Greek PM: society will disintegrate without urgent financial aid

Antonis Samaras says Greece's democracy is in danger, comparing situation to Germany's pre-war Weimar Republic

Helena Smith

5 October 2012


Greece is teetering on the edge of collapse with its society at risk of disintegrating unless the country's near-empty public coffers are shored up with urgent financial aid, the country's prime minister has warned.

Almost three years after the eruption of Europe's debt drama in Athens, the economic crisis engulfing the nation has become so severe that democracy itself is now imperiled, Antonis Samaras said.
"Greek democracy stands before what is perhaps its greatest challenge," Samaras told the German business daily Handelsblatt in an interview published hours before the announcement in Berlin that Angela Merkel will fly to Athens next week for the first time since the outbreak of the crisis.
Resorting to highly unusual language for a man who weighs his words carefully, the 61-year-old politician evoked the rise of the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party to highlight the threat that Greece faces, explaining that society "is threatened by growing unemployment, as happened to Germany at the end of the Weimar Republic".

[ed. Like it or not, there will always be organisations ready to take over if a country is run into the ground. The blame for that lies squarely on the shoulders of establishment hacks like Samaras who are puppets of a fake money system and a sell out EU elite. I wonder if what he is actually saying though is HE will have no choice but to suspend democracy?]

 "Citizens know that this government is Greece's last chance," said Samaras, who has repeatedly appealed for international lenders at the EU and IMF to relax the onerous conditions of the bailout accords propping up the Greek economy.
Mounting anti-austerity rage before a new round of sweeping EU-IMF-mandated austerity measures appears to have caught the government off-guard, with officials voicing fears over the ability of Samaras's fragile coalition to survive.
The unprecedented storming of Greece's defence ministry by hundreds of protesting dockworkers on Thursday – a breach of security not seen in modern times – has especially unnerved officials. On Friday, Samaras lashed out at "those who don't understand the meaning of law and order".
"The government is waging a battle on all fronts for the nation's credibility and its future so that the sacrifices made by Greeks aren't lost," he said, referring to the spending cuts and tax increases that have sparked record levels of poverty and unemployment. "I will not allow the country to become a free-for-all."
Many officials fear the conservative-led alliance is being pushed too far in negotiations that have dragged on for weeks over the latest €13.5bn package of austerity measures that is the price of further aid. Growing speculation that Greece will be kept waiting until after the US elections in November before it receives its next disbursement of aid has added to the pressure. On Friday EU officials made clear it was highly unlikely a decision would be made on the payment – vital to kickstarting the cash-starved economy – at an upcoming EU summit on 18 October. The Athens government is also appealing for a two-year extension of the debt-choked country's fiscal adjustment programme in an effort to ameliorate the impact of further punishing austerity.
In the interview Samaras emphasised that Greek cash reserves would run dry by the end of November. "The key is liquidity," said the leader. "That is why the next credit tranche is so important for us."

[ed. What about the next one after that? And the one after? and the one after?...]

The high-wire act of placating international lenders while keeping social unrest at bay will be tested as never before when Merkel, the German chancellor, flies into Athens next Tuesday. With anti-EU sentiment at an all-time high, opposition parties and trade unions vowed a baptism of fire.
"She should expect demonstrations. Greek society will welcome her with mass protests," said Panos Skourletis, a spokesman for the radical left main opposition Syriza party.
The Independent Greeks party, also vehemently anti-bailout, has said it will make war reparations a major part of its own protest when it stages a "symbolic blockade" outside the German embassy in Athens during Merkel's visit.

[ed. Just become a German state and get it over with...either that or get out of the EU and give yourselves a chance...]

New privacy fears as Facebook begins selling personal access to companies to boost ailing profits

By Daniel Bates
3 October 2012

The changes mean that companies can track you down on Facebook every time you buy something
Measures have sparked calls for an official investigation by campaigners who claim that the public have not been properly notified
Facebook claimed that there are safeguards attached to the new measures

Facebook is embroiled in a new privacy row after it began selling access to users in order to bolster its profits.

The social networking site is allowing companies to trawl through its 900m users looking for email addresses and phone numbers so it can better target adverts.

The changes mean that if you hand over any details when you buy something - as many consumers do - that company can now track you down on Facebook.

The measures appear to be a cynical attempt to sidestep restrictions imposed on Facebook by US regulators due to earlier botched privacy changes.
They have already sparked calls for an official investigation by campaigners who claim that the public have not been properly notified.

The new measures, which have been in effect for weeks, will affect consumers who have handed over personal data when they buy something, which is the majority of people given the rise of Internet shopping
Retailers will then be allowed to compare their own databases with the information on Facebook.

For example, an airline will now be able to target adverts at a consumer who had recently taken a flight to Barcelona.

A mobile phone company could also advertise upgrades to somebody who was nearing the end of their contract.
Another disturbing element is that the adverts could appear on a user’s computer even when they are not on Facebook.
The social networking site is also increasing its monitoring and will work with US-based company Datalogix to see what consumers are buying.
Facebook claimed that there are safeguards attached to the new measures.

 

[ed. Would you trust this man with your privacy??]

Dear leader: The social networking site, founded by Mark Zuckerberg (pictured) is also increasing its monitoring and will work with US-based company Datalogix to see what consumers are buying

Phone numbers and email addresses will be replaced by hash symbols so nobody actually knows who the person is, even if they can track their behaviour.
Users will also have to give permission but campaigners in the US have said that changing the settings is ‘confusing and ineffective’.
The Electronic Privacy Information Centre and the Centre for Digital Democracy have already asked watchdog the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the arrangement.
In a joint letter they said: ‘Facebook did not attempt to notify users of its decision to disclose user information
‘Neither Facebook’s Data Use Policy nor its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities adequately explains the specific types of information Facebook discloses, the manner in which the disclosure occurs, or the identities of the third parties receiving the information.’
Facebook is under pressure to improve on the £1.1bn it makes each year from advertising after its disastrous stock market floatation which saw its shares fall by more than half their value.
Last year it was forced to overhaul its privacy policy after the FTC ruled it had been lying to its users for the past four years.
The serious violations included allowing other companies access to users’ personal information - even after they deleted their accounts.
Under the tough agreement - which applies Britain - Facebook agreed to independent periodic monitoring for the next 20 years to stop it from re-offending.
It also vowed to obtain users ‘express consent’ before making privacy changes.
Facebook privacy engineer Joey Tyson said: ‘As we pursue our goal of making the world more open and connected, we have designed our service to show ads that help people discover products that are interesting to them.
‘We also recognise that our users trust us to protect the information they share on Facebook.
‘Maintaining that trust is a top priority as we continue to grow.’

[ed. Here is how to delete your facebook account, properly. Take the facebook challenge today and thank yourself for it tomorrow...]






 

How Iceland Dealt with their banks (videos)

The End?

Romney lands punches against subdued Obama in first debate
By Justin Sink and Amie Parnes
10/03/12

Mitt Romney dominated the critical first presidential debate Wednesday night, landing punch after punch on a noticeably subdued President Obama.

The GOP nominee came into the evening needing to shake up the narrative of the race, and he appeared to succeed. Throughout the 90-minute debate in Denver, the first showdown of the presidential contest, Romney aggressively questioned the president's record while defending his own economic priorities. Meanwhile, as Obama offered a safe defense of his record and policies, Romney often interrupted and seemed eager to engage.
He spent the evening on the offensive and came off well-prepared for his encounter with Obama, who seemed hesitant and forced.
And while Romney hit his marks, Obama missed opportunities when he failed to mention two of his campaign’s most effective attacks against Romney — the GOP nominee's tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital and the comments about the "47 percent" captured on video at a private fundraiser.
The president, wearing a clenched smile for much of the night, looked to depict Romney as deceiving people with his economic plans, arguing the GOP tax plan would shift the burden to the middle class.
"How we pay for that, reduce the deficit, and make the investments that we need to make, without dumping those costs onto middle-class Americans, I think is one of the central questions of this campaign," Obama said.
But despite polls regularly showing that voters see the president as more empathetic and concerned with the problems facing American families, it was Romney who spoke empathetically of the effect of the still-lagging economy on individuals struggling to find work.
There was also a notable contrast in style: Obama spent much of the debate looking directly into the camera, a strategy planned by his campaign to speak directly to the American people, while Romney addressed the president head-on.
Conservatives were exuberant following the debate, saying Romney had successfully captured the moment, while several Democrats and even some of the president’s staunchest supporters were disappointed in Obama's performance.
“He was rolled,” one former administration official said.
Obama’s top strategist, David Axelrod, said, “There’s no doubt he has a hungry challenger.”
“Gov. Romney's always been good on the attack," Axelrod told NBC News, conceding he would award Romney "style points."
Liberal MSNBC anchor Ed Schultz, along with a panel of other left-leaning pundits appearing on the network, said the president was disappointing.
And former adviser to President Clinton, James Carville, speaking on CNN, said that he had "one overwhelming impression ... It looked like Romney wanted to be there and President Obama didn't want to be there. … It gave you the impression that this whole thing was a lot of trouble." He added that "Romney had a good night."
A CBS News snap poll of undecided voters conducted after the debate concluded found that those on the fence generally agreed with the pundits. Of those surveyed, 46 percent gave the win to Romney, 22 percent to the president, and 32 percent called the contest a draw.
Throughout the evening, Obama spoke frequently in the abstract, while Romney scored points illustrating his disappointment with the president's with stories of specific individuals.
The hope from the Romney team was that the economic sparring would improve their candidate's polling on an issue that had been a core strength — and that displaying empathy could endear him to more voters.
Obama, meanwhile, looked to channel President Clinton's successful convention-night "arithmetic" argument to question Romney's assumptions.
"If you are lowering the rates the way you describe, governor, then it is not possible to come up with enough deductions and loopholes that only affect high-income individuals to avoid raising the deficit or burdening the middle class," Obama said. "It's math, arithmetic."
Obama argued even "when you add up all the loopholes and deductions that upper income individuals are currently taking advantage of, you don't come close to paying for $5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in additional military spending" that Romney had proposed.
The Republican nominee blasted back, saying that "virtually everything" the president described as part of his tax plan was inaccurate and pledging he would not shift tax burdens from the wealthy to the middle class.
Romney, meanwhile, found success challenging Obama on not having accomplished his economic goals during his first term. During a testy exchange on the deficit, Romney interrupted Obama as the president was detailing his economic plan to reduce the deficit through spending cuts and raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
"You have been president for four years," Romney said. "You said would you cut the deficit in half."
The candidates both refused to cede ground on the issue, crystallizing the differences between the parties.
“If we are serious, we have to take a balanced, responsible approach,” Obama said.
“When the economy is growing slow like this, you shouldn’t raise taxes on anyone,” Romney said.
But despite a few testy exchanges, the debate was frequently characterized by in-depth discussions of policy intricacies. Both candidates seemed willing to deliver on their pre-debate promise to provide policy specifics, but the conversation at times became bogged down with minor squabbles rather than grand visions.
The first 45 minutes centered on the economy and, as the discussion transitioned to Medicare, Obama argued that the Republican plan would implement a voucher system, causing "the traditional Medicare system will collapse and then you have folks like my grandmother at the mercy of the private health insurance.”
‪Romney again pounced on Obama's comments, saying,‬ "I can't understand how you can cut Medicare $716 billion for current recipients for Medicare."
Obama's subdued performance could throw back into question a race that for months has shown him with a consistent though small lead.
A NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released the night before the debate showed the president with a 3-point lead among likely voters, with Obama holding leads within the polls' margins of error in Florida and Virginia. In the crucial state of Ohio, Obama led Romney 50 percent to 43 percent.
On Thursday, the candidates head back out on the stump: The president will hold a campaign rally in Denver and then fly to Wisconsin, where an afternoon rally is scheduled in Madison. Vice President Biden will hold an event in Iowa, while Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will be campaigning in Virginia.
The debate also had a few lighter moments. At the start, Obama began by giving a nod to his wife, first lady Michelle Obama and their 20th wedding anniversary, which happened to fall on Wednesday.
"Twenty years ago, I became the luckiest man on earth because Michelle Obama agreed to marry me," he said, calling his wife "sweetie."
"A year from now, we will not be celebrating it in front of 40 million people," he said.

[ed. With no teleprompters and no softball media to prop him up at every turn the fraud has been found out...time to go 'O]

Pat Caddell: Media Have Become An "Enemy Of The American People" (video)