If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
For Dogman
On Oct 22, 8:07*pm, Elmo wrote:
On 20/10/2011 8:20 PM, wrote: Wall St. got bailed out and gave themselves bonuse with public money.. The only problem with that is that the money lent to Wall Street has been almost all paid back. *So, those bonuses didn't come out of the taxpayer's pockets. *Will you ever learn? *Let me help you out. *For a good example of public money that was indeed a handout never to be paid back and that added to the federal debt you need look at the Obama stimulus of $830bil. *Or the new one he's proposing for $500bil. http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news...s_fits_in/inde x.htm The $8 trillion bailout Are you sure you want to go there? Yes, I want to go there and it's clear you've never been. Just like all the rest of your one line crap, it's just that, crap. * It's now the final months of 2011, not 2009 when that CNN article was writeen. The money the govt lent to Wall Street has been almost all paid back: The banks have paid it ALL back: Bank of America $45bil lent, all repaid Citigroup *$45bil lent, all repaid JP Morgan Chase $25bil lent, all repaid Wells Fargo, $25bil lent, all repaid Goldman Sachs $10bil, all repaid Morgan Stanley, $10bil, all repaid There is a long list of other banks with smaller amounts, all repaid as well. *The Treasury has made a profit of 10% on the above loans. *You do understand the difference between a loan and a handout, don't you? So, clearly all the salaries and bonuses at those firms did not come from the taxpayers pockets as you claim. Then we have AIG which was lent $68bil, $17bil of that has been returned so far, with all indications that it will all be returned. In short, the last estimate I've seen for ALL of TARP, is that of the $700bil initial amount, only about $70bil is still considered at risk. And when all the investments are sold off, eg GM stock, there is a reasonable chance that the govt will have a net profit. Yet, you one line libs, long on emotion, short of any facts, continue to harp on about it as if it were in fact an actual handout to all of Wall Street. *As I said, for examples of that, you need look no further than Obama's $830mil stimulus one, not a dime of which was ever intended to be paid back. *Or his new proposed $500bil one, which is more pure spending. Do you think any of it worked - long term? http://tinyurl.com/6d2pbh5- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Obviously it did. The banks are profitable and have paid back the loans. GM and Chrysler are doing well. By what criteria could it be considered to not have worked? |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
For Dogman
On Oct 23, 11:19*am, Elmo wrote:
On 24/10/2011 12:08 AM, wrote: On Oct 22, 8:07 pm, *wrote: On 20/10/2011 8:20 PM, wrote: Wall St. got bailed out and gave themselves bonuse with public money. The only problem with that is that the money lent to Wall Street has been almost all paid back. *So, those bonuses didn't come out of the taxpayer's pockets. *Will you ever learn? *Let me help you out. *For a good example of public money that was indeed a handout never to be paid back and that added to the federal debt you need look at the Obama stimulus of $830bil. *Or the new one he's proposing for $500bil. http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news...s_fits_in/inde x.htm The $8 trillion bailout Are you sure you want to go there? Yes, I want to go there and it's clear you've never been. Just like all the rest of your one line crap, it's just that, crap. * *It's now the final months of 2011, not 2009 when that CNN article was writeen. The money the govt lent to Wall Street has been almost all paid back: The banks have paid it ALL back: Bank of America $45bil lent, all repaid Citigroup *$45bil lent, all repaid JP Morgan Chase $25bil lent, all repaid Wells Fargo, $25bil lent, all repaid Goldman Sachs $10bil, all repaid Morgan Stanley, $10bil, all repaid There is a long list of other banks with smaller amounts, all repaid as well. *The Treasury has made a profit of 10% on the above loans. *You do understand the difference between a loan and a handout, don't you? So, clearly all the salaries and bonuses at those firms did not come from the taxpayers pockets as you claim. Then we have AIG which was lent $68bil, $17bil of that has been returned so far, with all indications that it will all be returned. In short, the last estimate I've seen for ALL of TARP, is that of the $700bil initial amount, only about $70bil is still considered at risk. And when all the investments are sold off, eg GM stock, there is a reasonable chance that the govt will have a net profit. Yet, you one line libs, long on emotion, short of any facts, continue to harp on about it as if it were in fact an actual handout to all of Wall Street. *As I said, for examples of that, you need look no further than Obama's $830mil stimulus one, not a dime of which was ever intended to be paid back. *Or his new proposed $500bil one, which is more pure spending. Do you think any of it worked - long term? http://tinyurl.com/6d2pbh5-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Obviously it did. *The banks are profitable and have paid back the loans. *GM and Chrysler are doing well. *By what criteria could it be considered to not have worked? The fact that America is circling the drain and as in that link I gave, apparently about to be downgraded even further. How is that a stimulus success? It is an extension of life support, not a resuscitation.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The TARP program was never designed nor intended to be a stimulus program. There was other legislation and even more money, never to be paid back, that was devoted to stimulus TARP was designed to prevent a cascading effect where the failure of a few big institutions lead to the failure of more institutions. At that time, credit in the economy was nearly frozen because all the participants were worried about the solvency of their trading partners. Had, say Bank of America and JP Morgan failed, you likely would have had other failures of companies that had exposure to them. Let's say company X had exposure to JP Morgan. All the parties doing business with X know it and hence were reluctant to do things like extend normal financing to X. So, having the spector of JP Morgan failinng was causing grid lock though the whole financial system. BOA, JP, etc failing would have extended all down the line, hitting even companies like the midwest manufacturer with a revolving line of credit. And clearly TARP worked. Of the $700bil authorized, most of it has been paid back, including ALL by the banks. Last estimate I saw was that less than $70bil was still potentially at risk and it could actually turn out that the govt will break even on the whole deal when all the remaining investments, eg GM stock, are liquidated. The banks also paid 10% interest on the loans. So, how that could not be considered a major success is beyond me. Especially by govt program standards. To say it didn't work because the economy is still not growing fast enough is like saying the emergency first aid response to a horrific traffic wreck didn't work because while all those involved survived, they spent longer than expected in the hospital. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
For Dogman
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:31:12 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Oct 23, 11:19*am, Elmo wrote: On 24/10/2011 12:08 AM, wrote: [...] Whatever you do, Trader, don't let troll "Elmo" see this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...o-America.html "World power swings back to America The American phoenix is slowly rising again. Within five years or so, the US will be well on its way to self-sufficiency in fuel and energy. Manufacturing will have closed the labour gap with China in a clutch of key industries. The current account might even be in surplus." Nota bene: If you hear a loud boom, that's probably a sign that our little troll "Elmo" did read it and his head exploded. Aw. Freakin' troll. -- Dogman |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
For Dogman
On 26/10/2011 12:48 AM, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:31:12 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Oct 23, 11:19 am, wrote: On 24/10/2011 12:08 AM, wrote: [...] Whatever you do, Trader, don't let troll "Elmo" see this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...o-America.html "World power swings back to America The American phoenix is slowly rising again. Within five years or so, the US will be well on its way to self-sufficiency in fuel and energy. Manufacturing will have closed the labour gap with China in a clutch of key industries. The current account might even be in surplus." Nota bene: If you hear a loud boom, that's probably a sign that our little troll "Elmo" did read it and his head exploded. No, the only loud noise around here is raucous laughter. One column, from Ambrose Evens-Pritchard no less, supporting a possibility that America might turn itself around is cause for laughter. You focus on the comments of one writer renowned for his constant denigration of Europe, a stance that often segues into US Support among a sea of "expert" financial writers who see no likelihood of the US doing so. Even if culling oil from shale, and the US is far from the only country involved in this, it is a finite resource and the end is in sight. You need a changed mindset, smaller cars and alternative energy sources to power them. Add to that a European acceptance of public transport, with housing located close to industry - no long commutes. America is not set up to emulate Europe in areas that are essential for reducing energy costs, it is the biggest per capita user of energy in the world. Look at how well the couple of heavily Government supported cars that met those criteria have already been supported. You can almost count the sales on the fingers of one hand. The truly ludicrous suggestion is that manufacturing will have closed the labour gap. How? Your wages are too high, your factory processes are not any better than China's, your raw material costs are the same, how could this happen? You would not only have to meet China's cost of exported goods, you would have to undercut it to take market share from them. Undercut it by a good margin to overcome the current distrust and dislike of America. You have never had reliable products, even the domestic market prefers imported for quality and reliability. To sum up, you need to cut your demand for energy, you need to have a huge increase in the quality of manufactured goods, you need to be able to undercut China's already extremely low prices for them, and you need to do it while paying your labour force far less than they were receiving twenty years ago. Yes, that will happen. I have to go and laugh some more. I'll be back in a day or two when I finish doing so. Oh, BTW way I forgot, the noted "sixteen of the top universities" is well out of date. Didn't you see the rankings PUBLISHED IN THE US" a few months back decrying the fact that they had fallen so far behind, that the US educations system was turning out semi-literates with degrees? Look around you on-line, you can usually tell an American poster by the poor standard of written English. God, Americans need apps to work out tips, how sad is that? |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
For Dogman
In article
, " wrote: I'll leave it for others to judge who's full of crap. http://nomiprins.squarespace.com/storage/bailouttallyoct2011.pdf -- - Billy Both the House and Senate budget plan would have cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy. Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans "appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of waste, fraud and abuse." http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/ [W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And itıs not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. Thatıs hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they donıt get away with no taxation. - Ralph Nader http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
For Dogman
On Oct 26, 11:46*am, Billy wrote:
In article , " wrote: I'll leave it for others to judge who's full of crap. http://nomiprins.squarespace.com/storage/bailouttallyoct2011.pdf Yeah, that's a real credible source. Like they don't have a clear agenda. What they have done is come up with a list of everything they could possibly include as a "bailout". Like lending by the FED to banks which has been going on since the creation of the FED. Wasn't the whole point of saving the economy to increase liquidity so banks could continue making loans? So, the FED lowers interest rates and extends CREDIT, not gifts, to banks. The banks take those loans, which will be paid back. The loans made by the govt directly to those banks via TARP have been paid back with 10% interest. Exactly what the FED has been doing for a hundred years and exactly what their role is in the financial system. Your loons tally that as a bailout. What exactly was YOUR solution? For the FED to not extend those loans? Where would we be then, Monday morning quarterback? I know, you'd be here bitching about how the govt and the FED allowed a financial catastrophy of unprecedented proportions to occur and how it;s still all Wall Street's fault. Why are you still here? Shouldn't you be at one of those hippie rallies against capitalism? |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
For Dogman
In article
, " wrote: On Oct 26, 11:46*am, Billy wrote: In article , " wrote: I'll leave it for others to judge who's full of crap. http://nomiprins.squarespace.com/storage/bailouttallyoct2011.pdf Yeah, that's a real credible source. Like they don't have a clear agenda. What they have done is come up with a list of everything they could possibly include as a "bailout". Duh? What do you want to leave off the ledger? Like lending by the FED to banks which has been going on since the creation of the FED. Not at this rate Wasn't the whole point of saving the economy to increase liquidity so banks could continue making loans? And what have they done with "BAIL-OUT TAX DOLLARS" They've refused to loan it, and that government loans at 0% interest and buy T bills and bonds that pay about 3%. That didn't make it to your tally eitherr. So, the FED lowers interest rates and extends CREDIT, not gifts, to banks. The banks take those loans, which will be paid back. The loans made by the govt directly to those banks via TARP have been paid back with 10% interest. Exactly what the FED has been doing for a hundred years and exactly what their role is in the financial system. Your loons tally that as a bailout. What exactly was YOUR solution? For the FED to not extend those loans? So much for your free market. Where would we be then, Monday morning quarterback? I know, you'd be here bitching about how the govt and the FED allowed a financial catastrophy of unprecedented proportions to occur and how it;s still all Wall Street's fault. All the subprime mortgages came to $1.4 trillion before they were collateralized into $14 trillion of ABSs, CDOs, and CDSs by Wall Street. If security banks want to bet, they should have been able to cover bets. That's capitalism. Oh, and who bought those toxic assets? Who bought AAA grade stocks only to see them, almost magically, turn into crap? How much of those toxic assets were purchased by the government. Why are you still here? Shouldn't you be at one of those hippie rallies against capitalism? Instead of engaging in character assassination, why don't you argue your point that $14 trillion of tax payer money didn't find it's way into Wall St. accounts. This should be amusing :O) Oh yeah, and tell me why corporate welfare is good, but not social welfare? -- - Billy Both the House and Senate budget plan would have cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy. Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans "appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of waste, fraud and abuse." http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/ [W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And itıs not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. Thatıs hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they donıt get away with no taxation. - Ralph Nader http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
For Dogman
On Oct 27, 4:17*pm, Billy wrote:
In article , " wrote: On Oct 26, 11:46 am, Billy wrote: In article , " wrote: I'll leave it for others to judge who's full of crap. http://nomiprins.squarespace.com/storage/bailouttallyoct2011.pdf Yeah, that's a real credible source. *Like they don't have a clear agenda. *What they have done is come up with a list of everything they could possibly include as a "bailout". * Duh? What do you want to leave off the ledger? Like lending by the FED to banks which has been going on since the creation of the FED. Not at this rate Wasn't the whole point of saving the economy to increase liquidity so banks could continue making loans? * And what have they done with "BAIL-OUT TAX DOLLARS" Once again, you are confused. That long list you presented includes mostly lending by the FED. That lending is not from tax dollars. What they've done with it is to lend it out where they can. You assume that businesses are all lining up to take out loans. They are NOT. Business, like everyone else, is hunkered down, worried about what comes next. They aren't eager to take on new debt. And having a president that is anti-business is a major factor. Interest rates are low for things like an equity line of credit too. Have you taken one out and spent the money? They've refused to loan it, and that government loans at 0% interest and buy T bills and bonds that pay about 3%. That didn't make it to your tally eitherr. FED loans are not tax payer dollars. NEver have been, never will be. So, the FED lowers interest rates and extends CREDIT, not gifts, to banks. The banks take those loans, which will be paid back. *The loans made by the govt directly to those banks via TARP have been paid back with 10% interest. Exactly what the FED has been doing for a hundred years and exactly what their role is in the financial system. Your loons tally that as a bailout. What exactly was YOUR solution? For the FED to not extend those loans? So much for your free market. So much for your solution. Where would we be then, Monday morning quarterback? *I know, you'd be here bitching about how the govt and the FED allowed a financial catastrophy of unprecedented proportions to occur and how it;s still all Wall Street's fault. *All the subprime mortgages came to $1.4 trillion before they were collateralized into $14 trillion of ABSs, CDOs, and CDSs by Wall Street. If security banks want to bet, they should have been able to cover bets. That's capitalism. Yeah, they should have. They also should have had the same crystal ball you do, so they would have seen that housing prices were going to suddenly decline by 40%. But, unfortunately they didn't. Just like the person who sold the house. And the person who bought the house and knew the situation first hand, The real estate agents involved, the appraisers, the loan processors, govt which encouraged those loans, etc. There is plenty of blame to go around. But somehow, it apparently begins and ends with the banks for you. Still waiting to hear your solution to what should have been done. No TARP, no aggressive easing of interest rates by the FED, no loans by the FED.... Besides Mionday morning quaterbacking and bitching, what would you have done? Oh, and who bought those toxic assets? Who bought AAA grade stocks only to see them, almost magically, turn into crap? How much of those toxic assets were purchased by the government. Why are you still here? *Shouldn't you be at one of those hippie rallies against capitalism? Instead of engaging in character assassination, why don't you argue your point that $14 trillion of tax payer money didn't find it's way into Wall St. accounts. This should be amusing :O) It's very easy. FED loans are not taxpayer money. The FED's very purpose since it's creation has been to make precisely those loans and it's NOT taxpayer money. Oh yeah, and tell me why corporate welfare is good, but not social welfare? -- - Billy We have both. My problem is when you come in here lying and making posts that claim we are spending many times on defense what we spend on social programs by using BS data. The reality is we are spending 2X+ on social programs compared to defense. I can find in the constitution where it says it's the govts job to defend the country. I'm still looking where it says it's the govts job to force national healthcare on us. Both the House and Senate budget plan would have cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy. Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans "appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of waste, fraud and abuse." http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/ [W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That s hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don t get away with no taxation. *- Ralph Nader http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_c... Who does Ralph Nader thinks pays those corporate taxes in the end? Let's say the price of corn goes up, what does General Foods do? They raise the price of corn flakes and other products that use corn. Economics 101 question: Instead of the price of corn going up, the taxes on GF go up. What does GF do? |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
For Dogman
In article
, " wrote: On Oct 27, 4:17*pm, Billy wrote: In article , " wrote: On Oct 26, 11:46 am, Billy wrote: In article , " wrote: I'll leave it for others to judge who's full of crap. http://nomiprins.squarespace.com/storage/bailouttallyoct2011.pdf Yeah, that's a real credible source. *Like they don't have a clear agenda. *What they have done is come up with a list of everything they could possibly include as a "bailout". * Duh? What do you want to leave off the ledger? Like lending by the FED to banks which has been going on since the creation of the FED. Not at this rate Wasn't the whole point of saving the economy to increase liquidity so banks could continue making loans? * And what have they done with "BAIL-OUT TAX DOLLARS" Once again, you are confused. That long list you presented includes mostly lending by the FED. That lending is not from tax dollars. What they've done with it is to lend it out where they can. You assume that businesses are all lining up to take out loans. They are NOT. Business, like everyone else, is hunkered down, worried about what comes next. They aren't eager to take on new debt. And having a president that is anti-business is a major factor. Interest rates are low for things like an equity line of credit too. Have you taken one out and spent the money? They've refused to loan it, and that government loans at 0% interest and buy T bills and bonds that pay about 3%. That didn't make it to your tally eitherr. FED loans are not tax payer dollars. NEver have been, never will be. So, the FED lowers interest rates and extends CREDIT, not gifts, to banks. The banks take those loans, which will be paid back. *The loans made by the govt directly to those banks via TARP have been paid back with 10% interest. Exactly what the FED has been doing for a hundred years and exactly what their role is in the financial system. Your loons tally that as a bailout. What exactly was YOUR solution? For the FED to not extend those loans? So much for your free market. So much for your solution. Where would we be then, Monday morning quarterback? *I know, you'd be here bitching about how the govt and the FED allowed a financial catastrophy of unprecedented proportions to occur and how it;s still all Wall Street's fault. *All the subprime mortgages came to $1.4 trillion before they were collateralized into $14 trillion of ABSs, CDOs, and CDSs by Wall Street. If security banks want to bet, they should have been able to cover bets. That's capitalism. Yeah, they should have. They also should have had the same crystal ball you do, so they would have seen that housing prices were going to suddenly decline by 40%. But, unfortunately they didn't. Just like the person who sold the house. And the person who bought the house and knew the situation first hand, The real estate agents involved, the appraisers, the loan processors, govt which encouraged those loans, etc. There is plenty of blame to go around. But somehow, it apparently begins and ends with the banks for you. Not just me. Question: What about this issue of the governmentıs bailout being aimed primarily at the financial institutions rather than the homeowners whoand the defaults that are at the root of the crisis? Answer: "Yes. Well, it suggests that the bailout is either incompetence or fraud, because the problem, according to the government, is the defaulting mortgages, so the money should be directed at refinancing the mortgages and paying off the foreclosed ones. And that would restore the value of the mortgage-backed securities that are threatening the financial institutions. If the value was restored, the crisis would be over. So thereıs no connection between the governmentıs explanation of the crisis and its solution to the crisis." - Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department in the Reagan administration and a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has taught at Georgetown University and Stanford University and is the author of many books, including Supply-Side Revolution: An Insiderıs Account of Policymaking in Washington. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/17/ex_asst_treasury_sec_paul_craig And that was 2008 Still waiting to hear your solution to what should have been done. No TARP, no aggressive easing of interest rates by the FED, no loans by the FED.... And then there is the Congressional Budget Office . Explaining how America has changed for the worse under neo-liberal capitalism. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...s-why-occupy-w all-street-struck-a-nerve/2011/10/27/gIQA3bsMNM_story.html It's easy to see that you aren't serious, because you feign ignorance of common information. You obviously have lots of time to play games. Besides Mionday morning quaterbacking and bitching, what would you have done? Oh, and who bought those toxic assets? Who bought AAA grade stocks only to see them, almost magically, turn into crap? How much of those toxic assets were purchased by the government. Why are you still here? *Shouldn't you be at one of those hippie rallies against capitalism? Instead of engaging in character assassination, why don't you argue your point that $14 trillion of tax payer money didn't find it's way into Wall St. accounts. This should be amusing :O) It's very easy. FED loans are not taxpayer money. The FED's very purpose since it's creation has been to make precisely those loans and it's NOT taxpayer money. Oh yeah, and tell me why corporate welfare is good, but not social welfare? -- - Billy We have both. My problem is when you come in here lying and making posts that claim we are spending many times on defense what we spend on social programs by using BS data. The reality is we are spending 2X+ on social programs compared to defense. I can find in the constitution where it says it's the govts job to defend the country. I'm still looking where it says it's the govts job to force national healthcare on us. Both the House and Senate budget plan would have cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy. Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans "appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of waste, fraud and abuse." http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/ [W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That s hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don t get away with no taxation. *- Ralph Nader http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_c... Who does Ralph Nader thinks pays those corporate taxes in the end? Let's say the price of corn goes up, what does General Foods do? They raise the price of corn flakes and other products that use corn. Economics 101 question: Instead of the price of corn going up, the taxes on GF go up. What does GF do? -- - Billy Both the House and Senate budget plan would have cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy. Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans "appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of waste, fraud and abuse." http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/ [W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And itıs not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. Thatıs hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they donıt get away with no taxation. - Ralph Nader http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|