Dec 6, 2012 Political
Councilwoman JoAnn Watson of Detroit said that since the residents of Detroit overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in the last election he needs to provide a bailout for the city. Detroit could run out of money by the end of the year after decades of Democrat rule and liberal/progressive policies.
Typical of liberalism, the people in charge royally screwed things up and now have their hats in their hands requesting, no demanding, that Obama take money from those of us who do not live in Detroit and pay for their mismanagement. I guess since Obama bailed out the irresponsible auto makers the rest of Detroit thinks they deserve some of the pork as well.
Why is it that all across this nation the cities that are run by Democrats are in ruins? Why is it that they can’t run things and why is it they demand that the rest of us pay for their inability to do their jobs?
I know Detroit has a small tax base as people either don’t have well paying jobs (if at all) or have left but perhaps if those who live there would pay their fair share things would be a little better. You see, Watson has underpaid her property taxes by thousands of dollars for quite some time. She claims she pays her bills and that she paid what they billed her.
There was evidently some damage to her property and she said she thought that reduced her property value. The city lists her property as a vacant lot even though the house she lives in is on it. Does she expect us to believe that she looked at her assessment or property bills and thought they were correct?
Isn’t it more likely that she saw they made an error, knew she could pay it and blame them and likely not have to pay what was actually owed after the fact?
If we accept her claim as true then how is she in any way, shape or form qualified to be a part of the team that runs the city? If she can’t figure out that her bill was wrong and work to get it fixed (the ethical thing to do) then how can she look at bills and expenses for the city and know if they are correct or not?
How many other tax bills are wrong? How many, if correct, would have helped with the financial problems Detroit faces?
Most importantly, why should the rest of us send them money especially when it is obvious that they can’t manage the money they are supposed to collect?
Obama will have a second term and does not need these folks any longer so it is unclear if he will bail them out or not. It would be wrong to send them money which is probably why Obama will try it.
If he does though, I think a case could be made for impropriety. Watson said that the City voted for Obama so he owes them. She said there ought to be a quid pro quo.
If Obama bails them out, no matter the reason, it will look like he did it because they supported him. If Detroit supported Obama with the expectation of something in return and Obama gives them something for that support then it would raise red flags regarding the legality of it.
Of course, Barackey Claus gave out lots of “free” stuff in order to buy votes (ObawmahPhone!) and 51% of the voters thought that was just fine…
Never surrender, never submit.
Jun 22, 2011 Opinion
The postal service is a Constitutional item that is run by the federal government and it is run like a typical government bureaucracy, that is, there is a lot of waste and a lot of overhead and a lot of cost overrun. The kicker is that the postal service actually charges for its service and should, if run properly, be able to pay its bills. Unfortunately that is not the case. The postal service is billions in the red and has suspended its share of retirement contributions for its employees.
Will Congress and Barack Obama step in and bailout the postal service? The government already believes that it has the authority to force you to buy products. Obamacare mandates that we all buy health insurance and the Democrats stand by that generous and incorrect interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Democrats assure us that health care is unique because everyone will, at one time in their lives, enter the health care system so it is OK, according to them, to make people buy insurance.
What would stop the Democrats from making the same argument about the postal service? Everyone at one point in their lives gets some sort of mail. What would stop Congress from forcing us to use the postal service or force us to buy a certain dollar amount of postage stamps each month? Maybe Congress will decide that in order to boost postal revenue all online bill paying activities must stop and people have to mail their bills in. Maybe they will take down the email contacts for all members of Congress and make us send them letters via the postal service.
It is not unreasonable to assume that the government could force us to use the postal system citing the Commerce Clause like it did with Obamacare.
I would not put it past them to step in and screw over the taxpayers in order to make the postal service solvent.
There is nothing that prevents the government from moving the postal service to the private sector. The Constitution says Congress has the authority to establish post offices and postal roads (which actually means they don’t have to but have the power to) but it does not say that Congress (or the government) must run the post offices and postal roads. Congress could establish the post offices under the private sector and let that company compete for business against other similar services. Congress would have oversight and a portion of the revenue could go to the Treasury.
In any event, I would not put it past the Democrats and their messiah to try to bailout the postal service by putting into place policies that would force people to use the service.
Let’s face it, we are losing more and more freedom so it is not hard to imagine this taking place.
Then again, perhaps they could start reducing the number of employees, increase the amount employees contribute to their pensions, force them to pay the same rate for insurance as the rest of the federal employees (contrary to popular opinion, federal employees pay quite a bit for their health insurance), and stop delivering mail on Saturday. They could also cut the number of post offices and consolidate routes. Greater efficiency would help the bloated system to be more solvent.
Then again, why do all that when Congress could force us to use them.
Be wary. The Socialists in our government would love to intrude even more into our lives.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jun 8, 2011 Political
General Motors received a lot of money from the US taxpayer under both George Bush and Barack Obama. Despite Obama’s claims (and his fuzzy math) about car companies paying back the money, they still owe the taxpayer billions of dollars that we will likely never see. GM CEO Dan Akerson said he was grateful that the government rescued GM but wants the government out of the company in the next 6 to 12 months. Newsflash for Mr. Akerson, the government did not rescue your company, the taxpayer did through coercive tax policies that allow the government, under threat of force, to extract money from people who earn it and spend it on companies like yours. Companies that are poorly managed and spend unwisely. The taxpayer was forced to rescue your company because it was mismanaged and we had no say in the matter.
How does Mr. Akerson want to repay the taxpayer who rescued his company? He is in favor of raising the federal gas tax by as much as a dollar a gallon in order to compel people to buy more fuel efficient cars. GM just happens to make a few models of fuel efficient cars so his company will benefit from the tax increase (at least that is what he wants). What we have here is a company that was bailed out by people who are having trouble making ends meet wanting to screw those very people.
No good deed (if anyone would call bailing out a company a good deed) goes unpunished.
How are people who are having trouble making ends meet supposed to buy a new car? How will forcing them to pay more for fuel make their lives any easier when they can’t afford a new, fuel efficient car but will be forced to pay the higher fuel tax for the fuel consumed by their older cars? This takes into consideration that people still have cars in the first place. Most who still have them are probably still paying for them so they will be severely underwater if they trade in for a fuel efficient car. Those cars can run about 40,000 dollars. Those who have paid off their cars will likely pay the fuel tax rather than go into debt to save at the pump.
And what about people who have no use for the little boxes of fuel efficiency? What about those who must have SUVs and pick-up trucks? Some of us must report to work no matter what so my Jeep is a better option than a car that will not make it in the snow. When that little car can get me to work in the snow and haul 800 pounds of stuff then I will consider it. The people who must have the larger vehicles will end up paying more at the pump.
This is a fine thank you to the American taxpayer for rescuing GM. Mr. Akerson.
How about the next time you need money we just say no?
Better yet, how about we decide not to buy GM vehicles?
Never surrender, never submit.
Jun 1, 2011 Political
After George “we have to abandon capitalism to save it” Bush started lending money to companies like GM, Barack Obama took control and doubled down. He bailed out General Motors and his pals in the unions at the expense of the investors who should have been compensated first. When Obama, with his vast experience in economics, discussed the GM bailout he assured us that it was a good investment and that we would end up making money on the deal.
“American taxpayers are now positioned to recover more than my Administration invested in GM.” — President Obama, November 18, 2010.
“I think the government’s investment is well placed and I think they’ll make a lot of money.” — then Obama appointee GM C.E.O. Ed Whitacre, January 11, 2010. Pajamas Media (which links to the source articles)
It looks like that is not quite right as the same Obama who told us we would profit is now telling us that we will lose 14 BILLION dollars. That means, ladies and gentlemen, that the 50% of us who pay taxes will lose 14 BILLION dollars because Obama invested our money unwisely.
Let us break this down. Obama (following Bush) told us that GM needed to be bailed out and then he used our money to bail them out. He then told us it was a good deal and we would see a profit on our money. Now he is telling us that we will lose 14 BILLION dollars.
So somebody tell me why Bernie Madoff is in jail and Obama is not?
Will those of us who pay taxes be allowed to write off this bad investment? Can we reduce our tax burden by 20% (the percentage of our money that the government lost)?
How can anyone claim that this program was a success when it cost us 14 BILLION dollars?
How come GM is not forced to keep paying us from its profits until the debt (plus interest) is paid? How dare the Democrats cry about oil companies getting over on us when GM is bending us over big time?
GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to fail. Ford made it and is in a stronger position.
I, along with many others, will never buy a GM or Chrysler product again (which is a shame because I love my Jeep).
Perhaps this is why Obama and his toadies want to win the individual mandate case in Obamacare. If the courts rule they can force us to buy a product will it be very long before they force us to buy GM products?
Good luck with that. You will need it.
Never surrender, never submit.
May 20, 2011 Political
Thanks to US taxpayers General Motors became Government Motors as taxpayer money was used to bailout the failing auto company. It should have been allowed to fail but Barack Obama had to bail out the company in order to save his union supporters and his puppet master at union headquarters.
Barack Obama took OUR money and without our permission used it to help a failing auto company by allowing the government to become a part owner in the enterprise. This all happened as private investors were screwed over in favor of union thugs. We were told that there would be a profit for us out of this (as if those of us paying the bills would actually see any of it) but there was no profit and the government is selling its shares in the company at a loss. GM did not pay the money back as any money paid back came from stimulus money. In other words, GM took the name Government Motors seriously and paid its debt to us with money it borrowed from us.
Given all this, one would think that GM would be beholden to the US taxpayers. One would think that since our money was confiscated from us and used to keep that company from failing that we would be rewarded, not individually but as a collective. In other words, one would think that since the country did something good for GM that GM would do something good for the country.
One would be wrong for thinking that because GM has decided to spend 540 million dollars (no doubt taxpayer money) to produce two low emission motors in Mexico. The project will create (directly and indirectly) about 1000 jobs. Since 2006 GM has invested about 5 BILLION dollars in Mexico.
I would think that GM would produce the motors in the US. In fact I would require them to. As the NLRB tells Boeing where it can use ITS OWN MONEY to build planes, the government is silent about a company partly owned by taxpayers fleeing to Mexico to build its product. It is not bad enough that GM is screwing the people who saved its sorry butt but the company has been investing in Mexico, at the expense of jobs here, since 2006.
So tell me, why didn’t GM go to the Mexican government when it needed to be bailed out?
And why is the Obama regime not stopping our employees (yes people at GM, we own you and you work for us now) from going out of the country.
I think Detroit could use a new plant and the workers that come with it. I would imagine that the 5 BILLION spent in Mexico could have helped Detroit quite a bit.
Then again, Detroit is run by liberals and GM is a union company. Either is bad but combined they are a recipe for disaster and failure which is why GM needed to be bailed out and Detroit is a wasteland.
GM went from General Motors to Government Motors and now it is just Gone Mexican.
So folks, how do you feel about being taken advantage of like this?
I said it before and I will iterate it here. I will never buy a GM vehicle (and yes, I have owned GM in the past).
Heh, when Barack Obama gave us his simplistic approach to the jobs problem by telling businesses that they needed to hire I guess he forgot to tell his toadies that they needed to hire INSIDE the country…
Perhaps we should rename GM to BOHICA Motors.
Bend Over, Here It Comes Again…
And maybe their next car should be the Chevy Bolt since they bolted across the border…
Never surrender, never submit.