Should the government declare an end to all debts?

put it this way.

You have $10,000 in the bank.

The bank has loaned your money out at 5%. 2.5% you would get back as interest and the bank gets 2.5% as a service fee.

Now the government declares a end of all debts.

So that the people that had the loan owe nothing to the bank.

Where is the bank going to get the money to pay you the $10,000 you HAD in the bank. not counting the interest.

Its not going to magically appear.
The person that took out the loan now has your money and you can not get it back because the government said so.

So now you have nothing in the bank and you are BROKE.

Only OWS does not understand this. they think money is magic paper that just appears.
And for some i hope there trust fund money disappears like magic so that they will have to get a real job.

But that's not the way banks loan.
And what's really funny - is why everyone is wringing hands over who has who's money - is that a lot of it was never anything but digital ones and zeros in the first place.

Money's not real.
Our belief in the system is what's real.
I think most people in this thread still believe in it.

reply to post by Bluesma


I dont know how having nice things and taking vacations make it look like someone is responsible in handling their finances. The first thing I think when I see someone with tons of nice things or are always on vacations is that they are not handling their finances very well. That is unless they dont have kids and have well paying jobs...situations where it is likely they can afford their life style. I am sure that certain segments of the population do see a lot of people who are underwater with their finances. Im willing to bet 99% of the country has some debt at some point its a matter of what they can pay off, not that they owe.

As for all the countries just hitting the reset button not likely. Do you really think every country in the world would be able to agree on that? O yea because there arent tons of countries that are ruled by corruption so they would be happy to lose all that cash. And your damn right people should be held responsible for their poor choices. Just because we all are going to suffer in debt repayment we should say to the worst offenders "no worries, just dont do it again". Cause that would work. I fail to see how that is in anyway petty. Thats like saying hey i know your stealing from me but the govt steals from all of us so all is forgiven. Its not punishing people its holding them responsible for their actions. Lack of responsibility and duty have got us where we are

All nations should. Period. And they should disclose the buried science, free energy, and frequency cures for diseases and for radiation. And clean this planet up. And I don't even believe in banks so there are a lot of other changes that need to be made for an equal eutopia.

Originally posted by Unity_99
All nations should. Period. And they should disclose the buried science, free energy, and frequency cures for diseases and for radiation. And clean this planet up. And I don't even believe in banks so there are a lot of other changes that need to be made for an equal eutopia.

All in due time my friend. First you have to break humanity of many behavioural patterns, before they are allowed to be free to have these technologies and advancements.

With out current state, if we were to be able to travel the cosmos, we would be waging war with every single life form in which we come in contact with.

I'm all for cures, and stopping the suffering of people. Yet, at the same time, the cause of the most suffering of people is at the hands of eachother and not disease. You kinda have to address both at the same time IMO, otherwise there wont be an equilibrium of sorts. It's kinda hard to explain, really... Tying to loosely explain it goes as following...

You witness human suffering, it changes you, you appreciate life more and all the other stuff that comes with witnessing suffering.
Then you at the same time have people who do unjust acts that aren't of ethics and morals....
Well the over all psychological aspects of both, and how they combat one another brings about an equilibrium. Even having stated that doesn't bring justice to understanding it fully, for there is a whole list of contributing factors and their influences on the over all developement of evolution of consciousness in which should also be addressed.... but that would take all day.

Originally posted by onfire49
reply to post by Bluesma

 

I dont know how having nice things and taking vacations make it look like someone is responsible in handling their finances. The first thing I think when I see someone with tons of nice things or are always on vacations is that they are not handling their finances very well. That is unless they dont have kids and have well paying jobs...situations where it is likely they can afford their life style.

Well, these people I am thinking about have good paying jobs, but the tendancy has become to keep spending over what you actually have, no matter how much that is.

As for all the countries just hitting the reset button not likely. Do you really think every country in the world would be able to agree on that? O yea because there arent tons of countries that are ruled by corruption so they would be happy to lose all that cash. And your damn right people should be held responsible for their poor choices. Just because we all are going to suffer in debt repayment we should say to the worst offenders "no worries, just dont do it again". Cause that would work. I fail to see how that is in anyway petty. Thats like saying hey i know your stealing from me but the govt steals from all of us so all is forgiven. Its not punishing people its holding them responsible for their actions. Lack of responsibility and duty have got us where we are

I agree it is not very likely, but I thought the intent of this thread was to explore it as an idea.

The problem with what you are saying is that we are all interconnected. If one could be "punished" without effecting the other one, that would be different. Here, you are saying that because one country was irresponsible, all should go down as a result. We are not islands.... even literal islands are not metaphoric islands!

You are saying, in effect, " I am willing to sacrifice my kids, my self, my home, in order that my neighbor be punished. "

No matter what we're all going to suffer- even if this idea was put into action, there would still be a fall, just a bit less catastrophic. It's not like no one would have any negative consequences to allow them to see that the earlier choices were bad ones. But keep in mind, we're not talking about a bit of a hard time coming for everyone, we're talking of complete breakdown and heading into chaos. I do find it hard to understand someone willing to lose their family in order to get revenge on someone they are mad at, and consider that petty.

reply to post by Bluesma


I really do appreciate that you spent the time to make a well thought out response....a lot of people fly off the handle when you tell them your wrong.

However, I do not deny that we are all interconnected. That is what globalism is and the high up's have been singing its praises for some time now. But your conclusion makes no sense. How does forcing one person to be responsible for their debts hurt everyone else...much less the next generation. If you get a fine for parking in a restricted area is anyone else hurt? no you simply pay your debt. I am also completely unsure how any of my neighbors or children will be punished by others being responsible for what they owe. If anything paying your fair share takes the debt off of others and doesnt kick the can down the road like we have been doing for generations. I can imagine in any scenario no matter how hard i think what you are saying makes any sense.

As for your 2nd statement I think its debatable whether we are headed for full break down. Did we see full break down in the great depression. It was much worse than things are to date. I can see this financial crisis being much worse but I see the results of that being more to the key of many suicides over lost money and battles between people getting robbed and the robbers. I really doubt that we will see some sort of apocalyptic collapse...and even if really did fall apart the govt would step in and make a bunch of new promises and we would go from there. I hate to say it but the average person is stupid and willing to believe what ever they are told by the govt as long as the new man in charge attacks the old boss. The only way I could see a complete collapse is if we were hit by an emp or solar flares caused damage to the grid. As for the former debts will be the least of our problems. We would be seeing something like the game homefront. and once again no idea what your talking about with sacrificing family

Originally posted by onfire49
reply to post by Bluesma

 

But your conclusion makes no sense. How does forcing one person to be responsible for their debts hurt everyone else...much less the next generation. If you get a fine for parking in a restricted area is anyone else hurt? no you simply pay your debt. I am also completely unsure how any of my neighbors or children will be punished by others being responsible for what they owe. If anything paying your fair share takes the debt off of others and doesnt kick the can down the road like we have been doing for generations. I can imagine in any scenario no matter how hard i think what you are saying makes any sense.

I can't understand how you don't understand....LOL...I'm wondering if we are talking about the same topic?
Eh....things like, Countries like Greece falling apart hurt other european countries, the Euro crashes and burns and all of Europe falls, and that hurts the US, and the dominos continue to fall that way.

Your family can be at risk when the nomad gangs forms, even if, like us, you live in a mountainous rural community with all resources to survive. This may seem ideal at first in the scenario, but the nomads still have a dominant position because they are mobile and can stick together (and will grow rapidly). Us and our neighbors have farms rather spaced apart, and even though we are arming ourselves to the teeth, each will have to guard their property and we won't be able to mass together as well.

Bleh.....I don't know what you are thinking of, we couldn't be on the same page.

reply to post by Bluesma


We are talking about the same things but on a different level. You seem to be more talking about national debt where I am talking more about personal debt including debt racked up by our out of control govts. While the issue of Greek debt repayment and Euro collapse are going to hurt us all the austerity of one country will be a lot less burdensome then all of us having to eat the debt. You cant just destroy debt. Sure govts can say all student loans are gone or national debt will be abolished and thats all fine and dandy for the govt but it doesnt help all the others tied in with these debts. These debts have implications for everyone, the little guy gets screwed either way. May concern is more calling off the debts of people who we were originally talking about, those who spend beyond their means. Their defaults only hurt the rest of us. Not paying their debts directly cause the rest of us to take bigger burdens, to pay higher prices, etc. That is not petty thats real life. I dont know where you come up with your ideas but they are nuts. People not paying back their credit card bills will not make things better it will just increase the pain. You suddenly switched it to a govt level analysis, thats not entirely what we were talking about.

As for the roving bands of gangs....lets be honest here. As I said before that break down of society is pretty unlikely. Yes, as we are seeing an now an increase in crime will be likely but the full scale collapse of society isnt quite as likely. I think someone has been listening to a little too much Alex Jones or the like. We are only likely to see a full scale collapse when it would come to something like a collapse of the grid or massive (and I mean massive) disaster. The rest of what you are describing is a huge logical jump that is unlikely to come from the economic woes. I can just as easily say that the economic collapse of the Euro will lead to the formation of one World Govt in response.

I almost think it's a good idea, but how would we move on from there? Nothing in the world is magically driven. Food delivery for one, how would we begin to figure out how to get food from point a to point b without some kind of monetary system and how would we figure out who has what when debt is forgiven? Forgiven debt could mean more power to the banks and less to the people.

For all those that say people did this to themselves, you're right but our governments and banks did this too...the same thing fiscal irresponibility. Lending out or borrowing against money that simply wasn't there. When they figured out how much trouble they were in, they started stealing it from us either outright or through bailouts. It's a legitimate argument IMO that if banks can be bailed out so can the people. It will be the people again who bear the brunt when the system collapses, millions more than today will starve to death, be homeless, jobless, and hopeless.

So, what do we do?

Originally posted by onfire49
reply to post by Bluesma

 

You seem to be more talking about national debt where I am talking more about personal debt including debt racked up by our out of control govts.

I admit my ignorance, but isn't national debt "debt racked up by a government"?

May concern is more calling off the debts of people who we were originally talking about, those who spend beyond their means.

Okay, I thought the thread was about a larger scale of debt- not individual people. I thought we were talking about the global crisis (govt. level analysis), and someone just used a metaphor or example in refering to individuals personal debts. So you can see why it seemed to petty to me! Treating a global crisis as if it was a speeding ticket!

On the level I thought this thread was refering to, there is no countries that have no debt, that do NOT spend more than they make.
The rest of your insults and rude comments I shall ignore, as I don't find that kind of interaction useful, beneficial or interesting.

editted to add-
I looked back at the OP and I am still convinced that the original intended topic was the National Debt- in particular was mentioned the US national debt. The argument was brought forth that erasing the debt hurts those who haven't incurred debt. As the OP pointed out, there is no countries that haven't incurred debt. They don't exist.

If we look at it in terms of the individual citizens who, themselves, have no incurred personal debt, and how a wide swiping debt erasure for nations would hurt them, I still say they get hurt less in such a scenario.
My husband and I have NO debt. We do not own a credit card, we own our home, our cars and everything else we have in our possesion. We may seem "nutso" in that respect, but perhaps due to our childhoods of being neglected and not trusting anyone but ourselves, we almost have a phobia of owing anything to anyone else, therefore being under the power of anyone else. So we have been responsible, we have no debt, and yet if the euro bottoms out and our country goes further into crisis (in France) we shall directly suffer the consequences of that, even though we personally were not financially irresponsible.

So letting the nations crumble does not avoid harm to the responsible individuals at all.

I keep re-reading the op to get a better sense of the topic here and it seems I misunderstood from the start. Unfortunately, I am no longer allowed to edit my posts, so I just offer an apology for a misunderstanding.

I think now that the idea asked about was a wiping out and clean slate for all debts within the USA.
I had assumed the reference was to the solution that has been proposed to the global crisis in many debates lately, that a really collassal clean slate be effected- for all nations, all debts, everywhere. MAJOR re-start. That is what I was responding to.

The main thrust of this thread is to address national debt; there is just no possible way to ever pay all the money owed by governments. Having said that, I beleive that it would be necessary to erase ALL debt, both public and private for a plan like this to work.


Many people hold US savings bonds in their investment portfolio and anyone who holds government debt would be set for huge losses in the event of massive debt forgiveness. The best way to offset this would be to erase all debt, both public and private. That way individuals who hold government bonds would also benifit from their own personal debt being wiped out.

Some may call this a matter of personal responsibiltiy but, where were those same people when it was the banks who needed bailing out? How is bailing out bankster liabilities any different from bailing out individual debt?

In the end, it was the taxpayers who were left holding the bag for all of the irresponsible lending that was carried out by the banks. That is the reason all of the world's nations are on the verge of collapse today; because they covered for the bank's recklessness and now they find themselves unable to pay back all that debt to the banks who they just bailed out.

The banksters won coming and going and it is the governments and private citizens who took responsibility for all of their reckless lending while the banks are making soaring profits once again.

Bailing out the banks has resulted in everyone getting buried even deeper in debt while the banksters are free, and even emboldened, to carrry on with their reckless practices with no fear for the consequences, feeling that they MUST be bailed out next time because the whole world economy relies on them.

The only way to break this vicious cycle would be to cancel ALL debts, both public and private and put the banks back where they belong; at the service of humanity, NOT as our enslavers.

reply to post by FortAnthem

I'm sure some will argue that debt cancellation would be unfair to those who managed their money responsibly and didn't get themselves trapped in a web of debt. I would argue that these people are few and far in between and may even be a mythical creation of the conservative movement created in order to guard the interests of the banks. The bottom line is that argument is based solely upon envy; those who fear debt cancellation are jealous that they didn't get caught up in the system when they had a chance. They are angry that they didn't get a chance to abuse the system for their own benefit. The vast majority of the people who are drowning in debt didn't get there by abusing the system to make themselves rich, they got there just trying to survive in a system that is rigged against them.

I think the reality is there are people who did not get themselves trapped in a web of debt. I do not think it is a conservative mythical creation. I think there are many, many people like this, not just a few.

I think those who fear debt cancellation are not jealous they did not get caught up in the system when they had a chance.

And as far as the people who did go into debt just trying to survive in a system that is rigged against them, I disagree with as well.


These people that did not get trapped in debt were those who lived within their means.....even if their means were incredibly meager. I know many people like this, mostly family and friends who live in poor rural areas where I originally come from. These people have always lived this way, they do not know a different way to live.

The people I know are not jealous, they just can't understand why someone needs so much stuff. These people live in trailers and they eat off the land....they would never "bite off more than they can chew" just because they do not want the burden of debt, so they go without a lot of things that people in suburbia think are necessities. It has nothing to do with jealousy. They work with the little they do got, even if it means living in a trailer, tar top shack or with grandma, even if they only buy clothes one time a year. They live in communities where the majority of people live as they do, and they think that people who live beyond their means are foolish to take on such burdens.

For you to claim these people are just angry they did not get a chance to abuse the system when they got a chance, this is a ridiculous comment. These people did not take out debt because they think of it as a burden.....right now these people are thanking their lucky stars they did not incur debt. They are angry because they do not understand if they can live off so little and be happy why do others feel the need to have so much?

As far as those going into debt because the system is rigged against them, I disagree with one exception. Those who go into debt due to medical expenses, that is a circumstance were people really are trying to survive. They literally are fighting for their lives and they may not have insurance and the medical bills eat them alive and destroy their families,that is terrible.

But other than that I say most people in debt did not get that way fighting to survive, they got that way because they thought they needed certain things, when in reality people only need very little.

If Americans lived within their means, the vast majority would be in trailers, apartments and homes under 1500 sq ft. They would be driving used cars and they would only buy school clothes in September, maybe a few for Christmas. The clothes they buy would be simple, no designer bags for a 16 year old. Most Americans would not have cable or smart phones and they would use the public library for their computer needs. Most would only eat out in a resturant on special occasions. ( This would help with the obesity problem )The American landscape is changing in this direction. In many places it is like this or even worse. Go to subsidized housing areas, see how little those guys live off of.


Please do not think I am unsympathetic to the people struggling in mountains of debt, I know many of them lost their jobs and it is a nightmare for them. I just think the statements you made were a bit far fetched.

reply to post by Bluesma


No worries. The OP mentions both national and personal debt. I was talking about personal debt because in my mind hitting the reset on all national debt is impossible, not even worth mentioning. But as a response to those who say that national debt and personal debt is separate, I have to ask how do you account for the fact that we all so eagerly accept things from the govt. It is partially our responsibility because we were happy for so long to let the govt spend and spend and spend. Not that most people wanted it to reach this level but nobody is willing to take a cut in services to lower this debt in my experience. Just a thought.