I have read statements on this subject in several forums recently, yet I have failed to find any media coverage or links which covers this conversation. Can someone help?

-- Tommy Rogers (Been there@Just a Thought.com), October 03, 1999

Answers

Poorest nations may get debt relief

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), October 03, 1999.

this was an original ccn story link. if not a hyper link, highlight, copy, then paste in URL locatin bar.

http://cnnfn.com/1999/09/29/emerging_markets/wires/imf_clinton_wg/

-- wds (wd@toptexas.com), October 03, 1999.

The entire world is about to be forgiven of their debts.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 03, 1999.

The whole world is about to lose all records of its debts! :-)

-- matt (hoping@somewhere.nz), October 04, 1999.

It was reported, on Point of View radio program: the Pope and Gorbachav discussed and AGREED to the idea of "forgiving ALL debt."

Personally, I think this would alleviate most peoples fears at first but then "enslave them to the New World Order."

You might recall that the Deputy secretary of State, Strobe Talbott, said: "America will not be the same as we know it."

(See the Drudge Report on The Third Way.)

-- David (djwolf@lanset.com), October 04, 1999.

"Forgiving" a n other country it's "debt" to the USA means a) we print more money as a result b) more inflation c)gold goes up d)the dollar becomes soggy toilet paper...

This is so transparent - Clinton thinks we are all brain dead...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), October 04, 1999.

Actually, most of the debt is uncollectable and has been written off. To say we now "forgive" it is at least 50% smarmy gesture.

But the actual process of debt relief would be a good thing, since many of these countries had corrupt administrations that took the loans and then spent them. Later administrations are saddled with debt they cannot possibly pay. Forgiving it is a good idea, much more effective than the same dollars in foreign aid.

Loaning them the money in the first place, or loaning more now, is not such a good idea....

-- You Know.... (notme@nothere.junk), October 04, 1999.

"This is so transparent - Clinton thinks we are all brain dead... "

Thinks?!?

-- Anonymous999 (Anonymous999@Anonymous999.xxx), October 04, 1999.

What I find interesting is the name of the group which propossed this:

``This is going to put pressure on other countries, particularly Japan and France, to follow suit,'' said Carole Collins, national coordinator for the anti-poverty Jubilee 2000 USA, alluding to Group of Seven nations where there is some resistance to 100 percent debt relief.

See the Bible - Leviticus 25. Are we trying to buy brownie points with God by this debt relief? Even though the house of cards is coming down with or without debt forgiveness? And what about a little individual debt forgiveness.. for home mortgages and farmers?

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), October 04, 1999.

That's right Linda. We know many farmers with home mortgages.........

and rope. Some chew Skoal. Others prefer Copenhagen.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 04, 1999.

Clinton's speech carried live last week on CNNFN. The debt forgiveness is on behalf of the "global society" (Clinton's words) -- the forgiveness will only be offered once those countries show steps taken re: healthcare and poverty, and we thought it was going to be national healthcare, we forgot about global healthcare.

-- claurann (claurann@aol.com), October 04, 1999.

I personally don't think that this is such a bad idea, but it would be a better idea to ask what the taxpayers as a whole think before signing this into law.

Whenever we say "loan" to a third world country, our govt. should really be up front and say that it means "give" or "donate." There's no way that these poor people get the aid properly because corruption is so rampant. There's no way they're going to pay it back. I suppose that if the goodwill of other nations is in our best interests (I suspect the answer is "yes"--especially now in that pre-TSHTF era), letting them off the hook is a good thing.

But it would be better if people had more of their own money to spend as they pleased, where they could actually have a choice in how they chose to be charitable rather than having to rely on huge revenue- bloated bureaucracies with massive overhead and "trickle-down" aid.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), October 04, 1999.