AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

...The question is whether the donor is 'paid off' from the public treasury or through government initiatives in a way that directly benefits him....

... But you should wonder who is trying to make this all about Soros...

Taking your beating while completely ignoring what really happened to bring about the plight of many of the homeless. It's so much easier to just blame Reagan and absolve the political do-gooders of any consequences for their actions.

Foxfyre wrote:

...The question is whether the donor is 'paid off' from the public treasury or through government initiatives in a way that directly benefits him....

then look into "Mellon-caife" + "Arkansas Project". start there.

now something that you are not taking into account about how all of this works is the concept that a person can achieve business and monetary benefit by working to insure that a particular party, or a particular person is in office. n'est pas, petite choux ?

Taking your beating while completely ignoring what really happened to bring about the plight of many of the homeless. It's so much easier to just blame Reagan and absolve the political do-gooders of any consequences for their actions.

I am opposed to it when it happens. I just don't think this is a case of that happening. I looked up the top US shareholders of Petrobras and Soros doesn't make the top ten of any list.

PBR institutional shareholders

PBR.A institutional shareholders

So I see a lot of people (myself included, apparently, through my 401k) who stand to gain from any increase in the share price. But again, the loans are being made for the purchase of US exports. That does benefit US businesses whether you want to admit it or not.

You didn't do the research that brought out the Soros connection so I don't expect you to do any research to see who benefited from the Medicare Prescription Drug Program, the Iraq War, the Farm Bill, TARP, and Bankruptcy Reform. But you should wonder who is trying to make this all about Soros when his fund's 6 million shares don't approach those of other funds and institutions.

...Sorry for the interruption...

You must have overlooked the piece I previously posted about that.

But here's another source. I don't know what name he might be invested under but he owns a lot of PBR:
http://www.gurufocus.com/news.php?id=53880

Again as previously stated, I don't KNOW that Soros received special treatment via the Obama administration or any power elites in Congress. But this one doesn't pass the smell test.

Foxfyre,

I have studied your specific proposals to determine which of your proposals are likely to be signed and not vetoed by Obama, if the Reuplicans in 2010 win congressional majorities--but not 2/3rds majorities. I think Obama is likely to sign instead of veto only your proposals 3) and 4).

What should the American people do about a member of the federal government who is violating the Constitution?

In particular, what should the American people do about Obama who is violating the Constitution?

The inescapable truth is that if Obama is not held accountable for his vioations of the Constitution, the Constitutional Republic of the USA will probably cease to exist either under Obama or under a successor.

While Republicans advocating the impeachment and removal of Obama, will leave a large minority of Americans greatly angered, that minority is already greatly angered by the many Americans who refuse to support Obama. So why try to placate them at the cost of our republic?

We really only have two choices:
(1) continue to try and shame Obama into stopping his unlawful actions; or,
(2) work diligently to impeach and remove him.

The first choice in not achievable, because Obama would be most shamed by disserting his sponsors. The only practical way to stop Obama is impeach and remove him. Our job now is to increase the number of Americans who want Obama impeached and removed, and to elect a Congress that agrees to impeach and remove him.

Joe Biden will replace Obama after he is removed. However, Joe Biden will be sufficiently motivated by Obama's impeachment and removal to adjust his behavior to avoid providing a case for his impeachment and removal, too

not how it works. and you missed the part about indirect benefits via manipulation of the political system.

it's not really a difficult concept.

for instance; you knew that george w. bush would be less likely to raise your taxes than al gore or john kerry, right?

that lack of tax increase, and possibly tax cuts, to you would be of financial benefit, yes?

so by continuing to vote for a party or person on that basis is a rudimentary manipulation of the political system to gain financial benefit for yourself.

you don't really believe that Mr. Gotrocks sees things any differently, do you?

It's an aside, but since I actually wanted to post it already earlier ...

Here, no-one would connect 'homeless' with e.g. a psychiatric hospital (for mentally ill or similar).

If you are homeless, you get a flat in a community home.
Or you are on the road, by your own will. (You can sty over night in some homes [in larger towns/cities], have social workers at town/city halls who deal with your "stuff", get there a certain amount per day ...)

Psychiatric hospitals are for those who are send there by their doctor or via a court order. They have nothing to do with homeless people (though some patients don't have a registered address; but such happens in 'normal' hospitals as well).

Sorry for the interruption.

Government action that makes little or no sense other than as payoff is the issue. So let's focus there.

But the very fact that the administration isn't shouting from the roof tops that is is such a great deal suggests to me that they aren't all that proud of it. We have thousands of businesses in the USA who would be eager to get their hands on that cash and who would absolutely be using American products and offering Americans jobs if they had it.

The US government is out of money.

So how come we're directing billions to a project that may or may not directly benefit Americans except those Americans who happen to be invested in it?

Charge: America is exporting jobs to Brazil as a result of the loans.

Fact: Only American made goods and services qualify for Ex-Im Bank loans or guarantees. This is the government doing what it's supposed to do - helping to create U.S. jobs, making sure that Americans get a fair shot at selling goods and services, and helping American workers compete on a level playing field against foreign competition.

And you aren't willing to at least consider that it smells a bit fishy that a major investor happens to be George Soros who Obama and the Democratic Party are highly obligated to keep happy? And he just happened to adjust and increase his holdings just recently?

We have thousands of businesses in the USA who would be eager to get their hands on that cash and who would absolutely be using American products and ... .

Foxfyre,

Obamacollectivists claim their goal is to serve the common good. They may think that the same as the individual good. It is not. The common good is the same as the collective good, and the collective good is adverse to the individual good.

To serve the common good one must supress the individual good of those individuals whose lawful accomplishments and rewards exceed that of others. It leads to an equalization of the accomplishments and awards of all to that at the lowest level, thereby stifling the creativity and productivity of nearly all.

For example, attempts to serve the common good serve to increase the number of homeless by increasing obstacles to individual responsibility and accomplishment. However, attempts to serve the individual good serve to reduce the number of homeless by reducing obstacles to individual responsibility and accomplishment.

It's the difference between reducing the responsibility of the individual for his own condition--serving the common good--and increasing the responsibility of the individual for his own condition--serving the individual good.