| Author | Message | ||
     Whatever |
I thought you were out "creating me a job"? Party is over now...  | ||
| Buellinmke |
The teabaggers are nothing but astroturf. If they were truly concerned with the expansion of government, then they would have started complaining in 2001 with the Patriot Act, TSA, Homeland Security, illegal wiretaps, etc. The teabaggers never showed up until 2009 when Glenn Beck got a TV show on Fox News and started crying and lying.  One of the reasons for the terrorist attacks in the US on 09/11/2001 was to ruin us financially. It's sad to say, but it seems that the terrorists have won. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
You never explained how a job was "created". I'll be happy to follow your instructions to the letter. What is "corporate wellfare"? | ||
| Whatever |
Maybe "war profiteering" is a more accurate term. Here is your own question Fatty. What is the tea party view on war profiteering? Why is spending on foreign soil valuable, but for Americans it is not? | ||
| Whatever |
I told you I think "job creation" is a myth. | ||
| Cyclonedon |
It's why I don't have ANY live TV in the house. Believe it or not I can't even get Fox News. me neither and if I did, I sure as hell wouldn't watch Fox News!!!!!!!! | ||
| Whatever |
And apparently Palin did speak... she thinks that the lack of raising the debt limit will not affect (effect?) the economy... I guess her former running mate (McCain) is over reacting... http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/sarah-pal in-on-debt-debate-more-obama-drama.html | ||
| Two_seasons |
Try reading the US Constitution sometime. Is it any wonder why we had the goons in Madison with thinking like this? | ||
| Hootowl |
"The teabaggers are nothing but astroturf" By any definition of the political term 'astroturf', that statement is an absolute crock. They are the epitome of grass roots. If you think they're a faction of the Republican party, bought and paid for, explain it to all the GOP congressmen who lost their seats to them. The GOP has attempted to align themselves with the tea party in order to save their own bacon. Which party buses paid protesters to demonstrations again? Yeah, I thought so. Astroturf.. pfft. | ||
| Whatever |
Ok start here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/politics/25le gal.html | ||
| J2blue |
On the one hand... On the other hand... | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Who WOULD be for "war profiteering". Now you may disagree with war (particularly Iraq), but it was declared by a bypartisan vote of both houses with bypartisan votes for it's continued funding right through 2008 and into the next administration where both wars were continued as well as an additional one started. If you have specific evidence of "war profiteering", please bring it forward and we'll both pursue those guilty. Now, what is "corporate wellfare"? What would be the outcome if "corporate wellfare" were ended tomorrow? | ||
| Hootowl |
Affect  Effect is a noun (most of the time). It won't have an effect on the economy. It won't affect the economy. Not sure I agree. Though if I worked at such an agency, and the government just gave itself another credit card, I'd be likely to downgrade their credit anyway. I think losing the AAA rating is a foregone conclusion at this point unfortunately. | ||
| Whatever |
Maybe you can explain this chart... You really don't understand how the privatization of the military is considered a huge source of waste and fraud? Isn't that a known fact? The Americans contractors were replaced with foreigners when it was realized the profits could be much higher for the CEO's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U .S._presidential_terms It is wikipedia so... whatever... but it says during the Obama Administration through May 2011 (not projected to end of term but for less than 2.5 years) that 1.81 Million jobs were so called 'created' and that during the entire of Bush's last term (all four years) 1.1 Million jobs were so called 'created'. I wonder how many jobs overseas and in Central and South America were created in the last four years of Bush. Apparently 80% of war contractors were not even American citizens? | ||
| Whatever |
No big deal... there are only 900 complaints at the DOJ, and it is only 10 billion... no big deal. Again it is onkly Wikipedia, not a known news corp like Fox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_misappropria tions | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
Tea party is astro turf? How did they have such a big impact then despite most every media outlet trying to paint them as racists and nutcases? Progressives throw that term around so often because its something they can relate to with their use of ethnic minorities and women as trinkets hung on their tree of hypocrisy. The white man is still cracking the whip in the democratic party. | ||
| Aesquire |
Tea party astroturf? That's the media mantra. While there may indeed be a deep and sinister cabal of rich people making the tea party happen, it's not astroturf. The protesters that get shipped in, are astroturf. The Tea party seems like a natural revolution of mild fiscal conservatism. I'd be most happy if they don't let any one power block take over. As is, they got a nice mix of cross cultural rational causes. We'll see. Maybe the tea party folk are nuts. Certainly the Progressive folk are, on the subject of economics, spending, and who owns all the money. Prosecute the war profiteers. You'd have to ask a tea partier, ( I'm not one ) but I'm all for justice. ( not social justice, but the traditional kind. ) There's a lot of corruption out there. Rail against it from anyone, no matter their politics. | ||
| Boltrider |
Nader being asked how to fix the economy, yeah that's funny. The contracts he speaks of in that article are just a different form of the same thing he'd do to all of us if he had his way. Nader would have all of us spend ourselves silly for the sake of the latest government subsidized "green" tech miracle. | ||
| Notblues2 |
"The Tea Party is not questioning the 700 trillion spent on the Iraq war." That's because they're not stupid enough to think 700 TRILLION was spent on the war. You might want to go check your numbers whatever that's not even close in fact we haven't spent even close to 700 TRILLION in the entire history of the country although we might if Obama gets his way. "$16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland." So your trying to say that WAY MORE money than even all federal spending has been GIVEN AWAY and it was done in secret and nobody knew and you actually believe that? | ||
| Moxnix |
Is that Amy Goodman from Democracy NEVER? I'm not big on Fox News, but she definitely is not fair and balanced. Maybe, unfair and unbalanced. Nadir is interesting. Never correct, but interesting. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-july-26-2011 /armadebtdon-2011---call-congress | ||
| Whatever |
Stewart is so funny. I am ashamed of myself though... I was actually watching the Bachelorette Monday night...  | ||
| Moxnix |
Chick show. | ||
| Buellinmke |
"So your trying to say that WAY MORE money than even all federal spending has been GIVEN AWAY and it was done in secret and nobody knew and you actually believe that?" I'm not trying to say that - the GAO has already stated it as fact. You can view the report on the GAO website. Between 2007 and 2010, the Federal Reserve did indeed secretly give over 16 trillion dollars (more than all federal spending ever in the history of the nation) to domestic and international financial institutions. No wonder the Fed didn't want to be audited. The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows.. Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000) Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000) Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000) Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000) Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000) Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000) Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000) Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000) JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000) Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000) UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000) Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000) Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000) Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000) BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000) and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve(July 21st, 2011): http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf Source: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-696 FULL PDF on GAO server: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf Senator Sander’s Article: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4e a8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3 | ||
| Whatever |
I am pretty sure I can survive on saltines and peanut butter... but giving up coffee would be really rough... | ||
| Court |
How ya like the little "adjustment" to the growth numbers today? Less than 30 days ago big o is out touting his " turn around" Oooops ...... Turns out the numbers were wrong...... A LOT wrong. Can you say FLATLINE? When they wake up it's gonna be a he'll of a hangover. | ||
| Blake |
Joe (Buellinmke), Geez Joe, I had to read two whole sentences into the report you reference to find the truth.
More from page three...
What that means is that the moneys were never "given" to anyone. They were all loans to be repaid; most have been repaid, and the maximum amount that was ever "outstanding", meaning owed to the Federal Reserve, was "more than $1 trillion" and that was in late 2008; it's less now. Good grief. More... from page 99...
So rather than giving money away as you seemed to imagine, the Fed was actually earning money, albeit not much in terms of percentage, but hey, it's something. from page 137, a nice graphic illustrating the history of loan monies outstanding...  Still outraged Joe? (Message edited by Blake on July 29, 2011) | ||
| Whatever |
And the Tpublic has dug in their heels... and nothing is resolved... Can anyone explain to me how flooding the market with thousands of laid off gov workers will solve unemployment ? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
EVERY government employee is paid with funds that would otherwise employee them in the private sector. It is precisely BECAUSE of government over spending that unemployment has remained so high. In fact, since the average wage and benefits are proportionately larger than similar private sector jobs, these displaced government workers should be hired with money to spare. Maybe we'll ALL get a raise. | ||
| Whatever |
So you are saying if you fire a government regulatory scientist that the government hiring a corporation to process permits on behalf of the government will save the taxpayer money ? Maybe if they ship that job to India... that might work. But usually corporations have to pay their CEO's millions of dollars to manage the serfs. |
