Key Issues and Information Appearing in the Alternative Media. The Truth about 911, Corruption, War, the Economy - Real News and Analysis in Opposition to the Mainstream Propaganda.
Although this is from Fox News there is no arguing with the facts about the debt here.
[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, February 25th, 2009.]
spook,when people don't have money to buy food, they starve.What this guy is saying is that we should not go into debt, not for food, and starve.For him, it's better that those who don't make his Media financed salary starve so that we don't go more into debt.Tell this man that he's out of a job today and that if we don't borrow now to just put money in his pocket and the pockets of people who have been out of work they all will be going hungry. Would he refuse the bailout? Would he tell the government that it's more important that the country not have debt than it would be for him to eat?If he'd starve himself for this principle, then I would listen more to him.
Good to see you back in action Mr Andresen !Yes, I see your point. I don't think the government can let people starve but also I think that running up unnecessary debt is not helping the economy.Debt for food and essential services is ok but I think the bailout pork is being wasted and it is also being placed as a burden on the people for a later date. It's a taxpayer funded bailout of the banks. The scary thing about the chart is it leaves out the derviatives positions held by the banks that would destroy these institutions overnight. The best thing to do with the derivatives, as Webster Tarpley has said, is to abolish them. Make them null, voided.The Fox News guy has a point about the massive overt debt, and you also have a good point about not letting people starve. One thing, despite all the financial dealings, is that the machinery of society is still there. There are farms, some industry, and excess production in the world so that people should not have to starve like in the 30s when farms were reposessed enmass. I don;t think this situation will play out again, but I can see hyperinflation and government (local/state) food hand outs etc.I think the key thing about the bailouts is to look at where the money is going and the results and alternatives. Letting bad banks fail and having the government use the bailout money to look after people until the economy recovers might be a good way to go. This paying for the mistakes of the foolish Wall Street heads doesn't sit well with me.
spook,The step back point I wanted to make was that I can see the point of both the Keynesians who say you can't let people starve in the present, and those like Paul and Schiff who say you can't keep borrowing to go into debt without any way to pay back the debts.I think both views are correct.I think what Obama is not doing, maybe I am not aware enough of the details, but, he is not addressing the planning and corruption that went into creating the problems that we are now suffering from.So, I agree, he is wasting a lot of money throwing it to banks who are greatly responsible for their own problems. They thought they could steal from the population, and thought the government would bail out the bad loans. Obama seems to be doing just that.I think that if we don't do the investment in infrastructure and the education programs he has included we will continue to lag economically from the rest of the world. However, the dems and reps had been shortchnging these programs for a long time anyway. We should be catching up. I am sure that in the near future we will find out that his stimulus bill will have a limited effect. Most of that problem will be because of the lousy trade agreements that ties us into slave states. And, we've outsourced a lot of our manufacturing to those slave states. We do not make anything here that we will be able to sell and then pay back our bills. You said that you did not think we would revisit the 1930's because there was industry, farms, and other types of jobs, that would keep enough people working. I have thought that it is just the opposite. We have most of the kinds of industry that we had in the 30's now in China, et al. Large agri-business farms use low wage migrant farm workers. These positions will never pay much.I doubt Obama will be able to reverse this situation.
I agree,To clarify the comments I made about the 30s, I was thinking primarily in terms of the lack of welfare, and the fact that people were kicked off their farms, whereas it is different this time around. My reference to industry was misplaced. I was not clear here.I was responding to your concerns about people literally starving. I don't think this will happen as I can see Obama welfare coming to the rescue.The underlying economic decline and stagnation, including indebtedness, I see as continuing. There might very well be social unrest in the country. I still wonder about those FEMA camps ...
spook,the business about 'starving' is part of the general way I've thought of this issue.You have a general stereotypical household. If there is no income then the worst that could happen is the family goes hungry and starves. The breadwinners who are out of work have to consider borrowing money to eat, pay mortgage, or rent, and so forth. Yet, the fact will be that they cannot borrow for long.I understand that there are government institutions that address the problem of hunger. You suggest that these institutions will keep people from becoming hungry. They were not around during the Depression.I wonder about all that. I hear that these agencies are being inundated already with new people who have lost their jobs and have no resources to cushion themselves.I also understand that the elderly and the disabled have been shortchanged for a long time. These agencies are getting cut back and so there are a lot of people facing having nothing. No families to help them. No jobs because they are sick or too old. Or too young. And a lot of undereducated or mal educated people who could work, but are not in a position to take the few jobs that are available.If I were doing a social bailout bill, I would start first in funding the aid agencies that take care of people when they have had problems. And then bail out banks on...way on down the line.
I think if the media showed starved families in the streets, looking like prison camp inmates, then real action, as you describe, would follow.I don't know if the government would allow the situation to get so far out of hand. I know the mainstream media does censor a lot of material about real conditions in various parts of the US, but this sort of senario would be very hard to keep quiet, especially as the numbers of unemployed grows.I think aid agencies will get funding but I also think those FEMA camps will have a role to play in managing the population.The powers-that-be could be looking to enact a quasi-martial law senario after a huge financial collapse or a new False Flag Terror attack (probably both). I would not be betting against these occurances !
Post a Comment