One test of whether we are witnessing the end of America is how many more times Americans put up with congressional show trials of individual business people and their employees, slandering and vilifying them for their actions and motives. And for how long will they tolerate a President who berates business and corporations as dens of crime and malfeasance? If the majority of Americans come to accept the caricatures of business as true, then America is closer to the end of its life as a global leader, as a champion of markets and individualism.
But America is at risk in other ways, especially in the technical business of setting and executing policy. The presidency of Barack Obama has set out on a course that has no precedent in U.S. history.
[...]
Reform of health care, environmental policy, education, energy, banking, regulation — every nook and cranny of the U.S. economy has been put on alert for major change. Expansion of government spending, plunging the U.S. into unprecedented deficits, is without parallel. In economic policy, through regulation and control of energy output, financial services and monetary expansion, the U.S. government has embarked on a fundamental reshaping of America. It is designed, in short, to bring on the end of America.
[...]
For the rest of the world, however, the worry is that America is at risk of becoming the fountainhead of a new inflationary outburst. The U.S. dollar is now in decline, gold is moving sharply higher, and new global currency turmoil is on the horizon.
As if this weren’t bad enough, did you forget now that oil prices are back down that the reasons for the rise last year are still there? And soon to get far worse? Aggghhhhh!
“Run away! Run away!”
>>GE took bailout money too, …
>Sorry Mike, this looks like another one of your lies. I have spent some time trying to find out how much and it turns out they haven’t taken any TARP funds.
So how much time did you spend on this?
I’d like some other people to spend ‘some time’ on this, and see if you agree with Fusion.
#21–Mikey==I’ve spent years on blogs and don’t recall anyone posting: “I’d like some other people to spend ’some time’ on this . . . ” You flat out admit you just make shit up. Amusing if it weren’t such a waste of time and we just read yesterday that people believe what they read on blogs. What a lit piece of shit wrapped dynamite you are.
Fusion–I think “Lyin and Proud of It Trolling Mickey” deserves one of your approrpirately longer TROLL ID monikers.
I for one will skip him more often.
Mikey==clean up your act, post under a new and reformed personna, let Lyin Mike die as all your ilk should.
No I didn’t make anything up. I think Fusion is being deceptive with his statements. Instead of spelling things out, I’d like people to spent ‘some time’ and see if then evaluate Fusion’s comments.
#23–Mikey==post a link to your claim. Otherwise, STFU. Post a link to your claim, and I will apologize, until then, you are just Lyin Mike, and thats really too polite.
Post a link.
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2008/11/ge-gm-bailout-news.html
Now how about you do what was originally asked.
I made a statement that GE took bailout money too
Fusion responds that he spent some time on it and couldn’t find GE getting TARP funds
I say he’s being his usual deceptive self, constantly demanding links and defending against all reality.
So spend a little amount of time and see if you think his response is reasonable.
#25–Mike==I apologize. You actually did have “something” in mind. I don’t think anyone thinks a loan guarantee is a bailout though, but at least you had something.
See how providing the link helps clear up these simple misunderstandings?
Post a link and don’t go expecting everyone else to go on snipe hunts looking for what you mischaracterize.
Its only right.
My point is ignoring the link I provided, spend ‘some time’ as Fusion said, and I don’t think anyone would react this way. One search for ‘GE bailout’ reveals plenty of links, and all he posts is to claim I’m lying and that they didn’t get TARP money, which is true for now.
Lyin’ Mike,
As usual, you are wrong. GE Finance did not take any TARP or bailout money. They allowed themselves to become insured against default under new rules by the FDIC. Those new rules state that if any part of a financial institution is insured by FDIC then the whole institution must come under that regulatory agency.
Up to that point, only a small savings and loan they owned were under the FDIC, the rest being privately held. GE purposely kept the rest of their Finance division out of the regulator’s oversight. If $139 billion is GE’s entire portfolio I don’t know. GE also could have sold off that S&L if they wished to remain outside regulations.
BUT, you claimed they ACCEPTED money from the bailout. You also want them to recoup Chris Mathews bonus because of that. Plainly put, it ain’t gunna happen.
Now, as Bobbo quite clearly pointed out, it was made up. Only I don’t think you are bright enough to make it up. you HEARD it from one of the right wing nut talk radio liars and without any verification, regurgitated the lie. Your very link shows you took one of the first sources you could find, a PERSONAL BLOG. You didn’t even dig deep enough to check that blog’s source (it was Bloomberg) which explained some of the details.
The internet is a big place and there are a lot of people that know or are willing to take the time to correctly answer. There is no reason to lie.
Love your last paragraph, Dave.
Yesterday – right in the middle of Republican loyalists standing around in Congress explaining why Wall Street was going to hate the next step of the bailout, Wall Street responded with a 500-point gain.
Sooner or later, the biggest corporations may even stop donating to political Sluggos who are working to screw absolutely everyone – because they realize they too are screwed by the nutballs of right-wing ideology.
Last paragraph? Oh yeah. When it looked like normalcy might return in the next year or so, the price of oil bumped skyward. More so than most.
Now if that had been your first response, I wouldn’t have made an issue of it. Instead, you respond that I’m lying, a word you appear not to know the definition for. You say you spent some time on it and couldn’t find anything, when in fact a 10 second search reveals something. Then you twist it to say they are not on the TARP list, to try and give ammunition to your point that I am LYING.
You’ll notice in my response I acknowledged that there was no TARP money, because I could see that in my searches. The WSJ has a complete list by date.
As to the no bailout claim, my understanding is that the FDIC supports deposits, hence the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Instead in Nov, GE Capital got a $140 billion loan guarantee. That doesn’t strike me as the usual behavior for FDIC, but maybe I’m wrong.
No, I didn’t get this off of talk radio. I wasn’t aware that this was an issue there. Either way I don’t see how that matters.
#30, Lyin’ Mike,
you respond that I’m lying, a word you appear not to know the definition for
A lie is to purposefully say something not true.
You say you spent some time on it and couldn’t find anything, when in fact a 10 second search reveals something.
You said they took BAILOUT money. They didn’t. GE Financial did not take money from anyone.
Then you twist it to say they are not on the TARP list, to try and give ammunition to your point that I am LYING.
They are not on the Troubled Asset Relief Program. That is what is commonly called the “bailout” program. There has also been other programs run by the FED. GE hasn’t taken any of that money either.
You’ll notice in my response I acknowledged that there was no TARP money,
So I didn’t twist it to say they didn’t ?
my understanding is that the FDIC supports deposits, hence the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Instead in Nov, GE Capital got a $140 billion loan guarantee.
The FDIC changed their rules. GE had the choice of selling off the sole S&L they owned or becoming regulated. They allowed themselves to become regulated. They did not receive any money. It is debatable if they gain from this action at all.
No, I didn’t get this off of talk radio. I wasn’t aware that this was an issue there. Either way I don’t see how that matters.
It matters because you suggested a sound company cut the bonus (if he even got one) of Chris Mathews. Your rational was that the parent company had taken government money. In your attack on what is perceived as a “left wing” TV Network, you made a false claim. A lie. As you so often do.
I was wondering what was this guy’s slant, when I got the clue:
[From the article:]
“For the rest of the world, however, the worry is that America is at risk of becoming the fountainhead of a new inflationary outburst.”