UTF-8 http://feraios.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default
Google

Tuesday, September 03, 2013

THE U.S.A. DEBT,IS THE MAIN REASON FOR THE CRISIS,BUT NOBODY SPEAKS ABOUT IT

INSTEAD  THEY BLAME EUROPEANS,BY CAUSING INTERNALLY VARIOUS FAKE DILEMMA   OR EXTERNALLY THAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.
THE CURRENT POLITICAL SYSTEM ,AT EUROPEAN LANDS AND ITS OLIGARCHIC  ADMINISTRATIVE  STRUCTURES CANNOT OVERCOME THE PROBLEMS WHICH CITIZENS ARE FACING,BUT THEY  POSTPONE THE SOLUTIONS,BY BEING HANDLED  FROM N.Y. HEADQUARTERS.

(CLICKING AT TITLE THE READER IS REDIRECTED TO AN OLDER ARTICLE WHICH  ALSO SUPPORTS THIS STANCE)

DEBT LIMIT POLITICS IS A DANGEROUS GAME:OUR VIEW
Here we go again. House Speaker John Boehner is promising a "whale of a fight" during the next several weeks over raising the government's borrowing limit.
Boehner and his fellow Republicans are vowing to hold the debt ceiling hostage unless President Obama and congressional Democrats agree to cut spending or defund ObamaCare.
As was the case during the last debt-ceiling debacle, in 2011, playing politics with the nation's creditworthiness is irresponsible and unnecessary.
Leave aside the ObamaCare obsession, because Republicans have zero chance of persuading the president to kill one of his defining achievements. After defeats in Congress, the Supreme Court and last year's presidential election, the ObamaCare opponents seem like the holdout Japanese soldiers who kept fighting World War II into the 1970s. Cooler heads in the party, including the speaker, know this.
Boehner and the GOP have a much better argument about the need to get long-term deficits under control, particularly by reining in the big benefit programs. But if the speaker wants to bite into that politically poisonous apple, he could start by taking advantage of Obama's proposals earlier this year to curb Social Security and Medicare — offers that infuriated liberal Democrats and might have led to serious negotiations. Instead, Boehner rejected the overtures because Obama wanted a balanced package that would also include some revenue increases.
Boehner has been around long enough to know that Republicans are playing a weak hand, something his Tea Party followers don't seem to grasp. He lived through the 1995-96 government shutdown, which was blamed on the GOP, and wants no repeat. So he's wisely trying to stave off a shutdown when funding runs out at the end of this month by proposing a short-term spending bill to keep the lights on.
But trading a government shutdown for the risk of defaulting on the national debt is a dangerous game. Even the hint that the United States couldn't meet its obligations rattles the financial markets and threatens the nation's credit rating. That would drive up interest rates, drive down stock markets and weaken the economic recovery.
The U.S. actually hit its $16.7 trillion borrowing ceiling in May, but Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has been maneuvering to delay the "X date" when the government can't pay all its bills. He said last week that the X date will now fall sometime in mid-October. Congressional action is imperative, and with the Syria resolution taking center stage when lawmakers return next week, the time for dealmaking is growing short.
Boehner says he won't give up his hostage unless there's a budget deal that saves more than the debt limit would have to be raised. He admits the fight will be messy but says there's no alternative. "If this were easy to do, somebody over the last 20 or 30 years would have gotten it done," he says.
News flash: Somebody has done it. Twice. In 1990, Republican President George H.W. Bush brokered a big deficit-reduction deal that cut spending and raised taxes. Then, in 1993, President Bill Clinton pushed through a similar package. These agreements helped pave the way for the only balanced budgets — 1998 through 2001 — in the past 40 years. And they didn't require risking the nation's creditworthiness.
Boehner is right about one thing: Making deals like those isn't easy. It takes leadership, compromise and the nerve to stand up to extremists in both parties. All are in short supply.
USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.


The U.S “Odious Debts” used to Finance Illegal Wars

Refuse to Pay Government Debt Incurred for Unlawful and Oppressive Purposes ...


It Is the Personal Debt of Those Who Ordered It
There is an established legal principle that people should not have to repay their government’s debt to the extent that it is incurred to launch aggressive wars or to oppress the people.
These “odious debts” are considered to be the personal debts of the tyrants who incurred them, rather than the country’s debt.
Wikipedia gives a good overview of the principle:
In international law, odious debt is a legal theory which holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, such as wars of aggression, should not be enforceable. Such debts are thus considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state. In some respects, the concept is analogous to the invalidity of contracts signed under coercion.
The doctrine was formalized in a 1927 treatise by Alexander Nahum Sack, a Russian émigré legal theorist, based upon 19th Century precedents including Mexico’s repudiation of debts incurred by Emperor Maximilian’s regime, and the denial by the United States of Cuban liability for debts incurred by the Spanish colonial regime. According to Sack:
When a despotic regime contracts a debt, not for the needs or in the interests of the state, but rather to strengthen itself, to suppress a popular insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the entire state. This debt does not bind the nation; it is a debt of the regime, a personal debt contracted by the ruler, and consequently it falls with the demise of the regime. The reason why these odious debts cannot attach to the territory of the state is that they do not fulfil one of the conditions determining the lawfulness of State debts, namely that State debts must be incurred, and the proceeds used, for the needs and in the interests of the State. Odious debts, contracted and utilised for purposes which, to the lenders’ knowledge, are contrary to the needs and the interests of the nation, are not binding on the nation – when it succeeds in overthrowing the government that contracted them – unless the debt is within the limits of real advantages that these debts might have afforded. The lenders have committed a hostile act against the people, they cannot expect a nation which has freed itself of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts, which are the personal debts of the ruler.
Patricia Adams, executive director of Probe International (an environmental and public policy advocacy organisation in Canada), and author of Odious Debts: Loose Lending, Corruption, and the Third World’s Environmental Legacy, has stated that:
by giving creditors an incentive to lend only for purposes that are transparent and of public benefit, future tyrants will lose their ability to finance their armies, and thus the war on terror and the cause of world peace will be better served.
A recent article by economists Seema Jayachandran and Michael Kremer has renewed interest in this topic. They propose that the idea can be used to create a new type of economic sanction to block further borrowing by dictators.
Jubilee USA notes that creditors may lose their rights to repayment of odious debts:
Odious debt is an established legal principle. Legally, debt is to be considered odious if the government used the money for personal purposes or to oppress the people. Moreover, in cases where borrowed money was used in ways contrary to the people’s interest, with the knowledge of the creditors, the creditors may be said to have committed a hostile act against the people. Creditors cannot legitimately expect repayment of such debts.
The United States set the first precedent of odious debt when it seized control of Cuba from Spain. Spain insisted that Cuba repay the loans made to them by Spain. The U.S. repudiated (refused to pay) that debt, arguing that the debt was imposed on Cuba by force of arms and served Spain’s interest rather than Cuba’s, and that the debt therefore ought not be repaid. This precedent was upheld by international law in Great Britain v. Costa Rica (1923) when money was put to use for illegitimate purposes with full knowledge of the lending institution; the resulting debt was annulled.
The launch of the Iraq war was an unlawful war of aggression. It was based on false premises (weapons of mass destruction and a connection between Iraq and 9/11; see thisthisthisthisthisand this). Therefore, the trillions in debts incurred in fighting that war are odious debts which the people might lawfully refuse to pay for.
The Bush and Obama administrations have also oppressed the American people through spying on us – even before 9/11 (confirmed here and here) – harassment of innocent grandmothers and other patriotic Americans criticizing government action, and other assaults on liberty and the rule of law. See this. The monies borrowed to finance these oppressive activities are also odious debts.
The government has also given trillions in bailouts, loans, guarantees and other perks to the too big to fails. These funds have not helped the American people. For example, the giant banks are still not loaning. They have solely gone into speculative investments and to line the pockets of the muckety-mucks in the form of bonuses. PhD economist Dean Baker said that the true purpose of the bank rescues is “a massive redistribution of wealth to the bank shareholders and their top executives”. PhD economist Michael Hudson says that the financial “parasites” have killed the American economy, and they are “sucking as much money out” as they can before “jumping ship”. These are odious debts.
Bush, Cheney, Paulson, Geithner, Summers and others who ordered that these debts be incurred must be held personally liable for them. We the American people are not responsible to creditors – such as China, Saudi Arabia – who have knowingly financed these illegal and oppressive activities which have not benefited the American people, but solely the handful of corrupt politicians who authorized them.

SOURCE  http://www.globalresearch.ca - Washington's Blog  - February 2010






Labels:

Link

1 Comments:

At 11:57 AM, Blogger Gain Credit Loan said...

With Gain Credit Personal Loans, you can get instant loan/money for a wide range of your personal needs like renovation of your home, marriage in the family, a family holiday, your child's education, buying a house, medical expenses or any other emergencies. With minimum documentation, you can now avail a personal loan at attractive 3% interest rates. This is trust and honest loans which you will not regret, Contact us via Email: gaincreditloan01@gmail.com

Your Full Details:
Full Name. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
Loan Amount Needed. . ...
Loan Duration. . .. . .. . .. . .
Phone Number. . .. . .. . ..
Applied before. . .. . .. . ..
Country. . .. . .
Email Us: gaincreditloan01@gmail.com

 

Post a Comment

<< Home