This is disgusting... utterly disgusting...

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I don’t know much about the bills, but your language regarding the left was open to challenge.

The left is open to challenge.

They've helped balloon debt with large wasteful spending programs. They also support wars (at least here in the states), so they get no high ground there for saying "we're for the people". They've supported globalization while sitting on a platitude you're racist if you don't support it. Well, you lower the bar for poorer nations when you do that, and rather than demanding they get to your level to compete, they have slave labor and we feed right into it. I could go on and on. You decided to cling to the left, I could be equally critical of the right, many would say more critical.

Is it wrong for the President to assist people in these unprecedented times?

A dollar today for the cost of a hundred down the road, under that context, it's absolutely wrong.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I don’t know much about the bills, but your language regarding the left was open to challenge.

The left is open to challenge.

They've helped balloon debt with large wasteful spending programs. They also support wars (at least here in the states), so they get no high ground there for saying "we're for the people". They've supported globalization while sitting on a platitude you're racist if you don't support it. Well, you lower the bar for poorer nations when you do that, and rather than demanding they get to your level to compete, they have slave labor and we feed right into it. I could go on and on. You decided to cling to the left, I could be equally critical of the right, many would say more critical.

Is it wrong for the President to assist people in these unprecedented times?

A dollar today for the cost of a hundred down the road, under that context, it's absolutely wrong.

So the left support wars.

Who was President when the illegal invasion of Iraq occurred?

Umm, 🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I don’t know much about the bills, but your language regarding the left was open to challenge.

The left is open to challenge.

They've helped balloon debt with large wasteful spending programs. They also support wars (at least here in the states), so they get no high ground there for saying "we're for the people". They've supported globalization while sitting on a platitude you're racist if you don't support it. Well, you lower the bar for poorer nations when you do that, and rather than demanding they get to your level to compete, they have slave labor and we feed right into it. I could go on and on. You decided to cling to the left, I could be equally critical of the right, many would say more critical.

Is it wrong for the President to assist people in these unprecedented times?

A dollar today for the cost of a hundred down the road, under that context, it's absolutely wrong.

So the left support wars.

Who was President when the illegal invasion of Iraq occurred?

Umm, 🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫

George Bush, who voted to approve it? A bunch of people from the left.

Who was president after Bush? Obama.

Who bombed more countries than Bush, Obama.

Here in the states, the most the left will offer to oppose wars is lip service. Catch them in a situation they get to vote on it and you'll see the difference between actions and words.

Again, I can do the same thing for the right. They're just as bad.

Both get paid by the same people. Both allow transnational corporations to run the west while many park their wealth in tax havens. They might even get a bailout voted on both parties.

Some deadbeat mothers have 5 or 6 children to 5 or 6 different deadbeat fathers that have never payed child support.

It's going to be raining money for them.

a reply to: smurfy

A lot of people need to "think bigger," as in "globalization 4.0;" the new initiative cooked up by "thought leaders" in "every sector" last year at Davos. "Reality barter" wasn't even on the menu.

The world's thought leaders are going to get away with it too because the people of the first world have been hypnotized by mass media into believing the utter misdirection of left vs. right politics.

We are divided by lies and easy prey for a one-world shadow government. Modern politics is 100-percent misdirection.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I don’t know much about the bills, but your language regarding the left was open to challenge.

The left is open to challenge.

They've helped balloon debt with large wasteful spending programs. They also support wars (at least here in the states), so they get no high ground there for saying "we're for the people". They've supported globalization while sitting on a platitude you're racist if you don't support it. Well, you lower the bar for poorer nations when you do that, and rather than demanding they get to your level to compete, they have slave labor and we feed right into it. I could go on and on. You decided to cling to the left, I could be equally critical of the right, many would say more critical.

Is it wrong for the President to assist people in these unprecedented times?

A dollar today for the cost of a hundred down the road, under that context, it's absolutely wrong.

So the left support wars.

Who was President when the illegal invasion of Iraq occurred?

Umm, 🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫

FDR (D) got us into WW2
Truman (D) got us into Korea
Kennedy (D) got us into the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam
LBJ (D) escalated Vietnam extremely, including the Gulf of Tonkin false flag attack
Bill Clinton (D) launched offensives against Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq again, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq a third time, and Kosovo
Obama (D) droned thousands all over the middle east, effectively spearheaded the Arab Spring civil wars, sparked the Syrian Civil War, tried to start a civil war in Libya, raided Somalia, Interjected the US into the Kony war in Uganda, Oversaw the troop increases in Iraq and Afghanistan, declared war on ISIS (after arming them), got the US involved in a war in Camaroon,

Statistically speaking, the Left has gotten the US involved in considerably more military conflicts in the past 100 years than the Right has. Eventually "but Bush" loses it's oompf, man.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: rickymouse
I figured this already, by reading what couldn't be an issue, you can determine what can be an issue. If someone has a judgement against a person and that judgement was linked so they could take money from that person from their bank account, it is only protected up until the point it enters their bank account. Then it can be removed at that point using the settlement by the court to justify it. It can be seized for child support before the fact though.

Hospitals and collection agencies will get a high percentage of the stimulus money from people.

Again correct. But is it moral, ethical. This is the challenge of this crisis - do we want to live in a society that puts profits (just for a very few) before the wellbeing of people?

The government did not create that debt, the person who sued the person and won in court did. After the money hits the bank account, the government has no business with it anymore. Now, in some cases state or Federal Tax returns can be garnished. They take the tax refunds, and from what I read, that should not have been done with this. But the money hitting the bank account is not protected, only when it is in the hands of the government.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Some governors have already signed orders to lockout banks and credit collections from being able to garnish or seize funds during this time.

Not sure if that includes child support though. Washington state governor as rotten as he is, has locked out banks and collections from taking any money from debtors no matter what it is. So he's done one or two good things to help people out of the thousands of other things that harm people.

References please.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Some governors have already signed orders to lockout banks and credit collections from being able to garnish or seize funds during this time.

Not sure if that includes child support though. Washington state governor as rotten as he is, has locked out banks and collections from taking any money from debtors no matter what it is. So he's done one or two good things to help people out of the thousands of other things that harm people.

References please.

The proclamation waives certain state laws for renewing or extending commercial driver licenses and commercial learner permits. It’s consistent with federal statutes that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has waived, the governor’s office said. Also, Inslee signed a proclamation to protect consumer assets, including federal stimulus checks, from consumer debt collections. The order suspends state laws that permit collection of consumer debt judgments, including bank account and wage garnishments, and waives accrual of post-judgment interest on consumer debt judgments. Read more here: www.bellinghamherald.com...=cpy

It's the pathetic local news paper the Bellingham Herald.
Bellingham Herald

a reply to: FyreByrd

Did you really think the banks would just step down and be charitable....

What's happening here is that the financial crises are getting larger and closer together.

Most of you weren't alive, but the Federal Reserve bailed out the commodities market in 1987. Most people think of that as a stock market crash. But actually, the commodities market is what crashed. Alan Greenspan said that the private bank with government power would underwrite every commodity trade while it got sorted out. They freakin' bailed out the whole equities industry that underwrote securities.

1929 was the last one they didn't fix. And it took a decade to recover. There are a lot of economists that will tell you off the record that the depression only ended when FDR signed the lend-lease, putting us on the road to war.

1987 was 58 years after that.


2008 was 21 years later.

Now it's only 12 years later.

The economy of collapse and mega corps buying each other out is like watching dinosaurs mating. They are getting bigger and bigger because there are fewer and fewer of them left.

So why would all the world governments shut everything down? This isn't adding to their power--far from it. The USA is burning through its financial power like there's no tomorrow. China even more so. China cannot exist without it's Neo-mercantilist manufacturing economy. And that has just been wiped out, with more nationalism than since the 1930s. China was on the brink of civil war before this whole thing started. Hong Kong. 10 million muslims in concentration camps. Killing and reeducating the Uighur people. China can't keep it's # together. But neither can anyone else.

Why would our rulers do this? Because this is the best way they could save something of what they had.

Since everyone on ATS is taking the "its all fake" take, I'll go the opposite way. I'm a contrarian.

"They are doing all this because the truth is WORSE than they are telling you. They have sent you home to isolate, so that by the time you figure out the truth, you won't be able to riot or rebel effectively.

Historically, I'd say we are in for 25-50 YEARS of lockdowns from vaccine-resistant viruses.


What ended the Middle Ages? The Black Death.

The first wave killed less than 1%. But the wave after that, and the wave after that. And 50 years later, the population of downtown Europe was A QUARTER of what it was in 1328.

The curtain is going down on the current world order. They are just trying to survive without being Lynch.


That's all.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You did read the word "consumer" (a few mentions) yes?

Not one word about judgements. Consumer debt can be moved by the states and somewhat feds...

Consumer debt...must have a judgement to be inforced...

Mg

a reply to: Graysen

The "black death" was 30 to 60%...also tracking was in an infancy.

This is no where near as well as a differing age and time.

There is no "lock down" if there is please site. Recinmendstions and business curtailment is not a "lock down".

Mg

We had to work with banks at my business to get financing on big ticket items. If these loans defaulted the banks generally could not touch any government or pension payments in going after someone's money.
I'm not sure if this falls under that or not but SS is safe from garnishment and pensions are safe.
That would suck if that hsppened.
But what about people behind on child suport? Should that be given to the child's guardian instead?

a reply to: JinMI
This isn't considered a refund though is it?
I do know banks generally can't touch social security payments from the government.
(Enjoy that silk and wool sarouk Mrs. T ..LONG story)

a reply to: ABNARTY

Actually you and I are paying all of it.
Everybody is getting free money.
This is just allocation of funds.

a reply to: Sillyolme

To a point.

The majority is Fed 'magic money'. Which one can argue we pay for with less buying power through inflation.

a reply to: VeeTNA

As a single father with custody of my daughter this makes me smile! I do no wish bad upon people but I am owed $11,000 in back support from her mother. It is about time for a little bit of karma. This warms my heart!

a reply to: FyreByrd

Wouldn't it need to be a legal garnishment in order to do so? I have an illegitimate collection going on for a medical bill for a hospital stay which never happened (I have never been hospitalized.) Would they be allowed to steal my money to pay a fraudulent invoice?

I would consider it the same as I would someone attempting to mug me, which means full-throttle physical force against anyone who attempts to rob me.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JinMI
This isn't considered a refund though is it?
I do know banks generally can't touch social security payments from the government.
(Enjoy that silk and wool sarouk Mrs. T ..LONG story)

Its not really a refund, its a tax credit. Tax credits apply whatever your tax liability, so even if you pay $0 in taxes, you still get it. If you are supposed togetit but for some reason never get your check, you'll pay that much less or get that muchmore at tax time.