Barack Obama

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

This is RUSH'S reality and it appears to be Tracey's as well

No, you're talking about Jen's World again. If you've paid any attention you'll find that I have hardly ever, if at all, praised Bush. I have defended him against the bullshit that you Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers spew, because I think the bullshit needs to be cleared before any real discussions can be had.

Originally Posted by transjen

rember 2012 is just around the corner

2012 will hopefully be a great year, but I'm looking forward to November 2nd, 2010. Polls are showing a growing discontent among voters, which thankfully you are not a member of, and it looks like repubs will stage a comeback. Then BO will find it hard getting anything passed. But he's taking full advantage of his rubber stamp congress while he has it.

Originally Posted by Jenae LaTorque

Every so often we do elect a moral man who hasen't been totally corrupted by politics in Washington; Pres. Obama and before him, Pres. Carter. And what good does that do us? Very little I'm afraid.

Well there is a huge mess that has to be cleaned up.

Originally Posted by Jenae LaTorque

On a sideline here; what about Nostradamus? Did he not predict that we would have an ineffectual leader at this time?

You mean like how he predicted 9/11?

"In the City of God there will be a great thunder,
Two brothers torn apart by Chaos,
while the fortress endures,
the great leader will succumb,
The third big war will begin when the big city is burning"

Nostradamus 1654

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

LMAO! I assume you're being facetious. This is very interesting. I've really stumped you guys. There's no Bush or McCain policy you can trash. There's no Obama policy you can blindly support. When your Messiah hasn't spoken yet and you can't blame it on Bush you have no clue what to think about something. Or perhaps you do know what should be done but want to hold back because you're pretty sure BO will botch it and then you would look pretty silly trying to rally behind him. Good stuff...

Well look at history. Every since the Spanish/American War we have made every effort to economically dominate the world. If we have to do it by invading a country, we do it. if we have to assassinate the leader, we do it. If we have to destroy a legitimate Democracy, we do it. It doesn't matter who is in the Whitehouse, our economic interests come first. This is why we are the richest most powerful country on earth. No President is going to change that. It would be nice if we showed a little more humanity while doing it, however. I think Obama will do that.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Well look at history. Every since the Spanish/American War we have made every effort to economically dominate the world. If we have to do it by invading a country, we do it.

Stop your America bashing and revisionist history. In the Spanish/American war we did not invade Spain. We came to the aid of Spanish colonies who wanted to break free of Spain.

Originally Posted by randolph

if we have to assassinate the leader, we do it. If we have to destroy a legitimate Democracy, we do it.

We do not assassinate leaders. Which leader are you talking about? And what democracy did we destroy?

Originally Posted by randolph

It doesn't matter who is in the Whitehouse, our economic interests come first. This is why we are the richest most powerful country on earth. No President is going to change that. It would be nice if we showed a little more humanity while doing it, however. I think Obama will do that.

We are the richest most powerful country on earth because of freedom, capitalism, and a huge production base. The Bretton Woods system, which established the US dollar as an international reserve currency in 1944 didn't hurt either.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Stop your America bashing and revisionist history. In the Spanish/American war we did not invade Spain. We came to the aid of Spanish colonies who wanted to break free of Spain.

We do not assassinate leaders. Which leader are you talking about? And what democracy did we destroy?

We are the richest most powerful country on earth because of freedom, capitalism, and a huge production base. The Bretton Woods system, which established the US dollar as an international reserve currency in 1944 didn't hurt either.

Yes, conservatives like to view our country with rose colored glasses. I suggest you read Naomi Kline's book "Disaster Capitalism". It's a well documented review of how the CIA and Milton Freedman's graduate students collaborated on taking over Chile.
"From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" the Marine theme and Teddy Roosevelt's statement "Speak softly and carry a big stick" well state our international policy.
From the very first, trade was an essential part of American business. We developed fast schooners to out run the pirates. We took over the Spanish colonies to enhance our trading interests. We occupied the Philippines after the Spanish American war against the will of the Phillipinos and had a nasty war with them to show them who was boss. We got rid of the elected leader of Iran and installed the Shaw, to control the oil supply. We have bombed Panama and Grenada, messed around in central America. We have loaned money to little countries to buy our military equipment, then the military stages a coup and opens up favorable trade arrangements with us. We set up NAFTA with poor Central American countries to unload cheap subsidized agricultural commodities that put the local farmers out of business. The list goes on and on.
Now we have subjected the world to the greatest Ponzi scheme in history, all in the name of business for America.
Ah yes, "My Country tis of thee sweet land of liberty"

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Yes, conservatives like to view our country with rose colored glasses. I suggest you read Naomi Kline's book "Disaster Capitalism".

Let's see.... Naomi Klein... Ah, here she is. Her parents were war resisters who ran to Canada. Her mother was a feminist. Her grandparents were communists. Her husband is Avi Lewis. He is the host of the Al Jazeera English show! Ok, so what does she say that I might, in my most wildest dreams give a flying F about?

Originally Posted by randolph

From the very first, trade was an essential part of American business. We developed fast schooners to out run the pirates.

We did not invent trade. It is a practice that has been encouraged for thousands of years. And of course, pirates should be run out and were, not just by us, but other countries as well. They were a thorn in the side of all countries who participated in evil activities like trading.

Originally Posted by randolph

We took over the Spanish colonies to enhance our trading interests. We occupied the Philippines after the Spanish American war against the will of the Phillipinos and had a nasty war with them to show them who was boss.

You are mischaracterizing history again. On January 20, 1899 President McKinley appointed the First Philippine Commission (the Schurman Commission), to investigate conditions in the islands and make recommendations.

Originally Posted by Shurman Commission

Should our power by any fatality be withdrawn, the commission believes that the government of the Philippines would speedily lapse into anarchy, which would excuse, if it did not necessitate, the intervention of other powers and the eventual division of the islands among them. Only through American occupation, therefore, is the idea of a free, self-governing, and united Philippine commonwealth at all conceivable.

That was the sentiment of the time, and after over 100 years you can monday morning quarterback it to your own political leanings. Which you do, but at least be accurate. You should at least recognize that from the 1400s through the 1900s the western world was in an expansionist mode. The US and many other countries were participating in a land grab because, yes, having territory in strategic parts of the world, or containing valuable resources is beneficial to any nation. We were certainly not the only nation doing it. In addition... If we free a country from an oppressive government, then of course, the country is without a government. That leaves a power vacuum. A responsible nation becomes responsible for territory that it frees. If it's able to stand on its own, leave it alone. If not, adopt it until they are able to stand on their own unless joining is beneficial to both.

Originally Posted by randolph

We got rid of the elected leader of Iran and installed the Shaw, to control the oil supply.

Are you talking about the Iran/Iraq war?

Originally Posted by randolph

We have bombed Panama and Grenada, messed around in central America.

In Grenada, Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard, a Communist hard-liner backed by the Grenadian Army, had deposed Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and established military rule, then had Bishop killed. Then there was also the presence of Cuban construction workers and military personnel building a 10,000-foot airstrip in Grenada to allow military transport planes loaded with arms from Cuba to be transferred to Central American insurgents. Plus there were 800 American medical students enrolled at St. George's School of Medicine in Grenada. But you say forget all this. It was for economic reasons only.

In Panama, we were going after Noriega. If you have an economic case for that, go for it.

Originally Posted by randolph

We set up NAFTA....

NAFTA was signed by George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas. All three of them promoted it. We did not force it on the Mexicans. Salinas is an adult, and was even president of Mexico. I think he's a big boy. If it worked out badly for Mexico then it's his responsibility. Some say it worked out good for Mexico because poverty rates fell.

Originally Posted by randolph

The list goes on and on.

Yes, and you've shown how your Socialist-Red colored glasses color your view of the world. You ignore the facts surrounding each and every instance you cited and substitute America's evil thirst for money. I thought I warned you about revisionist history. If America is so hungry for economic gain, I'd like to know, why, oh why, didn't Bush have the Iraqis pay for the upgrades above and way beyond repairing what was destroyed from the war, security and training? They certainly could afford it, and it was all in their best interest.

Honestly.... Naomi Klein???

[jdawg]

I'd like to know who said NAFTA worked out? There's a reason why Mexican farmers are coming across the border in droves and it isn't because they like tex-mex.

[jdawg]

Tracey, we fucked up democracy in Chile. Remember Allende? Secondly the shah was put in place in 1953 because the british got pissed at Mossadegh for wanting to nationalise the oil fields. Furthermore Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism. I'd say we've done our fair share of messin around where we shouldn't be.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by jdawg

There's a reason why Mexican farmers are coming across the border in droves and it isn't because they like tex-mex.

that's great

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by jdawg

Tracey, we fucked up democracy in Chile. Remember Allende?

Yes, we fucked up that Marxist. That was back when we did something about Communism. Now we elect students of Communism to our highest office, and the house & senate. But anyway, I suppose you forgot about the Soviet Union and the Cold War. What did the USSR do when they found an ally in Cuba? Tried to put nukes 90 miles from the US. I know Chile is a ways off but I think the feeling was that we should keep Communism out of our hemisphere. Besides, that doesn't have much to do with the topic randolph brought up that we toppled democracies for our financial gain.

Originally Posted by jdawg

Secondly the shah was put in place in 1953 because the british got pissed at Mossadegh for wanting to nationalise the oil fields.

Go gripe at a Brit. I am all for severing our dependence on the mideast for oil.

Originally Posted by jdawg

Furthermore Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism. I'd say we've done our fair share of messin around where we shouldn't be.

Why were we trying to stop the spread of Communism? Might there be a reason?

[jdawg]

Stopping the spread of communism and financial gain go hand in hand. We literally get freaked out when marxists take office because nationalisation fucks with our corporations. The US has no right to take out democratic leaders in the name of capitalism. When the US learns this the world will be a better place.


Oh and I dont care about Soviet imperialism. This isn about them and I'm fully aware that everybody from Lenin to Gorbachev was a piece of shit.

[jdawg]

And btw it was the CIA who took out Mossadegh. The British cried tp us so we sent Kermit the frog over there to start a coup. In fact it was really the start of our relationship with Iran today. Without that silly coup, it's unlikely that Khomeni would be leading Iran. But god forbid somebody nationalises his oil to help his people. stopping nationalisation is far more important than being a force for democracy and accepting their peoples wishes.

[TracyCoxx]

The inspector general, Niel Barofsky, for the $700 billion stimulus package (TARP) says that it has expanded well beyond $700B.

Originally Posted by Niel Barofsky

TARP has evolved into a program of unprecedented scope, scale and complexity. Moreover, TARP does not function in a vacuum but is rather part of the broader government efforts to stabilize the financial system, The total potential federal government support could reach up to $23.7 trillion.

He also says the total financial exposure of TARP and related programs alone could reach $3 trillion.

This kind of burden on our country defies the imagination.

[The Conquistador]

Remember Tracy. It pisses people off when you tell them "You're wrong, and I can prove it!"

[JohnTB]

Originally Posted by rhythmic delivery

The Kennedys were not killed by white supremacists, they were killed by the mob, Malcom X was killed by his own people, the Nation of Islam, and Martin Luther King was only killed after he spoke out against Vietnam and poverty and the FBI stopped protecting him.

the mob or the cia.

OK, Where's the beef ?? tHE EXPRESSION ALLUDES TO THE EVIDENCE - STATEMENTS MADE BY YOU ARE PRESENTED AS FACTS - THEY ARE NOT - SUSPICIONS, OPINIONS, SOME OTHER ADJECTIVES WITH WORDS I WON'T USE HERE - BUT NOT FACTS....

Show me the beef!!!!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[sesame]

Its good to be back.
But it feels better to see the old homely atmosphere. Tracy, Randolph and Hank fighting over politics... forever.

Mind you, I didnt say US Politics, as this topic is over Obama. Thats because, whatever these Bigbosses do, their effects are seen all over the world for decades. So, I guess its international politics. Also, theres Mrs. Clinton, touring the world, sealing nuclear deals and selling weapons all over the planet.

[randolph]

How Government Works
Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert.
Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost." So they laid off the night watchman.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by randolph

How Government Works
Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert.
Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost." So they laid off the night watchman.

Jersygirl Jen

[transjen]

Ok i'm going to throw this question out there.
What do you think about the US going with a so cared universal heathcare? And should abortations be covered? Not talking about the cases where the mothers life is endangered just the woman doesn't want the baby. And should SRS be covered?
Jersygirl Jen

[randolph]

Originally Posted by transjen

Ok i'm going to throw this question out there.
What do you think about the US going with a so cared universal heathcare? And should abortations be covered? Not talking about the cases where the mothers life is endangered just the woman doesn't want the baby. And should SRS be covered?
Jersygirl Jen

Boy, this topic should generate some opinions.
Mine- We need universal health care, period. The Bush tax cuts to the rich would have paid for it. SRS is a complex of diseases and should be treated by health care. Abortions? If a women doesn't want her baby, she should give it away for adoption! If she doesn't want a pregnancy she should pay for the abortion and learn how not to get pregnant.
Humm, I guess trannys could make girls pregnant, if they have the balls to do it. Although, I don't think anyone ever got pregnant through anal sex.

Question? are tranny sperm gay?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

How Government Works
Once upon a time...

So true. And exactly why the government should not take over banks, car companies or health care.

[franalexes]

Holly crap Jen! You didn't step in a puddle, you went for the whole ocean!

Anyway, that said, abortion is the taking of a life. It is similar to capital punishment. I support both, but only for those that truely deserve it.

Think about my answer a long time before responding.

[randolph]

From Tracy,
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.
Tracy,
This is total BS. Gates was incredibly lucky to get the contract to supply IBM's PC with a disk operating system. He adapted much of the PC DOS system from CPM. He made millions by being a monopoly and IBM's naive belief that the PC would be a novelty with little market potential.

Democrats believe people are incompetent?
The rich have an overwhelming advantage over the rest of us. The little guys need some help to become competitive and as a businessman my self, I can assure you, the rich will do everything in their power to stay being rich and that includes doing in the competition any way they can.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Holly crap Jen! You didn't step in a puddle, you went for the whole ocean!

Anyway, that said, abortion is the taking of a life. It is similar to capital punishment. I support both, but only for those that truely deserve it.

Think about my answer a long time before responding.

From what you say. Do you believe a fetus could deserve to be aborted?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

So true. And exactly why the government should not take over banks, car companies or health care.

Yes, i knew you would agree with this. It is an exaggeration, obviously. The problem is, do we put up with some inefficiency of a government health care system or a private health care system that denies sick people the help they need. Actually, Medicare costs have risen significantly slower than private health care services. I presume you have health care, probably provided by your employer. What if you get laid off and you have no health care, think about it. The other problem with private health care is that even with private health care many people are going bankrupt over medical costs anyway.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

Ok i'm going to throw this question out there.
What do you think about the US going with a so cared universal heathcare? And should abortations be covered? Not talking about the cases where the mothers life is endangered just the woman doesn't want the baby. And should SRS be covered?
Jersygirl Jen

Universal health care obviously should be DOA. My mom emailed me complaining about the health care package they are considering. As a sr citizen she is rightly worried that healthcare will be cut for seniors so that illegal aliens. This is insanity.

Here's what Dr. Dave Janda, keynote speaker at a congressional dinner had to say...

Originally Posted by Dr Dave Janda

The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on rationing and denying care. There is no focus on preventing health care need whatever. The plan's method is the most inhumane and unethical approach to cutting costs I can imagine as a physician.

The rationing of care is implemented through The National Health Care Board, according to the plan. This illustrious Board "will approve or reject treatment for patients based on the cost per treatment divided by the number of years the patient will benefit from the treatment."

Translation.....if you are over 65 or have been recently diagnosed as having an advanced form of cardiac disease or aggressive cancer.....dream on if you think you will get treated.....pick out your coffin.

Oh, you say this could never happen? Sorry.... this is the same model they use in Britain.

The plan mandates that there will be little or no advanced treatments to be available in the future. It creates The Federal Coordinating Council For Comparative Effectiveness Research, the purpose of which is "to slow the development of new medications and technologies in order to reduce costs." Yes, this is to be the law.

It goes on to say......"Doctors and hospitals not adhering to guidelines will face penalties." According to those in Congress, penalties could include large six figure financial fines and possible imprisonment.

So according to The ObamaCare Plan.....if your doctor saves your life you migh t have to go to the prison to see your doctor for follow -up appointments. I believe this is the same model Stalin used in the former Soviet Union.

Section 102 has the Orwellian title, "Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage." What this section really mandates is that it is illegal to keep your private insurance if your status changes - e.g., if you lose or change your job, retire from your job and become a senior, graduate from college and get your first job. Yes, illegal.

Then ther e is Section 1233 of The ObamaCare Plan, devoted to "Advanced Care Planning." After each American turns 65 years of age they have to go to a mandated counseling program that is designed to end life sooner.

This session is to occur every 5 years unless the person has developed a chronic illness then it must be done every year. The topics in this session will include, "how to decline hydration, nutrition and how to initiate hospice care." It is no wonder The Obama Administration does not like my emphasis on Prevention. For Mr. Obama, prevention is the "enemy" as people would live longer.

After I finished my Capitol Hill presentation, I was asked by a Congressman in the question-answer session: "I'll be doing a number of network interviews on the Obama Health Care Plan. If I am asked what is the one word to describe the plan what should I answer?"

The answer is simple, honest, direct, analytical, sad but truthful. I told him that one word is FASCIST.

Then I added, "I hope you'll have the courage to use that word, Congressman. No other word is more appropriate."

Suck it Obama

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

The problem is, do we put up with some inefficiency of a government health care system or a private health care system that denies sick people the help they need.

BO's plan also denies sick people the help they need... see above.

Originally Posted by randolph

I presume you have health care, probably provided by your employer. What if you get laid off and you have no health care, think about it.

Then I would be screwed. Because then my status would change and I would be forced to change to the national health care plan, rather than get other private insurance coverage when I get another job.

[randolph]

A significant portion of Medicare costs are in the last six months of a persons life. Does this make sense?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Democrats believe people are incompetent?
The rich have an overwhelming advantage over the rest of us. The little guys need some help to become competitive and as a businessman my self, I can assure you, the rich will do everything in their power to stay being rich and that includes doing in the competition any way they can.

So any guy off the street that wants to start a business should be profitable? And if he is not, then more successful companies should be penalized? Shoo... Away with you.

[randolph]

Dr Dave Janda is a well known physician in the sports medicine field. He obviously has put a very negative spin on public health care. Is what he says really the way the system would work or is he spinning things out of context. I haven't heard such a negative view from other reviewers of the proposed system.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

So any guy off the street that wants to start a business should be profitable? And if he is not, then more successful companies should be penalized? Shoo... Away with you.

I don't think what you are saying has anything to with what I said.

For many years I ran a small business. We didn't make much money but we supported about eight families. Running a business is not easy, I can assure you. I have dealt with local bureaucrats, state bureaucrats and federal bureaucrats. They all suck. The big guys get the premium treatment.
By the way, did you know that Bill Gates paid the salaries of several employees in the local building department so the department would expedite his building plans?

[transjen]

Originally Posted by randolph

Dr Dave Janda is a well known physician in the sports medicine field. He obviously has put a very negative spin on public health care. Is what he says really the way the system would work or is he spinning things out of context. I haven't heard such a negative view from other reviewers of the proposed system.

Can you say SCARE TACTICS, His worst nightmare is universal health care that would derail his gravey train so he's pulling out the Carl Rove play book and want's to scare everyone in to accepting the messed up health system


Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

The chart shows the tarp money loaned to the banks, the amount paid back and the amount of bonuses paid to employees. Obama doesn't seem to mind this. This really pisses me off.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by transjen

Can you say SCARE TACTICS, His worst nightmare is universal health care that would derail his gravey train so he's pulling out the Carl Rove play book and want's to scare everyone in to accepting the messed up health system




Jerseygirl Jen

A comparison of health care costs. So is private health care more efficient?

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Suck it Obama

Hey Tracy! Can Obama and I switch places? He doesn't deserve the privlige of having a womans cock in his mouth.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Hey Tracy! Can Obama and I switch places? He doesn't deserve the privlige of having a womans cock in his mouth.

Okay Mr. Post, I would issue a word of caution. Tracy's cock may be desirable, however, you may be subjected to hours of right wing political rhetoric trickling down from the ultimate conservative spin machine, the Heritage Foundation.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Hey Tracy! Can Obama and I switch places? He doesn't deserve the privlige of having a womans cock in his mouth.

Please do. I wouldn't want that commie touching me anyway. Sexy commies like Jen are ok though

Originally Posted by randolph

Okay Mr. Post, I would issue a word of caution. Tracy's cock may be desirable, however, you may be subjected to hours of right wing political rhetoric trickling down from the ultimate conservative spin machine, the Heritage Foundation.

No, I promise no soapbox while my cock is being sucked.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Please do. I wouldn't want that commie touching me anyway. Sexy commies like Jen are ok though


No, I promise no soapbox while my cock is being sucked.

So, I guess you don't consider Obama a commie?