Government Motors update

Search

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
well they are supposed to be the party of small government to balance the liberals that like lotso government

but they haven't done so in a long time

they just disagree over what government should do

not that they should do less

your acting like things would be alot different if mccain were prez...

whatever...

and dubya started the ball rolling with all the banking stuff so don't act like this just a obama/leftie thing

anyway this probably misplaced....but i'm just sick of seeing past dubya, neocon supporters....act like they super small government backers now that obama yo mama in control....you weren't shouting at dubya to stop his big government ways....but since this dude has a D behind his name you are now
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,117
Tokens
well they are supposed to be the party of small government to fight the increase in government size

but haven't done so in a long time

they just disagree over what government should do

not that they should do less

I concur, that's why they lost power. Their base will abandon them if they drift away.

Well, that's one of the reasons, and the war didn't help. There are others too, although I think there is little doubt as to which elected officials are more liberal.

I never once condoned the liberal policies of W, and have said on numerous occasions that he spent too much money.

Once again, I supported his pro-active stance on terror, maybe the most important issue of this decade. He also got the tax cut part right.

the most important social issue of the day, social security reform (privatization), never came up for serious debate because W lacked the political capital to win that fight. He spent it all on Iraq.

I have never once waivered from the basic fact that government fuck things up, sorry if that somehow pisses you off today.
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
I still don't understand how you think government can't handle pretty much anything....and makes matters worse....

but they can stop "terror"

how do you stop an idea....

kinda like reagan's war on drugs stuff that is a total failure

there will always be terrorists, bad guys, people doing stupid shit in any society period

all you can do is give people freedom to do as they please, a decent standard of living, and general set of rules...and chances are there will be less "terror" in that society....than one in which you try to impose force onto people and societies

you can not create a 100% safe society much like you can't create a happy blissful collectivist society

shit gonna happen you can't manage the "safety" of society from the top down....

in theory it sounds great

but in practice the steps big government takes to try to reach those goals actually have the opposite affect
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
also i like the tax part too...typical republican of today

you can't have your cake and eat it too dude

if you want to spend tons of wars...you either have to raise taxes....or find a way to cut spending.....

he did nothing...he did the liberal thing ....and all the GOP jumped for joy when the bombs were flying and we were cutting taxes

honestly cutting taxes while waging wars...is more fiscally liberal in my book than raising taxes while waging wars....if you really think that war is necessary for the long term security of our nation...at least man up and pay for it now not leave it for later generations

anyway getting way off topic here sorry....i'll stop
 

powdered milkman
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
22,984
Tokens
also i like the tax part too...typical republican of today

you can't have your cake and eat it too dude

if you want to spend tons of wars...you either have to raise taxes....or find a way to cut spending.....

He did nothing...he did the liberal thing ....and all the gop jumped for joy when the bombs were flying and we were cutting taxes

honestly cutting taxes while waging wars...is more fiscally liberal in my book than raising taxes while waging wars....if you really think that war is necessary for the long term security of our nation...at least man up and pay for it now not leave it for later generations

anyway getting way off topic here sorry....i'll stop
:103631605
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,117
Tokens
also i like the tax part too...typical republican of today

you can't have your cake and eat it too dude

if you want to spend tons of wars...you either have to raise taxes....or find a way to cut spending.....

he did nothing...he did the liberal thing ....and all the GOP jumped for joy when the bombs were flying and we were cutting taxes

honestly cutting taxes while waging wars...is more fiscally liberal in my book than raising taxes while waging wars....if you really think that war is necessary for the long term security of our nation...at least man up and pay for it now not leave it for later generations

anyway getting way off topic here sorry....i'll stop

typical out of touch response

raising taxes hurts the economy and diminishes revenues

cutting taxes, when the tax rates are too high, stimulates growth and raises revenues

case after case, time after time, state after state, one has to be kinda blind not to see it
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,117
Tokens
tizdoom, the primary function of the federal government is national defense, and the war on terror certainly falls under that definition.

who do you think should be responsible for defense? it's one of two things the feds do well.

you somehow thinking I'm being inconsistent is worth a big OMFG, are you kidding me?

:lol:
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Good to see you full o' late night spunk, HuskyFan

You receive my initially bungled snail mail yet?

-Barman very late night PPub Post (does not count towards my record)
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,117
Tokens
went to Foxwoods today and hit a great table :103631605

I'll crawl into the office by 10 or so, no AM appts.

Yes, Pony Express arrived recently. :thumbsup:

PS: glad to see you still posting
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,117
Tokens
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,117
Tokens
Being a Ron Paul Constitutional scholar Tiz, I'm surprised I have to explain to you what the Founding Fathers thought was the responsibility of the federal government.

I see an awful lot of stuff about national defense. Looks like they believed in a national infrastructure, investment in science and a postal service.

Of course, we are far from the States' Rights they envisioned, but nobody can argue they didn't think national defense was the responsibility of the federal government.
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,117
Tokens
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


----------------------------------------------------------------


I'm thinking we should just get rid of this Amendment, or maybe amend it to read


Any and all things that liberals can dream about shall be managed by Mama Obama, including, but not limited to, all commerce, ownership of assets, education, health care, retirement plans, union contracts, state budgets, banking, insurance, immigration, news coverage and all other things, tangible and intangible.
 

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
3,255
Tokens
June 3, 2009

<TABLE width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left width="80%">There Goes The Country
</TD><TD align=right> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Yesterday, after a painfully long death spiral, General Motors finally filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Oftentimes, bankruptcy portends rebirth. Unfortunately, the politically-inspired GM plan holds no such possibilities. Under the current deal, the restructuring of GM will cost taxpayers some $100 billion (after the hidden costs of interest and refinancing are included). Even then, it is highly unlikely that GM will ever be competitive or that its debts will ever be repaid. Far worse, the massive government bailout will delay rather than encourage broader economic recovery. And yet, U.S. stock markets rose on the GM announcement as if it were good news.

General Motors is but a microcosm of what most ails the U.S. economy. For decades, GM rested on its laurels. Its management yielded to innumerable, exorbitant trade union demands, passing the costs on to consumers in the form of lower quality products. The result was that higher quality foreign cars, eventually also produced domestically by American workers, severely eroded GM’s once dominant market position. The company’s autonomy was effectively extinguished by the growing debt needed to finance this downward spiral. Investors, believing that GM was “too big to fail,” continued to accept the company’s high-risk paper.

In short, GM was brought to its knees by the abuse of trade union power and management’s unwillingness to fight back.

Contrary to general belief, GM is not a huge employer. It directly employs only some 60,000 workers. This is less than one tenth of one percent of the number of Americans presently unemployed. However, its trade union pension fund is being given billions of dollars of citizens’ money and a major stake in the restructured company. Favoring GM workers over the millions of America’s unemployed is grossly inequitable. The reason, however, is found in the murky world of politics.

The United Auto Workers (UAW), GM’s primary union, was a major supporter of President Obama’s election campaign. Predictably, this Administration has moved aggressively to subsidize them. Obama has taken the position that GM workers are an ‘elite’ and entitled to privileges not afforded to other workers. If GM were any other company entering bankruptcy, many workers would have lost their jobs, pensions and health coverage. Not so under the protective blanket of Daddy Government.

In its fight for grotesque entitlements for this small, but heavily Democratic, subset of the workforce, the Administration has run roughshod over those who financed the American auto industry, even labeling some as “unpatriotic” for failing to surrender their contract rights as bondholders. The notion that these stakeholders should “cooperate” to reach an “equitable” solution ignores the free-market cooperation that led to the original, contractual agreements. If I agree to give you half of my steak in return for half of your mashed potatoes when I finish my entrée, and when I go to collect you have eaten 9/10 of your mashed potatoes, can you plead poverty? You ate the potatoes!

Aside from these considerations, the sheer logic of the deal is faulty. Has Obama ever heard of opportunity costs?

Having pursued a path to commercial failure for many decades, it is clear that GM’s management and workforce are moribund. However, the government has decided to pump massive amounts of citizens’ money into this flaccid firm, without the practical ability to change its operations. Remember, the unions put Mr. Obama in office, and this project is meant to reward them. Will he have the courage to do what a profit-seeking management couldn’t, by cutting the fat from this company? Obama now claims that a new “private sector” management team will be installed to make decisions independent of political control. This is farcical.

Economists believe that for each $1 billion spent on infrastructure projects, 35,000 wealth-generating jobs are created in the broader economy. The Administration is set on spending a minimum of $60 billion, and more likely $100 billion, to protect 60,000 workers at GM. Spent on much needed infrastructure, these same monies would create between 2.1 and 3.5 million real private sector jobs.

Furthermore, the money spent on GM represents a direct penalty against those foreign auto companies that manufacture domestically, who are fighting desperately for a piece of a decreasing market. American workers at these plants must surely feel unfairly discriminated against. Perhaps these competitors’ ownership is overseas; but, while GM was shipping its manufacturing to Canada and Mexico, these firms were expanding their operations right here in America.

The federal bailout of GM exemplifies the grossly negative impact that government intervention has on the economy. As this type of behavior becomes ever more accepted and popular (barring a major change in voter sentiment), the prospects for the U.S. dollar and American stock markets is grim. Yet, American investors are bullish on the bad news. They are reading corrupt bankruptcy proceedings and profligate spending as a sign of effective governance. This highlights how desperately most investors, indeed most Americans, are clinging to the red herrings of “hope” and “change.”

As goes GM, so goes the country.

For a more in depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar denominated investments, read Peter Schiff’s latest book "The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets".
 

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
3,255
Tokens
Tom Woods on Glenn Beck (Napolitano)


<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/DkSVox-SEuI&hl=en&fs=1& width=400 height=324 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,810
Messages
13,573,513
Members
100,875
Latest member
edukatex
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com