BofA acting irresponsibly? Bunky, say it isn’t so!

Bank of America has completed a nifty little sidestep of regulations that will take advantage of the Bush-Paulson-Obama-Dodd-Frank-Bernanke approved permanent bailout option via the U.S. taxpayer. They have shifted exposure of $75 trillion dollars in derivatives into a secured deposit unit. Read the story here via Bloomberg.

Just more writing on the wall. Whatever the trigger ends up being for the next financial collapse is anyone’s guess, but what is crystal clear is the fact that the same protected people won’t take the fall. You will. So will your neighbor. And your family.

This is why you can’t elect people like Herman Cain. He fully supports the fraternity that allows our wealth to be confiscated. He should since he is one of them. His 9-9-9 plan? If that were to ever come to fruition, Cain would go down in the annals of history as the guy that introduced the greatest source of taxation drain on the U.S. economy ever. And he would do it without eliminating the 16th Amendment first! Insanity!

Sitting back and observing the folly of our legislators go ’round and ’round with the bankers they’re in bed with can be humorous. Until you realize it’s the American people that are always at the end of the line getting the shaft. Just watch and see what happens when BofA needs its next bailout. You and I will be right there for them. That includes all of you OWS people across the country who are encouraging more of the same of what got us here.

How many people bit their tongue and supported McCain? They had to because he was the anti-Obama option. Now they’ll have to do it again with Romney. How many conservatives and libertarians will say, oh well, I’ll just have to do the best I can and support Romney because anybody is better than Obama? Here is my way out on a limb prediction. The year? 2016. The landscape? SOS-DD!

Until we really get serious about change and not just making the best of things while still sticking to the framework in place, change can’t happen. I honestly don’t know if we can ever get there before it’s too late.

14 thoughts on “BofA acting irresponsibly? Bunky, say it isn’t so!”

  1. Excellent post. You know I’m a Ron Paul Supporter because as I have stated in the past he is the only candidate talking about LIBERTY! When are people going to get this? Any confiscation of your wealth whether it’s through regulation, a progressive tax code, or Herman Cain’s 999 plan is a confiscation of their personal property. I drives me absolutely nuts that people can’t or refuse to connect these dots.

  2. Ron Paul is the only candidate that knows how to save this country from repeating the same mistakes over again. I have tried to warn my readers of the economic chaos that is coming our way but very few are listening and some of the ones that have listened still won’t back Paul. It is frustrating but I will keep trying until the nomination is made.

  3. I think there is more support for Ron Paul than is reflected in the polls. But those people need to see the masses gravitating to Paul before they will come out of the closet. So they’ll hold their noses and vote for the GOP nominee.

    One X factor out there is Obamacare. Should Obama lose his mandate in the courts, Romney also loses since this was his model plan. Unfortunately, that will happen after the GOP nominee is selected.

    I’m afraid that even if people “get it”, it will be too late. What a shame. I know you’ve been pushing the message endlessly at the Sentry Journal, but it just seems like running in wet concrete as yet another election cycle is likely to go by wasted. Thanks John.

  4. You’re so right Jim. Isn’t it strange that the only candidate, bar none, that is promoting doing the things that can reverse this is the one portrayed as a fringe kook.

    Just as I said to John, you’re another blogger fighting the good fight and putting out one excellent piece after another. Yet it can seem fruitless. Even those on the right know that installing yet another establishment candidate is clearly harming this country. Yet they can’t get past it to support Ron Paul?

    Do they really think Paul can do more damage than 4 more years of Obama or Romney? Will the whole world mass their troops at our borders and overrun us the day he takes office because of his foreign policy stance? People conveniently forget that Paul is a staunch Constitutionalist and he will uphold his sworn oath to defend this country.

    I contend that any perceived “weakness” during 4 years of Ron Paul would be far less detrimental than the destruction of our country from with-in by electing more of the same. Circumstances around the globe would dictate that Paul would be involved in more places than he may hope for anyway.

    I’ll take the odds of the unknown over what we absolutely know is destroying this country any day.

  5. Maybe I’m always looking for problems. I replied to a comment from John at my place today that I wonder if Paul were some how elected, would he get the cooperation he would need from a Republican controlled House and Senate. I’m not sure he would. How sad is that?

  6. I am curious, John. How do you suppose Cain’s plan is a plan to confiscate personal property? I can understand the misgivings about the plan, since the national sales tax could be dangerous if the proper restrictions were put into place, but I can’t see it as a way to confiscate the personal property of Americans.

  7. I’ll be honest with you about Ron Paul. I like almost everything he has to say. I think he makes a lot of sense on economic and financial issues and if our government would listen more to him about those issues, we would probably be a lot better off.

    On the issue of foreign policy, he troubles me. He says he isn’t isolationist, but I think he tends to be closer to that than anything else. In the world we live in, I am not sure his beliefs on this are viable.

    I seriously considered supporting him early in the campaign, but about the time I did, he made the statement about the United States being to blame for what happened on 9/11 and he lost me.

  8. I’ll let John speak for himself Larry, but here’s my two cents. The FAIR tax is not by any stretch fair. Call it a national sales tax. Call it a VAT tax. Doesn’t matter. Look at the history of all the VAT implementations in Europe. They have all started relatively low and without fail have progressed upward from there. Realistically, what “proper restrictions” could you put into place? Anything put into place by this Congress can easily be thrown out by future sessions. And we all know the 535 in D.C. only know how to spend ever more. Federal spending has increased by one-third in just 5 years. The fact is that these spendaholics need to fuel their habit and if you give them another revenue source, what possible rationale would say they wouldn’t abuse it?

    As to personal property confiscation, I think that’s what John means by excessive taxation. Opening the pandora’s box of a national sales tax without first repealing the 16th Amendment and eliminating the income tax is folly. You’ll never put that genie back in the bottle. Ever. And I would bet anything you wish to wager that if Congress has a brand new revenue stream available to it, they will abuse it vociferously despite any intitial restrictions put into place. Thus the confiscation of your personal property. They’ll tax your income. They’ll tax your purchases. They’ll tax your investments. They’ll tax your death.

    That’s why I can’t support Cain. Not to mention his Fed ties. I know you like the guy. Virtually everybody likes the guy. But I see his plan as extremely dangerous long-term. Am I glad he has presented a plan as many bloggers have stated? Of course. Nobody likes the broad based generalities we usually get at this point so I give him props for coming out with details. But now he’s cornered. If he drops the FAIR tax leg of his 9-9-9, he loses credibility. If he modifies it to declare that it’s all predicated on repealing the 16th Amendment FIRST and switching from an income based tax system to a more broad based sales tax system , he would garner many more supporters instantly. They’d still raise the tax rate over and over again down the road, but it would be seen as more “fair”. But changing his plan at all at this stage is risky because his opponents would jump all over him for doing it.

  9. I would say easily the vast majority are troubled by his foreign policy. It’s a choice to make. Which is potentially more dangerous? Failing to address our financial and economic woes here domestically or taking a hands-off approach to global policy? Would eliminating the overseas bases and shutting off the ATM so many foreign countries have become accustomed to endanger the U.S.? How soon and to what degree? Would it be more detrimental than allowing the domestic implosion underway by both parties no matter who runs Congress or the POTUS?

    I don’t support his view on 9-1-1, but I understand what he’s saying. He believes we instigated the 9-1-1 response through our imperialistic foreign policy. No. Anyone can read what drives these fanatical extremists and see it’s their convert or die belief that is responsible for terrorist attacks like 9-1-1. Do they use our foreign policy against us? Sure. They see it as aggressive and invasive and it conveniently gives them cover for retaliation. But convert or die means they would eventually attack us anyway.

    Hate to over-simplify, but it may come down to weighing domestic v. foreign in deciding on Paul. Regardless, I still think he has no shot and this will be his last run anyway.

  10. Larry if we don’t get our financial house in order, it will matter little what position we take in regards to foreign policy because we WILL become irrelevant in the world. Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He embraces free trade with nations. Now just because he doesn’t believe that we should have a military footprint everywhere in the world or forcing our type of government down the throats of other nations doesn’t make an isolationist. I believe that is sound policy. Republicans weren’t always war mongers. We used to be the party of strong defense but with a hands of approach in terms of interfering in the affairs of other nations. And I have no doubt he would defend America if our interests or national security was threatened. The difference between him and the other candidates is he would get the permission of congress before we acted as a nation. The constitution demands this.

  11. Larry as for me, I believe that any confiscation of wealth whether through a tax code, national sales tax, or regulation should be viewed as just that, a confiscation of your personal property, because income you earn by your individual efforts is your personal property. Just because the government has created to laws to legally confiscate it doesn’t make it right. The Founders never supported the idea of a direct federal tax on our income. They too felt it was a confiscation of personally property because they believed wages earned through legal individual activity or work was in the end personal property. A sales tax is another avenue created to confiscate the personal property of each of us. I say we should be looking at repealing the 16 amendment. This would not on restore liberty but empower the individual. Any time a government can legally take your money and use it as they see fit…this include the funding of unconstitutional programs, they are in essence regulating your life through the confiscation of your property. Tell me how this is right.

  12. To be sure, we have to get our financial house in order. I completely agree with you on that. I wouldn’t have a problem voting for Ron Paul, but I do find some of his views on 9/11 disturbing. I know 5etester explained some of that in his comment above, but it still seems to me that Paul blames us for what happened that day, as much as he blames those who perpetrated the crimes.

    Concerning taxes, ie. the confiscation of personal property, you know I am in favor of lowering taxes. Just wondering though, if the 16th Amendment is repealed, how will the federal government be funded? I am not saying 9-9-9 is the answer to our problems, although I do think it merits a closer look. Restrictions would certainly have to be put into place, maybe something like a 2/3’s majority vote or something else along those lines. I’m not even suggesting that is even a viable option, but it could be considered.

  13. Larry, I think the deal breaker is repealing the 16th Amendment. Just isn’t going to happen. Yet it must to ever implement a FAIR tax . Perry’s flat tax proposal has a better chance because that can be implemented by simply modifying the existing tax structure. The rub making the rounds right now is that Cain has flip-flopped on a national sales tax because of a piece he wrote for the Daily Caller last year entitled “Don’t be VAT stupid”.

    He distinguishes the fact that the FAIR tax is different from a VAT tax. Yet his reasoning for rejecting a VAT tax seems to also apply to the FAIR tax in many respects so it is confusing to me.Either one could be put in place without repealing the 16th Amendment and that would be horrible.

Comments are closed.