seriously, what happens when millions upon millions of Americans

[leftofthedial]

can no longer pay their mortgages or credit card bills or buy groceries?

[aquart]

1. Lotta death.

[jwirr]

2. Revolution?

[DontTreadOnMe]

3. I predict more deaths at Walmarts

It will be the only store left to get food.

[eleny]

4. Torches and pitchforks

[BrklynLiberal]

6. Exactly

I cannot see the current generation of Americans being as resigned to it as those in the 1930's did.
They are used to better things.
The communications technology is more advanced. There can be no isolated incidents.

[dflprincess]

12. I had a history professor who maintained that the people in the 1930s were not resigned

He maintained there was a lot more protests and unrest going on and the country was very close to rebellion than was reported at the time or recorded in history books. He pointed to the success third parties (like the Farmer Labor party) were having with fairly radical platforms. There were protests in parts of the midwest by farmers who (in the example I remember) dumped milk rather than sell it as a loss. The professor felt that midwestern dairy farmers rising up like that was a very big deal - maybe one we can't entirely appreciate now.

He also pointed to Roosvelt's comment when one of his aides - right after his first ignauguration told him if he succeeded he'd go down in history as one of the greates presidents and FDR responded "If I don't succeed, I'll go donw in history as the last."

[BrklynLiberal]

14. I can believe that the media either intentionally or due to lack of

good communications did ignore or understate what was going on.

That comment by FDR shows quite an insight into the seriousness of the problem.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

15. Don't forget the Bonus Army.

And the rise of fascist movements.

[defendandprotect]

18. Communism was in the wings --

not "totalitarian" Communism of Russia -- but served as option, impetus

and educator on issues and solutions. Especially on civil rights --

ending Segregation --



Huey Long also campaigned for Social Security, I think -- and much more.

That's NOT the Huey Long described to most of us in "shooting."

Upton Sinclair, Henry Wallace ...the man who should have succeeded FDR ...

[Odin2005]

63. Long was a wannabe dictator.

A populist dictator, maybe, but still a dictator.

Sinclair, on the other hand, is one of my idols.

[NCarolinawoman]

131. My grandfather worked on Wall Street at the time of the big stock market crash.

He spoke of seeing people jumping off of buildings...saw bodies going down right outside of his window.

He was kind of a Teddy Roosevelt Republican; but he felt very strongly that the country would have turned to communism if it hadn't been for the labor unions and FDR.

[screembloodymurder]

140. But the buildings were only two stories high.

:-)

[Donnachaidh]

21. and people wonder WHY Bush has brought TROOPS to the US

They saw this coming - DID NOTHING for the people being hurt by the economic disaster - but they sure got the TROOPS on the ground to protect CORPORATE INTERESTS.

Wouldn't DO to have protesters actually start showing up in BIG groups, now, would it? :sarcasm:

[Citizen Number 9]

26. What troops to the US?

I'm not following this.

The troops start in the US and then we get upset because they are sent elsewhere.

That's how it's supposed to work, anyway.

[leftofthedial]

28. posse comitatus, 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team

deployed (not based--deployed) in US.

Do some research.

[lowclass]

61. 3rd infantry Oct 2007

Direct quote original message ARY Times


"They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

Training for homeland scenarios has already begun at Fort Stewart and includes specialty tasks such as knowing how to use the “jaws of life” to extract a person from a mangled vehicle; extra medical training for a CBRNE incident; and working with U.S. Forestry Service experts on how to go in with chainsaws and cut and clear trees to clear a road or area.

The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them."

[Citizen Number 9]

68. One Brigade?

There's no question that this is stretching what is allowed under Posse Comitatus, but it takes some real paranoia to start thinking that the unit will be used against law-abiding American citizens.

[lowclass]

73. posted by ARMY TIMES

This quote was posted in on the ARMY TIMES web page was removed for editing after one day. The words edited civil unrest. Laws change all the time and hunger is on the doorstep.

[Citizen Number 9]

76. Civil Unrest = NOT lawful

So, I guess they wouldn't be law-abiding, would they?

[westerebus]

79. Is there a problem with that?

Civil disobedience was the foundation of this nation's inception. Citizen's are obligated to keep the government on the straight and narrow path outlined in the Constitution. The freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble, the right to petition, all belong to the citizens.

[Citizen Number 9]

85. Civil Disobedience

Is not the same as Civil Unrest or Civil Disorder. I can appreciate those who take part in civil disobedience, but you won't see me breaking the laws produced by a democratically elected government. Which, by the way, was not the case with the conflicts that founded our nation. That was a Monarchy. King George? No taxation without representation, remember?

[westerebus]

91. Civil disobedience is the response to injustice.

It doesn't matter if its' a king's tyranny or the laws of the democratic republic; injustice is injustice. The response to King George's injustice started as civil disobedience. The response of the King after being petitioned by his loyal subjects was to send more troops and increase taxes and prohibit assembly and free speech. We know which way that all went.

Slavery, under the guise of states rights, brought about John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry which was the result of the Abolitionist Movement's recognition of that legal injustice. The civil war started after the Congress split despite the compromises to the southern states and the laws to continue slavery. We know how that ended.

The civil rights marches. Unlawful Assembly and illegal marches. We know that history lesson also.

Economic injustice. Pensions. Equal pay. Union organizing. This fight is not over with. You have a choice to make. Like most people, until all else fails, until all legal challenges are expired, will wait.

How long is the only question.

[Art_from_Ark]

135. The Civil War started

"despite the compromises to the southern states and the laws to continue slavery" precisely because the South viewed those compromises and laws as being jeopardized by the election of Abraham Lincoln on an abolitionist platform in November 1860. South Carolina, for example, clearly laid it out in their December 1860 proclamation of secession that Lincoln's election was the cause of their decision to secede. During the election, the South preferred John Breckenridge, vice president under the much-maligned James Buchanan, and very likely would have remained in the Union if Breckenridge had won.

[westerebus]

147. Precisely.

Thank you for the accuracy.

[SlowDownFast]

19. A very efficient and true answer. n/t

[Stargazer99]

5. One of the poster on this board said "don't upset

the peasants". I'm hoping more will lose their jobs, etc and maybe something will be done for labor finally. I figure if enough get hurt all hell will break lose and it is past that time already.

[Citizen Number 9]

22. "Something will be done for labor..."?

Can't labor do something for itself?

[leftofthedial]

29. yeah, besides the last remains of the bush cabal are busy giving trillions to banks

they don't have time to help workers.

[Citizen Number 9]

69. Isn't the "giving" you're talking about

more like making funds available to free up stuck credit markets, loans and taking equity shares in corporations?

There is an argument that says these measures are being undertaken to help American citizens including workers. I think we have come to take some of the functions the distressed companies provide for granted and 300 million Americans would miss them if they all failed.

[SlowDownFast]

92. You really believe the shit you're posting? n/t

[Citizen Number 9]

94. It would help if you would be

a bit more specific so I could respond to your question.

The broad answer to that however, is yes. Not only do I believe it, but I take great care to only post things that are completely true based on reasonable analysis of the facts, as well as an objective analysis of my own life experience. I'll admit that last part isn't as good as outright facts, but it's a whole lot better than most folks, who believe that their extremely narrow and completely subjective view of things is the only possible one.

[fasttense]

150. I've read your posts on other threads Citizen Number 9.

Seems you equate poverty with laziness.

[Citizen Number 9]

151. Not at all correct.

This is a big world and very little can be simply explained or blamed on a single cause.

Poverty, in particular has as many causes as there are different walks of life.

If you wanted to lump causes together, however, you could attack a large portion of poverty by addressing the poor choices people themselves make.

[economicgeography]

27. re:

I'm hoping more will lose their jobs, etc

Well thank god we have people like you looking out for the common man.

[stillcool]

7. Crime...lots of it

[barb162]

16. Yeah, I think it is already happening.

[Xipe Totec]

8. Do You Hear the People Sing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgQgzKVX9jc

[alittlelark]

9. I have a house in rural NM on a river w/ a greenhouse.

that's what will happen w/me.

[Titus Andronicus]

11. Google Earth will be used by many people to find

choice locations.

[leftofthedial]

60. what about the roving hordes of zombie mutants

and the militia biker gangs cruising for fun, gasoline, food and slaves?

[chrisa]

119. And a family led by a fat guy...

looking for a Twinkie factory in Natick.

[xchrom]

10. the army. nt

[economicgeography]

13. re:

More direct foreign investment? Good way to work off some of that trade deficit.

[defendandprotect]

17. The Repugs crippled Unemployment Insurance ....

and drastically changed statistics re unemployed --

[Citizen Number 9]

24. How did they cripple unemployment insurance?

Looks like lots of folks are using it right now.

[defendandprotect]

49. There were many changes ...

Costs of it used to be totally borne by employers -- thst's where the onus

should be when we have "full employment" agenda. If a company was constantly

overturning employees, their rates would go up.

Unemployment was at one time constantly extended --

Now there are great limitations on it --

It should cover snyone long term unemployed during time of low employment.

Of course, overall the deal with corporations was that they were to supply

jobs for everyone. These were regulated corporations at that time.

In turn, they paid fair taxes -- but there was always the

free use of our natural resources and not many questions about pollution.

Given Global Warming, the immense pollution of our oceans, rivers, lakes,

streams, damage to nature and animal-life ... "bus-i-ness" and the

Industrial Revolution were a poor deal for all if humanity.

What price the loss of the planet-? Capitalism is over ... or we are.

[Citizen Number 9]

72. Wow, lots of points

Let's see if I can hit them all.

1. Unemployment still exists for the worker in much the same way as it always has, therefore I don't think 'crippled' is a good description of any changes.

2. I'm not aware that part of the deal was for employers to provide "jobs for everyone". Unemployment is a normal component of a healthy economy.

3. Aren't employers still taxed for UI? Has that changed?

4. I don't know what you are referring to in particular, but employers still see an increased UI tax rate if they have a high employee turnover.

5. I have seen a lot of extensions of unemployment benefits lately, in response to the weakening economy.

6. I have to say that I vehemently disagree with your statement that the Industrial Revolution was a poor deal for everyone. Living standards have increased markedly due to the business and employment environment.

[defendandprotect]

83. As I said ...

Unemployment still exists -- but NOT at all as it once did.
And, with a new million now unemployed, I think we will be hearing
steady reports that it has been made insufficient --
i.e. the unemployment safety net crippled in the intent to protect
workers from whims of corrupt corporations and corrupt leaders.

You may not be aware of "full employment" agenda and "deal" between
Capitalists and government, but obviously we had full employment due
to that agreement -- and the resulting pollution -- plus natural
resources in private hands.

The economy has always been engineered to health by Democrats, with
regulation of corporations -- and oversight.
We are now about to be living the GOP's "third world America" --
as a few surviving Capitalists and corrupt leaders walk off with the
spoils.

Check your salary stub ... do you pay for u/e insurance and what
percentage? Corporations, as I recall, used to pay 100%.

Yes, the rates for employers do go up ... but NOT as they once did ..
Little penalty now --- or would employers be able to afford to ship
tens of thousands of jobs out of America? Or let a million go in
one month? Of course not. And auto industry getting ready to let
another 20,000-30,000 go -- and doing this for 30 years ...

You're right, Democrats have been REVERSING the GOP trend of letting
unemployed "eat cake" and NOT extending benefits.
Rep. Bernie Sanders is calling for more.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2008/12/05-0

Re this ...

I have to say that I vehemently disagree with your statement that the Industrial Revolution was a poor deal for everyone. Living standards have increased markedly due to the business and employment environment.

Did you calculate cost of losing the planet?

From the first moments of IR, scientists could see that trees were being effected --
Nature overall. When we harm Nature we are finally harming ourselves, as we can see
from the many new diseases, increases in cancers, dangerous viruses we've hated --
check the state of our drinking water! Synthetic chemicals feminizing males and
their sex organs, for one.

The rest is also inane... living conditions/"bus-i-ness" have put great stress upon
workers -- 75 million with HBP in US. Much illness. It now requires two workers to
meet bills and children spend very little time with both parents.
Plus pollution by industries making us all ill.
Presume you want to ignore/deny Global Warming or don't understand its threat.
Trading the planet for Capitalism is certainly a pitiful outcome.

[Citizen Number 9]

84. Unemployment still exists

Just as good as it used to be. Being used by millions of unemployed even as we speak.

In spite of your repeated statements, we have never had full employment and there was no agreement to that effect, implied or otherwise.

I can't address your partisan ramblings. There is precious little substance in the rest of it as it is.

Employers pay for both State and Federal Unemployment, whether they are corporations or a little old shopkeeper.

There is no deduction on my paystub for Unemployment insurance. Does yours have one?

Rates go up as they always did for employers with high turnover. There may be exceptions somewhere, but I have to presume we are talking about the system as a whole. Which sorta brings us back to your contention that the system is 'crippled'. I have to say I haven't heard anything here which would even begin to support that.

I don't think it has been established that we have, in fact, "lost the planet". That may be your opinion, and it may even be shared by a few you associate with, but it is NOT the consensus of human beings everywhere.

As for the rest of your doom and gloom about the human or "workers" condition, you must realize that in addition to living standards, as I mentioned above, life expectancy has increased markedly, particularly post-Industrial Revolution.

Flatly stated, pollution by industries has NOT made us all ill. Most workers are healthy and OSHA exists to protect workers from workplace hazards.

You appear not to have a very good grasp of the cost/benefit thing as it applies to human development.

[defendandprotect]

95. Final words --

The unemployed will not have u/e checks which will benefit them as they used to --
statistics re inflation rigged and shorter terms permitted. Less security in
unemployment now. As I'm sure even you have to acknowledge, the Democratic
Congress is extending benefits which were previously DENIED by GOP.

We've never achieved "full employment," true -- certainly such an issue wasn't
part of Greenspan's agenda! -- but it was something on the agenda.
Full employment is a threat to capitalism. In fact, GOP Congress did a lot
for them to break job security in some fields of work -- engineering, for
instance where they first produced more than needed and then imported engineers
for lesser salaries.

Check with others on unemployment insurance --
And let's see how those actually collecting u/e have fared -- a thread on that
might be interesting.

And if I recall correctly, life expectancy in America has dropped.
Look at the medical industry we've developed. Do you think that's because
we have healthy citizens or sick ones? What is it now ...3 our of every 4
Americans will have cancer? We rank 37th or LOWER in the world in health care--
possibly lower now. That's below Cuba!


OSHA exists to protect workers from workplace hazards.

Like the FDA, this agency also now undermines worker protections for benefit
of corporations.

Consumerism isn't really health nor quality of life. Most of us understand that.

Flatly stated, pollution by industries has NOT made us all ill.

We have damaged nature, animal-life -- and since we are part of nature, we have
damaged ourselves.


Ok -- so you're a fan of capitalism --
Don't like criticism of GOP --
Believe government agencies still do the work they were set up to do
even after 8 years of Bush --
And that Americans haven't been made ill by pollution nor stress of working
two or more jobs -- while losing medical benefits.
And a Global Warming denier ..

The word "disingenuous" comes to mind --


I don't think it has been established that we have, in fact, "lost the planet". That may be your opinion, and it may even be shared by a few you associate with, but it is NOT the consensus of human beings everywhere.

Here are the few I associate with --
Good luck --

SCIENTISTS WARNING TO HUMANITY/
GLOBAL WARMING


http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/1992-world-scientists-warning-to-humanity.html
1. Scientist Statement
World Scientists' Warning to Humanity (1992)

Some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992. The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was written and spearheaded by the late Henry Kendall, former chair of UCS's board of directors.
INTRODUCTION


Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.
THE ENVIRONMENT


The environment is suffering critical stress:


The Atmosphere
Stratospheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultraviolet radiation at the earth's surface, which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests, and crops.


Water Resources
Heedless exploitation of depletable ground water supplies endangers food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40 percent of the world's population. Pollution of rivers, lakes, and ground water further limits the supply.

Oceans
Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the coastal regions which produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste -- some of it toxic.


Soil
Loss of soil productivity, which is causing extensive land abandonment, is a widespread by-product of current practices in agriculture and animal husbandry. Since 1945, 11 percent of the earth's vegetated surface has been degraded -- an area larger than India and China combined -- and per capita food production in many parts of the world is decreasing.


Forests
Tropical rain forests, as well as tropical and temperate dry forests, are being destroyed rapidly. At present rates, some critical forest types will be gone in a few years, and most of the tropical rain forest will be gone before the end of the next century. With them will go large numbers of plant and animal species.


Living Species
The irreversible loss of species, which by 2100 may reach one-third of all species now living, is especially serious. We are losing the potential they hold for providing medicinal and other benefits, and the contribution that genetic diversity of life forms gives to the robustness of the world's biological systems and to the astonishing beauty of the earth itself. Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries, or permanent. Other processes appear to pose additional threats. Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertain -- with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe -- but the potential risks
are very great.


Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web of life -- coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate change -- could trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand.


Uncertainty over the extent of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing the threats.
POPULATION


The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.


Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today's 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition.


No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.
WARNING


We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.
WHAT WE MUST DO


Five inextricably linked areas must be addressed simultaneously:

We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth's systems we depend on.
We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water. Priority must be given to the development of energy sources matched to Third World needs -- small-scale and relatively easy to implement.


We must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of agricultural land, and the loss of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species.


We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively.


We must give high priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other materials, including expansion of conservation and recycling.


We must stabilize population.
This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.


We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty.
We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.
DEVELOPED NATIONS MUST ACT NOW


The developed nations are the largest polluters in the world today. They must greatly reduce their overconsumption, if we are to reduce pressures on resources and the global environment. The developed nations have the obligation to provide aid and support to developing nations, because only the developed nations have the financial resources and the technical skills for these tasks.

[Citizen Number 9]

99. Whoa, big job

But in the interests of consistency, I will comment on your Final Words.

I can see you struggling to throw off some misperceptions, but i also know it doesn't happen too quickly.

Hard to know what you mean by unemployment as it "used to be". Best just to note that Unemployment benefits exist and are being used by millions right now.

It's a bit hard to follow you on "full employment" as you first asserted that Corporations made a pact over it and now you call it an enemy of capitalism. Difficult to reconcile the sense in those two things.

I'm not sure anyone you ask will be too happy about Unemployment benefits. After all, they are unemployed and receiving 60% of their usual and customary. Moreover, they have to apply for it and provide a modicum of other substantiation. Not too many folks cheer about it.

As I stated, US life expectancy is up. And it is quite considerable since the Industrial Revolution.
The lifetime risk of dying from cancer is about 1/3 what you state it to be there.
Our medical industry excels because of the high expectations of the citizens.
Americans trail the world in health care because of accidents, homicides and obesity.
Really, you should more properly educate yourself about these facts before posting based on incorrect premises. I know stretched facts help support your opinions better, but it doesn't do much for actual dialogue.

This is getting tiring, so allow me a bit of sarcasm. Here it comes;

"Yep - you got it right, OSHA exists to undermine worker safety. How did you ever guess that's what it does?" Sheesh.

As for me, I think you only got one thing right. You really would do well to re-examine your perception mechanisms, because, as I may have mentioned earlier, it doesn't do any good to form opinions based on incorrect perception as we will see with all the points you made below.

I am a big fan of Capitalism. I believe that as flawed as it is, it is the best economic system for dealing with human nature. Recent developments show that unbridled "free markets" have something to be desired. The Republican Core might never figure that one out.

Criticism of GOP - Wrong. I love it, but generally only if it has constructive elements.

Believe government agencies still do the work they were set up to do - Yep, but after 8 years of poor executive management, much correction is needed. Hope Obama and his staff continue to exhibit the energy to do it.

even after 8 years of Bush -- I think I already answered that.

And that Americans haven't been made ill by pollution nor stress of working - Would never say that, but there is a cost/benefit factor you seem to want to ignore. In any case, we are pretty sure that hunting woolly mammoths and living without antibiotics was much more dangerous and less desirable.

two or more jobs -- while losing medical benefits - It's great that the economy has provided so many jobs. I think folks have been too caught up in acquiring material possessions and larger homes than they need, but in America, you sare be free to do this. Medical care is not a right and folks tend to ignore it in consideration of other things when they are young and want lots of it when they are old. That is bad planning on their part.

And a Global Warming denier _ Wrong again. You'll have to show us where I said that. Your assertion was that the planet is lost. As a scientist, I do not believe we have killed it. Moreover, that is not the consensus of the scientific community. The consensus is that with prompt action we can turn things around.

You're just way too quick to take up the talking points and run with them.

Leftie, Rightie; it doesn't seem to matter. There are just so many misperceptions common to people that they need to address before they worry about tribal affiliation.

[raccoon]

174. How's that again?

"Our medical industry excels because of the high expectations of the citizens."

If you're lucky enough to have insurance. And before it reaches the max payout.


"Americans trail the world in health care because of accidents, homicides and obesity."

Who says? You? THe world including Zimbabwe?

[Golden Raisin]

20. Breadlines.

And a lot of freaked-out, rich Republicans privately shivering with fear and publicly still sneering behind the gates of their gated communities. If it were still a Bush/Cheney administration armed Blackwater troops would be out patrolling the streets. Will be interesting to see how Obama deals with this potentiality. Possibly yet another horrible problem and herculean labor he is inheriting from the worst President ever.

[Citizen Number 9]

25. What will the

Rich Democrats be doing at that time?

Crystal ball in shop (again!)

[leftofthedial]

30. more than the rich repukes

[economicgeography]

31. re:

more than the rich repukes

That's some real deep analysis right there.

[leftofthedial]

33. no. it's anecdotal observation of Nixon's 1974 recession,

raygun's early 1980's recession and the first king george's "thousand points of light" recession of the early 90's.


and the compassionate commentary of re: and your doppelganger Citizen Number 9 and countless other repukes.

[economicgeography]

35. re:

I'm amused that you call me a Republican. But anyways.

Please don't straw man me. It wastes everyone's time.

You'll find me consistent in my arguments that the only position I hold is that whenever the option comes up, I argue for more freedom rather than less wherever possible.

[leftofthedial]

39. although I'm glad you're amused, I didn't call you a repuke.

I don't see how anything you've posted here argues for more freedom for anyone.

[economicgeography]

41. re:

That's interesting because my understanding of freedom is the right to engage in whatever activities you wish under the understanding that those actions may not directly infringe on someone else's life liberty or property.

You'll see in my arguments that I support the right for people to work or not to work, for people to freely engage in mutual contracts with other parties without coercion or force from the state, to spend their money as they see fit, etc.

[leftofthedial]

43. so you're a libertarian. (well, duh, leftofthedial)

people have the right to starve. people have the right to be homeless. people have the right to get sick and die when basic health care could have saved them. people have the right to be subjugated by anyone and everyone who has more money. I see! You truly are a champion of liberty!

[economicgeography]

45. re:

Please tell me what liberty is. It's not a utopia. It's not social harmony. It's the right to act without force fraud or coercion against your will.

People do have the rights to all the things you said above, yet most people usually don't pursue those results (funny, huh?)

People also have the right to buy food, buy housing and buy healthcare. I don't see your point. You seem to be making some assumption that I am this strict anarcho-capitalist. I understand that in the short run people die (in the words of Kenyes). I'm not against short-term relief. But the problem is when these supposedly short-run plans turn into long-run entrenched policies (which they seem to do more often than not).

[leftofthedial]

46. those "long-run entrenched policies" are what most people on earth

call "civilization."

[economicgeography]

48. re:

I don't want to turn this into a flame war, but for example.

Why was homelessness an issue in NYC even though they had the strongest rent control policies?

Why does France's unemployment rate usually hover around 10% even though they have supposedly labor-friendly laws.


Here's the deal. I dislike the problems in the world as much as you do: homelessness, poverty, hunger, AIDS, etc. I mean, I'm a 20 year old college student. How on Earth would I benefit from any of that stuff existing?

But when you look at policies, it is crucial to separate results from intentions. Many well-meaning policies have had negative intentions. Again, I don't want to spark a flame war, but there's a reason why labor jobs are leaving the country, for example.

I dislike the issues as much as anyone else, but just don't think these means are the best ways of solving them.

[leftofthedial]

52. France counts actual unemployment. We don't.

If we counted actual unemployment, our rate would be over 15% BEFORE the latest layoff frenzy.

No one is arguing that any government program is a panacea. I know what libertarians believe. You don't have to keep reciting the mantras. Recognition that any solution is imperfect is not an excuse to dismiss all solutions out of hand.

You still haven't answered the original question. "...what happens when..?"

[economicgeography]

54. re:

Ok. Migration. They'll move a country with better job and housing prospects. It's infinitely easier than the days of Ellis Island so there's no excuses not to.

If ALL those conditions you stated were to somehow come true, then I honestly believe that's what we would see.

[leftofthedial]

58. Have you thought this through?

Tens of millions of Americans would emigrate...where?

Have you seen economic news from around the world?

The top of your food chain do not behave mechanistically or altruistically or even logically. At times like this, they hoarde and look out for number one. They have almost all the money now! They don't care about this country or that country or millions of unemployed homeless people. They got theirs sucker and thanks to your philosophy for helping them to rationalize it.

[Odin2005]

64. economic "liberty" has nothing to do with real liberty.

Economic "Liberty" is the Corporate Capitalist class the freedom to treat everyone else like shit. Economic "liberty" leads to political slavery for everyone except the have-mores.

[sendero]

66. Libertarians..

.. like Communists, the most deluded people on the face of the planet.

[grasswire]

75. why would a libertarian want to argue in a Democratic forum?

What's the point? A lot of yapping and posturing in a hostile environment. What's the point?

[Citizen Number 9]

77. Why would you want to argue with your own kind?

How boring. Don't you want to know how the other half considers things?

[grasswire]

82. news flash

I know what the other half is thinking, and I have fully, thoughtfully, and finally rejected their (your) philosophy as half-assed and half-cocked.

[Citizen Number 9]

87. This doesn't surprise me

one bit.

BTW, what exactly IS my philosophy?

I'll be honest with you. This is a perception test.

[sendero]

90. Heard it..

....and dismissed it, it's moronic.

I can smell the ooze coming from a lib a mile away. Their arguments would make sense to someone with an IQ of 90.

[Citizen Number 9]

67. If you mean people who identify themselves as Republicans

I don't think there is much difference in their incomes. Moreover, there are a lot of rich Democrats.

Trying to base an argument on this kind of incorrect premise is useless. It leads to useless opinions and action.

Let's stay away from the broad brush and maybe we can make some progress.

[lowclass]

78. Class War

Since there is very little difference between the labels DEM or REP the rich will probably be throwing a party as they usually do after committing their crimes against the working class.

[Citizen Number 9]

88. So, do I understand you to be saying

That the rich are all in it together, no matter whether they are R or D, and that they will soon be celebrating their savaging (crimes) of the "American worker"?

I also presume you are talking about Crimes against Humanity or Crimes against some other relatively undefined law as opposed to actual statutes on the books here in the United States?

Just trying to hear it right.

[sarcasmo]

145. Glad you could come on over form free republic and join us.

[Citizen Number 9]

23. Not being able to buy groceries

Is a far cry from losing your mortgage or defaulting on credit card bills.

Losing your home to mortgage default is something that has always happened. You have to get a roommate, get an apartment, go live with relatives. That's how it is.

We allow people to declare bankruptcy (even on credit card purchases) in order to help them with starting a (new) financial life.

Food is tremendously cheap in the US - more than nearly any other place in the world. If you can't afford food there are several government programs that help people put food on the table as well as churches and community food banks.

[leftofthedial]

32. Are there no prisons?

Are there no workhouses?


You obviously have spent zero time working at food banks in the last few years. They can not care for the thousands of hungry homeless they have now, much less the millions your ilk are now creating.

[economicgeography]

34. re:Are there no prisons?

I don't have the numbers readily available, but I recalling reading the US spends among the lowest of its household income on food and that worldwide food prices are cheaper than ever in history. The issue is not the production but the distribution of food (hmm, established markets might be in order?)

What is the 'ilk' of me and him? Do you think guys like me and him get off by hearing about starving people? Come on.

[leftofthedial]

36. you can distribute all the food you want wherever you want

people with no money can't buy it.

food banks are already turning people away. that was before the bush depression ended over a million jobs in the last two months alone.

Do you have an answer for the question in the OP, or just random feckless pseudo-libertarian spew?

[economicgeography]

37. re:

Ok, I have an answer. I think it's a scenario so unlikely that it doesn't warrant an answer. If you can provide facts to support that the hypothesis that millions and millions will be starving in the next few years, then I'll work a response.

And you must really like making those ad hominem attack on me.

I'm irrelevant. Attack the issues, not me.

[leftofthedial]

38. those million-plus new unemployment claims, stats showing that as many as 10%

(15% in many areas) of mortgages are in foreclosure or soon will be,

over a million new announced layoffs...


those are so unlikely as to not warrant an answer?

I think we have your answer.

[economicgeography]

40. re:

Are we talking about food or housing? The previous posts had all been about food.

As for housing, rent? Not everyone can afford to buy a house (as the previous 2 years have painfully shown)

[leftofthedial]

42. so my question from the OP remains,

what happens when...

[economicgeography]

44. re:

Well ok. When people can't pay their mortgages, most contracts call for foreclosure.

People don't like to not have a roof over their head so they'll probably try to find housing. If they can't afford a new mortgage. My guess is then they'll take the next feasible option which is to either rent a house or apartment.

That's what I see as happening.

What's nice though is that if you have is that housing prices are quite low right now so I don't expect them to be vacant for long. The banks don't like having housing on their hands; they want to sell it off.

[leftofthedial]

47. your "free market" argument would make sense

if there weren't 20-35 million or so unemployed Americans right now, with every indication that the worst is yet to come.

You see, landlords don't magically rent housing to people with no jobs and no money. (Especially not libertarian landlords.) In fact many landlords won't rent housing at all to people who've been foreclosed or who have declared bankruptcy.

No matter how cheap houses get, people without jobs and without income can't buy them.

Right now, rent in many urban markets is skyrocketing due to demand. Monthly rent is nearly the same cost as a modest monthly mortgage payment.

The question remains from the OP: "...what happens when millions upon millions of Americans can no longer pay their mortgages or credit card bills or buy groceries?"

[economicgeography]

50. re:

So are we debating housing or employment?

I've already spelled out my opinion on housing.

Employment is a whole other can of worms.

[leftofthedial]

57. your opinion on housing did not answer the question

or address the actual problem.

Real estate market corrections will not prevent the wave of millions of new homeless families that is already started. What happens when that wave hits in full? You can sit there and smugly recite your "my-property-first" "free-market" libertarian mantra while millions of Americans will be losing their homes. What will happen?

There are many possible answers: Government aid, chaos, widespread death and disease, increased crime, riots, a return to multi-generational extended family living arrangements, cooperatives, anarchy, balkanization ...

With all due respect, a predatory capitalist market has no interest in or capability of solving this problem. This is one of the costs that corporations relentlessly and efficiently externalize. There is no profit in it, only cost (unless a no-bid contract is given to a KBR-style corporate crony, which won't solve the problem.) So what happens?

As for food, it is kind of gross to raise the image of a can of worms when we're talking about widespread hunger in America, but I'll let that pass for now. LOL

No employment--no solution. In our country, housing, health care, education (in large part), access to basic services and increasingly with the failure of community food banks to keep up with demand--food are all tied directly to employment. No job, no dough, no goods or services.

Without substantive change, in our current economy, and based on Obama's status-quo economic appointments, in our near future economy as well, what will happen is that many formerly middle-class neighborhoods will become blighted, much like inner city neighborhoods of the 60s and 70s and 80s. All the good lost property will be bought on the cheap by the wealthy, further institutionalizing and expanding their oligarchical control of the country. The economic demographic of our country will shift. It will begin to resemble a plutocratic feudal economy. There will be a huge, permanently poor proletariat, a small professional and technical middle class and a tiny oligarchy who own and control nearly everything. Although you will celebrate every incremental change along the way, the concept of liberty and Libertarianism will become moot points.

[Warpy]

51. When so many people can't pay the mortgage

because their place of employment has gone tits up you won't see them flooding to rentals because they won't be able to pay rent, either.

Expect to see a lot of impromptu sidewalk sales as the first evictions happen and people sell what they have so they can afford to pile into a cheap motel that rents by the week.

Later on, just expect it to be dumped and newly homeless people to hit the bricks along with it.

Expect to see full campgrounds and lots of people living in their cars, if the cars haven't been repoed along with the house. Expect to see people in your neighborhood begging for work and if no work is available, at least enough food to keep them going one more day. Expect to see people without housing get dirty and desperate.

Expect to see tarpaper shacks in vacant lots and wooded areas. Expect the cops to clean out these public nuisances periodically, heartlessly caving to the demands of pricks who still have houses and whine about the danger posed by their less fortunate fellow citizens.

If this gets as bad as the worst doom and gloomers say it will, this is what will happen. I still think we have a chance to avoid all but the first two paragraphs if Obama throws the DLC rulebook out and applies the lessons of history.

We can have hope that the worst won't happen. We'd have no hope had McCain gotten in.

[economicgeography]

53. Can I quoute you on that? n/t

[Warpy]

56. No, just keep clapping your hands

to maintain the belief that the free market fairy will keep you safe and sound.

[girl gone mad]

162. Housing prices are not low right now.

They are still very high by historical debt to income and rent to mortgage ratios and will probably need to fall another 25% to 50% in many places to come back in line with today's stagnant and declining wages.

Despite the record foreclosures, we are still left with a shortage of affordable housing since builders built a glut of the more profitable high-end McMansions and condos largely to the exclusion of smaller single family dwellings.

[Vanje]

120. Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

I think you missed the poster's literary allusion.
He wasnt looking for statistics on prisons.

Its from Dickens.
"Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?" is uttered by Scrooge (pre-transformation), when he was asked to consider the poor.

[girl gone mad]

161. lol...

and no one ever goes hungry, it's a capitalist wonderland full of happy people and scenes like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8dz40AOOmA&feature=PlayList&p=6C29F798F4D237B2&playnext=1&index=3">this and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W132taxpk7o">this don't really exist in the beautiful, free-market paradise called the US of A.

Right?

[Citizen Number 9]

70. I'm not aware of the existence of "workhouses"

But, I'm sure you have something in mind.

Whether or not I've worked at a food bank has no bearing on the issue. I know they are under pressure, but the institutions and charities I mentioned still exist and they're not going away tomorrow.

As for my "ilk", you don't know who I am or what I do, so please refrain from the personal attacks. Discussion will be better without them.

[leftofthedial]

104. oh, but you are so clearly an "ilk" that it is irresistible

Damned people deserve to be laid off and kicked out of their homes. They made the decision to keep that job instead of becoming independently wealthy. Losers deserve whatever the hell the free market lets them steal from someone else.

[Citizen Number 9]

106. What's clear is

that it's just all personal with you now, isn't it?

I'll be happy to continue when you can come back to topic.

If you've got anything else substantial about it that is.

[leftofthedial]

111. no, I pretty much regurgitated your point of view on the subject.

typical shallow libertarian dreck.

[defendandprotect]

55. I think that a distant knowlege of the assistance available is probably ...

much more positive than actually experiencing that assistance.

Bankruptcy rules changed making it more difficult --

These mortgage defaukts sre not something that "has always happened" --

There is great corruption involved -- huge numbers involved --

and would you take a room with a homeowner possibly near default with

their mortgage-??

I imagine every last dollar goes to trying to pay the increased mortgages ..

and "getting an apartment" would be difficult when someone's credit is

involved.

How many relatives are anxious or prepared to take in family members

going thru this? This creates great relationship difficulties for members

effected and those trying to help.

Food banks are low on food -- and how many of us would see no difficulty

in depending on soup kitchens for family meals--???


All of these programs have been made more circuitous for those in need

to survive.

[leftofthedial]

59. excellent points

[Citizen Number 9]

71. Nevertheless, getting an apartment

is what some people do after a foreclosure. I'm not sure someone looking to take a room has much to say about whether the landlord will undergo foreclosure or not. As it is more likely that people who need the money will be renting rooms, it seems likely that situation will be a bit more risky for the renter than other situations, but it seems better than some other alternative like living on the street. On the other hand, maybe the renting of a room will enable the homeowner to avoid foreclosure, so let's not look askance at that strategy.

I'm glad the bankruptcy rules have been strengthened. Bankruptcies were getting too easy to come by and the responses by creditors were becoming an increasing and otherwise unnecessary burden on all consumers. I think the changes were aimed at making it harder for the true abusers to escape their debts entirely.

I think we have heard a great deal more about the corruption involved in the mortgage problems than we have about the part consumers have played. Many consumers enjoyed large amounts of credit and cash they didn't actually earn while taking part in the free for all.

Who better than the relatives to feel an impact? They are probably in a stronger position than anyone else to encourage the person to avoid bad decisions that might lead to a loss of their home.

Assistance programs of all kinds have been tightened recently, I agree. One of the reasons is that the tightening is a response to people feeling more relaxed about seeking assistance that might more properly have been used elsewhere.

[grasswire]

74. bogus

Assistance programs have been "tightened" because of the greater need for help plus shrinking donations/revenue, not because of any increased "unworthiness" of some who seek assistance. That is a bogus Calvinist excuse that I (and Democrats) totally reject. Blame the needy! Pfffft.

[Citizen Number 9]

80. If you will recall...

I quite clearly said "one of the reasons"....

Another reason would be inadequate intake, however, only the woefully uninformed haven't heard of the noose tightening around food banks in that respect. That is why I chose to focus on the other, equally valid point.

See client qualifications section, below for an example

http://www.scvfoodpantry.org/clientguidelines.php

At several of the food banks I am familiar with, actual documentation of circumstances is a relatively new thing. When that was instituted, some familiar faces disappeared.

[grasswire]

81. you do realize...

....that some people would rather spend more money to make sure that the "unworthy" are stopped from getting food than is spent in actual aid?

The money spent on administrative costs and bureaucratic shuffling is stolen from the hungry, the homeless, the children, the elderly while trying to "winnow" or monitor.

Who cares if a handful of people get two bags of free food in a month?? Who the hell cares? Do you think those people are going to sell the dented cans of vegetable soup or the package of surplus dry beans for drugs?

You defend a Calvinist ethic, flawed and ugly, where people are needy because they are sinners, lazy or weak and they are therefore unworthy of assistance. That ethic was the beginning of the institutionalization of charity -- a sad and tragic happening in human history.

Oddly enough, Jesus of Nazareth admonished his followers to give sacrificially, freely, without any regard for the merit of the recipient. I doubt very much that the early church would have tolerated a required "documentation of circumstances."

[Citizen Number 9]

86. "Some people" do all kinds of things

There's no accounting for the evil people do.

Both food Banks and charities have an obligation to donors to make sure the relief gets to the neediest. The donors generally want their donations to go as far as possible. In times when the shelves are running bare it is particularly important to make sure that happens, both in conservation of scarce resources and in the interests of keeping donors happy.

You may not particularly like Administration, but it is required, both because people, including volunteers, come in a variety of flavors and because there are folks out there who feel they should get all of whatever it is.

It's fine to emulate Jesus, but I don't think he had a need for locks, and we do.

As for defending a Calvinist ethic, you are just so wrapped up in your own (mis)perceptions that you've lost the ability to see clearly. Please direct me to the part where I said that folks were unworthy of assistance because they were lazy, weak sinners.

[grasswire]

89. that's the sad part

You think we need locks to keep people from food. God forbid that hungry people might want to take enough to last the whole month. Once again -- what are they going to do with it but eat it? And if they eat it, isn't that the point of what donors and administrators are trying to do? Stop hunger? What is the difference if five hundred people get one bag of food per month or if 250 people get two bags per month? The hungry people are hungry EVERY DAY. The monthly bag is a pittance in the face of their need. So why should a local food bank spend tens of thousands of dollars for administrative costs to determine the "eligibility" of a hungry person to make sure he/she doesn't get two bags in a month, when that money could go to direct aid.

It's just a freaking boondoggle. An incalculable waste of money.

[Citizen Number 9]

93. Well, I was thinking more about locks

to protect the vehicles, the gas in their tanks and the equipment in the office. All that is needed to carry out the mission of the Food Bank. If it is stolen or damaged, the mission suffers as well as the resources it has to carry it out.

Your assertions have been for drama's sake and without much basis in substance or reality. I can't imagine any successful community operations which spends tens of thousands of dollars to determine the eligibility of a person claiming to be hungry. It couldn't continue to attract donations and support with that sort of foolishness. Your conclusion is simply off the track.

For that matter, your taking me to task for what appears to be your own misperceptions is sorta detracting from the topic of this thread.

[Vanje]

116. When He distributed the loaves and fishes ,...

Jesus didn't ask for actual documentation of circumstances.

[Citizen Number 9]

117. I am pretty sure that

He didn't expect to come up short! :)

[FedUpWithIt All]

97. "to encourage the person to avoid bad decisions that might lead to a loss of their home."

You mean that bad habit of getting layed off.

Or perhaps the terribly annoying habit of buying ever more expensive food to feed their children.

:eyes:

"One of the reasons is that the tightening is a response to people feeling more relaxed about seeking assistance that might more properly have been used elsewhere."

I would knock on wood if i were you. But i am not...:beer: Whew.

[leftofthedial]

98. or maybe the bad decision to be poisoned or made ill by unregulated products

shipped into the country on the cheap




libertarians are worse than repukes.

[Citizen Number 9]

101. I can't see what this has to do with either

the OP, or anything I said.

There isn't enough regulation to be had to protect people from the things that other self-serving folks will do. If that wasn't the case, we could go around right now selecting people who clearly need "more regulation" in their lives in order to avoid having a negative impact on any of us at some point in the future.

[leftofthedial]

103. you think, for example, that melamine poisoning or excessive lead in the paint

on children's toys is fine? or tainted meat? or defective products that kill people? That there should be no regulations? No EPA. No FDA.

what the hell is wrong with you?

[Citizen Number 9]

100. Well, I was thinking more about

Buying more home than you "needed" or could realistically afford.

Paying more for a home you really liked than it was worth (to anyone else).

Accepting a higher interest rate as opposed to taking a little time to boost your credit score.

Going "no money down" because you hadn't saved up a downpayment.

Getting a new job and immediately running out and getting a new home based on your new earnings would also be a bad decision.

As would going out and furnishing your new home on your credit card because you just couldn't wait.....

All of these things would (in my opinion) constitute bad decisions.



"knock on wood"? I've always planned carefully for my family's future. To knock on wood would seem to throw it to some sort of chance or juju.

[FedUpWithIt All]

102. Being on the recieving end of a divorce you didn't know was coming.

Having a child come down with a sudden catastrophic illness that takes up all your time and resources. Having the misfortune of being born to someone who ruins your credit before you are even legal. Losing a loved one and finding it difficult to recover emotionally. Natural disasters...

There are MANY REASONS for people having financial difficulties. Failure to realize that the problems do not fit into a tiny neat framework shows a lack of both curiosity and a basic understanding of the world around you.

As for the knock on wood retort, you may believe that careful planning can cover all circumstances. I tend to think that people who are insensitive to others often eventually find themselves in a circumstance that has a way of helping them see things from other's perspectives. May you never find yourself in other people's shoes.

[Citizen Number 9]

107. I enumerated a number of things

that I believe constituted bad decisions regarding the topic of mortgages. The situations you are ranting and raving about have no connection whatsoever to what I said, yet it appears that you are connecting them to me. I hope you can see the difference between what I said and any other "financial difficulties" discussed or undiscussed.

Nowhere did I claim that careful planning can cover all circumstances as you state. However, there is no doubt in my mind that some planning and personal restraint can help prevent a number of the things that can befall folks. That's just common sense.

I think you're making an increasingly large amount of divergent assumptions regarding me and it is affecting dicussion of the issues. Can we get back to it or are you "done" with rational discussion, too?

[FedUpWithIt All]

110. "One of the reasons is that the tightening is a response to people feeling more relaxed "

"about seeking assistance that might more properly have been used elsewhere."

The statement above is NOT a comment about the topic of mortgages. It is a critique of those who seek "general" assistance.

You following comment is moot under the circumstances.

I enumerated a number of things that I believe constituted bad decisions regarding the topic of mortgages. The situations you are ranting and raving about have no connection whatsoever to what I said, yet it appears that you are connecting them to me. I hope you can see the difference between what I said and any other "financial difficulties" discussed or undiscussed.

The original statement that i was commenting on was the one in the subject line which CLEARLY is about the OTHER "financial difficulties". I pointed out that you have NO IDEA what reasons are leading people to seek assistance. You, as far as i can tell, are not the "decider" of what is and is not an appropriate excuse to seek assistance.

"ranting and raving"

You consider my previous post ranting and raving. :rofl: You must lead a very exciting life.

I think you're making an increasingly large amount of divergent assumptions regarding me

I stand by my assertions that the limited and narrow views you have expressed regarding OTHER PEOPLE'S financial situations show a lack of curiosity and understanding about the larger world.

YOU said...

I've always planned carefully for my family's future. To knock on wood would seem to throw it to some sort of chance or juju.

To which i pointed out that general financial difficulties are sometimes the result of "chance" circumstances that cannot be planned for. Many of the people under duress right now are living with the consequences of "chance" hitting them hard. The employment numbers alone are enough to cover this argument.

However, there is no doubt in my mind that some planning and personal restraint can help prevent a number of the things that can befall folks. That's just common sense.

And i will point out again that i hope, for your sake, that the circumstances that you have to face in the future are within the the parameters you have planned for. If they fall into the "chance" areas, which countless others are dealing with right now, you might just find the shoes of others a bit to tight to bear.

[Citizen Number 9]

112. I guess those weren't actually your "Final Words" after all...

Do you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing? I entertained your growing divergence from the topic, but when you come back and start accusing me of being off, I think it's just time to let it be.

Happy to take up the original topic, but not interested in playing the games.

[FedUpWithIt All]

113. The OP was about general financial difficulties.

That is what i was discussing. I did not realize that you expected me to finish speaking with my last post. You do realize that this is a DISCUSSION BOARD, right? The tactic of suggesting that the posters responding to you are "detracting from the topic of this thread" when they disagree with your assertions is simply not working for you.

Original Post...
"seriously, what happens when millions upon millions of Americans can no longer pay their mortgages or credit card bills or buy groceries?"

Here you are talking about the food crunch the OP was concerned with...

Food is tremendously cheap in the US - more than nearly any other place in the world. If you can't afford food there are several government programs that help people put food on the table as well as churches and community food banks.

When it was pointed out to you that food banks and other resources are no longer providing assistance due to lack of resources you had the following to say.

Assistance programs of all kinds have been tightened recently, I agree. One of the reasons is that the tightening is a response to people feeling more relaxed about seeking assistance that might more properly have been used elsewhere.

Again, who made you the guy/gal that decides what is a worthy use of assistance resources?

This is how you dismiss the struggles of those trying to feed their families.

There has always been hunger, even in the US...Are the people that are going hungry reaching a critical mass of some sort?

How sensitive of you.

It was your callousness about the general assistance programs that brought me into this conversation. That is what i commented on and that is what i am commenting on now.

A note to you before leaving off this "discussion"(frankly, what is the point of continuing?), my grandmother was turned away from a food bank. Her limited income was more than enough to cover her (responsible) mortgage when she bought her home. It was her first home and she bought it about 5 years ago. My grandfather was a migratory laborer. They always rented. He passed away and she bought a tiny home.

With the cost of food and other necessities rising at such an incredible rate she has been finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet. Her utilities have gone up and she now requires more medication. When she was turned away from the food bank because she did not get in line early enough, she kept it to herself. I did not find out until some time after.

Many of the other members of my extended family are also feeling the rising costs and are hurting in various ways and unable to offer much help. (ie. my uncle was in an auto accident after his wife of 17 years left him (money stress is the main cause listed for divorce) and he was too injured to work for a time. Under the current unemployment conditions that meant he was not called back for the entire work season. Because his wife's income is no longer available and his was seriously cut back because of the accident, he is now in foreclosure.)

When i found out my grandmother's situation i bought her enough food to last a while. I am hoping she will be able to keep her home. She dreamed of finally having a settled place to call her own.

[Citizen Number 9]

115. I'm not bothered at all by the disagreement

that is a necessary component of discussion. What I did object to was taking the conversation farther and farther afield in an effort to poke out smart little talking points that don't logically follow.

Here's one example;

I detailed a list of actions I termed as "bad decisions" that might impact one's ability to keep paying the mortgage. I just reviewed them and it's pretty clear to me they all consist of personal decisions; not happenstance, bad events or even factors outside your control.

Subsequently, there appeared a number of posts, apparently aimed at what I had said that had to do with circumstances generally outside one's own control; health issues or family issues. Logical disconnects and not at all related to anything I said.

You do a similar thing, right here in this most recent post.

In order to make your nay-saying seem more credible, you say "When it was pointed out to you that food banks and other resources are no longer providing assistance due to lack of resources...". However, that's not true at all. The fact is that food charities, while tremendously impacted by recent demand, are still providing food to the needy, which is consistent with my posts all along. If you had come forward with some information showing a certain unmet and growing need, then we could talk about the deficiency in particular, but instead, you want to pretend that there is no longer food assistance available, which just isn't true.

I serve on the board of several charities, at least one of which is a "food charity". I might know a little something about the pressures facing charities, not the least of which is the need to provide assurance to the various donors that food is going to the "neediest".

It's funny how my personal "sensitivity" is so often tied to someone else's "sensitiveness".

Thanks for the story about your family, but not at all sure what to do with it. Wouldn't want to risk hurting your feelings.

[girl gone mad]

163. Actually, we did regulate the mortgage and banking industries..

quite effectively for decades. The current bubble was in large part a product of deregulation in the form of Gramm-Leach-Bliley and the Commodities and Futures Modernization Acts.

[TransitJohn]

114. Or maybe the bad habit

of undergoing or having a family member undergo an illness which forces all money to go to that ahead of mortgages or groceries, since they also had the bad habit of only having the option to work for companies which provide no health care benefits? Yeah, I hate those kind of lazy people too...always looking for someone else to take care of 'em. :sarcasm:

[Waiting For Everyman]

149. You really are stupid, aren't you?

[Citizen Number 9]

152. Not at all.

I am educated, have substantial perceptive abilities and plenty of experience to make use of it.

Sadly, calling me "stupid" is more of an indication of what's going on with you than a useful description of me.

I certainly don't know everything, however and am interested in hearing your opinions as long as they have some basis in reality, but you'd have to actually start a conversation as opposed to making a personal attack.

[Waiting For Everyman]

156. Education doesn't certify intelligence, nor experience

with the subject at hand. Go read a book about it, others know firsthand - and that, you can not argue with. (You could, but it would be stupid.)

[Citizen Number 9]

159. Go read "a" book?

Problem is that books lie and people like to pick and choose their lies. I think I can see what the problem will be here. Reading "a" book confers upon oneself "a little learning" and you know what the issue with that is, don't you?


"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again"
- Alexander Pope

You'd be better off to read 15 or 20 books in order to discover the depth of whatever it is you're talking about. In spite of that, the failure of most "scholars" is that they have not the mental and personal discipline to sample largely, instead preferring to pick the familiar and comfortable.

Read my post again. Neither intelligence nor experience depends on education.

[FedUpWithIt All]

96. Those charites and food banks have been forced in some places to turn people away.

People ARE going hungry in the US. Step outside yourself for a moment and take a look around.

[Citizen Number 9]

108. There has always been hunger, even in the US

And there is no doubt in my mind that there is a greater unfilled demand at charities and food banks right now. Once again, you appear to be making assumptions that just aren't there. If you are looking for somewhere to direct your anger, it isn't me.

Are the people that are going hungry reaching a critical mass of some sort?

[leftofthedial]

130. have you heard about the collapse of global economies and the spike in unemployment?

It's been in all the papers.

[Citizen Number 9]

137. I'm aware of the

collapse of a number of large corporations and a spike in unemployment.

I'm aware of a lot of theories regarding "collapse" of global economies, but I'm not too sure of exactly what would constitute this or if it has actually happened.

If the US GDP contracts by 5% in the next year, is that considered a "collapse" in your book?

What's your point?

[leftofthedial]

138. nearly 2 million jobs have been lost this year alone in the US

does it seem to you that might represent an increase in the number of clients food banks need to serve?

did you know that the charitable contributions and grants that fund non-profits (like food banks, shelters, and the like) are down over 80% since 2006?

[Citizen Number 9]

141. That's the double-edged bite to a recession

More clients to service with fewer donations.

Normally we'd be looking to boost stocks with potatoes, unfortunately, it was a cool, wet planting season in the region and things didn't go so well there.

[Odin2005]

62. Revolution... n/t.

[leftofthedial]

65. We-ell ya know

we all wanna change the world

[chrisa]

105. War...

Pretty much.

There's a good chance it would never get that bad. Unfortunately, nothing would surprise me anymore. If it did, Obama would be the last President of the former United States of America.

I'm an optimist, though. Probably too much so.

[Citizen Number 9]

109. War?

Between who? What would the strategic goal of the war be?

[chrisa]

118. If I knew the answer to that, I'd tell you...

Put hungry, poor people together who feel screwed by the government, and you have a powder keg; especially in hot, sticky summers.

[Citizen Number 9]

122. What percentage of the population

needs to get poor and hungry before they become a powder keg?

[truedelphi]

123. I'd say when about 33% of the public is angry - watch out

You know, one reason that Nixon made sure that our National Guard never served in Vietnam
was that his advisers let him know that if discontent got even a bit higher than it was, the National Guard would be needed here.

Probably about one third of the public was pretty unhappy. You had various cities going up in flames during summer months - Detroit, Los Angeles come to mind. Student unrest was a real concern.

The blacks wanted thieir civil rights. And the white kids didn't wanna die in a far away nation for the beneift of war profiteers.

[Citizen Number 9]

124. Unhappy or even angry is a whole lot removed

from being unable to buy groceries.

I would be surprised if you would find 33% of Americans going out to commit violence unless things were so bad that there was nowhere else to turn.

As the US still has the ability to feed it's citizens, even if they are on the public dole, I find it unlikely that the dramatic events discussed here would come about quite so easily.

[truedelphi]

126. The three people in front of me at the groc. store all used food stamp cards

To get their food yesterday. Also, yesterday it was announced that the State of California would be out of money in less than six months.

Further dots to connect:
Twenty three states have deplorable budgets. Food pantries in big cities cannot keep up.

The Federal government might be out of money by June, July or August.* It's great that Obama won and not McCain, but I'm not sure even he can erase the writing on the walls of Wall Street. (Especially not with his having Rubin and Geithner in postions of power.) They are the problem, they ain't gonna solve it. Especially not with the fact that Paulson (King Paulson, would be more accurate) already gave away 7.7 Trillion dollars in loans, guarantees and actual monies, most of which is not ever gonna reach us.

Last week a Citigroup memo surfaced announcing that martial law may well be needed by 2010 or even 2009.

*When the Federal government has no money, how will Social Security benefits be paid?
Or Federal workers, including the military?

[Citizen Number 9]

127. Question:

Can you tell us what happens when the Federal Govt is "out of money"?

[truedelphi]

128. Some economists suggest that the Weimar Republic scenario

Will occur - back in the 1920's due to the billions of dollars that Germany agreed to pay for WWI under Versailles Treaty (as reparations, even though Germany had been first nation decent enough to say that the war should stop) the debt that nation was under forced a continual running of their printing presses, such as we Americans are seeing now.

People in Germany would bring baby buggies and baskets to the store to wheel in the cash needed for purchases - and the buggies and baskets would be stolen, while the money would be left behind - the currency was that worthless.

Others suggest we look to various African nations that currently have high inflation.

Or to Romania.

Unlike the Great Depression, when we still produced items, this time around it will be much worse. We depend on other nations to send us everything from our baby formula to our food to our clothing. When those nations do not want our money, we will receive nothing.

Our national defense would probably be the last thing to go. Those in power would see to it that the military is paid, but everyone else would be working for free or for worthless dollars.

[Citizen Number 9]

132. Lots of theories. Not all will turn out correct, of course.

I think for now that the Fed should continue to pay Unemployment benefits and back up the states if they run out of money.

In spite of everything that is happening with the financial crisis, we aren't seeing any inflation to speak of. One difference between this situation and the Weimar Republic is that the dollar continues to be strong and a leading world currency.

[truedelphi]

133. No we are not seeing any inflation right now.

That will come down the line - some six to nine months or more from now.

Right now it is a highly deflationary situation. In other words, A Depression.

People trying to sell their homes cannot for two reasons - one, they have to compete with the foreclosure market, secondly the values of houses goes down each week, so why would a buyer purchase today rather than wait? Inventories are backing up - everything from toys to cars. The officials in the ports around Los Angeles no longer have anywhere to put all the off loaded cars from Mexico - the dealerships don't want them, etc.

The dollar is going to see a real downward trend - China just decided to buy anywhere from 100% to 1500% times as much gold as they usually do. So the money they normally use to buy our Treasury bonds will be non-existent.

Besides, one of the real reasons they buy our bonds is so that our government allows in their cheap crap without tariffs - but now that American retailers do not want the stuff, that game of tit for tat is essentially pointless.

[Citizen Number 9]

136. Do something for us

Willya?

Let's say the Chinese bought 300 tons of gold in 2007. Feel free to supply the exact number if you know it.

If what you say is true, can you show us the following two items for the high end and low end of the range you just mentioned?

Here, I'll get you started.

100% would be 300 tons of gold purchased in the next year
1500% would be 4,500 tons of gold purchased in the next year.

a. What percentage of the total yearly amount of gold mined each amount is

b. What percentage of Chinese dollar holdings each purchase might consume

[truedelphi]

139. First off, I goofed, I meant to say that the Chinese will buying

At least 200% of the amount they bought in 2007. Not 100%.

Here are some files I stored on my hard drive and the URL's for the full articles:
Article One:
http://tinyurl.com/5pb3bo

In 2007 China surpassed the USA to become the second biggest retail gold market in the world after India. Total consumer demand in China's mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwan reached 363.3 tons, an increase of 23.5 percent from 2006, the World Gold Council indicated in a research report

To put that figure into perspective 363.3 tons, is equal to 10,596,250 troy ounces of gold, at today's gold price of approximately $900 US that is $9,536,625,000 US Dollars worth of gold.




Article Two: (you will need to use the "magnify" function to read it unless you have really good eyes) This discussion contains some graphs and pie charts regarding the amounts of gold that are held, unallocated or lost, so a lot can be learned by reading this report (Or at least browsing through the graphs) I am not sure the date of this PDF file - possibly in early 2008?


http://www.lbma.org.uk/docs/conf2002/5b.chengLBMA2002.pdf

Even WikiPedia did not have an article I could find with the entire amounts of gold now owned, and information on how much is mined each year throughout the world. (Though that might be a nifty Wiki article to come up with, some dull weekend when the California rain is keeping me inside.) It is much easier to find out how much each gold mining nation produces, but I don't have the time tonight to stay up counting countries' gold totals.

[Citizen Number 9]

142. Okay, 200%, fine.

I'll help to speed things up. $20 billion at the outside - 350 tons. That would represent about 1% of all the dollar holdings of China which are in the neighborhood of $2 trillion. Multiply it by 7.5 to get to your upper limit and it is now 7.5% of all China's dollars. We could arguably be getting somewhere with that number if it wasn't for the next problem, which is that only about 2500 tons of gold are mined a year and 4000 tons changes hands.

So China would be buying more gold than crosses the entire market every year and even then, they would still have over 90% of their dollars left.

What impact does this have on your original contention that "the money they normally use to buy our Treasury bonds will be non-existent"?

[truedelphi]

143. regarding the statement that "The money that they normally

use to buy our Treasury bonds" is something the experts are saying. If the Chinese are into valuable metals, and they run out of gold to buy, they will go to Palladium or to Platinum and silver. Or even copper.

We are not buying their stuff any more - go to places like Alibaba.com and read the reports of traders/factory managers in China who cannot figure out what to do with the goods that American firms asked them to create - and now the Amerian firms are saying, "Please keep holding these - we want them. But we do not want them now." Some Chinese firms are holding things for over six months, and going broke in the process.

We had some control over China's dispensation of their purchasing power when we bought from them, but what is their incentive now?

That is what Nassim Taleb is saying when talking with Charlie Rose - when our wholesalers stop paying for orders, it doesn't only affect things here, but also things in the Chinese factory arena.

The Hong Kong economic experts are saying this "recession" will be U-shaped" - in other words, they expect their economy tobe dragging along the economy for several years.

By the way, China is not the largest economy - that honor falls to Europe. And Europe is rather displeased with us these days. German ministers decrie the abuse that our financial instruments have heaped upon the World Economy - and they feel maybe we should bear the burdens our nation has created without their help.

[Citizen Number 9]

144. You do know that

The (im)balance of trade with China is still growing don't you? It took a huge jump in November.

That means the Chinese have even more, how did you describe them, "non-existent"? US dollars.

[truedelphi]

154. The dollar still has value, and is strong, though the last few

Days have seen some days with the dollar in decline and gold on the rise.

It is't like everything being predicted will fall into place all at once. It will be over time.

[Citizen Number 9]

155. Exactly, and maybe.

It's important that we keep perspective on things. Normally, troubles like this, if isolated only to the US, might be a cause for even greater concern. However, since the entire world experiences a downturn when we do, the dollar, and US govt securities are still a refuge. That makes it possible for us to "print money" to work our way out of this.

In spite of the doom and gloom often expressed here, the "credit" of the US is still good.

That's why I take issue with things like the original posting. All those things stated are happening right now, yet there is no civil unrest.

Of course, if you are one of those who feel that they haven't done well in life and that this particular economic system doesn't bring out your best qualities, then there is no question in my mind that the current troubles make it more likely something violent might happen. Not dramatically more likely, just more likely. Based on some of the uncontested replies to the OP, it appears that is what a number of members here would like to see.

[raccoon]

173. Can you give us a link?

[Citizen Number 9]

175. That would defeat the alarmist nature of the posting

1. I'm sure that the use of food stamps is up. Need is always greater in a recessive economy.

2. If California "runs out of money" that doesn't mean everything slams to a halt. Government makes sure that things continue to happen, not the least of which is assistance payments.

3. State and local government budgets are under strain. They are being hit by a triple whammy of reduced sales tax revenue, declining property values and job losses, not to mention the increased demand for social services.

4. Federal gov out of money? Not right now, no.

5. $7.7 trillion has not been "given away" and time will show if what has been done will have an effect, but there is no doubt that quick action has stemmed what appeared to be an imminent collapse of the financial system - for now.

6. The famous Citigroup "memo" did not predict martial law.

7. The Fed has mechanisms to make sure that Federal workers and SS benefits get paid, and there is little to no chance that these groups will suddenly find themselves with no payment.

[JohnWxy]

121. maybe Sen Shelby of Alabama can reassure you. He doesn't seem to be too concerned. The way he has

approached the bridge loan to the DOMESTIC automakers he doesn't seem too concerned about the possibility of a depression.

[Enthusiast]

134. He thinks it will be confined to the North. nt

[notesdev]

125. You need not wait long

to see the definitive answer to your question.

[JohnWxy]

129. may I suggest you all ask this of Harry Reid - here's his contact page-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x50422


You MAY actually be able to have an affect on the outcome of this deal! - and how would THAT make you feel?

HAVE AT IT!

[sarcasmo]

146. Thanks for asking this again, I posted a similar question a few weeks ago.

[Waiting For Everyman]

148. The banks will repo cars, seize bank accounts and assets, then foreclose.

And/or force bankruptcies. People are living in cars, in the winter, starving, robbing each other.

And ask yourself - how much will these things seized from people be worth by then? Basically nothing. It's being done for nothing.

[Citizen Number 9]

153. Well, strictly speaking

It's not for nothing. I see a point in there somewhere, but the items repossessed have some residual value, even in a bad economy.

The lenders, who took a chance on the borrowers, are just trying to recover some of what they lost, no matter how small it might appear to be.

The other thing is that those are sorta The Rules. The Rules say that if you don't make your payments then you will lose that item. It's not punitive as much as it is trying to assure that economic expectations continue to be normal.

One way to avoid this is to not purchase over your means.

Here's an example.

Upon graduation, do you

a) Buy a new car and take out a 60 month loan "because you deserve it",or

b) Buy a good used car that looks like it has some miles left on it?

I'd say you purchase the used car and pay it off as soon as possible, making your payments equivalent to what you might have spent on the new one. Furthermore, after it is paid off you need to continue equivalent "payments" - to yourself. Put them in your "automobile savings account". Before long you will have a substantial amount saved. By deferring your new car desire in this way, even for a short time, you can assure yourself a lifetime of automobile security.

This method works for a number of things if you really want to be free of the cost and risk of credit.

[Waiting For Everyman]

157. Strictly speaking, that is totally beside the point of the OP.

(Ok, I'll give it a little more than that... )

What is not over someone's head at all when a contract begins, may quite suddenly become over their head at any time. But life doesn't happen to perfect people, does it? Your bias is clear enough already. You're a rationalizer for the predators. That's all fine, but it doesn't fly with reality, and that's why this system is breaking down. It works in banks, and courtrooms, and think tanks, and other sorts of institutional environments, but not in the real world. (Eventually, life happens. To everybody.)

And that's the problem - we have laws, now, relatively recently, made for the benefit of that narrow artificial institutional segment of our population, which are in fact impossible, but which hold people to the letter of that impossibility, and take from them every possession they have along with any chance of future recovery, when that impossibility comes to pass. It's profitable for one side of the contract (guess which one), and that's all that matters.

It was not always so, but it was MADE so in the last 10 years. This is what we reap from it. And don't worry, the effects of this will eventually reach the pristine shores of your ivory tower too. It will be a learning experience, I'm sure.

(And btw, I am not here to "debate" with you, but to interact with my thoughts from my experience and pov. And that's what I just did.)

[Citizen Number 9]

158. It's pretty basic for you, isn't it?

Here there be monsters, huh?

I quite simply showed how to avoid repossession by having a modicum of discipline and waiting until you can actually own material possessions instead of having to take a risk for all those nice things. Doesn't make you a favored consumer, but hey, I've never been too big on that concept myself.

This is what it always comes down to. You call it life, maybe others call it "karma" or just being unfortunate. I call it bad decisions.

You seem to be espousing a philosophy in which you just can't seem to take responsibility for your own actions;

"What is not over someone's head at all when a contract begins, may quite suddenly become over their head at any time" - It's a contract. You have a choice whether or not to enter into it. If you do, I guess you are taking a risk, aren't you?

"life doesn't happen to perfect people" - it's not about perfect people, it's about making better and worse decisions.


"You're a rationalizer for the predators" - Not at all. I've spent a goodly portion of my life protecting people from predators. Loan agencies don't want to repo your purchases. That represents a loss to them. They want you to complete the contract. In the case of credit cards, there's often nothing to get. If you are afraid of the wolves, I'd definitely recommend not leaving the pasture. Wait before putting that new car on a big credit contract. Save up a down payment for your house. Definitely don't buy more than you need. Don't run up those credit cards. It's really pretty easy. Use some discipline.

"we have laws... which are in fact impossible, but which hold people to the letter of that impossibility" Somewhat poetic, but absolutely incorrect. No one forces you to consume and to sign contracts in the first place. It is your own choice. New bankruptcy laws were made to answer an increasingly large number of people who have taken their credit responsibilities very lightly. Policies put into effect to combat them were beginning to have an impact on all consumers so it was decided to legislate against the ones who were actually doing it rather than have everyone pay. You can even see them here. People who propose running up a credit balance and then defaulting, presumably to get even with some faceless corporation.

"And don't worry, the effects of this will eventually reach the pristine shores of your ivory tower too" - What can you possibly mean by this? I'll need an example.

[Waiting For Everyman]

160. I'm "basic"? That's funny.

All of your "formulas"... all of the correct decisions, all of the restraint, all of the discipline, etc., etc., are quite beside the point. You don't get it, do you? Life is not controllable by human beings. Not even you.

Demanding airtight perfection as our laws do at the present time (thanks to lobbyists writing them), is a disaster waiting to happen (intentionally). It will happen. It's a question of WHEN. If you are still "perfect", just wait a while. You'll understand when you see it.

[Citizen Number 9]

165. You keep saying that...

"You don't get it, do you? Life is not controllable by human beings"

...but you're offering no substantiation whatsoever.

I've said you have a choice whether or not to go into debt and you respond with how uncontrollable life is.

I think we may have uncovered a very fundamental difference between us.

This is the second time I've had to ask you - Wait to see what?

[Waiting For Everyman]

166. So your answer is to not go into debt at all, for anything, ever,

since you negate the fact that circumstances can change, rendering a contract's original terms unperformable (only for the borrowers, it's fine that the lenders can change anything anytime)? OK. Since we don't (evidently) expect lenders to take the reality of human life into account EVER, in any way, to any degree...

Then what is the legitimate use of credit? If every "prudent" person should stay out of it, since it's never knowable if the terms will continue to be performable or not, and if credit needn't take notice of the realities of life or bend for them whatsoever, then why let it exist to be merely a pitfall for people who can't control life - i.e., everyone?

If credit needn't conform to human life at all, then it is an "attractive nuisance" as the law would put it (something that lures people to their harm), or let's just call it "entrapment". It's luring unenlightened people in to a known impossible situation. Since they can't guarantee that their circumstances won't ever change in the future, as creditors expect, they shouldn't be entering into ANY such contracts (or of any kind really). That's the only way to ensure perfect performance which we allow creditors (or any with the upper hand financially) to demand nowadays - stay out of them altogether.

So credit law today is one or other - either it's intentionally defective because it's deliberately unrealistic in its absolute rigidity, therefore designed to default and destroy people whenever change occurs in life (my position), or it's NOT INTENDED to be used by any living human being, and therefore anyone unwary enough to do so is 100% setup.

Either way, it's entrapment. Either way, it's built-in fraud.

That isn't the worst of it. We have a two-tiered credit system - one for the "haves" and one for the "have nots". That's the FACT that nobody ever brings up.

I don't care who likes it this way or doesn't - that isn't the point. The point is, it's DISCRIMINATION. That used to be ILLEGAL. So was interest over a few points above prime... for everyone. It was illegal, and that was so for a long time - there was a reason why it was recognized as a CRIME.

So what happened? Lawyers discovered how easy it is to change laws nowadays. And that legalizes the crime. It's still the same offense against the public. We could legalize murder so the offense of murder no longer exists, but people killed would still be dead - it would only mean the killers wouldn't be prosecuted for it anymore. They could do it with impunity, at will, with nothing to worry about, and no recourse from anybody.

That's what I think of your Rules that are destroying millions today, and our whole economy. For all our Rules we are a lawless society and we are proud of it. Well, some of us are - those who defend it.

[Citizen Number 9]

169. I'm only saying that maybe the people

who can't live with the possible consequences of their decisions should avoid it. If you want credit to help get you the good things you desire but can't fully accept the responsibility by bitterly blaming karma, or worse yet, someone else for the bad things that happen, then I would recommend a safer route in which you save and purchase those things outright instead of availing yourself of credit.

I would also point out that under the saving plan, if your "circumstances change" as you like to say, then you have the nest egg to fall back on, instead of a liability you can't meet.

Two-tiered credit system? Are you talking about sub-prime credit? That's for folks who have already shown that they have a hard time meeting obligations. They, in particular, should avoid the use of credit. It only exists because someone with your odd sense says it's discrimination to deny them. So, what do we do? We charge them more.

Your last bit of "logic" about murder contains no sense of any kind.

[Waiting For Everyman]

167. "Wait to see what?"

The short answer - what you don't see. (That's why I say you don't get it.)

What's coming comes to everybody's life sooner or later in some form, in normal times. Because we made that unsurvivable financially for too long, for too many people, it's coming sooner than later now, to everybody.

It's the moment when you hear yourself saying quietly, "Oh shit!", and realize that even though you did everything right, there is nothing you can do - or could've done - about the freight train you see heading straight at you in a tunnel, which is too long to run fast enough... that will be the learning experience of a lifetime, if it's the first one. (Or, Nassim Taleb's "black swan" on a personal level.)

Now, it isn't normal times - it's the tide of this crisis which is rising ever-higher, turning "haves" into "have nots" in its wake. What some of us realize is, it's not just a tide, it's a tsunami coming - more than normal life's "freight train in a tunnel". Add to that the dimension of how WIDE it is - massive in scope and interrelated impact (the same configuration as the financial system itself).

[Citizen Number 9]

170. I don't accept your premise at all

About 20% of people need some sort of assistance meeting life's daily challenges. Maybe a larger portion needs occasional assistance. But, that does not mean that everyone will get a freight train in the face at some time or another. It just seems that way to you and I don't share in your personal philosophy.

When something untoward happens in my life, I can understand it and deal with it. Continuing to reiterate that I'm going to get "mine" is simply projection.

[Waiting For Everyman]

164. On bankruptcy...

New bankruptcy laws were made to answer an increasingly large number of people who have taken their credit responsibilities very lightly. Policies put into effect to combat them were beginning to have an impact on all consumers so it was decided to legislate against the ones who were actually doing it rather than have everyone pay.

(Well the Oracle has spoken.)

Oh, I see. That explains everything. See, I never could figure out why the bankruptcy law was CHANGED so that a primary home's mortgage terms cannot be modified by a judge, but a second, or third, or fourth, or however-many houses CAN. So only the primary roof over one's head is NOT modifiable. Yacht loans, sure, they can be too. Everything, except a primary home. It didn't used to be that way. But it was changed to be that way. And three times this year, Repubs resisted changing it back. They think like you. They like the BK law as it is - obviously because they're the ones who made it this way to begin with. Changing back to the way it was might've saved a whole lot of foreclosures, but we wouldn't want any "innocent" people like you having to give up a millionth of a dime for it (your share of the "loss" on someone's change in terms to keep their ONE house). Oh no, better to let these million people or so lose everything - they might've been defrauded into it or whatever, but no, we won't go there because we know it's ALWAYS their fault. (I forgot for a second.)

See, it's so basic for me, I didn't understand the reasoning behind a change like that - FORBIDDING a BK judge from modifying ONLY a primary home. I mean, why would anyone WANT a change to not protect only a primary home? Who could it benefit? (Surely not people with lots of houses, or foreclosing banks and attorneys.) Who could it harm? (Well nobody, because the unwealthy's possessions and equity aren't really "property", or "loss" are they?) Surely it's FAIR... I mean, because everything the financial forces do is fair. And right. And just. And equitable. (What the law is supposed to be.) Of course a person who has however-many houses should have them worked out in a BK, but the person with only one should not. How silly of me, not to see that!

It's only fools and deadbeats (like me) who have a problem with the system as it is - CLEARLY. I'll have to "educate myself" and go take a credit counseling course or something. I mean, cuz I only passed the state real estate licensing course and exam twice, and the brokers' course during my 15 yrs. working in the business as a pro, and took real estate finance at Johns Hopkins.

I'm just too dumb to understand contracts and credit. And too undisciplined to refrain from buying a house I've made payments on, on the same mortgage for 12 years. But I must've been mistaken about what I could afford 12 years ago (even though I was trained to know how to qualify people on what they can afford - the right way, pre-1990s). Obviously, the system is quite right to abuse me in any way it wishes for that GLARING ERROR I made.

Maybe I should've known that 12 years later the economy would collapse. My mistake. I'll just have to take my justly-due punishment without complaining, for being SO INEPT and MISGUIDED to not see this coming when I bought my house. I guess my ESP got rusty - screw me, then.

It couldn't be that our laws are at fault at all. Nope, because Happy Day! they're PERFECT!!! Yay, I'm so glad of that! We have nothing to worry about then. All is well, and this "recession" is only in our heads. Gee, that's great.

(I'll repeat my comment above... You're really stupid, aren't you?)

Just ignore what I said here, and go pat yourself on the back some more.

[Citizen Number 9]

168. I can't possibly comment on your extended rant

because you haven't bothered to lay out the details.

Apparently you are upset about something.

Maybe you'd be happier if everyone paid an extra percent or so on their mortgage to guarantee everyone else's....I can't tell what you think should be done to help you out, in particular.

In any case, you're going to have to be more focused before we can talk and when you do, lose the personal attacks. They don't help your case either.

[Waiting For Everyman]

171. My choice is to lose you. You're the one who replied to MY comment in the first place.

No one twisted your arm. You're full of it, but that's already been made clear. So what did you think in replying to my original prefectly innocent and casual comment about the OP's question - that you were going to convince me that you're so right? Show off you "knowledge"? You're fooling only yourself. Over and out.

[Citizen Number 9]

172. I did respond to your assertion.

Your comment was that it's all for nothing. I pointed out that the assets had residual value and the banks have to reclaim it. After all it was their money in the first place that the homeowner defaulted on. Your opinion is that it's "nothing". Maybe you would feel differently if it was the remnants of your 200 grand that was tied up in the property?

[northernlights]

176. I will be looking into food stamps after the semester ends

I've given up looking for part time work and am down to the last of what was supposed to be my retirement savings. So much for 50s being your peak earning years, lol.

The local food banks around here (Maine) are begging for donations. They're finding that the same people that donated last year are in line for food this year.

Credit card defaults will be the next huge shoe to drop. Now that layoffs have begun in earnest, it's just a matter of time. And when the auto industry goes, it will take a few million jobs with it, from parts suppliers to auto dealers, etc.

People who lose their homes to foreclosure have several options:
* homeless shelter if they can find one with some space
* move in with family if they have any
* try to rent if someone will take them
* live in their car if they own it and can find a place to park it w/out attracting attention
* move someplace warm and join a tent city. there are some big ones in a parking lot or two in Las Vegas where they are supplied with running water.
* Down in Florida, someone has organized and is setting up foreclosed on people to squat in abandoned foreclosure houses.

Renting is risking. The landlord may be close to foreclosure -- I think some DUers have recently found themselves homeless when landlords were foreclosed on. And even when times were not so bad, I had a landlady rob me. Since the change of administration in 2000, I've been robbed blind by people I was doing business with.

I considered taking in a renter, but am afraid to for the same reasons as above. I had things stolen at my yard sale last summer, by "well-off looking" middleage women & their teenage daughters in a new SUV.

Also, I think Eugene, OR has set up some protected parking in a couple lots, although there are far more homeless than parking spaces. And I think some self-storage places have people living in their storage areas.

Crime will increase, that is also for certain. Not only stealing, but random crime. More people on the edge means more people going off the deep end.