Some time ago I wrote of Obama's attitude toward people who take their fiscal responsibilities seriously—punishingly tax them into oblivion to support those who don't or won't accept their own responsibilities. Goodbye middle class. The same destructive approach is now being used against big financial companies.
Under the Obama plan, big companies like Citi and Goldman Sachs would not be forbidden; instead they would be regulated so strictly it would be a disadvantage to be a big company. The Federal Reserve would be in charge of the scrutiny. We've already seen how incompetently the fed protected us from the current financial crisis. Why should we expect more now?
What's really interesting, however, is the Administration's explanation of the plans. They will not forbid; they will just make existence inordinately complex and expensive so that the big companies cannot or will not expand.
“Without banning them, we're providing some pretty heavy penalties for entering the top group of institutions that could pose a risk to the entire financial system,” said Diana Farrell, deputy director of the White House's National Economic Council.
“The regulator might say to a large institution,’ Make sure there is very good reason to get that big, or that interconnected, or that complex because the penalties will wipe out any advantages, such as lower cost of capital, you might have,'” she said.
So much for the free enterprise system. So much for capitalism. Say goodbye to risk taking too. What would be the point of investing in a company threatened with severe penalties if it grows too big (and successful)? It would be like buying a Pontiac today. Would you really trust mechanical and parts support from a government-owned car company that will no longer manufacture Pontiacs? Buyers beware!
Think of the regulator. Who will decide on the new rules of the road for these companies? Upon what economic theories will decisions be based? Where is the threshold over which no company may cross? Will there exist the same “moving barrier” that was erected for the banks to hurdle in the shape of “tests” the government devised? Are we dealing with economic laws or social engineering? In the end, the Obama administration is protecting one entity—itself. It cannot be blamed for destroying these financial behemoths. In less refined parlance, that's called CYA.
There's such a predictable pattern to Obama's programs.
1 Replace private business with a government entity or
Create or extend a governmental hierarchy to oversee this entity
2 Develop punitive and expensive regulations to weaken private industry or
Make sure the government entity appears more attractive than the private entity
3 Over time observe the private business' inability to sustain itself and fail
4 Socialize the industry
We've seen the pattern in the banking industry where the government would not accept loan re-payment thereby keeping banks under the government's spreading thumb. Then “tests” were developed to check on each bank's success. When too many passed, new tests were developed.
We've seen the pattern in the auto industry where unions were mollified and Fiat was the winner. Bondholders were shown that the rule of law only applies when the Administration needs it. We will see how government-backed GMAC does as prime lender to the industry, and we'll see if the auto company can turn a profit on its own. We'll also see if the jobs lost by dealers, and the dealerships lost by the community (and collateral damage to other business in the community) will be replaced in the new economic structure.
In Healthcare, we'll have to watch as care is rationed, private insurers go under, those offering their employees benefits are penalized in some fashion, and employee benefits are taxed.
We better wake up. We better get in touch with our representatives and wake them up. We better do this before it's too late.
Technorati Tags:
Obama, banks, finances, economy, politics, commentary, opinion, politicians, socialism, government ownership, auto industry, GM, Chrysler, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Federal Reserve, Fiat, GMAC
Showing posts with label "Recovery" "Stimulus". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "Recovery" "Stimulus". Show all posts
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Saturday, June 13, 2009
OBAMA, CHRYSLER, & THE UAW--A MARRIAGE MADE IN A BACK ROOM
The United Auto Workers Union sent an interesting letter to its members explaining the results of the Chrysler bankruptcy.
The letter should also be interesting to those of us who foot the bill. Remember, too, that the GUARANTEED BONDHOLDERS (in Delaware where Chrysler is headquartered, bankruptcy law dictates that bondholders receive their money first) investers representing pension funds, etc.--received less than $.25 on their dollar.
The union said that under the plan, they saved the hourly wage, the pension plan, and the health benefits members enjoyed. Unexplained but mentioned in the letter was that they had agreed to a way to slow foreign competition. The letter listed China (huh?) and other countries--like Japan, I guess.
Yesterday the press did report that the UAW did make MAJOR concessions: they gave up two paid holidays, one being the Monday after Easter. They will no longer be paid for unused vacation time; THEY WILL JUST HAVE TO USE ALL THEIR VACATION. Boo Hoo. They agreed not to strike until 2015.
Why would they strike? They own a huge share of the company and would be striking against themselves. Picture negotiations. The negotiators come with two hats and change them each time they leap across the table to participate, sometimes as an owner, sometimes as a union worker. Negotiations could be very tiring and only fit for the athletically strong.
It's nice to know how well the union has been paid by the Obama administration for its support and how in-the-pocket union members are for the next presidential election. They more than balance out the screwed over bond holders whose guaranteed bonds really were TOXIC PAPER.
politics politicians opinion commentary Obama Chrysler UAW "auto+industry" auto "auto+bailout" bailout bankruptcy "auto+reorganization" nationalization bondholders Delaware "bankruptcy+law" vacation health "health+benefits" Easter holidays strike "Not+with+a+Whimper" marriage pension Technorati Tags:
politics politicians opinion commentary Obama Chrysler UAW "auto+industry" auto "auto+bailout" bailout bankruptcy "auto+reorganization" nationalization bondholders Delaware "bankruptcy+law" vacation health "health+benefits" Easter holidays strike "Not+with+a+Whimper" marriage pension
Monday, March 2, 2009
$410 BILLION IN PORK--BUT NOT EVERYONE IS GRABBING. FIND OUT WHO ISN'T CHASING PIG
Listen carefully folks. While you’re drowning on CHANGE (and this you can believe in), and you hope someone comes to the rescue, you better pray it’s your audiologist and your old English teacher. You’ve got to parse every word you hear from our government officials or you won’t know where you’ve sprung a leak in your savings, your future, and your children’s future. Remember that this “mandate” we keep hearing of came about with a 52% win of the popular vote. That number doesn’t become a synonym for landslide!
This monumental budget President Obama introduced will help him keep his campaign promises by plunging us into inconceivable debt. This budget was ready to present last summer (with Obama’s co-sponsored earmarks; see http://a-big-bang.blogspot.com/2009/02/obama-removes-his-name-from-pork-barrel.html ), but Nancy Pelosi held it up waiting for the new administration. The result of all this spending will be that the middle class, which really came into existence after the Second World War, will be destroyed by tax increases. Maybe income taxes will rise “slightly” (depending on your definition of the word “slightly”), but we will be taxed in other ways—energy usage, loss of deductions for mortgage insurance, charitable donations, etc. The net result will be higher costs for everything!
I’m not surprised about the charitable donation change. When the numbers came out during the election, I was shocked to learn that I donated a higher percentage of my income than Barak Obama—and to a wider range of charities. Joe Biden’s charitable contributions were at best negligible. How telling. These are people who eschew personal responsibility toward others. They are not their brother’s keepers. They want government to take the responsibility. Scary. They’ll decide to whom we should be charitable.
Chuck Schumer says the American people “don’t care” about earmarks—those little bits of personal vote-buying tidbits officials bring home and hand out to thankful donors. It’s a perverted pay it forward: government to representative, representative to businessman, etc.
I can’t totally blame Democrats for the 9,000 pieces of pork, earmarks, special projects or whatever the name of choice is these days. The Democrats account for 60% of the barrel. The Republicans get 40%. So much for principle. But I listened to the President’s campaign speech when he said he was going to get rid of earmarks. I watched the President’s budget speech. I heard him say there were no earmarks in this budget, and I watched Pelosi, sitting behind him, break into that stiff botox-driven grin. They really do think we’re stupid. And some of us obviously are!
Those non-existent pieces of pork will cost us $410 billion. That's a lot of something for nothing! LOL I guess that number is considered inconsequential these days when our President pooh-poohs things that cost trillions. But the dollar I don’t contribute to the government is the dollar I get to keep, and $410 billion in a country with a population somewhat over 300 million means I get to hold on to some dollars for which I worked. I like that idea! Too bad my holding on to MY money doesn’t seem important to President Obama.
There is still some integrity in Congress. There are some Congressmen and Senators who do not take pork. This year all were Republican except for four Democrats who stood up to the broken campaign promise.
The people with anti-pork barrel integrity are (and not in any particular order): Flake, Boehner, Cantor, Campbell, Nunes, Westmorland, Kline, McCoud, Jones, Hensarling, McHenry, Foxx, Burton, Price Shadegg, Ryan Pitts, Jenkins, Lance, Pence, Chaffetz, Cooper, Waxman, Hunter, Rooney, McClintock, Coffman, DeMint, Coburn, Feingold, McCaskell, Burr, and McCain. That’s all, folks.
Kudos to these representatives. Go online and email them. Thank them for their integrity. Maybe if they know we know of and appreciate the right thing….
Know, too, that Rep. Jeff Flake (R. AZ) attempted to introduce a measure to have the House Ethics Committee investigate the relationship between earmarks and contributions. His measure was tabled—in other words, killed. All but two Republicans and 17 Democrats voted for the measure.
Terrible, huh? But what did you expect?
This monumental budget President Obama introduced will help him keep his campaign promises by plunging us into inconceivable debt. This budget was ready to present last summer (with Obama’s co-sponsored earmarks; see http://a-big-bang.blogspot.com/2009/02/obama-removes-his-name-from-pork-barrel.html ), but Nancy Pelosi held it up waiting for the new administration. The result of all this spending will be that the middle class, which really came into existence after the Second World War, will be destroyed by tax increases. Maybe income taxes will rise “slightly” (depending on your definition of the word “slightly”), but we will be taxed in other ways—energy usage, loss of deductions for mortgage insurance, charitable donations, etc. The net result will be higher costs for everything!
I’m not surprised about the charitable donation change. When the numbers came out during the election, I was shocked to learn that I donated a higher percentage of my income than Barak Obama—and to a wider range of charities. Joe Biden’s charitable contributions were at best negligible. How telling. These are people who eschew personal responsibility toward others. They are not their brother’s keepers. They want government to take the responsibility. Scary. They’ll decide to whom we should be charitable.
Chuck Schumer says the American people “don’t care” about earmarks—those little bits of personal vote-buying tidbits officials bring home and hand out to thankful donors. It’s a perverted pay it forward: government to representative, representative to businessman, etc.
I can’t totally blame Democrats for the 9,000 pieces of pork, earmarks, special projects or whatever the name of choice is these days. The Democrats account for 60% of the barrel. The Republicans get 40%. So much for principle. But I listened to the President’s campaign speech when he said he was going to get rid of earmarks. I watched the President’s budget speech. I heard him say there were no earmarks in this budget, and I watched Pelosi, sitting behind him, break into that stiff botox-driven grin. They really do think we’re stupid. And some of us obviously are!
Those non-existent pieces of pork will cost us $410 billion. That's a lot of something for nothing! LOL I guess that number is considered inconsequential these days when our President pooh-poohs things that cost trillions. But the dollar I don’t contribute to the government is the dollar I get to keep, and $410 billion in a country with a population somewhat over 300 million means I get to hold on to some dollars for which I worked. I like that idea! Too bad my holding on to MY money doesn’t seem important to President Obama.
There is still some integrity in Congress. There are some Congressmen and Senators who do not take pork. This year all were Republican except for four Democrats who stood up to the broken campaign promise.
The people with anti-pork barrel integrity are (and not in any particular order): Flake, Boehner, Cantor, Campbell, Nunes, Westmorland, Kline, McCoud, Jones, Hensarling, McHenry, Foxx, Burton, Price Shadegg, Ryan Pitts, Jenkins, Lance, Pence, Chaffetz, Cooper, Waxman, Hunter, Rooney, McClintock, Coffman, DeMint, Coburn, Feingold, McCaskell, Burr, and McCain. That’s all, folks.
Kudos to these representatives. Go online and email them. Thank them for their integrity. Maybe if they know we know of and appreciate the right thing….
Know, too, that Rep. Jeff Flake (R. AZ) attempted to introduce a measure to have the House Ethics Committee investigate the relationship between earmarks and contributions. His measure was tabled—in other words, killed. All but two Republicans and 17 Democrats voted for the measure.
Terrible, huh? But what did you expect?
politics opinion politicians Obama Congress taxes stimulus recovery pork earmarks ethics Pelosi budget Flake Boenher Cantor Campbell Nunes Westmoreland Kline McCaul Janes Hensarling McHenry Jenkins Lance Hunter Rooney McClintock Coffman Foxx Price Ryan Burton shadegg Pitts DeMint Coburn Feingold McCaskill Burr McCain
Friday, February 27, 2009
OBAMA REMOVES HIS NAME FROM THE PORK BARREL
A quick point.
politics opinion Obama taxes budget Biden Republicans Democrats money pork earmarks
Of the 9,000 pieces of pork thrown in the budget--60% Democrat (oink, oink, Joe Biden) and 40% Republican (did you leave your principles at the door?)--the ones co-sponsored by then-Senator Obama have lost one sponsor. Obama's name, which appeared many times over, has been removed from all the legislation. His name has been removed; the pork remains under the aegis of others. Hmmmmm Nothing like trust, transparency, hope and change.
What did you expect?
politics opinion Obama taxes budget Biden Republicans Democrats money pork earmarks
REAL IDENTITY THEFT! TAXPAYER MONEY TO PAY CREDIT CARD BILLS???!!!
You can’t make this stuff up.
In Houston, the mayor proposed taking taxpayer money to pay off the credit card debt of individuals so that they could up their credit scores thus enabling them to qualify for mortgages. Apparently governments all over have caught the Obama bug and in their delusional state have come to see the taxpayers’ money as their own to hand out to whomever they choose.
In this case, up to $3,000 would go to pay off credit card debt or loans such as car loans. No matter that these people got themselves into credit score trouble buying things they couldn’t afford or buying that nice, big SUV or, since this is Texas, a truck instead of a Ford Focus. There’s the rest of us to bail them out. We can just cut back on our own spending, despite the fact that we are living within our means and paying our bills on time.
In America, apparently, paying your bills on time is definitely un-American.
Here’s the link to the Houston Chronicle article when this bill was billed. Read it and weep.
politics opinion taxes Texas Houston debt "credit+cards" stimulus recovery Obama
Thursday, February 26, 2009
OMIGOSH-WE'VE ELECTED A POSTER BOY
We’ve elected a Poster Boy. President Obama cannot make the switch from candidate to President. He runs around the country giving campaign speeches, scaring the daylights out of people, harking back to President Bush just in case there is a single citizen left who might blame Congress (in particular Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) for the problems we’re in. His gloom and doom approach puts the public in a depressed panic, and he suggests irreversibility if the country does not follow his lead.
The odd thing about going along with him is that he hasn’t led. The pork filled, non-stimulus, attack on the working middle-class bill wasn’t constructed by him. It is a Pelosi-Reid production loaded with the left-leaning ideology-driven programs they couldn’t pass as individual bills. Admittedly not one member of Congress—in either House—read the stimulus (now renamed Recovery) before they voted. The President, insisting on its immediate signing in order to avoid imminent disaster, headed to Chicago for the weekend without reading it, and in a campaign (oops) stop several days later at an RV factory town, signed it into law. (This self-same president who wants us to be wary of our gasoline usage makes his pitch in an RV factory town? Hmmmm)
During the election, if one didn’t vote for Obama, you were branded a racist. Now, if you don’t blindly follow—and it’s got to be blind since no one who gave us this humongous bill read it—you’re not supportive. If you don’t go along, you’re the enemy. I haven’t heard one ad hominem attack on Obama—a Democratic staple for President Bush—but the Obama groupies continue to attack with name-calling and demonization of people who don’t agree with President Obama’s direction.
What we are still getting from President Obama is a windstorm of hot air. No specifics. No HOWs. In his forthcoming 3.5 Trillion Dollar budget, he announced some cuts in the millions of dollars. That’s supposed to be impressive? But even as I watched him deliver this retooling of the budget part of his speech to Congress, he made sure to call the accounting of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars “dishonest” and continue to slam President Bush several times. OHHHH Obama is grand at this!
Our “recovery” bill is loaded with pork. What part of the pig will show up in the budget? We’ve already seen him break promises about bringing lobbyists into his administration; we’ve already seen a cabinet filled with tax cheats; we’re hearing Obama-speak about nationalizing banks. Today Congress worked on the Fairness Doctrine, though they’re not calling it that. The Omnibus bill adds another 450 billion in handouts. Gotta listen very carefully to this guy because we need to know the meaning of “is.”
The odd thing about going along with him is that he hasn’t led. The pork filled, non-stimulus, attack on the working middle-class bill wasn’t constructed by him. It is a Pelosi-Reid production loaded with the left-leaning ideology-driven programs they couldn’t pass as individual bills. Admittedly not one member of Congress—in either House—read the stimulus (now renamed Recovery) before they voted. The President, insisting on its immediate signing in order to avoid imminent disaster, headed to Chicago for the weekend without reading it, and in a campaign (oops) stop several days later at an RV factory town, signed it into law. (This self-same president who wants us to be wary of our gasoline usage makes his pitch in an RV factory town? Hmmmm)
During the election, if one didn’t vote for Obama, you were branded a racist. Now, if you don’t blindly follow—and it’s got to be blind since no one who gave us this humongous bill read it—you’re not supportive. If you don’t go along, you’re the enemy. I haven’t heard one ad hominem attack on Obama—a Democratic staple for President Bush—but the Obama groupies continue to attack with name-calling and demonization of people who don’t agree with President Obama’s direction.
What we are still getting from President Obama is a windstorm of hot air. No specifics. No HOWs. In his forthcoming 3.5 Trillion Dollar budget, he announced some cuts in the millions of dollars. That’s supposed to be impressive? But even as I watched him deliver this retooling of the budget part of his speech to Congress, he made sure to call the accounting of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars “dishonest” and continue to slam President Bush several times. OHHHH Obama is grand at this!
Our “recovery” bill is loaded with pork. What part of the pig will show up in the budget? We’ve already seen him break promises about bringing lobbyists into his administration; we’ve already seen a cabinet filled with tax cheats; we’re hearing Obama-speak about nationalizing banks. Today Congress worked on the Fairness Doctrine, though they’re not calling it that. The Omnibus bill adds another 450 billion in handouts. Gotta listen very carefully to this guy because we need to know the meaning of “is.”
Obama politics opinion government stimulus recovery money budget Pelosi Reid Frank Dodd taxes deficit president Congress nationalization Bush "Fairness+Doctrine"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
