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.


“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]”

The whole trickle down economics thing has been disproven mathematically. But people like Bush and unfortunately, now even Obama keep bringing it back in different forms again.

Tags: cashfortrash, IMF, International Monetary Fund, ponzi scheme (all tags)



Sort by

The Real Goal

 Perhaps allowing the world to slide into a prolonged deep economic depression would be the more prudent course, as I’m sure it would hurt the very rich while helping poor people across the globe.

by QTG 2009-03-21 08:53AM | 0 recs

Trickle down economics

So you believe in trickle down economics?  As the New York Times said..

“In the Real World of Work and Wages, Trickle-Down Theories Don’t Hold Up”

Did you realize that the banks knew that the loans were bad when they made them?

How does that figure into this?

by architek 2009-03-21 09:03AM | 0 recs

Re: Trickle down economics

 And you believe that MI and FL were stolen?

by QTG 2009-03-21 09:07AM | 0 recs

And you are living in the past

if you don’t understand the immediate meaning of the IMF austerity programs and how they would steal our future from ALL of us.

We must not assume any more of this toxic debt!

by architek 2009-03-21 09:20AM | 0 recs

Serious question:

Are you actually advocating policies that would cause even more extreme and prolonged economic calamity than is going to happen anyway – just to give yourself more opportunities to trash Obama?

(Now that I asked it, it seems more like a rhetorical question.)

by QTG 2009-03-21 09:30AM | 0 recs

No way..

I like Obama. I just think he’s got some kind of mistaken idea that the people want many things they obviously don’t.

Or something.

Its not being responsible to buy these toxic assets the way he’s doing while letting so many other pressing problems go unaddressed.

Still, I agree with what all of you keep saying in that Obama was a far better choice than McCain/Palin.

Even with the many problems that I saw coming due to his trying to be all things to all people.

I was also happy to see a black person getting to be President, even with all the problems they are giving Obama to clean up. He is doing very well except for his embrace of trickle down and the unwillingness to consider single payer when its the only way to fix the healthcare crisis legally. (the stuff he’s suggesting is against the WTO treaty)

Obviously, black people are impacted a LOT by things like our lack of universal healthcare.

Maybe the healing represented by having a black person as President will reduce some of the major issues many of them have with stress-caused diseases even as those same issues increase in other people.

One can only worry when thinking about the future and the economy.

BTW, I never considered doing anything other than voting for a Democrat.

Also, I admire smarts when I see it.

Whoever thought up the caucus crossover voter strategy, pure genius.

by architek 2009-03-21 01:20PM | 0 recs

Re: Are US IMF Austerity Measures The Real Goal Fo

Beware of anyone who throws around demagogic terms such as “the real rulers of America” and “corporatists” – an undefined enemy is an imaginary enemy.

by rfahey22 2009-03-21 09:47AM | 0 recs


I will do that..

BTW, I’m not the only one terrified by corporations and their frequent amorality.

The founders of this country were too.

by architek 2009-03-21 01:22PM | 0 recs

They were?

What corporations were our founding fathers terrified of exactly? British Tea and Knickers Incorporated?

by DTOzone 2009-03-21 09:37PM | 0 recs

Corporations are unable to say no

Groupthink.. Irving Janis

Yes, barbaric British corporations, and other colonial corporations that savaged their respective fiefdoms.

by architek 2009-03-21 11:49PM | 0 recs


I always thought King George III was a person…tell me architek, how is Parliament doing on the FTSE 100?

by DTOzone 2009-03-22 12:29AM | 0 recs

Its a sign of ethical collapse

to put meeting numerical targets ahead of ethics.

by architek 2009-03-22 07:01AM | 0 recs

WTF are you even talking about now?
by DTOzone 2009-03-22 11:52AM | 0 recs

Boy are you desperate

to change the subject

by architek 2009-03-22 08:18PM | 0 recs

Re: They were?

That would be the British east India Company, the guys whose policies forced the Boston Tea Party.

by David Kowalski 2009-03-22 11:54AM | 0 recs

Re: I’m SO There

if we get to dress up like Indians!

by QTG 2009-03-22 02:17PM | 0 recs

Corporate personhood

is where we went wrong. That was ths nations biggest mistake.

Ad it wasn’t even done legally The Santa Clara opinion was a scam.

Nobody ever voted on corprate personhood. We need a referendum on such an important issue. Corporations can’t die, they can’t be put in jail. They cannot be responsible.

Money is not free speech. What the hell is going on?

Repeal Santa Clara!

by architek 2009-03-22 08:13PM | 0 recs

Ah yes

I forgot the British East India Company took it upon themselves to exempt themselves from the tea tax and monopolize tea in the colonies…I mean not like Parliament had anything to do with THAT.

by DTOzone 2009-03-22 05:39PM | 0 recs

You needed to buy a stamp to do anything

Sort of like the ACTA, (which the Obama folk wont let be discussed.. like they are discussing now finally in Europe..)

For more, visit eff.org and other sites..

Treaties are above laws, on the level of the Constitution.

Secret treaties should be illegal.

BTW, WTO seems to ban many of Obama’s halfway healthcare proposals. Nobody has even discussed this except for Public Citizen, but it seriously threatens the whole idea of a public alternative for health insurance.

Was that planned? Who knows, nobody.

by architek 2009-03-22 08:17PM | 0 recs




Are US IMF Austerity Measures The Real Goal For Corporatists?.