The 12 Trillion–$12,000,000,000,000 Crime of The Century: The Decline and Fall of United States of America By Radical Socialist Spending–Look Before You Leap!
“The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.”
DEBT Crisis: The Bail Out and Tarp Totals
4/18/2009 Peter Schiff On Your Money: Banking On TARP
Department Office of Financial Stability
Troubled Asset Relief Program
Congresswoman Bachmann Discusses Reforms to the TARP Program on Glenn Beck
Small Banks Repay TARP, Big Banks Still Owe
Bank Stress Test Hits D.C.
Bank Stress Test Breakdown
In-Depth Look – Limits Of Bank Stress Tests – Bloomberg
In-Depth Look – Stress-Testing the Banks – Bloomberg
20/20 – Bailouts and Bull**** Pt. 1 of 6
John Stossel interview with Reason Magazine Part 1 of 2
Dennis Prager & Thomas Sowell – Part 3/3: Stimulus, Bailouts,
Glenn Beck The economy is Sinking in Debt
President Obama’s and the Democratic Party’s radical socialist agenda to takeover banking, insurance, and industry by nationalization is becoming increasing obvious, if not totally transparent.
The total in committed government spending so far exceeds 12 Trillion Dollars–$12,000,000,000,000!
Unless the American people protest these unconstitutinal bailouts, 12 trillion could just be the down-payment:
Where the government has a near monopoly and runs a sector of the economy, the results can be horrendous with widespread failure.
One example is public schools or more accurately government schools.
The government school near monopoly have over the last fifty years slowly but surely resulted in the decline in the level of education of US citizens in comparison to the citizens of other countries.
Stupid in America
President Obama would never put his own children in government schools.
Obamas Chose Private Sidwell Friends School
George Carlin on American Owners and Education
George Carlin – List of people who ought to be killed
However, President Obama opposes other American parents from having the choice as to where their children go to school.
School Vouchers Killed by Democrat Congress – All poor children to be left behind now – Glenn Beck
The Case for School Vouchers
President Obama and the Democratic Party oppose school vouchers or money given to parents to be used to pay for the tuition of their children at the school of their choice.
If President Obama really cared about the education of our children, he would support school vouchers and more competition in education, not less.
Instead he used the stimulus bill to fund public education–more money for failing government schools–in order to reward his political supporters the teacher unions.
Rewarding the performance of outstanding teachers, charter schools and school voucher programs received very little funding or no funding in the stimulus package.
Rhetoric and Reality in the Education Stimulus Bill
Bill Gates presses Obama on stimulus, global aid
The None Stimulus Package
Why should you send your children to government schools?
Why should you put your money in government banks?
Why indeed as long as there are competitive private schools and banks?
If you value your children and money never send them to a government controlled, owned and operated institution.
Minds are precious and money is hard to earn.
Minds and money are terrible things to waste.
Next to the unions and trial lawyers, President Obama’s biggest supporters and campaign contributors have been Wall Street financial institutions including the executives and board members of the largest commercial and investment banks.
President Obama’s and the Democratic Party’s radical socialism agenda should be boycotted not stimulated and certainly not encouraged with your tax dollars or business.
Find another bank that either did not take a bailout or TARP money or were forced to take TARP money and have already or want to pay the money back.
Then move your account and business to a private bank that serves your needs.
Shun all banks, businesses, and institutions that accept government funding or subsidies.
If you have children, home school them if you can or take a second job and send them to the best private school you can afford.
We’re Still Getting SCREWED…
Join the Second American Revolution
Second American Revolution–Tea Party Celebrations–Washington Fair–July 4, 2009–An Open Invitation To The American People
American People’s Plan = 6 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Saturday, July 4, 2009!
Please Spread The Message of Liberty
“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil; God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
Bonhoeffer Agent of Grace
Background Articles and Videos
“…Dietrich Bonhoeffer IPA: [ˈdiːtrɪç ˈboːnhøfɐ] (February 4, 1906 – April 9, 1945) was a German Lutheran pastor, theologian, participant in the German Resistance movement against Nazism, a founding member of the Confessing Church. His involvement in plans by members of the Abwehr (the German Military Intelligence Office) to assassinate Adolf Hitler resulted in his execution. Bonhoeffer was arrested in March 1943, imprisoned, and eventually executed by hanging shortly before the war’s end. …”
“Nationalization, also spelled nationalisation, is the act of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government or state. Nationalization usually refers to private assets, but may also mean assets owned by lower levels of government, such as municipalities, being state operated or owned by the state. The opposite of nationalization is usually privatization or de-nationalisation, but may also be municipalization. A renationalization occurs when state-owned assets are privatized and later nationalized again, often when a different political party or faction is in power. A renationalization process may also be called reverse privatization.
The motives for nationalization are political as well as economic. It is a central theme of certain brands of ‘state socialist’ policy that the means of production, distribution and exchange, should be owned by the state on behalf of the people to allow for rational allocation and operation, and rational planning or control of the economy. Many socialists believe that public ownership enables people to exercise full democratic control over the means whereby they earn their living and provides an effective means of redistributing wealth and income more equitably.
Nationalized industries, charged with operating in the public interest, may be under strong political and social pressures to give much more attention to externalities. They may be obliged to operate some loss making activities where social benefits are clearly greater than social costs – for example, rural, postal and transport services. As an instance, the United States Postal Service is guaranteed its nationalised status by the Constitution. The government has recognized these social obligations and, in some cases, provides subsidies for such non-commercial operations.
Since the nationalised industries are state owned, the government is responsible for meeting any debts incurred by these industries. The nationalized industries do not normally borrow from the domestic market other than for short-term borrowing.
Nationalization may occur with or without compensation to the former owners. If it takes place without compensation it is a case of expropriation. Nationalization is distinguished from property redistribution in that the government retains control of nationalized property. Some nationalizations take place when a government seizes property acquired illegally. For example, the French government seized the car-makers Renault because its owners had collaborated with the Nazi occupiers of France. …”
“…A key issue in nationalization is payment of compensation to the former owner. The most controversial nationalizations, known as expropriations, are those where no compensation, or an amount far below the likely market value of the nationalized assets, is paid. Many nationalizations through expropriation have come after revolutions.
The traditional Western stance on compensation was expressed by United States Secretary of State Cordell Hull, during the 1938 Mexican nationalization of the petroleum industry, that compensation should be “prompt, effective and adequate.” According to this view, the nationalizing state is obligated under international law to pay the deprived party the full value of the property taken. The opposing position has been taken mainly by developing countries, claiming that the question of compensation should be left entirely up to the sovereign state, in line with the Calvo Doctrine. Communist states have held that no compensation is due, based on socialist notions of private properties.
In 1962, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 1803, “Permanent Sovereignty over National Resources”, which states that in the event of nationalization, the owner “shall be paid appropriate compensation in accordance with international law.” In doing so, the UN rejected both the traditional Calvo-doctrinist view and the Communist view. The term “appropriate compensation” represents a compromise between the traditional views, taking into account the need of developing countries to pursue reform even without the ability to pay full compensation, and the Western concern for protection of private property.
When nationalizing a large business, the cost of compensation is so great that many legal nationalizations have happened when firms of national importance run close to bankruptcy and can be acquired by the government for little or no money. A classic example is the UK nationalization of the British Leyland Motor Corporation. At other times, governments have considered it important to gain control of institutions of strategic economic importance, such as banks or railways, or of important industries struggling economically. The case of Rolls-Royce plc, nationalized in 1971, is an interesting blend of these two arguments. This policy was sometimes known as ensuring government control of the “commanding heights” of the economy, to enable it to manage the economy better in terms of long-term development and medium-term stability. The extent of this policy declined in the 1980s and 1990s as governments increasingly privatized industries that had been nationalized, replacing their strategic economic influence with use of the tax system and of interest rates.
Nonetheless, national and local governments have seen the advantage of keeping key strategic assets in institutions that are not strongly profit-driven and can raise funds outside the public-sector constraints, but still retain some public accountability. Examples from the last five years in the United Kingdom include the vesting of the British railway infrastructure firm Railtrack in the not-for-profit company Network Rail, and the divestment of much council housing stock to “arms-length management companies”, often with mutual status. …”
Why Investors Should Avoid State-Owned Companies
By William Gamble
“…In the United States, I have heard talk show hosts often ask the question, “why can’t government run like a business.” The answer is simple. They have the wrong incentives and disincentives. It has to do with game theory.
Principals have to hire agents to run things. Principal are the owners, employers, shareholders and citizens. Agents are the employees, managers and government officials. Agents are supposed to act in their principals’ best interests. Employees are supposed to do their jobs. Managers are supposed to run their companies with shareholder value in mind. Politicians of all countries are supposed to implement policies that benefit all of their citizens. Often they don’t.
In the US, we are now being treated to the spectacle of AIG and Merrill Lynch bonuses. This is generally viewed as some sort of moral failure, but it is nothing of the sort. These agents are just acting naturally. They are looking after their own interests. They did not really care if the owners of their firms, either shareholders or now the US government, lost. In game theory, an agent’s best move is to act for themselves, not for the principal. The principal knows this and attempts to offer economic incentives and disincentives, to get the agent to perform. …”
“…The current economic crisis has now reversed the trend of privatization of many state owned firms all over the world. The perception of the failure of capitalism has made nationalization more acceptable. Firms from China to Russia to Dubai have received injections of capital from the state. Bolivia and Venezuela have resorted to old fashion nationalization. In China, airlines, power generation, car companies and banks have all received capital from the state. One of China sovereign wealth funds, China Investment Corporation, having been burned by investments in the west, is now focusing its attention to buying companies in China. It seems that no politician can resist expanding not only political power but economic as well.
Finally, it comes down to one thing: state firms manage for political reasons, not for profit, whether those reasons are to try and increase access to natural resources for national security or to find jobs for the unemployed. Either way, it makes little difference to investors or minority shareholders. Value and efficiency will always take a back seat. Although some growth may occur, it will only last until the needs of the state take priority. …”
U.S. May Enlist Small Investors in Bank Bailout
By GRAHAM BOWLEY and MICHAEL J. de la MERCED
“…Now, it seems, they will be asked to come to the aid of their banks — with the added inducement of possibly making some money for themselves.
As part of its sweeping plan to purge banks of troublesome assets, the Obama administration is encouraging several large investment companies to create the financial-crisis equivalent of war bonds: bailout funds.
The idea is that these investments, akin to mutual funds that buy stocks and bonds, would give ordinary Americans a chance to profit from the bailouts that are being financed by their tax dollars. But there is another, deeply political motivation as well: to quiet accusations that all of these giant bailouts will benefit only Wall Street plutocrats.
The potential risks — politically for the administration, and financially for would-be investors — are considerable.
The funds, the thinking goes, would buy troubled mortgage securities from banks, enabling the lenders to make the loans that are needed to rekindle the economy. Many of the loans that back these securities were made during the subprime era. If all goes well, the funds will eventually sell the investments at a profit.
But, as with any investment, there are risks. If, as some analysts suspect, the banks’ assets are worth even less than believed, the funds’ investors could suffer significant losses. Nonetheless, the administration and executives in the financial industry are pushing to establish the investment funds, in part to counter swelling hostility against the financial industry. …”
The Million Taxpayer March
By Michelle Malkin
In Sacramento, Tea Party organizer Mark Meckler singled out California GOP chair Ron Nehring for waffling on proposed $16 billion tax hikes. The crowd of 5,000 greeted Nehring – who unsuccessfully tried to hitch his wagon to the Tea Party movement – with a roar of boos and catcalls. Speaker after speaker lambasted Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for abandoning fiscal conservative principles. The loudest chant of the day: “Throw them out.” …”
“…What resonated on Tax Day were non-partisan calls to roll back pork, hold the line on taxing and spending, end the endless government bailouts, and stop the congressional steamrollers who have pushed through mountains of legislation without deliberation. This is a teachable moment for GOP public relations peddlers in Washington. While they search for the Holy Grail of Re-branding in tony salons and country club conferences, the agenda for 2010 is smacking them in the face. It’s the three T’s, stupid: Too Many Taxes, Trillions in Debt, and Transparency. …”