China declined (probably only because they are so intertwined and dependent on our economy, although they have since begun to insulate themselves, quietly getting out of U.S. assets) to help collapse us, and the Chinese warned Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson when he came to visit for the July 2008 Olympics in Beijing. It was at that point there was a scramble to put together a bailout package to prevent a meltdown of the system. Russian orchestrated.
It's no secret that Russia would like to reconquer their so-called "near abroad", the former Soviet states, such as Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Khazakstan and so forth. And a collapsed United States would allow them to do that unopposed. Russia also (with some justification) sees the United States as encirling them with either military advisors or troops in Poland, Rumania, Bosnia, Armenia, Uzbekistan (we pulled out of this one), Afghanistan, Pakistan, and many Persian Gulf states. The proper thing to do after the Soviet collapse would have been to respect that as Russian turf, and not have military presence there, and even expand NATO into former soviet territories. While I see our objectives in these places as benign and not imperial, I can see where this would be threatening to the Russian leadership. But despite your saying I'm living in the past, I think I've made a good case for the fact that Russia is still an enemy, and very hostile to the U.S. And Russia, by the way, is a major supplier of oil to the rest of Europe. They've already shown their willingness to use oil supply as a leveraging weapon on the rest of Europe, as shown with Ukraine.
Likewise, China resents us for our protection of Taiwan and other exploitable nations in China's back yard. And likewise, China (as I detailed discussing China's first-, second- and third-island-chain defensive borders) is likewise aggressively planning a takedown of U.S. supremacy in the Pacific. In addition, China has conducted a number of cyber attacks on U.S. defenses and technological information. Often just a test of their capability, but also very destructive and compromising.
I don't even need to detail the Islamic threat to the U.S., or the threat from the so-called "friendly" islamic states, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. But the point is, Russia is demonstrably not the obsolete threat you seem to believe it is.
Even the finance/insurance/real estate industry has macroscopically went decidedly red and for Romney in this cycle. Including Obama's "buddies" over at Goldman-Sachs.
Interesting how when the numbers favored Barack Obama in 2008 and for several years, liberals and the media perpetuated the myth that McCain was the Wall Street crony who was raking in all the cash, and curring favors in exchange. Which is now proven completely false. No one on the Left, yourself and Promod included, have ever acknowledged that Obama got way more in 2008 from corporate donors, and Wall Street in particular.
You also don't acknowledge the unprecedented level of corporate welfare and crony capitalism under Obama. And this is not historical discussion, this is ongoing Obama use of taxpayer dollars to favor corporations, to narrow competition and raise prices for the middle class and poor, that will continue as long as Obama remains in office. He's still trying to ram through another Stimulus bill (renamed with a deceitful focus-group-selected misnomer as a "Jobs Bill")
You imply that if Romney takes the money (which he has to, to get elected, because even with these donations, Obama's war-chest is expected to be a billion dollars or more), that if Romney takes money from Goldman Sachs or other firms, assume that he necessarily will act as corruptly and subserviently to corporate donors as Obama has.
But...
Romney, unlike Obama, was heavily involved in the financial industry and understands it. Romney, unlike Obama, enters the campaign with a personal fortune of 300 million, and arguably cannot be bought, because he already is wealthy. Romney, unlike Obama, is not in favor of a strong socialist central government. Unlike Obama, does not favor crony capitalism that would use corporations to advance an ideological socialist experiment. (as I sourced from Tim Carney's book OBAMANOMICS, that reliance on state-run capitalism results in greater market-share for the largest corporations, creating higher costs that drive out smaller competitors, and results in less competition and higher production cost, resulting in higher prices for everyone, most impacting middle class and poor consumers.)
Why do you assume that a free-market guy like Romney would enact the same kind of corporate free-for all that Obama did? When Romney is a free-market guy, and Obama is a central-planning guy?
Obama's 2008 level of Wallstreet and other corporate donors --where even the New York Times reported that Obama was out-spending McCain an average of 4-to-1 nationwide, and even 8-to-1 or higher in some highly contested areas-- went virtually unreported. Yet you are quick to make snap assumptions about Romney, whose donations and ideology are less incriminating than Obama's were in 2008-2010.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Interesting how when the numbers favored Barack Obama in 2008 and for several years, liberals and the media perpetuated the myth that McCain was the Wall Street crony who was raking in all the cash, and curring his favors in exchange. Which is now proven completely false.
Deflection. This must've stung deep.
Quote:
No one on the Left, yourself...
You really think I'm a leftist?
Quote:
You also don't acknowledge the unprecedented level of corporate welfare and crony capitalism under Obama. And this is not historical discussion, this is ongoing Obama use of taxpayer dollars to favor coprorations, narrow competition and raise proces for the middle class and poor, that will continue as long as Obama remains in office. He's still trying to ram through another Stimulus bill (renamed with a deceitful focus-group-selected misnomer as a "Jobs Bill")
Or, succinctly,
Originally Posted By: WB
It's all Obama's fault.
Seriously, show me one post where I absolve Obama of being a corporatist wanker. I'll wait.
Quote:
You imply by saying this that if Romney takes the money (which he has to, to get elected, because even with these donations, Obama's war-chest is expected to be a billion dollars or more)
Expectation meets too big to fail reality, news at eleven.
Quote:
that if Romney takes money from Goldman Sachs or other firms, assume that he necessarily will act as corruptly and subserviently to corporate donors as Obama has. But...
He wants to repeal most, if not all, aspects of what was a completely watered down financial reform bill.
Quote:
Romney, unlike Obama, was heavily involved in the financial industry and understands it.
And, he supported the bailout of it. Like Dubya then, he supports abandoning the free market to "save it."
Quote:
Romney, unlike Obama, enters the campaign with a personal fortune of 300 million, and arguably cannot be bought, because he already is wealthy.
Because greed, like the thirst for power, has limits...
Quote:
Romney, unlike Obama, is not in favor of a strong socialist central government. Unlike Obama, does not favor crony capitalism that would use corporations to advance an ideological socialist experiment. (as I sourced from Tim Carney's book OBAMANOMICS, that reliance on state-run capitalism results in greater market-share for the largest corporations, creating higher costs that drive out smaller competitors, and results in less competition and higher production cost, resulting in higher prices for everyone, most impacting middle class and poor consumers.)
I repeat, he supported and still supports the abandonment of free market principles to "save" the free market (see, bailouts).
Why do you assume that a free-market guy like Romney would enact the same kind of corporate free-for all that Obama did? When Romney is a free-market guy, and Obama is a central-planning guy?
Fuck Obama. Obama, too, is Wall Street's bitch. And, see above, Romney supports the Bush bailouts that were admittedly not of free market principles.
Quote:
Obama's 2008 level of Wallstreet and other corporate donors --where even the New York Times reported that Obama was out-spending McCain an average of 4-to-1 nationwide, and even 8-to-1 or higher in some highly contested areas-- went virtually unreported. Yet you are quick to make snap assumptions about Romney, whose donations are less incriminating than Obama's donations and stated intent were in 2008-2010.
Apparently, you don't know where to get any decent information. It's called alternative media, Dave. Gives you the full rundown on how bought and sold both of these stupid fuckers are.
Seriously, though, go ahead and vote for Romney. I don't care. I'm done trying to save people like you who continue to live in some phony ass world where the political parties still mean something. They don't. Romney, just like most other Republicans, is just as committed to bringing about the New World Order as Obama and Soros are. You are just locked into the paradigm they built for you.
Go ahead. Vote for Romney and find out that those FEMA camps that make Glen Beck cry really know no political preference.
Iggy, the bailout, as I posted a linked article for about 2 months ago, showed that the TARP bailout was fully paid off.
I opposed it until I saw that it was paid off, with interest.
So Romney supports something that worked.
As opposed to a series of huge stimulus bills, that demonstrably cost hundreds, if not millions per (temporary) job created, and do nothing to spark long-term growth. They print trillions of dollars, and WASTE those dollars, as they drive us closer and closer to collapse of the dollar. How could you possibly support this kind of suicidal policy, and demonize Romney as somehow equal or worse, just because they both got donations from Wall Street firms?
I find it interesting that both you and Pro are spreading the same talking points as David Axelrod and other cronies of Obama. They attacked Romney as a fat cat, and that didn't work. They attacked Romney on his record, and that didn't work. Now they're attacking Romney as a whore of Wall Street and that won't work either, because as I demonstrated, Obama was the largest recipient and did Wall Street's bidding more so than any other president. (As Carney phrases it, when Obama was elected "lobbyists thought they'd died and gone to heaven.")
There are ultimately two choices in November, and barring a major cataqclysm, that choice will be between Obama and Romney. I think your support of Obama --whose policies have clearly not worked, and racked up more debt than any president (or presidents combined) in history-- is irrational, if not partisan.
I agree that skepticism of Romney is reasonable, and pointing out his record and donations also reasonable. But you seem to be giving Obama a preference, and are wildly speculative on facts about Romney that were selectively ignored about Obama. Facts about Obama's Wall Street contributions and whoring that have still never, years later, been reported outside the conservative media.
Interesting how when the numbers favored Barack Obama in 2008 and for several years, liberals and the media perpetuated the myth that McCain was the Wall Street crony who was raking in all the cash, and curring his favors in exchange. Which is now proven completely false.
Deflection. This must've stung deep.
Fact, not deflection. You deflected that Obama was protected by media propaganda, and McCain was slandered by the same media. Obama narrowly won, and I believe that was because of unprecedented partisanship by the liberal media.
Originally Posted By: Iggy
Originally Posted By: WB
No one on the Left, yourself...
You really think I'm a leftist?
You seem to be arguing for marxist revolution and wealth redistribution, and arguing the talking points of the Left. Until this particular topic, I previously never got that impression from your posts.
You also have been trolling and cheerleading Pro's infantile antics.
Originally Posted By: Iggy
Originally Posted By: WB
You also don't acknowledge the unprecedented level of corporate welfare and crony capitalism under Obama. And this is not historical discussion, this is ongoing Obama use of taxpayer dollars to favor coprorations, narrow competition and raise proces for the middle class and poor, that will continue as long as Obama remains in office. He's still trying to ram through another Stimulus bill (renamed with a deceitful focus-group-selected misnomer as a "Jobs Bill")
Or, succinctly,
Originally Posted By: WB(as scripted by Iggy)
It's all Obama's fault.
Seriously, show me one post where I absolve Obama of being a corporatist wanker. I'll wait.
You seem to be arguing for Obama's re-election, with a dismissive rejection of Romney. But you mentioned Republicans of interest for you as Ron Paul, Gingrich, and Roemer. But my impression is you'll ultimately pull the lever for Obama and label the Republican candidate as a corporate whore. (a la Prometheus)
Originally Posted By: Iggy
Originally Posted By: WB
You imply by saying this that if Romney takes the money (which he has to, to get elected, because even with these donations, Obama's war-chest is expected to be a billion dollars or more)
Expectation meets too big to fail reality, news at eleven.
That's just a snide remark, not a refutation of the arguments I presented.
The reality is, Obama will have a slander machine with a billion dollars or more, and Romney will have significantly less to win on (he currently has raised 90 million).
Originally Posted By: Iggy
Originally Posted By: WB
that if Romney takes money from Goldman Sachs or other firms, assume that he necessarily will act as corruptly and subserviently to corporate donors as Obama has. But...
He wants to repeal most, if not all, aspects of what was a completely watered down financial reform bill.
That's another DNC talking point, not reality. He wants to repeal Obamacare, and get rid of SOME (not "all") of the strangling regulation that is driving business overseas. All the Republicans (including Paul, Gingrich and Roehmer you say you favor) talk about creating incentives to bring business and capital back to the United States.
Originally Posted By: Iggy
Originally Posted By: WB
Romney, unlike Obama, was heavily involved in the financial industry and understands it.
And, he supported the bailout of it. Like Dubya then, he supports abandoning the free market to "save it."
I answered that. The TARP bailout (unlike Obama's endless hemmoraging of trillions into bailouts) was repaid in full, with interest. I opposed it up until the point it was announced repaid.
I still oppose the various Stimulus bills, that threaten to collapse our dollar and end its global reserve status. At that point, we will no longer be able to print dollars to pay bills. And that time is coming fast.
Originally Posted By: Iggy
Originally Posted By: WB
Romney, unlike Obama, enters the campaign with a personal fortune of 300 million, and arguably cannot be bought, because he already is wealthy.
Because greed, like the thirst for power, has limits...
Another snide remark that doesn't answer the factual points I raised.
Originally Posted By: Iggy
Originally Posted By: WB
Romney, unlike Obama, is not in favor of a strong socialist central government. Unlike Obama, does not favor crony capitalism that would use corporations to advance an ideological socialist experiment. (as I sourced from Tim Carney's book OBAMANOMICS, that reliance on state-run capitalism results in greater market-share for the largest corporations, creating higher costs that drive out smaller competitors, and results in less competition and higher production cost, resulting in higher prices for everyone, most impacting middle class and poor consumers.)
I repeat, he supported and still supports the abandonment of free market principles to "save" the free market (see, bailouts).
Again, while I salute you for giving a sourced counter-argument, there is a huge difference between the TARP bailout (which was to be repaid, and has been) and the Stimulus spending.
Your argument is better supported by the auto bailouts (W Bush and Obama)and AIG bailout (W Bush), which arguably are more risky and less likely to be paid off.
And we all know the Stimulus money is gone forever. Its only real purpose has been as a slush fund for the DNC, for liberal corporate donors (under the pretense of job creation) like G.E. and Pfizer, and activist organizations like SEIU, teachers unions, ACORN and the like.
Originally Posted By: Iggy
Originally Posted By: WB
Why do you assume that a free-market guy like Romney would enact the same kind of corporate free-for all that Obama did? When Romney is a free-market guy, and Obama is a central-planning guy?
Fuck Obama. Obama, too, is Wall Street's bitch. And, see above, Romney supports the Bush bailouts that were admittedly not of free market principles.
Again: there is a difference between TARP (which was repaid in full) and the Stimulus spending.
I do cede that W. Bush's TARP bailout opened the door for the kind of Stimulus, Omnibus, Cap-and-Trade, etc. spending that Obama rammed through, and Democrat majorities in congress rubber-stamped.
Originally Posted By: Iggy
Originally Posted By: WB
Obama's 2008 level of Wallstreet and other corporate donors --where even the New York Times reported that Obama was out-spending McCain an average of 4-to-1 nationwide, and even 8-to-1 or higher in some highly contested areas-- went virtually unreported. Yet you are quick to make snap assumptions about Romney, whose donations are less incriminating than Obama's donations and stated intent were in 2008-2010.
Apparently, you don't know where to get any decent information. It's called alternative media, Dave. Gives you the full rundown on how bought and sold both of these stupid fuckers are.
Despite your condescending dismissiveness, I don't see that you disproved my point. The Democrats had far greater campaign funds in 2008, and had full complicity of the media in slandering McCain as the Wall Street Whore (even though Obama took in far more, a historically unprecedented amount of money from Wall Street firms, and despite that he kicked stimulus money to them in the form of corporate welfare, borrowing and printing trillions more, dramatically further bankrupting the country).
I don't see that your made a case for your allegation that Romney or other Republicans are just as bad. Obama is unprecedented in his damage to the country, and three years later, it still isn't even being reported!
Republicans are just as bad? Prove it.
And again: what's the alternative?
Originally Posted By: Iggy
Seriously, though, go ahead and vote for Romney. I don't care. I'm done trying to save people like you who continue to live in some phony ass world where the political parties still mean something. They don't. Romney, just like most other Republicans, is just as committed to bringing about the New World Order as Obama and Soros are. You are just locked into the paradigm they built for you.
Go ahead. Vote for Romney and find out that those FEMA camps that make Glen Beck cry really know no political preference.
Again: we have a choice in Nov 2012, most likely between Obama and Romney.
If you really believe that Obama is the best choice, or that Romney is equally bad, that the New World Order pre-selects which two R / D puppets we'll have to choose from, why do you voice interest in Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich or Roehmer?
I hear a lot of ideas on the Republican side for how to get us out of this mess (reduce federal spending; balance the budget; increase oil production inside the U.S. to both create a million-plus jobs here, while simultaneously ending foreign oil dependence, and getting rid of the trade deficit caused by foreign oil dependency; lowering cororate taxes to make us competitive with other nations, and bring both capital and manufacturing back to the U.S., Connie Mack's "Penny Plan", Herman Cain's "9-9-9 Plan", etc.)
You brand the Tea Party as dupes, despite that the co-opted Occupy Wall Street movement is funded by Soros, SEIU, UAW, MoveOn and so forth.
Please tell me what you see as the master plan to resolve this. Because I see a lot of non-specific cynicism, and shots you take at everyone else, but no clear suggestions on your part. Other than your support for a bunch of unwashed neo-hippie rabble in the streets who talk about --in no uncertain terms-- intimidating if not violently rioting to take stuff from people who worked for what they have.
I find it interesting that both you and Pro are spreading the same talking points as David Axelrod and other cronies of Obama.
Translation:
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
I cannot prove you wrong, so...LIBERAL PROPAGANDA!!!
It's always someone "spreading the same talking points as {INSERT GAGGLE OF LIBERAL/DEMOCRATIC NAMES}" with you, isn't it? If you can't refute the facts laid bare, you immediately whisk up some random name you picked up from your daily Glenn Beck Mein Kampf Manifesto.
Fact, not deflection. You deflected that Obama was protected by media propaganda, and McCain was slandered by the same media. Obama narrowly won, and I believe that was because of unprecedented partisanship by the liberal media.
That's false. Prove it.
Quote:
You also have been trolling and cheerleading Pro's infantile antics.
Quote:
Originally Posted By: Iggy
Seriously, show me one post where I absolve Obama of being a corporatist wanker. I'll wait.
You seem to be arguing for Obama's re-election, with a dismissive rejection of Romney. But you mentioned Republicans of interest for you as Ron Paul, Gingrich, and Roemer. But my impression is you'll ultimately pull the lever for Obama and label the Republican candidate as a corporate whore. (a la Prometheus)
In other words, you can't prove it, because it's not true. You just wish it were, so it might give you some sympathy over your butthurt attitude. Once again, reality proving you wrong, David. At what age did you set up your highly compacted cognitive dissidence?
Originally Posted By: WB
The reality is, Obama
Originally Posted By: WB
That's another DNC talking point, not reality.
Good old Dave. Deciding what is and isn't "reality".
Originally Posted By: WB
Romney, unlike Obama, is not in favor of a strong socialist central government.
Prove Obama is. Oh, you can't.
Quote:
Unlike Obama, does not favor crony capitalism that would use corporations to advance an ideological socialist experiment.
Prove it. Oh, you can't.
Originally Posted By: WB
(as I sourced from Tim Carney's book OBAMANOMICS
Quote:
"That's another RNC talking point, not reality."
Originally Posted By: WB
Originally Posted By: Iggy
I repeat, he supported and still supports the abandonment of free market principles to "save" the free market (see, bailouts).
Despite your condescending dismissiveness, Obama is unprecedented in his damage to the country, and three years later, it still isn't even being reported!
LMAO!!! BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE YOU FUCKING MORON!
Jesus fucking Christ, David. If you think Obama's shitty, do-nothing Presidency has done "unprecedented damage" to this country, you must have had your entire hands inside your ears the eight-years Bush and the Extremist Right pissed on the Constitution and instituted a Corporate Police State, dictated by the Military-Industrial Complex.
You perpetually amaze me at the level of ignorance and cowardice you're willing to sink to defend criminal billionaire strangers. That's just fucking crazy on your part, dude. Holy shit.
Quote:
Republicans are just as bad? Prove it.
Done.
Quote:
Again: we have a choice in Nov 2012, most likely between Obama and Romney.
It's called freedom of choice, David. Simply vote for Ron Paul, or do a Glenn Beck write-in vote. OF COURSE there's a choice, man. This is America. Stand up and make your choice based on what YOU want, not what your party allegiance wants. Seriously.
Quote:
despite that the co-opted Occupy Wall Street movement is funded by Soros, SEIU, UAW, MoveOn and so forth.
Fiction. Prove it or stop lying.
Quote:
Other than your support for a bunch of unwashed neo-hippie rabble in the streets who talk about --in no uncertain terms-- intimidating if not violently rioting to take stuff from people who worked for what they have.
You are a fucking pawn of the Corporate Government. Congrats on literally regurgitating exactly what the Extremist Right has told you to say and believe. It's like watching a textbook deconstruction of the quintessential Bernays Model "media puppet", simply salivating whenever the bell is rung...
Banks Pay Back TARP Funds by. . .Borrowing From Treasury By Daniel Gross | Contrary Indicator – Wed, Jul 20, 2011 4:56 PM EDT
Most of the big banks have repaid the government funds they received under the Capital Purchase Program (CPP), the pillar of TARP under which Treasury bought preferred shares in the nation's banks. Enough so that, combined with dividends and sales of warrants, Treasury has declared that taxpayers have earned a profit on the CPP. Thus far, $245 billion has gone out, and $255 billion in repayments, interest and warrants has come back, yielding a profit to taxpayers of $10 billion. And there's several billion more where that came from.
Many of the small banks that took relatively small chunks of capital have been slower to exit. Last week, however, there was a mini stampede. The transactions are reported here. Eight banks paid back their funds on July 14. They were:
Eagle Bancorp of Bethesda, MD: $23.235 million First California Financial, Westlake Village, CA: $25 million Cache Valley Bank, Logan, UT: $4.77 million, plus $263,000 to buy back preferred shares granted to Treasury in lieu of warrants Security Business Bancorp, San Diego, CA: $5.8 million, plus $290,000 to buy back preferred shares granted to Treasury in lieu of warrants BOH Holdings of Houston, Houston, TX: $10 million, plus $500,000 to buy back preferred shares granted to Treasury in lieu of warrants BancIndependent, Sheffield, AL: $21.1 million, plus $1.055 million to buy back preferred shares granted to Treasury in lieu of warrants York Traditions Bank, York, PA: $4.871 million, plus $244,000 to buy back preferred shares granted to Treasury in lieu of warrants Centric Financial, Harrisburg, PA: $6.056 million, plus $182,000 to buy back preferred shares granted to Treasury in lieu of warrants
That adds up to a total of $103.3 million.
But sometimes there's less than meets the eye. Generally, banks that repaid CPP funds did so with cash raised from earnings, or by raising new outside capital. In finance and banking you always have to read the fine print. And if you go back to the report, you'll notice that the fine print accompanying the entries for each of the above exits makes reference either to Footnote 49 or Footnote 50. Footnote 49 reads: "Repayment pursuant to Title VII, Section 7001(g) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 using proceeds received in connection with the institution's participation in the Small Business Lending Fund." Footnote 50 reads: "Repayment pursuant to Title VII, Section 7001(g) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — part of the repayment amount obtained from proceeds received in connection with the institution's participation in the Small Business Lending Fund."
All of which is to say that these banks repaid cash owed to a program run by the Treasury Department by. . . borrowing from another program run by the Treasury Department.
The Small Business Lending Fund was created last fall as part of the Small Business Jobs Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation passed last fall. The idea was to make cash available to smallish community banks (those with assets of $10 billion or less), and then give them incentives or rewards for making small-business loans, defined in this fact sheet as "certain loans of up to $10 million to businesses with up to $50 million in annual revenues."
Here's how it works. As with the CPP, Treasury will lend to the banks by buying preferred shares. As with CPP, the shares bear a five percent annual dividend rate. (However, Treasury won't receive warrants in exchange for making the loans, as it did under CPP). So far, so similar. But here's the difference. Banks that have boosted, or will boost, their lending to small businesses will pay a lower interest rate. "If a bank's small business lending increases by 10% or more, then the rate will fall to as low as 1%. Banks that increase their lending by amounts less than 10% can benefit from rates set between 2% and 4%." Meanwhile, those that take the cash and don't lend will be punished. "If lending does not increase in the first two years, however, the rate will increase to 7%. After 4.5 years, the rate will increase to 9% if the bank has not already repaid the SBLF funding."
Sounds good. But it seems like the first recipients (the deadline for application was May 16, 2011) are using the capital largely to replace more expensive CPP capital. So, for example, Eagle announced that it was using $23.25 million of the $56.6 million in SBLF funds it received to exit the CPP, effectively replacing five percent money with one percent money. As Chairman and CEO Ronald D. Paul noted: "We are also proud to note that our growth of $98 million in SBLF qualified loans over the initial reporting period has made us eligible for a dividend rate of 1.0%, the most favorable dividend rate available in the program." First California Financial used the entire amount of its SBLF funding ($25 million) to repay CPP funds. Security Business Bancorp used nearly 70 percent of the $8.9 million in SBLF funds it received, at the low one percent rate, to pay back its CPP funds.
There are likely many more such examples to come. This first round represents a small portion of the funds available under the SBLF. And the SBLF represents a potentially excellent deal for banks. (Borrowing $10 million at 1 percent instead of 5 percent adds up to a $400,000 annual savings in interest costs.) As important, the initiative offers banks that have yet to earn their way out of TARP a quick and easy exit. SBLF and TARP may each have four letters, but only the latter is regarded as a four-letter word.
Replacing one form of government capital for another doesn't do anything to lessen the public sector's involvement in the system. As with the CPP, taxpayers will eat the costs if banks taking SBLF funds can't return the capital. And I'd much prefer to see banks exiting TARP on their own power. But this new wrinkle at least remedies a design flaw of the original CPP by rewarding banks for lending more and punishing them for hoarding cash.
Still, when combing through the reports of TARP exits, it's important to realize that many banks are simply swapping a government crutch for a cheaper government walking stick.
Daniel Gross is economics editor at Yahoo! Finance.
Banks Pay Back TARP Funds by. . .Borrowing From Treasury By Daniel Gross | Contrary Indicator – Wed, Jul 20, 2011 4:56 PM EDT
Most of the big banks have repaid the government funds they received under the Capital Purchase Program (CPP), the pillar of TARP under which Treasury bought preferred shares in the nation's banks. Enough so that, combined with dividends and sales of warrants, Treasury has declared that taxpayers have earned a profit on the CPP. Thus far, $245 billion has gone out, and $255 billion in repayments, interest and warrants has come back, yielding a profit to taxpayers of $10 billion. And there's several billion more where that came from.
Many of the small banks that took relatively small chunks of capital have been slower to exit. Last week, however, there was a mini stampede. The transactions are reported here. Eight banks paid back their funds on July 14. They were:
Eagle Bancorp of Bethesda, MD: $23.235 million First California Financial, Westlake Village, CA: $25 million Cache Valley Bank, Logan, UT: $4.77 million, plus $263,000 to buy back preferred shares granted to Treasury in lieu of warrants Security Business Bancorp, San Diego, CA: $5.8 million, plus $290,000 to buy back preferred shares granted to Treasury in lieu of warrants BOH Holdings of Houston, Houston, TX: $10 million, plus $500,000 to buy back preferred shares granted to Treasury in lieu of warrants BancIndependent, Sheffield, AL: $21.1 million, plus $1.055 million to buy back preferred shares granted to Treasury in lieu of warrants York Traditions Bank, York, PA: $4.871 million, plus $244,000 to buy back preferred shares granted to Treasury in lieu of warrants Centric Financial, Harrisburg, PA: $6.056 million, plus $182,000 to buy back preferred shares granted to Treasury in lieu of warrants
That adds up to a total of $103.3 million.
But sometimes there's less than meets the eye. Generally, banks that repaid CPP funds did so with cash raised from earnings, or by raising new outside capital. In finance and banking you always have to read the fine print. And if you go back to the report, you'll notice that the fine print accompanying the entries for each of the above exits makes reference either to Footnote 49 or Footnote 50. Footnote 49 reads: "Repayment pursuant to Title VII, Section 7001(g) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 using proceeds received in connection with the institution's participation in the Small Business Lending Fund." Footnote 50 reads: "Repayment pursuant to Title VII, Section 7001(g) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — part of the repayment amount obtained from proceeds received in connection with the institution's participation in the Small Business Lending Fund."
All of which is to say that these banks repaid cash owed to a program run by the Treasury Department by. . . borrowing from another program run by the Treasury Department.
The Small Business Lending Fund was created last fall as part of the Small Business Jobs Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation passed last fall. The idea was to make cash available to smallish community banks (those with assets of $10 billion or less), and then give them incentives or rewards for making small-business loans, defined in this fact sheet as "certain loans of up to $10 million to businesses with up to $50 million in annual revenues."
Here's how it works. As with the CPP, Treasury will lend to the banks by buying preferred shares. As with CPP, the shares bear a five percent annual dividend rate. (However, Treasury won't receive warrants in exchange for making the loans, as it did under CPP). So far, so similar. But here's the difference. Banks that have boosted, or will boost, their lending to small businesses will pay a lower interest rate. "If a bank's small business lending increases by 10% or more, then the rate will fall to as low as 1%. Banks that increase their lending by amounts less than 10% can benefit from rates set between 2% and 4%." Meanwhile, those that take the cash and don't lend will be punished. "If lending does not increase in the first two years, however, the rate will increase to 7%. After 4.5 years, the rate will increase to 9% if the bank has not already repaid the SBLF funding."
Sounds good. But it seems like the first recipients (the deadline for application was May 16, 2011) are using the capital largely to replace more expensive CPP capital. So, for example, Eagle announced that it was using $23.25 million of the $56.6 million in SBLF funds it received to exit the CPP, effectively replacing five percent money with one percent money. As Chairman and CEO Ronald D. Paul noted: "We are also proud to note that our growth of $98 million in SBLF qualified loans over the initial reporting period has made us eligible for a dividend rate of 1.0%, the most favorable dividend rate available in the program." First California Financial used the entire amount of its SBLF funding ($25 million) to repay CPP funds. Security Business Bancorp used nearly 70 percent of the $8.9 million in SBLF funds it received, at the low one percent rate, to pay back its CPP funds.
There are likely many more such examples to come. This first round represents a small portion of the funds available under the SBLF. And the SBLF represents a potentially excellent deal for banks. (Borrowing $10 million at 1 percent instead of 5 percent adds up to a $400,000 annual savings in interest costs.) As important, the initiative offers banks that have yet to earn their way out of TARP a quick and easy exit. SBLF and TARP may each have four letters, but only the latter is regarded as a four-letter word.
Replacing one form of government capital for another doesn't do anything to lessen the public sector's involvement in the system. As with the CPP, taxpayers will eat the costs if banks taking SBLF funds can't return the capital. And I'd much prefer to see banks exiting TARP on their own power. But this new wrinkle at least remedies a design flaw of the original CPP by rewarding banks for lending more and punishing them for hoarding cash.
Still, when combing through the reports of TARP exits, it's important to realize that many banks are simply swapping a government crutch for a cheaper government walking stick.
Daniel Gross is economics editor at Yahoo! Finance.
That actually was a very informative article, thank you for posting it.
Okay, so...
Quote:
All of which is to say that these banks repaid cash owed to a program run by the Treasury Department by. . . borrowing from another program run by the Treasury Department.
These banks are basically taking a government Visa to pay their government Mastercard.
And getting a nice government-subsidized rate of interest on the SBLF loan, as they use it to pay off their TARP loan.
That did seem a bit easy. Now the sleight-of-hand of the magician's trick is exposed.
I'm not a fan of the practice. But in the demonizing of Wall Street, how is that different from individuals who use a first-time homebuyer loan, make the payments for 5 years, at that point get the Housing Authority to pay a subsidy of 15-20% of the total, and then rather than live there as the homeowner's plan was intended, then flip the property after meeting the minimum subsidy requirement, to buy a new property they can flip to sell?
Why is it okay for individuals to do this? (millions of whom got in over their heads and foreclosed before the 5-year-mark, and are the bedrock of the nationwide mortgage/financial crisis). And why is it not okay for wealthy individuals or corporations to use the same subsidies offered by the government?
Both are offered by the government because they were created to be of benefit to the economy. Both are manipulated. But the small programs are given nobility by the OWS protestors, and the large programs are demonized.
Again: we have a choice in Nov 2012, most likely between Obama and Romney.
If you really believe that Obama is the best choice, or that Romney is equally bad, that the New World Order pre-selects which two R / D puppets we'll have to choose from, why do you voice interest in Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich or Roehmer?
I hear a lot of ideas on the Republican side for how to get us out of this mess (reduce federal spending; balance the budget; increase oil production inside the U.S. to both create a million-plus jobs here, while simultaneously ending foreign oil dependence, and getting rid of the trade deficit caused by foreign oil dependency; lowering cororate taxes to make us competitive with other nations, and bring both capital and manufacturing back to the U.S., Connie Mack's "Penny Plan", Herman Cain's "9-9-9 Plan", etc.)
You brand the Tea Party as dupes, despite that the co-opted Occupy Wall Street movement is funded by Soros, SEIU, UAW, MoveOn and so forth.
Please tell me what you see as the master plan to resolve this. Because I see a lot of non-specific cynicism, and shots you take at everyone else, but no clear suggestions on your part. Other than your support for a bunch of unwashed neo-hippie rabble in the streets who talk about --in no uncertain terms-- intimidating if not violently rioting to take stuff from people who worked for what they have.
That was an informative article Iggy. Tarp isn't the big success everybody says it is. As for WB, I don't think anyone here is happy about people who do what your speaking of and costing taxpayer money.
Fact, not deflection. You deflected that Obama was protected by media propaganda, and McCain was slandered by the same media. Obama narrowly won, and I believe that was because of unprecedented partisanship by the liberal media.
That's false. Prove it.
Quote:
You also have been trolling and cheerleading Pro's infantile antics.
Quote:
Originally Posted By: Iggy
Seriously, show me one post where I absolve Obama of being a corporatist wanker. I'll wait.
You seem to be arguing for Obama's re-election, with a dismissive rejection of Romney. But you mentioned Republicans of interest for you as Ron Paul, Gingrich, and Roemer. But my impression is you'll ultimately pull the lever for Obama and label the Republican candidate as a corporate whore. (a la Prometheus)
In other words, you can't prove it, because it's not true. You just wish it were, so it might give you some sympathy over your butthurt attitude. Once again, reality proving you wrong, David. At what age did you set up your highly compacted cognitive dissidence?
Originally Posted By: WB
The reality is, Obama
Originally Posted By: WB
That's another DNC talking point, not reality.
Good old Dave. Deciding what is and isn't "reality".
Originally Posted By: WB
Romney, unlike Obama, is not in favor of a strong socialist central government.
Prove Obama is. Oh, you can't.
Quote:
Unlike Obama, does not favor crony capitalism that would use corporations to advance an ideological socialist experiment.
Prove it. Oh, you can't.
Originally Posted By: WB
(as I sourced from Tim Carney's book OBAMANOMICS
Quote:
"That's another RNC talking point, not reality."
Originally Posted By: WB
Originally Posted By: Iggy
I repeat, he supported and still supports the abandonment of free market principles to "save" the free market (see, bailouts).
Despite your condescending dismissiveness, Obama is unprecedented in his damage to the country, and three years later, it still isn't even being reported!
LMAO!!! BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE YOU FUCKING MORON!
Jesus fucking Christ, David. If you think Obama's shitty, do-nothing Presidency has done "unprecedented damage" to this country, you must have had your entire hands inside your ears the eight-years Bush and the Extremist Right pissed on the Constitution and instituted a Corporate Police State, dictated by the Military-Industrial Complex.
You perpetually amaze me at the level of ignorance and cowardice you're willing to sink to defend criminal billionaire strangers. That's just fucking crazy on your part, dude. Holy shit.
Quote:
Republicans are just as bad? Prove it.
Done.
Quote:
Again: we have a choice in Nov 2012, most likely between Obama and Romney.
It's called freedom of choice, David. Simply vote for Ron Paul, or do a Glenn Beck write-in vote. OF COURSE there's a choice, man. This is America. Stand up and make your choice based on what YOU want, not what your party allegiance wants. Seriously.
Quote:
despite that the co-opted Occupy Wall Street movement is funded by Soros, SEIU, UAW, MoveOn and so forth.
Fiction. Prove it or stop lying.
Quote:
Other than your support for a bunch of unwashed neo-hippie rabble in the streets who talk about --in no uncertain terms-- intimidating if not violently rioting to take stuff from people who worked for what they have.
You are a fucking pawn of the Corporate Government. Congrats on literally regurgitating exactly what the Extremist Right has told you to say and believe. It's like watching a textbook deconstruction of the quintessential Bernays Model "media puppet", simply salivating whenever the bell is rung...
Sex offender registers Occupy Portland camp as address
PORTLAND, Ore. – A sex offender who registered his address with police as the Occupy Portland camp downtown is concerning some protesters who are camping there.
Raymond Allen Curtis registered the campsite at Lownsdale Square as his address with police last week. Curtis is from California.
“I think he should be outta here because there’s a lot of kids around here,” said protester Ravin James.
Protester Jeanne Whitman is doing her own research.
“If he’s living in the state of Oregon, he has to register with the state of Oregon and he’s not,” said Whitman. “How easy would it be for someone to frankly, make something like that up? Extremely easy.”
KATU News searched for Curtis in sex offender databases in Oregon, Washington and California. His name did not appear.
The Occupy Portland public safety team says they still take this seriously.
“I personally will engage with police if that’s necessary and we’ll take care of the problem,” said public safety team member Nat Holder. “It’s zero tolerance for violence.”
26 people patrol the camps at night, according to public safety team members.
Despite one report of a possible sexual assault police could never confirm, most protesters told KATU News they are not concerned about their safety in the camps.
"KATU News searched for Curtis in sex offender databases in Oregon, Washington and California. His name did not appear."
I suspect this is just some bullshit someone made up to make the protesters look bad. Because shitting on the sidewalk doesn't make you look bad enough.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Alaskan Diane McEachern says when she heard about the Occupy Wall Street protests she thought, "How can I get in on that?"
Soon after, she marched out onto the tundra near her home, where she held up a homemade cardboard sign bearing her protest message: "Occupy the Tundra."
Her picture was taken with the sign and her bundled up in the cold while her three rescued dogs sat by her side.
Little did the 52-year-old Bethel resident know the photo, which was posted on the Occupy Wall Street Facebook page, would be shared thousands of times and become one of the more famous images of a movement that otherwise has been widely illustrated with photos showing mass protests in large U.S. cities.
When an animal herd goes by she jumps in front of them with her sign screaming "DOWN WITH THE MAN! DOWN WITH THE MAN!"
When she has to take a dump she drives to the nearest town and shits on their sidewalk than drives back to the tundra.
Fact, not deflection. You deflected that Obama was protected by media propaganda, and McCain was slandered by the same media. Obama narrowly won, and I believe that was because of unprecedented partisanship by the liberal media.
That's false. Prove it.
Quote:
You also have been trolling and cheerleading Pro's infantile antics.
Quote:
Originally Posted By: Iggy
Seriously, show me one post where I absolve Obama of being a corporatist wanker. I'll wait.
You seem to be arguing for Obama's re-election, with a dismissive rejection of Romney. But you mentioned Republicans of interest for you as Ron Paul, Gingrich, and Roemer. But my impression is you'll ultimately pull the lever for Obama and label the Republican candidate as a corporate whore. (a la Prometheus)
In other words, you can't prove it, because it's not true. You just wish it were, so it might give you some sympathy over your butthurt attitude. Once again, reality proving you wrong, David. At what age did you set up your highly compacted cognitive dissidence?
Originally Posted By: WB
The reality is, Obama
Originally Posted By: WB
That's another DNC talking point, not reality.
Good old Dave. Deciding what is and isn't "reality".
Originally Posted By: WB
Romney, unlike Obama, is not in favor of a strong socialist central government.
Prove Obama is. Oh, you can't.
Quote:
Unlike Obama, does not favor crony capitalism that would use corporations to advance an ideological socialist experiment.
Prove it. Oh, you can't.
Originally Posted By: WB
(as I sourced from Tim Carney's book OBAMANOMICS
Quote:
"That's another RNC talking point, not reality."
Originally Posted By: WB
Originally Posted By: Iggy
I repeat, he supported and still supports the abandonment of free market principles to "save" the free market (see, bailouts).
Despite your condescending dismissiveness, Obama is unprecedented in his damage to the country, and three years later, it still isn't even being reported!
LMAO!!! BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE YOU FUCKING MORON!
Jesus fucking Christ, David. If you think Obama's shitty, do-nothing Presidency has done "unprecedented damage" to this country, you must have had your entire hands inside your ears the eight-years Bush and the Extremist Right pissed on the Constitution and instituted a Corporate Police State, dictated by the Military-Industrial Complex.
You perpetually amaze me at the level of ignorance and cowardice you're willing to sink to defend criminal billionaire strangers. That's just fucking crazy on your part, dude. Holy shit.
Quote:
Republicans are just as bad? Prove it.
Done.
Quote:
Again: we have a choice in Nov 2012, most likely between Obama and Romney.
It's called freedom of choice, David. Simply vote for Ron Paul, or do a Glenn Beck write-in vote. OF COURSE there's a choice, man. This is America. Stand up and make your choice based on what YOU want, not what your party allegiance wants. Seriously.
Quote:
despite that the co-opted Occupy Wall Street movement is funded by Soros, SEIU, UAW, MoveOn and so forth.
Fiction. Prove it or stop lying.
Quote:
Other than your support for a bunch of unwashed neo-hippie rabble in the streets who talk about --in no uncertain terms-- intimidating if not violently rioting to take stuff from people who worked for what they have.
You are a fucking pawn of the Corporate Government. Congrats on literally regurgitating exactly what the Extremist Right has told you to say and believe. It's like watching a textbook deconstruction of the quintessential Bernays Model "media puppet", simply salivating whenever the bell is rung...
Again: we have a choice in Nov 2012, most likely between Obama and Romney.
If you really believe that Obama is the best choice, or that Romney is equally bad, that the New World Order pre-selects which two R / D puppets we'll have to choose from, why do you voice interest in Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich or Roehmer?
I hear a lot of ideas on the Republican side for how to get us out of this mess (reduce federal spending; balance the budget; increase oil production inside the U.S. to both create a million-plus jobs here, while simultaneously ending foreign oil dependence, and getting rid of the trade deficit caused by foreign oil dependency; lowering cororate taxes to make us competitive with other nations, and bring both capital and manufacturing back to the U.S., Connie Mack's "Penny Plan", Herman Cain's "9-9-9 Plan", etc.)
You brand the Tea Party as dupes, despite that the co-opted Occupy Wall Street movement is funded by Soros, SEIU, UAW, MoveOn and so forth.
Please tell me what you see as the master plan to resolve this. Because I see a lot of non-specific cynicism, and shots you take at everyone else, but no clear suggestions on your part. Other than your support for a bunch of unwashed neo-hippie rabble in the streets who talk about --in no uncertain terms-- intimidating if not violently rioting to take stuff from people who worked for what they have.
The problem is not that our government doesn't spend enough for public services, the problem is that no matter what is taxed for services, the government spends twice as much. And our national debt has grown so huge, to the point that it has begun to damage private sector growth and jobs.
These protests attack "the rich", but the rich are not responsible for our huge national debt and foreign trade deficits. It is the federal government (Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, W.Bush, Greenspan, Bernanke) not Wall Street that bears primary responsibility.
REPORTER JESSE WATERS, TO PROTESTOR: "So what should we do?" WALL STREET PROTESTOR GUY: "Uh..." [ *crickets* ]
I've seen this played out repeatedly. These people have been driven like cattle by a few leaders, and most of them have absolutely no clue what the issues are, let alone how Wall Street is logically responsible, or how the mortgage/financial collapse occurred.
And that fat lady interviewed in this segment... isn't that....
Fact, not deflection. You deflected that Obama was protected by media propaganda, and McCain was slandered by the same media. Obama narrowly won, and I believe that was because of unprecedented partisanship by the liberal media.
That's false. Prove it.
Quote:
You also have been trolling and cheerleading Pro's infantile antics.
Quote:
Originally Posted By: Iggy
Seriously, show me one post where I absolve Obama of being a corporatist wanker. I'll wait.
You seem to be arguing for Obama's re-election, with a dismissive rejection of Romney. But you mentioned Republicans of interest for you as Ron Paul, Gingrich, and Roemer. But my impression is you'll ultimately pull the lever for Obama and label the Republican candidate as a corporate whore. (a la Prometheus)
In other words, you can't prove it, because it's not true. You just wish it were, so it might give you some sympathy over your butthurt attitude. Once again, reality proving you wrong, David. At what age did you set up your highly compacted cognitive dissidence?
Originally Posted By: WB
The reality is, Obama
Originally Posted By: WB
That's another DNC talking point, not reality.
Good old Dave. Deciding what is and isn't "reality".
Originally Posted By: WB
Romney, unlike Obama, is not in favor of a strong socialist central government.
Prove Obama is. Oh, you can't.
Quote:
Unlike Obama, does not favor crony capitalism that would use corporations to advance an ideological socialist experiment.
Prove it. Oh, you can't.
Originally Posted By: WB
(as I sourced from Tim Carney's book OBAMANOMICS
Quote:
"That's another RNC talking point, not reality."
Originally Posted By: WB
Originally Posted By: Iggy
I repeat, he supported and still supports the abandonment of free market principles to "save" the free market (see, bailouts).
Despite your condescending dismissiveness, Obama is unprecedented in his damage to the country, and three years later, it still isn't even being reported!
LMAO!!! BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE YOU FUCKING MORON!
Jesus fucking Christ, David. If you think Obama's shitty, do-nothing Presidency has done "unprecedented damage" to this country, you must have had your entire hands inside your ears the eight-years Bush and the Extremist Right pissed on the Constitution and instituted a Corporate Police State, dictated by the Military-Industrial Complex.
You perpetually amaze me at the level of ignorance and cowardice you're willing to sink to defend criminal billionaire strangers. That's just fucking crazy on your part, dude. Holy shit.
Quote:
Republicans are just as bad? Prove it.
Done.
Quote:
Again: we have a choice in Nov 2012, most likely between Obama and Romney.
It's called freedom of choice, David. Simply vote for Ron Paul, or do a Glenn Beck write-in vote. OF COURSE there's a choice, man. This is America. Stand up and make your choice based on what YOU want, not what your party allegiance wants. Seriously.
Quote:
despite that the co-opted Occupy Wall Street movement is funded by Soros, SEIU, UAW, MoveOn and so forth.
Fiction. Prove it or stop lying.
Quote:
Other than your support for a bunch of unwashed neo-hippie rabble in the streets who talk about --in no uncertain terms-- intimidating if not violently rioting to take stuff from people who worked for what they have.
You are a fucking pawn of the Corporate Government. Congrats on literally regurgitating exactly what the Extremist Right has told you to say and believe. It's like watching a textbook deconstruction of the quintessential Bernays Model "media puppet", simply salivating whenever the bell is rung...
Hay yawl, luk! Luk! She ain't got no clothes on! No clothes! She's nekkid and stuff! That totally proves every fact ever WRONG!!! except for what I think! She's nekkid! Don't you see? No clothes!!
REPORTER JESSE WATERS, TO PROTESTOR: "So what should we do?" WALL STREET PROTESTOR GUY: "Uh..." [ *crickets* ]
OH! LOL! I get it! That's funny! You're saying cause the guy didn't know what to say, right? That's why it's funny! I get it! So, why is it when they KNOW what to say, you instead?
Oh, but neither you nor FAUXNews are biased. Nope. Not one bit.
Is it, or is it not a fact: This fat Bellvue-patient psycho, is unquestionably looney-tunes in the first segment.
And then is interviewed later in the O'Reilly segment by Jesse Waters and actually seems normal and lucid.
She's a perfect poster person for these demonstrations. Mentally deranged, high on drugs, fed soundbyted liberal propaganda by her puppeteers to sound halfway plausible and intelligent. But she's still clearly a very disturbed Bellevue patient, who is out canvassing for the cause to qualify for her meds.
This is the interview FAUXNews was afraid to air...
FAUXNews Corporate Mouthpiece? Spanked!
Again:
1) you call for non-partisanship, but then leap to portray "Faux News" as evil conservative propaganda, despite that they have given extensive coverage to the protestors, and even liberal commentator opinion detailing the POV supporting the protestors.
2) to borrow a word from Lothar, this guy is clearly a shithead. He offers no facts to support his arguments. Michael Moore-like, he starts with a tiny grain of truth, that there was a financial collapse in 2008, and weaves a factless pseudo-intellectual fantasy rant beyond that point. The guy is just a defiant child, a perfect poster-boy for the angry Left. Not someone I'd hold up as the flag-bearer for this oh-so-non-partisan (allegedly) movement.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
You also have been trolling and cheerleading Pro's infantile antics. 
![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg)
[/center]![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg)
[/center]
