The Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program said Treasury approved all 18 requests it received last year to raise pay for executives at American International Group Inc., General Motors Corp. and Ally Financial Inc. Of those requests, 14 were for $100,000 or more; the largest raise was $1 million.Free money to already very wealthy people. But don't dare call this "excessive" because the rich people deserve the free money. Why? Well, because they're rich and when they get free money from the government it's no big deal. In fact, even insinuating that very rich people are dependent upon government just like the poor is a very bad comparison. Why? Well, because they're rich and free money to them is Patriotic.
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
AP: Treasury Dept Approved Giving Mega-Rich More Free Money
The Associated Press reports today that the Treasury Department approved every single request sent to it for pay raises for TARP recipient CEO's.
The wealthy are the base for government policy and government programs
Gov. John Sununu laments on President Obama's ability to turnout the vote.
As Spinner and I were discussing in this comment thread, wealthy people depend upon the government just as much if not more than the poor. The wealthy people working and running the financial sector in this country are the most government-dependent people on the face of this earth. Check this out:
**All of George W. Bush's bailouts from 2001-2009 total more than $1.78 trillion. All but $43 billion went to the financial sector. [that doubles Obama's stimulus spending by the way]
**In addition, the financial sector received $7.7 trillion in secret loans from the federal reserve in 2008.
Add those two together and it totals about $9 trillion in federal "government policy and government programs" totally designed to benefit the rich. That is by far more aid, more food stamps, more anything than poor people get in this country. It's the equivalent of three years of government spending on nothing but very wealthy people. The poor could only be so lucky.
*Editor's note:
In the comment section, Spinner makes a very good distinction as to what he is and is not agreeing to.
"Chris - just as I don't want to equate being part of the 47% with being a moocher, we should not equate being wealthy with being one either. So I did not say and do not agree that "wealthy people depend upon the government just as much if not more than the poor". Most wealthy people do not derive their income and wealth from government assistance or government provided direct advantage."
There was no intention to misrepresent his views. My wording was confusing and his point is well taken and noted. Please read my reply also because I do disagree on the substance of utilizing government programs as being any different for the rich as it is the poor.
“They aggressively got out the base of their base, the base of their base that’s dependent, to a great extent economically, on government policy and government programs,” Sununu said during a forum with two other Republican former governors, Steve Merrill and Craig Benson, at Concord’s Grappone Conference Center.Not only is this a rather ridiculous and totally false claim, it strikes at the heart of what Republicans truly believe. For sure Mitt Romney's "47% comment" is the lede of this line of thinking. That government moochers are sticking it to the wealthy or even middle class families who work every day and pay taxes are the people Obama is turning out and will benefit the most from his presidency. But the president got over 51% of the vote from across all demographics, tax brackets and ideologies. Yet that still misses the simple fact that this Republican line of thinking, a thinking that has morphed their party into a very radicalized caricature of its former self, suggests that only poor people depend on "government policy and government programs." Nothing could be further from the truth.
As Spinner and I were discussing in this comment thread, wealthy people depend upon the government just as much if not more than the poor. The wealthy people working and running the financial sector in this country are the most government-dependent people on the face of this earth. Check this out:
**All of George W. Bush's bailouts from 2001-2009 total more than $1.78 trillion. All but $43 billion went to the financial sector. [that doubles Obama's stimulus spending by the way]
**In addition, the financial sector received $7.7 trillion in secret loans from the federal reserve in 2008.
Add those two together and it totals about $9 trillion in federal "government policy and government programs" totally designed to benefit the rich. That is by far more aid, more food stamps, more anything than poor people get in this country. It's the equivalent of three years of government spending on nothing but very wealthy people. The poor could only be so lucky.
*Editor's note:
In the comment section, Spinner makes a very good distinction as to what he is and is not agreeing to.
"Chris - just as I don't want to equate being part of the 47% with being a moocher, we should not equate being wealthy with being one either. So I did not say and do not agree that "wealthy people depend upon the government just as much if not more than the poor". Most wealthy people do not derive their income and wealth from government assistance or government provided direct advantage."
There was no intention to misrepresent his views. My wording was confusing and his point is well taken and noted. Please read my reply also because I do disagree on the substance of utilizing government programs as being any different for the rich as it is the poor.
Alan Grayson Goes After Wal-Mart
This is why I'm glad to see Alan Grayson back in Congress.
Speaking to Current TV host Cenk Uygur on Monday’s episode of “The Young Turks,” Grayson called Walmart “the largest recipient of public aid in the country,” saying their low wages force workers to take food stamps, housing assistance and Medicaid just to get by.
“The taxpayer pays for the earned income credit,” he said. “The taxpayer pays for Medicaid. The taxpayer pays for unemployment insurance when they cut hours down. And the taxpayer pays for other forms of public assistance like food stamps. I think the taxpayer is getting fed up of paying these things when, in fact, Walmart could give every employee its got, even the CEO, a 30 percent raise and still be profitable.”
While all that is true, it neglects the very simple fact that Wal-Mart is also paid heavily in public aid money. Meaning its customers spend millions of dollars in food stamps every year at the extremely large retailer. Spending for the federal food stamp program, SNAP, was $71.8 billion last year. Though it's very hard to state how much of that goes directly to Wal-Mart, it's safe to assume it's in the billions.
For instance, in the State of Oklahoma alone, in a two year time period the Wal-Mart stores located there received $500 million in food stamps. That's one scarcely populated state in just two years. So yes it's safe to say when you add in Grayson's point about low wages, earned income credit and health care, Wal-Mart is the largest recipient of public aid in the country. No doubt about it. It's time they give back.
Most Delusional Reactions on the right to Obama's Victory
It's already started people. Not even 12 hours after winning a huge reelection by a much greater margin than their Great Leader, they are already calling for Obama to be stopped and that the American people gave him no clear mandate to lead.
Fox News pundit Charles Krauthammer: “I think the real story here is that Obama won, but he’s got no mandate.”
Fox News pundit Dick Morris: "Morris agreed, adding however that “'we need to understand just how weakly this president was re-elected, by the skin of his teeth.'” The Republican party, he continued, needs to work with Obama “'when he’s positive,'” but “'otherwise, we need to stand up against this socialist agenda and stop him from fundamentally changing the United States.'"
Later, he added that “I think that what we have to understand is that this is a president that lost seven points of the mandate that he was elected for in 2008; he won by seven then, he won by one last night. And I think that the Republicans cannot be intimidated, they can’t be cowed. They’ve got to stand up and make sure that he does not make permanent these socialist, big government program that he’s been pushing since his first term.”
Let's see here. Again, these two idiots couldn't be more wrong. Currently Obama has over 50% of the popular vote of which he's up about 3 million votes with millions still to count. He also captured 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206. That isn't winning by the "skin of his teeth." Far from it actually.
Compared to Bush's victory in 2000, it's a gigantic blowout. Even compared to Bush's 2004 victory where he only won 286 electoral votes and by a margin of just over 3 million votes, it's still a huge blowout. Plus, after 2004, Bush and Republicans did exactly what Morris is now saying isn't true: they claimed a mandate!! Bush himself said he had political capitol to spend.
So in what world does any of this make sense?
Barack Obama has been elected twice President of the United States by bigger, wider, larger and more popular margins than George W. Bush ever did. Being told he has no mandate, that he won by the skin of his teeth, that we must fight his socialist agenda and that America is still divided is pure treachery. No question, these people truly hate America.
Fox News pundit Charles Krauthammer: “I think the real story here is that Obama won, but he’s got no mandate.”
Fox News pundit Dick Morris: "Morris agreed, adding however that “'we need to understand just how weakly this president was re-elected, by the skin of his teeth.'” The Republican party, he continued, needs to work with Obama “'when he’s positive,'” but “'otherwise, we need to stand up against this socialist agenda and stop him from fundamentally changing the United States.'"
Later, he added that “I think that what we have to understand is that this is a president that lost seven points of the mandate that he was elected for in 2008; he won by seven then, he won by one last night. And I think that the Republicans cannot be intimidated, they can’t be cowed. They’ve got to stand up and make sure that he does not make permanent these socialist, big government program that he’s been pushing since his first term.”
Let's see here. Again, these two idiots couldn't be more wrong. Currently Obama has over 50% of the popular vote of which he's up about 3 million votes with millions still to count. He also captured 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206. That isn't winning by the "skin of his teeth." Far from it actually.
Compared to Bush's victory in 2000, it's a gigantic blowout. Even compared to Bush's 2004 victory where he only won 286 electoral votes and by a margin of just over 3 million votes, it's still a huge blowout. Plus, after 2004, Bush and Republicans did exactly what Morris is now saying isn't true: they claimed a mandate!! Bush himself said he had political capitol to spend.
So in what world does any of this make sense?
- 2000 election, you lose popular vote and win electoral college by 1 vote. Mandate!
- 2004 election, you win popular vote by a little over 3 million and electoral college with 286. Huge Mandate!
- 2012 election, Obama wins reelection with bigger margins than George Bush ever did. No Mandate, country is divided, we must stand up to his socialist agenda and fight him to save America!!
Barack Obama has been elected twice President of the United States by bigger, wider, larger and more popular margins than George W. Bush ever did. Being told he has no mandate, that he won by the skin of his teeth, that we must fight his socialist agenda and that America is still divided is pure treachery. No question, these people truly hate America.
Paul Ryan and Social Security, It Doesn't Get Any Worse
Paul Ryan on Social Security, 2005: “Social Security right now is a collectivist system... It’s a welfare transfer system... Autopilot will bring more government, more collectivism, more centralized government, if we do not succeed in switching these programs and reforming these programs from what some people call a defined benefit system, to a defined contribution system.”
Paul Ryan, 2012, talking about his above comment: Asked about those words Saturday, Ryan said that did not represent his thinking about the retirement program. "I don't think of it like that," he said, saying his concern about Social Security is that younger workers today will get a "negative" rate of return for their retirement on the money they pay into payroll taxes.
So what happened in those 7 years? What has changed his mind so drastically? The most obvious is he is now on a Presidential Ticket and calling the most popular social program in America a socialized, collectivist welfare system looks really, really bad.
What do we get from this? Seriously, what can we assume from Ryan's two completely different comments about Social Security? One, we could do what Republicans do and say that Ryan has a secret agenda that he doesn't want people to know, it being he wants to take Social Security away from people. Or two, we can assume he is trying to have it both ways by calling it one thing in front of one group and an altogether different thing while speaking to a another group.
Or we could just do this. Let's look at what Paul Ryan has done or has tried to do while serving in Congress in regards to Social Security.
2005 was a big year for Ryan and Social Security. He pushed President Bush for a plan that would defund Social Security by allowing workers to invest their payroll taxes into the market, instead of Social Security. Bush instead went with a slightly different privatized plan, which Ryan also supported, and the public hated it.
Additionally in 2005, he sponsored a bill that would have allowed workers to funnel an average of 6.4 percent of their 12.4 percent payroll-tax contribution to a private account. The Social Security Administration concluded Ryan's plan would require $225 billion annually in new revenue to provide for current benefits. In other words, Ryan's plan defunded Social Security.
In 2007 he proposed yet another a bill that would invest 50% of FICA into personal market accounts.
In 2010, he again promoted the idea of defunding Social Security by investing 1/3 of payroll taxes into the market. Even way back In 2000, he voted yes on reducing payroll taxes that fund Social Security, or better said he voted to defund Social Security.
His entire congressional career he has pushed to do away with Social Security. In fact, that's the only record he has on Social Security. And now we're supposed to believe he he doesn't feel that way anymore?
Paul Ryan, 2012, talking about his above comment: Asked about those words Saturday, Ryan said that did not represent his thinking about the retirement program. "I don't think of it like that," he said, saying his concern about Social Security is that younger workers today will get a "negative" rate of return for their retirement on the money they pay into payroll taxes.
So what happened in those 7 years? What has changed his mind so drastically? The most obvious is he is now on a Presidential Ticket and calling the most popular social program in America a socialized, collectivist welfare system looks really, really bad.
What do we get from this? Seriously, what can we assume from Ryan's two completely different comments about Social Security? One, we could do what Republicans do and say that Ryan has a secret agenda that he doesn't want people to know, it being he wants to take Social Security away from people. Or two, we can assume he is trying to have it both ways by calling it one thing in front of one group and an altogether different thing while speaking to a another group.
Or we could just do this. Let's look at what Paul Ryan has done or has tried to do while serving in Congress in regards to Social Security.
2005 was a big year for Ryan and Social Security. He pushed President Bush for a plan that would defund Social Security by allowing workers to invest their payroll taxes into the market, instead of Social Security. Bush instead went with a slightly different privatized plan, which Ryan also supported, and the public hated it.
Additionally in 2005, he sponsored a bill that would have allowed workers to funnel an average of 6.4 percent of their 12.4 percent payroll-tax contribution to a private account. The Social Security Administration concluded Ryan's plan would require $225 billion annually in new revenue to provide for current benefits. In other words, Ryan's plan defunded Social Security.
In 2007 he proposed yet another a bill that would invest 50% of FICA into personal market accounts.
In 2010, he again promoted the idea of defunding Social Security by investing 1/3 of payroll taxes into the market. Even way back In 2000, he voted yes on reducing payroll taxes that fund Social Security, or better said he voted to defund Social Security.
His entire congressional career he has pushed to do away with Social Security. In fact, that's the only record he has on Social Security. And now we're supposed to believe he he doesn't feel that way anymore?
Ignorance is Bliss, but Republicans really believe this stuff
If I sound like a broken record, it's probably because I am.
Condi Rice: "… we are exceptional in the clarity of our conviction that free markets and free peoples hold the key to the future, and in our willingness to act on those beliefs. Failure to do so would leave a vacuum, likely filled by those who will not champion a balance of power that favours freedom. That would be a tragedy for American interests and values and those who share them."
Must we go through this again? Apparently so.
Sec. Rice was writing in hopes to highlight her belief that sometimes the American people need to be reminded that our country is exceptional to the rest of the world. We savior freedom in all realms but especially in "free markets." It is our "conviction that free markets" are so important to free society that failing to uphold such a market system would collapse our nation and freedom as we know it.
As an 8-year member of the Bush administration, Secretary Rice should know a thing or two about unfettered markets. Or at least about how to grow government to huge lengths and nationalize them.
The Bush administration instituted at least 8 government-funded bailouts of private industry, well over a trillion dollars worth. He nationalized entire financial and lending industries, meaning he used tax payer money to buy up majority ownership in private companies. He did more to interfere with the free market system than any president since FDR. He created TARP, No Child Left Behind, Dept. of Homeland Security, and who can forget his transfer of billions of dollars of American wealth to Iraq. If anyone failed to uphold the free market system it was the Bush administration. How dare any Republican pretend it never happened.
Notice too that Rice says failing to hold steady to the conviction of free markets would result in a vacuum likely filled by those who don't cherish freedom. Bush failed to abide by the GOP's dream of free markets and guess what? We're still here and just as free as we were in 2001-2009. Anyone who thinks, or would write in a printed publication that America is exceptional because of our unbridled love of a free market system especially after they worked for the administration that issued and created TARP is ridiculously stupid.
Condi Rice: "… we are exceptional in the clarity of our conviction that free markets and free peoples hold the key to the future, and in our willingness to act on those beliefs. Failure to do so would leave a vacuum, likely filled by those who will not champion a balance of power that favours freedom. That would be a tragedy for American interests and values and those who share them."
Must we go through this again? Apparently so.
Sec. Rice was writing in hopes to highlight her belief that sometimes the American people need to be reminded that our country is exceptional to the rest of the world. We savior freedom in all realms but especially in "free markets." It is our "conviction that free markets" are so important to free society that failing to uphold such a market system would collapse our nation and freedom as we know it.
As an 8-year member of the Bush administration, Secretary Rice should know a thing or two about unfettered markets. Or at least about how to grow government to huge lengths and nationalize them.
The Bush administration instituted at least 8 government-funded bailouts of private industry, well over a trillion dollars worth. He nationalized entire financial and lending industries, meaning he used tax payer money to buy up majority ownership in private companies. He did more to interfere with the free market system than any president since FDR. He created TARP, No Child Left Behind, Dept. of Homeland Security, and who can forget his transfer of billions of dollars of American wealth to Iraq. If anyone failed to uphold the free market system it was the Bush administration. How dare any Republican pretend it never happened.
Notice too that Rice says failing to hold steady to the conviction of free markets would result in a vacuum likely filled by those who don't cherish freedom. Bush failed to abide by the GOP's dream of free markets and guess what? We're still here and just as free as we were in 2001-2009. Anyone who thinks, or would write in a printed publication that America is exceptional because of our unbridled love of a free market system especially after they worked for the administration that issued and created TARP is ridiculously stupid.
Tea Baggers Keep Making Me Look Like a Genius
April 2, 2009, I said:
The answer is simple. Tea Baggers aren't against spending. They aren't even against big government. There is no proof that Republicans are opposed to large government spending programs whatsoever.June 28, 2010, I said:
Tea Baggers aren't against Big Government. They aren't against deficit spending. They aren't against social programs. They are merely Republicans who are mad they lost the election.June 14, 2010, I said:
In reality the summation of this would mean Rand Paul is not against the federal government issuing bailouts to private business. He's not against any of it. He just likes to say he is so he can continue to enjoy the label of Washington Outsider that is rolling up his sleeves to go Freedom Fight against Big Government. All the while Rand Paul is vastly enjoying the comforts of government bailouts. Normally a person that did this would be called delusional. Nowadays they're called Republican.Bloomberg, April 30, 2012:
Yet the anti-bailout fervor that drove the messaging of Republican candidates during the campaign cycle of 2009 and 2010 has dissipated, and those same lawmakers are now collecting money from the firms bailed out by President George W. Bush’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. [...]
The political action committees of those institutions have distributed $169,499 through March 31 to the campaign coffers of the 10 freshman Tea Party-backed lawmakers on the House Financial Services Committee, according to an analysis of campaign finance disclosure records.I'll say it again, just for the smell of it. Tea Baggers are not against spending. They aren't against Big Government. They aren't against TARP. They aren't against bailouts. They aren't against social programs and they aren't opposed whatsoever to deficits. They simply like talking about all that stuff and pretending it all came from Democrats.
Why Is It So Hard To Remind Republicans They Are the Communist Threat?
Two observations to make today.
First, while on Fox News Republican Mitt Romney was asked by Republican Steve Doocy if President Obama was going around trying to sound all Republican.
Secondly, we have Republican Allen West on CNN refusing to name names of the 90 or so Democratic Members of Congress he said are Communists.
But let's not stop there. Sure nationalizing entire financial industries is a huge step in the communist direction but there's way more. It was the Republican Party that created our first ever national takeover of Education with No Child Left Behind. It was the GOP that grew government by leaps and bounds with their completely unfunded $700 billion expansion of Medicare in 2003. Romney, Doocy and West, too, are all members of the political party that is responsible for the single largest public works project ever created in the Eisenhower Interstate System. They all three are members of the the Party that created the Department of Homeland Security as well as set us on a course of the largest redistribution of American wealth in history with the war in Iraq. There's your communist threat people!
It's important to note this because it's insane for Republicans and the media to somehow think they can have the history they do and get to call other people communists and complain about the size and spending problems of the federal government. The GOP is no stranger to communism, Big Government or socialism.
As a personal note, I fully realize how inaccurately I'm using the term communism. I'm using it as they use it. I'm fully aware that taking over AIG or Bank of America or building a highway doesn't mean you're a Communist. I know this. But if a Democratic president had done that there is no doubt Republicans would call it communism. They already are actually. I'm not going to allow myself to play by different rules. I can be just as lazy, inaccurate and repugnant as them. It's the only way to prove the point that they are completely delusional and allowing them to continue this charade of small government, fiscal crusaders is actually even lazier and more retarded. Make them own it!
First, while on Fox News Republican Mitt Romney was asked by Republican Steve Doocy if President Obama was going around trying to sound all Republican.
Doocy teed up a clip of President Obama speaking to a group of voters in Ohio on Wednesday, and said that the President sounded “a little like a Republican” when he praised the free market and said that government has its limitations before ultimately praising the collective government.Because, as we all know, anything to do with the free market and growing the economy via such means absolutely comes from the GOP.
Secondly, we have Republican Allen West on CNN refusing to name names of the 90 or so Democratic Members of Congress he said are Communists.
O’BRIEN: So name names for me. Which? Start naming the 78 to 81.It's important to note at this time that Mitt Romney, Steve Doocy and Allen West are all members of a political party that instituted TARP, that numerous times in the last decade bailed out the airline industry, that nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Bros, Bear Stearns, AIG, the auto industry, Citigroup, and Bank of America. It was the GOP that did all that!!!
WEST: Oh we don’t have to do that…
O’BRIEN: No, no, we do, I’m dying to know.
WEST: You can go look up the Congressional Progressive Caucus. You can go look up the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
O’BRIEN: I’ve got them right here.
WEST: Well then you’ve got the names.
O’BRIEN: So [Minnesota Democratic Rep.] Keith Ellison is a Communist?
WEST: Soledad, Soledad you know something…
O’BRIEN: [Arizona Democratic Rep.] Raúl Grijalva is a Communist?
WEST: Well look, I’m just talking about the fact that the ideologies, the principles you believe in.
O’BRIEN: [Wisconsin Democratic Rep.] Tammy Baldwin is a Communist? [California Democratic Rep.] Judy Chu is a Communist?
WEST: You can call it whatever you want. You can call it whatever you want. I’m talking about their beliefs.
O’BRIEN: No but I want to know what you’re calling it.
WEST: I’m calling it this: Communist, Progressive, Marxist, Socialist, Statist — which is another term that’s been used. I’m looking at the ideologies.
But let's not stop there. Sure nationalizing entire financial industries is a huge step in the communist direction but there's way more. It was the Republican Party that created our first ever national takeover of Education with No Child Left Behind. It was the GOP that grew government by leaps and bounds with their completely unfunded $700 billion expansion of Medicare in 2003. Romney, Doocy and West, too, are all members of the political party that is responsible for the single largest public works project ever created in the Eisenhower Interstate System. They all three are members of the the Party that created the Department of Homeland Security as well as set us on a course of the largest redistribution of American wealth in history with the war in Iraq. There's your communist threat people!
It's important to note this because it's insane for Republicans and the media to somehow think they can have the history they do and get to call other people communists and complain about the size and spending problems of the federal government. The GOP is no stranger to communism, Big Government or socialism.
As a personal note, I fully realize how inaccurately I'm using the term communism. I'm using it as they use it. I'm fully aware that taking over AIG or Bank of America or building a highway doesn't mean you're a Communist. I know this. But if a Democratic president had done that there is no doubt Republicans would call it communism. They already are actually. I'm not going to allow myself to play by different rules. I can be just as lazy, inaccurate and repugnant as them. It's the only way to prove the point that they are completely delusional and allowing them to continue this charade of small government, fiscal crusaders is actually even lazier and more retarded. Make them own it!
It's a Good Thing Republicans Don't Rely on the Government
Just like the Chamber of Commerce, it's in the best interest of Fox News to keep people voting Republican. The best way to do that is to convince your audience that your reliance on government is normal, Patriotic, and something you are owed for paying taxes. It's everyone else's reliance on government that is ruining this country.
As we saw the other day, the Chamber is notorious for loving the spending ways of Big Government and then chastising other people for doing the same thing. As for Fox News and their bogus Heritage Foundation report, one need not an ounce more of proof than the simple fact that the individual health insurance mandate contained in President Obama's health care reform comes directly from the Heritage Foundation. That was when it was a good, Patriotic, Conservative Republican idea of course. But now that a Democrat likes it, it's the devil and causes people to depend way too much on government. Wheee!!
As we saw the other day, the Chamber is notorious for loving the spending ways of Big Government and then chastising other people for doing the same thing. As for Fox News and their bogus Heritage Foundation report, one need not an ounce more of proof than the simple fact that the individual health insurance mandate contained in President Obama's health care reform comes directly from the Heritage Foundation. That was when it was a good, Patriotic, Conservative Republican idea of course. But now that a Democrat likes it, it's the devil and causes people to depend way too much on government. Wheee!!
Self Delusion's Hidden Government
Just in time for today's budget talk, the Times did a bang up job with a very informative story over the weekend. It hits upon a constant theme, not only on this blog, but in public conversation about government. What is government's role to the citizenry?
Sure, as you all know, I love to poke fun at the tea baggers. They are crazy, no doubt. They are no more against Big Government than they are against oxygen. They're simply against other people besides themselves benefiting from government (especially when Democrats are in charge). Yet, for all the fun I poke at them, their delusion is actually common among the public as a whole and not just their fringe GOP group.
Here's the overall theme facing government as viewed by the opposition to the current administration and why it boggles any rational thinking:
Anyone decades from now wanting to look back and see the unimaginative and very unrealistic view of the role of government and how this Congress is the most unpopular and most unproductive in history, this story should suffice. It's really a wonder we've survived as a people this long.
Sure, as you all know, I love to poke fun at the tea baggers. They are crazy, no doubt. They are no more against Big Government than they are against oxygen. They're simply against other people besides themselves benefiting from government (especially when Democrats are in charge). Yet, for all the fun I poke at them, their delusion is actually common among the public as a whole and not just their fringe GOP group.
Here's the overall theme facing government as viewed by the opposition to the current administration and why it boggles any rational thinking:
"LINDSTROM, Minn. — Ki Gulbranson owns a logo apparel shop, deals in jewelry on the side and referees youth soccer games. He makes about $39,000 a year and wants you to know that he does not need any help from the federal government.
He says that too many Americans lean on taxpayers rather than living within their means. He supports politicians who promise to cut government spending. In 2010, he printed T-shirts for the Tea Party campaign of a neighbor, Chip Cravaack, who ousted this region’s long-serving Democratic congressman.
Yet this year, as in each of the past three years, Mr. Gulbranson, 57, is counting on a payment of several thousand dollars from the federal government, a subsidy for working families called the earned-income tax credit. He has signed up his three school-age children to eat free breakfast and lunch at federal expense. And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice."
Huh?Anyone decades from now wanting to look back and see the unimaginative and very unrealistic view of the role of government and how this Congress is the most unpopular and most unproductive in history, this story should suffice. It's really a wonder we've survived as a people this long.
Welfare Helps the Wealthy Says Ron Paul
I don't disagree at all with this from Ron Paul:
“So the middle class is shrinking and their [sic] losing their jobs and their [sic] losing their houses, but Wall Street isn’t getting poorer. And they are the ones who are getting the bailout. So we have to address the bailout and the system that favors a certain group over another group. If you don’t have sound money and you have a welfare state, no matter whether the welfare state is designed to help the poor, you know, the welfare system helps the wealthy.”
Welfare does indeed help the wealthy. It helps the wealthy in many ways most people don't realize, and way more in terms of real dollars. Even in ways Ron Paul omits. Or at least the American Welfare System does. And that's because we have a system fundamentally designed to see that the rich are taken care of at much higher rates than the poor.
Since 2007 alone, the federal government has spent trillions propping up the wealthy. This is nothing other than welfare. For the last decade the federal government has cut taxes disproportionately to favor the wealthy, subsidized their professions, and allowed for very wealthy bosses to mismanage their companies into the ground all the while still receiving hundreds of billions in welfare payments that helped pay their bonuses and golden parachutes. This is all welfare. And we as a society have spent way more money subsidizing rich people than we ever have the poor.
I don't think this is necessarily what Ron Paul was saying, nor do I think he would necessarily disagree with it either. But yes, welfare does help the wealthy. That's the whole problem nobody wants to talk about.
“So the middle class is shrinking and their [sic] losing their jobs and their [sic] losing their houses, but Wall Street isn’t getting poorer. And they are the ones who are getting the bailout. So we have to address the bailout and the system that favors a certain group over another group. If you don’t have sound money and you have a welfare state, no matter whether the welfare state is designed to help the poor, you know, the welfare system helps the wealthy.”
Welfare does indeed help the wealthy. It helps the wealthy in many ways most people don't realize, and way more in terms of real dollars. Even in ways Ron Paul omits. Or at least the American Welfare System does. And that's because we have a system fundamentally designed to see that the rich are taken care of at much higher rates than the poor.
I don't think this is necessarily what Ron Paul was saying, nor do I think he would necessarily disagree with it either. But yes, welfare does help the wealthy. That's the whole problem nobody wants to talk about.
In Kansas, History Turns On Its Head
Speaking in Osawatomie, Kansas today the president continued his call for Socialism by saying no man should be allowed to get wealthy unless it benefits all of us.
"We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well-used," Osama said, but added: "We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community."
Also, furthering his solidification of his socialistfascist agenda, President Obama struck a chord by hoping for a new form of nationalism to take hold in America:
It's a good thing Newt Gingrich leads a group with nothing but a track record of moral values, government shrinking, spending cuts, deficit reduction and Liberty Legislation so we have some hope for Revolution! and better futures for our kids.
"We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well-used," Osama said, but added: "We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community."
Also, furthering his solidification of his socialistfascist agenda, President Obama struck a chord by hoping for a new form of nationalism to take hold in America:
Describing what he called a "new Nationalism," Obama said it "regards the executive power as the steward of public welfare."America can't possibly continue on a path of Islamofascistsocialist tyranny. Imagine what we'll look like a hundred years from now...
"It demands of the judiciary that it shall be interested primarily in human welfare rather than in property, just as it demands that the representative body shall represent all the people rather than any one class or section of the people," he continued.
It's a good thing Newt Gingrich leads a group with nothing but a track record of moral values, government shrinking, spending cuts, deficit reduction and Liberty Legislation so we have some hope for Revolution! and better futures for our kids.
Secret Loans Topped $7 Trillion, Helped Rich Get Richer
In addition to Bush's $700 billion TARP in the Fall of 2008, Bloomberg is reporting today that the Federal Reserve dolled out an additional $7.7 trillion of secret loans to Wall St. bankers. The banks claim they turned a $13 billion profit from the secret loans, repaid all the money and that no money was lost.
The Federal Reserve admitted the loans were done in secret to prevent a stigma from destroying an already fragile financial system. "The Fed, headed by Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, argued that revealing borrower details would create a stigma -- investors and counterparties would shun firms that used the central bank as lender of last resort -- and that needy institutions would be reluctant to borrow in the next crisis."
Bernanke is certainly right about that. It would have delegitimized the banks to a point people would have been marching in the streets demanding that they too get a return on their tax dollars. Oh wait....it's happening anyway.
But here's the point to this story...
The private sector, if you can call it that, received a $700 billion bailout bill plus $7.7 trillion in secret loans to keep it from collapsing. It was argued, the banks were too big to fail. Meaning the result of their failure would be much worse for the country than the stigma of being bailed out. So we kept them from failing by apparently doing everything we could, including all kinds of top secret stuff and spent a ton of money doing it. It worked. The economy came back from the brink. But now the banks, thanks to tax payer money, are making record profits and unemployment is still above 9%.
Wall St. fat cats, bank CEO's, all kinds of corporate bosses are getting richer at record pace with amounts much larger than they were before the crisis. "The nation’s largest banks have turned more in profit in the last 30 months than they did in nearly eight years preceding the crisis, all while spending millions to derail significant reform legislation."
That, my friends, is the exact definition of redistribution of wealth. Hard earned tax payer money was redistributed to a failed financial system causing the system to bounce back, grow even larger than they were when they were said to be "too big to fail," and successfully helped the richest people in America get even richer.
The Federal Reserve admitted the loans were done in secret to prevent a stigma from destroying an already fragile financial system. "The Fed, headed by Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, argued that revealing borrower details would create a stigma -- investors and counterparties would shun firms that used the central bank as lender of last resort -- and that needy institutions would be reluctant to borrow in the next crisis."
Bernanke is certainly right about that. It would have delegitimized the banks to a point people would have been marching in the streets demanding that they too get a return on their tax dollars. Oh wait....it's happening anyway.
But here's the point to this story...
The private sector, if you can call it that, received a $700 billion bailout bill plus $7.7 trillion in secret loans to keep it from collapsing. It was argued, the banks were too big to fail. Meaning the result of their failure would be much worse for the country than the stigma of being bailed out. So we kept them from failing by apparently doing everything we could, including all kinds of top secret stuff and spent a ton of money doing it. It worked. The economy came back from the brink. But now the banks, thanks to tax payer money, are making record profits and unemployment is still above 9%.
Wall St. fat cats, bank CEO's, all kinds of corporate bosses are getting richer at record pace with amounts much larger than they were before the crisis. "The nation’s largest banks have turned more in profit in the last 30 months than they did in nearly eight years preceding the crisis, all while spending millions to derail significant reform legislation."
That, my friends, is the exact definition of redistribution of wealth. Hard earned tax payer money was redistributed to a failed financial system causing the system to bounce back, grow even larger than they were when they were said to be "too big to fail," and successfully helped the richest people in America get even richer.
Americans Really Do Like Government Services
Sarah Kliff calls a recent poll showing Americans actually want more government health services as "unexpected."
Not sure why should would say something like that. Maybe her editors added that word. The same applies to the Affordable Care Act as well. Taken as a whole the policy is not popular. But if you break it up and sample aspects of the law it gets much higher marks.
For instance, the public overwhelmingly supports a law that bans insurance companies from discriminating against preexisting conditions. Well, the ACA does just that. The public overwhelmingly supports allowing children onto parent's health plans until 26 years of age. Guess what? ACA makes that happen. Frame it all up into one big package and the ACA is 20 points more popular than George Bush but still doesn't have majority approval.
Maybe a better way of putting this is by saying Americans really do like government services, whether they realize it's a government program or not. Social Security, Medicare, Earned Income Tax credit all get really high approval ratings from the public. Just check it out:
What skews the polling data is when services are made a partisan issue. Like portraying the ACA as having death panels that will kill undesirables, or saying that it's socialism designed at destroying America are the things that really confuse people.
Not sure why should would say something like that. Maybe her editors added that word. The same applies to the Affordable Care Act as well. Taken as a whole the policy is not popular. But if you break it up and sample aspects of the law it gets much higher marks.
For instance, the public overwhelmingly supports a law that bans insurance companies from discriminating against preexisting conditions. Well, the ACA does just that. The public overwhelmingly supports allowing children onto parent's health plans until 26 years of age. Guess what? ACA makes that happen. Frame it all up into one big package and the ACA is 20 points more popular than George Bush but still doesn't have majority approval.
Maybe a better way of putting this is by saying Americans really do like government services, whether they realize it's a government program or not. Social Security, Medicare, Earned Income Tax credit all get really high approval ratings from the public. Just check it out:
What skews the polling data is when services are made a partisan issue. Like portraying the ACA as having death panels that will kill undesirables, or saying that it's socialism designed at destroying America are the things that really confuse people.
Threats of Class Warfare are Hollow...finally
In the 90s calling the president's policies socialism, aka class warfare, would have worked. Today, as we embark away from the many firsts of this presidency; the epic sliding away from conversations about glass ceilings; and the mediocre attractions of political labels just for the sake of politics, the threat of class warfare affecting our discourse is over. Time has not been kind to the phrase. Thankfully, time gave up.
The president today proved he'll take it head on. You can argue the policy but I promise you, math will win.
The president today proved he'll take it head on. You can argue the policy but I promise you, math will win.
This is not class warfare. It’s math. (Laughter.) The money is going to have to come from someplace. And if we’re not willing to ask those who've done extraordinarily well to help America close the deficit and we are trying to reach that same target of $4 trillion, then the logic, the math says everybody else has to do a whole lot more: We’ve got to put the entire burden on the middle class and the poor. We’ve got to scale back on the investments that have always helped our economy grow. We’ve got to settle for second-rate roads and second-rate bridges and second-rate airports, and schools that are crumbling.
That’s unacceptable to me. That’s unacceptable to the American people. And it will not happen on my watch. I will not support -- I will not support -- any plan that puts all the burden for closing our deficit on ordinary Americans. And I will veto any bill that changes benefits for those who rely on Medicare but does not raise serious revenues by asking the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to pay their fair share. We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable.
Republican Recovery in One Graph
For over two years Republicans have been telling us that in order to get the economy back on track we have to jolt the private sector by starving socialist public sector employment. Well here you go:
This should mean we are on our way to full recovery via Liberty and Freedom right? Well, not exactly. Judging from our latest 1% growth rate, it means our economy is just as dependent upon the public sector as it is the private sector. Public servants, such as teachers, cops, firefighters, bus drivers all play a large role in our very advanced, technologically structured 21st century economy. To think that we can somehow starve the public sector and thus bring back economic growth is absurd.
But this is what Republicans are telling us we should do. The trend in the graph above is exactly the path they say we have to be on in order to get America's economic engine running again. If there is anyone who can look at the latest GDP numbers, the latest housing numbers and the latest consumer confidence numbers, and then that graph and tell me we are on the right path, you're crazy.
This should mean we are on our way to full recovery via Liberty and Freedom right? Well, not exactly. Judging from our latest 1% growth rate, it means our economy is just as dependent upon the public sector as it is the private sector. Public servants, such as teachers, cops, firefighters, bus drivers all play a large role in our very advanced, technologically structured 21st century economy. To think that we can somehow starve the public sector and thus bring back economic growth is absurd.
But this is what Republicans are telling us we should do. The trend in the graph above is exactly the path they say we have to be on in order to get America's economic engine running again. If there is anyone who can look at the latest GDP numbers, the latest housing numbers and the latest consumer confidence numbers, and then that graph and tell me we are on the right path, you're crazy.
It's Not My Big Government, But Yours I Don't Like
Since the beginning of time, circa Jan. 20th, 2009, I have called the Tea Bagger's bluff when it comes to their self-described dislike of Big Government. Time and time again evidence has shown Tea Baggers do not loathe government services as much as they claim. They only loathe other people getting welfare government services.
- Tea Bagger darling Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky made millions of dollars from Medicare. He claims Medicare is unconstitutional and that it should be eliminated. Well, eliminated except for the payments to doctors that is. I guess it's nice to be a millionaire thanks to a single-payer health care program you think is illegal.
- Who can ever forget Republican Tea Bagger Sharron Angle in Nevada and the fact her entire life she enjoyed the benefit of government-run health care but endlessly campaigned against extending access to health care to anyone else.
- Congressman Stephen Fincher (R-TN) hates subsidies to people for health insurance. Tea Bagger Fincher makes $200,000/year in farm subsidies to do absolutely no work whatsoever. You see, government payments to him are fine. It's the payments to other people he thinks is socialism.
- Tea Bagging blogger Mike Vanderboegh of Alabama, hates Big Government so much that he has called for people to violently overthrow the American government. He hates this evil socialism stuff so much that he collects disability checks from the federal government. Total tool.
- Republican Tea Bagger organizer and self-proclaimed leader of many Tea Bagger groups around the country, Diana Reimer of Pennsylvania, is so motivated by ending the modern welfare state that she uses Medicare for all her medical needs.
GOP Effort to Repeal ACA in Senate Fails
Senate Republicans failed to get the necessary 60 votes to waive an objection to the repeal measure because it will increase the budget deficit thus a repeal does not comply with budget rules. In other words, the very fiscally conservative and deficit slashing Republicans did not get enough votes necessary to increase the budget deficit.
It would be one thing if Republicans were offering up some sort of replacement. But they aren't. They just want it repealed because it's Democratic policy. And as we all know, Democratic policy is socialism and we can't have socialism in this country.
It would be one thing if Republicans were offering up some sort of replacement. But they aren't. They just want it repealed because it's Democratic policy. And as we all know, Democratic policy is socialism and we can't have socialism in this country.
- Bush's government takeover of education aka No Child Left Behind. That's not socialism. That's patriotism.
- Bush's massive and multiple airline bailouts. That's not socialism. That's patriotism.
- Bush's completely unfunded trillion dollar expansion to Medicare. That's not socialism. That's patriotism.
- Bush's redistribution of American wealth to Iraq. That's not socialism. That's patriotism.
- Bush's trillion dollar tax payer funded bailout of AIG, Citigroup, Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, is in no way socialism. It's total patriotism.
- Bush's $700 billion TARP. That's not socialism. That's patriotism.
- Obama's completely funded health care reform that expands insurance coverage to 30 million Americans by utilizing private insurance companies and shrinks the budget deficit. That's socialism.
Ayn Rand Wrote Government's Role and It Was Rugged
There are some interesting things to point out about the story of Ayn Rand and her decision to partake in a single payer health care system like Medicare as well as the New Deal program Social Security.
There's no doubt that if you paid into a service you should receive the benefits, if that's your decision. It appears Rand definitely decided to partake in a system she claimed to despise. But Medicare is not mandatory. It's optional. She didn't have to use it. She was a wealthy woman even into her old age. She could have opted out of the system, purchased her own private plan and lived the life she claimed everyone should. But she didn't. She chose to receive Medicare because, as her social worker and power of attorney makes clear, "[d]octors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it."
Yes doctors cost a lot of money. Health care, in general cost a lot of money. Even wealthy people like Ayn Rand, if they get sick, oftentimes cannot afford to pay for doctors and treatment. That's the whole point of Medicare. Because health care is so expensive it can wipe out everything you have. This happens every day to millions of people in America. Imagine if you are poor or middle class and get sick. Your financial situation will be much worse than one of the best selling authors of all time that's for sure.
We cannot control when we get sick, and at some point we all will need health care. In the case of Rand, it was all her own doing. She had lung cancer from a two-pack a day smoking habit. Her life of personal freedom, living to do as she pleased led her to get sick and become dependent upon government services. That's not hypocrisy of the system like so many Rand supporters are defending. It is the system. That's what Medicare is there for, to keep the elderly from becoming destitute on medical expenses. The Medicare system does not care if Rand didn't like it. Neither does the system care that she spent her whole life trying to dismantle it. The system is non-discriminatory. Rand proved the system worked. Does her partaking in it negate her philosophy? Not at all. Her partaking in it proved the system is viable and necessary, no matter what she thinks or causes other people to think. Without Medicare paying for her health care, she would have died penniless and probably without proper treatment. That's absolutely the purpose of Medicare. She used it precisely as it was intended.
Furthermore, Medicare had been in existence a mere 9 years before Rand applied. That means, at best, she only paid into the system a very small time, if at all. Therefore, she received way more benefits from it than she ever paid in. That does, in effect, constitute welfare in every way possible and imaginable. This is where the problem occurs in terms of philosophy.
Libertarians have always tried to maintain that earmarks, Social Security benefits, and the like, is merely their money coming back to them. It's when people, namely the poor, who don't pay into the systems receive the same benefits does the self-righteous and self-professed "conservative" right wing complain. However, not only did Rand get money she paid in, she also received lots of other people's money. Yet, again, that was her choice. She didn't have to do it. But because she didn't want to wipe out her fortune, she chose to do something she railed against her whole life.
I see nothing wrong with her decision at all. I'm not one who thinks Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional. In fact, I believe Medicare should be opened up to everyone because the elderly are not the only ones who get sick without the money to cover health care expenses.
Last but not least, why in the world did she use a fake name when signing up if for no other reason than to avoid the stigma of hypocrisy? If there was anyone who could have philosophically argued her way out of being labeled a hypocrite for utilizing the mantles of the American welfare state it was Ayn Rand. Yet she ran and hid using made up names hoping the public would never know. No it's not hypocrisy, I agree. It's the fact that people like Rand aren't against welfare or socialism in the least bit. Like I've been saying forever: They are only against other people besides themselves receiving it, which is way more about self-delusion than hypocrisy. And that is why her supporters try so hard to make this more about hypocrisy than about government's role when in fact, if Rand's philosophy and life proved anything, it's that government's role is way more a personal matter than Republicans want to admit.
There's no doubt that if you paid into a service you should receive the benefits, if that's your decision. It appears Rand definitely decided to partake in a system she claimed to despise. But Medicare is not mandatory. It's optional. She didn't have to use it. She was a wealthy woman even into her old age. She could have opted out of the system, purchased her own private plan and lived the life she claimed everyone should. But she didn't. She chose to receive Medicare because, as her social worker and power of attorney makes clear, "[d]octors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it."
Yes doctors cost a lot of money. Health care, in general cost a lot of money. Even wealthy people like Ayn Rand, if they get sick, oftentimes cannot afford to pay for doctors and treatment. That's the whole point of Medicare. Because health care is so expensive it can wipe out everything you have. This happens every day to millions of people in America. Imagine if you are poor or middle class and get sick. Your financial situation will be much worse than one of the best selling authors of all time that's for sure.
We cannot control when we get sick, and at some point we all will need health care. In the case of Rand, it was all her own doing. She had lung cancer from a two-pack a day smoking habit. Her life of personal freedom, living to do as she pleased led her to get sick and become dependent upon government services. That's not hypocrisy of the system like so many Rand supporters are defending. It is the system. That's what Medicare is there for, to keep the elderly from becoming destitute on medical expenses. The Medicare system does not care if Rand didn't like it. Neither does the system care that she spent her whole life trying to dismantle it. The system is non-discriminatory. Rand proved the system worked. Does her partaking in it negate her philosophy? Not at all. Her partaking in it proved the system is viable and necessary, no matter what she thinks or causes other people to think. Without Medicare paying for her health care, she would have died penniless and probably without proper treatment. That's absolutely the purpose of Medicare. She used it precisely as it was intended.
Furthermore, Medicare had been in existence a mere 9 years before Rand applied. That means, at best, she only paid into the system a very small time, if at all. Therefore, she received way more benefits from it than she ever paid in. That does, in effect, constitute welfare in every way possible and imaginable. This is where the problem occurs in terms of philosophy.
Libertarians have always tried to maintain that earmarks, Social Security benefits, and the like, is merely their money coming back to them. It's when people, namely the poor, who don't pay into the systems receive the same benefits does the self-righteous and self-professed "conservative" right wing complain. However, not only did Rand get money she paid in, she also received lots of other people's money. Yet, again, that was her choice. She didn't have to do it. But because she didn't want to wipe out her fortune, she chose to do something she railed against her whole life.
I see nothing wrong with her decision at all. I'm not one who thinks Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional. In fact, I believe Medicare should be opened up to everyone because the elderly are not the only ones who get sick without the money to cover health care expenses.
Last but not least, why in the world did she use a fake name when signing up if for no other reason than to avoid the stigma of hypocrisy? If there was anyone who could have philosophically argued her way out of being labeled a hypocrite for utilizing the mantles of the American welfare state it was Ayn Rand. Yet she ran and hid using made up names hoping the public would never know. No it's not hypocrisy, I agree. It's the fact that people like Rand aren't against welfare or socialism in the least bit. Like I've been saying forever: They are only against other people besides themselves receiving it, which is way more about self-delusion than hypocrisy. And that is why her supporters try so hard to make this more about hypocrisy than about government's role when in fact, if Rand's philosophy and life proved anything, it's that government's role is way more a personal matter than Republicans want to admit.
Rand Paul Now Says He Will Fight for Kentucky's Share of Pork Spending
This is no shocker. Bold all the headlines you want but this is not a shocker in the least bit.
Rand Paul, the anti-pork spender, small government crusader tells WSJ:
As a surgeon he has personally pocketed millions of dollars from Medicare, a federal program he says he wants to do away with. No he doesn't. He just says such things so he can fit the tea bagger mold.
Prior to running for senate, Randy told us that he was against a socialist farming market, aka farm subsidies. After becoming the Republican nominee he changed his mind and stated he loved socialist farming.
All throughout the campaign, Randy claimed he despised TARP and that it was Big Government at its worst. He hated TARP so much that he kept millions of dollars of campaign funds in a bank that was rescued by TARP money. Paul also accepted donations from Members of Congress that voted in favor of TARP. Paul is so against Big Government and socialist programs that he can't wait to get his hands on the money it helped circulate.
Anyone that believes or claims Rand Paul-- or any Republican-- is against Big Government, large deficits, out of control spending or massive amounts of debt is an idiot. Complete idiot.
Rand Paul, the anti-pork spender, small government crusader tells WSJ:
In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.For months I told anyone that would listen that Rand Paul is not against Big Government. He loves it. He lies and says he hates it and that as a prestigious U.S. Senator he would fight to shrink it and reduce it and butt hump it until it bleeds and the media pretended right along with him. In reality, Rand Paul can't get enough Big Government.
As a surgeon he has personally pocketed millions of dollars from Medicare, a federal program he says he wants to do away with. No he doesn't. He just says such things so he can fit the tea bagger mold.
Prior to running for senate, Randy told us that he was against a socialist farming market, aka farm subsidies. After becoming the Republican nominee he changed his mind and stated he loved socialist farming.
All throughout the campaign, Randy claimed he despised TARP and that it was Big Government at its worst. He hated TARP so much that he kept millions of dollars of campaign funds in a bank that was rescued by TARP money. Paul also accepted donations from Members of Congress that voted in favor of TARP. Paul is so against Big Government and socialist programs that he can't wait to get his hands on the money it helped circulate.
Anyone that believes or claims Rand Paul-- or any Republican-- is against Big Government, large deficits, out of control spending or massive amounts of debt is an idiot. Complete idiot.
Posts
