GM To Taxpayers: SUCKERS!
Dec 17, 2013 General
The CEO of Government Motors (GM) does not think his company should pay the government (read taxpayers) the 10 BILLION dollars that were lost when the Treasury sold its interest in the company. According to Dan Akerson the Treasury knew it was taking a risk, the same risk as anyone who purchases stock, when it spend billions of taxpayer dollars to keep the company from going bankrupt.
Akerson points out that the bailout helped prevent the loss of the company and kept jobs from being lost. But he also points out that Treasury took a chance when it infused money into the company by purchasing stock.
So what this guy is saying is, you took a chance with taxpayer dollars and that chance did not pan out to the tune of a 10 BILLION dollar loss. He does not feel the need to reimburse the taxpayers whose money kept the company around.
Isn’t it funny that this guy feels the government took a chance that had a risk associated with it and lost so it has no obligation to pay the money but he had no problem with taxpayers spending money to bail his company out. Owning and running a business has certain risks associated with it and one of those risks is going bankrupt. But Akerson does not feel his company should have to suffer the consequences of the risk associated with owning or running a company.
He feels his problems should be paid for by others but that any loss those folks suffered was their problem and not his.
The bankruptcy of GM was not the problem of the taxpayer. It was the problem of GM.
Mitt Romney said GM and other auto companies should not receive a bailout and should go through bankruptcy and solve THEIR problems that way.
Obama and his followers hammered Romney and said if it was up to him the auto companies would have gone under.
Romney had it right. GM bit the hand that fed it and we lost 10 BILLION dollars in the process.
Ford did not take a bailout and was able to work through tough times. That is why my new car is a Ford.
I loved my Jeep but could not replace it with another after Chrysler took a bailout.
Remember that you suffered a 10 BILLION dollar loss when you are out shopping for a new car. Do not buy a GM product.
No sense in rewarding a company that took advantage of the people who were forced to spend their hard earned money enriching executives and keeping union workers employed so they could continue voting Democrat.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: 10 billion, akerson, bailout, gm, lies, Obama, screwed, unions
Detroit To Big Cheese; Give Us The Cheddar
Dec 6, 2012 Political
Councilwoman JoAnn Watson of Detroit said that since the residents of Detroit overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in the last election he needs to provide a bailout for the city. Detroit could run out of money by the end of the year after decades of Democrat rule and liberal/progressive policies.
Typical of liberalism, the people in charge royally screwed things up and now have their hats in their hands requesting, no demanding, that Obama take money from those of us who do not live in Detroit and pay for their mismanagement. I guess since Obama bailed out the irresponsible auto makers the rest of Detroit thinks they deserve some of the pork as well.
Why is it that all across this nation the cities that are run by Democrats are in ruins? Why is it that they can’t run things and why is it they demand that the rest of us pay for their inability to do their jobs?
I know Detroit has a small tax base as people either don’t have well paying jobs (if at all) or have left but perhaps if those who live there would pay their fair share things would be a little better. You see, Watson has underpaid her property taxes by thousands of dollars for quite some time. She claims she pays her bills and that she paid what they billed her.
There was evidently some damage to her property and she said she thought that reduced her property value. The city lists her property as a vacant lot even though the house she lives in is on it. Does she expect us to believe that she looked at her assessment or property bills and thought they were correct?
Isn’t it more likely that she saw they made an error, knew she could pay it and blame them and likely not have to pay what was actually owed after the fact?
If we accept her claim as true then how is she in any way, shape or form qualified to be a part of the team that runs the city? If she can’t figure out that her bill was wrong and work to get it fixed (the ethical thing to do) then how can she look at bills and expenses for the city and know if they are correct or not?
How many other tax bills are wrong? How many, if correct, would have helped with the financial problems Detroit faces?
Most importantly, why should the rest of us send them money especially when it is obvious that they can’t manage the money they are supposed to collect?
Obama will have a second term and does not need these folks any longer so it is unclear if he will bail them out or not. It would be wrong to send them money which is probably why Obama will try it.
If he does though, I think a case could be made for impropriety. Watson said that the City voted for Obama so he owes them. She said there ought to be a quid pro quo.
If Obama bails them out, no matter the reason, it will look like he did it because they supported him. If Detroit supported Obama with the expectation of something in return and Obama gives them something for that support then it would raise red flags regarding the legality of it.
Of course, Barackey Claus gave out lots of “free” stuff in order to buy votes (ObawmahPhone!) and 51% of the voters thought that was just fine…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: bailout, city, detroit, failure, joann watson, liberals, Obama, progressives, property tax
Will There Be A Post Office Bailout?
Jun 22, 2011 Opinion
The postal service is a Constitutional item that is run by the federal government and it is run like a typical government bureaucracy, that is, there is a lot of waste and a lot of overhead and a lot of cost overrun. The kicker is that the postal service actually charges for its service and should, if run properly, be able to pay its bills. Unfortunately that is not the case. The postal service is billions in the red and has suspended its share of retirement contributions for its employees.
Will Congress and Barack Obama step in and bailout the postal service? The government already believes that it has the authority to force you to buy products. Obamacare mandates that we all buy health insurance and the Democrats stand by that generous and incorrect interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Democrats assure us that health care is unique because everyone will, at one time in their lives, enter the health care system so it is OK, according to them, to make people buy insurance.
What would stop the Democrats from making the same argument about the postal service? Everyone at one point in their lives gets some sort of mail. What would stop Congress from forcing us to use the postal service or force us to buy a certain dollar amount of postage stamps each month? Maybe Congress will decide that in order to boost postal revenue all online bill paying activities must stop and people have to mail their bills in. Maybe they will take down the email contacts for all members of Congress and make us send them letters via the postal service.
It is not unreasonable to assume that the government could force us to use the postal system citing the Commerce Clause like it did with Obamacare.
I would not put it past them to step in and screw over the taxpayers in order to make the postal service solvent.
There is nothing that prevents the government from moving the postal service to the private sector. The Constitution says Congress has the authority to establish post offices and postal roads (which actually means they don’t have to but have the power to) but it does not say that Congress (or the government) must run the post offices and postal roads. Congress could establish the post offices under the private sector and let that company compete for business against other similar services. Congress would have oversight and a portion of the revenue could go to the Treasury.
In any event, I would not put it past the Democrats and their messiah to try to bailout the postal service by putting into place policies that would force people to use the service.
Let’s face it, we are losing more and more freedom so it is not hard to imagine this taking place.
Then again, perhaps they could start reducing the number of employees, increase the amount employees contribute to their pensions, force them to pay the same rate for insurance as the rest of the federal employees (contrary to popular opinion, federal employees pay quite a bit for their health insurance), and stop delivering mail on Saturday. They could also cut the number of post offices and consolidate routes. Greater efficiency would help the bloated system to be more solvent.
Then again, why do all that when Congress could force us to use them.
Be wary. The Socialists in our government would love to intrude even more into our lives.
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, bankrupt, budget, commerce, postal service
GM To Taxpayers; Thanks, Now Bend Over
Jun 8, 2011 Political
General Motors received a lot of money from the US taxpayer under both George Bush and Barack Obama. Despite Obama’s claims (and his fuzzy math) about car companies paying back the money, they still owe the taxpayer billions of dollars that we will likely never see. GM CEO Dan Akerson said he was grateful that the government rescued GM but wants the government out of the company in the next 6 to 12 months. Newsflash for Mr. Akerson, the government did not rescue your company, the taxpayer did through coercive tax policies that allow the government, under threat of force, to extract money from people who earn it and spend it on companies like yours. Companies that are poorly managed and spend unwisely. The taxpayer was forced to rescue your company because it was mismanaged and we had no say in the matter.
How does Mr. Akerson want to repay the taxpayer who rescued his company? He is in favor of raising the federal gas tax by as much as a dollar a gallon in order to compel people to buy more fuel efficient cars. GM just happens to make a few models of fuel efficient cars so his company will benefit from the tax increase (at least that is what he wants). What we have here is a company that was bailed out by people who are having trouble making ends meet wanting to screw those very people.
No good deed (if anyone would call bailing out a company a good deed) goes unpunished.
How are people who are having trouble making ends meet supposed to buy a new car? How will forcing them to pay more for fuel make their lives any easier when they can’t afford a new, fuel efficient car but will be forced to pay the higher fuel tax for the fuel consumed by their older cars? This takes into consideration that people still have cars in the first place. Most who still have them are probably still paying for them so they will be severely underwater if they trade in for a fuel efficient car. Those cars can run about 40,000 dollars. Those who have paid off their cars will likely pay the fuel tax rather than go into debt to save at the pump.
And what about people who have no use for the little boxes of fuel efficiency? What about those who must have SUVs and pick-up trucks? Some of us must report to work no matter what so my Jeep is a better option than a car that will not make it in the snow. When that little car can get me to work in the snow and haul 800 pounds of stuff then I will consider it. The people who must have the larger vehicles will end up paying more at the pump.
This is a fine thank you to the American taxpayer for rescuing GM. Mr. Akerson.
How about the next time you need money we just say no?
Better yet, how about we decide not to buy GM vehicles?
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]
Smartest Prez Evah Loses 14 Billion Dollars On GM Deal
Jun 1, 2011 Political
After George “we have to abandon capitalism to save it” Bush started lending money to companies like GM, Barack Obama took control and doubled down. He bailed out General Motors and his pals in the unions at the expense of the investors who should have been compensated first. When Obama, with his vast experience in economics, discussed the GM bailout he assured us that it was a good investment and that we would end up making money on the deal.
“American taxpayers are now positioned to recover more than my Administration invested in GM.” — President Obama, November 18, 2010.
“I think the government’s investment is well placed and I think they’ll make a lot of money.” — then Obama appointee GM C.E.O. Ed Whitacre, January 11, 2010. Pajamas Media (which links to the source articles)
It looks like that is not quite right as the same Obama who told us we would profit is now telling us that we will lose 14 BILLION dollars. That means, ladies and gentlemen, that the 50% of us who pay taxes will lose 14 BILLION dollars because Obama invested our money unwisely.
Let us break this down. Obama (following Bush) told us that GM needed to be bailed out and then he used our money to bail them out. He then told us it was a good deal and we would see a profit on our money. Now he is telling us that we will lose 14 BILLION dollars.
So somebody tell me why Bernie Madoff is in jail and Obama is not?
Will those of us who pay taxes be allowed to write off this bad investment? Can we reduce our tax burden by 20% (the percentage of our money that the government lost)?
How can anyone claim that this program was a success when it cost us 14 BILLION dollars?
How come GM is not forced to keep paying us from its profits until the debt (plus interest) is paid? How dare the Democrats cry about oil companies getting over on us when GM is bending us over big time?
GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to fail. Ford made it and is in a stronger position.
I, along with many others, will never buy a GM or Chrysler product again (which is a shame because I love my Jeep).
Perhaps this is why Obama and his toadies want to win the individual mandate case in Obamacare. If the courts rule they can force us to buy a product will it be very long before they force us to buy GM products?
Good luck with that. You will need it.
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, bernie madoff, gm, lies, lost money, Obama, profit/loss