Owning GM is troubling

On Monday it’s expected that General Motors will file for bankruptcy. In as little as 60 to 90 days, Government Motors will emerge, 72.5 percent owned by taxpayers and 17.5 percent owned by our Big Labor partners whose intransigence and greed helped to destroy the industry.

There is so much to fear about this evolving relationship between politicians, the constituencies that regard them as essential to their well-being and the private sector. The takeover of General Motors, and the temptation to use that ownership stake to pursue political agendas ­ — the elimination of big “gas-guzzling” SUVs, for example ­— is temptation social planners of the left will find irresistible. And, as with government agricultural planning and programming, every action has consequences that trigger the need for more planning and regulation. Eight decades later we still can’t get that right.
Politicians will, of necessity, wall-in America, regulating automobile, truck and parts imports so that no foreign competitor will have cost-advantage.

Walling-off America is contrary to consumer interests. Democratic constituencies like Big Labor believe, however, that we need a protectionist industrial policy that uses tariffs, quotas and other tax and regulatory barriers to keep out competition.
It’s the same argument that surrounds Wal-Mart. The left stokes the fears of mom-and-pop retailers because Wal-Mart resists unions. Without question, though, Wal-Mart competition is healthy. It allows consumers to acquire more lifestyle-enhancing goods and services.

Just as with the war on Wal-Mart, Big Labor uses an 8.9 percent unemployment rate and fear of industrial job loss to gain support for protectionist policies that are anti-consumer. Intervention in the agricultural economy in the 1930s did not stop the exodus of farm jobs and it won’t stop the effects of global competition. It just runs up the tab.

I’m a bit ashamed to say this because so many innocents among dealers and service companies stand to be harmed, but I won’t buy a car from the government.

It’s the beginning of a protectionist and social-engineering industrial policy. It cultivates a deep symbiotic relationship between government and the private sector that emasculates business as an effective counter to government excess.

At government’s best, it creates a tax and regulatory climate where a free market flourishes. Then it stands back and lets the market determine survivors.

In the emerging government-business relationship, the creativity expended to survive in a free market morphs into the quest to prosper by appeasing politicians. It can be done.
Business is not liberal or conservative. Give it a cost-plus contract or corral its competition and it’ll do whatever politicians want. Want a dozen patronage jobs at $25 an hour each? No problem, so long as business can increase its contract by $350 an hour, cost plus profit.

Give business a monopoly that effectively fixes prices and limits consumer choice, and it will build any kind of vehicle politicians want.

Business, once bought and silenced, becomes a government partner that we should fear.

U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said GM ownership puts us on “the road toward socialism” and asks “what’s the end game here and can the American people afford it?”

The end game is evident. And, no, the American people most assuredly cannot afford it.

109 comments Add your comment

Redneck Convert

May 29th, 2009
8:17 pm

Well, I’m a Ford pickup man and what GM does don’t matter to me. Long as Ford comes out with the Ford F-450 GM can make as many runt cars and trucks as they want. Or just go broke without all this guvmint help.

We wouldn’t be having all this trouble if people would just save up and pay for their own retirement. We could be rid of Social Security and pensions and Medicare and everything else. Other businesses come out with TV ads that talk about how people should save. The message is, once we’re thru with you helping us make a mint, you ought to have the decency to just die or save a bundle of money to pay for yourself, not count on us to give you a free ride for the rest of your life. That’s Free Innerprize and the way it should be. Business ain’t your Mama and Daddy. It ain’t our fault you got old and too useless to work.

That’s my opinion and it’s very true. Have a good weekend everybody.

dave

May 29th, 2009
8:33 pm

Redneck Convert- you are a “one trick pony” please find somewhere else to recite your dribble, you’re getting old, really, really old. Kind of like a three year old who only knows six words…

jt

May 29th, 2009
9:16 pm

Jim- you boast-

“but I won’t buy a car from the government.”

When it is the only car available you will.
Keep voting R & D party and that is want is going to happen.

Glenn

May 29th, 2009
9:21 pm

Owning GM is troubling. Is it really.

clyde

May 30th, 2009
5:25 am

I have never owned any part of GM until now so I guess I’m excited about it.Would I buy a GM car?Not unless it’s made by Ford.

Keep up the good work Redneck.

Get rich by shifting cost to the Government

May 30th, 2009
6:52 am

Federal takeovers of busted pension plans are soaring. In the first six months
of fiscal 2009, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. took over nearly as many plans,
with four times the number of participants, as it did in all of the previous fiscal year.
But no worries about the federal insurer itself going broke, at least not soon.
The corporation has assets of about $63 billion and foresees future obligations
in the neighborhood of $47 billion. What’s more, the PBGC has enough to pay benefits
to retirees and future retirees under pension plans it’s already taken over until 2020.
Chrysler and GM bankruptcies are being structured to keep their pension obligations
off the corporation’s books. Plus the universe of pension plans and participants
that the PBGC is liable for will shrink because no new pension plans are starting up
and more employers are shifting to defined contribution plans, such as 401(k)s.

Coplyleft

May 30th, 2009
8:48 am

My guess is that Wooten hopes his readers don’t actually know how bankruptcy works… which seems unlikely, given the low intelligence level of right-wing drones.

Of course, in ANY corporate bankruptcy proceeding, the (government) court appoints a (government) trustee to (governmentally) administer the debtor’s assets and reach (government) agreements with the creditors. So I can see why having the government involved in this GM process would be a unprecedented outrage of government interference and a mad power-grab unlike anything we’ve ever seen before in the history of mankind.

Or, y’know, not.

@@

May 30th, 2009
9:22 am

Copyleft:

Yeah, but how many of those “trustees” have environmentalists riding shotgun?

There’s the difference.

IC Atlanta

May 30th, 2009
9:29 am

Coplyleft anyone who doesn’t see anything wrong with the way the government has handled the GM bankruptcy -(Obama fires the president of GM, the unions get rights over secured creditors and now the govt will own 72% of it) either you don’t deserve the limited freedoms you enjoy today or you are a fascist.

Funny how the leftbats always accused W. and conservatives of being fascist, but the leftbats are the real fascists bent on destroying America as we knew it.

Munch

May 30th, 2009
10:07 am

The sun is shining and there are garden tools and bicycles awaiting. It’s just too darn nice out to hang around here and disabuse Wooten and the Wingnuts of everything that is wrong about their thinking on this issue. The utter lack of understanding regarding bankruptcy stipulations, the history of mgmt. / labor relations, the current union contracts, etc….. it’s just too depressing. The wingnut addiction to emotionalism over fact, to outrage over imagined slights, and to a perverse notion that anything approved by “liberals” is automatically wrong…these are the symbols of illness run berserk. Suffice to say that it largely appears as though the wingnuts have been on a steady diet of paint chips from old houses, with the inevitable dementia that goes with that.

Let the feces flinging begin.

Chris

May 30th, 2009
10:18 am

Well given that our “dear leader” will be appointing a Cybersecurity czar real soon, don’t be surprised these comments are scrunitinized to the hilt. This is especially true with “the Messiah”’s call for “Net Neutrality”, the Internet version of the “Fairness Doctrine” which is nothing more than censorship.

Our First Amendment rights are going as will the rest of our Constitution and our country as we know it. Enjoy this while we are able to.

get out much?

May 30th, 2009
11:14 am

I think a few of you have got it backwards on the socialism angle. GM went to the government asking for money (knowing there would be strings attached), not the other way around.

As for Mr. Wooten, stop it with the crocodile tears. You were banging the drum for bankruptcy from the beginning as a way to stick it to the unions. You either did not know or did not care about any of the other affected parties. Now that bankruptcy appears to be a reality, you are “suddenly concerned” about those other parties.

Simon Jester

May 30th, 2009
11:25 am

It’s not a matter of bankruptcy. It’s a matter of the government being involved. If a company can’t compete, it should go out of business. That’s the way the free market operates. If something can only exist by the government propping it up, then it should not be around. Period. No exceptions. If there is a demand for a product or service, the market will provide it. Anything else is throwing money away. It’s is not just the left wing socialist – the right wing socialists are just as bad. Same destination, just a different route.

–Simon

booger

May 30th, 2009
11:54 am

Copyleft,

I do know something about bankruptsy, and labor/mgt. relations.

To start, in bankruptcy the judicial branch of govt. directs the restructuring, not the exectutive branch. This is totally unprecedented.

Under normal bankruptcy, the Judge has never, to date, fired a CEO.

In a normal bankruptcy the judge respects the guidelines of who should recieve the spoils. A judge has never put an unsecured debt ahead of a secured debt as Obama did in giving unions [his voting base] preference over bond holders.

The decision of which dealers to be closed is a micro-management move I do not think a Judge, or his appointee would ever make.

All in all, to say this is a normal bankruptcy situation is very naive.

Chris Broe

May 30th, 2009
12:26 pm

Why free enterprise blows: Two Words: Chevy Cavalier (Ford Pinto) Dodge Dart.

Dinah Shore sang, “See the USA in your Chevrolet”. Wooten doesn’t want to see USA in his Chevrolet. He wants to take the USA out of his Chevrolet. Government Motors. Marketing ideas for Government Motors: “See the new Chevy Caucus today. Bring the wife and baby. Free Pony Rides! See the new Dodge Decider! We also have a large inventory of the Ford Filibuster. Not to mention the new Saturn Veto. We’ve got pre-owned cars too! How about a nice 2000 Supreme Court Treason? We’ve got plenty of low-mileage 2003-2009 Bush Fiascos to choose from. Surely, the 2005 GOP Shiavo Hybrid (with plug) won’t last long on our lot…… ” (I know, you get the bit).

Jklol. I only agree with Wooten to the point where it doesn’t matter who builds these cars, they will still be total POS’s. Americans can’t build reliable automobiles. Don’t know why. We build great roads and bridges. We also use the most cancer-causing new-car-smell chemicalss and our new cars smell great. Did anyone ever drive a Pinto? A Cavalier? A Dart? They smelled great, yet who but a total crankcase would have allowed those off the drawing board? America built one great car in the past 100 years: the ‘57 Chevy Bel Air Convertible.

Government Motors could match or exceed that performance.

jm

May 30th, 2009
12:31 pm

Booger, pension obligations are generally not considered “unsecured debt”.

booger

May 30th, 2009
1:16 pm

jm,

Sorry but they are unsecured. What are you suggesting they are secured with?

Bond holders invest money which is secured by the promise of a piece of the company. Pensions are merely an expense.

Also where do you think the bonding companies get their money? Much of it from pension funds of other companies and unions.

Saul Good

May 30th, 2009
1:37 pm

You Talibangelicals can keep your American made POS cars… ME? I’ll drive my Audi that has 5 star crash test ratings on every level, has a 4 cyl. turbo engine that get’s 30+ mpg…can out drive your POS truck or SUV, and even LOOKS better!

If GM made a car as well built, as safe, and had as good gas mileage as mine…I’d buy it! Yet, they are SO friggin’ behind what I own and drive that they may never catch up.

My “next” Audi…is the new one coming out…50 mpg… turbo… and again…a 5 star crash test rating.

So tell me. How is it that THEY can build cars over THERE like this… yet GM, Ford, and (what’s the name of that “other” brand made in the US) continue to build scrap metal with wheels attached?

Hey! talibangelicals…when you see the Silver Audi on the road I’m driving… wave! I’m faster, stronger, smarter, and my wife is better looking too!

See ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jm

May 30th, 2009
1:38 pm

Sorry Booger but ERISA and the Pension Protection Act say otherwise.

Caper

May 30th, 2009
2:05 pm

Bye bye GM and Chrysler. I will not be a part of the Fascist States Of America. I hate Fords, so that rules them out too. Oh well, looks like I’ll have to continue buying German and Japanese after all. I really had my eyes on the new Camaro or even the Pontiac G8. I refuse to be a part of the downfall of America under His Majesty Obama and Her Highness Pelosi. And don’t even get me started on the sardine boxes on wheels said US companies will be forced (farced?) to make. On top of that, I wouldn’t put it past these left wing liberal Demoncat fascists to FORCE us to buy one – by payroll taxes if necessary.

“Freedom Shall Reign In America!” –John Adams

Not under these fascists America voted for change for.

Speaking of His Majesty, you have to get a Royal Kick out of Obama’s apologetic response to Sotomayor’s white man comment:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Friday personally sought to deflect criticism of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who finds herself under intensifying scrutiny for saying in 2001 that a female Hispanic judge would often reach a better decision than a white male judge. “I’m sure she would have restated it,” Obama flatly told NBC News, without indicating how he knew that.

Yeah. These people on the modern left give Conservatives/Republicans the EXACT SAME cordiality of “restating” now, don’t they?

Caper

May 30th, 2009
2:06 pm

Booger – please don’t confuse the mindless Obamabots on this blog with bankruptcy facts. You’ll just make their head hurt more – which probably turned them into liberals to begin with.

Jackie

May 30th, 2009
4:02 pm

Richard Shelby (R-AL) should never speak the words “socialism” and autos!
Does he have a substantial stake in Mercedes and Kia?

booger

May 30th, 2009
5:13 pm

jm,

ERISA and the pension protection act provides for protection in the case of bankruptcy, but it does not raise them to the level of secured debt.

Caper

May 30th, 2009
5:27 pm

A liberal on this blog like Jackie whining about Shelby and Kia (et. al.) as being socialist just goes to show you the mentality of those people. You see, in a liberal mind, a tax break given by the government (state, local, or Fed for that matter) is stealing from others to redistribute it elsewhere. Please hold down the laughter, I know. Mindless emotion-driven liberals like Jackie don’t ever complain about punishing those who earn more through higher rate taxes and redistributing them elsewhere. Not that a city giving tax breaks to an auto manufacturer is stealing from people’s paychecks or anything. Yeah I know, liberals can’t comprehend such complicated things…………..

ByteMe

May 30th, 2009
5:33 pm

Booger, jm is correct: PBGC is going to make up at least some of the shortfall in the UAW pension plans that were part of Chrysler and GM contracts.

Lots of misinformation out here. What fun.

Starting with the easy one: Obama did not fire the CEO of GM. The GM board of directors did that when it became clear he had his head up his ass about surviving this crisis without government help. No “private” funding was available to them, no one wanted a piece of it; only the government was willing to step up and only for so long.

If you don’t want to see the government “own” (at least temporarily) GM, then think about what happens if you let it go completely out of business. That would be something on the order of 600,000+ people (between GM and many of its suppliers) collecting unemployment and not shopping at the local WalMart, so add at least another 2 points to the unemployment rate AND watch the recession last at least 1 quarter longer. Many of those people also own homes and use credit cards, so think about all those additional foreclosures and credit card write-offs the banks can’t afford and might destabilize them further, and extend the recession even longer. Bet you’d blame Obama for that as well.

This way, at least the government can take some time and break up and sell off (to private investors) the viable parts of GM and liquidate the non-viable parts… while keeping as many people as possible in the work force (which keeps them buying at WalMart). The intermediate steps may offend your sensibilities, but the long-term view the government is taking is the correct one.

ByteMe

May 30th, 2009
5:35 pm

Booger: and you are also correct that anything related to employment contracts is NOT considered secured debt.

Caper

May 30th, 2009
5:51 pm

Hey Byte, that was a great rant!

“Obama did not fire the CEO of GM.”

Nah, the O-Team just “asked him to step down.” That’s a FIRING in everyone else’s book who lives in the real world. Talk about misinformation.

“If you don’t want to see the government “own” (at least temporarily) GM, then think about what happens if you let it go completely out of business.”

1) Oh sure, the beloved O-Team socialists would NEVER keep control of GM, or any other corporation for that matter, that they got hold of. Uh huh.

2) GM failed because of two reasons: poor short sighted management and the greedy unions who would not offer concessions, especially those pertaining to retirement and pensions.

As for the rest of your rant, of COURSE 600,000+ GM employees being laid off with no work is not good for the economy. But, under your beloved government, when the O-Team TELLS GM what cars to build in the future, don’t scratch yourself too hard in the a-s-s when they don’t sell.

Jackie

May 30th, 2009
5:51 pm

@Caper

It appears your conservative credentials have clouded your business acumen.
A tax break given by the state of Alabama to those companies is taking money from the people giving it to the corporations. WHAT DO YOU THINK A TAX BREAK ENTRAILS?

Secondly, there is not whining on my part relative to my posting. Those facts are sitting there in your face and you have no way of extrapolating, obfuscate or conflating. It appears that YOU are the one that is whining.

You statement “Please hold down the laughter, I know. Mindless emotion-driven liberals like Jackie don’t ever complain about punishing those who earn more through higher rate taxes and redistributing them elsewhere” is an exercise in double-speak. Please read the above and tell me what the heck it means. I would be willing to wager you can not articulate that statement in a rational manner. Now, pull out your business expertise and help those of us who don’t understand.

One thing that I have observed in debating what you so-called conservatives write, is to read it carefully. I have found that you make things up because your talking points have been scrutinized and have been found to be without substance.

booger

May 30th, 2009
5:52 pm

Byte me and jm,

Pension funds are fully protected in the case of bankruptcy simply because this is money paid into a pension trust and is off the companies asset list. The trustee then hires a financial mgt. company to invest these funds.

During ideal times pensions are fully funded so a bankruptcy would not jeapordize employee pensions. In cases where a company becomes inslovent while their pension fund is underfunded, the pension benefit guarantee corporation pays the difference. This is what happened to Delta Airlines.

In the case of GM and Chrysler their pension fund was underfunded as well. Because of the fall of the stock market, this is the case with most pension funds these days. However rather than let the PBGC handle this as usual, Obama decided to give the Unions a part of these companies to make up the shortfall. This is unprecedented. This was also done before a judge was involved in diving up funds thereby moving them ahead of secured bondholders.

I had assumed both of you knew more than you do about this subject. Also this is not a political statement just an explaination of what occured.

Caper

May 30th, 2009
6:05 pm

Jackie:

“It appears your conservative credentials have clouded your business acumen.
A tax break given by the state of Alabama to those companies is taking money from the people giving it to the corporations. WHAT DO YOU THINK A TAX BREAK ENTRAILS?”

I remember you making a comment to someone here some time ago that stock holders have no say in the way a corporation runs a business. And you have the gall to talk about my business beliefs? Laughable! But, to your point here, and it is rather entertaining to say the least, exactly how do people “give” money to corporations? I invest money and buy things from corporations, but I have never “given” money to corporations in the sense that any of MY money was stolen via tax breaks to Kia (rhyme unintended).

“I have found that you make things up because your talking points have been scrutinized and have been found to be without substance.”

We live in the real world. You liberals live in the emotional world. End of story.

“Please read the above and tell me what the heck it means. I would be willing to wager you can not articulate that statement in a rational manner.”

Read it, AGAIN:

You see, in a liberal mind, a tax break given by the government (state, local, or Fed for that matter) is stealing from others to redistribute it elsewhere.

My original statement, AGAIN:

Mindless emotion-driven liberals like Jackie don’t ever complain about punishing those who earn more through higher rate taxes and redistributing them elsewhere….

Clue: “It” and “them” are MONEY.

“I have found that you make things up because your talking points have been scrutinized and have been found to be without substance.”

And I half expected a mindless liberal like you to call me full one of these: 1) hate, or 2) anger.

Caper

May 30th, 2009
6:12 pm

Obama in L.A.: ‘You ain’t seen nothing yet’

Yeah, you can say that again:

“The celebrity dinner, which cost couples $30,400 to attend, was followed by a larger, lower-dollar concert that all told raised between $3 million and $4 million for the Democratic National Committee (DNC).”

Imagine the outrage if Bush had a fundraiser with the GOP like this. Pathetically hypocritical doesn’t even BEGIN to describe this administration, let alone the mindless sheep who support it.

Caper

May 30th, 2009
6:15 pm

Want some more Obamabot Administration brilliance? This one is from Obama’s “Green Guru.” Home boy thinks we should all paint our roofs white to stop global warming. Kid you not. How come that’s not *racist* anyway? Sometimes you just have to sit back and laugh at the idiocy of liberalism.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:33PM BST 27 May 2009

Professor Steven Chu, the US Energy Secretary, said the unusual proposal would mean homes in hot countries would save energy and money on air conditioning by deflecting the sun’s rays.

More pale surfaces could also slow global warming by reflecting heat into space rather than allowing it to be absorbed by dark surfaces where it is trapped by greenhouse gases and increases temperatures.

n a wide-ranging discussion at the three-day Nobel laureate Symposium in London, the Professor described climate change as a “crisis situation”, and called for a whole host of measures to be introduced, from promoting energy efficiency to renewable energy such as wind, wave and solar.

The Nobel Prize-winning physicist said the US was not considering any large scale “geo-engineering” projects where science is used to reverse global warming, but was in favour of “white roofs everywhere”.

Caper

May 30th, 2009
6:21 pm

The Tax Man Cometh! This time, in the form of a national sales tax. How the hell else do you expect the Obamabots to pay for socialism and their record deficit spending?

Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
Levy Viewed as Way to Reduce Deficits, Fund Health Reform

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 27, 2009

With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.

Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax — called a value-added tax, or VAT — has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.

At a White House conference earlier this year on the government’s budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama’s policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.

“There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform,” Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. “I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table.”

A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American — a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.

Jackie

May 30th, 2009
6:48 pm

@Caper,

Stockholders of a corporation do not have a “vote” in making business decisions in corporations. Stockholders like you and I usually own common stock and we are allowed to attend stockholder meetings and listen what the board of directors and management decisions.

Now, laugh at that, if you can?

As for the points I made relative to your questions, your repost does not offer anything that comes close to articulating your thoughts. Again, your attempt at conflation DOES NOT WORK!

Your contention concerning a tax break given by the electorate to corporations severely undermines your argument. Tax breaks are a redistribution of wealth from the people to the corporations, plain and simple.

I do not have to inject anything into my statements to support the point(s) I am making concerning your argument. Careful reading of what you say allows one to make a value judgment, don’t you think?

Poor Richard

May 30th, 2009
7:34 pm

Caper

May 30th, 2009
7:58 pm

Jackie:

“Stockholders like you and I usually own common stock and we are allowed to attend stockholder meetings and listen what the board of directors and management decisions.”

You are very feeble then to just sit back and let others control your life. Hence, that explains why you are a liberal. On the other hand, there are those who decide to make things happen for themselves, especially leaders in stock holder groups who call a meeting and have a proxy vote on a major issue. I’ve been involved with three of them.

“Now, laugh at that, if you can?”

I”m not laughing AT you, liberal. Why do you liberals take things so personal anyway?

“Again, your attempt at conflation DOES NOT WORK!”

Exhibit A:

You liberals whine about tax breaks being “given” to the rich as income redistribution (IE: stolen from the poor).

Exhibit B:

You liberals whine about tax breaks being “given” to the corporations as income redistribution (IE: stolen from the poor).

Exhibit C:

You liberals never whine about progressively taxing for income redistribution of wealth on those who are in the top tier of income.

How much clearer do I have to be?

“Tax breaks are a redistribution of wealth from the people to the corporations, plain and simple.”

You sit there and tell me that I am not making my case when YOU YOURSELF can’t even state HOW a person PAYS a corporation? For the SECOND time now, Jackie, how do people PAY a corporation other than the two instances I provided earlier?

You can’t worm your way out of this one, liberal, and I’ve got all night.

Linville

May 30th, 2009
8:57 pm

Caper,

We just went through 8 years of insane GOP spending. Now we’re goearing up for 8 years of insane Democratic spending. You may like the purpose of spending more or less depending on which side of the aisle you prefer, but those guys in DC are spendaholics.

So, do you want more taxes or more deficit?

If they’re not going to stop spending—and they’re not, I vote for the taxes. We’ll eventually get tired of the taxes and revolt on the pols. With deficits we don’t feel the pain. No one will wake up to the problem until our kids take over. That may be too late, they’ll be working for the Chinese.

Caper

May 30th, 2009
9:31 pm

Linville:

Yep, and the GOP got the jackboot, didn’t they? Now whatever happened to Pelosi’s “Drain The Swamp” of corruption and out of control spending? Yep, out of the frying pan, and into the fryer.

Insofar as your comment about more taxes or more deficit, why won’t they stop spending? Because people like you continue to put them in office and mindlessly obey them without even a whimper of dissent. I don’t have any faith in our kids either, because as the AJC so proudly reported today, kids have to celebrate being homeless – you know, the REAL important stuff in life that advances this nation and all that.

Caper

May 30th, 2009
9:36 pm

Let me clarify that comment about the kids: they are learning how to live like the homeless as part of some sort of liberal enlightenment project. Yeah, we’re going to REALLY kick some Chinese and Indian tail youth learning how to bum some spare change. Sheesh.

CommunistAJC

May 30th, 2009
9:56 pm

Liberals are nothing more than Marxist scum bags. IE: Jackie, Munch and Copyleft

The Russians have warned us. This is further proof that Obama Hussein is a communist.

American capitalism gone with a whimper

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their “right” to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our “democracy”. Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different “branches and denominations” were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the “winning” side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the “winning” side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America’s short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

CommunistAJC

May 30th, 2009
9:57 pm

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama’s command that GM’s (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of “pure” free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a “bold” move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK’s Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our “wise” Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper…but a “freeman” whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set “fair” maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin

The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina

SOMALIDAWG

May 30th, 2009
10:01 pm

و از دید حیثیت و حقوق با هم برابرند، همه دارای اندیشه و وجدان هستند و باید در برابر یکدیگر با روح برادری When women vote, communism come.

Linville

May 30th, 2009
10:09 pm

Caper,

If the decision is to vote or not I’ll do my responsibility and vote. Unfortunately, voting is a lot like many of the decisions you have to make lately: which one is the least miserable? I’m all for sending a message to DC that we need smarts, integrity and change. But the choices haven’t been great lately. My general voting philosopy lately is to vote so that one party doesn’t have both the White House and the Congress. Maybe they can do less damage that way.

As far as kids, I have two. 22 and 25. Both went way off the ranch-doesn’t fall far from the tree–but they’re in college, working and doing well now. They’re moderates on social issues but pretty conservative on economics and the world. They see what we’re saddling them with. Conversations around here are pretty interesting, they’re very informed on what’s going on and don’t like a lot of it.

I don’t like that we’re saddling those two with all this debt.

So, you can tell me I’m an idiot for voting R and D but the fact is that’s what we’ll get no matter what you do. They’re going to spend money, no matter how stupid you and I think it is. We HAVE to pay for it. It’s the only way to make America wake up.

Linville

May 30th, 2009
10:24 pm

By the way, I’m with you on Pelosi. She’s way too much of a dogmatic liberal. I did vote for Obama. I’m not like a lot of people who think he’s a far left liberal. He does have a social agenda but some of it is good…assuming that Washington could even a half-a@s job of executing something domestic.

If you want to change Washington force a balanced budget amendment. That wouldn’t stop them from spending, but it would force the pols to face the anger that paying for it would generate. Tea parties are nothing compared to what paying the price would do. We’d change our voting habits pretty quickly. Not that there’s a chance of that really happening.

By the way, if we’re going to raise taxes we should tax gas and have a VAT. It is regressive, but it does counter wealth distribution. A regressive tax that’s to pay for education and health care is fair since everyone uses the services. Raising income taxes would mean that the better off pay all the costs. In addition, we’ll use less gas, which has good benefits, and we’d tax imports legally, which would be good for US business.

Caper

May 30th, 2009
11:00 pm

Linville:

Well thought out points. I don’t agree with them all, especially the “they HAVE to spend” part, but overall, this is what America is about. Our Founding Fathers bickered back and forth during the development and founding of this nation. I believe we can do the same and move this nation forward.

Jackie

May 30th, 2009
11:23 pm

@Communist

It is better to be thought of as… than to open ones mouth and prove everyone wrong!

What campus was your work at Duke done? My cousin was at Duke approximately the same time as you. I will be willing to wager you were not there.

Why is it you have such difficulty in remembering what campus the majority of your work was done? I still think it was on the campus at Butner!

Jackie

May 30th, 2009
11:29 pm

@Caper

Still obfuscating. You and I both know that you can put together any proxy fight that you choose with the corporation. You and I both know that you can not direct the company decisions. If you don’t believe me, check with Kirk Kerkorian! If you have preferred stock, you have SOME leverage; common stock only offers you the privilege of owning a piece of the company.

Your exhibits are not proof of anything.

Jackie

May 30th, 2009
11:33 pm

@Caper

Corporations are paid from sales of goods and services. When one purchases stocks, bonds and other financial instruments, THEY ARE MAKING LOANS TO THE ENTITY. It is basic contract law.

Chew on that.

Linville

May 31st, 2009
12:05 am

Caper,

I didn’t say “they HAVE to spend”, I said they’re going to spend–whether we like it or not. I said “we HAVE to pay”. If we don’t, more deficit.

Caper

May 31st, 2009
12:32 am

Jackie:

“Your exhibits are not proof of anything.”

My EXPERIENCES are what they are.

“Corporations are paid from sales of goods and services. When one purchases stocks, bonds and other financial instruments, THEY ARE MAKING LOANS TO THE ENTITY. It is basic contract law.”

AGAIN, tell me where everyone PAYS a corporation. You FAIL to answer what you have posted earlier. Don’t spin your wheels more, you are already in over your unused head.

“Chew on that.”

I’d suggest you have TEETH before even debating anything with me. Oh wait, what was your point again liberal?