The absurdity of bailouts and our welfare program

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by NorthernThird

 

Who had control of congress? They exert far more control than the president. You left that out and I noticed. Did you do that on purpose?

Ms? Valid point but we're missing the bigger hidden picture here,and it's not being addressed by either party.

We are the DUMPING ground for all goods made in any Country anywhere in the World without the same playing field.
WE as a U.S. EXPORTER of finished goods are penalized by EVERY Country to ship goods into THEIR Country.

Go back and look at the same country for IMPORTING goods into the U.S. It's an Inbalance

THERES A HUGE DIFFERENCE for cost of goods. It's BOTH parties dirty little secret that goes ignored.
This is by design. Argue about EVERTHING as long as we keep Global economy floating at U.S. expense.

All the other countries tollerate it as long as THEY get a cash flow to sustain their own exports. We as U.S.manufacturers deal with this.

That's why "Made In America" products have SOME sustainability as a move to keep our economy growing. We can't ship competitivly to other Countries,And yet they can ship to us cheaper without the same tariffs.

Our politicians have sold us short for over 40 years. Whether it's Hillary Clinton or Condeneza , they have been cutting side deals the whole time for personal gain. All of them.

We can't pay for the poor and grow the economy while everyone shaves off the top of the cash. Apple would be a good example. Or General Electric. But THAT'S OK because they support the Democratic party? OR RepublicaN Party?

Stimulating growth and expanding our gross national product is good for the country regardless of the polititians skimming off the top. They're gonna do it with legal insider trading laws. That's one of the perks of being an elected official as disgusting as I find it.

Not Skimming off the top and making our citizens global sacrifices is a real preference for me personally. We need to create performance based jobs that kickstart this bad situation created by both parties.

Hmmmm Job performance and pay? What a unique concept. Not my idea. Just a practical one that makes me want to get up everyday and work harder.

The sick and poor want to be a part too. They really do. Thereare poor republicans and sick Democrats. We need to help them. I've BEEN THERE DONE THAT! I want to help and give back.
And I will without being taxed until I'm told I owe more based on someone elses decisions. Letme ship some Made In America goods to Brazil without oweing an additional 30% Export and import fee.


Or? I'll ship it from China and make a seperate deal like G.E. and Apple.
















Survey says?

reply to post by thepresident


You think it is just Capitalist businesses which lobby and get money from the govt? How about employees of ACORN?
oversight.house.gov...

NARAL lobbies govt
www.prochoiceamerica.org...


Then there's Americans for Democratic Action, the ACLU, Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, Cair, La Raza, Grenpeace

www.opensecrets.org...

www.opensecrets.org...

www.plannedparenthood.org...

townhall.com...

And let's not forget SIECUS, which is involved in trying to force pubic education to teach sex ed to kindergartners. Also they bragged on their website about getting Stimulus money

www.evolutionnews.org...

and many other liberal and left-leaning organizations.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I agree everyone participates in lobbying and looking for government favor. It is the way the system is set up that has created lobbying. Government should not have any power which can be lobbied. If government did not have so much influence on the markets there would be not reason to lobby. But since the government controls the playing field there is not choice but to participate in lobbying. The solution is removing that power from government. If government doesn't have that power in the first place then there are no lobbyist.

Originally posted by thepresident

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

A few flaws in that arguement:

Social programs did exist but where less people were using them,less benefits were being paid out that was offset by the production capabilities of that time.

Today we have more people using them,getting more out of them,compounding by inflation and less production.

The problem is more people are consuming the wealth that pays for those programs than returning into those programs.

That ain't billionaires fault that is Washingtons fault creation the problems that offer no solution.

Originally posted by crankySamurai

Originally posted by thepresident
reply to post by Americanist

 

I do not think America Should abandone capitalism, but to
Ignore the fact that the captains of industry also own and wield
The government is ignoring the truth.

That is precisely why the free market only works when it is actually free. Meaning that government does not have influence on it. The answer to our problems is not less freedom but more freedom. If government does not have influence on the market such as regulations and control of the money supply then there is no influence for the wealthy to buy. A government controlled market is not a capitalist system. In a free market government does not have any influence at all.

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

edit on 3-9-2012 by crankySamurai because: formatting

Denial coupled with naivety...







It's been a dominated market well before you were brought into this World, so you're solely referring to ideology.

Originally posted by crankySamurai
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I agree everyone participates in lobbying and looking for government favor. It is the way the system is set up that has created lobbying. Government should not have any power which can be lobbied. If government did not have so much influence on the markets there would be not reason to lobby. But since the government controls the playing field there is not choice but to participate in lobbying. The solution is removing that power from government. If government doesn't have that power in the first place then there are no lobbyist.

My point is, government does have that power, it finds
A way, lobbiest find a way... Hell, lawyers found a way to
Turn corporations into people.

My argument is that if you apply "free market solutions" to
A market that is heavily regulated you are in fact making holes
In laws and concepts that are put together with structure and
Hopefully logic.

If someone cuts off a leg on a chair, falls over, it is not
Due to the efficiency of legs. It is here that the damage to
This country is done in secrecy.

But neve the less it is the nature of this world and
Politics. The government has always been a tool,
For capitalists or collectivists. Purity of ideology
Is hardly a reson to overlook what actually happens

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

My point is, government does have that power, it finds
A way, lobbiest find a way... Hell, lawyers found a way to
Turn corporations into people.

My argument is that if you apply "free market solutions" to
A market that is heavily regulated you are in fact making holes
In laws and concepts that are put together with structure and
Hopefully logic.

If someone cuts off a leg on a chair, falls over, it is not
Due to the efficiency of legs. It is here that the damage to
This country is done in secrecy.

But neve the less it is the nature of this world and
Politics. The government has always been a tool,
For capitalists or collectivists. Purity of ideology
Is hardly a reson to overlook what actually happens

Well my argument is exactly that, against government. I do not support having a "government controlled free market" that is impossible. I argue for the dramatic reduction of government. Any market that is brought up by government control is destined to fail. I do not support trying to rearrange the current system, it would do nothing prolong the inevitable. The only way an economy will ever work is if it is in an environment where the initiation of force is illegal, from government and anyone else. This is the only market that will work and it will have to come about eventually for all other will continue to fail.

Originally posted by crankySamurai
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

My point is, government does have that power, it finds
A way, lobbiest find a way... Hell, lawyers found a way to
Turn corporations into people.

My argument is that if you apply "free market solutions" to
A market that is heavily regulated you are in fact making holes
In laws and concepts that are put together with structure and
Hopefully logic.

If someone cuts off a leg on a chair, falls over, it is not
Due to the efficiency of legs. It is here that the damage to
This country is done in secrecy.

But neve the less it is the nature of this world and
Politics. The government has always been a tool,
For capitalists or collectivists. Purity of ideology
Is hardly a reson to overlook what actually happens

Well my argument is exactly that, against government. I do not support having a "government controlled free market" that is impossible. I argue for the dramatic reduction of government. Any market that is brought up by government control is destined to fail. I do not support trying to rearrange the current system, it would do nothing prolong the inevitable. The only way an economy will ever work is if it is in an environment where the initiation of force is illegal, from government and anyone else. This is the only market that will work and it will have to come about eventually for all other will continue to fail.

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

Do you want government or monopolies? Take your pick... At least with one we have a shot at voting people in.

To estimate the dollar value of the subsidy in the U.S., we multiplied it by the debt and deposits of 18 of the country’s largest banks, including JPMorgan, Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. The result: about $76 billion a year. The number is roughly equivalent to the banks’ total profits over the past 12 months, or more than the federal government spends every year on education.

JPMorgan’s share of the subsidy is $14 billion a year, or about 77 percent of its net income for the past four quarters. In other words, U.S. taxpayers helped foot the bill for the multibillion-dollar trading loss that is the focus of today’s hearing. They’ve also provided more direct support: Dimon noted in a recent conference call that the Home Affordable Refinancing Program, which allows banks to generate income by modifying government-guaranteed mortgages, made a significant contribution to JPMorgan’s earnings in the first three months of 2012.

Source

reply to post by Americanist


A government is a monopoly! It is the worst kind there is. It has the a monopoly on force. The government has the sole ability to initiate force as it sees fit. There are no other such entities that can do this. A government is the MOST DANGEROUS kind of monopoly.

In a free market you have the ability to vote as well. Its called voting with your dollars and is much more effective.

Originally posted by crankySamurai
reply to post by Americanist

 

A government is a monopoly! It is the worst kind there is. It has the a monopoly on force. The government has the sole ability to initiate force as it sees fit. There are no other such entities that can do this. A government is the MOST DANGEROUS kind of monopoly.

In a free market you have the ability to vote as well. Its called voting with your dollars and is much more effective.

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

You're extremely short-sighted. Ever heard of The Fed? How about Blackwater, XE, or Academi? Common sense don't fail you now.

reply to post by Americanist

And do you actually think that any of those entities have presidence over our government? If any of those guys tried to initiate force against Americans the government would be on them so fast. Only the american government can initiate force against its own citizens.

It is a monopoly on initiating force. Its true that private security companies can create a business on the use of retaliatory force but that is MUCH different.

Originally posted by crankySamurai
reply to post by Americanist

 

And do you actually think that any of those entities have presidence over our government? If any of those guys tried to initiate force against Americans the government would be on them so fast. Only the american government can initiate force against its own citizens.

It is a monopoly on initiating force. Its true that private security companies can create a business on the use of retaliatory force but that is MUCH different.

edit on 3-9-2012 by crankySamurai because: addition

You're too busy polishing up the mouthpiece to be able to play in this debate.

"To the men in the shadows of the men in the shadows... We are watching."

Check out what brands of food you eat. What channels you watch on TV. Let it sink in a bit then follow the money to their inner circle. You won't find governments... Only people above the supposed law.

reply to post by Americanist


I'm sorry all I got from your response was a cop-out.

Those people behind government live and breath off a functioning central authority which is able to loot and invade as it pleases.

Socialism, fascism, corporatism, communism are all fuel to their fire and they hope and pray that the people will ask for it.

The free market is what they fight. Get on the right side.

Originally posted by crankySamurai
reply to post by Americanist

 

I'm sorry all I read was a cop-out.

Those people behind government live and breath off a functioning central authority which is able to loot and invade as it pleases.

Socialism, fascism, corporatism, communism are all fuel to their fire and hope and pray that the people will ask for it.

The free market is what they fight. Get on the right side.

Modern society has never witnessed a free market. You're back at square one. I didn't enter this thread for its ideology alone. Plus I suspect you're too shallow to be on the right side of anything. Makes for a worthless debate.

I'll get with you when I require a recipe for some layer cake though.

Without the bailouts, some projected a scenario in which the big banks failed followed by a domino reaction of smaller businesses failing that rely on credit and unemployment spinning to well over 20%. Combined with market failure and pensions evaporating, things could have gotten serious.

If the federal government had not bailed out Wall Street banks, unemployment could have skyrocketed to 25 percent, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson

www.cbsnews.com...

Sure, it's Paulson, a member of the admin. But the guy knows banks and the economy that can't be argued. His honesty is debatable, of course.

It's crazy how much of the economic infrastructure of the US relies on the big four: Bank of American, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo. If these companies fail a good portion of economy goes down with them.

I think TARP was ridiculous, but necessary. Maybe it should have included a provision to split the banks into smaller ones to eliminate this type of risk, similar to Standard Oil. But look what happened there, the four subsidiaries eventually become the biggest companies in the world again anyway.

A solution I've been leaning toward lately is creating small public banks, maybe at the county level.

You think the nation of Greece should be allowed to fail as well?

And as far as welfare goes, yeah it's too much. But having government institutions to assist the needy might be a really good thing. Management must improve, that's all.

Our economy is pretty good right now, I hope people realize that. There are over 8 million millionaires in the US, start up companies get sold weekly for huge profits. It frustrates me when people can't realize the opportunity that remains available.

According to Spectrem, there are now 8.6 million households in the U.S. with a total net worth (minus principal residence) of $1 million or more. The number of households worth $5 million or more and $25 million or more also remained fairly flat, with growth of less than 2%. There are now 1,078,000 households worth $5 million or more and about 107,000 people worth $25 million or more.

WSJ

Originally posted by Americanist

Modern society has never witnessed a free market.

Its true human history has been a struggle for liberation and it has not yet been achieved. Eventually it will happen.

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.

Obama !!!

Is that you?

Sounds like Obama...(Bush did it !! Bush did it!! )

When is he going to be held acceptable for what he has done?!!?

And yes OP your exactly right.

I dont see anything wrong with this, and here`s why.
if we stop giving these people money do you really believe that the politicians will reduce our taxes by 180 bil a year?
heck no they won`t, what they`ll do is maybe lower taxes by 30 bil a year and divert the other 150 bil to some pork barrel project of theirs or piss it away on some other equally worthless scheme. at least the way it is now real people are being helped with that money and thats a much more honorable thing to do with it than to give it to some corrupt self serving politicians.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by NorthernThird

 

Who had control of congress? They exert far more control than the president. You left that out and I noticed. Did you do that on purpose?

They can't force the president to sign it.

Originally posted by mwood

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.

Obama !!!

Is that you?

Sounds like Obama...(Bush did it !! Bush did it!! )

When is he going to be held acceptable for what he has done?!!?

And yes OP your exactly right.

Obama will be blamed by the president that follows him. Just like how Reagan cried about Carter for eight years.