Giving Government More Control Wrong
By the News-RegisterHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are wasting no time in their campaign to impose even more socialism on the American economy. Having already extended Washington's grasp into financial institutions, they want to move on to the automobile industry.
Pelosi and Reid are insisting that part of the $700 billion approved for a bailout of financial institutions should go to Ford, General Motors and Chrysler instead. In exchange, Congress would gain more power over the industry.
The $700 billion bailout bill - actually costing much more than that because of "sweeteners" added to it, along with hidden costs - demands that some financial institutions receiving aid provide ownership stakes to the government. Government ownership of an allegedly private business is blatant socialism.
Apparently Pelosi, Reid and company want a more back-door approach to the auto industry. Strings attached to help for it would be more specific but no less binding than direct government ownership stakes.
Many of the industry's problems were created by Washington. Fuel economy and safety mandates make it more difficult for the companies to make cars American consumers want. Encouragement for many years of unrealistic, expensive union contracts helped to place a big burden on the firms' financial viability.
Of course, the automakers themselves dug much of the deep pit in which they now find themselves.
What is the solution to their dilemma? We don't know - but we do know that the Pelosi-Reid approach is not constructive. It would merely give the auto makers short-term help in exchange for more government meddling - of the type that helped to create the meltdown.
Facebook
MySpace
Digg
Stumble
Mixx
Fark
del.icio.us
LiveSpaces
|
Russell1959
|
|
|---|---|
|
11-16-08 3:17 PM
|
and let me guess when bush referred to his bas as the haves and the have mores.., the elite...that he was speaking abour joe the frigging plumber? or joe six pack..?
|
|
navyvet
|
|
|
11-15-08 1:46 AM
|
Russell1959: "Would you be nervous speaking before a crowd of 15-20 thousand?" My answer is no. I have not spoken before that large of an audience, but have addressed an audience of 300-900. As to the part of your post that implies that my opinion of Obama was formulated by watching Fox News???? Well, I don't know whether to take offense, or be dumbfounded. I form my opinion based not on what I hear through the news, but by reading, observing and listening. I don't put much weight on what a politican says, for they will promise the moon in order to get elected. By the way body language is action. i.e., movement. Obama an elitest? One could conclude from his statement before a San Franciso audience earlier this year that he certainly sounded like one. You know: "The people of small town America clings to their guns and bibles". He certainly didn't speak those words before an averag joe audience.
|
|
navyvet
|
|
|
11-15-08 1:46 AM
|
Russell1959: "Would you be nervous speaking before a crowd of 15-20 thousand?" My answer is no. I have not spoken before that large of an audience, but have addressed an audience of 300-900. As to the part of your post that implies that my opinion of Obama was formulated by watching Fox News???? Well, I don't know whether to take offense, or be dumbfounded. I form my opinion based not on what I hear through the news, but by reading, observing and listening. I don't put much weight on what a politican says, for they will promise the moon in order to get elected. By the way body language is action. i.e., movement. Obama an elitest? One could conclude from his statement before a San Franciso audience earlier this year that he certainly sounded like one. You know: "The people of small town America clings to their guns and bibles". He certainly didn't speak those words before an averag joe audience.
|
|
navyvet
|
|
|
11-15-08 1:46 AM
|
Russell1959: "Would you be nervous speaking before a crowd of 15-20 thousand?" My answer is no. I have not spoken before that large of an audience, but have addressed an audience of 300-900. As to the part of your post that implies that my opinion of Obama was formulated by watching Fox News???? Well, I don't know whether to take offense, or be dumbfounded. I form my opinion based not on what I hear through the news, but by reading, observing and listening. I don't put much weight on what a politican says, for they will promise the moon in order to get elected. By the way body language is action. i.e., movement. Obama an elitest? One could conclude from his statement before a San Franciso audience earlier this year that he certainly sounded like one. You know: "The people of small town America clings to their guns and bibles". He certainly didn't speak those words before an averag joe audience.
|
|
Russell1959
|
|
|
11-14-08 11:07 PM
|
navy vet: I think it is important to listen to the words that people say...maybe combined with body language, but actions speak louder than words but body language is not action. Maybe you see haughtiness because you have been told over and over by faux news that this guy is an 'elitist'....and you don't trust him because the people who wanted the job he was just hired for (by a VAST majority) told you he was hiding something, or that he is a muslim, or whatever. I once took a public speaking class and what I see that you refer to as 'haughiness' are techniques that some people use who may actually feeling a little nervous while speaking. Would you be nervous speaking to a crowd of 15 or 20 thousand?
|
|
navyvet
|
|
|
11-14-08 2:16 PM
|
wonderwhy: Specifics please, on how Bush "sold us down the river". On giving Obama a chance to prove his mettle? Sure, why not. I get a very uneasy feeling about the guy. At first, his demeanor when delivering a speech was one of haughtiness. Example would be when his audience would interupt his speech with applause, his bodily response, especially his facial expressions and head movements, would be as expressed above, haughty. I pay little attention as to what he n says; my main observation was on his actions. It tells a lot about a person. No, I still don't feel that Obama is right for this country.
|
|
navyvet
|
|
|
11-14-08 1:41 PM
|
wonderwhy: Please reread my last post. Only if the government controls the political power (which it does) AND the means of production and distribution, would it be Socialism. Failing all three criteria, the government's loan to corporations that make up the core basis of our economy is just that, A LOAN. Social Welfare is giving money to citizens, which includes corporations, without the requirement to repay.
|
|
beach1
|
|
|
11-14-08 9:20 AM
|
NANCY1,REMEMBER JEFFERSON AND HIS FREEZER AND SPITZER,AND DANN,AND KELLY JONES, WHEN THEY HAVE THEIR DAY IN COURT SO WILL DELAY. STAB
|
|
wonderwhy
|
|
|
11-14-08 7:22 AM
|
navyvet- so are you saying the bailouts are socialism? i call it corporate welfare. the current admin has played as big of role in this as any.
|
|
wonderwhy
|
|
|
11-14-08 7:20 AM
|
navyvet- oh the world will be watching alright. where was the world watching when bush sold us down the river. again, i have merely asked that people give this guy a chance. he is the President Elect. by electorate majority and by popular vote. isn't that enough to allow him to make decision that are right for the majority of the country? without criticizing him b4 he has even taken office.?
|
|
navyvet
|
|
|
11-14-08 4:06 AM
|
Lets see, a small business goes to the bank and applies for a loan which, if approved, has to be paid back with interest. A corporation applies to the government for a loan and if approved has to be repaid, with interest. Don't see much difference between the two scenarios, other than one is bigger in size. Socialism? I think not! The government has the political power, the corporation retains the means of production and distribution. Combine the two under the government, then you have Socialism.
|
|
navyvet
|
|
|
11-14-08 3:19 AM
|
wonderwhy: "amazing how much is being slung at a guy that has not even entered the White House yet" Obama asked for the job; he said he can handle it, now lets see if he can deliver. The world will be watching.
|
|
Russell1959
|
|
|
11-13-08 8:44 PM
|
social-ism is: Gov. Palin putting 4 separate taxes on a barrel of oil produced in Alaska (paid for by us in the 'lower 49' at the gas pump) and issuing checks to every Alaskan from those taxes. Social-ism (in reverse) is: giving 700 billion + tax payer dollars to corporations who can't run their own business's as well as the mexican who cuts the neighbors lawn. Or maybe that last example is fascism..by placing corporations and business above the common welfare of the citizens of this country. If the government doesn't exist for the welfare of the people, then according to our constitution, then maybe we should just call the whole thing off and start over.
|
|
wonderwhy
|
|
|
11-13-08 1:09 PM
|
ahhhh, didn't we just give govt control for the past 8 years? wow, things are great, aren't they? since i doubt any of us on either side, knows more than the daunting task ahead of President Elect Obama, give him a chance. amazing how much is being slung at a guy that has not even entered the 'White House' yet. first it was a never did anything community organizer, to an unknown junior senator, to a closet extremist muslim, till his domestic terrorist ties, to what else. hmmmm, limbaaaaaaa called him creepy. that's repect for the office of president! Give him a chance, and his staff, appointed, elected, and earned.
|
|
NancySI
|
|
|
11-13-08 12:41 PM
|
"Fuel economy and safety mandates make it more difficult for the companies to make cars American consumers want." Wow! The auto industry would be making cars that get 5 MPG if they could. Didn't the current bush admin brag about how they increased fuel economy regs, which actually was a shame? ANd of course, why in the world would we be concerned about car safety? My God, the blame game this paper plays is so, so sad. Always blaming Pelosi and Reid for the sun comming up. Just curious, remember Tom Delay? When is his corruption trial?
|
|
cory1978
|
|
|
11-13-08 12:14 PM
|
I'd rather the money go to US automakers than foreign banker ceo's. This paper is a joke!
|