Media

Why BCRA Failed—And How It Could End Trump

Comment

131 comments

  1. swampwiz0 25 July, 2017 at 06:37 Reply

    The problem with ObamaRomneyHeritageCare is that uses socialism with redistribution from non-lower income healthy folks in its plan to the sick folks. This is very limited as a lot of healthy folks don’t buy coverage, and folks getting coverage via an employer don’t participate. The socialism should be as broadly funded as possible. ORHC also does socialism in the more conventional sense in that lower-income folks get subsidies, and a lot of white patriots are in this lower-income group, so it should not be an issue with the caucasocentric community.

  2. Budd Smith 23 July, 2017 at 08:53 Reply

    Ann Coulter should be hired to write the new health care plan. She’s the only one advocating a workable affordable plan.

  3. Marathon-Youth 19 July, 2017 at 11:57 Reply

    Healthcare is a basic right that begins in the womb and ends when we die. It is more basic than housing or education and ranks along with food and survival. An enlightened society provides the best medical care to everyone, especially the common folk
    America is the most innovative society in the field of medicine and surgery. We have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in the last several decades and produced cutting edge technology in a number of fields that deal with health.
    but
    Only the elite have access to this. This elite includes our elected officials. the rest of us battle for whatever crumbs they toss. that has to change.
    I do not know what health care system will allow this but the concept of Health for profit is asinine especially when that allows only some of us the benefits of research we all invested..

    • WR_the_realist 22 July, 2017 at 02:58 Reply

      Food isn’t a “right”. Nowhere is a right to food in the constitution. If you are an adult who needs food — grow it, hunt it, or pay for it.

  4. Krafty Wurker 19 July, 2017 at 09:39 Reply

    Croatian genius John Kasich was on MSNBC this morning talking up his Medicaid for all program which is guaranteed to bankrupt the USA, or drive taxes to astronomical levels by putting everyone on Medicaid. Kasich intends to pay for his Medicaid for all program by cutting current and future social security payments. Kasich’s slogan must be, rob from the productive who have paid into the system, and give to the unproductive who haven’t paid in.

  5. One Man's Chorus 19 July, 2017 at 04:55 Reply

    National healthcare, whether it’s universal care or universal health insurance, faces an insurmountable problem. The problem is how to finance it. This is an issue that all countries which have adopted some form of socialized medicine have faced (yes, all countries, including Germany and Japan – this is not an IQ issue, it’s a supply and demand issue).

    If the government passed a national healthcare bill, all 300 million citizens would become eligible for care, so you’d increase demand for health care. But what about the supply of health care? Would there suddenly be more hospitals, doctors, nurses, MRIs, CAT scans, x-rays, and surgical instruments? No, supply would not increase. This would push health care costs up, and therefore the cost of insuring citizens, and therefore the budget for health care. This would end up costing trillions.

    How would you finance the growing federal budget? Raise marginal tax rates? But that would alienate Trump’s base. This is supposed to make Trump popular, but raising taxes would make him unpopular. Would we borrow the money by issuing more Treasury securities? That would expand the budget deficit even more, increase debt-to-gdp and risk downgrading our bond rating. Our interest payments would increase, which would increase the budget deficit even more, possibly leading to a debt spiral.

    This is why every government that has adopted national health care has slashed its budget for health care. National health care is a stupid idea.

    • unpaidpundit 19 July, 2017 at 06:25 Reply

      Every country that has national health care spends less in terms of GDP than the U.S., and gets better results in terms of life expectancy, etc. A nationalized system is certainly the best way to control costs. The biggest question is whether a public system reduces innovation.

      • NotYouNotSure 19 July, 2017 at 07:06 Reply

        You will also find that the national health system is also related to demographics of the land. If you have a vast amount of inferior people in your land expect to have a system that is closer to Nigeria than it is to Japan, regardless of how public or privately run the health care is. If America becomes ever more third world it does not matter what magic dirt laws they try pass, services like health care will degrade with time.

        • One Man's Chorus 19 July, 2017 at 07:36 Reply

          …than it is to Japan

          Why do you guys always turn this into an IQ issue? It’s a supply and demand issue. All countries with national health care wind up cutting their budgets. It has nothing to do with IQ.

      • One Man's Chorus 19 July, 2017 at 07:35 Reply

        Why do you assume that they spend less on health care because the cost of providing it is lowered by national health insurance, rather than assuming that they just control their budgets? They could spend less on health care by defunding health care programs, but for some reason you think they spend less because the cost of health care is made lower by national health insurance.

        How does nationalizing health insurance reduce the cost of sending someone to medical school, or the cost of MRI machines?

        • unpaidpundit 19 July, 2017 at 21:31 Reply

          National health care reduces costs because countries set the price they are willing to pay for drugs, and devices like MRI machines. The national health service says, “This is what we are willing to pay for your pharmaceutical, take it or leave it.” Usually, the country offers a reasonable amount, and the provider is willing to take it. That is why prescription drugs are so much less expensive in Canada than in the U.S., for instance.

        • unpaidpundit 19 July, 2017 at 21:35 Reply

          When a corporation has a patent on a new drug or device, that company has a monopoly on their new product. They can charge whatever they want for it under a system of private insurance. If the government is the insurer, the government has more negotiating power.

    • Brett Stevens 19 July, 2017 at 10:13 Reply

      Like all entitlements programs, it quickly enacts wealth transfer from the productive to the unproductive, with the former being finite and the latter infinite in demand.

  6. One Man's Chorus 19 July, 2017 at 01:09 Reply

    I disagree that the alt-lite has no essence. The alt-lite are grassroots conservatives who figured out that conservatism has no essence.

  7. Dave Overman 18 July, 2017 at 23:06 Reply

    RIght on, Spencer. McConnell is no leader. Never has been. Moran is an embarrassment to my state. That’s the core problem: the lack of leadership among the GOP and the growing gaps between conservatives and ‘moderate’ Repubs, along with the wild-card Libertarians, isn’t going to heal itself anytime soon. It needs a swift kick in the ass. Time to start lobbying hard or run for those seats when they are up for election.

    • unpaidpundit 19 July, 2017 at 06:27 Reply

      Spencer didn’t say he supports Ayn Randian, libertarian Social Darwinism, just that he understands their position.

      • Dave Overman 20 July, 2017 at 02:24 Reply

        No, he says he “respects” her perspective at ‘6:45’. Respect transcends ‘understanding’, it implies admiration or at the least, passive agreement.

      • Dave Overman 20 July, 2017 at 02:25 Reply

        Good idea. But is the insurance is too expensive, as Obamacare is, then it would only serve the interests of wealthy whites, not poor or middle-class whites.

  8. Riopel 18 July, 2017 at 22:19 Reply

    Americans overwhelmingly support the wall, immigration crackdowns, and bans on Muslim migration, yet all these faggot cuckservatives care about is muh repeal. They’re more out-of-touch with their base than the democrats are with theirs.

    Trump needs to stop shut the fucks down and start building an alternative to the GOP.

  9. Donald Jackson 18 July, 2017 at 21:39 Reply

    Not sure if you were just baiting for views with this one, Spencer, but this was honestly the best thing that could’ve happened. Trump’s victory had nothing to do with repealing Obamacare and everything to do with trade/jobs and immigration. The failure of BCRA was honestly a gift; it allows Trump to wipe his hands of it and blame the LOLBertarian House GOP and pivot to the issues that actually put him in office.

    Wasting anymore political capital on healthcare would be retarded. Healthcare doesn’t allow us to internalize the benefits to whites like trade or immigration does, whether symbolically or materially.

    • Brett Stevens 19 July, 2017 at 10:11 Reply

      The failure of BCRA was honestly a gift; it allows Trump to wipe his
      hands of it and blame the LOLBertarian House GOP and pivot to the issues
      that actually put him in office.

      I agree. He boxed them in: they could either approve a hack of a bill, or own the failure of Obamacare, leaving Trump free to advance his quasi-nationalistic agenda.

  10. Ajudeo 18 July, 2017 at 21:27 Reply

    https://twitter.com/JGreenblattADL/status/887409154931011592

    There are Forced By-Law Separate Areas at the Western Wall for Jewish Women and Men to Pray…….

    The Anti-Feminist Ultra Orthodox CONTROL the Western Wall Activities……

    IMMIGRANTS?!?!

    The Jewish Ethno-State is Pro-Immigrant??

    Ha!!

    JOKE OF THE CENTURY……

    Yeah, if you have a Jewish Mother…….

    WOW…….

    And what the F is a ‘White Supremacist’??

    White People who want to Survive and not see Historically White Nations become White Minority??

    So Nazi……

    P.S. (I don’t hate Camille Paglia)…….

  11. Bob 18 July, 2017 at 21:26 Reply

    Glad it failed – glad it is radicalizing many Americans, glad that the rage from this will lead to more chances for us, glad glad glad…

  12. Strac5 18 July, 2017 at 21:17 Reply

    Weak argument, put together to justify an already-decided pro-socialized medicine position. If Trump is a team player on GOP issues, Republicans aren’t going to be antagonized over these issues and, more importantly, will have no pretext to attack Trump.

  13. Ajudeo 18 July, 2017 at 20:04 Reply

    God/Something help us all…….

    https://twitter.com/ADL_National/status/861958490474110976

    A Zionist/Jewish Supremacist Organization that implicitly supports Ethnic Cleansing Palestine of Arabs……

    A Zionist/Jewish Supremacist Organization which has for DECADES Whitewashed COUNTLESS War Crimes against Palestinian Arabs by the Jewish Ethno-State……

    A Zionist/Jewish Supremacist Organization which even defended the Jewish Ethno-State when the Zio-Nazis MURDERED the White American Rachel Corrie in Cold Blood……..

    #CreateAHateFreeWorld

    They LOVE the Warmonger McCain…….

    They have ABSORBED the Anti-Trump Neocon Warmongers…….

    But, Pro-Peace Mike Cernovich is on their Hate List……..

    Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reality is STRANGER than Fiction…….

    FACT……

  14. Ajudeo 18 July, 2017 at 18:53 Reply

    Interesting Phenomenon:

    The ADL is now attacking Mike Cernovich……

    Why?

    Makes ZERO Sense on the Surface…….

    Mike Cernovich retweets Jews all the time……..

    Mike Cernovich obviously isn’t Alt-Right…….

    What’s the ADL Strategy??

    The ADL is 100% Zionist Fanatic…….

    The ADL is Democrat…….

    The Anti-Trump Neocons have now moved to the Democrat Party…….

    Mike Cernovich is Pro-Assad…….or simply Anti-Middle East Warmongering……

    Mike Cernovich is Anti-Neocon…….

    Israel has rejected the Trump-Russia-Syrian Ceasefire……

    The Neocons agree with Israel against Trump/America…….

    Mike Cernovich is Anti-Trump/Russia Conspiracy Collusion Hysteria……..

    The Neocons are Pro-Trump/Russia Conspiracy Collusion Hysteria……

    The Alt-Lite contains significant Counter-Semitic Elements……

    Mike Cernovich is the Clear Leader of the Alt-Lite……

    The Alt-Right is Growing…….

    The Alt-Lite and Alt-Right aren’t Fully Fractured and there is MUCH Go-Between……..

    The ADL attacking Richard Spencer??

    Richard is already a Pariah……

    Mike Cernovich is trying to go Mainstream………

    The ADL is setting up a Blockade……..a Gate……..

    Mike Cernovich must CUCK even more to the Zionists/Neocons before he can pass……..

    So far, he’s fighting back…..

    We’ll see…..

    https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/887420289583161344

    • Yehudah Finkelstein 18 July, 2017 at 20:02 Reply

      What’s funny is the Alt Lite is whining about being lumped in with us, the Alt Right. Even the ADL is calling Cerno and his crowd with the derisive moniker of the Alt Lite, now they can’t shake it.

      We just laugh at the ADL, Weird Mike goes on some strange rant about ADL Jews trying to kill his family.

      • Ajudeo 18 July, 2017 at 20:08 Reply

        Mike Cernovich is Doxxed……

        Are you??

        Being Doxxed with a Wife and Child…….would you want to be put on an ADL Hate List??

        I doesn’t really bother me that Mike Cernovich Counter Signals the Alt-Right…….

        I understand why he does it…….

        The Jewish Question is a Minefield……..

        Do I want my Left Arm to be my Right Arm??

        NO…….

        I want a Left Arm and a Right Arm…….

        • Yehudah Finkelstein 19 July, 2017 at 00:13 Reply

          How is Mike Cernovich doxxed by the ADL?

          He doxxed himself. He’s done Periscopes frequently from his house and at a park in Orange County where he lives.

      • Dave Overman 18 July, 2017 at 23:30 Reply

        Reminds me of one of Glenn Beck’s paranoid rants from the hospital bed after he had ass surgery.

    • Strac5 18 July, 2017 at 21:12 Reply

      It is a long-standing strategy of leftists to target the more moderate elements of the opposition, apparently to force them to move further left. That destroys the ideological space they occupied. The result is that there is no socially acceptable alternative to cucking-type factions. Of course, that strategy used to work. Today, they are digging their own grave faster.

    • Brett Stevens 19 July, 2017 at 10:12 Reply

      The ADL makes its money from donations send by scared Jewish grandmothers in Florida.

      The more Nazis it produces, the better, especially if they are successful Nazis not basement-dwellers with shotguns and blogspots.

  15. Ajudeo 18 July, 2017 at 18:39 Reply

    These Questions about Health Care would be much easier solved……

    …..in a Country/Nation-State which was over 95% White European…….

    • Krafty Wurker 19 July, 2017 at 01:15 Reply

      I’m sure he did. But, from what I’ve read on altright.com only a handful have a clue about the nature of the debate—even among the political professionals.

  16. Krafty Wurker 18 July, 2017 at 13:52 Reply

    Richard, Medicare is an old age health insurance program that you pay into all of your life, even after you have retired it’s taken out of your social security check. Your employer also contributes an equal amount, as you do during your working years to Medicare. You cannot use Medicare until you are 65 years old. There are many things that Medicare does not pay for…

    Medicaid is a welfare program. No one pays anything into Medicaid, and that’s the big problem. It’s funded by the taxpayer. The more people on Medicaid, the bigger the bill to the taxpayers. The scary part is that Medicaid is growing and growing, and there are only estimates of the tens of millions already on Medicaid, and the growth of the Medicaid population. Medicaid is better than any platinum health insurance that you can buy—everything is paid for including prescription drugs.

    • Dave Overman 18 July, 2017 at 17:32 Reply

      One can be denied for Medicaid, so it’s not ‘welfare’ for everyone.

      Also, Medicare is not restricted to old age, people who are young and and on SSDI can qualify for, given they have at least 2 years of documented disability.

      • Krafty Wurker 18 July, 2017 at 17:56 Reply

        Right, Social Security Disability is another big part of the problem. Too many people are ending up on “Disability”.

        There are income criterion for collecting Medicaid, but, that doesn’t seem to be stopping too many from collecting Medicaid & Chip.

        • Ris_Eruwaedhiel 18 July, 2017 at 21:47 Reply

          Many elderly people in assisted living and nursing home facilities are on Medicaid. Either they didn’t have assets, spent their assets on care at the facility or transferred their assets before they entered.

          • Dave Overman 18 July, 2017 at 23:24

            True, many disabled people in their 40s, 50s, and even younger live in nursing homes and have to live off Medicaid, as they are denied Medicare and simply cannot afford Obamacare (see my post above)

          • Krafty Wurker 19 July, 2017 at 01:06

            It depends on the specific situation, and the resources and income of the individual.

          • Yehudah Finkelstein 19 July, 2017 at 01:15

            If they do have assets but can’t afford assisted living or nursing home care, the state government will often get title to their house in exchange for providing elder care for the person. When the person dies, the state gets the house.

          • Ris_Eruwaedhiel 19 July, 2017 at 08:10

            That’s exactly right.

            On another subject, just read online that Charlie Gard was reportedly granted US citizenship. So, come to the US for treatment, live longer, plow through the money that his parents raised and then go on the taxpayer. Lovely. Virtue-signalling by pathetic “conservatives” obsessed with “life.”

            This sets a bad precedent. Some guy in Outer Mongolia can’t afford for kidney dialysis and neither the government nor a charity will pay for it, so he’ll die. Bring him over! Culture of Life!

          • Dave Overman 20 July, 2017 at 02:29

            Which is disgusting to think that one’s ancestral home can be taken by the state…

        • Dave Overman 18 July, 2017 at 23:22 Reply

          I have a family member that acquired Melanoma at age 39. After a year of treatments he had to stop working, as the chemo produced so much fatigue and brain fog that he couldn’t do his job, or any job, any longer. He has been denied Medicaid repeatedly, as he apparently makes too much from his SSDI. It’s ridiculous, because he has been referred to the Obamacare website to purchase a policy, which the cheapest he can get is 600/month with a 10k deductible; something he clearly cannot afford.

          I do agree that the Federal definition of ‘disability’ is fairly broad, though people with terminal or chronic physical issues are at the top of the list. Certain things like ‘fibromyalgia’ or migraines’ are NOT disabilities, yet people think they are. In addition, severe mental health issues (schizophrenia, bipolar d/o) are also worthy of needing SSDI (IMO), but they are also put on the bottom of the list. Hence, homeless populations rising in certain urban areas, crime rate surge, and they become a burden to the families (who eventually ostracize them) and the community.

          • Krafty Wurker 19 July, 2017 at 00:59

            To get denied for Medicaid, you have to make more than 150% of you States poverty level. It’s possible that your relative has another income source besides SSDI?

  17. Hipster Racist 18 July, 2017 at 13:41 Reply

    Regardless of your opinions about Obamacare or health care policy in general – the Tea Party opposition to Obamacare was the ultimate example of how pathetic American conservatism really is.

    The Tea Party really got its start in the opposition to the Wall Street bailouts of 2008 – a Bush administration program that was supported by the leadership of both parties. Within a year, the Tea Party was co-opted by the insurance industry to serve as unpaid, volunteer lobbyists for corporate welfare.

    You literally had working class Whites, many on government heath care themselves, protesting against government programs that may have cut into the profit margins of the same insurance companies that had just received massive bailouts and weren’t providing coverage to the protestors anyway.

    This is an are where the Democrats are right, working class Republicans have tended to vote against “their own interests.”

    Trump has personally changed the calculus on this but are there any new Steve Bannon style Republicans forming a “populist coalition” in the GOP going forward? Or is the next Congressional election going to be the same old shit we usually get from the GOP – massive transfer of wealth from the white working class to the wealthy establishment under the guise of “cutting regulations” or “tax reform?

    Trump has proven that white populism is a winning platform – so where are the new “Trump populists” ready to take over Congress?

    Now is the time for an official, above ground organization – not one that fight in “muh streets” and “protests” antifa, but an actual political lobby that hires lawyers and lobbyists and proposes legislation. It may not be glamorous but such things actually get results.

    • Johnny Fascismo 18 July, 2017 at 13:57 Reply

      “where are the new “Trump populists” ready to take over Congress?”

      Their whining about Catholics and Monarchists on the interwebz.

      • Hipster Racist 18 July, 2017 at 18:05 Reply

        See above, a large number of small donations is already the new way it’s done in politics. Donations are capped, and a large war chest can only do so much. Jeb Bush had all the money in the world and it did him no good because just flooding the airwaves with TV commercials wasn’t enough to make him popular.

        So we are “muh donors.”

        It’s true that politics is downstream from culture, and right now only a Trump-level “civic nationalist” campaign would work – direct appeals to “whiteness” probably wouldn’t get very far. But we can take it a bit farther than Trump did – after all, Trump was openly pro-Jewish and openly anti-White, but that didn’t stop anti-whites from calling him “HITLERNAZIKKKRACIST” – and it didn’t stop him from winning pretty handily either.

        • unpaidpundit 18 July, 2017 at 19:47 Reply

          I actually think that appeals to whiteness would work. The problem is that the media would shut down such a message. No pro-white candidate would get covered by the media, and the media would refuse to sell air time to such a candidate.

          • Hipster Racist 18 July, 2017 at 20:18

            We don’t need “the media” if by that you mean TV and newspapers. We have online. And you may be right, maybe appeals to whiteness will work, maybe it’s time to go the next step. Certainly, even the “civic nationalist” crowd has started to talk about anti-whiteness and “reverse racism” and the like.

    • Tragic Comedy 18 July, 2017 at 17:17 Reply

      I hate to say it, but I wager nothing will change.
      Trump has proven that White populism is a winning platform – but the people who have the influence and shekels to be politically relevant don’t necessarily want to win, certainly not on such a platform.
      When everyone who could fill such a role serves the same (((master))), there’s nobody to go to in search of someone to oppose that (((master))).

      The cuckservatives don’t want to win via White populism, and those are the only people even-vaguely in line with the views espoused by the ‘alt-right’ who the folks with money are willing to back. Shekels and influence, or you don’t get in the door – and if you’re a bad goy, you don’t have the influence and, for the most part, don’t have the shekels either.

      • Hipster Racist 18 July, 2017 at 18:01 Reply

        Mass two-way communication has made organizing and fundraising easier than ever. It was Howard Dean in 2004 that successfully raised a lot of money, enough to run a credible primary campaign, via lots of small donations. Obama’s successful campaign relied on Dean’s campaign manager’s tactics.

        It’s certainly not an easy task but it is well within the realm of possibility, and not nearly as difficult as it would have been 20 years ago.

        In fact I’d suggest a white populist campaign is all but inevitable, it will happen regardless. It’s the opposition that prevents it from taking hold and winning. As you say, the opposition isn’t really the “left” or the Democrats, it’s the conservative Republicans, who have the most to lose from a pro-white populism.

        • Krafty Wurker 18 July, 2017 at 18:48 Reply

          I think it’s really important that the fellows in their early 20’s to their early 40’s be involved and given responsibility in any campaign. I never got any responsibility, and neither did any of my friends, until we were in our early 40’s. We should have been running with things in our early 20’s when we had energy, and 16 hour days were nothing. We accomplished a lot, but, we could have accomplished more if we had been given responsibility when we were younger.

    • Strac5 18 July, 2017 at 21:23 Reply

      Do you have any evidence for your claim about the Tea Party being co-opted by wealthy corporations? It’s facile and popular to attack the Tea Party, but the truth is they are a grassroots movement, they work hard, they have accomplished many things, and they know things about politics the alt-right does not because while you were reading about evolution, culture, and social stats, they were reading about the classical ideas that underlie our nation’s founding and our economic system. Maybe they know what they are talking about when it comes to free markets and the government’s proper role in a polity.

      • Hipster Racist 18 July, 2017 at 22:14 Reply

        Yes, I do have evidence, in the form of mainstream press reports, specifically the WSJ. It was rather heavily covered at the time. The GOP bragged about how they were driving out the “birthers and truthers” and the rather pathetic spectacle of Tea Partiers showing up to shill for insurance companies was also heavily covered and commented up at the time.

        Of course that was almost ten years ago so if you want a link, you’ll have to look it up yourself. The Tea Party doesn’t even exist anymore.

        classical ideas that underlie our nation’s founding and our economic
        system. Maybe they know what they are talking about when it comes to
        free markets and the government’s proper role in a polity.

        You should have read my comment – sorry, trillions of dollars of bailouts and subsidies isn’t a “free market” – there is no “free market” in America and there hasn’t been for 100 years or more. Second of all, the Republican party was founded as the party of corporate welfare – it was called “internal improvements” back in those days, so please spare me the Ayn Rand lectures. The Tea Party was full of dim wits.

        https://liberus76.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/deneen-borelli-nyc-tea-party.jpg

        • Strac5 18 July, 2017 at 23:16 Reply

          The Tea Party was not co-opted. “Birthers and truthers” were never core to the movement. The Tea Party was always a limited government movement, and it has stayed that way. They did not “shill for insurance companies” or anyone else. Opposing more taxation is not a “bailout” or a “subsidy.” It’s freedom. The Tea Party has been very consistent with their free market beliefs.

          If America hasn’t been free for a century and if the GOP was founded as a party of corporate welfare, that doesn’t make these things right, and it certainly doesn’t justify implementing more of it. The Tea Party is right to oppose it. Alt-right would better spend time on culture instead of advocating wealth redistribution programs that destroy national wealth and, on whole, benefit minorities at the expense of whites.

          • Hipster Racist 18 July, 2017 at 23:43

            You’re just wrong. The first Tea Party was the Ron Paul Boston Tea Party for Liberty and 9/11 Truth way back in 2006. The Wall Street Journal quoted the GOP hacks like Tom Delay right after Obama’s election explaining how they were funding the groups that were not “birthers and truthers.”

            “advocating wealth redistribution programs”

            Worthless hacks like you and the rest of the “free marketeers” sat on their ass when trillions of dollars were given to the richest people in America – and now you have the nerve – the chutzpah – to whine about wealth redistribution? You will throw a fit if the average American gets socialized health care, but you don’t do jack shit when Goldman Sachs gets trillions in unearned subsidizes.

            You’re a welfare cuck quean – you just want welfare for people richer than yourself. Bizarre.

            Alt Right is right to oppose worthless welfare cuck queans like you.

          • Brett Stevens 19 July, 2017 at 10:10

            I am more shocked at the trillions we have dumped on our underclass.

            Subsidies are always stupid, but doubly so when they are paid to inactive portions of the economy.

          • Hipster Racist 19 July, 2017 at 12:30

            Brett, you can always be relied upon to distract from Jewish anti-whiteness and criminal activities and try to point in another direction – poor people, Negroes – hell just the other week you were comically telling us that it was the … IRISH … who are really responsible for all the anti-whiteness, not Jews!

            You aren’t “shocked” at the not-trillions we spend on the “underclass” – you find that a convenient distraction from the real issue, Jews. Just like you always want to talk about “egalitarianism” and other abstractions to protect Jewish power.

            You are pretty good at it, to be sure, but even you can see it’s not working anymore. You say you’ve been doing this for, what, 25 years now? One assumes all this new visibility of Jewish anti-whiteness is not a welcome development for those in your business.

            You say you are a White man, and not Jewish, and don’t have Jewish children. If that is indeed the case, I only hope that you are getting paid well for what you are doing – I can respect that – you’re not “selling out” you’re “buying in.”

            But if you are truly a White man and are doing this for free – that I cannot respect. No one respects a cuck.

          • Strac5 19 July, 2017 at 11:35

            Are you kidding me? A) The Tea Party kicked off in 2009 in response to the financial crisis and TARP bailouts. That is just a fact of history. Ron Paul people were merely one component. B) Protesting the bailouts became my second job. The financial crisis and TARP bailouts woke up the masses and made them active. You really don’t have any idea what you are talking about. Ron Paul people had some good ideas but also lived in a certain bubble and don’t understand other people or what they are doing. You are very arrogant and dismissive of others when you ought to be listening.

          • Hipster Racist 19 July, 2017 at 12:13

            It may be helpful for you to read my comment before responding, as I pointed out – and I quote myself – “[t]he Tea Party really got its start in the opposition to the Wall Street bailouts of 2008.” But of course there was prior art, specifically, the Ron Paul Boston Tea Party I mentioned. Post bailout the existing Tea Party movement surged.

            If the Tea Party had stuck to its roots in opposing the bailouts, and worked toward clawback of the bailouts – no, not just the red herring of TARP, the substance of the bailout, which was Maiden Lane I (and II, and III, and innumerable other scams where the entire financial system was relived of their toxic derivatives and the public was forced to not just eat their losses, but actually had their wealth transferred to maintain historically high “profits” for the criminals) – that would have been great.

            But that isn’t how it worked out. The Tea Party quickly devolved into GOP bullshit-as-usual thus we were greeted with the pathetic site of Tea Party dupes acting as unpaid lobbyists for the same financial industry that had just fleeced the entire country.

            The Tea Party’s legacy? Outrage over some poor schlubs getting some measly third-rate health insurance, meanwhile, Goldman Sachs et al not only got to keep raking in taxpayer subsidies, but for the last decade continues to get more and more.

            The Tea Party didn’t even pay any attention to BB&T CEOs, who wrote a nice and polite open letter pointing out that his bank, and a few others, had not engaged in the 20 years of fraud (that goes all the way back to the buyout of General Re and the breakup of Warren Buffet and Hank Greenberg in the 1990s – um, does AIG ring a bell?) and would have had the cash to buy out most of NYC finance if the free market was actually “allowed to work” and the entire system had been “marked to zero” – i.e. what it was actually worth – and hopefully the perps lined up before a guillotine to receive justice.

            But that would mean that the New York City financial mafia would have lost power and power would have turned over to North Carolina – a red state. So instead Bank of America (North Carolina) was made the scapegoat so Jewish banks like Goldman and Citigroup could get bailouts. Hell, the press at the time even pointed out that they were “closer to the Obama administration” and even pointed out that Ken Lewis donated mostly to “Republicans” while Citi and GS executes mostly gave to “Jewish charities.” It really doesn’t take much to read between the lines on that one does it?

            What did the Tea Party spend the first Obama term doing? Whining about welfare for poor people, saying “liberals are the REAL waysiists” and complaining that Obama was a Secret Muslim being mean to Israel – and an “anti-seeeeeeemite” to boot!

            The Tea Party become not just irrelevant, but an obstacle to anything good, because it was made up of stupid conservative Republicans, the worst people in America.

            “You really don’t have any idea what you are talking about. … you are very arrogant and dismissive of others when you ought to be listening.”

            You are obviously one of those conservative Republicans. I rest my case.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/23/business/polar-opposites-not-where-it-counts-warren-buffett-gets-all-attention-but-hank.html

            http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/business/02bbt.html

          • Strac5 19 July, 2017 at 21:45

            Tea Party opposed welfare and bailouts for everybody, little guy and big banker alike, whether you were paying attention or not. I was. The Tea Party acted honorably and correctly during the financial crisis. No one is saying the Tea Party is perfect, and you have a great point about the Jewish mafia trying to scam, take advantage, and scapegoat during the financial crisis and the Tea Party not realizing it. Goldman Sachs deserves to rot in hell. Its CEO is a total vulture who was happy to help bring the system down as long as he could feed off the carcass. I don’t care what happens to them.

            On the other hand, there is a reason libertarian types never got traction. You all were running around during the financial crisis screaming, “The financial system is INSOLVENT! It’s worth ZERO!” and that was nuts. It was nuts then, and it is nuts now. No normal or sane person believes this. As for the Fed, its purchases were economically irrelevant, and most of them occurred after the financial crisis had ended anyway. Its main effect was to grow the Fed’s balance sheets. You can say it’s wrong (it was), but expecting regular people to buy into the idea that these purchases were gonna cause a crash isn’t reasonable. Also, I’m quite familiar with BB&T’s CEO. Despite his stint at Cato, he isn’t exactly the purity spiral of free market ideology you seem to think he is and there is no way he could out-earn New York finance, with or without regulations. That’s laughable.

            Libertarian ideology generally distorts the reality of things by making exaggerated claims or assigning cause-and-effect and solutions rationalistically, contra the observable evidence. It manufactures crazy notions. That’s why it could never win people over. It doesn’t mean Tea Party was any less even-handed or dedicated to liberty just because it didn’t totally buy into marginal libertarian notions on the economy or financial system.

          • Hipster Racist 19 July, 2017 at 23:56

            1. I’m not a libertarian.

            2. The derivatives were worth zero because no one wanted to buy them. This is supply and demand. I thought you conservative Republicans believed in markets?

            “its purchases were economically irrelevant, and most of them occurred after the financial crisis had ended anyway.”

            3. This is economic illiteracy. If they were irrelevant – why did they do it? That was the bailout – Wall Street was bankrupt because of 25 years of derivative fraud.

            Talk about an unprincipled exception!

            4. You’re a typical conservative fraud – you whine about “markets” when poor people get some piddling little heath care then all of a sudden 25 years of financial fraud and trillions of dollars of bailouts are “irrelevant” because it helps the rich. You’re a welfare queen, you just want welfare for the rich, apparently.

            5. North Carolina could have become the new Wall Street – but the market Republicans pretend to believe in wasn’t allowed to “work.”

            6. Face it the Tea Party was full of morons would don’t have a clue how the economy works anyway. That’s why they were suckered into lobbying for insurance companies for free.

            Thankfully, the Tea Party and faux-conservative free market dickery is irrelevant – now populists like Bannon and Trump are the new GOP.

          • Strac5 20 July, 2017 at 10:57

            Addressing some of your points:

            2. The derivatives were not worth zero. They were never worth zero. If they were worth zero, they wouldn’t have recovered their full value. Just because you want them to be worth zero doesn’t mean that is the case. It’s crazy talk to say otherwise.

            3. The Fed purchased derivatives (some, not all classes) because it was under political pressure to do something. This does not explain how all classes of derivatives recovered, or why the derivatives started to recover heavily even before the purchases, or even the purchase concept, were made.

            4. As I said, I did oppose the Fed’s actions at the time, but telling the truth about it is not “supporting welfare for the rich.” The bailouts did not help the rich. Maybe you don’t remember the episode in 2008 where all the big banks refused to take the bailout money and then the Treasury Secretary took them in a meeting behind closed doors and threatened them to take it, and they capitulated. At any rate, you seem dedicated to wealth transfer from whites to minorities. No alt-righter in his right mind would advocate socialism today, when less than two-thirds of the U.S. population (the richest) are white and most infants born today are non-white.

            5. Sadly, North Carolina could not have become the new Wall Street. NC politicians are very ambitious. They are trying to promote pharma/biotech industry domination and possibly others as well, but what ends up opening in NC are support-type companies, like pure manufacturing operations, not the creative money-making first movers. NC doesn’t have a local pool of competitive people, universities, and industry network to be first-class. If it didn’t bring in people from out of state, it wouldn’t even have these. There is no shame in this. Southerners are the warrior people. NC should focus on keeping the state red instead of importing liberals for muh economy. The state is about to turn blue!

          • Hipster Racist 20 July, 2017 at 11:21

            The derivatives were not worth zero. They were never worth zero. If they
            were worth zero, they wouldn’t have recovered their full value.

            When no one wants to buy a product, it’s worth zero. As is typical for conservative Republicans, you don’t even believe your own bullshit. They received their full value … because the government forced the taxpayers to buy them at face value.

            The bailouts did not help the rich.

            Do you even feel a tinge of guilt when you lie so shamelessly?

            2008 where all the big banks refused to take the bailout money and then
            the Treasury Secretary took them in a meeting behind closed doors and
            threatened them to take it, and they capitulated.

            Yeah – you are not actually stupid, you’re just a purposefully liar. You are talking about TARP, which I already explained was a big fat red herring. The real bailout was Maiden Lane – forcing taxpayers to “buy” the toxic CDO – that were worth ZERO on the open market – and put them on the balance sheets of the Fed.

            You are apparently informed enough about what happened to shamelessly lie to the audience, but not informed enough to fool me.

            So it’s obvious that you yourself are a beneficiary of the bailouts – you’re a welfare queen, a disgusting communist that leeches off of the taxpayer. Which is why you try to distract from your own disgusting and immoral freeloading by pointing to some poor schlub that maybe got some sort of shitty third-tier health care.

            You’re a disgusting communist.

          • Hipster Racist 20 July, 2017 at 11:50

            Explain how forcing the taxpayers and anyone who generally uses the dollar to buy worthless, toxic CDOs – based on 25 years of fraud – does not “help the wealthy.”

            If the government forces you to buy my 20 year old F-150 for $250k – do I benefit from that? Of course. Do you benefit from that? Of course not.

            You have used all the same lies and talking points that the communist scum that benefited from the bailout have used for ten years – I’ve had the same lies told to my face from the scum at Goldman and BofA and Citi – they used your exact same lies and your exact same talking points. But I know the details, I was there. So you can fool some moronic Tea Party conservative Republicans – but not me, because I know the difference between TARP and Maiden Lane and I know the difference between nominal value and market price.

            You are shamelessly lying, repeating the false propaganda the financial industry used to squirt ink and justify their welfare.

            And you are now trying to shift the focus away from Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and BofA – the rich people that got the bailouts – and instead get people to whine that some old white plumber may have gotten some shitty third rate health insurance.

            So when a poor White man gets $300 in “welfare” – you cry like a bitch. But when a rich New York Jew gets $300,000,000,000,000,000 in welfare – you say, “ah no big deal.”

            You’re a communist leech.

          • Strac5 20 July, 2017 at 21:57

            So you were in the room at that meeting, were you? You have a rabid temperament and a malicious disposition toward others, are very verbal, and are quick to pronounce doctrinal truths with no evidence and then denounce deniers with the most absurd ad hominems, guaranteed to shut down debate and speech. Much like a Jew. Now it turns out you were at the most important financial meeting of 2008. Hmmm…Are you sure you aren’t a mischling or quarterling?

            By the way, I once tried to defend Ken Lewis when the attacks on him started and was shut down by my editor.

          • Hipster Racist 23 July, 2017 at 18:21

            I got a lot of practice debating with lying Jews who defend financial fraud and use outright deception – as you have been doing in this thread – lots of practice.

          • Strac5 23 July, 2017 at 11:58

            OK, Mr. Know-It-All, explain why there was a strong and uninterrupted V-shaped recovery if the derivatives were really “worthless” and not artificially devaluated.

          • Hipster Racist 23 July, 2017 at 14:27

            “OK, Mr. Know-It-All, explain why there was a strong and uninterrupted
            V-shaped recovery if the derivatives were really “worthless” and not
            artificially devaluated.”

            Can you even READ? The Fed put them on their own books and just made up a price for them. That’s the exact opposite of a free market, that’s the exact opposite of “mark to market.”

            “Mark to model” was the entire problem.

            The government simply declared that they were worth “X” despite the fact the actual market didn’t reflect that price.

            And you call yourself an advocate of the free market? I mean, you don’t even have to be some fundamentalist libertarian Austrian type to understand this. This isn’t even “moderate capitalism.” It’s pure government control.

          • Strac5 23 July, 2017 at 15:21

            If the Fed just made up a price and the assets were really worth zero, how was the Fed able to sell the assets for a profit to the private sector? You have not answered that. We aren’t talking just a few assets here and there. Your implicit argument/worldview is that free markets work but also the private sector are idiots who don’t know the value of things.

            You also failed to answer why, if all derivative classes were worthless, the recovery was a strong, uninterrupted V-shape. What recovery in history was ever such an extreme V shape on such a weak foundation? Even with Fed interference, how is a V shape possible? What is the mechanism whereby, despite fundamental weakness that has been revealed to the broad market, one day prices suddenly explode upward for years without any interruption? That makes no sense, unless you are prepared to argue that the Fed is so powerful it can override the laws of economics, and, again, that broad private sector incompetence in asset valuation is of no consequence to the economy.

            Finally, there is the total, unmitigated irony of your accusing others of not being free market and promoting “pure government control,” when you blame mark to model and advocate mark to market!

          • Hipster Racist 23 July, 2017 at 15:54

            “how was the Fed able to sell the assets for a profit to the private sector?”

            Do you even know how that works? Apparently not. The Fed created the credit *for* the so-called “private” sector and just put it in their account. That’s how it works, that is how the Fed system works.

            “You also failed to answer why, if all derivative classes were worthless, the recovery was a strong, uninterrupted V-shape.”

            I just explained that, literally, in the comment you are responding to. Actual free markets don’t have an “uninterrupted V-shape.” That’s basically how they caught Madoff.

            “that broad private sector incompetence in asset valuation is of no consequence to the economy.”

            Now you are just putting words together with no apparent relationship to the real world. I didn’t say anything about “incompetence” – I was discussing *fraud* – very competent FRAUD and political manipulation.

            “Finally, there is the total, unmitigated irony of your accusing others of not being free market and promoting “pure government control,” when you blame mark to model and advocate mark to market!”

            Do you even understand what those word means? “Mark to market” means something is priced *by the market* – that’s why it literally has the word “market” in it. “Mark to model” is an accounting gimmick – in other words, it’s a political “valuation” not one based on the actual market.

          • Strac5 23 July, 2017 at 16:39

            1) You didn’t really answer my question. If the assets were really toxic, why would the private sector buy them back, regardless of how much credit was available?

            2) Your response is nowhere close to answering why there was a V-shaped recovery. Maiden Lane was limited to Bear Stearns and AIG assets. Why did everything else (even stocks, bonds, and money markets!) recover, and why was it a V-shape? If you think the Fed’s credit-issuing was so great that it powered everything in the whole market (a likely story, show the math), then explain why we have had low inflation since the financial crisis.

            3) Mark to market was a government regulation. Mark to model is a private sector accounting practice.

          • Hipster Racist 23 July, 2017 at 16:46

            1) I literally just explained that. The Fed gave them the money to “buy” them, which just artificially inflated their net worth. That was literally the *entire point* of Maiden Lane.

            2) You are apparently a semi-professional propagandist – your deceptions are obvious to me, and ignored by everyone else. As for low inflation – why would there be high inflation? I’m not an Austrian and the artificial money wasn’t even put in the market, so of course there was no inflation.

            3) LOL – it would be just as “factual” to say “mark to market is a private sector accounting practice and mark to model is a government regulation” – because both involve “government regulation.” “Mark to model” is literally just making up a “model” and declaring that is what your “assets” are worth – even though the market doesn’t support it. This type of *fraud* was allowed by government regulators, despite serious opposition from the more honest sectors of finance.

            Show your math – you have shown nothing – you’ve just made a bunch of highly misleading – and purposefully deceptive – statements and have just backed off on a number of them when I called you on it.

            Which bank is it you get your welfare check from?

          • Strac5 23 July, 2017 at 16:57

            Your argument is self-contradictory. You claimed the assets were toxic, meaning the banks would have to take write-downs to own them. So why would the private sector buy assets they would just have to take write-downs on? If it’s because private sector could also mark gains on them because their market values were inflated by artificial credit, then you are ipso facto admitting that mark to market is invalid.

            FYI, mark to market was a specific government regulation implemented right before the financial crisis. The private sector argued they should be free to mark to model. You are siding with government control.

          • Hipster Racist 23 July, 2017 at 18:17

            You are now just ignoring everything I write and blowing smoke. I literally explained – TWICE – the “question” in your second sentence.

            “FYI, mark to market was a specific government regulation implemented right before the financial crisis. The private sector argued they should be free to mark to model.”

            Because they had been “marking to model” – i.e., fraudulently valuing the toxic derivatives, which is what caused the entire problem in the first place. “Mark to model” is a government regulation as is all accounting.

            If their “model” was even CLOSE to what the market would have priced the assets – there wouldn’t have even been a crisis.

            Considering that literally no one is even paying attention to this conversation, you must be only trying to convince yourself – saving your self-image as some sort of “free market capitalist” when the reality is you’re a welfare leech – clearly one who profited from your bailout welfare.

          • Strac5 23 July, 2017 at 22:30

            If no one is paying attention to this conversation, why do you answer? Is there something wrong with YOUR conscience? The fact is you did not answer the question and you still haven’t explained the V-shaped recovery. If the Fed money did not go into the general market, as you have claimed, then why did stocks, bonds, and other simpler assets suddenly skyrocket in price on a sustained tear? You have no explanation for that.

            Mark to market was put in effect by the government throughout the financial crisis against the wishes of the financial sector. They wanted to mark to model. So even though mark to model was technically a government regulation, mark to market was the government coercion at the time — a new regulation which no one wanted except for shorts, gold bugs, and various anti-Americans of all kinds of ideological stripes.

          • Strac5 23 July, 2017 at 11:52

            Nice try, Mr. Orwell, but I made the arguments while he ignored them and just repeated his unsubstantiated assertions then lost emotional control and went on a name-calling rant against a total stranger (“shameless liar,” “a disgusting communist,” “welfare queen,” a “leech,” and an “immoral freeloader”). He doesn’t know much, and he is unhinged, not capable of being reasoned with. People like him will take down whoever follows him.

            Feel free to take up the argument if you wish.

          • Hipster Racist 23 July, 2017 at 18:22

            You started this entire “argument” by responding to me, and spouting a torrent of lies. Ten year old lies, to an audience that likely has no idea what you’re doing.

            There really is no “argument” here, I’m simply pointing out your lies.

          • eyeslevel 20 July, 2017 at 11:57

            The 2008 bailout was the largest theft in history, no doubt. They did the same thing in Europe. If they had simply followed the law as it was, the greedy, reckless lenders would have been forced into bankruptcy, the greedy stockholders who foolishly trusted them would have lost their entire investment, every unfunded deferred comp for the management (this is often overlooked) would have evaporated, their (likely backdated) stock options would be worth zero and the depositors would have been made whole to the extent of their deposit insurance as mandated by law. And we could then rebuild without the debt overhang. New banks would have sprung up literally overnight.

            Yes, making depositors whole would have cost a lot, but not as much as they spent on the bailout.

            If they were determined to bail them out for some deemed national benefit, they should have said: OK, you’re now a utility. This is your management’s salary and this is your dividend rate for the next ten years. But they just gave them the money with no strings attached. This follows the “deregulation” model begun under Reagan. Before that, rates for government enforced monopolies were set by the government. Under so-called deregulation they were allowed to keep the monopoly but then charge whatever they wanted. Every time you pay your cable bill you’re paying the higher monopoly price, not the free market price.

          • Hipster Racist 20 July, 2017 at 12:33

            The insult to the injury is that the entire system could have been “bailed out” by a combination of NC finance and other regional companies. There were plenty of ways the system could have been saved.

            They chose the worst possible way to do it because they did NOT want the criminal syndicate in Manhattan to lose power to “fly over country” – it’s as simple as that.

            The “free market” that everyone blathers about could have worked just fine – if it was allowed to work. But as we can see, the “free market” is never allowed to work if powerful people lose, and the less powerful people win.

            There have been at least four major Wall Street bailouts in just my short lifetime – S&L in the 80s, LTCM in the 90s, the “Mexican bailout” – which bailed out Manhattan finance, not Mexico – and then the crowning achievement, the 2008 bailouts of the criminal syndicate in Manhattan – that bailout continues to this day – they are STILL being bailed out as we speak.

            Of course the conservative Republicans will never explain to the public how this scam operated because the conservative Republicans are perfectly happy to be shabbos goyims playing second-fiddle to the criminal syndicate – even when one of their own, like BofA’s Ken Lewis, gets taken down as a scapegoat. (No, he was not innocent but he wasn’t even close to the worst of the criminals – he was scapegoated precisely because he was a red state Christian not a New York Jew.)

            The conservative Republicans will whine all day long if a regular working class person gets the tiniest little sliver of welfare – even some shitty health insurance – but will do nothing but squirt squid ink when the richest people in American live high on the hog on the taxpayer’s dime.

            The real Communists in America are the rich, not the poor – the real welfare leeches in America are the wealthy, not the indigent. There is a reason Marx was fine with usury…

          • eyeslevel 20 July, 2017 at 12:47

            Yes, the whole reason the financial crisis was handled the way it was was to benefit a handful of top management. These are the people who push for non-white immigrant scabs, enforce diversity policies, preferentially hire non-whites, basically create an anti-white plantation system. So they were rewarded by the system they supported.

            Are these companies allowed to use taxpayer money to lobby Congress?

          • Copperhead 21 July, 2017 at 14:50

            Hipster Racist: You are clearly well-versed and informed on financial and economic issues. I myself am a big reader of history, and thus have improved my geopolitical IQ, however, I am trying to learn more about economics. There are a ton of different economic beliefs floating around in these circles. Are there some materials you would recommend reading on the 2008 issues? Also, I am intrigued by the Marx usury issue. Could you expand on that?

          • Strac5 20 July, 2017 at 21:48

            Congratulations, you found the one company that was famously saved by bailout from the financial crisis. One company, which will necessarily have executives, who are by definition rich, are not evidence of the notion that TARP generally helped the rich. It is also deeply ironic that your example is an insurance company, which employs mostly non-rich, non-Wall Street people, as an example of the bailout helping rich people.

          • eyeslevel 20 July, 2017 at 22:04

            All the unfunded deferred comp in every company that would have had to go bankrupt would have gone POOF without the bailout.

            Plus all the stock options help by executives of those companies plus all the stock they held.

            Your saying not one company besides AIG had unfunded deferred comp or stock options or stock held by the executives of those companies?

            You didn’t say the bailouts did not GENERALLY help the rich you said:

            “The bailouts did not help the rich”

            So now you’re being deliberately obfuscatory.

            Of all the ways the bailout could have been done, it was done in a way that saved all that deferred comp, stock options, and stock holdings of multimillionaire executives. The ones who caused the crisis in the first place. The bailout was a direct transfer of many millions if not billions of dollars from the public to a handful of well-connected elite.

          • Strac5 20 July, 2017 at 23:04

            First of all, most of the financial companies weren’t bankrupt or about to go bankrupt, and most importantly, they did not believe they were about to go bankrupt. If they had believed it, they wouldn’t have resisted taking bailout money until they were threatened.

            Next, you are dangerously wrong to claim that they caused the financial crisis. Frankly, that claim is just evil. The government caused the financial crisis, period. Some in the industry deliberately assisted the government in doing so, and they deserve every bit of condemnation and wrath that can be mustered, but the industry itself did not cause the financial crisis. Even if every single banker betrayed the American taxpayer during the course of events, it still doesn’t change the fact that they did not cause the financial crisis. The government did.

            You also neglect to mention that the bailouts were paid back with interest – the government actually made a profit – so your implication that it was a wealth transfer scheme to rich finance people is not correct.

            Finally, regarding my statement that “the bailouts did not help the rich,” when people make general statements, generality is assumed. No one ever means 100% of any group with no exceptions. No need to mind-read on the basis of a missing adverb.

          • eyeslevel 21 July, 2017 at 00:17

            The debt was pushed out by private companies, they caused the crisis. Stating the obvious truth is evil?

            You have an agenda to distract from this massive theft.

            If they weren’t going to go bankrupt, they didn’t need a bailout.

            Bottom line is multimillionaires received millions more than they would have without the bailout. They were looking at losing their unfunded deferred comp, their stock options and their jobs. The public was forced to buy assets at par that were worth a fraction of that.

            You got caught red-handed lying so you changed your tune like any criminal under interrogation.

          • Strac5 21 July, 2017 at 10:42

            You conveniently ignore that as part of the TARP bailout, there were severe executive compensation restrictions. The government had to strong-arm the bankers to take the money, and that is just a fact whether you want to admit it or not. It was big news at the time.
            http://archive.fortune.com/2009/06/19/news/economy/trouble_with_tarp_bailout.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009062107

            Or if you want a less verifiable version of events:

            http://dailybail.com/home/kanjorski-reveals-paulsons-closed-door-tarp-threats.html

            The banks didn’t need or want a bailout, period. The government caused the financial crisis, and without government interference, there would have been no financial crisis. Blaming private entities for the crisis because they “issued debt” is like blaming airlines for a terrorist attack because they sent the planes out.

            The proof that the private sector did not cause the crisis by issuing toxic derivatives is that the derivatives turned out to be not so toxic after all. The public, through the government and the Fed (to the extent that it is a quasi-public organization), made a profit on the bailouts. TARP was repaid with interest, and the Maiden Lane assets were sold at a profit. Again, these are just facts, and the Bernie Bro version of events promoted by some in the alt-right is just ridiculous.

          • Hipster Racist 23 July, 2017 at 18:24

            Notice again he’s trying to shift the conversation from Maiden Lane and the derivative fraud to TARP.

            TARP was literally the distraction. When asked why they picked the specific number, they said “well it had to be big enough to be credible.

            Then while everyone was paying attention to TARP, they transferred billions – maybe even trillions depending on how you count it – from the taxpayers and users of the dollars to Wall Street.

            Then they “paid back” TARP and said, “hey look they paid back the bailouts so it’s ok!”

            Clearly Strac5 here is one of the beneficiaries of the bailout – of maybe a lawyer they hired to lie to the public.

          • Strac5 23 July, 2017 at 22:18

            The average person cared far more about TARP than the other Fed operations because TARP directly transferred wealth from taxpayer to bank. The other operations were part of the Fed mandate, which is a known quantity, and did not involve transfer of money from the taxpayers to the banks.

            You are off into paranoia territory when you accuse random strangers of being in the pockets of banks. This is cuckoo.

          • Catiline_Conspirator 20 July, 2017 at 11:44

            “North Carolina could have become the new Wall Street – but the market
            Republicans pretend to believe in wasn’t allowed to “work.”

            What do you mean by this Hipster? Please fill me in.

          • Hipster Racist 20 July, 2017 at 11:57

            @Catiline_Conspirator

            Charlotte, North Carolina is the second biggest financial capital outside of New York City – it took over from San Francisco when NC’s Nationsbank bought Bank of America in the 1990s.

            When the 25 years of derivative fraud based in New York City blew up, North Carolina finance could have bought all of Wall Street for pennies on the dollar – it would have made NYC poor – and North Carolina rich.

            But of course that didn’t happen, because the Republicans – and the incoming Obama administration – forced the taxpayers to bail out the criminal ring based in Manhattan and – in a final insult – forced North Carolina to pick up the tab.

            This was openly discussed in the financial press at the time – WSJ and NYT were literally cataloging which financial CEOs had been “donating to Jewish charities” and which ones had merely “donated to conservative causes.”

            @Strac5 here is purposefully lying – he knows enough to lie about this and fool many people, but not me.

            Notice he justifies and downplays welfare for the rich while trying to focus people’s outrage on some piddling little heath care for the poor.

          • LoggerheadShrike 20 July, 2017 at 23:54

            The problem with conservatives, in America at least, is that they conflate class and race and have difficulty distinguishing between the two. It’s as if upper middle class means White, and vice-versa, to these people. This neoliberalism stuff. It smells flimsy and made-up and newish, it doesn’t seem to be authentic or have a real heritage … I think it probably does not exist if you go back before television.

    • Bob 18 July, 2017 at 21:27 Reply

      Trumps been there a SHORT TIME and enemies on all sides and even in his own family … give it time Hipster – ;O)

      • Hipster Racist 18 July, 2017 at 22:50 Reply

        @Bob

        It would be amazing if Trump would lend his star power to some new candidates in traditionally Democratic or swing districts. This would avoid taking on the anti-Trump GOP establishment directly and it would play to Trump’s strength, which is bringing in voters that are not part of the GOP core. It would help Trump personally by bringing in a new faction of Republicans with no loyalty to the party but instead in debt to Trump personally.

        It would also be such a “Trump” thing to do, Trump and his new candidates could tag-team the social media, and because they would be in swing districts they wouldn’t have to play it safe.

        • Bob 18 July, 2017 at 22:53 Reply

          That is all good – that also takes a lot of political capital – which he has zero left going day to day … this will be a slow war of 8 years … hold on ;O)

          • Dave Overman 18 July, 2017 at 23:16

            Bob you must be over 35. Young ones tend to be rather impatient and pessimistic and view events as never-ending patterns of defeat. The same ecstacy that was expressed when Trump was victorious is likely to turn into vitriolic resentment of epic levels IF he turns out to be a failure in the oval office, esp with regards to policy achievement.

          • Bob 19 July, 2017 at 00:23

            Yes Dave, I am 47. been in more Rightwing groups than flys on shit… Ran to be mayor in my town, been on the staff of several Fed Rep runs and two State staff for two Pres runs… I understand that money runs the show, that the creditor calls the shots, that the US is working in its 3rd bankruptcy, that the national banking act of 33′ ended the real gov’t and made a defaulted debtor to the City of London – So ya its going to take some time, millions of gals of blood and tons of lead in the end to get us a CHANCE to make America great again ;O) Good day Sir.

    • Dave Overman 18 July, 2017 at 23:08 Reply

      “an actual political lobby that hires lawyers and lobbyists and proposes legislation.”

      Somebody with a clue

    • swampwiz0 25 July, 2017 at 06:45 Reply

      Well said. I have been forced to vote for the party of white-dilution because of the horrid policies supported by the Republican Party. It’s time for a 3rd party that will work with Democrats on Welfare State issues, but will stand athwart history yelling stop when it comes to immigration and the support of the Zionist imperialism.