someone has only $150 in debt are they restricted to only being able to incur only $150 in debt after the jubilee while a person who has $10,000 in debt has a restriction of $10,000 before they end up having to pay back what has forgiven for them? I might be misinterpreting what you have written but well that is how I am reading it. In which case, I fail to see the fairness, or the sanity of it... it would be better if there were a set limit as to how much debt one should allowed to accumulate, maybe dependent on income but definately not dependent on how much was forgiven.

I didn't write anything about the Jubilee - I thanked the poster for posting it - I'd forgotten this idea. As to specifics - why on earth would you ask me that? I don't know how it would work.

Your point was - IT ISN"T FAIR. That may or may not what you 'intended' to say but that's how it sounded and that is what I responded to.

I'm sorry I am unable to answer all your questions about a subject I've just heard about and have no experience of.

The thread was intended to be about Public Banking and the horrible human toll of AUSTERITY around the world, Greece specifically. The Jubilee was a brief tangent.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: FyreByrd

I have no problem with the idea of a jubilee, I've given up on the idea that they will ever do it, but it solve alot of problems..
my question was if someone has only $150 in debt are they restricted to only being able to incur only $150 in debt after the jubilee while a person who has $10,000 in debt has a restriction of $10,000 before they end up having to pay back what has forgiven for them? I might be misinterpreting what you have written but well that is how I am reading it. In which case, I fail to see the fairness, or the sanity of it... it would be better if there were a set limit as to how much debt one should allowed to accumulate, maybe dependent on income but definately not dependent on how much was forgiven.

The fairness comes in with the penalties.

If one resumes being a debtor (with the exceptions of house,car, medical, educational)
then one re-incurs all debt
and the debt that was wiped clean will be payable again.
That is a severe penalty, one that people who are not sane with their money will incur, I am certain of that.

I rather like that idea. A great way to motivate people - not destroy them.

It's hard to separate collective debt from personal debt - they don't quite work by the same rules - but this sounds like a good middle ground solution for Greece and individuals as well.

It's postive, proactive and the benefits and liabilities are shared by all parties.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: FyreByrd

What some are forgetting is that the US is in reality in far worse debt condition than Greece.

The US is on the verge of total and complete economic collapse.

Right now if everyone in the US (man, woman and child) chipped in $80,000, the US would still be in debt.

If 100% of the wealth of all 1%er citizens in the US were confiscated, the US would still be in debt.

Greece is only a little glimpse of what is to come for the US.

Well that is where personal debt doesn't correlate to public debt. A large part of the public debt - is debt servicing (or profit and fees to the 'lending' institutions - not to mention interest etc - so Greece as you say. Public Banking would put the 'service' of providing loans to all entities back where it belongs with WE THE PEOPLE - the government has the RIGHT and DUTY to provide the means of funding.

Why does the Federal Reserve issue all monies and not the Treasury? Why does the private Federal Reserve (and it's constituent banks loan money to the government in the first place? The public should be making the loans and reaping the profits - then you wouldn't have to pay as high taxes.


I've often thought that 9/11 wasn't an attack on the United States as an attack on Capitalism - (with the pentagon representing the enforcement arm of capital). My understanding is that Islam has an entirely (not perfect) way on conducting business and the idea of "Financialization" of everything is particularly offensive to them. I haven't looked into it much and I've many questions.

originally posted by: Edumakated
The problem is if you are a lender, why would you lend money in the future if what you are owed could be "forgiven". Forgiven by whom?

The single biggest argument in favor of PUBLIC BANK by the PEOPLE and for the PEOPLE I've ever heard. Well done.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: FyreByrd

I have no problem with the idea of a jubilee, I've given up on the idea that they will ever do it, but it solve alot of problems..
my question was if someone has only $150 in debt are they restricted to only being able to incur only $150 in debt after the jubilee while a person who has $10,000 in debt has a restriction of $10,000 before they end up having to pay back what has forgiven for them? I might be misinterpreting what you have written but well that is how I am reading it. In which case, I fail to see the fairness, or the sanity of it... it would be better if there were a set limit as to how much debt one should allowed to accumulate, maybe dependent on income but definately not dependent on how much was forgiven.

I didn't write anything about the Jubilee - I thanked the poster for posting it - I'd forgotten this idea. As to specifics - why on earth would you ask me that? I don't know how it would work.

Your point was - IT ISN"T FAIR. That may or may not what you 'intended' to say but that's how it sounded and that is what I responded to.

I'm sorry I am unable to answer all your questions about a subject I've just heard about and have no experience of.

The thread was intended to be about Public Banking and the horrible human toll of AUSTERITY around the world, Greece specifically. The Jubilee was a brief tangent.

Sorry about derailing your thread.

Austerity measures are the getting dirty part of digging out of a hole.

I just wish we would institute a world wide measure like jubilee, didn't mean to derail your thread.

Austerity will eventually happen in the US also, and many many other countries, if something drastic and radical doesn't happen. Like reviving an ancient practice.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: FyreByrd

I have no problem with the idea of a jubilee, I've given up on the idea that they will ever do it, but it solve alot of problems..
my question was if someone has only $150 in debt are they restricted to only being able to incur only $150 in debt after the jubilee while a person who has $10,000 in debt has a restriction of $10,000 before they end up having to pay back what has forgiven for them? I might be misinterpreting what you have written but well that is how I am reading it. In which case, I fail to see the fairness, or the sanity of it... it would be better if there were a set limit as to how much debt one should allowed to accumulate, maybe dependent on income but definately not dependent on how much was forgiven.

I didn't write anything about the Jubilee - I thanked the poster for posting it - I'd forgotten this idea. As to specifics - why on earth would you ask me that? I don't know how it would work.

Your point was - IT ISN"T FAIR. That may or may not what you 'intended' to say but that's how it sounded and that is what I responded to.

I'm sorry I am unable to answer all your questions about a subject I've just heard about and have no experience of.

The thread was intended to be about Public Banking and the horrible human toll of AUSTERITY around the world, Greece specifically. The Jubilee was a brief tangent.

Sorry about derailing your thread.

Austerity measures are the getting dirty part of digging out of a hole.

I just wish we would institute a world wide measure like jubilee, didn't mean to derail your thread.

Austerity will eventually happen in the US also, and many many other countries, if something drastic and radical doesn't happen. Like reviving an ancient practice.

Thank you, but it's okay and perhaps a part of the solution. I get caught up in interesting tangents just as much as the next person - but I attempt to do my best at keeping focus.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: FyreByrd

The whores of the GOP would just as they are ordered to by their loathsome master’s squawk like sick vultures: socialism, socialism.

And the Dems would pretend to be for this bit then go and vote another trade deal of death


Its too late... it’s all over, the politicians have all been bought and paid for and sign sealed and delivered to the money masters ALL of them

This isn't a partisan issue. This is a practical human issue. It's about seeing clearly where change (if you desire change that benefits the masses of people and not just the self-proclaimed financial masters of the universe) is needed - where the 'old' ways are not serving the real needs of the days we are in.

Truly, I have trouble seeing how 'people of good will' can just declare "it's too late", "nothing can be done", "they are all sell-outs" (and we are all sell-outs if we adopted the victim position) and not support and encourage change.

Grown-ups work with people that they don't agree with on issues of mutual benefit. It's how things get done and also teaches you that others have valid ideas and share your 'good-will'. To sell from AA - we are normally people who would not associate. By associating with people we don't admire and like in order to achieve a common goal we learn much about ourselves, others and the real world around us.

Please don't make this a partisan issue.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
It is time to revive an old Biblical and Jewish tradition

called Jubilee

Where everyone is forgiven all debt

and everyone gets a chance to start over.

There is a fiction book by Tom Clancy, I think its called "Executive Orders" and it came out before 9/11. The protanganist, Jack Ryan, newly appointed Vice President of the US, is getting ready to be presented to a join session of Congress when an airliner crashes into the capital killing most of the federal government. That's the set-up.

Jack Ryan is now the President and is confronted with not only putting together a funtional federal government from scratch but now there is a cyber attack on stock markets around the world - deleting ALL transacations. As you can imagine, chaos of the first magnitude ensues (it is a thriller after all).

The answer is simple and I won't share it because it would spoil the book for any who enjoy a good thriller and Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan novel have always delighted me.

I'll leave it at that and say his solution and yours are kissing cousins.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I don't often read zerohedge, but it does touch on some of the points you make here, also I think a valuable lesson can be learned from the Greek tragedy.

Any who. Here are a couple of points I agree with:

It’s over. And anything that’s done from here on in will only serve to make things worse. We should learn to recognize such transitions, and act on them. Instead of clinging on to what we think might have been long after it no longer is.

Whatever anyone does now, it’ll all come back again. That’s guaranteed. So just don’t do it. Or rather, do the one thing that still makes any sense: Call a halt to the whole charade.

And another, I think this sentence could apply to our union as well, generally speaking.

Source

I don’t care what people like Merkel and Schäuble think or say, once people in a union go hungry and have no healthcare, you have to change the system, not hammer it down their throats even more. If you refuse to stand together, you can be sure you’ll fall apart.

originally posted by: Daedal
a reply to: FyreByrd

I don't often read zerohedge, but it does touch on some of the points you make here, also I think a valuable lesson can be learned from the Greek tragedy.

Any who. Here are a couple of points I agree with:

It’s over. And anything that’s done from here on in will only serve to make things worse. We should learn to recognize such transitions, and act on them. Instead of clinging on to what we think might have been long after it no longer is.

Whatever anyone does now, it’ll all come back again. That’s guaranteed. So just don’t do it. Or rather, do the one thing that still makes any sense: Call a halt to the whole charade.

And another, I think this sentence could apply to our union as well, generally speaking.

Source

I don’t care what people like Merkel and Schäuble think or say, once people in a union go hungry and have no healthcare, you have to change the system, not hammer it down their throats even more. If you refuse to stand together, you can be sure you’ll fall apart.

 

Good ole Benny Franklin paraphased "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."

Read more: www.quoteworld.org...