What's the quickest way to stifle the creativity and ingenuity required to make a business successful? Place a large chunk of the ownership in the hands of an investor who takes no part in the day to day operations of the business. How can you make that scenario even worse? Let that ownership fall into the hands of the government.
Obama backs Chrysler bankruptcy as wise move
Obama thinks it's a good idea to send Chrysler into Chapter 11 bankruptcy and let the government use $8 billion of taxpayer money to take a large financial interest in Chrysler. I feel kind of like I'm being robbed at gunpoint here (metaphorically of course). I would never, in a million years, invest my hard earned money in American car companies who are so totally controlled by unions that they are no longer competitive with foreign car manufacturers. People can complain all they want about Americans who don't buy American-made products, but I for one will spend my money on better products that happen to be cheaper. However, I don't have a choice here. Obama is taking my hard earned money and forcing me to invest in Chrysler. Just like he forced me to invest in overseas abortions. Mark my words, this will come back to bite him.
But even more intriguing is this quote from the President himself:
"No one should be confused about what a bankruptcy process means," Obama said. "This is not a sign of weakness but rather one more step on a clearly chartered path to Chrysler's revival."
Now wait a minute here. This company cannot make enough money to pay its secured creditors off, so it's filing bankruptcy so it can screw its creditors out of money rightfully belonging to them AND it's taking on $8 billion in government aid...just to live to fight another day. Mr. Obama, I'm not exactly sure what your definition of "weakness" is, but I think we have a vastly different understanding of what that term means.
Finally, Obama is blasting some of Chrysler's secured creditors for not applauding the Chapter 11 filing. He says they were "holding out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer bailout." You bet they were because that was the only way they were going to get their loans paid back. Anyone who knows anything about the bankruptcy process knows that bankruptcy creditors get pennies on the dollar for their claims...even the secured creditors. If you invested a million dollars in a company expecting to get a million and a half back after interest on your investment only to find out the company is filing bankruptcy and you're only going to get about $300,000 back, wouldn't you hold out for a better deal?
Obama is setting a very dangerous precedent in allowing the federal government to take over private companies. If these companies couldn't survive on their own, what in the world makes him think they'll survive just because their getting government funding? Weak companies fail for a reason. The wisest course of action is to let them fail allowing stronger businesses to come to the forefront.
And finally, if you believe for a second that the Obama administration is going to take a hands-off approach in this deal, you are inexplicably naive. He even said in the article that Chrysler has failed because it hasn't moved quickly enough to adapt to the future. What he means is Chrysler hasn't adopted his meaning of future which places a hefty premium on fuel efficiency. Everyone appreciates fuel efficiency but history has proven people won't buy a piece of crap just because it gets 50 mpg. If the government forces Chrysler to make cars that no one wants, this "bail out" will mean absolutely nothing and he will have wasted another $8 billion in taxpayer dollars. But hey, he does excel at wasting taxpayer dollars. It's just going to be interesting to see how he blames this one on President Bush.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
The Party of Transparency?!?
The party of transparency sure has been opaque since the democrats have taken over. President Obama campaigned vigorously on the platform that he would not hide things from the American people and his lap dogs in Congress panted their agreement during the whole process. They decried Bush's tactics of keeping national security items top secret and said the American people had the right to know what was going on. So where is all this alleged transparency? Let's take a look at just a few of major issues since the beginning of the year.
1. Democrats repeatedly met behind closed doors and prevented republican input on the gigantic stimulus bills that have passed since Obama took over. In fact, the $787 billion stimulus package was passed despite the democrats' refusal to post the plan online for the viewing public at least 48 hours prior to the vote, as they promised. Not a single member of congress had time to read the entire bill before voting on it. Doesn't seem very transparent to me.
2. President Obama recently decided to declassify top secret CIA memos outlining "enhanced interrogation techniques" under the auspices of transparency. However, former VP Dick Cheney immediately came out asking that the rest of the memos be declassified--you know, the ones that prove the techniques actually worked. Strangely, the parts of the released memos that discussed the effectiveness of the techniques were redacted due to the "normal editing process." Seriously! My guess is--and this is just a hunch--President Obama and the democrats were much more interested in villifying President Bush than being open and honest with the American people. Why else would they filter those memos for us? The former CIA director seems to agree with me, saying, “For the first time in my experience we’ve crossed the red line of properly protecting our national security in order to gain partisan political advantage.”
3. In an effort to convince the world that global warming is a fact rather than paranoid opinions at worst and paranoid theory at best, the democrats in the House are holding hearings this week on climate change. The democrats' star witness--Al Gore. Since the democrats were allowed to bring in a "star witness" it's only fair the republicans be allowed to do the same, right? Wrong! Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex) brought in a well-known global warming skeptic (Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher) from the UK to testify alongside Mr. Gore. However, as soon as Monckton's plane landed, he was informed his joint appearance invitation had been rescinded.
Mr. Obama...Democratic party...where is the transparency? What are you so scared of? How about you allow true public debate on the issues and quit hiding behind your power? If you're so interested in being so open and honest with the people, then quit lying to us and quit suppressing opposing viewpoints. As far as I can tell, there has been no constitutional amendment transforming our country into a dictatorship or tyranny. If your ideas really are best, then put them up against opposing ideas and prove it and stop being a bunch of cowards!
1. Democrats repeatedly met behind closed doors and prevented republican input on the gigantic stimulus bills that have passed since Obama took over. In fact, the $787 billion stimulus package was passed despite the democrats' refusal to post the plan online for the viewing public at least 48 hours prior to the vote, as they promised. Not a single member of congress had time to read the entire bill before voting on it. Doesn't seem very transparent to me.
2. President Obama recently decided to declassify top secret CIA memos outlining "enhanced interrogation techniques" under the auspices of transparency. However, former VP Dick Cheney immediately came out asking that the rest of the memos be declassified--you know, the ones that prove the techniques actually worked. Strangely, the parts of the released memos that discussed the effectiveness of the techniques were redacted due to the "normal editing process." Seriously! My guess is--and this is just a hunch--President Obama and the democrats were much more interested in villifying President Bush than being open and honest with the American people. Why else would they filter those memos for us? The former CIA director seems to agree with me, saying, “For the first time in my experience we’ve crossed the red line of properly protecting our national security in order to gain partisan political advantage.”
3. In an effort to convince the world that global warming is a fact rather than paranoid opinions at worst and paranoid theory at best, the democrats in the House are holding hearings this week on climate change. The democrats' star witness--Al Gore. Since the democrats were allowed to bring in a "star witness" it's only fair the republicans be allowed to do the same, right? Wrong! Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex) brought in a well-known global warming skeptic (Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher) from the UK to testify alongside Mr. Gore. However, as soon as Monckton's plane landed, he was informed his joint appearance invitation had been rescinded.
Mr. Obama...Democratic party...where is the transparency? What are you so scared of? How about you allow true public debate on the issues and quit hiding behind your power? If you're so interested in being so open and honest with the people, then quit lying to us and quit suppressing opposing viewpoints. As far as I can tell, there has been no constitutional amendment transforming our country into a dictatorship or tyranny. If your ideas really are best, then put them up against opposing ideas and prove it and stop being a bunch of cowards!
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Don't Ask If You Don't Want the Answer
My lovely wife always tells me, "don't ever ask a question you don't want the answer to." Of course, 9 times out of 10 she's talking about women who ask their husbands/boyfriends "do you think I'm fat?". But I think it applies here as well. Perez Hilton asked Miss California if she thinks all states should legalize gay marriage. She said no and he promptly called her a "dumb bitch" with "half a brain". Hey idiot, don't ask questions evoking an opinion if you think there is only one right answer. What a moron!
Our New Moral Compass
President Obama says employing the waterboarding technique on terrorists who have slaughtered thousands of innocent Americans shows we [America] have "lost our moral bearings." Does anyone else find this statement vile, repugnant, revolting (insert any other adjectives you want) coming from this man's mouth? This is the man who:
1. Is in favor of killing unborn children out of convenience. If you think he's just in favor of abortion in rape, incest and protection of the mother cases, don't forget he also said he wouldn't want his daughter punished with a baby just because of a mistake. Those aren't my words, they're his.
2. Supports same-sex marriage.
3. Attended church services under Jeremiah Wright, who for 20 years spewed hatred of Americans in general and white people in particular.
4. Has close ties to Bill Ayers who is a terrorist and makes no apologies for it.
5. Has befriended Hugo Chavez whose regime is among the world's leaders in human righs abuse and who hates America as much as any other terrorist regime out there.
I would really like to know under what definition of "morality" President Obama is operating because I am completely at a loss.
1. Is in favor of killing unborn children out of convenience. If you think he's just in favor of abortion in rape, incest and protection of the mother cases, don't forget he also said he wouldn't want his daughter punished with a baby just because of a mistake. Those aren't my words, they're his.
2. Supports same-sex marriage.
3. Attended church services under Jeremiah Wright, who for 20 years spewed hatred of Americans in general and white people in particular.
4. Has close ties to Bill Ayers who is a terrorist and makes no apologies for it.
5. Has befriended Hugo Chavez whose regime is among the world's leaders in human righs abuse and who hates America as much as any other terrorist regime out there.
I would really like to know under what definition of "morality" President Obama is operating because I am completely at a loss.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Evil Protesters
Some democrats continue to insist that the American public is incredibly stupid. Democrats go out of their way to praise certain groups when they protest certain things (Cindy Sheehan protesting the war in Iraq, John Kerry throwing back his war medals, etc.), but blast other groups when they protest governmental over-stepping.
Schakowsky: Tea parties 'despicable'
Here's the quote from Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) with my emphasis in certain places:
"The ‘tea parties’ being held today by groups of right-wing activists, and fueled by FOX News Channel, are an effort to mislead the public about the Obama economic plan that cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans and creates 3.5 million jobs," Schakowsky said in a statement.
"It’s despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt," she added. "Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year. Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians.”
Ok, let's break this down a little bit. First, the creation of 3.5 million jobs through this economic stimulus has been thoroughly debunked. Obama never said his stimulus package would "create" 3.5 million jobs. He said it would "create or save" 3.5 million jobs. He hasn't explained how in the world he will be able to prove his plan has saved jobs, but then again, it is his job to be optimistic as vaguely as possible so there's always a way out when you're wrong.
Second, she says the Tea Parties were a cheap political stunt compared to the original Boston Tea Party. My question is, what is the difference? The original tea party was a protest against the British government overstepping its authority on the tax front. The recent tea party protests are in opposition to the way the federal government is currently spending money that it has not yet raised in tax revenue. Anyone with half a brain cell can see that this borrowing and spending madness will eventually result in vastly higher taxes. Hence all the signs begging the government not to tax our children.
Third, she says this was made to look like a grassroots uprising, but was really an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests. Really? Did she go out there and ask any of those protesters if they were (a) being paid to be there by some corporate interest, or (b) being forced to be there at gun point? Why is it grassroots if you're protesting conservatism, but chaotic anarchy if your protesting liberalism? Geez!
Finally, she says not a single American family will be taxed at a higher rate THIS YEAR. Did she think we wouldn't notice those last two words? Setting aside the fact that democrats want to eliminate the tax write off for mortgage interest, eliminate or reduce the tax deduction for charitable donations, and raise taxes on every single American by instituting the cap and trade taxes on energy companies, she tacitly admits that Americans will see increases in their income taxes shortly...just not this year...at least not directly.
So Ms. Schakowsky, why don't you do us all a favor and quit protesting the protesters, go back to your cozy office on Capitol Hill and rethink your wording so people with nominal intelligence can't see right through what you're saying.
Schakowsky: Tea parties 'despicable'
Here's the quote from Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) with my emphasis in certain places:
"The ‘tea parties’ being held today by groups of right-wing activists, and fueled by FOX News Channel, are an effort to mislead the public about the Obama economic plan that cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans and creates 3.5 million jobs," Schakowsky said in a statement.
"It’s despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt," she added. "Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year. Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians.”
Ok, let's break this down a little bit. First, the creation of 3.5 million jobs through this economic stimulus has been thoroughly debunked. Obama never said his stimulus package would "create" 3.5 million jobs. He said it would "create or save" 3.5 million jobs. He hasn't explained how in the world he will be able to prove his plan has saved jobs, but then again, it is his job to be optimistic as vaguely as possible so there's always a way out when you're wrong.
Second, she says the Tea Parties were a cheap political stunt compared to the original Boston Tea Party. My question is, what is the difference? The original tea party was a protest against the British government overstepping its authority on the tax front. The recent tea party protests are in opposition to the way the federal government is currently spending money that it has not yet raised in tax revenue. Anyone with half a brain cell can see that this borrowing and spending madness will eventually result in vastly higher taxes. Hence all the signs begging the government not to tax our children.
Third, she says this was made to look like a grassroots uprising, but was really an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests. Really? Did she go out there and ask any of those protesters if they were (a) being paid to be there by some corporate interest, or (b) being forced to be there at gun point? Why is it grassroots if you're protesting conservatism, but chaotic anarchy if your protesting liberalism? Geez!
Finally, she says not a single American family will be taxed at a higher rate THIS YEAR. Did she think we wouldn't notice those last two words? Setting aside the fact that democrats want to eliminate the tax write off for mortgage interest, eliminate or reduce the tax deduction for charitable donations, and raise taxes on every single American by instituting the cap and trade taxes on energy companies, she tacitly admits that Americans will see increases in their income taxes shortly...just not this year...at least not directly.
So Ms. Schakowsky, why don't you do us all a favor and quit protesting the protesters, go back to your cozy office on Capitol Hill and rethink your wording so people with nominal intelligence can't see right through what you're saying.
Efficiently Offensive
Apparently President Obama is no longer satisfied in making single barbs at Christians and conservatives in his speeches. He has decided to become a little more efficient and start making multiple offensive remarks and gestures. Maybe that way he can cut down on the number of speeches he's required to give.
Georgetown Says It Covered Over Name of Jesus to Comply With White House Request
1. Obama goes to a Catholic school to give a speech and demands that the symbol for the name of Jesus be covered up. I'm not sure there is a universe of thought in which this makes sense. Maybe the next time he gives a speech in a Muslim community, he'll require them to remove all references to Mohammed and Allah. Let's see how that goes over.
2. After demanding the removal of the name of Jesus, he quotes Jesus completely out of context. He talks about the parable of the houses built on sand and rock and how the one built on sand will collapse, but the one built on a rock will withstand the storm. He then tells the audience that the financial system must be built on a rock in order to withstand storms like the one we're going through. Nice analogy, Mr. President, but I'm pretty sure Jesus was not at all concerned with the state of the US economy when he spoke that parable. In fact, I think He may have been referring to building our lives on the Rock of our salvation, Jesus Christ, whose name you had covered up so you could give your precious speech.
Georgetown Says It Covered Over Name of Jesus to Comply With White House Request
1. Obama goes to a Catholic school to give a speech and demands that the symbol for the name of Jesus be covered up. I'm not sure there is a universe of thought in which this makes sense. Maybe the next time he gives a speech in a Muslim community, he'll require them to remove all references to Mohammed and Allah. Let's see how that goes over.
2. After demanding the removal of the name of Jesus, he quotes Jesus completely out of context. He talks about the parable of the houses built on sand and rock and how the one built on sand will collapse, but the one built on a rock will withstand the storm. He then tells the audience that the financial system must be built on a rock in order to withstand storms like the one we're going through. Nice analogy, Mr. President, but I'm pretty sure Jesus was not at all concerned with the state of the US economy when he spoke that parable. In fact, I think He may have been referring to building our lives on the Rock of our salvation, Jesus Christ, whose name you had covered up so you could give your precious speech.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
Apparently if you disagree with higher taxes and how the government is spending your tax dollars, you are anti-government and anti-CNN. I had no idea CNN's existence was so tied to higher taxes. Interesting...
Monday, April 6, 2009
Power Hungry
Obama Wants to Control the Banks
The current administration loves it when the public is outraged over how TARP recipients spend money. It somehow convinces the people that the government is the body best equipped to run private businesses. Now that there are some responsible banks trying to pay back that loan so they can operate as they see fit, Obama doesn't want the money back. Do I need to point out just how absurd and outrageously tyrannical that is?!? How would you feel if you mailed your final mortgage payment to the bank only to find out the bank has rejected it because they would rather have your house?
Just another piece of evidence that the Obama administration wants to move us away from capitalism which incidentally has made us the greatest economic nation in the world. It's very difficult to keep your thumb on people when they are allowed to operate under free will.
The current administration loves it when the public is outraged over how TARP recipients spend money. It somehow convinces the people that the government is the body best equipped to run private businesses. Now that there are some responsible banks trying to pay back that loan so they can operate as they see fit, Obama doesn't want the money back. Do I need to point out just how absurd and outrageously tyrannical that is?!? How would you feel if you mailed your final mortgage payment to the bank only to find out the bank has rejected it because they would rather have your house?
Just another piece of evidence that the Obama administration wants to move us away from capitalism which incidentally has made us the greatest economic nation in the world. It's very difficult to keep your thumb on people when they are allowed to operate under free will.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Bonus Hypocrisy
As I was making my daily perusal of the Drudge Report, I came across the following article that struck me as odd and somewhat infuriating.
Lawmakers Have Long Rewarded Their Aides With Bonuses
For those of you who don't want to read the linked article, it talks about how congressional offices gave bonuses to staffers at the end of last year that totaled $9.1 million. On average, staffers made 17% more in the 4th quarter of last year than they made in the other 3 quarters of 2008. And, of course, like any other government expenditure, these bonuses were paid with tax dollars.
So, maybe you're thinking, big deal. $9.1 million is nowhere near the $165 million AIG paid in bonuses to its employees. Besides, AIG got us into this huge economic mess and certainly its employees do not deserve bonuses. If that were all there was to the story, maybe you would be right in thinking that. However, let's talk about what is really going on here.
First, the so-called "bonuses" paid to AIG execs were not really bonuses, but rather salary. In exchange for not jumping ship when the government took over, these men and women agreed to work for $1/year in salary. I don't know many people who can afford to live on $1/year, so in order to provide some incentive to stay in light of the unparalleled salary cut, AIG promised "bonuses" to these executives that would be paid out in installments (otherwise known as retention payments). No matter who you blame for the AIG fiasco, no one can honestly assert that every executive in that company was responsible for AIG's demise. Some people needed to stay on in order to right the ship and not many people qualified to run that company were going to leave their current job security at another company to go to AIG. Therefore, I really don't see much wrong with paying these executives these "bonuses". The other alternative is to let AIG sink into bankruptcy and start over.
Despite the above explanation, for the sake of argument, let's call the AIG payments bonuses--which brings me to my second point. People are outraged over the AIG bonuses for 2 reasons: (1) the company is a complete and utter failure and people don't deserve bonus payments for running a company into the ground, and (2) the bonuses were paid with tax dollars and these people shouldn't be getting rich off of taxpayer money. Both of these are pretty good arguments with which I would agree.
So, let's take a closer look at these congressional staffer bonuses. Does anyone happen to know what congress' approval rating was for the year 2008? Take a look at this graph from polls conducted by Gallup:
For the calendar year 2008, congress' approval rating never got above 25% and ended the year right around 20%. Since then, it has shot up to a whopping 39%, the highest it's been in 4 years. Something to be proud of...hardly! So, with a 20% approval rating ending last year, why did these staffers deserve the taxpayer-funded bonuses they received? Besides the total amount of bonus money paid, and the fact that the AIG bonuses were not on top of salary like the bonuses paid to congressional staffers were, is there really any fundamental difference between the "bonuses" paid to AIG and the bonuses paid to congressional staffers? Am I really surprised at the level of hypocrisy going on in Congress?
Just to point out one fundamental difference between the bonuses, I haven't heard any members of Congress clamoring to tax congressional staffer bonuses at 90%.
Lawmakers Have Long Rewarded Their Aides With Bonuses
For those of you who don't want to read the linked article, it talks about how congressional offices gave bonuses to staffers at the end of last year that totaled $9.1 million. On average, staffers made 17% more in the 4th quarter of last year than they made in the other 3 quarters of 2008. And, of course, like any other government expenditure, these bonuses were paid with tax dollars.
So, maybe you're thinking, big deal. $9.1 million is nowhere near the $165 million AIG paid in bonuses to its employees. Besides, AIG got us into this huge economic mess and certainly its employees do not deserve bonuses. If that were all there was to the story, maybe you would be right in thinking that. However, let's talk about what is really going on here.
First, the so-called "bonuses" paid to AIG execs were not really bonuses, but rather salary. In exchange for not jumping ship when the government took over, these men and women agreed to work for $1/year in salary. I don't know many people who can afford to live on $1/year, so in order to provide some incentive to stay in light of the unparalleled salary cut, AIG promised "bonuses" to these executives that would be paid out in installments (otherwise known as retention payments). No matter who you blame for the AIG fiasco, no one can honestly assert that every executive in that company was responsible for AIG's demise. Some people needed to stay on in order to right the ship and not many people qualified to run that company were going to leave their current job security at another company to go to AIG. Therefore, I really don't see much wrong with paying these executives these "bonuses". The other alternative is to let AIG sink into bankruptcy and start over.
Despite the above explanation, for the sake of argument, let's call the AIG payments bonuses--which brings me to my second point. People are outraged over the AIG bonuses for 2 reasons: (1) the company is a complete and utter failure and people don't deserve bonus payments for running a company into the ground, and (2) the bonuses were paid with tax dollars and these people shouldn't be getting rich off of taxpayer money. Both of these are pretty good arguments with which I would agree.
So, let's take a closer look at these congressional staffer bonuses. Does anyone happen to know what congress' approval rating was for the year 2008? Take a look at this graph from polls conducted by Gallup:
For the calendar year 2008, congress' approval rating never got above 25% and ended the year right around 20%. Since then, it has shot up to a whopping 39%, the highest it's been in 4 years. Something to be proud of...hardly! So, with a 20% approval rating ending last year, why did these staffers deserve the taxpayer-funded bonuses they received? Besides the total amount of bonus money paid, and the fact that the AIG bonuses were not on top of salary like the bonuses paid to congressional staffers were, is there really any fundamental difference between the "bonuses" paid to AIG and the bonuses paid to congressional staffers? Am I really surprised at the level of hypocrisy going on in Congress?
Just to point out one fundamental difference between the bonuses, I haven't heard any members of Congress clamoring to tax congressional staffer bonuses at 90%.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
