Score!!!!

[Dekster]

give your definition of capitalism.

It's easier to point out what it is not.

Nowhere in Capitalism do we find where the government bails out a failed business.

Bailouts are political decisions but the government can in some circumstances bail out a business and make money in the process.

This gets old. If that ever happens, let me know. And note it did not happen.

We were lied to. Tarp funds were paid back with Harp funds which were never paid back.

I said in some circumstances, not every circumstances, so yes this cherry-picking of yours does get old rather quick.

It's never happened so..........what good is such a theory?

Just because you proclaim "It's never happened" does not make it true.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/...risis-bailouts-have-earned-taxpayers-billions

"
In total, 11 companies received at least $10 billion in bailouts from the government during the financial crisis. However, the government wasn't simply lending money to these companies. It was investing in them by taking ownership stakes. In most cases, the government was essentially buying shares of stock much like ordinary investors do in their trading accounts.

For the most part, the government was later able to sell those shares of stock for a large profit in the years that followed. In fact, the government took a loss on only two of its 25 largest bailouts.

Mortgage aggregators Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the two largest financial crisis bailouts. Together, Fannie and Freddie received nearly $190 billion in bailout funds. However, the government has now netted more than $68 billion in profit from the investment. Both companies trade on over-the-counter markets.

Taxpayers also made a killing on the vast majority of bank bailouts as well. The government turned a profit of more than $13.4 billion on its Citigroup (ticker: C) bailout. It also added $5 billion in profit from the American International Group (AIG) bailout, $4.5 billion from the Bank of America Corp. (BAC) bailout and $3 billion from the GMAC bailout.

Of course, not all the bailouts worked out quite as well. Taxpayers lost $11.3 billion on the $50.7 billion General Motors Co. (GM) bailout. Other investments, such as the $3.4 billion Ocwen Financial Corp. (OCN) bailout, the $1 billion Select Portfolio Servicing bailout and the $973 million Nationstar Mortgage Holdings (NSM) bailout ended up total taxpayer losses.

Still, one thing seems clear: taxpayers came out ahead. In total, $623 billion in taxpayer money was dispersed via bailouts and roughly $698 billion has come back via dividend revenue, interest, fees and asset sales. It doesn't take a math genius to see the bailouts ultimately earned taxpayers more than $75 billion in profit, and that number is still growing."

 

[jc456]

It's easier to point out what it is not.

Nowhere in Capitalism do we find where the government bails out a failed business.

Bailouts are political decisions but the government can in some circumstances bail out a business and make money in the process.

This gets old. If that ever happens, let me know. And note it did not happen.

We were lied to. Tarp funds were paid back with Harp funds which were never paid back.

I said in some circumstances, not every circumstances, so yes this cherry-picking of yours does get old rather quick.

It's never happened so..........what good is such a theory?

Just because you proclaim "It's never happened" does not make it true.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/...risis-bailouts-have-earned-taxpayers-billions

"
In total, 11 companies received at least $10 billion in bailouts from the government during the financial crisis. However, the government wasn't simply lending money to these companies. It was investing in them by taking ownership stakes. In most cases, the government was essentially buying shares of stock much like ordinary investors do in their trading accounts.

For the most part, the government was later able to sell those shares of stock for a large profit in the years that followed. In fact, the government took a loss on only two of its 25 largest bailouts.

Mortgage aggregators Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the two largest financial crisis bailouts. Together, Fannie and Freddie received nearly $190 billion in bailout funds. However, the government has now netted more than $68 billion in profit from the investment. Both companies trade on over-the-counter markets.

Taxpayers also made a killing on the vast majority of bank bailouts as well. The government turned a profit of more than $13.4 billion on its Citigroup (ticker: C) bailout. It also added $5 billion in profit from the American International Group (AIG) bailout, $4.5 billion from the Bank of America Corp. (BAC) bailout and $3 billion from the GMAC bailout.

Of course, not all the bailouts worked out quite as well. Taxpayers lost $11.3 billion on the $50.7 billion General Motors Co. (GM) bailout. Other investments, such as the $3.4 billion Ocwen Financial Corp. (OCN) bailout, the $1 billion Select Portfolio Servicing bailout and the $973 million Nationstar Mortgage Holdings (NSM) bailout ended up total taxpayer losses.

Still, one thing seems clear: taxpayers came out ahead. In total, $623 billion in taxpayer money was dispersed via bailouts and roughly $698 billion has come back via dividend revenue, interest, fees and asset sales. It doesn't take a math genius to see the bailouts ultimately earned taxpayers more than $75 billion in profit, and that number is still growing."

that's capitalism at its finest I tell you!

 

[Dekster]

Bailouts are political decisions but the government can in some circumstances bail out a business and make money in the process.

This gets old. If that ever happens, let me know. And note it did not happen.

We were lied to. Tarp funds were paid back with Harp funds which were never paid back.

I said in some circumstances, not every circumstances, so yes this cherry-picking of yours does get old rather quick.

It's never happened so..........what good is such a theory?

Just because you proclaim "It's never happened" does not make it true.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/...risis-bailouts-have-earned-taxpayers-billions

"
In total, 11 companies received at least $10 billion in bailouts from the government during the financial crisis. However, the government wasn't simply lending money to these companies. It was investing in them by taking ownership stakes. In most cases, the government was essentially buying shares of stock much like ordinary investors do in their trading accounts.

For the most part, the government was later able to sell those shares of stock for a large profit in the years that followed. In fact, the government took a loss on only two of its 25 largest bailouts.

Mortgage aggregators Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the two largest financial crisis bailouts. Together, Fannie and Freddie received nearly $190 billion in bailout funds. However, the government has now netted more than $68 billion in profit from the investment. Both companies trade on over-the-counter markets.

Taxpayers also made a killing on the vast majority of bank bailouts as well. The government turned a profit of more than $13.4 billion on its Citigroup (ticker: C) bailout. It also added $5 billion in profit from the American International Group (AIG) bailout, $4.5 billion from the Bank of America Corp. (BAC) bailout and $3 billion from the GMAC bailout.

Of course, not all the bailouts worked out quite as well. Taxpayers lost $11.3 billion on the $50.7 billion General Motors Co. (GM) bailout. Other investments, such as the $3.4 billion Ocwen Financial Corp. (OCN) bailout, the $1 billion Select Portfolio Servicing bailout and the $973 million Nationstar Mortgage Holdings (NSM) bailout ended up total taxpayer losses.

Still, one thing seems clear: taxpayers came out ahead. In total, $623 billion in taxpayer money was dispersed via bailouts and roughly $698 billion has come back via dividend revenue, interest, fees and asset sales. It doesn't take a math genius to see the bailouts ultimately earned taxpayers more than $75 billion in profit, and that number is still growing."

that's capitalism at its finest I tell you!

Its also a little socialist in that the government had an ownership interest in these companies, but ultimately this was mostly about keeping the entire financial sector from collapsing which is a legitimate government interest. I am not a fan of bail outs. I am even less of a fan of government economic development programs, but in the end, people tend to be a bit pragmatic, especially if their ox is about to be gored.

 

[pknopp]

It's easier to point out what it is not.

Nowhere in Capitalism do we find where the government bails out a failed business.

Bailouts are political decisions but the government can in some circumstances bail out a business and make money in the process.

This gets old. If that ever happens, let me know. And note it did not happen.

We were lied to. Tarp funds were paid back with Harp funds which were never paid back.

I said in some circumstances, not every circumstances, so yes this cherry-picking of yours does get old rather quick.

It's never happened so..........what good is such a theory?

Just because you proclaim "It's never happened" does not make it true.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/...risis-bailouts-have-earned-taxpayers-billions

"
In total, 11 companies received at least $10 billion in bailouts from the government during the financial crisis. However, the government wasn't simply lending money to these companies. It was investing in them by taking ownership stakes. In most cases, the government was essentially buying shares of stock much like ordinary investors do in their trading accounts.

For the most part, the government was later able to sell those shares of stock for a large profit in the years that followed. In fact, the government took a loss on only two of its 25 largest bailouts.

Mortgage aggregators Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the two largest financial crisis bailouts. Together, Fannie and Freddie received nearly $190 billion in bailout funds. However, the government has now netted more than $68 billion in profit from the investment. Both companies trade on over-the-counter markets.

Taxpayers also made a killing on the vast majority of bank bailouts as well. The government turned a profit of more than $13.4 billion on its Citigroup (ticker: C) bailout. It also added $5 billion in profit from the American International Group (AIG) bailout, $4.5 billion from the Bank of America Corp. (BAC) bailout and $3 billion from the GMAC bailout.

Of course, not all the bailouts worked out quite as well. Taxpayers lost $11.3 billion on the $50.7 billion General Motors Co. (GM) bailout. Other investments, such as the $3.4 billion Ocwen Financial Corp. (OCN) bailout, the $1 billion Select Portfolio Servicing bailout and the $973 million Nationstar Mortgage Holdings (NSM) bailout ended up total taxpayer losses.

Still, one thing seems clear: taxpayers came out ahead. In total, $623 billion in taxpayer money was dispersed via bailouts and roughly $698 billion has come back via dividend revenue, interest, fees and asset sales. It doesn't take a math genius to see the bailouts ultimately earned taxpayers more than $75 billion in profit, and that number is still growing."

It didn't happen. As I already noted, we were lied to. Bank took Harp funds to repay back the Tarp funds and then claimed it was repaid with a profit. It was not.

It could additionally be argued that some of the funds paid back aren’t truly “paid back” at all, since they were paid back in a manner that’s equivalent to paying off credit card debt with another credit card.

the problem here isn’t inflation but the fact that nearly half of those funds were repaid with funds that come from loans from other government programs.

Overselling TARP: The Myth of the $15 Billion Profit | National Review

To note, this is both sides of the political isle stating we were lied to.

 

[jc456]

This gets old. If that ever happens, let me know. And note it did not happen.

We were lied to. Tarp funds were paid back with Harp funds which were never paid back.

I said in some circumstances, not every circumstances, so yes this cherry-picking of yours does get old rather quick.

It's never happened so..........what good is such a theory?

Just because you proclaim "It's never happened" does not make it true.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/...risis-bailouts-have-earned-taxpayers-billions

"
In total, 11 companies received at least $10 billion in bailouts from the government during the financial crisis. However, the government wasn't simply lending money to these companies. It was investing in them by taking ownership stakes. In most cases, the government was essentially buying shares of stock much like ordinary investors do in their trading accounts.

For the most part, the government was later able to sell those shares of stock for a large profit in the years that followed. In fact, the government took a loss on only two of its 25 largest bailouts.

Mortgage aggregators Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the two largest financial crisis bailouts. Together, Fannie and Freddie received nearly $190 billion in bailout funds. However, the government has now netted more than $68 billion in profit from the investment. Both companies trade on over-the-counter markets.

Taxpayers also made a killing on the vast majority of bank bailouts as well. The government turned a profit of more than $13.4 billion on its Citigroup (ticker: C) bailout. It also added $5 billion in profit from the American International Group (AIG) bailout, $4.5 billion from the Bank of America Corp. (BAC) bailout and $3 billion from the GMAC bailout.

Of course, not all the bailouts worked out quite as well. Taxpayers lost $11.3 billion on the $50.7 billion General Motors Co. (GM) bailout. Other investments, such as the $3.4 billion Ocwen Financial Corp. (OCN) bailout, the $1 billion Select Portfolio Servicing bailout and the $973 million Nationstar Mortgage Holdings (NSM) bailout ended up total taxpayer losses.

Still, one thing seems clear: taxpayers came out ahead. In total, $623 billion in taxpayer money was dispersed via bailouts and roughly $698 billion has come back via dividend revenue, interest, fees and asset sales. It doesn't take a math genius to see the bailouts ultimately earned taxpayers more than $75 billion in profit, and that number is still growing."

that's capitalism at its finest I tell you!

Its also a little socialist in that the government had an ownership interest in these companies, but ultimately this was mostly about keeping the entire financial sector from collapsing which is a legitimate government interest. I am not a fan of bail outs. I am even less of a fan of government economic development programs, but in the end, people tend to be a bit pragmatic, especially if their ox is about to be gored.

it is how our capitalism works, we take out loans, create stock sell bonds to use as investment funds working toward more money and further investment and more money. Doesn't matter where the funds come from, the treasury is but a bank and it feeds all banks.
Social security might have worked had they invested the funds and created stock options and 401ks under it. but the government socialists stole the money and aren't returning it.

 

[Dekster]

I said in some circumstances, not every circumstances, so yes this cherry-picking of yours does get old rather quick.

It's never happened so..........what good is such a theory?

Just because you proclaim "It's never happened" does not make it true.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/...risis-bailouts-have-earned-taxpayers-billions

"
In total, 11 companies received at least $10 billion in bailouts from the government during the financial crisis. However, the government wasn't simply lending money to these companies. It was investing in them by taking ownership stakes. In most cases, the government was essentially buying shares of stock much like ordinary investors do in their trading accounts.

For the most part, the government was later able to sell those shares of stock for a large profit in the years that followed. In fact, the government took a loss on only two of its 25 largest bailouts.

Mortgage aggregators Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the two largest financial crisis bailouts. Together, Fannie and Freddie received nearly $190 billion in bailout funds. However, the government has now netted more than $68 billion in profit from the investment. Both companies trade on over-the-counter markets.

Taxpayers also made a killing on the vast majority of bank bailouts as well. The government turned a profit of more than $13.4 billion on its Citigroup (ticker: C) bailout. It also added $5 billion in profit from the American International Group (AIG) bailout, $4.5 billion from the Bank of America Corp. (BAC) bailout and $3 billion from the GMAC bailout.

Of course, not all the bailouts worked out quite as well. Taxpayers lost $11.3 billion on the $50.7 billion General Motors Co. (GM) bailout. Other investments, such as the $3.4 billion Ocwen Financial Corp. (OCN) bailout, the $1 billion Select Portfolio Servicing bailout and the $973 million Nationstar Mortgage Holdings (NSM) bailout ended up total taxpayer losses.

Still, one thing seems clear: taxpayers came out ahead. In total, $623 billion in taxpayer money was dispersed via bailouts and roughly $698 billion has come back via dividend revenue, interest, fees and asset sales. It doesn't take a math genius to see the bailouts ultimately earned taxpayers more than $75 billion in profit, and that number is still growing."

that's capitalism at its finest I tell you!

Its also a little socialist in that the government had an ownership interest in these companies, but ultimately this was mostly about keeping the entire financial sector from collapsing which is a legitimate government interest. I am not a fan of bail outs. I am even less of a fan of government economic development programs, but in the end, people tend to be a bit pragmatic, especially if their ox is about to be gored.

it is how our capitalism works, we take out loans, create stock sell bonds to use as investment funds working toward more money and further investment and more money. Doesn't matter where the funds come from, the treasury is but a bank and it feeds all banks.
Social security might have worked had they invested the funds and created stock options and 401ks under it. but the government socialists stole the money and aren't returning it.

Then by your logic it wouldn't matter if the government owned all businesses which is not quite capitalism. We don't have a pure system either way.

 

[jc456]

It's never happened so..........what good is such a theory?

Just because you proclaim "It's never happened" does not make it true.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/...risis-bailouts-have-earned-taxpayers-billions

"
In total, 11 companies received at least $10 billion in bailouts from the government during the financial crisis. However, the government wasn't simply lending money to these companies. It was investing in them by taking ownership stakes. In most cases, the government was essentially buying shares of stock much like ordinary investors do in their trading accounts.

For the most part, the government was later able to sell those shares of stock for a large profit in the years that followed. In fact, the government took a loss on only two of its 25 largest bailouts.

Mortgage aggregators Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the two largest financial crisis bailouts. Together, Fannie and Freddie received nearly $190 billion in bailout funds. However, the government has now netted more than $68 billion in profit from the investment. Both companies trade on over-the-counter markets.

Taxpayers also made a killing on the vast majority of bank bailouts as well. The government turned a profit of more than $13.4 billion on its Citigroup (ticker: C) bailout. It also added $5 billion in profit from the American International Group (AIG) bailout, $4.5 billion from the Bank of America Corp. (BAC) bailout and $3 billion from the GMAC bailout.

Of course, not all the bailouts worked out quite as well. Taxpayers lost $11.3 billion on the $50.7 billion General Motors Co. (GM) bailout. Other investments, such as the $3.4 billion Ocwen Financial Corp. (OCN) bailout, the $1 billion Select Portfolio Servicing bailout and the $973 million Nationstar Mortgage Holdings (NSM) bailout ended up total taxpayer losses.

Still, one thing seems clear: taxpayers came out ahead. In total, $623 billion in taxpayer money was dispersed via bailouts and roughly $698 billion has come back via dividend revenue, interest, fees and asset sales. It doesn't take a math genius to see the bailouts ultimately earned taxpayers more than $75 billion in profit, and that number is still growing."

that's capitalism at its finest I tell you!

Its also a little socialist in that the government had an ownership interest in these companies, but ultimately this was mostly about keeping the entire financial sector from collapsing which is a legitimate government interest. I am not a fan of bail outs. I am even less of a fan of government economic development programs, but in the end, people tend to be a bit pragmatic, especially if their ox is about to be gored.

it is how our capitalism works, we take out loans, create stock sell bonds to use as investment funds working toward more money and further investment and more money. Doesn't matter where the funds come from, the treasury is but a bank and it feeds all banks.
Social security might have worked had they invested the funds and created stock options and 401ks under it. but the government socialists stole the money and aren't returning it.

Then by your logic it wouldn't matter if the government owned all businesses which is not quite capitalism. We don't have a pure system either way.

where does money come from? It came from the Treasury, it was given out as an investment in the country. What entrepreneurs did to make what they make is on top of that, it's the only country on the planet that does it. Call it whatever you want to call it, but it isn't socialism.

The payback are our taxes. the more people employed, the more tax revenue, it is the conservative bible.

 

[Dekster]

Just because you proclaim "It's never happened" does not make it true.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/...risis-bailouts-have-earned-taxpayers-billions

"
In total, 11 companies received at least $10 billion in bailouts from the government during the financial crisis. However, the government wasn't simply lending money to these companies. It was investing in them by taking ownership stakes. In most cases, the government was essentially buying shares of stock much like ordinary investors do in their trading accounts.

For the most part, the government was later able to sell those shares of stock for a large profit in the years that followed. In fact, the government took a loss on only two of its 25 largest bailouts.

Mortgage aggregators Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the two largest financial crisis bailouts. Together, Fannie and Freddie received nearly $190 billion in bailout funds. However, the government has now netted more than $68 billion in profit from the investment. Both companies trade on over-the-counter markets.

Taxpayers also made a killing on the vast majority of bank bailouts as well. The government turned a profit of more than $13.4 billion on its Citigroup (ticker: C) bailout. It also added $5 billion in profit from the American International Group (AIG) bailout, $4.5 billion from the Bank of America Corp. (BAC) bailout and $3 billion from the GMAC bailout.

Of course, not all the bailouts worked out quite as well. Taxpayers lost $11.3 billion on the $50.7 billion General Motors Co. (GM) bailout. Other investments, such as the $3.4 billion Ocwen Financial Corp. (OCN) bailout, the $1 billion Select Portfolio Servicing bailout and the $973 million Nationstar Mortgage Holdings (NSM) bailout ended up total taxpayer losses.

Still, one thing seems clear: taxpayers came out ahead. In total, $623 billion in taxpayer money was dispersed via bailouts and roughly $698 billion has come back via dividend revenue, interest, fees and asset sales. It doesn't take a math genius to see the bailouts ultimately earned taxpayers more than $75 billion in profit, and that number is still growing."

that's capitalism at its finest I tell you!

Its also a little socialist in that the government had an ownership interest in these companies, but ultimately this was mostly about keeping the entire financial sector from collapsing which is a legitimate government interest. I am not a fan of bail outs. I am even less of a fan of government economic development programs, but in the end, people tend to be a bit pragmatic, especially if their ox is about to be gored.

it is how our capitalism works, we take out loans, create stock sell bonds to use as investment funds working toward more money and further investment and more money. Doesn't matter where the funds come from, the treasury is but a bank and it feeds all banks.
Social security might have worked had they invested the funds and created stock options and 401ks under it. but the government socialists stole the money and aren't returning it.

Then by your logic it wouldn't matter if the government owned all businesses which is not quite capitalism. We don't have a pure system either way.

where does money come from? It came from the Treasury, it was given out as an investment in the country. What entrepreneurs did to make what they make is on top of that, it's the only country on the planet that does it. Call it whatever you want to call it, but it isn't socialism.

The payback are our taxes. the more people employed, the more tax revenue, it is the conservative bible.

It is given out as debt. Fiat currency is generally debt-backed, particularly the US dollar. Anyway, I am not saying we should or shouldn't as a general rule. I am just saying that taking stock ownership in businesses as opposed to bonds or unsecured loans technically starts to cross some of those lines into socialism.

 

[pknopp]

that's capitalism at its finest I tell you!

Its also a little socialist in that the government had an ownership interest in these companies, but ultimately this was mostly about keeping the entire financial sector from collapsing which is a legitimate government interest. I am not a fan of bail outs. I am even less of a fan of government economic development programs, but in the end, people tend to be a bit pragmatic, especially if their ox is about to be gored.

it is how our capitalism works, we take out loans, create stock sell bonds to use as investment funds working toward more money and further investment and more money. Doesn't matter where the funds come from, the treasury is but a bank and it feeds all banks.
Social security might have worked had they invested the funds and created stock options and 401ks under it. but the government socialists stole the money and aren't returning it.

Then by your logic it wouldn't matter if the government owned all businesses which is not quite capitalism. We don't have a pure system either way.

where does money come from? It came from the Treasury, it was given out as an investment in the country. What entrepreneurs did to make what they make is on top of that, it's the only country on the planet that does it. Call it whatever you want to call it, but it isn't socialism.

The payback are our taxes. the more people employed, the more tax revenue, it is the conservative bible.

It is given out as debt. Fiat currency is generally debt-backed, particularly the US dollar. Anyway, I am not saying we should or shouldn't as a general rule. I am just saying that taking stock ownership in businesses as opposed to bonds or unsecured loans technically starts to cross some of those lines into socialism.

Nobody "earned" the wealth the Fed simply creates. The complaint often times is, people should not get things they have not earned. Unless of course it's something that person wants.

To feed someone, that is bad. To buy your second yacht, well that is good.

 

[Dekster]

Its also a little socialist in that the government had an ownership interest in these companies, but ultimately this was mostly about keeping the entire financial sector from collapsing which is a legitimate government interest. I am not a fan of bail outs. I am even less of a fan of government economic development programs, but in the end, people tend to be a bit pragmatic, especially if their ox is about to be gored.

it is how our capitalism works, we take out loans, create stock sell bonds to use as investment funds working toward more money and further investment and more money. Doesn't matter where the funds come from, the treasury is but a bank and it feeds all banks.
Social security might have worked had they invested the funds and created stock options and 401ks under it. but the government socialists stole the money and aren't returning it.

Then by your logic it wouldn't matter if the government owned all businesses which is not quite capitalism. We don't have a pure system either way.

where does money come from? It came from the Treasury, it was given out as an investment in the country. What entrepreneurs did to make what they make is on top of that, it's the only country on the planet that does it. Call it whatever you want to call it, but it isn't socialism.

The payback are our taxes. the more people employed, the more tax revenue, it is the conservative bible.

It is given out as debt. Fiat currency is generally debt-backed, particularly the US dollar. Anyway, I am not saying we should or shouldn't as a general rule. I am just saying that taking stock ownership in businesses as opposed to bonds or unsecured loans technically starts to cross some of those lines into socialism.

Nobody "earned" the wealth the Fed simply creates. The complaint often times is, people should not get things they have not earned. Unless of course it's something that person wants.

To feed someone, that is bad. To buy your second yacht, well that is good.

Currency is not wealth. It is a medium of exchange.

 

[Dick Foster]

Sanders shrugs off suggestion he's too extreme to beat Trump

Gov. John Hickenlooper turned to Bernie Sanders at the democrat debates and said that the democrat socialist agenda is too extreme and that they were essentially handing Trump the election in 2020 and may as well just throw up their hands, at which point Bernie Sander threw up his hands straight up into the air.

If your keeping score at home, John Hickenlooper 7, democrat party 0.

Did that old fool win the race to the bottom?

 

[pknopp]

it is how our capitalism works, we take out loans, create stock sell bonds to use as investment funds working toward more money and further investment and more money. Doesn't matter where the funds come from, the treasury is but a bank and it feeds all banks.
Social security might have worked had they invested the funds and created stock options and 401ks under it. but the government socialists stole the money and aren't returning it.

Then by your logic it wouldn't matter if the government owned all businesses which is not quite capitalism. We don't have a pure system either way.

where does money come from? It came from the Treasury, it was given out as an investment in the country. What entrepreneurs did to make what they make is on top of that, it's the only country on the planet that does it. Call it whatever you want to call it, but it isn't socialism.

The payback are our taxes. the more people employed, the more tax revenue, it is the conservative bible.

It is given out as debt. Fiat currency is generally debt-backed, particularly the US dollar. Anyway, I am not saying we should or shouldn't as a general rule. I am just saying that taking stock ownership in businesses as opposed to bonds or unsecured loans technically starts to cross some of those lines into socialism.

Nobody "earned" the wealth the Fed simply creates. The complaint often times is, people should not get things they have not earned. Unless of course it's something that person wants.

To feed someone, that is bad. To buy your second yacht, well that is good.

Currency is not wealth. It is a medium of exchange.

We aren't using "Currency" to purchase things. I think I read where there is like $5500 per person out there in actual currency. The rest is just paper wealth. Wealth no one actually worked for.

 

[jc456]

that's capitalism at its finest I tell you!

Its also a little socialist in that the government had an ownership interest in these companies, but ultimately this was mostly about keeping the entire financial sector from collapsing which is a legitimate government interest. I am not a fan of bail outs. I am even less of a fan of government economic development programs, but in the end, people tend to be a bit pragmatic, especially if their ox is about to be gored.

it is how our capitalism works, we take out loans, create stock sell bonds to use as investment funds working toward more money and further investment and more money. Doesn't matter where the funds come from, the treasury is but a bank and it feeds all banks.
Social security might have worked had they invested the funds and created stock options and 401ks under it. but the government socialists stole the money and aren't returning it.

Then by your logic it wouldn't matter if the government owned all businesses which is not quite capitalism. We don't have a pure system either way.

where does money come from? It came from the Treasury, it was given out as an investment in the country. What entrepreneurs did to make what they make is on top of that, it's the only country on the planet that does it. Call it whatever you want to call it, but it isn't socialism.

The payback are our taxes. the more people employed, the more tax revenue, it is the conservative bible.

It is given out as debt. Fiat currency is generally debt-backed, particularly the US dollar. Anyway, I am not saying we should or shouldn't as a general rule. I am just saying that taking stock ownership in businesses as opposed to bonds or unsecured loans technically starts to cross some of those lines into socialism.

I was talking about from the beginning of the country. Not so much today.

 

[jc456]

Then by your logic it wouldn't matter if the government owned all businesses which is not quite capitalism. We don't have a pure system either way.

where does money come from? It came from the Treasury, it was given out as an investment in the country. What entrepreneurs did to make what they make is on top of that, it's the only country on the planet that does it. Call it whatever you want to call it, but it isn't socialism.

The payback are our taxes. the more people employed, the more tax revenue, it is the conservative bible.

It is given out as debt. Fiat currency is generally debt-backed, particularly the US dollar. Anyway, I am not saying we should or shouldn't as a general rule. I am just saying that taking stock ownership in businesses as opposed to bonds or unsecured loans technically starts to cross some of those lines into socialism.

Nobody "earned" the wealth the Fed simply creates. The complaint often times is, people should not get things they have not earned. Unless of course it's something that person wants.

To feed someone, that is bad. To buy your second yacht, well that is good.

Currency is not wealth. It is a medium of exchange.

We aren't using "Currency" to purchase things. I think I read where there is like $5500 per person out there in actual currency. The rest is just paper wealth. Wealth no one actually worked for.

someone makes the money, it's called the treasury in the US. no one worked for that, it's where it's delivered to that people work for it. bartering is done for the most part, wealth is earned. it isn't free. and you don't know that nothing is free. NOTHING!!!

 

[pknopp]

where does money come from? It came from the Treasury, it was given out as an investment in the country. What entrepreneurs did to make what they make is on top of that, it's the only country on the planet that does it. Call it whatever you want to call it, but it isn't socialism.

The payback are our taxes. the more people employed, the more tax revenue, it is the conservative bible.

It is given out as debt. Fiat currency is generally debt-backed, particularly the US dollar. Anyway, I am not saying we should or shouldn't as a general rule. I am just saying that taking stock ownership in businesses as opposed to bonds or unsecured loans technically starts to cross some of those lines into socialism.

Nobody "earned" the wealth the Fed simply creates. The complaint often times is, people should not get things they have not earned. Unless of course it's something that person wants.

To feed someone, that is bad. To buy your second yacht, well that is good.

Currency is not wealth. It is a medium of exchange.

We aren't using "Currency" to purchase things. I think I read where there is like $5500 per person out there in actual currency. The rest is just paper wealth. Wealth no one actually worked for.

someone makes the money, it's called the treasury in the US. no one worked for that, it's where it's delivered to that people work for it. bartering is done for the most part, wealth is earned. it isn't free. and you don't know that nothing is free. NOTHING!!!

No, someone does not make the money as in earned it by working.

 

[jc456]

It is given out as debt. Fiat currency is generally debt-backed, particularly the US dollar. Anyway, I am not saying we should or shouldn't as a general rule. I am just saying that taking stock ownership in businesses as opposed to bonds or unsecured loans technically starts to cross some of those lines into socialism.

Nobody "earned" the wealth the Fed simply creates. The complaint often times is, people should not get things they have not earned. Unless of course it's something that person wants.

To feed someone, that is bad. To buy your second yacht, well that is good.

Currency is not wealth. It is a medium of exchange.

We aren't using "Currency" to purchase things. I think I read where there is like $5500 per person out there in actual currency. The rest is just paper wealth. Wealth no one actually worked for.

someone makes the money, it's called the treasury in the US. no one worked for that, it's where it's delivered to that people work for it. bartering is done for the most part, wealth is earned. it isn't free. and you don't know that nothing is free. NOTHING!!!

No, someone does not make the money as in earned it by working.

oh fk, dude, you're lost. wow. taking my money to pay for someone else means it isn't free. It doesn't matter if it's my money I made in an investment or worked for. And you're taxing fixed income families for free shit for kids people don't know. fk you!!

 

[The Original Tree]

Those Bernie supporters will not be very happy if they don't get their free stuff.

FREE VAGINA EVERYONE! HURRY AND GET IN BEFORE SOMEONE BEATS YOU TO IT!

 

[jc456]

Those Bernie supporters will not be very happy if they don't get their free stuff.

FREE VAGINA EVERYONE! HURRY AND GET IN BEFORE SOMEONE BEATS YOU TO IT!

free vijay jay? yeehah

 

[Justin Richardson]

FREE VAGINA EVERYONE! HURRY AND GET IN BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!

 

[WillPower]

Hickenlooper would win if he would change his last name to Studmuffin.

Folks up in Colorado are so high they likely voted for Hickenlooper because the name made them laugh so hard. Hickenlooper....