GM Means Gone Mexican
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…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Detroit Deserves To Waste Taxpayer Money
Apr 13, 2011 Political
Councilwoman JoAnn Watson of Detroit is saying that the city deserves (get that, deserves) a bailout at least as big as the one GM received. This is, of course, assuming you think GM deserved to be bailed out. Conservatives believe that GM and any other company that could not make it should be left to fail. Some other entity can then come in and take the failure’s place. Watson is a liberal, in a liberal city, that has been run into the ground by liberals and now she wants the American taxpayer to foot the bill.
Why should Detroit get any money from people who do not live there and who do not visit there? Why does Detroit DESERVE bailout money?
Why would we give that city our money just so it could spend it on the failed liberal policies that got it in the mess in the first place?
Detroit deserves better leadership and it deserves people who can run a city without running it into the ground. Watson is a typical liberal. Promise the world to people until a majority of them depend on government (and the producers leave) to exist and then beg for someone to bail them out when the policies fail.
How about Detroit revamp its tax system and entice businesses to move there and invest instead of begging taxpayers from across the nation to foot the bill for policies that guarantee poverty?
And while she is at it perhaps she can tap some of Detroit’s rich alumni** and ask them for the money?
One thing is certain, the taxpayer should not foot the bill for Detroit or any other city (or state) whether they think they deserve it or not.
**Not everyone on this list is rich but quite a few are.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: bailout, detroit, failed policies, joann watson, liberals, taxpayer
Obama Supporters Deserve The Money
Feb 12, 2010 Political
Barack Obama and his Democrats took over where George Bush left off and bailed out banks and other financial institutions to the tune of billions of dollars. These entities were “too big to fail” and were spared the consequences of their bad decisions, decisions fueled by greed. Fueled by greed and knowledge that they would be bailed out if they made bad mistakes.
The financial giants reap huge rewards when they make investments and then get taxpayer money to save them when they gamble and lose. Ann Coulter has a great piece this week laying this all out. In it she describes what happened with regard to Goldman Sachs and other institutions that packaged bad loans and then insured them through AIG which could not cover the losses. Taxpayers bailed out AIG which was the same as bailing out Goldman.
During all of this, Obama went on the blame the bankers tour and discussed the greedy guys and how their salaries needed to be capped. There were tours by the homes of AIG executives, Congress worked on legislation taxing bonuses at 90% and the citizens of America were worked into a frenzy over the greedy bankers.
But these people helped put Obama in office. Obama received huge sums of money from the financial industry and they have been friends of the Democrats for a long time (as Coulter points out, Clinton bailed them out during his presidency). So it came as no surprise this week that Obama said he did not begrudge the bonuses of savvy bankers (particularly the ones who are his supporters):
Whatever Obama has in mind for punishing the financial industry, I promise you, he won’t punish his friends. After JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon took a $17 million bonus this week, and Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein got a $9 million bonus, Obama said he didn’t begrudge them their bonuses, saying, “I know both those guys.” Ann Coulter Human Events
What happened to people not getting huge bonuses? What happened to Barney Frank and his desire to cap salaries and bonuses of all of them even if they took no TARP money? What happened to the outrage generated by Obama and his minions over these greedy bankers?
I have no problem with bankers (or any private business people) making huge sums of money for doing a good job and I have no problem with huge bonuses. I did not have trouble with the AIG bonuses particularly because the Obama administration knew about them and people worked for a dollar a year in salary on the promise of the bonuses (which the administration then reneged on). I also have no problem with a business failing if it can’t make money and that includes financial giants and auto makers. If they can’t cut it then they can fail.
However, I am not the one who ran around whipping the country into a frenzy over greedy bankers. How dare Obama call these people greedy and rail against them last year and then step up to defend their huge bonuses this year? How can he do this and remain consistent?
He can’t, but he does not have to. If he says it is good his base will blindly follow. They will ignore Obama’s words and deeds of the past and focus on what the messiah says now. They will not draw the connection between Obama and the campaign dollars he gets from these people.
When Obama said he knows these people he meant the bankers but it could apply to his base.
Interestingly, David Reilly at Bloomberg has a piece that basically says Obama needs to man up and knock a few heads to show people who is in charge (note to Reilly, coequal means that he is not in charge of Congress). He writes about several issues which are better saved for another time but he does address financial regulation. Reilly spells out a number of tactics that Obama can use to threaten the banking industry into submission. The tactics look like something one would expect from Tony Soprano and not the leader of the US but Reilly is encouraging the kinds of tactics the left would scream fascist or Nazi over if a Republican did them.
The government owes the private sector about 7 trillion dollars. Suppose the banks called those markers all at once? Suppose the banks stopped lending for a week. I imagine if they tried hard they could send the economy in the Great Depression range so perhaps the mafia style tactics would be a poor idea.
Then again, Reilly is like typical supporters who decry strong-arm politics when Republicans use them but espouse them in order to push the Democrat agenda. This is typical of the left and we see it in Congress whenever they are in charge. We can’t knock heads of terrorists or it is torture but we can do what we want to those who oppose us…
I think the hypocrisy of Obma has been exposed in the past and it is very clear in his latest support of the huge bonuses. I also think we have a number of leftists in the media calling for him to get tough because they are worried about a Palin presidency.
Whether she will run or not or could even win is not the point.
Just the idea of that drives liberals and the progressives nuts.
And that is a joy to see.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: aig, ann coulter, bailout, bonuses, goldman, hypocrisy, Obama, savvy
Taxpayers Will Get Screwed On Auto Maker Loans
May 19, 2009 Political
Just Like I said they would
I wrote before that the bailout of the major auto makers was only going to delay the inevitable and that they would eventually file for bankruptcy. I also wrote that when they filed for bankruptcy the bailout money they received would be lost forever because they would not have to pay it back. This was one of my arguments against bailing out any of them. It would appear as if I was right on the money.
GM is filing for bankruptcy and it hopes to sell off part of the company to a company that was owned, for a brief time, by the government. The plan will call for GM to give stakes in the new company to the union and the bondholders.
When a company files for bankruptcy it is supposed to reorganize and figure a way to restructure debt in order to pay creditors. Some of GM’s assets will stay in bankruptcy in order to satisfy any outstanding claims, except those of the US taxpayer. GM will not have to pay back most of the 15.4 BILLION dollars in loans it received from taxpayers because the government will forgive the loans. The US government is awfully generous with OUR money.
In addition, the government would extend a credit line to the new company and forgive the bulk of the $15.4 billion in emergency loans that the U.S. has already provided to GM, the source said. al-Reuters
In addition to forgiving the loans the government will extend a line of credit to GM. How nice, we will let them spend more of our money on credit. How long will it be before that is forgiven as well?
The government is supposed to be good stewards with our money. The taxpayer was forced to hand money over to GM and we should be protected. Those in private industry who invested in GM should take a hit before taxpayers because they had a choice and invested in order to make money. Their gamble did not pay off.
The government had no right to spend OUR money on a private company to begin with. They did so under the guise of it being a loan that would be repaid. Now the government is kissing that money goodbye. We have no chance now of ever getting it back, just as I stated. The Socialist government gave the unions and bondholders a 15.4 BILLION dollar gift because they get part of the company but will not be saddled with the debt the company incurred.
This should disgust everyone. I would like to see all incumbents voted out of office but at the very least every person who voted for the bailouts should be sent packing. People, this is 15.4 BILLION dollars of your money that the government decided to “forgive.” Do you suppose they will forgive your tax bill when it comes due?
As for GM, I will NEVER buy a GM product. I had stated before that I would not buy from a company that received bailout money and I will never buy from one that is owned by the union. I will certainly not buy from any company that raped the US taxpayer. Boycott GM and put them out of business.
Ford did not take bailout money. It pains me that Chrysler did because I own a Jeep and had planned on buying another in a few years (assuming you can still get them after the CAFE and global warming stupidity is added on) but now I will need to find another SUV.
Maybe someone will buy Jeep from Chrysler…
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: bailout, forgiven debt, gm, taxpayer
Chains You Can Believe In
Apr 5, 2009 Political
There is no doubt among those of us with brains that Barack Obama is moving us toward Socialism. As part of that effort he is working toward government having a hand in business so that government can tell business what to do, how much to pay, and who needs to be fired. We have seen ALL of this already.
I have made it clear that government has no business getting involved in business but there is a little problem and that is the bailout money. Obama and the Congress are setting conditions that were not in place when bailout funds were distributed. They failed to have restrictions or conditions when the money went out so they added them later. This is a violation of the Constitution and needs to be stopped.
One other problem is that some financial institutions took bailout money because they were forced to by the government. There were plenty that wanted nothing to do with it but they were FORCED by the US government. Now they are stuck with the same rules that those who wanted the money must endure.
Well why don’t they just pay the money back?
That is the problem. Stuart Varney is reporting that the Obama administration is refusing to take back TARP money and Varney asks and answers this question; “So why no cheering as the cash comes back?”
Varney reports that financial institutions that want to pay back the TARP money are not being allowed to do so. That’s right folks, those who took the money (many who were forced) are not being allowed to pay it back. Why would the government not want the money to come back in? The answer is very simple and Varney nails it:
My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell ’em what to do. Control. Direct. Command. Wall Street Journal
The government wants control. It is that simple and it is a necessary element in order to have Socialism. The government wants control. Say it over and over until you understand it. The government wants control.
The government is using the manufactured crisis in order to gain control over larger parts of our society and it is giving up our sovereignty to the rest of the world. Obama bows to Kings and Obama has allowed foreign countries to decide executive pay of US companies to oversee “Corporate Social Responsibility.” According to Dick Morris our Declaration of Independence was repealed on 2 April 2009 by Barack Obama at the G-20.
Corporations have no social responsibility. They have a responsibility to their stockholders. It is not up to companies to ensure people can afford products or that they are available to everyone. Companies are in business to MAKE MONEY, not run welfare clinics. Companies who took TARP money (or had it forced upon them) have obligations so long as they hold the money. The US is refusing to take it back so that it can continue to exercise control over those companies.
It is time for the companies to contact the government and tell Obama that the money is ready to be repaid and if it is not accepted by the government the debt will be considered forgiven and the company no longer accountable for it. Then the companies should do what they want and tell the federal government to piss off.
The idea that there is some social responsibility is what drives Obama and his Socialist buddies. They believe that the producers are responsible for providing to the looters. There is no doubt that this mentality was ingrained long ago when he was a dope smoking teen in whatever nation his parents decided he belonged. Obama was the beneficiary of affirmative action, of handouts, of his hatred of whites and the exploitation by them (read his book). It is only natural that he would think that he is the one to make the achievers give to the looters. Who is John Galt?
Obama wants everyone under the thumb of oppression. He wants everyone to be sunject to the whims of the federal government at all times. He wants people unable to do anything without the government mandating it and he wants those who achieve to pay for it.
What will happen if all the companies just stop? The ILLEGALS get together once a year and riot, uh, protest their conditions and they do it on May Day, which is a Communist holiday. They think they can shut down the country by not working for a day.
The true achievers could. If we all decided not to work or shop for one day the revenues would stop. If businesses decide to stop dealing in the US then it will get worse. At some point we will have more looters than providers. As Margaret Thatcher once said; “Socialism is great until the other guy’s money runs out.”
Then what happens?
In any event, Obama and the US government are not taking back the TARP funds because they want to keep their hooks in the financial institutions. They want to make more rules that are burdensome and require some sort of social responsibility, the same kind that started this mess (regardless what the lefties say).
Rahm Emanuel said not to let a crisis go to waste (even a manufactured one). It would appear that this is the case in their financial dealings as well. It is well known that Democrats got rich driving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground. It is well known that Democrats benefit from Wall Street political donations and it is well known that some of those hedge funds were run by Democrats (Chelsea Clinton got a job at one as a favor). They all became rich driving companies into the ground.
Now there is word that some of the Obama minions have become wealthy as a result of dealings with TARP recipients. Never let a good crisis go to waste especially when you manufactured it or caused it, take you pick.
The Democrats, with King Hussein at the helm, are looking to take over and rule the country under Socialism. They are following Alinsky’s rules to take over and people are sitting back and letting them. Pretty soon we will all be completely under the thumb of oppression.
Chains you can believe in. (Thanks Angel for that title)
Certainly chains that will be hard to unshackle.
Related:
Axelrod makes millions
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: bailout, crimes, Obama, oppression, socialist, stuart varney, take over, TARP