Barack Obama

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The Dow is over 9000 again and housing has had the biggest growth in 7 months. Is it time to start praising BO's economic recovery plan?

No. Money from Tarp (the spendulous package) hasn't even begun flowing yet. So to all of you (I think Jen said this) who said "should we just do nothing?", yes... if nothing means let capitalism fix itself, that's what is happening now. Of course all that will be sabotaged when BO's economic recovery begins to save us with monstrous taxes. It will be defeat snatched from the jaws of victory, and unemployment will continue to rise and inflation will skyrocket. Add to that cap & trade and the health care fiasco and BO's buddy Bill Ayers will be left flabbergasted at how much more effective Obama has been than he was in his war against capitalism.

Come on Tracy, don't you realize who Obama is bailing out? He is bailing out your buddies the capitalists! The capitalists are the ones that fucked up the economy with their relentless greed and now we the taxpayers have to save their asses. If it was up to me, I would drag their bonus stuffed asses through the streets! Obama is on your side!

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Come on Tracy, don't you realize who Obama is bailing out? He is bailing out your buddies the capitalists! The capitalists are the ones that fucked up the economy with their relentless greed and now we the taxpayers have to save their asses. If it was up to me, I would drag their bonus stuffed asses through the streets! Obama is on your side!

That was old news. It was in their contracts to receive bonuses. The white house doesn't have the authority to change that. Although they would if they allowed the companies to declare bankruptcy. But the method preferred by Omama is to give them millions, and THEN let them go bankrupt. Anyway, the democrats considered ways to prevent them from getting their bonuses. They would do a retroactive tax at about 90%. Just for them. Only thing is that violated the constitution. You can't make a law to punish someone retroactively for something that was legal when they did it. So the white house made it clear to the companies that they would not be handing out the bonuses.

Now for the other side of the story... The asswipes that put those companies in financial trouble were long gone with their large severance pay. The companies hired new executives to clean up the mess. Those executives were payed $1. Their real salary was the bonuses that would come later. So they worked 60-80 hour weeks, restructuring the companies, and putting them back on track financially. Then it comes time for them to receive their bonuses. Their bosses tell them sorry. There will be no bonuses at the request of the president. I hope you understand.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

That was old news. It was in their contracts to receive bonuses. The white house doesn't have the authority to change that. Although they would if they allowed the companies to declare bankruptcy. But the method preferred by Omama is to give them millions, and THEN let them go bankrupt. Anyway, the democrats considered ways to prevent them from getting their bonuses. They would do a retroactive tax at about 90%. Just for them. Only thing is that violated the constitution. You can't make a law to punish someone retroactively for something that was legal when they did it. So the white house made it clear to the companies that they would not be handing out the bonuses.

Now for the other side of the story... The asswipes that put those companies in financial trouble were long gone with their large severance pay. The companies hired new executives to clean up the mess. Those executives were payed $1. Their real salary was the bonuses that would come later. So they worked 60-80 hour weeks, restructuring the companies, and putting them back on track financially. Then it comes time for them to receive their bonuses. Their bosses tell them sorry. There will be no bonuses at the request of the president. I hope you understand.

So you believe its Okay for someone to sit behind a computer on wall street, do their job, and get a multimillion dollar bonus? Millions of people are out of work so these guys can get their bonuses. It that just? Is this really a Democracy?
We have a Plutocracy, of, by and for the rich. All of the government money is going to support capitalism. You just don't seem to get it.

Someone once said "doubt is the beginning of wisdom"

[jdawg]

Capitalism often times fixes itself, this is true. What we need to figure out is whether going from crisis to crisis is healthy. Any system that requires bubbles to burst from time to time to such devestating effect on the people isn't a system I want to support.


Now we can also get into the question of whether capitalism can ever be reformed enough to where there isn't a recession every 20 years. I don't believe so. That's not to say that I don't believe in markets completely, I'm a Proudhonian syndicalist, but I don't believe that with our current structures of power we will ever reform this system or any system. In fact reform doesn't work anyways. Revolutionary action is the answer. Not violent revolution, but a complete change of thought and structures for society.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by jdawg

Capitalism often times fixes itself, this is true. What we need to figure out is whether going from crisis to crisis is healthy. Any system that requires bubbles to burst from time to time to such devestating effect on the people isn't a system I want to support.


Now we can also get into the question of whether capitalism can ever be reformed enough to where there isn't a recession every 20 years. I don't believe so. That's not to say that I don't believe in markets completely, I'm a Proudhonian syndicalist, but I don't believe that with our current structures of power we will ever reform this system or any system. In fact reform doesn't work anyways. Revolutionary action is the answer. Not violent revolution, but a complete change of thought and structures for society.

Never heard this term so here is a brief quote.
"What Proudhon really objected to with respect to private property was the earning of income from the labour of others through such means as rent, interest and wage labour. After paying employees their wages, the capitalist retains the remaining profit without contributing any productive labour himself. Associated together, the workers create a productive capacity greater than the sum of their individual powers, but it is the capitalist who reaps the benefit. The workers acquiesce in their own exploitation because their only alternatives are starvation and misery."
This is essentially my complaint about capitalism. The capitalists will exploit the workers any way they can (look at China). The role of government should be to control and restrain the exploitative tendencies of capitalism. Capitalists would be very happy if all there workers were slaves and they kept all the wealth created by the labor of the workers. A democratic society needs to see to it that the capitalists share the wealth with their workers.

[jdawg]

Proudhon was indeed against that, but he came to a different conclusion than yourself. After service in the 1848 government he realised representative democracy was no better than any other system before it. So he became an anarchist. His conclusion was that the workers should control everything as a whole through purely democratic means.



with all of the words like "plutocracy" that you use, you might like anarchist thought. It should be noted that they can be quite outrageous at times and some anarchists were just as socially conservative as the christian right, but overall the writers of the 19th century were amazing.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by jdawg

Proudhon was indeed against that, but he came to a different conclusion than yourself. After service in the 1848 government he realised representative democracy was no better than any other system before it. So he became an anarchist. His conclusion was that the workers should control everything as a whole through purely democratic means.

with all of the words like "plutocracy" that you use, you might like anarchist thought. It should be noted that they can be quite outrageous at times and some anarchists were just as socially conservative as the christian right, but overall the writers of the 19th century were amazing.

Should workers control everything? Not necessarily, there are good examples of worker run companies like Winco and cooperatives like Tillamook the workers at GM are going to have a good stake in the new GM. Capitalists are needed to develop a credit system which enables the economic system to expand. Capitalism can work well when the workers get to participate in the expansion. Henry Ford realized that when he gave his workers five dollars a day wages, it helped build the middle class. In order to maintain a strong middle class we need a fair taxation system and a rational credit system. I am becoming very disappointed with Obama and his financial buddies, they are allowing the financial system is manipulate the funding and vastly expand our tax liabilities. It seems very little of it is going to help people who are laid off and losing their homes.

Yes I feel like an anarchist when I see how the government bends over and lets the capitalists have at it.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

So you believe its Okay for someone to sit behind a computer on wall street, do their job, and get a multimillion dollar bonus? Millions of people are out of work so these guys can get their bonuses. It that just? Is this really a Democracy?

Like I said before, other than the dollar they get, that's pretty much their only salary. And yes, it's ok for someone to get millions to benefit a company making billions. They may do their work on the computer, but that doesn't mean they don't put a hell of a lot of work into it.

Bill Gates became the richest guy in the world because he knew what IBM didn't at the time... that operating systems is where the money is at. Is a single thought in someone's head really worth over $100 billion? Well, actually it was a few thoughts at very strategic moments. The man is a genius at business and he deserves what he has made. I think it's inspiring. Anyone can do it. Republicans believe in peoples potential. Democrats believe that people are incompetent and need help. For an individual, like Bill Gates, to become so powerful that they employ thousands of people and donate over $2 billion/year to charities is not in the democrats plan. They want people to become dependent on the government. They want to control people. That's your kind of democracy.

Originally Posted by randolph

All of the government money is going to support capitalism. You just don't seem to get it.

No, I don't get it, since capitalism refers to an economic and social system in which trade, industry and the means of production are privately controlled. If capitalism is controlled by government money, it's not capitalism. Thanks to BO, you can now exclude Chrysler and GM from capitalism. And the banks too.

Capitalism is fine. Executives getting multi-million dollar bonuses is fine (as long as they are part of the solution). What is NOT fine is what happens when government and big business mix.

For example... Paulson, former head of Goldman Sachs, became treasury secretary. When the financial crisis comes, the first thing he does, besides prop of Fannie & Freddie is let Bear Sterns (a Goldman Sachs competitor) and Lehman Bros (Goldman Sachs largest competitor) fail. When deciding if he should let AIG fail, he had a conference with Lloyd Blankenfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs. They decide, yes bail out AIG with $85 billion. Who's the biggest payout from AIG? Goldman Sachs, for $12.9 billion!

Paulson needs someone to head up TARP. Who does he pick? Neil Cashcarry from Goldman Sachs. Neil decides Goldman Sachs has to be changed into a bank holding company. Which means they now have access to money from TARP, FDIC, and other fed money. Neil is then replaced by Gary Ginsler (yes a partner at Goldman Sachs).

Becoming a bank holding company also gets the SEC off their backs. So who watches over Goldman Sachs now? Steven Friedman, former chairman of Goldman Sachs and now at the Fed. Friedman, overseer of Goldman Sachs also held a lot of stock from Goldman Sachs, and he was also on the board of directors of Goldman Sachs! Gee, isn't that a conflict of interest?

Oh, no it isn't. Timothy Geithner, current secretary of treasury, can we please have someone on the Goldman Sachs board of directors over seeing Goldman Sachs? Sure, no problem. Geithner gives Friedman a temporary 1 year waiver, which allows him to keep his Goldman Sachs stock, stay on the board, and allows him to buy an additional 52000 shares of Goldman Sachs stock, which he makes $3 million off of.

So now Goldman Sachs has a new derivative. They have just purchased 10% of the Chicago Climate Exchange and $1 billion of carbon assets. This is the new currency under the Obama administration.

There's a new lobbyist for Goldman Sachs. Michael Pease. He's joining the director of government affairs. They hired him because their previous lobbyist, Mark Patterson, has just been named the chief of staff for Timothy Geithner. Michael Pease is now in Barney Frank's office.

And yes, I know Paulson was Bush's pick. I didn't favor Bush's Wall Street bailout either. But BO, as usual is taking any of Bush's shortcomings and showing how bad it can really get by allowing this Goldman Sachs crap to continue. And that's only the tip of the ice berg. Much of the spendulous money is going towards other leeches of society, like ACORN and bringing them into the government.

Just take things back to before all the bailouts, get rid of welfare programs like the Community Reinvestment Act, and we're a strong country again. Unfortunately, I think democrats and RINO republicans have damned this country.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Like I said before, other than the dollar they get, that's pretty much their only salary. And yes, it's ok for someone to get millions to benefit a company making billions. They may do their work on the computer, but that doesn't mean they don't put a hell of a lot of work into it.

Bill Gates became the richest guy in the world because he knew what IBM didn't at the time... that operating systems is where the money is at. Is a single thought in someone's head really worth over $100 billion? Well, actually it was a few thoughts at very strategic moments. The man is a genius at business and he deserves what he has made. I think it's inspiring. Anyone can do it. Republicans believe in peoples potential. Democrats believe that people are incompetent and need help. For an individual, like Bill Gates, to become so powerful that they employ thousands of people and donate over $2 billion/year to charities is not in the democrats plan. They want people to become dependent on the government. They want to control people. That's your kind of democracy.

No, I don't get it, since capitalism refers to an economic and social system in which trade, industry and the means of production are privately controlled. If capitalism is controlled by government money, it's not capitalism. Thanks to BO, you can now exclude Chrysler and GM from capitalism. And the banks too.

Capitalism is fine. Executives getting multi-million dollar bonuses is fine (as long as they are part of the solution). What is NOT fine is what happens when government and big business mix.

For example... Paulson, former head of Goldman Sachs, became treasury secretary. When the financial crisis comes, the first thing he does, besides prop of Fannie & Freddie is let Bear Sterns (a Goldman Sachs competitor) and Lehman Bros (Goldman Sachs largest competitor) fail. When deciding if he should let AIG fail, he had a conference with Lloyd Blankenfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs. They decide, yes bail out AIG with $85 billion. Who's the biggest payout from AIG? Goldman Sachs, for $12.9 billion!

Paulson needs someone to head up TARP. Who does he pick? Neil Cashcarry from Goldman Sachs. Neil decides Goldman Sachs has to be changed into a bank holding company. Which means they now have access to money from TARP, FDIC, and other fed money. Neil is then replaced by Gary Ginsler (yes a partner at Goldman Sachs).

Becoming a bank holding company also gets the SEC off their backs. So who watches over Goldman Sachs now? Steven Friedman, former chairman of Goldman Sachs and now at the Fed. Friedman, overseer of Goldman Sachs also held a lot of stock from Goldman Sachs, and he was also on the board of directors of Goldman Sachs! Gee, isn't that a conflict of interest?

Oh, no it isn't. Timothy Geithner, current secretary of treasury, can we please have someone on the Goldman Sachs board of directors over seeing Goldman Sachs? Sure, no problem. Geithner gives Friedman a temporary 1 year waiver, which allows him to keep his Goldman Sachs stock, stay on the board, and allows him to buy an additional 52000 shares of Goldman Sachs stock, which he makes $3 million off of.

So now Goldman Sachs has a new derivative. They have just purchased 10% of the Chicago Climate Exchange and $1 billion of carbon assets. This is the new currency under the Obama administration.

There's a new lobbyist for Goldman Sachs. Michael Pease. He's joining the director of government affairs. They hired him because their previous lobbyist, Mark Patterson, has just been named the chief of staff for Timothy Geithner. Michael Pease is now in Barney Frank's office.

And yes, I know Paulson was Bush's pick. I didn't favor Bush's Wall Street bailout either. But BO, as usual is taking any of Bush's shortcomings and showing how bad it can really get by allowing this Goldman Sachs crap to continue. And that's only the tip of the ice berg. Much of the spendulous money is going towards other leeches of society, like ACORN and bringing them into the government.

Just take things back to before all the bailouts, get rid of welfare programs like the Community Reinvestment Act, and we're a strong country again. Unfortunately, I think democrats and RINO republicans have damned this country.

If the government has a stake in a stock company, I don't see why that automatically makes the company non-capitalist. It will still function in a capitalist way within the economic system. Some companies should be owned by the public like utilities and health care facilities, they provide essential services that everyone needs. Manufacturing companies that provide goods for sale work best in the competitive environment of private enterprise.

[randolph]

I always knew Fox news was stupid but this is over the top.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

I always knew Fox news was stupid but this is over the top.

I see Egypt moved and changed the shape of its borders. The big question is what happened to Iraq?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

I always knew Fox news was stupid but this is over the top.

OMG LOL. Reminds me of when CNN said 18 crew members on the space station were getting ready to evacuate. There were only 3 at the time.