The scariest part of Y2K... : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

The control of infomation is upseting. My concern is the lack of press coverage of the most important of Congressman Horn's REPORT CARDs which graded the federal agencies' y2k progress on their critical systems! (Only C-SPAN and the FEDERAL COMPUTERING NEWS--not the mainstream nor national news media--carried this alarming but important news.) This was REPORT CARD #9. The previous ones were widely reported---good news. They graded the critical systems identified by the Administration.

This time Congressman Horn included a grade for the 43 HIGH IMPACT FEDERAL PROGRAMS identified by the Administration as impacting the public the most. (The IRS and DEFENSE were not included as HIGH IMPACT PROGRAMS! ?)

36 of the 43 federal HIGH IMPACT PROGRAMS were NOT YET compliant!---POST OFFICE, MEDICARE, MEDICAID, WELFARE TYPE PROGRAMS, ETC. Most of them have a compliance date target of December 1999!

Did you read that in your newspaper or hear about it on the TV? I didn't. If not, why not? If this story isn't being reported, what else aren't we being told? READ THIS!

-- Concerned citizen (, September 17, 1999


Either Greenspan didn't read it either, or he's Fugueing like MAD. Gotta look at his speech CLOSELY to figure which. Haven't had the time.


-- Chuck, a night driver (, September 17, 1999.

Thanks for url!! The sad thing is that even if you tell somebody about this, they will still call you a doom and gloomer. The reason: This is how the media portrays people like us. All bad news websites are discarded. Only good news matter. Unfortunately, that's the way it is.

I know all too well how programs can blow up. They don't care if it's 99% right, they will blow up if it hits that 1%. If y2k does indeed turn out bad, which I think it could very well, it will be too bad that millions could die needlessly when there is no need for it to happen.

-- Larry (, September 17, 1999.


My read on Greenspan's speech today is that he focused solely on the domestic USA financial sector and ignored the interdependecies with other doemstic sectors and completely ignored the international implications for global trade (oil, Rx meds, etc) and global finance.

I believe that the Federal Reserve and most US banks have done a proper Y2K job with "due dilligence" but I am far less sure that that is an adequate reason for optimism.

-- Bill P (, September 17, 1999.

And the ONLY ones I feel sorry for are the little and innocent ones who have no say in the preps.

-- winna (??@??.com), September 17, 1999.

Notice what the swine in D.C. (definately corrupt) define as High Impact. Mostly welfare programs that provide for the more worthless elements of society. The reason for the panic is that in the past these elements have been the same ones who's idea of 'good sport' is to loot, rape, pillage and burn everything they can get their hands on. And believe you me gang, IF the welfare checks don't go out and IF foodstamps are no longer honored, and IF the Methadone Clinics don't give out the free fixes anymore, then the major cities are gonna BURN. And the fatcats in DC are well aware of it. How many Congressmen/women and Senators are actually going to be IN D.C. during the rollover? (It's only got like one of the highest crime/murder rates in the nation!) I'd say a damn short list there bubba.....

-- Billy-Boy (, September 17, 1999.

For the sake of argument, let's say ALL U.S. banking institutions are TOTALLY y2k ready. Now, admittedly, alot of second and third world nations are thought to have moderate to severe problems with banking when 1-1-00 comes.

Since we are not in a vacum when it comes to world finance, our banks will have 2 options in January. Either they close until the banking "network" is stable again, which may, in my guess, take months, or they can "island" their transactions. I don't even know if that's possible.

In other words, how will people get THEIR money? Am I completely off base here? Someone please fill me in, I MUST be missing something, because if what I said holds true, then there can be no other logical outcome short of complete chaos.

-- CygnusXI (, September 17, 1999.

Billy Boy.......

Which of "the more worthless elements of society" that are on welfare are you referring to?? ......single moms who were unceremoniously dumped by their husbands and left with the kids........those that are extremely ill and cannot work.........those that cannot find work because they are being discriminated against because of the color of their skin, religion, sexual orientation etc........

I can almost feel the compassion seething out of your pores.....(dripping with sarscasm)........

-- Craig (, September 17, 1999.

It's Craig, the smart-ass polly, back from wherever he goes when he's not wasting his time and ours on this forum. Give it a rest Craig. You're not changing anyone's mind here and you are annoying as Hell.

-- Oh No (, September 17, 1999.

Liberal **ckhead a**wipes like you Craig!

-- (Stir@up.trouble), September 17, 1999.

Tell ya what Craig...

When the meltdown comes, I'll give you a quarter of my food go right on down to the Project and *ask* them if they need anything...I GAR-Ron-Tee that within 2 minutes your naked-stripped-bare corpse wouldn't even have the silver (gold maybe?) left in your fillings.

Rots 'O Ruck there Craig.

-- Billy-Boy (, September 17, 1999.

Two more dire considerations besides your banking network concerns, Cygnus - 1)International counter party exposure on all these financial derivatives that have proliferated in the past 15 years. Remember Long Term Capitol? It brought out whole international financial community right to the brink. Y2k reverberations should be far worse. There are too many financial derivatives extended to international banks and companies who's economy's will nose dive due tolack of preparation. 2) International debt exposure. The countries that have done the least for y2k (predominately cause they couldn't afford it) are generally the one's with the most international debt exposure. Here's a few. Generally close to half of these debts are to private financial companies and western banks. The rest are bilaterial or through intl institutions such as IMF or World Bank. India =$90bil,Turkey = $80b, Venz =$35B, China $129B, Indon =$129B, Russia = $129B...and a whole slew more in the $20-$50bil range.

-- Downstreamer (, September 17, 1999.

Hey dingleballs......I'm not a liberal, I'm a conservative........just happen to have some compassion which I am not ashamed of. It just pisses me off when all welfare receipients are painted are being some kind of evil useless misfits. There truly are people out there who are in need.

Oh no......I really don't give a fiddlers fart whether I change your mind or not frankly. There are always differences of opinion on any subject......trouble is, narrow minded people such as yourself cannot see that there are many things to consider in any issue.

It is those with your mindset that are responsible for most of the violence and evil in our world today.

Well guess what, you will have my opinion whether you like it or not.......i know you'd rather hear me talking about black helicopters and conspiracies and deadly asteroids and computers that will kill us all in 105 days but you ain't gonna get it chill out!!

-- Craig (, September 17, 1999.

After a little more digging, total category 3 and 4 (highest risk countries) international debt equals $1.27 trillion, $500 bil of which is private (ie Chase, Mor Stanley, CitCorp...). Good luck even collecting interest next year guys...

-- Downstreamer (, September 17, 1999.

Hey Craig...

Enuff with the hostility man... And as far as Black helicopters...Dude...keep it up and my bros from the 160th SOAR will be lookin' for ya! And compassion? Dude it went out the window in Hait, Rwanda, and Somalia...some of the more entertaining exotic locales the Army showed me. And don't try to tell me "It can't happen here!" Somalia was once the jewel of East Africa. Now its a haven of insanity, tribalism and other such things left better in our past. It's a REALLY thin line between civilized man and animal man. I've run with and against the me. It's gonna be bad if it's worse than a 7....

-- Billy-Boy (, September 17, 1999.

billy you are right,the world is gettin uglier'by the day.BUT NOT ALL POOR FOLK.S ARE BUMS=ESPECIALLY THE KIDS.--don,t get so BITTER that you=self destruct.[it,s a spiritual problem-man can,t fix it ALONE]

-- CHILL-BILL. (, September 17, 1999.

yeah...just a little world weary today Al... sorry if'n I seem more extreme than usual.

-- Billy-Boy (, September 17, 1999.

C'mon reasonable for a minute........

You made a statement to the effect that all people on welfare are the lowest scum on earth..........I pointed out that this was not the case and perhaps you might be lacking in compassion........

Now all of a sudden I'm the hostile one.....HUH........granted, I can be blunt sometimes with my opinion, however I honestly believe that your initial statement needed to be challenged in a blunt way.

I can understand somewhat now you have mentioned some of the things you have seen in recent years. My suggestion is that you do consider, no matter what you have seen, that there truly are some people out there on welfare that are there through no fault of their own.......many Schizophrenics for example that live one hell of a miserable existance at times and do need welfare (They're not likely going to be able to keep much of a job if they are really ill like that).

Let's just finish this with one thought: The world would be a much better place if we had more Mother Theresa's.

-- Craig (, September 17, 1999.

One truly unfortunate consistency, in human beings, is our desire to pin the blame on someone else. People on welfare are not THE problem; they are the END RESULT of the problem.

The problem is that we all want it all. We want high wages and cheap goods. That means manufacturers will look elsewhere to locate their factories, where the populace is willing to put up with low wages, which costs jobs in this country. You can't have cheap goods, without cheap labor.

Also, it means that there is a prevailing attitude that you try to get as much for nothing as you can. For people with money, this translates into "cheat on your taxes and buy as much cheap stuff from overseas, as you can". For folks with no money, this translates into "go on the dole". Two halves of the same problem.

-- Bokonon (, September 17, 1999.


You're right. Some welfare recipients really do need help.

Unfortunately, I think the MAJORITY of them fall under Billy-Boy's description: "these elements have been the same ones who's idea of 'good sport' is to loot, rape, pillage and burn everything they can get their hands on."

IMO, it is the latter group of welfare recipients who are truly screwing those who really need it, and not those "evil white guy republicans who only want to help the rich," or average, middle-class people who are just sick of paying so much in taxes and getting little in return.

If more people who were capable of getting off the dole did get off it, then there would be a lot more money to go around for those who honestly needed it.

I think Billy-Boy is right. The government doesn't give a shit about anybody's welfare. Politicians care about votes, and they pay for those votes by giving MY MONEY away to a bunch of freeloaders.

If welfare checks stop, welfare recipients will go ballistic. After all, we OWE them their welfare payments. It's their RIGHT, dammit!

Once the welfare program is in place, it then becomes more like a "ransom" payment that the government must make to avoid the destruction of the inner cities.

Now here's an example of how concerned the government is about a group of people who really need some assistance. Notice how it is a group that could never organize themselves to riot, complain, or cause any other type of civil disturbance:

Investors Business Daily June 8,1998

Y2K Problem Hits Homeless As Feds Tap Runaway Fund

The computer glitch will eat up billions of dollars before it's solved and an area of great concern is Medicare. To tackle it, the Department of Health and Human Services is taking $7 million from a program aiding teen runaways and other young people living on the streets. That's nearly half of the $15 million given this year to the program, created by the 1994 crime law. In total, HHS told Congress it'll take $40.5 million from various programs.

-- Clyde (, September 17, 1999.

Good point Clyde!

GI yet Craig? Seriously dude. There ARE individuals out there who desperately NEED the social assistance programs. My issues lie more in the more destructive "the whole world can kiss my ass and owes me a living!" It is almost a ransom of sort paid out as 'protection'.

This is why the inner cities are kept flooded with drugs and cheap alcohol. Keep the masses sedated. Hell, in Somalia the locals couldn't get a fresh vaccine to save a child's life, but that didn't slow the three to four daily flights of Khat cargo planes from flying their daily rotation into Addis Abba Airport. (Khat is a low grade vegatable chewed like tobbaacco giving off a lite buzz...tastes like shit but'll keep you high) The last thing the government wants is an LA riot situation happening IN EVERY MAJOR CITY IN AMERICA!!! Imagine how the druggies would react.

Right now something like 20% of the poor of the nation is hooked on heroin. Just imagine if the planes stopped smuggling in the drugs. Remember (if you are old enuff) the pharmacy robberies so common to the early mid 70's? They'd be tame by todays standards. Human life just isn't worth what it was 20 years ago. Ask any cop, soldier or Peace Corp volunteer. Add in the promulgulation of advanced firepower that the current administration allowed our Red-Chinese bretheren to flood the streets with and whoo-doggies!! we gonna have us some fun!!!

-- Billy-Boy (, September 17, 1999.

Billy-Boy wrote..... There ARE individuals out there who desperately NEED the social assistance programs. My issues lie more in the more destructive "the whole world can kiss my ass and owes me a living!" It is almost a ransom of sort paid out as 'protection'......

Yup, we have now found the middle ground where we agree.......I get as mad as you at those that have no motivation in life except to sponge off pisses me off too when someone who has no desire to work gets their government check, spends it on drugs and cigarettes and the next day whines for more money.....and you're right, there is far too much of it going on.....

Notwithstanding that, we need to be careful that our brush doesn't get too wide where we lump those truly in need in the same category.....that's all my point was.

As StirUpTrouble so eloquently said "Liberal **ckhead a**wipes like you Craig!"...........

Well, if having a little compassion makes me that StirUpTrouble, then so be it!

-- Craig (, September 17, 1999.

Craig & Billy Boy: Glad you two found a little agreement. What you both said about " ransom " payments etc immediately caused me to remember "The Rise & Fall Of The Roman Empire" viz - the Roman mobs and how the Roman hierarchy had to toady to them to control them which eventually helped the fall of the Empire. History repeating itself??

-- Neil G.Lewis (, September 17, 1999.

The question is not whether or not people actually need help. The question is whether taxation is the proper method of help. Whether any person receiving welfare really needs it is not the question. The question is how the money for the help is collected. Volantary charity or forced taxation. Given freely or stolen from slaves.

-- Mr. Pinochle (, September 17, 1999.

The only coverage I've seen was in Federal Computer Week. However, I don't think it's at all correct to say that the earlier report cards were covered because they were good news: they were littered with D's and F's, even more than the latest. But, they were months ago.

I think the situation now is that there isn't "supposed" to be ANY bad news this close to the rollover: that's why the report card hasn't been news this time.

-- Lane Core Jr. (, September 17, 1999.

"The preamble to the Constitution of the Unites States: We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for common defense, promote the general welfare....It doesn't say guarantee general welfare. And it certainly doesn't say give welfare benefits to all the people in the country who aren't doing so well even if the reason they aren't doing so well is because they're sitting on their butts in front of the TV." P.J. O'Rourke

-- quoter (, September 17, 1999.

"The politicians just don't want your money, they want your soul. They want you to be worn down by taxes until you are depednent and helpless. When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." James Dale Davidson

-- quoter (, September 17, 1999.

Billy Boy--So one of the manuvers is to focus on the littler guys-- start fight amoungst those with the lower incomes---put them down, blame them for our fears. Get a grip for god's sake---you who buy this line, who pride yourselves on your knowedge of research and intelligent analysis spout this kind of opinionated garbage---who of you has read ONE research paper on the population representation and conditions of the poor? You still don't know you are talking about CHILDREN--who are in the majority of recipients---what do you propose for them?

-- catherine plamondon (, September 17, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ