Are US IMF Austerity Measures The Real Goal For Corporatists?

Why are the real rulers of America pushing so hard for the US government to assume the banks private gambling debts?

Experts agree that the banks real losses dwarf any estimates seen so far, and that the eventual bill will be huge.

But, most Americans didn't create those debts! WHY should we pay? Because the looting of America demands it! Because the bankers have so much power, thats why! The obvious endgame is that after assuming so much debt, not only would all social programs be put on hold indefinitely, eventually the US would eventually default on the deficit, forcing the US into IMF austerity programs.

Programs like Social Security and Medicare typically are eliminated in these national default situations.

Is the goal to force the US into the same kinds of IMF austerity programs that have caused riots in so many other nations?

Certainly, the US, which has been at the lead in pushing for these measures elsewhere, would not be able to escape having its own medicine applied to it.

Inquiring minds want to know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity

"In economics, austerity is when a national government reduces its spending in order to pay back creditors. Austerity is usually required when a government's fiscal deficit spending is felt to be unsustainable.

Development projects, welfare programs and other social spending are common areas of spending for cuts. In many countries, austerity measures have been associated with short-term standard of living declines until economic conditions improved once fiscal balance was achieved (such as in the United Kingdom under Margaret Thatcher, Canada under Jean Chrétien, and Spain under González).

Private banks, or institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), may require that a country pursues an 'austerity policy' if it wants to re-finance loans that are about to come due. The government may be asked to stop issuing subsidies or to otherwise reduce public spending. When the IMF requires such a policy, the terms are known as 'IMF conditionalities'.

Austerity programs are frequently controversial, as they impact the poorest segments of the population and often lead to a wider separation between the rich and poor. In many situations, austerity programs are imposed on countries that were previously under dictatorial regimes, leading to criticism that populations are forced to repay the debts of their oppressors.[1][2][3]"

There's more...

Toxic Scam Alert: New Bailout Plan Worse Than Old In Trading Cash for Trash

Well, one thing you have to give the Obama non-lobbyists, (or so they say) they are very good at spin. One would have to read between the lines to see that they are STILL FORCING taxpayers to buy in to the big Ponzi scheme even as the suave master salesman Obama himself admitted (on Jay Leno) that the bailouts are not working!

No teleprompters, huh?

The banks are taking the money and not issuing loans, instead, padding their balance books (hopefully with the aim of selling their stock?)

Its a basic of fraud that those who are holding the bag at the end of a Ponzi scheme are the BIG LOSERS.

We all knew (even we non-insiders knew) that many of the mortgage loans, especially the many of those no-income no asset loans were never going to get repaid at face value. That is WHY they charged the folks who responded to those quintillions of robo-calls extra points! They went looking for people with no credit or bad credit too. The banks already got their profits in the extra points. They gambled and lost. They knew this years ago. Why resurrect the dead? let sleeping dogs lie.

What business is that that expects the taxpayer to wipe their butt for them? American banking, that is what business. Its also an exercise in showing the American public who is really the boss.

Why have the government assume this debt? So the government can pay and pay and eventually, default on it, saddling the taxpayers with IMF austerity measures like devaluation of bank accounts and giving up pensions and privatizing utilities like water and perhaps, eventually, clean air?

The real owners of American politicians-

SO, Obama seems determined to make the taxpayers the losers.

Crafty how he includes the auction idea but the devil in the details shows that the auction is not significant in reducing the exposure of the taxpayer.

Kind of like Obama's healthcare plan, in that devil in the details aspect.

There's more...

A Ponzi grows in Manhatten

Bernard L. Madoff, a legendary trader who's towered over Wall Street for nearly 50 years, was arrested by federal agents Thursday and charged with running a $50 billion Ponzi scheme--perhaps the biggest fraud in Wall Street's history.
The former chairman of the Nasdaq Stock Market reportedly told colleagues on Wednesday that his investment advisory business was "all just one big lie" that was "basically, a giant Ponzi scheme." According to one official for the SEC, the case involved "a stunning fraud that appears to be of epic proportions." Of more than $17 billion in assets under management by Madoff's firm at the beginning of 2008, all is missing, according to the SEC. Madoff's investment advisory business had "deceived investors by operating a securities business in which he traded and lost investor money, and then paid certain investors purported returns on investment with the principal received from other, different investors, which resulted in losses of approximately billions of dollars," according to the FBI.

There's more...

ANY Bailout Should Promote The HUGE Need for Home Ownership - Affordably

There is a part of this story that is NOT getting told and that is the REASON WHY SO MANY PEOPLE BOUGHT HOMES THEY OFTEN COULD NOT AFFORD..

I am not talking so much about the people who refinanced or the people who bought homes to resell them or rent them out, I am talking about families that tried to become homeowners but who were TAKEN by these hustlers.

And also about the huge numbers of working people who have historically only been able to rent who are NOW being forced out of rentals by the millions, in cities all across the nation, because of massive, rapid gentrification. The rising cost of gas- is one of the reasons for the displacements, but there are others, such as the loss of huge amounts of middle class housing built in the postwar period. The displaced are not the poor, they are middle class workers and retirees who make up the cores of their communities. The huge amounts of housing - the removal of long-term rental housing from the market to convert it to condominiums (that they rarely can afford) is forcing people from their communities and often from their jobs, which often means that they will not receive pensions they were counting on. Why? Because their jobs are in cities and urbanized areas and they are being priced out of the cities that they work in.

BLUNTLY, There is a HUGE unmet demand for affordable homes that is NOT being met. This 'bailout' is an OBSCENITY if it does not make addressing that NEED ITS PRIMARY GOAL.

Hello, is anybody listening?

Many TRIED to buy and they were EXPLOITED by these BANKS. CERTAINLY, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A WAY TO GET THOSE PEOPLE INTO HOMES, STRUCTURE LOANS THAT THEY COULD AFFORD, AS ALMOST ALL OF THE BUYERS DID HAVE JOBS-

The reasons what is happening happened is partially because of the terms of the loans they did get were deliberately structured to make them fail and steal their equity.

Why can't some politicians recognize this and structure any "bailouts" with the EXPLICIT AIM OF CREATING STABLE COMMUNITIES WITH HIGH RATES OF HOMEOWNERSHIP THAT DO NOT HAVE SUBPRIME LOANS OUTSTANDING.. in other words, good mortgages, not bad ones.. good ones that have some 'give' built into them so people are not DESPERATE like they are now.

There's more...

Administration Urges Throwing Caution Away On Cash for Trash Ponzi Scheme

In a New York Times article today, Bush Urges Democrats to Act Quickly on Bailout Plan it appears that the likelihood of the Democrats going along with Bush is much higher than one would think from the blogosphere. Many economists seem to be coming out against the cash for trash deal, but what about our leadership? What is the real story?

Honestly, the idea of the Treasury Department, part of the executive branch, being able to dole out money to their friends from a rolling fund of 700 billion dollars, is obscenely wrong. For a party that claims to be aganst the redistribution of wealth, this is a blatant descent into corporate welfare of the WORST POSSIBLE kind. (What is the amount? First it was $500B, now its $700B - which seems to be the amount taken from the taxpayers at any one time ?- to give to the rich. I read elsewhere where it was stated that the plan is not to have a fixed limit of money? The limit seems to be 700 billion at any one time - is that correct?)

But, anyway, what worries me is that our leadership has gone along with the Bush administration on these nightmare power grabs before, and without knowing what the people who oppose it want, they may well do it again.

Could we please call or fax our Senators and Congressmen/women asking them to strongly oppose any cash for trash deals?!

Thank you...

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads