Rick Archer wrote: > An old friend of mine who votes Republican sent me the following comments. > They sound reasonable, but I'd like to hear a rebuttal, which I'm not > qualified to offer. Anyone here? I'm probably not as much of a political wonk as some folks here. Some folks here like many boomers may have been "social sciences" majors in college because that was a popular major at the time especially if one had no idea what they wanted to do when they went out into the world.
One thing I'm listening too are warning from the left not to jump into bed with conservatives because right now views might be overlapping. I'm not too sure about that as some economic problems may not be partisan at all but the solutions may be. > > > Briefly: > > > > 1. Companies that fail should go into Chapter 11 bankruptcy and reorganize. > That's what it's for. Lots of companies do that. The only reason the auto > companies are being proped up is because of the UAW. There are millions of > hard working, tax paying citizens who are now subsidizing autoworkers who > make far more than they do. In this case "the poor are subsidizing the > rich." Probably like you I was a member of the American Federation of Musicians. It was a friggin' joke. The guys who represented us were washed up musicians who wanted to feel important carrying around briefcases. The union was slow to recognize new business models. It was set up to supply theaters with orchestras and be a clearing house for musicians to staff them. They were still stuck in that mode when theater orchestras went away and combos became the norm in night clubs and casual gigs. So I'm not all that hep about supporting the UAW. It could go away and with a little government help in skills transposition could find new and maybe even more rewarding income revenue. Bill Gates is no conservative but he pointed out if the auto companies were worth anything somebody (like Gates?) would be buying them. They blew it! Their marketing departments shoved big gas hogs down the throats of Americans rather than going the European route. Now I recognize that some people may have bought those big hogs because they wanted to be "safe" on the road. Safe against what? I don't care how well built their van is, in a tangle with big Mac truck they'll lose. So yes it was better that the auto companies fail. Otherwise give the company over to the union members to run. That has happened in other countries. Ask your friend about that solution. It is probably too leftist for him but a good argument. Again these companies really are too big to fail. They could also be broken up. Detroit these days assembles cars. The parts come from vendors. The day of the big company is over. Remember MMY's cultural integrity talks? That was a good idea. Imagine if different regions were developing different products for those regions. What a more diverse and interesting place it would be. That lack of diversification struck home when I went on TTC in France and saw sadly how it was beginning to look about the same as the US. > > > > > 2. The banks are not too big to fail. File Chapter 11. The goverment paid > way too much for AIG and now owns 80% of the company. Several of the big > banks were forced to take the bail out money even though they didn't want > it. Do you really think the Federal Goverment can do a better job running > these companies? They can't even do their own job and now they want to tell > everyone else how to theirs. Again, if a company screws up they should be > punished by letting them fail. If you got bailed out no matter how badly > you did your job would you really care if you screwed up or not? > Chapter 11 is one. Another is to break them up. Again too big to fail? Break it up. Th recent "60 Minutes" report on the FDIC was very enlightening. In the case of the bank failure they covered it seemed management was too lame to find a buyer and the FDIC did. Also the head of the FDIC said said she felt many businesses are too large and should be broken up. And that produces more jobs too. > > > 3. We are rewarding incompetance and punishing success. There are lots of > good banks who are now being forced by the government into paying more fees > to prop up the bad banks. This results in higher interest rates and fees > from the banks and credit card companies. > Fie on this argument. Go look at where taxes hikes kick in. So of the folks here have already posted on that. I just got a $99 hike in my property taxes. My god! I'm going to have to sell the house and leave California! Not! That's less than $10 extra on my monthly payment. From here on out though I'll be damn vigilant about county policies and what fat cat gets a big contracts by bribing local officials. Likewise those who have been successful won't probably even notice the hike. I would prefer the Eisenhower rates though of 91% (for people earning over a million dollars at the time) because it kept unscrupulous people gaining power through their wealth. > > > 4. We are taking from the productive at all levels and giving it to the > unproductive. Work and production are being punished. This ultimately will > result in less production and a lower standard of living for all. Why bust > your ass when all your efforts are taxed to the point of absurdity? Obama > now want to even tax employees health insurance. This will make workers pay > thousands more per year in taxes. > Work is not the purpose of life. Besides what does productivity matter when you have no customers? Blow his mind by telling him you are in favor of giving everyone a stipend. He'll argue that is socialism but what can you do when the world is this populated? There will never be enough jobs for everyone and there are shit jobs that belong being done by robots not humans because they are too demeaning and stressful. And because of lack of customers some companies around here have cut back to 3 day work weeks. And use the 25% of resources against 7% of the population argument too. We don't deserve that inflated standard of life we had. It was superfluous and wasteful. We'll be paying for that for years. IMO, a humbling crash, even though painful for those attached to their material possessions, would be healthy for this country and would more quickly correct the excesses of the past. > > > 5. Obama's policies will result in lower productivity, lower wages, lower > GDP and higher inflation -- stagflation, just like under Carter. > What he is saying is he won't be able to get filthy rich under Obama. With these people that's what it is really about. He doesn't give a shit about the public just himself. So these types are arguing in populist words for their own benefit. That is unless he is only superficially conservative and only throwing someone else's talking points at you. I have a friend this way who I often de-construct those points. In reality he is a lot more liberal than he thinks. And often misinformed. He recently told me that stores wouldn't be able to sell LCD TVs unless they were ecologically friendly starting next month due to a bill that was passed here in California. No, the actual bill does not go into effect until 2011. And besides companies have been working on "green" or "Energy Star" TVs for several years and some are already on the market. No big deal. > > > 6. When things get tough the Federal Government always starts trade > protection -- ala the Mexican truck deal. Now Mexico is retaliating and > we're all going to lose jobs and pay more. Buy American clauses in all the > bail outs are counterproductive -- just like the Smoot Hawley Act that was > one of the biggest factors that caused the Depression. They also raised > taxes so high back then that companies just threw up their hands and closed > up shop. > > What about China's tariffs? Or even Mexico's? He's listening to Rush's talking points. You need to go grab the left's talking points. Places like www.thomhartmann.com might be a good place to start. So called "conservatives" or even "libertarians" are easy to trump with a little homework. > > > That's it in a nut shell. > > > > >
