Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The new budget offer from the White House is unbelievable!

page: 17
81
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 




What has been nationalised so far? Can you cite some credible examples or are you full of #?


A government bailout means the government buys stocks of the beleaguered company, thereby transferring ownership from the private sector to the federal government.


That is NOT what a bailout is. A bailout of private industry is a either a handout or loan towards the failing business from the treasury purse. The government does NOT buy shares of the company; in other words there is no stock transfer from the private sector to the public sector.

The government can nationalise the company if the company cannot pay back its loan obligations, but I cannot think of any such example in the usa as of recent.
edit on 1/12/12 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





That is NOT what a bailout is. A bailout of private industry is a either a handout or loan towards the failing business from the treasury purse. The government does NOT buy shares of the company; in other words there is no stock transfer from the private sector to the public sector.


Government ok's bailout's: where does it get the money from? It borrows it from other central banks. The debt becomes public debt, thereby transferring the concept of ownership from private individuals to the government, who is now in debt to other private banks.. True, the corporations in question have only received loans; but will they be able to pay them back before a more serious economic downturn? One that many feel could be instigated by a plethora of varied geopolitical forces?



The government can nationalise the company if the company cannot pay back its loan obligations, but I cannot think of any such example in the usa as of recent.


This is similar to what occurred in the years preceding the Weimar Republic. None of the big banks or industrial giants who received bailouts will be able to 'pay them back' as long as the public debt continues to burgeon.

When a government protects a corporate monopoly from collapsing due to impersonal market forces, there's always a real risk that the private industry could pass into the hands of a centralized government bureaucracy.

That is where I suspect were heading.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by dontreally

War in Iraq has nothing to do with Israel. Your assumption that is does is based on your fanatical bias against Israel (or Zionism).


It certainly had nothing to do with wmd found in iraq; they only found trace amounts of chemical weapons. Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and neither did afghanistan. Iraq and iran have always hated israel and have made it known. But just because they hate israel does not mean they would attack unless provoked.




A leftist party does not loan $4 trillion in tax payer guaranteed bailouts for starters and second they do not support corporate imperalism via wall street


You have a very scant understanding of politics. Government bailouts of corporate monopolies leads to nationalization of industry - a socialist prerogative. For all you know, Obama's bailouts may be a prelude to the nationalization of other sectors of society.
edit on 1-12-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)


What has been nationalized so far? Can you cite some credible examples or are you full of #?


$4 trillion loaned out(or given out, depending how one looks at it) and the federal reserve says "none of your business".

If you'd like to see what has been nationalized, it will take a couple hours of reading. It took me about 3 hours to get through the whole thing, counting the review of areas to make sure I got everything clear. This is the full record of disbursement, recovery and conversion of TARP money as reported to Congress each month with helpful recaps of past numbers to show the history of whats happened.

Monthly TARP Reports

I'm linking to the page because linking direct to the 128 page .PDF would be bad for some people,. depending on platform being used to access it. "Monthly Report to Congress" the current report.

The large % of TARP bailouts that were converted to stock in the companies, banks and other entities being bailed out literally does translate to ownership in those private entities by the United States Government and U.S. Treasury to be specific. It's an 'Offer you can't refuse' situation these companies apparently got handed. They took the money but becoming forced partners to Uncle probably wasn't entirely intended or expected. Some companies have worked exceptionally hard to pay BACK that money to prevent being 'converted' to Gov't owned stock on Uncle's sheets. A good %, as shown, couldn't and some have been liquidated along the way. Uncle isn't a kind keeper. Never has been.

Those are the sheets though..all the numbers. It's plain enough and nationalization would be the word I'd use in what has effectively happened in many individual cases shown there.
edit on 1-12-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: corrected link reference



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Well if the central bank is privately owned, as the federal reserve is, we might as well call it state capitalism.

Croney capitalism is part of state capitalism. We might as well call it all capitalism.

I think you are trying to split hairs.

Real socialism is the workers owning the means of production either directly or indirectly via the state. The workers keep the profits or share the losses. There is nothing to fear with real socialism.

What we have in the united states is a big wasteful croney capitalist system. It is totally irrellevant to socialism! I get mad when people try to call it socialism because it shows an agenda to deceive or its just pure ignorance left untreated.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I think it is more a case of the government holding on to some corporate shares as collateral till the loans get repaid, rather than some fully nationalised companies. I don't have time to look at the data now but I will later perhaps.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
The French Industry Minister says that Obama is nationalizing...

The French politician who said Indian steel company ArcelorMittal should leave the country has told CNBC that his government is only acting like U.S. President Barack Obama. Industry Minister Arnaud Montebourg, a member of the governing Socialist party, caused controversy last week when he said that the Indian company, which employs close to 20,000 people in France, should leave after it said it would have to close down a factory. The French government announced on Thursday that it could nationalize the factory in question, with backing from an unnamed businessman. The news raised the specter of the nationalizations of the early 1980s, which were instigated by Hollande’s predecessor Francois Mitterrand. Montebourg told CNBC after a meeting with trade unions in Paris: “Barack Obama's nationalized. The Germans are nationalizing. All countries are nationalizing. I've also noticed the British nationalized 6 banks.”


Source: CNBC



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Must have overlooked this.

I get that it's a part of your socialist creed to hate Israel - but understand that there isn't any rational justification for that position.

Your party line requires you to parrot what it's chief thinkers have considered important: nationalism is an anachronism. Therefore, the concept of the ethnic-nation state called Israel must be opposed on purely ideological grounds. Just like Islamists, Israel cannot be tolerated because it represents the diametrical opposite of the ideology in question: for leftists, it contradicts their universalism; for Islamists, the world-historical mission of Islam.

That's it. The conclusion is set before the evidence is found: Israel is evil, thus, anything Israel does will be interpreted in some creative way as malevolent. Strategists accomplish this by omitting important facts, making moral equivalences, ignoring context, disputing facts, etc etc. It's textbook Orwellian tactics.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I'm saying it would be a smooth transition from "capitalism" i.e privately owned industry, to nationalization of Industry, now that the government is a de facto owner of the monopolies they bailed out.

This is essentially the scenario described by Frederich Hayek in his 'the road to serfdom'.

As for socialism? I get panicky when people throw around that word. I would fight very hard to keep government as small and decentralized as possible.

As for the cliches and slogans of popular socialist writers: Get real. Their real agenda is radical cultural reform through acquisition of state powers.

Libertarianism is the only system worth believing in. The only system that promotes cultural pluralism by defending all peoples. And private ownership is the key element.

Socialism benefits just one small group: and this small group claims they "represent the workers". Which workers? They pretend as if workers are a homogenous group which thinks the same. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, etc, peoples of various worldviews and moralities, fit under the label 'worker'. When the socialist party in question garners power - which group will they be supporting? In Nazi Germany - it was the nationalist conservatives. In most other times, it's atheist liberals. NO! F-ucking thank you. I do not trust anyone with that much power so they can engineer the kinds of human beings that they want.

It is arrogant, or as Hayek aptly termed it, the "fatal conceit".
edit on 1-12-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
This whole financial mess can be traced to Congress for turning over our currency to the Rothschild inspired Federal Reserve Bank.

Yes, the U S government has deficit spent. But much of that deficit spending in recent years was caused by compounding accrued interest on previous deficit spending that was covered by borrowing.

But Republicans have had the answer all along. Ron Paul, a voice crying in the wilderness - a phrase Geithner should be familiar with as a Dartmouth grad - has repeatedly said the common sense thing to do is abolish the Fed's control over our money supply. If money is needed, the government should spend it, that way the money is put out there. Without having to then pay interest on the money That has resulted in the banks telling the government and the people what to do.

But even this year we saw evidence the official GOP overturned state votes for Ron Paul, denied his duly elected delegations entrance to the convention and again crushed any discussion of overhauling the nation's financial structure by getting rid of debt based money.

Democrats should have picked up on this issue too if they are committed to economic justice and fairness. But the Republicans had this idea originate in their camp and they really are guilty of taking all steps necessary to suppress Paul's solution.

:Look in your wallet. It says federal reserve note. It does not say U. S. currency or tender. At any time you can rise up and tell Congress to shut down the Fed and simply wipe out all debt that is owed to it.

And then each year the federal budget can start out with a budget based on needs and wants -- with no interest burden taking a big bite out of it.

But no way will Congress - Republicrats - do the right thing. No, they will follow Rothschild and the banks off the cliff..



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I think it is more a case of the government holding on to some corporate shares as collateral till the loans get repaid, rather than some fully nationalized companies. I don't have time to look at the data now but I will later perhaps.

Actually, I hate to be a stickler, but it really is about actual TARP bailout money owed back being converted to preferred stock, owned by the U.S. Federal Government. Stock shares it didn't own before, it does now and the bailout was converted to buy them......without asking anyone their opinions on the matter. It makes a clean looking set of numbers to say it's all paid back, since it is all accounted for. Uncle just owns large pieces of many things it never did or ..really..ever should have.

I appreciate you being honest in noting you haven't looked at the data before suggesting what it does or doesn't say. .
I'll be interested to hear your take when you have ...if you ever do... read one of the complete TARP reports for what has been done vs. what Carney and the talking heads claim was done. Their own numbers tell the tale. (This is also among the reports Geithner wants done away with entirely or made annual/semi annual at most. We little people don't need to be bothered with all these details, he figures.
)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Political hat back on....

Can you imagine the main stream media reaction if Bush proposed this?

Hat on too long. Throwing it back in the ditch.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Must have overlooked this.

I get that it's a part of your socialist creed to hate Israel - but understand that there isn't any rational justification for that position.


I neither love it nor hate it. Why do you love it? Are you jewish? Why must america use false flag terrorism to create islamophobia inorder to attack muslim countries? This is the bottom line. I am sure you will deflect somehow and if all else fails you might even say it is in the constitution.



Your party line requires you to parrot what it's chief thinkers have considered important: nationalism is an anachronism. Therefore, the concept of the ethnic-nation state called Israel must be opposed on purely ideological grounds. Just like Islamists, Israel cannot be tolerated because it represents the diametrical opposite of the ideology in question: for leftists, it contradicts their universalism; for Islamists, the world-historical mission of Islam.


I have no problem with nationalism as long as it is secular nationalism based on common sense. You hypocrites are calling iran a theocratic state and hamas as muslim terrorists, when the israeli government is just as fanatic and just as non-secular.

As for universalism, I think we can blame wall street and laissez faire capitalism for that.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I'm saying it would be a smooth transition from "capitalism" i.e privately owned industry, to nationalization of Industry, now that the government is a de facto owner of the monopolies they bailed out.


If they cannot repay back their loans then they deserve to get nationalised. Give the stock to uncle sam and let the people decide the fate of that previously failed business. Indeed it would be a smooth transition and a very welcomed one at that. I will rejoice at having won the battle against big business who wants to do away with unions and make literal slaves out of hard working americans.


This is essentially the scenario described by Frederich Hayek in his 'the road to serfdom'.

As for socialism? I get panicky when people throw around that word. I would fight very hard to keep government as small and decentralized as possible.


Maybe you are thinking of the middle ages there dude?


As for the cliches and slogans of popular socialist writers: Get real. Their real agenda is radical cultural reform through acquisition of state powers.


Indeed so and it is great! No more rothschild and rockefeller elitism. Who would not be proud of that moment?


Libertarianism is the only system worth believing in. The only system that promotes cultural pluralism by defending all peoples. And private ownership is the key element.


No thanks. I would rather not be a slave to business of any kind. Capitalism sucks!


Socialism benefits just one small group: and this small group claims they "represent the workers". Which workers? They pretend as if workers are a homogenous group which thinks the same. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, etc, peoples of various worldviews and moralities, fit under the label 'worker'. When the socialist party in question garners power - which group will they be supporting? In Nazi Germany - it was the nationalist conservatives. In most other times, it's atheist liberals. NO! F-ucking thank you. I do not trust anyone with that much power so they can engineer the kinds of human beings that they want.


I never said I support communism, but according to people on the far right(so far right that they call the democrats left) anyone not a republican or libertarian is an atheist communist. You people make no sense whatsover and are politically illiterate. I am for a mixed economy with a public central bank.


It is arrogant, or as Hayek aptly termed it, the "fatal conceit".
edit on 1-12-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)


What is arrogant is having 1% control 99% percent via lies, treachery and war.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Whats wrong with the federal government owning companies, that through their reckless behavior needed tax payer money, and then were not able to repay the loans? Don't you think they deserve to get nationalised?

I am not saying they will, just saying as a last resort they could. For the most part it is just collateral though. Stop the fear mongering.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
What is it called when the poor are cared for? What is it called when the sick are looked after? What is it called when there is justice for all? What is it called when every child born is considered to be an equal member of society? Conversely, what is it called when society is winner take all, and the rest can just go begging?



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Congress in control of debt, can't be a good thing, no wonder I briefly heard that Rep. Pelosi liked the idea, as for Geitner, that's why I suppose they wouldn't let him resign, if that story was true.

Seems like history is repeating itself over two hundred years isn't taxes the premise for splitting with England. Unfortunately, that must be one of the reasons for the constant 'dumbing down' of Americans. and no, I'm not advocating revolution. Seems like their plan for 'dumbing down' has worked, except for a few exceptions.

edit on 1-12-2012 by 1loserel2 because: add
edit on 1-12-2012 by 1loserel2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


Here is another way that it works.
The Democrats have not passed a budget during the last 3 years. This a Constitutional duty, not that any of that matters to them anyway. Yes yes yes I know that BHO sent a budget to the Senate. These budgets were routinely voted down 97 to 0. Not even the members of the Democratic (Socialist) party would vote for his garbage. The govt has been run with sets of continuing resolutions since the day the Democrats won the Presidency. I would tell you that the reason there is no real budget offered is because if the Progressive (Socialist) Democrats told the American people just what they want to fund and to what level of funding that they want they would be run out of town on a rail.That is only a guess because the American people had a chance to change direction and chose not to. That is their right but we know that you live with the results no matter who you are.
To the people that think it was improper for the Repubs to laugh at Geitner during the hearing. I would submit to you, what would you do if some one came to you and asked for a credit card. With no limit on the spending they would do and that you would be responsible for paying the bill. I would like to think that most here would laugh also. Maybe.
Yes, both sides are at fault for the condition that this formally great country is in. But you have to choose a solution if you want to move forward. The choice could not have been clearer during this past election. And the American people have spoken now we are on the road to dictatorship. Don't believe me look at the Executive Orders that this President has signed. But don't just look at the number look at what they contain. They SHOULD send a chill down your spine if you look closely enough. That is if you are a freedom loving person. Just remember I said we were on the road to dictatorship not that we are here.
While I am at it the matter that is being discussed in DC now has nothing to do with the budget. It has everything to do with getting the most money out of your pocket and into the Treasury so they can flush it down the toilet. Solar panels anyone!!!
If anyone thinks that the tax the rich mantra is only about the wealthy you had better think again. Read the Health care act and see how many new taxes we will have when fully enacted. I seem to remember one party trying to warn the American people about this but guess what, it is now the law of the land and will be very expensive for all of us not matter what your income level.
One more question. How do you like the way that FEMA is handling the storm damage in NJ and NY? If Bush were President many people would be calling for impeachment but this guy gets nothing but praise. All of this while the suffering goes on and on and on.
Sorry for going on and on. Deetermined this was not a rant on you if you. So please don't take it that way.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





Indeed so and it is great! No more rothschild and rockefeller elitism. Who would not be proud of that moment?


You think one person has the right to tell another person what to believe? Libertarian socialism, to take just one example of socialism, intends a complete cultural makeover. It won't limit itself to "helping the workers". No, that's simply a pretext to procure power. When power is attained:


"Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life"


Just check out their portal at Wikipedia. Free love, Free society, Queer theory, Feminist theory...The word "coexist" doesn't exist in their lexicon. They only borrow the word libertarian, only the outer shell of the idea they pay deference to. But Christians, Jews.. in short, conservatives? Those with a different spiritual or religious outlook they pompously pronounce to be "authoritarian"...and yet their pronouncement, and their subsequent suppression of these different outlooks, is not authoritarian...They are not libertarians. Libertarians tolerate ALL differences - not just those which suit their prejudice.

To support this is to support just another totalitarian system.



Capitalism sucks!


Have you read anything of Frederich Hayek?




atheist communist


I said atheist liberal. Perhaps atheist anarchist would be more apropos. Don't get me wrong, they're spiritual, they're just remarkably intolerant of those whom they disagree with. They're fanatics.




You people make no sense whatsover and are politically illiterate. I am for a mixed economy with a public central bank.


Ok then. I didn't know that, as I have never had this conversation with you before.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by goldspirit
What is it called when the poor are cared for? What is it called when the sick are looked after? What is it called when there is justice for all? What is it called when every child born is considered to be an equal member of society? Conversely, what is it called when society is winner take all, and the rest can just go begging?


It is called life.....make what you can of it.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I agree with Rush Limbaugh on this topic. He feels that Obama will let the country go over the cliff, see the tax rates soar, and then re-propose the same Bush-era tax cuts to be viewed as a hero by the masses of unwashed and the media.

The Republicans get to be the bad guys by letting us go over the cliff, and Obama is the savior by lessening financial pressure on the middle class.

Like I said, this is Rush's opinion, but I can see it happening. Besides, it's all a dog and pony show anyhow.





new topics

top topics



 
81
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join