Hi David,
On May 13, 2009, at 7:13 PM, David R. Block wrote:
Actually, the settlement is a condition of financial aid. I'm
pretty sure you make people agree to almost anything in exchange
for money. I believe it is called capitalism. :-)
Ah, but you see, not all of them had agreed until basically
blackmailed by the administration.
It would help if you could link to some sources, as I'm not sure what
set of facts you are working from.
I guess that you can call "blackmail" an agreement if you would
like. In fact, I'm not sure that TARP called for these restrictions
in the actual law. "Agree, or we'll break both of your legs" is a
great incentive for agreement.
But that's not what happened. The automakers have *already* broken
their legs -- the government can hardly be blamed for that. The new
agreement is more like, "You must lose 50 pounds of weight before I
agree fix your broken legs". You can call that blackmail if you want,
but I call it accountability.
Best counterexample: Ford, who avoided screwing up their own business,
and thus doesn't need to deal with the strings on government money.
If the Obama was really trying to take over the auto industry, he
wouldn't have let them get away.
And why won't Obama let banks pay TARP money back?
Um, I believe some of them probably will be allowed to:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=7631418
Though some taxpayer groups think it is a better deal for us if they
don't:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/05/banks-paying-ba.html
Also, what is with forcing banks that did not need TARP money to
take it? So that he has blackmail material, of course. At least
that's how it is working. And please don't tell me that you think
that Bush had such blackmail in mind.
I agree that this part is certainly coercive. Whether it is/was
justified and/or necessary is a whole 'nother discussion. [My personal
take, it was probably necessary, but probably not justified :-].
If a Republican had done what Obama is doing with Chrysler, AIG,
and GM, there would be such shrieking, wailing and gnashing of
teeth that one could not hear themselves think.
Last I checked, Bush was the one who started bailing out AIG, no?
The only ones shrieking then was the Right -- who still are, aren't
they? So what's the difference again?
There needs to be a difference? For the life of me, I don't know
why. Evidently our concerns must be totally groundless. We can be
and are being ignored, or simply brushed aside with with the wave of
a hand. I'm glad that my congressman has voted against every piece
of this. I really need to get in the face of my "Republican"
Senators, however.
You seem to be arguing two different points, which I'm having a hard
time distinguishing:
a) This is really bad government policy
b) This is all an evil Democratic/Obama/media conspiracy
I'm willing to accept your perspective on (a), though I disagree with
it. It is your arguments on (b) that I find specious. If you want to
just drop that topic, fine with me.
Suppose that it were Apple instead of Chrysler. The same thing
should happen, right?
Again, not sure I follow you. Say that Apple had a huge network of
suppliers and retirees dependent upon it, would I prefer:
a) total collapse
b) a managed bankruptcy that allows it to restructure its business,
at the price of restrictions on executive compensation
I'd gladly choose (b).
There's more to it than what you have stated in (b). Its not JUST
restrictions on executive compensation. The government can now make
you manufacture what THEY SAY you can manufacture. You write
software that THEY SAY you can write. Say there was a union with 0
stock in the company and they get oh, 40 % of the stock, screwing
the other stockholders, be they corporate presidents or my 401K.
Ahead of the bond holders which bankruptcy law says should go FIRST.
Not simultaneously, but FIRST. Since the unions are not even
stockholders, they should get nothing according to the letter of
bankruptcy law. If they DO own stock, they should get no more than
the percentage that they already own, which I doubt is 40 %.
So whatever company stock you may have owned before, you now own
less as a percentage of the company. If you even get to keep the
same number of shares
that you had. But that's OK. Right?? At least you have a job. Maybe.
If you're lucky.
Well, yeah, bankruptcy sucks. Everyone ends up with less. Some end up
with nothing, some end up with more than their fair share, and
somebody else gets to make arbitrary decisions.
But the alternative is worse. And let's be brutally honest: they all
brought this on themselves.
When you screw your own life up, and you turn to someone else for help
-- they get to make the rules. You wouldn't be complaining if a
private equity firm had bought GM and imposed similarly draconian
rules, would you?
Obama's word is now law, it supersedes the bankruptcy law and
bankruptcy court, too, apparently. Didn't Nixon try to make his word
law? And Bill "stroke of the pen, law of the land" Clinton as well?
Now when Obama does it, silence. What Nixon actually DID must not
matter, what really matters is the political stripe of the person
doing it. Republican = Bad, Democratic = Good. Right?? That's the
lesson that I am learning. Of course, I already knew it, and have
known it for decades.
There's two very different kinds of actions. Some actions -- like
retroactively taxing bonuses -- is clearly changing the rules of the
game, and deeply unfair.
But the rest -- working on arrangements with creditors, and pressuring
people to agree to something suboptimal -- is just dealmaking. GM and
Chrysler always had the option of going into traditional bankruptcy
and ending up utterly liquidated, but didn't want to. Instead, they
threw themselves on the government's mercy. Whose fault is that?
You may well wish that the government exercised its mercy in a more
even-handed fashion, but that is the problem with mercy.
Government is evil when bond holders and executives get death
threats over LEGAL acts, largely because the President has used
the Bully Pulpit (emphasis on BULLY) to rouse the leftist rabble
into a nice little rage. Bus tours and protests at AIG Executives
homes, isn't that cute? Obama doesn't stand between them and the
pitchforks as he claims, but rather Obama ENCOURAGES the
pitchforks via ACORN and others. THAT is evil.
I would love to see you cite sources on this. Your arguments seem all
based on indirect connections, not documented actions. I haven't heard
such rhetoric directly from Obama -- more recently, it is quite the
opposite:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/18/60minutes/main4873938.shtml
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123785266231219605.html
Oh, I fully agree there is lots of ridiculous rage vented at Wall
Street -- I just think of it as populist, not Leftist:
That is my larger point. There are certainly legitimate criticisms
to make -- but all the fault is hardly on one side.
Name a right side group that has organized bus tours of AIG
executive homes. Just one. The only group I know doing it is ACORN.
If they are on the right, I will eat my shorts.
I'm certainly willing to agree that ACORN is a) slimy, and b)
leftist. However, that does NOT mean that:
i) everything that do is personally directed and approved of by Obama
ii) the outrage is purely leftist in nature
I still think -- if only from my *own* reactions -- that the outrage
existed in populist form long before that. I agree, that Left has
capitalized (and reinforced) the populist anger more effectively than
the Right. But that may be as much due to Republican incompetence as
principle; certainly, some Republicans were also very quick to jump on
the bandwagon:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20141.html
Like it or not, and you must not, Conservatives and Libertarians
are people too. I know that we are supposed to have sprouted horns
and a tail, but damn.
Huh? You of all people should know that I always try to listen to
you respectfully; I apologize if my last terse exaggerated
statement over-simplified things.
I do believe that conservatives and libertarians are right about as
often (and wrong about as often) as the liberals and socialists on
the left. Both are human, both make mistakes, both are trying to
do the right thing as best as they see it. As am I.
What I am against is the desire to over-simplify the situation to
put all the horns and tail on the *other* side, without
acknowledging our own.
I see no acknowledgment from the left that they had ANYTHING to do
with this, even though the first hint of a problem was massive
losses at Freddie and Fannie, Barney Frank's favorite campaign
contributors. Nope, it's all Bushes fault. And you are keeping with
the narrative, I see.
Huh? No, I fully agree that the government is equally as complicit as
Wall Street in this failure -- both due to perverse incentives, and
poor regulation. How is that "keeping with the narrative" that
government was in no way responsible?
In fact, I think I already said just that:
The fact of the matter is, both Wall Street *and* the Government
screwed up big time, in different ways, and are equally causes of
the crises. The painful truth is that while Wall Street may not
deserve the blame it is getting now, but they didn't really deserve
all the money and credit (literal and figurative) they were getting
before. Life is just, just not in the short term.
The flip side is that government intervention -- however
hypocritical, self-serving, and often misguided -- _does_ have a
valid place. Libertarians are so quick to say _nothing_ should or
can be done by the government, it makes it almost impossible to
discuss the actual _evidence about what government can and can't do.
Yes, let us have corrupt government intervention. Hell, they cannot
tell us where all of the TARP money has gone. And you want me to
trust them? ::rolls eyes:: Just what kind of stupid do you take me
for? :-)
The problem is that *both* Wall Street and the Government are often
corrupt and incompetent. I agree, Liberals totally gloss over the
latter, but Libertarians gloss over the former. We live in an
imperfect world.
A lot of libertarians and conservatives are comparing this
administration with Jimmy Carter. I no longer think that is
correct. The correct comparison would be with Richard Milhous
Nixon. You have the unwritten enemies list (capitalists and non-
union members) versus a written one, and using the tax code
(proposed) to limit charitable contributions (can't have the
government competing with private charity, government has to have
a monopoly) versus audits of political enemies (and that is
probably coming).
I'm sorry, as someone who is likely to be impacted by the
charitable contribution limits, I can honestly say that it won't
make a noticeable difference in how much money I give to charity.
I always thought it was the Left that felt rich people were so mean
they primarily only give money away because of the
tax deduction.
If you got any agreement with that on my part out of what I said
then I am TOTALLY mystified. (Hence, Adventures in Missing the Point.)
Then could you clarify what you meant by "using the tax code
(proposed) to limit charitable contributions". I am not aware of any
proposals to actually *limit* contributions, just reduce the
*deductibility* of contributions. Again, citing sources would be most
helpful.
That is what I mean be "selective use of data." From the way you
talk, you make it sound like everything Obama does is part of a
grand conspiracy to subvert and destroy everything good about
America. Which is pretty much _exactly_ how the Left sounded about
Bush during his presidency?
Doesn't that give you even a little pause, to find yourself
treading that same path?
It's not the same path. Nobody's hung Obama in flaming effigy yet,
haven't seen folks at conservative blogs wishing his death yet,
haven't heard him being called a "war criminal" yet (except from the
left, quelle surprise), haven't heard him called a "baby killer" for
the latest bombings in Pakistan/Afghanistan and the civilian
casualties that came with them. I have heard him called a Marxist,
because this is straight out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and
Karl Marx. THAT is truth in advertising. Calling Bush Bushhitler is
not, because they would have been jailed for saying so if he really
was.
So, you agree you are on the same path, just not nearly as far
along? ;-)
-- Ernie P.
1
David
-- Ernie P.
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
