Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  Video: Citizens Against Government Waste

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Video: Citizens Against Government Waste
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2451
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 23, 2010 01:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
"Fast-forward to Beijing in the year 2030. A professor is discussing “why great nations fall” and brings up the United States.

“Now they work for us,” he says. A burst of laughter erupts from the Chinese audience."

Video
http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/22/ad-shows-chinese-audience-in-2030-laughing-because-spending-has-destroyed-america/

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 5491
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 23, 2010 05:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
yes it was nice of bush to put us in hock to china just to "keep us safe" by destroying iraq..of course i know you think this is obama's fault, by virtue of being elected after the debt had been run up. most sane people would lay it on his predecessor, though.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2451
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 23, 2010 05:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
Yeah, yeah, yeah...blah, blah, blah.

O'Bomber has tripled the annual budget deficits of Bush and increased the national debt 3 trillion dollars...AND, we have nothing whatsoever to show for it.

Most Americans...those who are sane...would like to go back to the Bush deficits and national debt numbers AND, the Bush unemployment rate.

Odd don't you think, that those who were screeching, screaming and shrieking about 400 Billion dollar budget deficits under Bush are Okay Dokey with 1.3 Trillion dollar budget deficits under O'Bomber.

Colossal hypocrites

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 5491
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 23, 2010 06:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
i guess there are some people who think the money is better spent AT HOME ON AMERICANS than all over the world killing others as well as our own soldiers.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 3807
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 23, 2010 06:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message
Democrats still have a better debt record than Republicans easy.

The stimulus money, and the financial bailout is still considered to have been necessary by rational people (and would've happened regardless of the party in the White House). It's not "odd" whatsoever. What's more, anyone with a historical eye to the national debt would be wise to keep Democrats in office.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2451
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 24, 2010 09:59 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
Both the bailouts and the so called "stimulus" were colossal failures.

Let me remind you what the bailout was called..named.

TARP...Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Those "troubled assets"..defaulted sub prime mortgage loans are still on the books of those banks and lending institutions. The money from the so called program was passed straight through to banks and other financial institutions. Instead of buying down/marking down their sub prime mortgage losses...they banked the money or used it to buy up other lending institutions, financial institutions or banks.

That was not what was supposed to happen under TARP.

Perhaps it's escaped your notice that the 100,000 foreclosures in September is the highest ever recorded in the United States.

The "stimulus bill", really the "Porkulus Bill" is a total loss of about 1 Trillion dollars to the public treasury.

Unemployment has gone up, up, up since the Porkulus bill was passed.

demoscats aren't even trying to sell the success of TARP or the Porkulus Bill to the voting public...or O'BomberCare either.

In some congressional races, not only are demoscats not mentioning the bills they passed...TARP, auto bailouts, financial regulation, O'BomberCare, Cap and Tax but, they don't even identify themselves as demoscats!

Some demoscats are also renouncing Nancy Pee-Lousy, Hairy Reid and Barack O'Bomber, attempting to put as much distance between themselves and those for whom they've been carrying the water as possible.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 5491
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 24, 2010 03:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
luckily the turncoats don't define the nation completely. like i said before, jwhop, i hope some of your dingbat candidates get in so everyone can see how loopy they really are before it's too late.

but like i've also said before i think you are counting your chickens WAAAAAY too early. as do a lot of voters.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39818378/ns/politics-decision_2010

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2451
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 24, 2010 11:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
Hmmm katatonic; by my calendar it's 9 days to demoscat Armageddon.

In any event, we won't have long to wait to see what happens November 2nd.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 5491
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 25, 2010 11:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
tell you what jwhop, why don't you make your own dirty harry sequel and then you can act out your fantasies of "armageddon" etc. IF your folk get in they will be booted back out as soon as people realize what goons they are...

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 5491
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 26, 2010 02:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
TARP repayments exceed outstanding bailout debt, Treasury says
Banks have returned $194 billion, topping the $190 billion in TARP funds still outstanding. The news is hailed as a milestone for the controversial program.
June 12, 2010|By Jim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles Times
Reporting from Washington —


The Treasury Department on Friday hailed what it called a milestone in the history of the controversial $700-billion bailout fund: For the first time, the amount repaid by banks and other recipients has surpassed the outstanding balance.


of course the bush version of the bailout money was not a loan, was it? which is why the numbers are so low...

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 5491
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 26, 2010 02:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
The Bailout: Bush’s Final Pillage
By Naomi Klein - October 29th, 2008
In the final days of the election, many Republicans seem to have given up the fight for power. But don’t be fooled: that doesn’t mean they are relaxing. If you want to see real Republican elbow grease, check out the energy going into chucking great chunks of the $700 billion bailout out the door. At a recent Senate Banking Committee hearing, Republican Senator Bob Corker was fixated on this task, and with a clear deadline in mind: inauguration. “How much of it do you think may be actually spent by January 20 or so?” Corker asked Neel Kashkari, the 35-year-old former banker in charge of the bailout.

When European colonialists realized that they had no choice but to hand over power to the indigenous citizens, they would often turn their attention to stripping the local treasury of its gold and grabbing valuable livestock. If they were really nasty, like the Portuguese in Mozambique in the mid-1970s, they poured concrete down the elevator shafts.

Nothing so barbaric for the Bush gang. Rather than open plunder, it prefers bureaucratic instruments, such as “distressed asset” auctions and the “equity purchase program.” But make no mistake: the goal is the same as it was for the defeated Portuguese—a final frantic looting of the public wealth before they hand over the keys to the safe.

How else to make sense of the bizarre decisions that have governed the allocation of the bailout money? When the Bush administration announced it would be injecting $250 billion into America’s banks in exchange for equity, the plan was widely referred to as “partial nationalization”—a radical measure required to get the banks lending again. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson had seen the light, we were told, and was now following the lead of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

In fact, there has been no nationalization, partial or otherwise. American taxpayers have gained no meaningful control over the banks, which is why the banks are free to spend the new money as they wish. At Morgan Stanley, it looks like much of the windfall will cover this year’s bonus pool. Citigroup has been hinting it will use its newfound $25 billion buying other banks, while John Thain, the chief executive of Merrill Lynch, told analysts that “At least for the next quarter, it’s just going to be a cushion.” The U.S. government, meanwhile, is reduced to pleading with the banks that they at least spend a portion of the taxpayer windfall for loans – officially, the reason for the entire program.

What, then, is the real purpose of the bailout? My fear is this rush of deal making is something much more ambitious than a one-off gift to big business; that the Bush version of “partial nationalization” is rigged to turn the U.S. Treasury into a bottomless cash machine for the banks for years to come. Remember, the main concern among big market players, particularly banks, is not the lack of credit but their battered share prices. Investors have lost confidence in the honesty of the big financial players, and with good reason.

This is where Treasury’s equity pays off big time. By purchasing stakes in these financial institutions, Treasury is sending a signal to the market that they are a safe bet. Why safe? Not because their level of risk has been accurately assessed at last. Not because they have renounced the kind of exotic financial instruments and outrageous leverage rates that created the crisis. Rather, because the market will now be banking on the fact that the U.S. government won’t let these particular companies fail. If they get themselves into trouble, investors will now assume that the government will keep finding more cash to bail them out, since allowing them to go down would mean losing the initial equity investments, many of them in the billions. (Just look at the insurance giant AIG, which had already gone back to taxpayers for a top-up and seems set to ask for a third.)

This tethering of the public interest to private companies is the real purpose of the bailout plan: Paulson is handing all the companies that are admitted to the program—a number potentially in the thousands—an implicit Treasury Department guarantee. To skittish investors looking for safe places to park their money, these equity deals will be even more comforting than a Triple-A rating from Moody’s.

Insurance like that is priceless. But for the banks, the best part is that the government is paying them to accept its seal of approval. For taxpayers, on the other hand, this entire plan is extremely risky, and may well cost significantly more than Paulson’s original idea of buying up $700 billion in toxic debts. Now taxpayers aren’t just on the hook for the debts but, arguably, for the fate of every corporation that sells them equity.

Interestingly, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both enjoyed this kind of unspoken guarantee before the mortgage giants were nationalized at the start of this crisis. For decades the market understood that, since these private players were enmeshed with the government, Uncle Sam could be counted on to always save the day. It was, as many have pointed out, the worst of all worlds. Not only were profits privatized while risks were socialized but the implicit government backing created powerful incentives for reckless business practices.

Now, with the new equity purchase program, Paulson has taken the discredited Fannie and Freddie model and applied it to a huge swath of the private banking industry. And once again, there is no reason to shy away from risky bets—especially since Treasury has made no such demands of the banks. (Treasury, apparently, does not want to “micromanage.”)

To further boost market confidence, the federal government has also unveiled unlimited public guarantees for many bank deposit accounts. Oh, and as if this wasn’t enough, Treasury has been encouraging the banks to manically merge with one another, ensuring that the only institutions left standing will be “too big to fail,” thereby guaranteed of a bailout. In three different ways, the market is being told loud and clear that Washington will not allow the country’s financial institutions to bear the consequences of their behavior, no matter how reckless. This may well be Bush’s most creative innovation: no-risk capitalism.

There is a glimmer of hope. In answer to Senator Corker’s question, Treasury is indeed having trouble dispersing the bailout funds. So far it has requested about $350 billion of the $700 billion, but most of this hasn’t yet made it out the door. Meanwhile, every day it becomes clearer that the bailout was sold to the public on false pretenses. Clearly, it was never really about getting loans flowing. It was always about doing what it is doing: turning the state into a giant insurance agency for Wall Street—a safety net for the people who need it least, subsidized by the people who will most need state protections in the economic storms ahead.

This duplicity is a political opportunity. Whoever wins the election on November 4 will have enormous moral authority. It should be used to call for a freeze on the dispersal of bailout funds—not after the inauguration, but right away. All deals should be renegotiated immediately, this time with the public getting the guarantees.

It is risky, of course, to interrupt the bailout process. The market won’t like it. Nothing could be riskier, however, than allowing the Bush gang their parting gift to big business—the gift that will keep on taking

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 5491
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 26, 2010 02:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
and as for OBAMA nationalizing the auto industry some people's memories are pathologically short:

Finally, after a month of hearings, rhetoric, and a dramatic showdown in Congress, Washington has reached a decision over what to do about America's failing carmakers: President George W. Bush announced on Dec. 19 the government will bail them out with a $17.4 billion loan package. The upshot is that taxpayers are now part owners of General Motors (GM) and Chrysler.

Perhaps the biggest surprise in the announcement is that after talk of "orderly" bankruptcy filings and tough conditions, the money will go to the two automakers with essentially no strings attached, but for the requirement that they won't get more money if they don't step up with realistic restructuring plans. If restructuring toward financial viability is not achieved and certified by the Treasury Dept., however, then the companies will be forced to prepare for a "prepackaged" Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing.

The $17.4 billion of loans should carry GM and Chrysler into next year. The two companies will divvy up $13.4 billion for December and January and $4 billion in February to avoid what the President called "a disorderly bankruptcy" and possible liquidation. Ford Motor (F) is not taking loans but is expected to receive a $9 billion line of credit from the Treasury after President-elect Obama takes office
(dated december 08) http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/dec2008/db20081219_079270.htm

did i say pathologically short? i meant pathologically selective. SORRRYY!

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2451
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 26, 2010 09:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
Going down, down, down!

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 3807
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 27, 2010 01:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message
quote:
Rather, because the market will now be banking on the fact that the U.S. government won’t let these particular companies fail.

The market still feels this way. That jobs report Eleanore made mention of coincided with a rise in the stock market.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2451
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 27, 2010 09:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
WHAT!!!!

You've forgotten already?

There was a debate over bailing out the automakers.

Should we extend them taxpayer funds to keep them afloat OR should we let nature take it's course and let them go through bankruptcy court where they could restructure their debt, contracts and shed unprofitable parts of their businesses.

Lots of people thought it terrible we would not give GM, Ford and Chrysler taxpayer money to prevent them from going bankrupt.

So, after giving the auto companies about $60 Billion dollars of taxpayer money they THEN filed for bankruptcy and we got the worst of both worlds.

As it turned out, O'Bomber interfered in the bankruptcy process by giving unions a large block of auto stock while at the same time, he destroyed the value of secured bond holders bonds. The very people who held secured positions/bonds in auto companies saw their equity share severely diluted.

This action by O'Bomber was unlawful. There is nothing in the law which permits the executive branch to dictate to the federal courts any course of action whatsoever.

What happened is that O'Bomber GAVE unions a bigger piece of auto makers than the secured bond holders. Payback big time since unions gave the O'Bomber's campaign about $400 Million dollars.

June 1, 2009
Bondholder furious over GM bankruptcy
Posted: 09:19 AM ET
John Roberts - Anchor, CNN's American Morning
Filed under: Business


GM bondholder Debra June speaks to CNN's John Roberts.

General Motors turns to bankruptcy today in the hopes of finding a new start. The move comes after a majority of those holding $27 billion in GM bonds agreed to swap that debt for a stake in the new General Motors.

Debra June is a small bondholder who six years ago invested $70,000 in GM bonds. She predicts that investment is now worth less than $200. She spoke to John Roberts on CNN’s “American Morning” Monday.

John Roberts: You invested $70,000 in GM bonds some six years ago. As a result of this deal, that is going to be converted to equity shares. What's that investment worth now?

Debra June: Well, what happened, John, I got this booklet at the original thing. This is a 200-page booklet and they sent this in the mail and the offering was two shares of stock for every $1,000. That's 140 shares of stock. They said originally in the booklet it was going to be 225 shares, but as you kept reading the booklet it said they were going to convert that to 101 reverse-split, which would be two shares of stock. $70,000 for 140 shares of stock.

There was no way I was going to take the deal. Then they came out and they sweetened the deal. And I tried to contact General Motors. I left a message with the people I called up. I talked to the people on the phone. I e-mailed two e-mails, “Please let me know what the deal is.” I'm with GM Bondholders Unite, the 60-plus group and also the Main Street Bondholders. What they're doing to the people is ridiculous. It's horrible. You're wiping out common people that saved money. I'm not a corporation.

Roberts: No, you're a school teacher, we should point out. So $70,000 is a huge amount of money to you.

June: It is. It is. And it's a shame. I mean what they're doing, they're saying 10% and this and that. I don't know what they're doing. People out there have saved their money. We've done the right thing. I pay my bills and here all of a sudden, they want to give me two shares. 140 shares of stock.

Roberts: And that stock, all in total is worth about what, $200?

June: I believe so right now.

Roberts: Maybe less than that.

June: Even less. When they regroup, even if the stock was $10. That's unbelievable. I mean I can't imagine someone doing something like that.

Roberts: So Debra, what was your reaction when you heard General Motors was going to go into bankruptcy? You said you resisted this plan, you didn't agree with this. The major bondholders were the ones who said go ahead and do this debt for equity swap. What did you think when you heard they were going into bankruptcy and that was the deal?

June: Well, I'm in shock. When I bought into GM, I thought it's a safe thing. I bought six years ago. I always thought it was safe even when the government came in. I was so excited, I said "Well they’re going to take over." But Obama’s task force, these people came in, they didn't negotiate. We had no say. The private investor had no say in the matter. They dealt with the big corporations. Obama is for the people, he said. How can you be for the people? How can he do this?

Roberts: So do you blame the task force? Do you blame the company, the unions? Who do you blame for getting in this situation?

June: I blame, originally, GM, for letting it go like this. It's like Bernie Madoff was their bookkeeper. It's ridiculous, but also for the task force to come in and not let anyone from the main sector, just a representative to go in there and try to negotiate. They never let us do that. I would have given...I'm not joking on this, I would have said to GM, "Here don't give me any interest, just take that." That would help them immensely… I mean to send this booklet out, the task force actually did this?

Roberts: So do you have any hope of recouping your investment? If this company gets lean and mean and agile, do you have any hope you can recoup that $70,000 and beyond that if the price of the stock goes up?

June: Nothing. Right now, I'm not even in on the new deal, the sweetened deal, I couldn't even get in on it. And that's - and it's in the paper. They didn't care about the people. It's in the paper.

Roberts: So you really feel robbed, do you?

June: I feel robbed. I know that there's an attorney out there for the GM bondholders Unite. That’s the gentleman Thomas Lauria and he's supposed to represent the small people. I hope and pray the judge, whoever gets this, is going to say “Wait, this isn’t right what's happening to the people, it's not right what's happening to the workers.” The dealerships are going to close. It's going to be a trickle down effect but they're taking income from me and thousands and thousands of other people who are in worse shape than I am and it's not right.

Roberts: We'll keep following this and maybe we can stay in touch with you and keep checking back.

June: Please, please people out there – contact your congressman. Do something. Say it's not right. I remember Michelle Obama said she was not proud of her country until her husband was in office. I'm a school teacher. If I was teaching her children, would she say she was proud that this is happening to a common person like myself? I mean you can't, you can't do it.
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/01/bondholder-furious-over-gm-bankruptcy/

Then later, we find out that O'Bomber was praising GM for paying back the government loans. After that, we find out GM was paying back the original loans with money loaned by the FED. In short, it was a farce.

That's only one of the unlawful power grabs for which O'Bomber should have been impeached.

Still later, the auto task force..O'Bomber forced the closing of GM and Chrysler dealerships across America. These people lost their franchises and it cost hundreds of thousands of jobs across America.

Then, we find that Republican donating dealers were targeted for the closings and demoscat donating dealers were protected.

The auto bailouts and bankruptcies are a subject demoscats should stay far away from discussing.

In the meantime, GM, Chrysler and members of the O'Bomber auto task force would be wise to hire some good attorneys. Congressional hearing are looming on their horizons...among a host of other Congressional hearing after November 2nd.

Hmmm: Chrysler dealers shut down in Obama bankruptcy are mostly Republican?

"To quickly review the situation, I took all dealer owners whose names appeared more than once in the list. And, of those who contributed to political campaigns, every single one had donated almost exclusively to GOP candidates. While this isn’t an exhaustive review, it does have some ominous implications if it can be verified.
However, I also found additional research online at Scribd (author unknown), which also appears to point to a highly partisan decision-making process."

"Lawyer Leonard Bellavia, of Bellavia Gentile & Associates, who represents some of the terminated dealers, said he deposed Chrysler President Jim Press on Tuesday and came away with the impression that Press did not support the plan.
“It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers,” Bellavia said. “It really wasn’t Chrysler’s decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President’s automotive task force.”

He added the government task force, which he criticized for having no members with retail experience was, in effect, attacking U.S. entrepreneurs…

“I think it’s unconstitutional,” said Jim Anderer, owner of Island Jeep in Lindenhurst, New York.

“The Fifth Amendment clearly states you cannot take another person’s property without due process or compensation. Even in eminent domain, there is an appraised price on the property being taken by the state."
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/26/hmmm-chrysler-dealers-shut-down-in-obama-bankruptcy-are-mostly-republican/

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 5491
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 27, 2010 02:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
whose property was taken? the government loaned money to the automakers...with provisions...how strange is that? would you lend someone who had blown his wad money without stipulations as to what he could and couldn't do with it?

jwhop you are the wall street expert here. can you explain to me the difference between "stocks" and "bonds" and how they perform in different types of markets? as i understand it they are valid in different climates? and for once i agree for you to spell it out as to a grade schooler, since my knowledge is only from my own limited experience of having inherited some stocks years ago...

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2451
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 28, 2010 12:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
What??

Whose proterty was taken katatonic? You can't be serious.

When secured bond holders of General Motors bonds were forced by O'Bomber...through his auto task force...to trade each $1000 of GM bonds they held for 2 shares of GM stock which was worth about $3.50...you ask "whose property was taken???

Just for your information katatonic:

Stocks, Bonds and currency/money ARE property.

So katatonic, when O'Bomber reduced the woman's, (see article) monetary holdings of $70,000 in face value bonds to about $200 in stock value $69,800 of her money was taken.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 5491
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 28, 2010 12:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
i understand there is a difference in how bonds and stocks can be expected to perform. one is preferable in some economic climates and the other in others. recently i heard that those who had been buying bonds expecting them to be "safer" in THIS climate would do well to transfer to stocks because the value of bonds will be going DOWN...so getting someone to trade their bonds before they dive would be a good thing, no?

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2010

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a