Clinton yesterday announced plans to repudiate the debt of the third world. This is taxpayer monies that the US citizens had no say in giving, or now forgiving.

Paul Milne has long cited the Sen. Davey Crockett speech regarding government charity after the Georgetown fire as improper and unconstitutional.

Question for Decker - Is Clinton right to forgive debts, or is Milne right when he says DC overstepped its bounds? I'll be nice and not call you a seditionist if you choose to side with Paul :)

-- a (a@a.a), September 30, 1999

Answers

i know i'm not Decker, but i pay taxes too. before he uses some of MY money to forgive someone else's debts, i want all of MY debts forgiven. (Clinton is such an ass)

-- sarah (qubr@aol.com), September 30, 1999.

Most likely the countries whose debt is being forgiven would not be able to repay anyway, as they were bad risks to begin with. By "forgiving" them, Clinton looks like a Hero, and the government(s) avoid public scorn as another result of squandering ciizens monies.

Never having worked in government, what I cannot fathom is why collateral, such as Real Estate, is not offered in exchange for foreign loans? ie: We hold title to your land (islands, lake, peninsula, etc.) pending return of our taxpayers principal and interest. No tickee, no washee. If the debt was not repaid, the free market forces could then develop that land, and the "empire" would expand.

Isn't that how the real world works?

-- A. Hambley (a.hambley@usa.net), September 30, 1999.

What difference does it make? The 3rd world is taking a major crappola in January anyways. They are toast. And it's going to be very ugly on our southern border. I've been there in good times and god save Texas, Arizona, and California when this hits...

Got financing?

-- John Galt (jgaltfla@hotmail.com), September 30, 1999.

You never get something for nothing! Does anyone really believe that these debts are erased and that's it? By forgiving a poor-country's debt, the country is now indebted to the U.S. We can "control" elections, infrastructure, exports, etc. I say "we" loosely, of course, b/c I don't mean "we the people". I mean the US Govt, ie the Federal Reserve.

We now "own" that country. In a word, globalization. In two words, global economy. In three words, new world order.

If you don't believe me, read, for starters, "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G.Edward Griffin.

-- I'm (with@titude.now), September 30, 1999.

If you think this is outrageous, wait until these countries ask for more loans, and get them

-- thomas thatcher (jabawaki@erols.com), September 30, 1999.

John Galt,

I believe you forgot New Mexico in your list... unless you are one of those geographically challenged folks that think we need passports to go there...

And no, you don't need shots to come here either....

growlin'...

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), September 30, 1999.

Somebody please point me to a link on this debt forgiveness.

THANKS......Tommy

-- Tommy Rogers (Been there@Just a Thought.com), September 30, 1999.

Debt forgiveness is rarely a good idea... it sends a poor message to the marketplace. I have made this same point about the LTCM bail- out. The fear of failure makes businesses (and countries) operate in a more prudent manner. As to Milne's correctness... does the U.S. government have the legal authority to forgive its debts? I think so. While President Clinton's actions were ill advised, I think they were legal.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 01, 1999.

Tommy, you wanted a link?

http://news2.thls.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid%5F462000/462410.stm

-- sandi (sandihere@mailcity.com), October 01, 1999.

I wasn't aware that the US government "lent" money to anyone. With the USA's capital structure, it's quite the other way around. Now the IMF does give our "money" to the third world via loan guarantess of private banks when these loans go bad (and plenty have gone bad), and the private banks also lend without the IMF guarantees.

Now, who do you suppose is actually getting bailed out here, the borrowers, who have nothing to lose either way, or the lenders, who have a lot more to lose.

And how is the "foregiveness" manisfested? Aren't the banks' bad loans, in fact, being "covered" by the US, i.e., the US taxpayers, either through application of tax monies collected or to be collected, or through the Fed simply writing the bagholder banks big fat checks to cover their sour loans and thereby debasing the value of all dollars held by the citizens of the US?

If Bill's lips are moving, the words you hear have no relation to the reality they attempt to describe.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), October 01, 1999.