The misguided way of Liberalism and how it could lead to the end of the USA

[ragman]

Oh, I thought TARP money to the big banks wasn't paid back?  Must be more of those Liberal Lies.     $132.9 billion to go and that includes interest.  Now I wonder who got that money?   


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120126/D9SGJK6G0.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - A government watchdog says U.S. taxpayers are still owed $132.9 billion that companies haven't repaid from the financial bailout, and some of that will never be recovered.

The bailout launched at the height of the financial crisis in September 2008 will continue to exist for years, says a report issued Thursday by Christy Romero, the acting special inspector general for the $700 billion bailout. Some bailout programs, such as the effort to help homeowners avoid foreclosure by reducing mortgage payments, will last as late as 2017, costing the government an additional $51 billion or so.

The gyrating stock market has slowed the Treasury Department's efforts to sell off its stakes in 458 bailed-out companies, the report says. They include insurer American International Group Inc. (AIG), General Motors Co. (GM) and Ally Financial Inc.

If Treasury plans to sell its stock in the three companies at or above the price where taxpayers would break even on their investment - $28.73 a share for AIG, $53.98 for GM - it may take a long time for the market to rebound to that level, the report says. AIG's shares closed Wednesday at $25.31, while GM ended at $24.92. Ally isn't publicly traded.

It will also be challenging for the government to get out of the 458 companies as the market remains volatile and banks struggle keep afloat in the tough economy, it says.

Congress authorized $700 billion for the bailout of financial companies and automakers, and $413.4 billion was paid out. So far the government has recovered about $318 billion. The bailout is called the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

"TARP is not over," Romero said in a statement. She said her office will maintain its commitment to protect taxpayers for the duration of the program.

Treasury spokesman Matt Anderson said the department "has made substantial progress winding down TARP and has already recovered more than 77 percent of the funds disbursed for the program, through repayments and other income."

"We'll continue to balance the important goals of exiting our investments as soon as practicable and maximizing value for taxpayers," Anderson said.

The government has unwound its investments in four of the companies that received the most aid: Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. (C), Chrysler Group LLC and Chrysler Financial, the automaker's old lending arm.
On Wednesday, Treasury announced that it had sold the final batch of securities under its $368 million Small Business Administration loan program under TARP.

In Romero's quarterly report to Congress, she said her office has uncovered and prevented fraud related to TARP. Investigations by her office have resulted in criminal charges against 10 people and three convictions, the report notes.

[clover]

Huh?  Who disputed that TARP money wasn't being paid back?  I know you like to "dream up shit" to prove your false paradigm....but you're going to at least provide a shred of truth to your statements.  The sad part is that there's so much money available to big business and special interest and not a dollar of the working class or small business.  The Republicans base was and is well taken care of........while Romney made money from foreclosures and millions of people struggled to survive.

Oh....I've been saving this for you....enjoy:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html

[ragman]

What you have done is criticized TARP from day one and have always pointed at "Bush" as responsible for TARP.  Now TARP probably saved the day and stopped the disaster that we where economically headed for. Most TARP money was paid back so the end result for the taxpayers was limited lost.  Most responsible economists and such have agreed that TARP helped and stabilized the problem.
 
Now on the other hand, Numbnuts which has spent Trillions of dollars with very little results, is good?  I'll ask everyone again, are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago? Where are the results of this madness? 

Sarah says:

We are in desperate need of real leadership, but President Obama’s solution to everything is to grow government by borrowing more money, spending more money, printing more money, and taxing our job creators. He once said that he “believes in American Exceptionalism…just as the Greeks believe in Greek Exceptionalism.” Well, the path he has us on will make us just as “exceptional” as Greece – debt crisis, stagnation, permanent high unemployment, and all.

Ron says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loBe0WXtts8

Jim says: This poor excuse for a leader has got to go before we all go down the tube.   

[clover]

TARP is welfare....get it?  A handout, a free ride......food stamps...whatever you want to call them.........now if you're a Republican, welfare,handouts and free rides for the rich and special interest is YOUR PLATFORM!  I can understand why you support them....and the rest of the bank bailouts etc....I mean those are the real Americans and everyone else is just a loser   Being on the dole only applies to the minorities and poor whites.....being on the dole if you're rich is good for the country

I mean i know you're a dedicated partisan and will vote for anyone and I mean anyone with an R behind their name until you are dead........that's OK   it's a free country......but you might try to understand that I'm not as brainwashed as you........I never made it to the Republican indoctrination camp....so just get off my ass

PS  a vote for romney is a vote for obama.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/news/economy/obama_government/index.htm?hpt=hp_bn3

[clover]

It never ceases to amaze me how handouts to the rich are good for the country and handouts to those that deserve them are a scourge on society......................how the hell do you live with that double standard??

[ragman]

TARP is welfare....get it?  A handout, a free ride......food stamps...whatever you want to call them

It never ceases to amaze me how handouts to the rich are good for the country and handouts to those that deserve them are a scourge on society......................how the hell do you live with that double standard??

See you are so numb that you would sink the country before you did what was needed to be done at the time to save everyone.  Tarp was paid back with interest as already explained, therefore it was not a free ride at least for the banks.  Now GM that maybe a different story.    Now I think it would be legitimate to argue that we should have let them fail but most everyone today with knowledge in this area believes we were on the edge and it might have been disastrous for a lot of people for a long time.  Jim feels he will listen to the people who should know but I certainly wish it didn't have to be done.  Now outside of stabilizing the banks it is hard to justify the "other" uses of the money and then Numbnuts wanted it, not paid back to the Treasury but available for his use.  Do you recall that fact?  

....so just get off my ass

 Nah, I don't think so.    I trying to redeem you.  There must be something there worth salvaging.  

PS Don't forget who pays 70% of the taxes.  It was a temp. loan not welfare.

[clover]

Handouts for the wealthy....the shit end of the stick for everyone else.  Great politics. 

I know...those well managed and astute companies in their blind greed put themselves in a position to require a massive amount of TAXPAYERS MONEY to survive....while mom and pops across America went straight down.  F**k those small businesses.....and when they go on welfare drug test them   You guys are real supporters of America.  I mean how do you get brainwashed???  A double standard is OK     Don't count on winning any elections until you figure out the President represents ALL the people......not just rupert Murdoch's people.

[ragman]

Handouts for the wealthy....the shit end of the stick for everyone else.  Great politics.  

I know...those well managed and astute companies in their blind greed put themselves in a position to require a massive amount of TAXPAYERS MONEY to survive....while mom and pops across America went straight down.  F**k those small businesses.....and when they go on welfare drug test them  You guys are real supporters of America.  I mean how do you get brainwashed???  A double standard is OK    Don't count on winning any elections until you figure out the President represents ALL the people......not just rupert Murdoch's people.

Well without the banks that is what would have happened to small businesses and many others.  What is that story about the scorpion and an animal crossing the river?  The scorpion is riding on the animals back and stings him half way across.  They both drown.   Why because he is a scorpion.   Substitute Liberal for Scorpion for those of you from Rio Linda.   Hey I like that.  

[clover]

We all know the Republicans are the party of big business and special interest and would f**k the American people at any given time to promote the interest of the top 2%.  A handout to big business is good for America...a handout to the unemployed is welfare.......again....how do you bast**ds live with the double standard?  Have you no shame?

[clover]

Substitute Liberal for Scorpion for those of you from Rio Linda.   Hey I like that.  

I remember when the elitist nazi Limbaugh used to broadcast from Sacrament and make fun of Rio Linda....a small pocket of hard working rural living Americans who by the way vote Republican every year.  You see while Limbaugh was smoking cigars and playing golf those folks were working as forklift drivers at the Target and Wal Mart warehouses.  And that my friend is the difference between the right wing nazi elite and the rest of us......Rush Limbaugh makes fun of hard working Americans living in a rural environment outside the metro area of Sacramento, because their poor forklift drivers and employees of the ruling class.

At some point you need to go see Rio Linda and understand that your right wing brothers are champions of oligarchy....not democracy.

[ragman]

And now the latest:
http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-global-internet-treaty-worse-than-sopa/print/

Obama Signs Global Internet Treaty Worse Than SOPA

White House bypasses Senate to ink agreement that could allow Chinese companies to demand ISPs remove web content in US with no legal oversight
 
Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Thursday, January 26, 2012
 
Months before the debate about Internet censorship raged as SOPA and PIPA dominated the concerns of web users, President Obama signed an international treaty that would allow companies in China or any other country in the world to demand ISPs remove web content in the US with no legal oversight whatsoever.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement was signed by Obama on October 1 2011, yet is currently the subject of a White House petition demanding Senators be forced to ratify the treaty. The White House has circumvented the necessity to have the treaty confirmed by lawmakers by presenting it an as “executive agreement,” although legal scholars have highlighted the dubious nature of this characterization.
 
The hacktivist group Anonymous attacked and took offline the Federal Trade Commission’s website yesterday in protest against the treaty, which was also the subject of demonstrations across major cities in Poland, a country set to sign the agreement today.
 
Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court order, all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply globally, rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than SOPA or PIPA.
 
A country known for its enforcement of harsh Internet censorship policies like China could demand under the treaty that an ISP in the United States remove content or terminate a website on its server altogether. As we have seen from the enforcement of similar copyright policies in the US, websites are sometimes targeted for no justifiable reason.
 
The groups pushing the treaty also want to empower copyright holders with the ability to demand that users who violate intellectual property rights (with no legal process) have their Internet connections terminated, a punishment that could only ever be properly enforced by the creation of an individual Internet ID card for every web user, a system that is already in the works.
 
“The same industry rightsholder groups that support the creation of ACTA have also called for mandatory network-level filtering by Internet Service Providers and for Internet Service Providers to terminate citizens’ Internet connection on repeat allegation of copyright infringement (the “Three Strikes” /Graduated Response) so there is reason to believe that ACTA will seek to increase intermediary liability and require these things of Internet Service Providers,” reports the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
 
The treaty will also mandate that ISPs disclose personal user information to the copyright holder, while providing authorities across the globe with broader powers to search laptops and Internet-capable devices at border checkpoints.
 
In presenting ACTA as an “international agreement” rather than a treaty, the Obama administration managed to circumvent the legislative process and avoid having to get Senate approval, a method questioned by Senator Wyden.
 
“That said, even if Obama has declared ACTA an executive agreement (while those in Europe insist that it’s a binding treaty), there is a very real Constitutional question here: can it actually be an executive agreement?” asks TechDirt. “The law is clear that the only things that can be covered by executive agreements are things that involve items that are solely under the President’s mandate. That is, you can’t sign an executive agreement that impacts the things Congress has control over. But here’s the thing: intellectual property, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is an issue given to Congress, not the President. Thus, there’s a pretty strong argument that the president legally cannot sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and, instead, must submit them to the Senate.”.
 
26 European Union member states along with the EU itself are set to sign the treaty at a ceremony today in Tokyo. Other countries wishing to sign the agreement have until May 2013 to do so.
 
Critics are urging those concerned about Obama’s decision to sign the document with no legislative oversight to demand the Senate be forced to ratify the treaty.
 
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

Can anyone out there imagine the outcry if Bush would have tried to get away with this.  I guess he is just getting ready for the day he has complete control of our government and the people.  

Feeling depressed, betrayed and anxious about the future of America?

359 Days, 02 Hours, 01 Minutes, 05 Seconds

until Inauguration Day 2013 and the end of our long national nightmare.  
 

[clover]

You poor f**king victims......imagine if Bush.......................what horseshit......bush was a loser....you know it and I know it.......I'm not sure he could spell Laura's name without help.

[rykat]

Bush -6 successful years- two shit years
Obama - 4 shit years

Gimme back Bush

[ragman]

You poor f**king victims......imagine if Bush.......................what horseshit......bush was a loser....you know it and I know it.......I'm not sure he could spell Laura's name without help.

  We have seen Bush's grades in School has anyone seen Numbnuts.    

[ragman]

Another great plan originating in the great State of California.      What the hell is it going to be like for my children and their children in the future?  Maybe Michelle Obama can add this to the food police list.  Oh wait I think it is already on the list.    God help us.    I think next time in the States I'll buy up a 20 supply of Snickers, I couldn't imagine life without an occasional one.    I better hurry before the sugar tax goes in effect. 

UCSF scientists declare war on sugar in food

Erin Allday, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Like alcohol and tobacco, sugar is a toxic, addictive substance that should be highly regulated with taxes, laws on where and to whom it can be advertised, and even age-restricted sales, says a team of UCSF scientists.
 
In a paper published in Nature on Wednesday, they argue that increased global consumption of sugar is primarily responsible for a whole range of chronic diseases that are reaching epidemic levels around the world.
 
Sugar is so heavily entrenched in the food culture in the United States and other countries that getting people to kick the habit will require much more than simple education and awareness campaigns, the UCSF scientists said.
 
It's going to require public policy that gently guides people toward healthier choices and uses brute force to remove sugar from so many of the processed foods we eat every day, said Dr. Robert Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF.
 
"The only method for dealing with this is a public health intervention," Lustig said in an interview. "Everyone talks about personal responsibility, and that won't work here, as it won't for any addictive substance. These are things that have to be done at a governmental level, and government has to get off its ass."
 
In response to the study, the food and beverage industries said in statements that sugar cannot be blamed for high rates of chronic disease in the United States and elsewhere.
 
Comparing sugar to alcohol and tobacco is "simply without scientific merit," the American Beverage Association said. "There is no evidence that focusing solely on reducing sugar intake would have any meaningful public health impact."
 
Altering biochemistry
 
Lustig has written and talked extensively about the role he believes sugar has played in driving up rates of chronic illness such as heart disease and diabetes. Excessive sugar, he argues, alters people's biochemistry, making them more vulnerable to metabolic conditions that lead to illness, while at the same time making people crave sweets even more.
 
It's sugar, not obesity, that is the real health threat, Lustig and his co-authors - public health experts Laura Schmidt and Claire Brindis - say in their paper. They note that studies show 20 percent of obese people have normal metabolism and no ill health effects resulting from their weight, while 40 percent of normal-weight people have metabolic problems that can lead to diabetes and heart disease. They contend that sugar consumption is the cause.
 
In other words, not everyone gains a lot of weight from over-indulging in sugar, but a large proportion of the U.S. population is eating enough of it that it's having devastating health effects, they say.
 
"The gestalt shift is maybe obesity is just a marker for the rise in chronic disease worldwide, and in fact metabolic syndrome, caused by excessive sugar consumption, is the real culprit," said Schmidt, a health policy professor who focuses on alcohol and addiction research.
 
22 teaspoons a day
 
Americans eat and drink roughly 22 teaspoons of sugar every day - triple what they consumed three decades ago - and most people aren't even aware of the various ways sugars sneak into their diets, often via breads and cereals and processed foods. Terms that identify sugars on labels include sucrose, glucose, fructose, maltose, hydrolysed starch and invert sugar, corn syrup and honey.
 
Ultimately, getting those sugars out of the American food culture is going to require a massive shift in how foods and beverages are made in the United States, the authors say. In the paper, they say that the Food and Drug Administration needs to remove sugar from the list of foods "generally regarded as safe," meaning they can be used in unlimited quantities.
 
But the food and beverage industries have repeatedly denied that sugar is the main villain behind rising rates of obesity, or the increases in diabetes and heart disease. Instead, industry representatives say that a complex cultural shift - toward a more inactive lifestyle and increased calories overall - is to blame.
 
And not all scientists agree that sugar should shoulder the entire burden for the chronic diseases afflicting modern Americans.
 
"When you get into this argument about sugar in the diet, you also have to look at the type of food that has a high sugar content," said Jo Ann Hattner, a San Francisco registered dietitian who teaches nutrition courses at Stanford. "Those foods have few nutrients and little fiber, and that's not good for you. So is it sugar itself that's harmful?"
 
Good advice: Eat less
 
That said, Hattner added, there's no doubt that people in general consume too much sugar and that everyone could benefit from eating less - and especially looking out for "hidden" sugars in their diets. Those sugars are often found in processed foods like sodas, cereals and breads. Even cookies contain much more sugar than they did a decade or two ago, nutritionists say.
 
But while individuals certainly can make small changes to their diets to eat more nutritiously, that alone is not going to effect major public health improvements, Lustig and his co-authors said.
 
In their paper, they argue for taxes on heavily sweetened foods and beverages, restricting advertising to children and teenagers, and removing sugar-ladened products from schools, or even from being sold near schools. They suggest banning the sale of sugary beverages to children.
 
Schmidt noted that those policies could nudge people toward healthier choices - but only if, at the same time, healthier choices are made widely available. Such policies have worked in reducing alcohol consumption and smoking rates, she said. There's no reason they can't work with sugar too.
 
Lustig said he realizes that there will likely be heavy resistance to the idea of largely removing sugar from American diets - and resistance not just from the food and beverage industries, but from the public at large.
 
"Everybody yells, 'Nanny state, this guy is trying to control our food,' " Lustig said. "But it's already being controlled. It limits consumer choice when so much of our food is controlled by these industries. I'm actually trying to undo the nanny state."