Liberalism and Limitless Welfare: An Explanation.

[eagle1462010]

Have You Heard About The 16 Trillion Dollar Bailout The Federal Reserve Handed To The Too Big To Fail Banks

According to the GAO audit, $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010. The following list of firms and the amount of money that they received was taken directly from page 131 of the GAO audit report....

Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
"All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion

This report was made available to all the members of Congress, but most of them have been totally silent about it. One of the only members of Congress that has said something has been U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf

Actual report ordered by the Supreme Court..................

Bloomberg and Fox news filed lawsuits under the Freedom of Information act........Forced disclosure of the discount window loans..............

YOUR CLUELESS.............

Drink the Kool aide.

 

[francoHFW]

Here are the facts, shytteheads- see if you can spot when Reaganism fecked the nonrich and the country. Hater dupes! Poor old USA.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg image
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis BEA
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = FRB Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 18 2014
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

 

[francoHFW]

Have You Heard About The 16 Trillion Dollar Bailout The Federal Reserve Handed To The Too Big To Fail Banks

According to the GAO audit, $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010. The following list of firms and the amount of money that they received was taken directly from page 131 of the GAO audit report....

Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
"All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion

This report was made available to all the members of Congress, but most of them have been totally silent about it. One of the only members of Congress that has said something has been U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf

Actual report ordered by the Supreme Court..................

Bloomberg and Fox news filed lawsuits under the Freedom of Information act........Forced disclosure of the discount window loans..............

YOUR CLUELESS.............

Drink the Kool aide.

That's not what is referred to as the bail out. But you're right, greedy idiot Pubs Fecked the country and the world worse than people know. Great job, Pubbies and our bs corporate media. If people knew, no one but total morons would vote GOP. Like you.

 

[eagle1462010]

Have You Heard About The 16 Trillion Dollar Bailout The Federal Reserve Handed To The Too Big To Fail Banks

According to the GAO audit, $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010. The following list of firms and the amount of money that they received was taken directly from page 131 of the GAO audit report....

Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
"All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion

This report was made available to all the members of Congress, but most of them have been totally silent about it. One of the only members of Congress that has said something has been U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf

Actual report ordered by the Supreme Court..................

Bloomberg and Fox news filed lawsuits under the Freedom of Information act........Forced disclosure of the discount window loans..............

YOUR CLUELESS.............

Drink the Kool aide.

That's not what is referred to as the bail out. But you're right, greedy idiot Pubs Fecked the country and the world worse than people know. Great job, Pubbies and our bs corporate media. If people knew, no one but total morons would vote GOP. Like you.

BS...........it is exactly what it is..............from the discount window at virtually 0% interest................that's how deep it was........................Not the quota's from TARP.

You want to know what is hilarious.............they took these loans and then paid TARP and said SEE............THEY PAID THEM BACK...................

LYING SACKS ALL OF THEM.......................and Obama did the same as Bush hiding this data................

Do I need to put the Supreme Court ruling up as well......................

TOO BIG TO FAIL IS BS.......................

4 BANKS control 90% of this countries money. All the major players and too big to fail with bets from hell.............

but I've posted all this before................

Your a tool...............You know Obama was part of this..........and yet you still defend him when you know he was wrong.................TO HIDE THE TRUTH FROM THE PEOPLE.........

He agreed with saving them............because they buy and sell politicians daily....................

and you are their sock puppet.

 

[francoHFW]

And where is Fannie and Freddie on that list, hater dupes? I love it when you actually bring up facts, and they destroy your own argument. Brainwashed idiots.

 

[Brucethethinker]

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Wrong. "Worker productivity" goes up because we use robots now. So a factory with 90 robots, and 10 workers, might be as productive as an older factory with 100 workers and no robots. So because that company went out and bought robots, you think the 10 remaining workers should be paid more? "Worker productivity" is a misnomer. I went on a tour of the US mint in Fort Worth texas. They did a little demonstration showing how money was made many years ago. Then we watched the money being made today. The workers were doing nothing, just sitting in chairs. The money was being kicked out by the pallet load. These workers were being "productive", because lots of money was being made by few workers, but they weren't working, the automated machines were.

 

[eagle1462010]

And where is Fannie and Freddie on that list, hater dupes? I love it when you actually bring up facts, and they destroy your own argument. Brainwashed idiots.

Guaranteeing the bets you dumb ass............Run by Dems like Reins who cooked the books..................and when questioned in committee the Dems said everything was fine..............

They were wrong weren't they.................as the Republicans tried to stop it.....................The Dems ignored the danger and rejected it and called it a waste of time.

That albatross is your party's to wear.

 

[francoHFW]

And where is Fannie and Freddie on that list, hater dupes? I love it when you actually bring up facts, and they destroy your own argument. Brainwashed idiots.

Guaranteeing the bets you dumb ass............Run by Dems like Reins who cooked the books..................and when questioned in committee the Dems said everything was fine..............

They were wrong weren't they.................as the Republicans tried to stop it.....................The Dems ignored the danger and rejected it and called it a waste of time.

That albatross is your party's to wear.

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Wrong. "Worker productivity" goes up because we use robots now. So a factory with 90 robots, and 10 workers, might be as productive as an older factory with 100 workers and no robots. So because that company went out and bought robots, you think the 10 remaining workers should be paid more? "Worker productivity" is a misnomer. I went on a tour of the US mint in Fort Worth texas. They did a little demonstration showing how money was made many years ago. Then we watched the money being made today. The workers were doing nothing, just sitting in chairs. The money was being kicked out by the pallet load. These workers were being "productive", because lots of money was being made by few workers, but they weren't working, the automated machines were.

And where is Fannie and Freddie on that list, hater dupes? I love it when you actually bring up facts, and they destroy your own argument. Brainwashed idiots.

Guaranteeing the bets you dumb ass............Run by Dems like Reins who cooked the books..................and when questioned in committee the Dems said everything was fine..............

They were wrong weren't they.................as the Republicans tried to stop it.....................The Dems ignored the danger and rejected it and called it a waste of time.

That albatross is your party's to wear.

Yup, Dems were in control 2001-7 when the whole world went to hell. Brilliant (must be racist to be so dumb) hater dupe....lol. Thanks for Reaganism wrecking the nonrich and the country for 32 years and counting, 9/11, the stupidest wars ever, ANOTHER Great World Depression, and 5 years of mindless obstruction. Poor old USA. MORONS.

 

[francoHFW]

F+F bailout was less than 300 billion, SHYTTEHEAD. Ay caramba you had a second of lucidity there I thought...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

liberals... “What can I do today so that there’s a little less suffering in the world?”

Liberals think with their heart, not their brain. They use their brains for some things, but not for political thought. The welfare programs exist for one purpose, to get liberals/demonrats elected. If poverty were to end, look at all the votes the liberal/demonrats would lose? It would be a disaster. Liberal programs exist not to end poverty, but to increase it, and thereby increase the political power of the left.

"Liberals" are relativists...

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's culture, society, historical context relative to one's on life, thus such can never be subject to soundly reasoned absolutes.

As a result, Liberals axiomatically reject objective reasoning, which is why truth is irrelevant to Liberals: Objectivity is essential to truth, trust, morality and justice.

Now look around your country, only 6 years after "Liberals" took power... Do you see any traces of truth, trust, morality or justice?

THAT's why... .

 

[francoHFW]

liberals... “What can I do today so that there’s a little less suffering in the world?”

Liberals think with their heart, not their brain. They use their brains for some things, but not for political thought. The welfare programs exist for one purpose, to get liberals/demonrats elected. If poverty were to end, look at all the votes the liberal/demonrats would lose? It would be a disaster. Liberal programs exist not to end poverty, but to increase it, and thereby increase the political power of the left.

"Liberals" are relativists...

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's culture, society, historical context relative to one's on life, thus such can never be subject to soundly reasoned absolutes.

As a result, Liberals axiomatically reject objective reasoning, which is why truth is irrelevant to Liberals: Objectivity is essential to truth, trust, morality and justice.

Now look around your country, only 6 years after "Liberals" took power... Do you see any traces of truth, trust, morality or justice?

THAT's why... .

Absolutely, dingbat. Whenever hater dupe arguments absolutely fail, baffle them with brainwashed bs...lol

 

[Eric Cartman]

William Voegeli spoke at Hillsdale College in October, analyzing why, with inordinate growth and very little in results of solving poverty, "liberals do not seem all that concerned about whether the machine they’ve built, and want to keep expanding, is running well.

For inflation-adjusted, per capita federal welfare state spending to increase by 254 percent from 1977 to 2013, without a correspondingly dramatic reduction in poverty, and for liberals to react to this phenomenon by taking the position that our welfare state’s only real defect is that it is insufficiently generous,..."


No...not insanity, although one could make that argument.
Voegeli explains it as a different twist of their psyche.




1. "....while the welfare state was growing constantly, liberals were insisting constantly it wasn’t big enough or growing fast enough..... the welfare state is a permanent work-in-progress, and its liberal advocates believe that however many resources it has, it always needs a great deal more.

2. [We are left with] two of the journalist’s standard questions:
What is the liberal disposition regarding the growth of the welfare state? ....
Why do liberals feel that no matter how much we’re doing through government programs to alleviate and prevent poverty, whatever we are doing is shamefully inadequate?




3. [From a policy perspective,] Progressives of a century ago, followed by New Deal and Great Society liberals, worked to transform a republic where the government had limited duties and powers into a nation where there were no grievances the government could or should refrain from addressing, and where no means of responding to those grievances lie outside the scope of the government’s legitimate authority.




4. If we make ...an effort to understand committed liberals as they understand themselves—then we have to understand them as people who, by their own account, get up every morning asking, “What can I do today so that there’s a little less suffering in the world?” ....the question of liberal compassion,....

a. Empathetic kindness is “what binds us together, and . . . how we’ve always moved forward, based on the idea that we have a stake in each other’s success.” [These are the] Arguments and rhetoric that work—that impress voters and intimidate opponents—are used again and again.




5. [But] disciplining government according to “measured provable performance and effective spending” ought to be a “completely philosophically neutral objective.” Skinflint conservatives want government to be thrifty for obvious reasons, but ... liberals’ motivations should be even stronger.

a. ‘You [Liberals] ought to be the most offended of anybody if a dollar that could help a poor person is being squandered in some way.’"
Current Issue

I think the average liberal voter would be disappointed with the effectiveness of the current welfare programs if they were more informed just like conservative voters are sad to find out that their leaders grow the size of government, add to regulatory burden of business and facilitate cronie capitalism.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Again, 18% of the GDP is the issue I addressed.............The TOTAL AVERAGE REVENUE for the United States since WWII is 18.1% of the GDP on Revenue for the Federal Gov't...........Using Cuba as an example is a joke................

Do you understand now.............That would take ALL FEDERAL REVENUE IF YOU APPLIED THAT LOGIC...............We spend a hell of a lot of money here and over the decades have continually increase that amount...............and the results for increasing that money hasn't hit the mark on increasing the knowledge level of our younger generation...............

Using common sense to that means that the MONEY ISN'T THE CORE PROBLEM.........and it Sure as hell isn't COMMON CORE............by Lowering our standards instead of Increasing the levels of learning.............That is the car in reverse, which is why Common core is BS.

No, the joke is you seemingly trying to turn this into some kind of topic about Cuba. It's not about Cuba. However the statistics are what they are. Cuba has a higher literacy rate than the USA. Yes, a country which spends a lot more of its GDP on education.

Latin lessons What can we learn from the world rsquo s most ambitious literacy campaign - Americas - World - The Independent

"The statistics alone are enough to make the parent of the average British schoolchild green with envy: there is a strict maximum of 25 children per primary-school class, many of which have as few as 20. Secondary schools are striving towards only 15 pupils per class – less than half the UK norm."

"The vast majority of Cuba's 150,000 teachers have studied for a minimum of five years, half to master's level. And despite financial woes which prompted the government to recently announce one million public-sector job cuts, it has promised to keep investing in free education at all levels."

"Cuba spends 10 per cent of its central budget on education, compared with 4 per cent in the UK and just 2 per cent in the US, according to Unesco. The result is that three out of five Cubans over the age of 16 are in some type of formal, higher education. Wherever you travel in Cuba, just about everyone can read and write, and many have one or more academic qualifications."

"In a mere half-century, Cuba has developed one of the world's most successful free education systems, admired everywhere, from the UK to Canada to New Zealand. Yet, even though Cuba's 11 million citizens are enormously proud of the educational system that has nourished them for five decades, there is increasing concern that the country's classrooms are not preparing Cubans for life beyond education."

And the last sentence is one of the most important. However I'd say the same about the US too. However this isn't about the Cuban education system. I simply put number on top of the list and then put where the US is, I made the assumption that you'd have the ability to actually look at the list.

The point being, that money doesn't always make improvements. You need to have systems in place for improvements to take place. This seems to be a big problem in the US where politicians are unable and unwilling to improve things.

Also, I said in the last post, and I'm saying it here (are you reading what I'm writing?) that money isn't necessarily the problem as you have stated. The problem starts at the top with the President and Congress, with the Republicans and Democrats who are destroying the US for their own gains, and the people can go to hell.

Education is a political issue in almost every country where people get to vote. Even in China it's an issue and they can't vote. But in the US it seems that it's not really much of an issue in comparison with other countries for the politicians.

But it's just another symptom of the disease that's spreading and that people are ignoring.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think the average liberal voter would be disappointed with the effectiveness of the current welfare programs if they were more informed just like conservative voters are sad to find out that their leaders grow the size of government, add to regulatory burden of business and facilitate cronie capitalism.

Conservative voters are informed? Oh give me a break. Most people don't have a clue.

 

[frigidweirdo]

liberals... “What can I do today so that there’s a little less suffering in the world?”

Liberals think with their heart, not their brain. They use their brains for some things, but not for political thought. The welfare programs exist for one purpose, to get liberals/demonrats elected. If poverty were to end, look at all the votes the liberal/demonrats would lose? It would be a disaster. Liberal programs exist not to end poverty, but to increase it, and thereby increase the political power of the left.

"Liberals" are relativists...

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's culture, society, historical context relative to one's on life, thus such can never be subject to soundly reasoned absolutes.

As a result, Liberals axiomatically reject objective reasoning, which is why truth is irrelevant to Liberals: Objectivity is essential to truth, trust, morality and justice.

Now look around your country, only 6 years after "Liberals" took power... Do you see any traces of truth, trust, morality or justice?

THAT's why... .

I loved this post. Made me almost drop my load.

Trying to say the right are about truth, trust, morality and justice. Oh, how much I've laughed at this.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Liberalism and Limitless Welfare: An Explanation."

Actually it's a straw man fallacy, and fails accordingly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Republicans had the presidency and a congressional majority under Bush for 6 years,

and the sum total of their accomplishments on this topic was to EXPAND the welfare state.

 

[NYcarbineer]

liberals... “What can I do today so that there’s a little less suffering in the world?”

Liberals think with their heart, not their brain. They use their brains for some things, but not for political thought. The welfare programs exist for one purpose, to get liberals/demonrats elected. If poverty were to end, look at all the votes the liberal/demonrats would lose? It would be a disaster. Liberal programs exist not to end poverty, but to increase it, and thereby increase the political power of the left.

"Liberals" are relativists...

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's culture, society, historical context relative to one's on life, thus such can never be subject to soundly reasoned absolutes.

As a result, Liberals axiomatically reject objective reasoning, which is why truth is irrelevant to Liberals: Objectivity is essential to truth, trust, morality and justice.

Now look around your country, only 6 years after "Liberals" took power... Do you see any traces of truth, trust, morality or justice?

THAT's why... .

And when did conservatives behave differently, when they were in power?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So how do you fix it then? All the whining about how bad the system is. That's fine but then provide the welfare people with jobs that pay a decent salary and benefits. 7.25 an hour comes from slavery.

Conservatives can't offer fixes to the problems because conservatives are allied with the money interests that want cheap labor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

American liberalism, based upon the welfare state, merely uses welfare payments as an alternative to prison. There is no American effort to actually eliminate poverty through job creation and better labor laws.

In that respect, American "liberals," "conservatives," and corporatists are exactly on the same page.

What 'better labor laws' are going to produce higher wages? Be specific.