Obama has to be one of the most power hungry politicians in recent history.  In his stort time as communist-in-chief, he has managed to shove government right into private business.

Obama has made the CEO of GM leave by threatening to withhold federal money, so basically Obama is manipulating companies to bend to his demands.  

"In this context, my administration will offer General Motors adequate working capital over the next 60 days.  And during this time, my team will be working closely with GM to produce a better business plan."

Ah, so the community organizer is going to write business plans now.  First the banks, now the auto industry.....what's next?

Are you really comfortable with the way this government is headed?

 

 


Comments (Page 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Mar 31, 2009

This seems relatively apropos here.

it's only recently (during your dialogue with cikomyr, to be exact), i've realized you and i share even one more common sentiment: we both seem equally entrhalled by the pithy observations of our great nation by citizens of our neighbor to the north (by which i mean neither nevada nor oregon)>

on Apr 01, 2009

Glad to know somebody follows a link now and then.

A citizen of Canadia, to be sure, but lives in New Hampshire (Live Free or Die).  I can only assume he's a legal alien.

on Apr 01, 2009

A citizen of Canadia, to be sure, but lives in New Hampshire (Live Free or Die).

seeing as how cikomyr's remained at home while steyn doesn't seem to be in any rush to switch citizenship, i'm inclined to allow cik more cred. 

dunno if you do any cable slumming but i recently caught an spisode of bio's "parole board"--clearly it's been in reruns for years--which sorta contradicted that whole life free or die thing if you happen to be bipolar and former state atty general with kleptomanic tendencies and a vindictive soon-to-be-ex wife, a former escort service entrepreneur or a former military sergeant who claims to have been tryin to scare kids away by flashin them.  

the hooker and the former atty general were granted parole but a happy ending was marred by an epilogue note informing us the klepto had his revoked before release when they caught him stealing a prison computer.  fortunately the flasher appeared to be goin nowhere for at least a few more years.

on Apr 01, 2009

Zoologist03

Well once again, this is why federal money shouldn't be given to the auto industry in the first place. Now it's being used as an excuse to have even more government control over business.
They would've tanked without it.  So does it really matter?  Either they don't exist or it's an experiment in a government run automobile industry.

Now if they start taking over food distribution...we might want to worry a bit.

~Zoo

 

so your fine using your tax dollars to run a area that the gov has no buesness being in?  let em tank. I rather have em tank than become a money pit like they already have

on Apr 01, 2009

dunno if you do any cable slumming but i recently caught an spisode of bio's "parole board"--clearly it's been in reruns for years--which sorta contradicted that whole life free or die thing if you happen to be bipolar and former state atty general with kleptomanic tendencies and a vindictive soon-to-be-ex wife, a former escort service entrepreneur or a former military sergeant who claims to have been tryin to scare kids away by flashin them.

Now THAT's entertainment.

on Apr 01, 2009

You've probably seen this, kb, but so should others.  Either hysterically pathetic or pathetically hysterical - not sure which.

on Apr 01, 2009

The President has no business doing this

Maybe he feels, like most people, that he shouldn't just write a blank cheque to the motor industry so that the hopeless chief execs of that company can go and throw the money away and then come back for more? The most alarming thing I find about your post is the presumption that the car makers deserve this money - "Obama has made the CEO of GM leave by threatening to withhold federal money, so basically Obama is manipulating companies to bend to his demands." - this isn't the car makers money, this is the government's money, taxpayers money, our money. Companies should have no right to it, and if they do get offered some, the government should feel free to set whatever terms it wants to go with that money. If the company doesn't like those terms, it can go find it's money somewhere else.

on Apr 01, 2009

The most alarming thing I find about your post is the presumption that the car makers deserve this money - "Obama has made the CEO of GM leave by threatening to withhold federal money, so basically Obama is manipulating companies to bend to his demands." - this isn't the car makers money, this is the government's money, taxpayers money, our money. Companies should have no right to it, and if they do get offered some, the government should feel free to set whatever terms it wants to go with that money. If the company doesn't like those terms, it can go find it's money somewhere else.

Assuming this isn't just his idea of an April Fool's joke, mark the date, folks - aeortar and I agree 99%*.

 

*Government money = taxpayer money.  For purposes of today's celebration, the redundancy's a minor quibble.

on Apr 01, 2009

aeortar

The President has no business doing this
Maybe he feels, like most people, that he shouldn't just write a blank cheque to the motor industry so that the hopeless chief execs of that company can go and throw the money away and then come back for more? The most alarming thing I find about your post is the presumption that the car makers deserve this money - "Obama has made the CEO of GM leave by threatening to withhold federal money, so basically Obama is manipulating companies to bend to his demands." - this isn't the car makers money, this is the government's money, taxpayers money, our money. Companies should have no right to it, and if they do get offered some, the government should feel free to set whatever terms it wants to go with that money. If the company doesn't like those terms, it can go find it's money somewhere else.

 

the problem is I dont want gov running any knod of comany. For petes sake they cant even run themselves right and now your going to have em run banks and now the auto industry??!

on Apr 01, 2009

1.  The companies have no business being bailed out by us (except through bankruptcy).

2.  The government has no business running businesses.  It's the worst Board of Directors conceivable.

3.  If a business borrows, or accepts money, from the government, it can expect conditions & meddling.

4.  The government has no business, as a means of exploiting #3, forcing any business to take any unwanted government money.

on Apr 01, 2009

1. The companies have no business being bailed out by us (except through bankruptcy).

2. The government has no business running businesses. It's the worst Board of Directors conceivable.

3. If a business borrows, or accepts money, from the government, it can expect conditions & meddling.

4. The government has no business, as a means of exploiting #3, forcing any business to take any unwanted government money.
I could not agree srongly enough to this.

on Apr 02, 2009

Do any Obama supporters have anything to say about the Constitutionality of what Obama, Pelosi and Reid are doing?  Or does that matter to any of you?

on Apr 02, 2009

they cant even run themselves right and now your going to have em run banks and now the auto industry?

They've not been bailed out (yet), so they'd probably do a better job. Also I'd have them not bail the companies out at all, and just let them fail. However if they were to bail the companies out, I'd have them at the very least force out the people at those companies who got it into such a bad situation as opposed to just handing the money over.

More concerning to me is the clear failure being demonstrated by the traditional capitalist framework of the separation of ownership and control - why have shareholders not forced out their failing chief execs themselves without needing prompting from the government? Government control may not be perfect, but clearly neither is your typical corporation.

on Apr 02, 2009

Do any Obama supporters have anything to say about the Constitutionality of what Obama, Pelosi and Reid are doing? Or does that matter to any of you?

apparently you musta missed my comment #15 in the thread of your own hystrionic post entitled something like "dictator obama forces ceo out of office" (a gross distortion of fact since obama did not send in troops to keep watch while the guy packed up his desk and then escort him off the premises or force him to do anything whatsoever; apparently you confuse "force" with "offering a conditional choice"--a distinction very clear to anyone who's actually been fired or laid off in the real world).

in any event, here's what i posted there:

where were you when our most recent president and vice-president regularly assumed to themselves all kinda power to do stuff based on yoo/gonzales assertions that anything the executive does is legal by virtue of it being done by the executive?

are you ready to repeal the taft-hartley act (which grants the president considerably more and broader power to interfere with private commerce in the interest of the nation's economy)?

for that matter, were you as outraged about nixon imposing wage and price freezes?

 

on Apr 02, 2009

for that matter, were you as outraged about nixon imposing wage and price freezes?

I sure as hell was.  Others may be TFY to remember.

4 Pages1 2 3 4