|
|
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Have you seen the present Federal Deficit?
It's 52.7 TRILLION DOLLARS and even admitted to
by The "Driveby Media Man" himself Rush Limpbrow.
The problem is: "privatization is the biggest scam that
America has allowed since the English sank the Lusitania
(According to J. Edgar Hoover's justification to Congress
for American Isolationism.) and the claims that Islamics
committed the events of 9/11/2001 (Again debunked by
the FBI [which caused the Director to be replaced].)
The biggest part of the scam is where the "Private
Contractors" take over management of Federal Employees
and claim that they increased the salary of these
people from $8.00 - $10.00 an hour to over $60.00 and
then collect $120.00 an hour from Uncle Sam for the
Bill. The new "Private" employees actually get the $60.00
an hour.
And these people actually think they earn their pay by
being able to use a Software system admitted by Bill
Gates himself that any 6 year old 2nd grader can operate.
Steve Blonske
GySGt USMC Retired
|
Posts:
597
Registered:
4/21/07
|
|
(56 of 56)
Re: The 50 Trillion Dollar Privatization Cost
Mar 30, 2008 11:01 PM
|
> I always follow the money and noticed ago who
> benefits
> from the privatization you describe. Rove and
> company
> are rolling in the aisles as Obama is named messiah
> as
> they know about his 3.5 million seed money and
> support
> from corporations, no matter what his team tells athe
>
> world about average donations...I sent this to Bill
> Maher:
>
> Obama for keeping Blackwater et al; Hillary is
> not...
> [Replies: 0]
> Bill,
>
> I noticed you believe their exit plans are the same.
> Please
> note Obama does not stipulate the contractors must
> go
> from Iraq as Hillary does. Kindly update your take on
> that?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeanne who is not a believer in messiahs of any kind
> either...;>
This is new to me. What corps. gave the seed money?? Is it something that goes against anything he or his campaign said??
As for the contractors, I've never caught that either. Where can I find it ??
--
all it takes for evil to triumph is to vote republican!
|
|
|
Posts:
1,627
Registered:
3/8/08
|
|
(55 of 56)
Re: The 50 Trillion Dollar Privatization Cost
Mar 30, 2008 1:09 AM
|
That poor little old white lady.........
Wal-mart is taking her $200,000........
Where is that helping hand........
called the audacity of hope.......
?............
The little old white lady's hand.......
has filled up with Obama's shit.........
while Michelle and B. Hussein's his had filled......
up with her money......
A Wal-mart lobbyist is working on Obama's campaign.......
and his wife is linked to the Wal-mart business....
Lobbyists on Obama?s ?08 payroll
By Alexander Bolton and Brittney Moraski
Posted: 12/20/07 07:59 PM [ET]
Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama?s (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents.
Obama called hypocrite for wife's Wal-Mart link
By Philip Sherwell in New York, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 11:37pm BST 12/05/2007
# In pictures: US presidential front-runners
As a fluent public speaker, independent-minded wife, devoted mother and professional woman, Michelle Obama has been hailed as an invaluable asset to her husband Barack's mission to capture the Democratic 2008 presidential nomination.
Yet, while her style and performance are winning plaudits on the campaign trail, a little-reported business interest of Mrs Obama's has opened her husband up to one of the criticisms that politicians fear most - the taint of hypocrisy.
Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, Obama called a hypocrite for wife's Wal-Mart link
Business link: Michelle Obama
She is taking a break from her main job, as a well-remunerated Chicago hospital executive, to campaign for her husband. But she has just been re-elected to the board of an Illinois food-processing company, a position she took up two years ago to gain experience of the private sector.
And the biggest customer for the pickles and peppers produced by Treehouse Foods is the retail giant Wal-Mart, the world's largest corporation and the bête noire of American liberals, including Sen Obama, for its employment practices, most notably its refusal to recognise trade unions.
As the Illinois senator prepared to join the presidential fray late last year, he threw his weight behind the union-backed campaign against Wal-Mart. He declared that there was a "moral responsibility to stand up and fight" the company and "force them to examine their own corporate values".
According to the couple's tax returns, Mrs Obama earned $51,200 (£25,700) for her work as a non-executive director on Treehouse's board last year, on top of the $271,618 salary she was paid as a vice-president of the University of Chicago Hospitals.
advertisement
She also received 7,500 Treehouse stock options, worth a further $72,375, as she did the previous year, when she banked a $45,000 salary from the company.
The apparent contradiction between Sen Obama's political calculation to join the Wal-Mart-bashing lobby, and his wife's profitable role with a company that makes money from Wal-Mart, is being closely scrutinised by "opposition" research teams working for rival White House candidates, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
They are collecting information about Mrs Obama's Treehouse ties, anticipating that - in a country where "going dirty" is a political way of life - the link may provide valuable ammunition in the election campaign.
Such attacks could be particularly damaging for Sen Obama, who has promised a change from politics as usual. Just last week, on her first foray to the crucial first primary state of New Hampshire, Mrs Obama praised her husband's "moral compass", reflecting a key message of his campaign.
Joe Novak, a Chicago political consultant who runs an anti-Obama website, said: "The Obamas would have us believe that, when it comes to money and ethics and compassion, he is a different kind of politician.
"What's different here is that they actually seem to believe it. That's the only way they can justify the contradictions between what they preach and what they practice. Defending Treehouse while attacking Wal-Mart is a blatant example of personal hypocrisy."
Sen Obama's campaign team and Mrs Obama's spokesman did not respond to requests by The Sunday Telegraph for comment. But the senator previously told Crain's Chicago Business magazine that, while his views on corporate reform and social justice remained the same regardless of what happens at Treehouse, "Michelle and I have to live in the world and pay taxes and pay for our kids and save for retirement".
Hillary Clinton, Sen Obama's main rival for the Democratic nomination, can testify to the political dangers in liberal America of being associated with Wal-Mart, even though the company's cost-cutting policy makes its goods more affordable for the low-paid. The New York senator and wife of the former President Bill Clinton still encounters flak for serving on the company's board from 1985 to 1992, before becoming First Lady.
According to Treehouse's financial filings, Wal-Mart accounted for 16.1 per cent of its sales last year, up from 11.7 per cent in 2005 (a 37 per cent increase), comfortably making it the company's biggest customer. Treehouse's annual operating profits rose from $28 million two years ago to $84 million (up 200 per cent) in 2006.
Mrs Obama, 43, was re-elected to the board last month for a further three years, a period that would overlap with her husband's time in the White House if he becomes America's first black president.
Mrs Obama is Treehouse's senior non-executive director and sits on the company's audit and nominating and corporate governance committees. Her Treehouse connection is not the only awkward ethical question that has confronted Sen Obama as his past is dug over.
Earlier this year, in response to a newspaper investigation, he said he was unaware that his broker had bought $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose leading investors included some of his biggest political donors.
He has also apologised for his "boneheaded error" in striking a property deal with Tony Rezko, a Chicago Democrat operative facing a federal indictment.
SHAME ON YOU B. HUSSEIN OBAMA
IF IT QUACKS LIKE A DUCK AND WALKS LIKE A DUCK IT MUST BE A DUCK
--
Edited by Nemeses2008 at 03/30/2008 7:43 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,021
Registered:
1/27/08
|
|
(54 of 56)
Re: The 50 TRILLION DOLLAR PRIVATIZATION COST
Mar 29, 2008 10:44 PM
|
> Good to know your losses went to Grasso's pocket.
It helps me sleep at night.
--
I have no quote
|
|
|
Posts:
1,756
Registered:
7/17/07
|
|
(53 of 56)
Re: The 50 TRILLION DOLLAR PRIVATIZATION COST
Mar 29, 2008 8:00 PM
|
> > No? Then should corporate America have that
> honor?
>
> I think the financial wizards that made it easy for
> anyone to trade online have that honor. I took a
> beating myself. I took another one a few years ago.
> It's the stock market.
>
> --
> I have no quote
Good to know your losses went to Grasso's pocket.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,021
Registered:
1/27/08
|
|
(52 of 56)
Re: The 50 TRILLION DOLLAR PRIVATIZATION COST
Mar 29, 2008 7:32 PM
|
> No? Then should corporate America have that honor?
I think the financial wizards that made it easy for anyone to trade online have that honor. I took a beating myself. I took another one a few years ago. It's the stock market.
--
I have no quote
|
|
|
Posts:
691
Registered:
2/18/08
|
|
(51 of 56)
Re: The 50 TRILLION DOLLAR PRIVATIZATION COST
Mar 29, 2008 6:49 PM
|
Thank Gore he invented the Internets!!!
--
"When people fear the government, there is tyranny.
When government fears the people, there is liberty."
Thomas Paine
|
|
|
Posts:
1,756
Registered:
7/17/07
|
|
(50 of 56)
Re: The 50 TRILLION DOLLAR PRIVATIZATION COST
Mar 29, 2008 6:46 PM
|
> > You can't deny the 90s were a decent decade
> where
> > many made millions, raided corporations for
> their
> > wealth and managed to skirt the law.
>
> I'm not denying it. Most of it however was due to the
> internet bubble, which burst prior to his exit from
> office. He shouldn't be blamed for the busrt, nor
> should he get credit for the bubble.
>
> --
> I have no quote
No? Then should corporate America have that honor?
|
|
|
Posts:
1,021
Registered:
1/27/08
|
|
(49 of 56)
Re: The 50 TRILLION DOLLAR PRIVATIZATION COST
Mar 29, 2008 6:13 PM
|
> You can't deny the 90s were a decent decade where
> many made millions, raided corporations for their
> wealth and managed to skirt the law.
I'm not denying it. Most of it however was due to the internet bubble, which burst prior to his exit from office. He shouldn't be blamed for the busrt, nor should he get credit for the bubble.
--
I have no quote
|
|
|
Posts:
1,756
Registered:
7/17/07
|
|
(48 of 56)
Re: The 50 TRILLION DOLLAR PRIVATIZATION COST
Mar 29, 2008 5:38 PM
|
> > If Clinton's policies had continued, the debt
> would
> > have been reduced for the first time in decades,
> no?
>
> No, If they did manage to maintain a surplus (if
> there even was one), it would have been spent in othe
> bills. Even the estimated budget surplus wouldn't
> have equalled our debt. It wasn't a National debt
> surplus. It was a budget surplus. We were still
> accumulating debt.
>
> If you cut our military spending in half, raise taxes
> and don't increse entitlements (in fact Clinton's
> administration was responsible for cuts in welfare)
> there's going to be a budget surplus, at least on
> paper. The surplus estimates don't even take into
> account earmarks and other pork hidden in bills that
> are passed.
>
> IOW, it was a lie, but it sounded good. Sorry.
>
> --
> I have no quote
>
> --
> Edited by liberteric at 03/29/2008 1:58 PM PDT
Not to sound facetious in this statement....paper is all we have. We shift paper from one place to another, crunch the numbers, get the result we want and move on.
This national debt will continue long after we're gone whether we cut spending or not.
You can't deny the 90s were a decent decade where many made millions, raided corporations for their wealth and managed to skirt the law.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,021
Registered:
1/27/08
|
|
(47 of 56)
Re: The 50 Trillion Dollar Privatization Cost
Mar 29, 2008 5:03 PM
|
> Hillary understands that game and how to defeat it.
She should. Her husbands administration started the whole artificial surplus bullshit. It's a shame you don't know what you're talking about, then act like everything is a Bush conspiracy so you can tout Hillary's greatness.
> We who
> follow the money support her because she is street
> savvy
> about such and not owned as Obama is no matter what
> his
> true believer followers say on cue from Rovian
> scripts.
Street savy. Hmmmm. Like a drug dealer, or a loan shark? Yeah, I can agree with that.
--
I have no quote
|
|
|
Posts:
1,021
Registered:
1/27/08
|
|
(46 of 56)
Re: The 50 TRILLION DOLLAR PRIVATIZATION COST
Mar 29, 2008 4:57 PM
|
> If Clinton's policies had continued, the debt would
> have been reduced for the first time in decades, no?
No, If they did manage to maintain a surplus (if there even was one), it would have been spent in othe bills. Even the estimated budget surplus wouldn't have equalled our debt. It wasn't a National debt surplus. It was a budget surplus. We were still accumulating debt.
If you cut our military spending in half, raise taxes and don't increse entitlements (in fact Clinton's administration was responsible for cuts in welfare) there's going to be a budget surplus, at least on paper. The surplus estimates don't even take into account earmarks and other pork hidden in bills that are passed.
IOW, it was a lie, but it sounded good. Sorry.
--
I have no quote
--
Edited by liberteric at 03/29/2008 1:58 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
10
Registered:
12/2/07
|
|
(45 of 56)
Re: The 50 Trillion Dollar Privatization Cost
Mar 29, 2008 4:56 PM
|
Remember the panic related to liquidating the debt bonds by
the holders who needed the debt to continue so interest on
the debt kept coming to them? I remember laughing at their
plight while Greenspan discussed the matter over time. The
surplus frightened those bond holders who needed debt to
be intact for their greedy fellows who relied upon that income.
Luckily, those guys arranged for a Bush 43 with Cheney the
master money maker beyond mere privatization and arranging
wars for profit, the clever overseer from Halliburton whose
engineering ensured funds flow forever more. That surplus was
real and motivated many to ensure it would be undone pronto.
Remember the badmouthing about the economy which preceeded the downturn in confidence just in time in the first year before 9/11 was allowed to distract us from Enron? Remember when Davis was recalled for applying CA surplus
to paying for electricity before Arnold met with the players
and ensured them that surplus was their income and now we have a debt three times what got Davis recalled? There are
no accidents. These well thought out moves were brilliant
and the surpluses everywhere were eaten by war profiteering.
Hillary understands that game and how to defeat it. We who
follow the money support her because she is street savvy
about such and not owned as Obama is no matter what his
true believer followers say on cue from Rovian scripts.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,756
Registered:
7/17/07
|
|
(44 of 56)
Re: The 50 TRILLION DOLLAR PRIVATIZATION COST
Mar 29, 2008 4:50 PM
|
> > Enlighten me. I'm a no nothing voter.
>
> No you're not. You're just confusing the annual
> budget with the National debt. Someone here suggested
> that when Clinton left, there was over 200 million
> dollar surplus, but the thread is about the National
> Debt, which is now at over 9 trillion dollars. When
> Clinton left, it was 5.7 trillion dollars.
> The BUDGET surplus was for individual years. He
> raised taxes and cut the military, so of course we
> had more money for THAT year's budget.
>
> --
> I have no quote
Thanx for being kind, liberteric.
If Clinton's policies had continued, the debt would have been reduced for the first time in decades, no?
|
|
|
Posts:
4,537
Registered:
7/15/07
|
|
(43 of 56)
Re: The 50 TRILLION DOLLAR PRIVATIZATION COST
Mar 29, 2008 4:35 PM
|
> The BUDGET surplus was for individual years. He
> raised taxes and cut the military, so of course we
> had more money for THAT year's budget.
>
> --
> I have no quote
Even for individual years, there was never a surplus. Using the numbers they used to calculate the surplus, the national debt is only about 5 trillion dollars rather than 9.
There are two parts of our national debt, publicly held debt and intragovernmental holdings. The 5 trillion, and the phony surplus, come from only using the public debt numbers. The problem with that is that intragovernmental holdings are also debt. When take together, we not only arrive at the 9 trillion dollar debt we now have, you see Clinton's "surplus" vanish. It never happened.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,021
Registered:
1/27/08
|
|
(42 of 56)
Re: The 50 Trillion Dollar Privatization Cost
Mar 29, 2008 4:32 PM
|
> Here's a story about the Bush admininistration's
> push to privatize everything that is insightful,
> infuriating and entertaining, all at once
>
> "The Great Iraq Swindle"
How many fucking times is the great journalist going to post the same link (to something you didn't write, yet again)in one post?
--
I have no quote
|
|
|
|
|
