The absurdity of bailouts and our welfare program

To set the record straight I don't align with any political parties. I learned long ago that "progressives" are in control all both the Republicans and Democrats. The progressive goal is to control people through economic structures. Socialism is a prime example of it. When you bailout a company or industry the cost to the economy is irreversible. Companies need to be allowed to fail without the fear of the entire economy melting down. When a company fails a new company replaces it. Instead of bailing out the airlines they should have been allowed to fail instead. Jet blue didn't need bailouts therefore it's perfectly feasible another airline would have emerged that would be profitable.

Check out this compiled list of bailouts and take note in 2008 how much the bailouts increased.

www.propublica.org...



Our welfare program is inexcusable.. How can an illegal immigrant receive $500 for rent, $500 per month for food, and free health insurance. This is absurd! It's the equivalent of receiving about $1,500 per month in benefits. Then that same worker works off the books making $500 per week, has no taxes taken out of their checks, and if they pay taxes at all, claims a small fraction of their wages..

If you estimate 10 million illegal immigrants(and there are more) in the US each receiving an average of $1,500 per month in welfare subsidies it equates to 180 billion dollars per year. How can any sane person think this is acceptable?

Obama didn't become President until 20th January 2009.

The 2008 bailouts occurred under someone else's watch.

Can't quite remember his name, had a W in it somewhere.

reply to post by libertytoall


You, are a voice of reason, in a sea of deafness. How I wish many others could hear your message.

Des

Thank god that politicians are so independant, and look who got some nice donors..




But hey, its just money. Why would anybody be influenced by that? Just sayin'...

Originally posted by NorthernThird
Obama didn't become President until 20th January 2009.

The 2008 bailouts occurred under someone else's watch.

Can't quite remember his name, had a W in it somewhere.

Good point. I guess I jumped the gun a bit. Don't let the message become a partisan debate though. The point is we can't afford these socialist programs and we certainly can't afford to coddle people not from this country if it means a suffering economy for the rest of us. Taxes are the enemy of progress as well as job creation and these programs severely contribute to higher taxes and less economic growth for the country.

We should legalize drugs as well and tax the crap out of it. End the war on drugs and free non violent criminals from jails. We can't afford it any other way.

Originally posted by libertytoall

Originally posted by NorthernThird
Obama didn't become President until 20th January 2009.

The 2008 bailouts occurred under someone else's watch.

Can't quite remember his name, had a W in it somewhere.

Good point. I guess I jumped the gun a bit. Don't let the message become a partisan debate though. The point is we can't afford these socialist programs and we certainly can't afford to coddle people not from this country if it means a suffering economy. Taxes are the enemy of progress and job creation and these programs severely contribute to our damaged economy.

edit on 3-9-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

You do not seem to understand what socialism is. You sound McCarthyist.

How on earth are corporate bailouts socialism or even close?

It is crony capitalism.

Originally posted by freemarketsocialist

Originally posted by libertytoall

Originally posted by NorthernThird
Obama didn't become President until 20th January 2009.

The 2008 bailouts occurred under someone else's watch.

Can't quite remember his name, had a W in it somewhere.

Good point. I guess I jumped the gun a bit. Don't let the message become a partisan debate though. The point is we can't afford these socialist programs and we certainly can't afford to coddle people not from this country if it means a suffering economy. Taxes are the enemy of progress and job creation and these programs severely contribute to our damaged economy.

edit on 3-9-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

You do not seem to understand what socialism is. You sound McCarthyist.

How on earth are corporate bailouts socialism or even close?

It is crony capitalism.

I'll give you that but it's also socialism. Government Motors anyone? It's socialism for the wealthy when they get corporate welfare handouts. Ever heard of "privatizing profits and socializing losses"?

reply to post by libertytoall


So you'll edit your OP then, will you, change it to this ?

"Check out this compiled list of bailouts and take note when Obama took office in 2009 how much the bailouts reduced. Can you honestly say Bush was not a socialist? That he did not do more damage to our economy than good?"

Because we don't want partisanship, do we ?

Originally posted by NorthernThird
reply to post by libertytoall

 

So you'll edit your OP then, will you, change it to this ?

"Check out this compiled list of bailouts and take note when Obama took office in 2009 how much the bailouts reduced. Can you honestly say Bush was not a socialist? That he did not do more damage to our economy than good?"

Because we don't want partisanship, do we ?

Done.

reply to post by libertytoall

But what we socialists really dream of is …well, actual socialism. Socialism, it must be pointed out, is not simply capitalism under control of the state (like the late USSR), or government intervening in The Market (like modern America). On the contrary, it consists of a completely different system of ownership. If you want to imagine socialism, imagine every company, factory, office, and level of government functioning as cooperatives. Ownership of production, the environment, law-making ability, and so on would be delegated evenly among everyone, in the form of councils or cooperatives. That’s it. There’s no other blueprint. We’re not advocating equal pay for everyone, or everyone living in the same kinds of houses or driving the same kinds of cars, or everyone wearing the same drab clothes, or everyone giving up their possessions and sharing each other’s toothbrushes, etc. (These are all misconceptions of socialism that I’ve heard over the years.)

indyreader.org...

Socialism is not a catch all term.

People do not understand socialism. Socialism is not just some retard form of capitalism like most modern socialists, and most others seem to believe

reply to post by libertytoall


So, according to the source linked in your OP, of the 2.1 trillion given out in the form of bailouts, Obama is only responsible for 142.2 billion. You do realize that President Obama wasn't sworn in as POTUS until January 20th, 2009, don't you? According to your source link, the overwhelming majority of the bailouts came during republican administrations. In 1989, it was either Reagan and/or Bush Sr. and in 2008 it was Bush Jr.. So who is the party of bailouts?

Furthermore, how is that you determined that it's the democrats who control both parties? Did you just pull that one out of thin air, or what? If anything, it would appear, (according to your source link) that it's the republicans who control both parties and who are in favor of most of the bailouts. It's just certain bailouts they are opposed to, like the bailout of a company that employs union labor, regardless of whether the need for a bailout was the fault of labor, or not. Go figure!

reply to [ur=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread877837/pg1#pid14897075]post by libertytoall[/url]


Well, it isn't done, is it ?

All you've done, in a spirit of non-partisanship, is remove the paragraph which explicitly criticised Obama.

But you didn't then change it to explicitly criticise George W. Bush, did you ?

That's because yours is every bit as partisan an OP as everyone else's right now, you just can't find the guts or tease out that strength of character which will allow you to criticise that old Republican President, will you ?

So spare us the Little Mister Innocent routine, you're a Republican, ain't ya ?

It's OK. You can come out the closet about it, we're all friends here

sPOT ON MAN. i TRY TO STICK UP FOR YOU AMERICANS BUT IT RUNS THIN WHEN I GET BLASTED FOR OFFERING A TRUTH/
They're actors, pure and simple.

Originally posted by libertytoall

Originally posted by NorthernThird
Obama didn't become President until 20th January 2009.

The 2008 bailouts occurred under someone else's watch.

Can't quite remember his name, had a W in it somewhere.

Good point. I guess I jumped the gun a bit. Don't let the message become a partisan debate though. The point is we can't afford these socialist programs and we certainly can't afford to coddle people not from this country if it means a suffering economy for the rest of us. Taxes are the enemy of progress as well as job creation and these programs severely contribute to higher taxes and less economic growth for the country.

We should legalize drugs as well and tax the crap out of it. End the war on drugs and free non violent criminals from jails. We can't afford it any other way.

edit on 3-9-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

Uh, we had these socialist programs in place for decades, along side a healthy economy.

Both existed in the same country at the same time.

The problem is politicians cut taxes for billionaires and do not account for
the resulting deficits.

If you cut your income and continue your spending, you will get deficits, it is called math

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by libertytoall

 

You, are a voice of reason, in a sea of deafness. How I wish many others could hear your message.

Des

HE trampled over many points and facts, those are things that I wish people would cherish
like they use to.

So the game is if someone criticizes our current president he has to go down the long list of other presidential screw ups? Obama has done what bush did but on a much larger scale. More wars, more dept, more federal expansion, less economic freedom and less social freedom. The difference in the presidents is not in philosophy but degree execution. If the OP wants to criticize Obama good for him he shouldn't have to hit every other president that sucked too (that would take to long). The idea is that our government has assumed to much power and control and should be drastically reduced. No recent president has been in favor of that. They have all expanded its functions.

reply to post by libertytoall


You've got a guy running for President right now... Why? Well, do some math:

Romney's family came from England, converted to Mormonism, came to America and quickly turned to plural marriage which led them to an unexpected exile and exodus to Mexico and then just as abruptly, they fled back to the USA to avoid a revolution.


They had just twenty-five dollars, two suitcases and three bedrolls. Many families were installed in vacant tenements and several hundred were quartered in huge empty lumber sheds on Magoffin Avenue which the Long Lumber Company made available. The U.S. Army supplied rations and loaned tents from Fort Bliss. Mayor C. E. Kelly and city officials joined Church leaders in finding homes and jobs for the refugees. Congress voted $100,000 for their transportation and relief. If you calculate $100,000 for inflation from 1912, the figure turns into over $2.2 million in 2011. That's a lot of government money to people who were basically felons in the eyes of the law. Another fascinating thing happened in 1938. Mexico paid out a huge settlement to those early Mexican colonies because of the revolution. (pg.61) The colonists eventually in 1938 received from Mexico $2.65 for each $100 of loss during the revolutionary disorders. Gaskell Romney's losses were so great that he received enough to purchase a comfortable house in Salt Lake City in which he lived his last years. It's odd that Mexico would repay monies to the Mormon polygamists after so many years, but one can still make the case that the Romney family was even funded in some part by the Mexican government. To get an idea of how vast the Romney family was because of its polygamist past, in 1922, George Romney had roughly 165 first cousins. (pg.68)

crooksandliars.com...



You might ask him how he made his first million while you're at it.

Originally posted by crankySamurai
So the game is if someone criticizes our current president he has to go down the long list of other presidential screw ups? Obama has done what bush did but on a much larger scale. More wars, more dept, more federal expansion, less economic freedom and less social freedom. The difference in the presidents is not in philosophy but degree execution. If the OP wants to criticize Obama good for him he shouldn't have to hit every other president that sucked too (that would take to long). The idea is that our government has assumed to much power and control and should be drastically reduced. No recent president has been in favor of that. They have all expanded its functions.

Government? Don't stop with the middleman... You're just wasting your breath.

reply to post by freemarketsocialist


More to the point:

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by freemarketsocialist

 

More to the point:

oH WOW IT'S IN THE SHAPE OF THE TOWER OF BABEL. hOW IRONIC!
GIANT DUCK WORSHIP IS INSANE!