mortgage payments : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

What's going to happen to mortgage payments in the event of a severe crash? Are those who cannot pay their mortgage for one reason or another looking at being foreclosed and put out into the streets? Would the authorities, under these extreme conditions, allow the bank to be foreclosing on millions of homes in order to take advantage of the situation to reap billions of dollars in equity in those homes? We know the banks are heartless enough to do this. The question is, would they be allowed to?

-- John Townsend (, April 20, 1998


If your inability to pay your mortgage is because the bank has ceased functioning, it is not clear how they could foreclose. Also, under the laws of supply and demand, the value of houses would drop sharply, so the banks wouldn't get the equity - the equity would have disappeared into Sinkhole 2000. Besides, it's not as if there was some other group that will have money to buy or rent the house from the bank. Banks do not want to own houses - they would do everything they could to keep you paying something toward the mortgage. They would probably ask Congress to pass legislation that they could lawfully show as an asset on their books the accrued but unpaid interest, so they wouldn't violate minimum capital requirements or bad loan limitations.

I do recall stories passed down from the Depression era that said that the worst situation to be in was to have a small mortgage on your home with large equity - the most favorable situation for a bank to foreclose. If they foreclose on a house with little equity, they only stand to lose; and of course, they can't foreclose on a house with no mortgage - that will be the one the county seizes for not pa

-- Dan Hunt (, April 20, 1998.

My last post should have ended with the words "the one the county seizes for not paying your taxes!" I'm not sure why the last few words were lost.

-- Dan Hunt (, April 20, 1998.

In response to Dan Hunt's response: Yes, but let's not hope for the banks to lose their ability to foreclose just because their savings division closed due to depositors' money being wiped out. These buggers have the capacity to continue serving their best interests in spite of how bad it is for the rest of us. Also, the equity might be wiped out for a time but it is bound to accrue as the economy recovers from the 2000 debacle and that's what the banks are going to be looking for. My question was directed more to ways of keeping the banks from seizing the home assuming a good deal of equity present and the owner's inability to pay the mortgage because of loss of job, renters not paying their rent which the owner uses to pay his mortgage or some similar situation. Suggestions?

-- John Townsend (, April 21, 1998.

John, I think the prudent, though painful, answer for you is to sell where you are to get whatever equity you have out and use that to purchase somewhere else free and clear. George

-- George Valentine (, April 21, 1998.


You certainly cannot plan on the bank being reasonable or charitable in a crisis -- heck, you can't count on that when times are good! As to whether the authorities would permit wholesale foreclosures and evictions, your guess is as good as mine, but personally I wouldn't bet my family's housing on the proposition that the government -- at any level -- cares more about individuals than it does about large businesses.

The only safe thing to do is own something -- anything! -- free and clear. If that means cashing out $30,000 equity from a $150,000 house and buying a half-acre lot and a used mobile home, so be it. That's my attitude, anyway, and I felt that way *before* I became aware of the Y2K situation.

Everyone calls home ownership "the American Dream," and that's true, perhaps, if interpreted literally. Unfortunately, what most people mean by "owning your own home" is "owing a lender more than you'll ever be able to pay off, paying bigger monthly payments than you would in rent, subsidized by the mortgage *interest* tax deduction."

Does anyone really think that this helps us, the "common folk?" Note that the deduction is on the *interest*, i.e., the profit to the bank. If you break your back to pay cash for a home, or to pay off the principal more quickly than the amortization schedule calls for, Big Brother penalizes you by eliminating or reducing your tax deduction.

Just my .02 worth (what's that in 1997 dollars?) :^)


-- Greg Carter (, April 21, 1998.

I'd like to comment briefly on something I've seen here (and elsewhere) that bears debunking.

When you talk about "the autorities", people usually mean government. What you're failing to take into account is that one of the outcomes of Y2K is that governments all over the country lose their technological infrastructure.

My own opinion at this point is that if any government retains authority after 1/1/00, it will be your local neighborhood, township or county. Anything larger will simply be unable to function and ineffectual.

So, when asked if "Would the authorities allow banks to forclose," I have to ask what authorites?

The Federal government? It's gone as of 1/1/00 -- there's no time left to save it.

Your state government? It varies -- but none are compliant at present. Large population states such as Illinois, New York, and California are probably in the same condition as the Federal government: not enough time left.

Your local government? Maybe, depending on its size. I suspect they'll be too busy with matters of survival to worry about bank forclosures.

Even if your local government is still effective, you have to ask if they have the personnel to actually enforce any edicts. And I'll give you an example:

It's currently illegal in Illinois to carry a firearm, concealed or openly. However, if conditions warrant it, this will not stop me from strapping on my gunbelt after 1-1-00. If conditions are that extreme, no policeman in his right mind is going to care if I advertise the fact that I'm armed (and thereby dissuade a certain percentage of people from messing with me in the first place). The police are going to have better things to do with their time than worry about who's packing, or who's wearing a seatbelt.

In short, in times of extreme crisis, would your local government be able to enforce any mandates? I suspect that given the nature of this problem, they may not even be able to pay policemen for basic protection, let alone to enforce non-survival-related mandates.

In my western suburb of Chicago, there probably aren't 75 policemen. If the banks have failed, and food is short, and people are panic-buying, and maybe the traffic lights aren't working, and maybe people start looting for food and barterables, will the local authorities even give a damn if your bank is threatening to foreclose? And if they do, will it matterthat they give a damn?

"John Smith"

-- "John Smith" (, April 22, 1998.

John Smith, I think that you forget or dismiss the idea that a large ferocious animal can take a long time to die. For example, I expect the core of the Federal government to function for a month or more -- certainly DOD should be able to. I don't believe that everything falls apart instantly. and therefore one can get pretty badly hurt if he is in the way of the death throes. George

-- George Valentine (, April 22, 1998.

How the Federal government flails about in its death throes and how destructive it is in so doing is entirely dependant on how much of the infrastructure disappears.

If we lose the national power grid, government becomes instantly irrelevant. I double-dog dare it to function without the ability to print worthless paper money with which to pay its employees.

See, people will only work for the government as long as they aren't hungry. The moment their check isn't in the mail and their kids start to say, "Daddy, I'm hungry!" is the moment they decide to find something more lucrative to do with their time. That goes for everybody beaurocrats and soldiers alike.

Why in god's name would you continue carrying out the orders of your superiors if you aren't even able to put food on the table? I sure as hell won't. The moment the Internet dies, I say adios to my current employer and find something that'll feed my kids.

Government is no different.

Now, if they still have electrical power and can monetize the debt by pumping more currency into the economy, there'll be a brief period of hyperinflation followed by exactly the same thing happening. If it takes a wheelbarrow to buy a loaf of bread (see Germany's Weimar Republic for details) and you're getting paid a few wheelbarrowfuls a week, you're going to go find a job where you get paid in something more valuable.

There's another issue here, too: computers feed socialism. The level of government involvement in our lives is directly proportional to the computers available to track information which allows governments to control us.

If you take that away suddenly, over a period of probably no less that sex months, government must -- at the very least -- devolve to something which can be managed by hand.

535 people in Washington cannot manage affairs at the current level without a technological infrastructure. It simply can't be done without computers. Do you think those jokers could produce a document like the national budget without a word processor and spreadhseet?

Suppose they did by some quirk of fate figure out a way to keep tracking information. Suppose they avoid hyperinflation and can still print checks for employees that are meaningful ...

Oh, hell, this is pointless. I've just outlined an impossible scenario because it cuts government off from the rest of the infrastructure. Even if they kept enough systems functioning to keep things at the current levels, they won't be able to collect taxes --

(And I'll tell you outright that unless I'm forced to, I am not paying taxes if the IRS goes down. And neither would anyone I know.)

-- people whose banks and businesses have failed will try up the tax base, people who can no longer buy groceries the way they were before 00 will be too busy trying to find a meal ...

I mean, do you get the picture? Unless Y2K is nothing more than a hiccup (a scenario that looks less and less likely with each passing day), governments beyond a very local level simply lose the power to enforce edicts.

If Y2K is particularly bad, we'll just wake up one morning and never hear from them again. If it's not quite so bad, they'll try to enforce for a while, but as more people realize they don't have to kowtow any more, they'll stop bothering.

It's just over for governments, at least in their current form. Don't look to them for any kind of relief or interference -- they'll just be gone.

"John Smith"

-- "John Smith" (, April 22, 1998.


I wish you were right. I believe that the Feds should provide an Army, Navy, Coast Guards, and Marine Corps and maybe a Postal Service, that they should NOT be in the Robin-Hood business, that they should NOT intervene in personal lives.

Nevertheless, I forsee martial law by 7/4/1999. That gives "them" almost six months to get rid of you and me and to otherwise consolidate their power.

And, by the way, if US promises to pay its soldiers in food and shelter, food and shelter enough to feed and protect the soldiers and their families, when there is NO OTHER source of food and shelter, the soldiers will accept the (devil's) bargin. You say, "Where will they get the food?" I say, "Look at Korea." It ain't pretty. We have some hard times ahead, no matter how one looks at it.

-- George Valentine (, April 22, 1998.

A couple of salient points:

And, by the way, if US promises to pay its soldiers in food and shelter, food and shelter enough to feed and protect the soldiers and their families, when there is NO OTHER source of food and shelter, the soldiers will accept the (devil's) bargin.

There's a blindness here that I'm trying to explain:

Government isn't a magical entity. It doesn't produce resources such as food and shelter. It buys those things with tax receipts or loans.

If the government can no longer collect taxes and take out loans (probably consequences of Y2K at the Federal level at least), then where will it get the food and shelter for its soldiers?

I contend that it can't. I contend that it can't even track its current soldiers without computers.

You say, "Where will they get the food?" I say, "Look at Korea." It ain't pretty. We have some hard times ahead, no matter how one looks at it.

Cannibalism is a possibility on an individual basis if conditions are extreme enough. I have a hard time imagining institutionalized cannibalism on a governmental level. Soldiers are decent people. I have a hard time imagining your average footsoldier standing still for the order, "All right men, today we're going foraging. Try to only shoot the people with the most muscle mass, they're the best eating.

I think at that point, you would find high levels of desertion. Very few armies in history have remained loyal when ordered to fire on their own families. Indeed, it's typically been the trigger for military uprisings. To my knowledge, institutionalized cannibalism has never been attempted on a wide scale. I don't think you could convince whole armies to stand for it.

"John Smith"

-- "John Smith" (, April 23, 1998.

My point about Korea was that the government can give the army a license to pillage, lawfully, either tacitly or by decree.

-- George Valentine (, April 23, 1998.


Certainly, they can. The question then becomes: "Will the average American soldier actually move against his own countrymen? His own neighbors? His own family?"

There is some historical precedent for it: the Civil War, for example. There is also a lot of historical precedent for mass desertions: the Russian Revolution comes to mind.

I guess I simply have to have faith that my cousin (a Marine Major, a pilot who flies Harriers and is on track for the astronaut program) simply couldn't bring himself to drop bombs on Chicago. Likewise, I think a lot of his fellow officers and the men he commands would find it unconscionable. Nor could they bring themselves to order their men to murder fellow citizens on the ground.

Perhaps I'm overly optimistic. It's just hard for me to see it happening.

"John Smith"

-- "John Smith" (, April 23, 1998.


I would like to agree with you, but when I consider that the present generation of young adults has had little or no moral training and quite a bit of every-man-for-himself training (of course there are exceptions, but on balance we've raised a bunch of selfish thugs) I have no choice but to expect the worst. If I were 18 or 19, had a wife and one or two kids, if I were in the army and the army told me to make sure that no one went into the corner Safeway (WalMart, etc., you name the store) any way I could and then promised me that if no one went in I would have food and shelter for me and my family, I would be sorely tempted to shoot looters -- after all, they are criminals. I would have the moral high ground while I was doing murder to my neighbor. And I'd have food and shelter.

I don't find it so far fetched. We have been trained to believe that the Federal government is all powerful. Young adults don't know any better. Even if the promise of food and shelter is empty, many will believe it, at least until the stockpiles run out.

Just because it's not likely doesn't mean it won't happen. If it does happen, our behinds will really be in a sling.

I think it's prudent to decide what the possible scenarios are and to prepare for them in decreasing order of effect or likelyhood of happening. If the effect of a scenario is death, it is probably more important to prepare for that than for a much more likely scenario the effect of which is no coffee.

-- George Valentine (, April 23, 1998.


I still look at the following two facts:

  1. The government produces nothing. Everything it needs it buys using money collected via tax receipts and loans.

    In my estimation, there is no chance that the government will be in a position to collect taxes.

    Similarly, its ability to take out loans will be hampered by a complete lack of confidence on the lenders' part that the government will repay. After all -- it can no longer collect taxes.

    Now, conceivably the government could come and take what it wanted by force ... up until it runs out of gasoline and ammunition. After that, how will they do it?

    Remember than at current estimates, Department of Treasury will be non-compliant until at least 2004. If they operate a standard Accounts Payable department, this means that they will be unable to cut checks. Writing rubber checks is therefore out of the question.

    Also remember that one-third of all electric utilities haven't even begun renovating their systems and another third estimate that they won't complete in time. This means that there is a significant chance of losing the power grid nationally, with local extended backouts a near certainty. This means that the government may not be able to power the printing presses at the mints: in any case, Treasury's control systems are non-compliant. This means that Treasury won't be printing money which could be used to pay for goos and services.

    So: if they can no longer force people to provide food and clothing for their soldiers, how long will their soldiers continue to work for them? A while, certainly. At some point, however, it will occur to them that they and their kids are still as hungry as they were when the mess began -- and getting hungrier.

  2. I agree that my generation and the one that followed are in general lacking in moral training. I think the fact that this month alone four newborns have been found in dumptsers in the Chicago metro area is proof enough of this fact.

    There is a difference, however, between an individual deciding to try to murder her baby and a whole bunch of people deciding to turn their neighborhoods into a war zone. Some of those people are going to have consciences.

    The point is that it stops becoming an individual action (something relatively easy to perform) and it becomes an action out in view of everyone, subject to comment, discussion, and even derision.

    Suppose they sent my cousin the Marine Major and a platoon in the suburban Chicago. My cousin is ordered to secure a grocery store with food for his solders. He's a good guy, he declines on the grounds that he has recieved an immoral order. His Colonel relieves him and the next available Captain steps in.

    My cousin will no doubt take some of his men with him. Some of them would rather desert than kill innocents -- concievably their neighbors.

    After enough of these desertions, morale will suffer and there will be more desertions. And if the government isn't providing necessities to its soldiers as outlined above, why would anyone stick around past a few weeks?

"John Smith"

-- "John Smith" (, April 23, 1998.

On the question of mortgage payments - does anyone have an idea how many mortgages exist today in the US? I couldn't imagine the banks foreclosing on them all at once - especially without computers to help process the paperwork. Also, there would be few people who could afford to purchase the real estate. Even today, banks would rather set up new payment plans than foreclose because they end up with more money in the long run.

In my case, my mortgage bank is in Texas, my home is in Virginia. Any idea how this may affect things?

On the issue of the soldiers being used against the American people - I spoke about this with my brother-in-law, an officer in the local branch of the US Army Reserves. He believes in Y2K and sees the possibility of civil unrest. He stated that no way, no how, would he disarm civilians who were using their firearms for defensive purposes only. Rioters and looters were another matter. I asked him about the LA Riots, and he said that the orders to disarm civilians were illegal and never should have been followed. He's (quietly) speaking to the leaders in his unit about possible Y2K scenarios. I would suggest, instead of worrying about the gov't turning the armed forces against the people, that you seek out the officers in the Reserve units near you and see what they think.

-- Melinda Gierisch (, April 23, 1998.


I read somewhere (and I don't remember where or I would supply a link) that ALL mortgages are written so that the mortgage holder can call the loan whenever you miss a payment. The fact that they routinely do not do that now is because it is much more profitable for them to let you slide and then catch up. My guess is that as of 02/01/00 100% of the loans will be called. If yours is, will you be able to pay? Then, if law and order ever return, they can forclose and own all the property (which the government will probably immediately nationalize).

I agree that, now, no one would admit to being willing to shoot his neighbor. I agree that some few of them will also never be willing to shoot his neighbor. My problem is that even if all the good guys go home, what is left is the biggest, baddest juvinile gang in the country, with all of their morals and all of the armaments of the army. I expect this gang to be played like a violin by the powers that be until it is no longer feasible to do so, or until there is nothing left to concour.

But, as John has pointed out, it is likely that much of the US will be without electricity (in the middle of winter) for extended periods of time. That should weaken any opposition as well as make some sort of combat more likely.

I think it will be a terrible time, and I think that people will do almost anything to survive. I'm worried.

-- George Valentine (, April 23, 1998.


I'm turning into Richard Nixon again -- let me make one thing perfectly clear:

It's not that I'm not worried. In fact, I'm terrified.

I live in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the world -- an area with a history of violence and corruption that goes back nearly a century.

My wife (who solely holds the purse strings in my family) will unoquivocably not allow me to use any money for preparations.

The entire issue gets bigger and badder every time I look at it. No one has good news, and more people are starting to get the message.

Add to that the fact that all of your concerns are valid, no matter how remote they might seem to me.

Additionally, I have many personal concerns that have to date gone unvoiced by me.

Primarily I'm concerned that I might not be able to make it to my land in South Dakota before the excrement hits the fan. It rather depends how much advance warning we get and whether my wife ever gets on board with me.

I also have two children to think of ... my blood runs cold when I think of what will happen to them in the best of circumstances. And at this point, I'm powerless to prevent it.

I, too, think it will be a terrible time. I don't know how terrible. What I wouldn't give for a quick look into the future!

"John Smith"

-- "John Smith" (, April 23, 1998.

Dear Discussion Group,

IUve read your messages concerning the potential for using the US military against civilian populations. No doubt this will happen when things get bad enough. This is no place to discuss gun rights but perhaps we can begin to see why thereUs been such a push by government to disarm the public. ThereUs an old saying, Rdictators just love unarmed peasants.S No military force can ever hope to dominate an armed civilian population, determined to inflict harm at every opportunity.

The success of armed civilians is totally dependent on how shrewd and evasive their opposition is to the military. If itUs open and centralized, it will be crushed with overwhelming force. Just look at how little military thugs, who donUt play by the rules, are able to run circles around UN forces.

The Confederacy faced a similar situation during reconstruction and is a great source of insight for what may be in store for us with Y2K. After the civil war there were marauding bands of murderers, looters and rapists in the south. There was a great deal of animosity toward southerners among the US Army occupation forces. They often refused to defend those that had caused the death of their loved ones during the war and felt that looting was justice for the rebels. Furthermore, the army assisted the carpet baggers in legalized looting. There is a vague reference to this lawless period in the movie Gone with the Wind. Out of desperation the confederates organized into vigilante groups. Their identity had to be concealed from the occupation army and Rjustice.S They routed the criminal elements and also had several large confrontations with the military. Today the south has small monuments where vigilante groups overcame occupation forces and overthrew appointed governments.

The army found itself powerless to control these secret organizations determined to snipe, ambush and harass. Locked into guerrilla warfare they got tired of dealing with a no win scenario. They decided to take on a new enemy, the plains Indians, which is one reason I believe the Civil War was never about human rights. The same army that freed the Black man turned and slaughtered the Red man, stole their land, and segregated the survivors on reservations.

After the initial purpose was served by these vigilante groups, there was no way to control them. According to my grandfather they evolved into the Klan which began to take vengeance on blacks in general. This was considered revenge for the truly lawless activities of some blacks and a need by some white Southerners to blame someone for the loss of the war, life and property. Naturally, whites saw no wrong on their part for slavery in the first place. The hypocrisy of the human mind is truly amazing.

Another lesson from reconstruction was the carpet bagger. He was the equivalent of our present day mortgage industry and Government. DonUt expect any favors. There are few if any County Court Houses in the south that were built before the civil war. They were all burned to destroy the property records and prevent carpet baggers from stealing the land for taxes imposed by the appointed government. As long as ownership could be tied up in litigation, the people claiming ownership stayed on the property. I wonder if itUs feasible to destroy all land title records of the US today?

I donUt know what other lessons we could draw from the civil war. If things get bad enough, nothing will be any good if you canUt eat or shoot it.

I really see some difficult times ahead and it will be hard to know what side to be on. Most people will want society to return to normal so badly, they will support the government in every way possible. This will happen even when the government asks them to give up things that have nothing to do with the cause or solution to Y2K. Hopefully the Government will do something so overtly destructive to personal rights, the masses will begin to see that the welfare of the population is not the overriding concern of our leaders. Our government has admitted to leaving POWs in Korea, syphilis experiments on Blacks in Tuskeegee and radiation tests on the mentally ill. This is only what theyUve had to admit, so how anyone can have faith in this government is beyond me. All of our so called public assistance/ welfare/ social security is nothing more than vote buying. 40 acres and a mule in the twentieth century.

What good is a government that doesnUt protect your job from imports, your borders from illegal immigrants, your property and life from criminals and milks the productive people through heavy progressive taxes?

-- Thomas Moore (, May 02, 1998.


Kudos re your message. I would like to think that your feelings are shared by many others however many people are not blessed with a sufficient knowledge of history to appreciate what you have said. You are obviously educated and had a grandfather that you listened to. So many of our young people don't even have a father in the home, and if they did, he would be as uneducated as the kid. There is one thing that I would like to add to your statement. Welfare is not just a vote getter. It is a very important part of our economy. All people must be consumers. If they don't make any money, we will give them the money with which to consume. If they buy alcohol or drugs with the money it does not matter. The dope dealer or the liquor store owner will eventually buy a Cadilac. Take this one step further and you will understand why we are so anxious to have Poland and Chekoslovakia in NATO. They are broke, so we lend them the money to buy our arms, which they don't need or want. The loans are secured by our Govt. When they don't pay, You and I pick up the bill. Another example of our Govt. working for the people.

-- Bill Solorzano (, May 02, 1998.

YouUre right Bill. The tax and spend policies of this government have nothing to do with helping the general public. Instead they are about keeping political prostitutes in office and feeding a constant supply of money to their supporters in big industry. We can only hope that Y2K throws such a monkey wrench in the system that people will wake up to the fact that the politicians did not take sufficient action for Y2K because they were too busy at the hog trough.

So many people are hung up on the differences in Republicans and Democrats. They fail to see that both parties are moving in the same direction, Democrats at 90 mph and Republicans at 70 mph. The end result is the total control and manipulation of everyone. I believe it was stated earlier that without computers a government lacks the capacity to control things. A lack of control by government is what I believe to be the main reason this continent was first settled. In Europe, the nobility / government owned everything. If you worked in the masterUs house or as a serf on the land, you could scratch out a living. If you were outside their system you could be executed for killing the KingUs deer to feed your family. When Columbus found this place, it opened an opportunity that had not existed for centuries in Europe. If a colonist could survive the disease, weather, and hostile Indians, they could make a living for themselves on a small piece of land and all the proceeds were theirs to keep. The King could pass as many laws and taxes as he wanted but he had a most difficult time collecting because it was like you were on the moon. You could also worship a hickory stump if you wanted instead of the state sanctioned religion. As civilization grew, it became profitable to station troops here to RprotectS the colonists from hostile Indians and extort the KingUs taxes. Finally the colonists saw what was happening to them and they revolted. Few people know that Paul RevereUs ride was to alert the colonists that the British General Clinton (Deja vuU) was coming to confiscate private weapons for RSAFES storage. Opening fighting broke out and continued while the Continental Congress debated what to do. The people had seen enough and began fighting without their elected leaders because they knew that once disarmed there would be no end to the KingUs demands. The colonists won because they fought like the Indians instead of standing up wearing red coats with a big white RXS plastered on the front of them. The only way it could have been better was if it had been a bullUs eye. I believe General Patton had a couple of standing orders that best describe the colonial tactics. RNever fight a battle where there is nothing to be gainedS and RNever fight a battle as your enemy would want you to.S

Since the time of our independence, I believe we have been on a long slow degeneration toward a totalitarian government with tentacles reaching into every aspect of our lives. What I see coming, unless Y2K stops it, is a truce between Republicans and Democrats that will ensure Socialism in Government and Capitalism in Business. It took me many years to see that there is no difference between the end results of extreme capitalism or socialism. A good example of this is the coal mining industry. Under the extreme capitalism of the 1800Us, big business owned the American & British coal mines. The miners worked in unsafe mines, lived in squalid conditions, were paid in company script, lived in a company owned shacks, and could buy a few necessities from the company owned store. The miner was trapped in a system where he could never prosper but only tread water. Remember the words to the old miners song that Tennessee Ernie Ford made famous back in the 50Us?

RI loaded 16 tons and what did I get, another day older and deeper in debt Saint Peter donUt call me cause I canUt go, I owe my soul to the company store.S

On the other hand, in Russia, the Government owns the coal mine. This is called socialism. The miners work in unsafe mines, they live in squalid conditions, get paid in government script, live in a government owned shack, and can buy a few necessities from the government owned store. The miner under extreme socialism is singing the same song as the miner under extreme Capitalism. The only difference is who dispenses the misery, government or business.

In my opinion you can look at Y2K as bitter dose of medicine. While it is a terrible thing to go through, it may be the only means to break the back of the system and move us toward a RreasonableS government. I personally believe the constitution was a mistake. Outside the Bill of Rights, which was an after thought, the present Constitution has little to offer. It did not go far enough in separation of power. It essentially left the states powerless at the federal level except for the Senate, which was supposed to have been elected by state legislatures. Even this minimal control was nullified by the 17th amendment that made Senators elected by popular vote.

Were we talking about mortgages? I think a home mortgage is really of little concern in anything other than a heavy recession / depression where unemployment is high. Thomas Jefferson said the only sure income under despotic government was hiring ourselves out to rivet chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers.

The only sure thing in a depression is total ownership which is impossible today. I believe George Valentine said earlier in this discussion that the government might nationalize all property. They already did years ago with property taxes.

I think Gold or Silver is your best bet for financial security. Hopefully we will never go back to a Gold or Silver standard. While I donUt like our present money system it has the potential for being operated fairly and could be a huge benefit for all. We just need to monetize loans for the full amount including principal and interest. Today we monetize only the principal which makes it mathematically impossible to pay off debt unless the lender (Federal Reserve Owners) spend the money back into circulation many times over. The fact is that they do not. This has the effect of causing money shortages and thus bankruptcies. Monetizing only the principal is like playing musical chairs where their is one less chair than players. Someone is guaranteed to loose. It also acts as a lens, focusing huge wealth into the hands of a few, who than use it to manipulate government and thus society.

-- Thomas Moore (, May 03, 1998.


You are one of the sharper knives in the drawer.There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. When you said that we are headed towards a society of, "Socialism in government and capitalism in business" You described the German Nazi party to a T. It was the only reason that Hitler got the support of the Junkers and Industry including, Shell Oil, Krupp (they make such good coffee makers now) IG Farben and so many more that I cannot list them all. Japan is the same. I guess we don't recall that Mitsubishi made such fine fighter/bomber planes that killed thousands of allied soldiers. (they make fine autos now) "He who controls the past controls the present" "Orwell"

Whether or not y2k will be the, "Cleansing blood of the lamb" I have my doubts. History shows us that there is always a man "right" for the times. Maybe it is better to stick to the, "Devils that we know" instead of new devils that we don't know.

It's not easy to be a thinking member of the masses. To quote "Huxley" in "A brave new world" I am glad I am a Delta, I am glad I am a Delta" As an old retired policeman from one of the largest cities in the US, I have always felt comfortable with known crooks and scoundres. Their motives are clear. There is a comforting "Honesty" in their "Crookedness"

-- Bill Solorzano (, May 03, 1998.

Bill, The devils that we don't know are the same ones we now have. It boils down to people trying to get the upper hand on their fellow man to cheat him out of his labor and elevate their status above everyone else. Their misplaced sense of value reasons that control of people and ownership of possessions somehow makes them superior. It doesnUt matter how they acquired their wealth or control. Who is better, the person who designs a better mouse trap or the person that cheats and connives his way to controlling all mouse traps?

Many years ago I worked for a Jewish gentleman. Occasionally he and I would talk about these issues. He had one very good piece of advice I have never forgotten. He told me there is nothing wrong with this world, as long as you remember that people are no damn good.

-- Thomas Moore (, May 05, 1998.

Sure, it appears that terrifying times may lie ahead. True we might have to arm ourselves to protect our homes and family. True the government might collapse.

My husband and I have been discussing this whole prospect and I recently pointed out to him that maybe this will be the perfect opportunity for us to get back to the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, the whole foundation of our country, the way it was meant to be. Maybe we will be able to get rid of the beast government has become.

-- Diane Russell (, June 10, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ