If Barack Obama is so GD smart, why is he so fucking stupid?
So Wrench and I have been having this ongoing conversation while we prep the house, yard and garden for summer and this is the question that keeps coming up. Why? Why? Why?
We’ve been reading up on the workings of GM and there is one simple conclusion for the failure – the UAW. How can a company that sold 9 million cars in 2007 and had a 17% return on its investments for it’s pension fund in 2007 be bankrupt today? The answer is socialism. GM is an example of how socialism works, in case you can’t find any information pertaining to the UK, France or the USSR – and the rest of Europe basically. Employment guarantees, health care for life, guaranteed pay raises – and eventual bankruptcy. Bankrupt – in one year, because of one economic downturn. Bankrupt – to the point they must beg for donations from the USA and Canada and are handing over the company to the union that killed it.
And yes, I know it’s slightly more complicated than that but the point does not change. The company is bankrupt because the union that controls it’s labor force would rather bankrupt the company that provides its bread and butter than give up its undeserved and ridiculous “benefits”. But let’s now apply this model to the country as a whole – where the nation is GM, Obama is the union boss and we are the union workers. We have new legislation asking for more and more paid sick days every year, legislation being proposed that will give employees “a month of paid vacation” every year (a la France), “free” health care for all, a free “excellent” education for all, from birth through college, a clean, green planet and the list goes on. Um, how are we going to pay for all of this?
I think you can see where I’m going. If we adopt the GM model, we will go bankrupt. And considering this is America, where we do everything bigger and better and faster, it will happen pretty quickly. What, 5 years? 10? So why pursue all of this? Is this what the left means by “Social Justice”?
Will it be socially just when we go bankrupt? Will it be socially just when no one has health care? Will it be socially just when our schools start falling down, when there are no textbooks? Will it be socially just when unemployment hits 10, 15, 20%? Will it be socially just when the value of the dollar plummets so what savings and investments you do have are worthless? (This includes the house the government bought you, BTW.)
And will it be socially just to leave the borders open and allow millions more to come and reap the “benefits”? Will it be socially just when our access to energy is limited and what we do have access to is taxed so high we cannot afford it? Will it be socially just when terrorists living amongst us attack and we have no intelligence to prevent it? Will it be socially just when our enemies see the deplorable state of our military and attack? Will it be socially just when we can no longer send food and aid to the truly deprived and when we can no longer send military support to people in need? Who will be the world’s “Superman”, available at a moment’s notice to rescue, protect and defend the truly vulnerable? Is this social justice?
Obama seems to think the financing is endless. Let me ask you this – if you’re one of the wealthy, and by wealthy, we’re talking generational wealth, not retiring at 55, because you’re already toast – are you going to stick around and fund this? I’m almost afraid to mention this for fear of passing on ideas, but how soon until Obama and his bitch, the Congress, adopt the French model of restricting how much of your ”wealth” you can remove from the country?
Why are we pursuing all of this in response to a single economic blip? History has shown this path is not viable. GM shows us, right here in our own backyard, the disasters these policies will create. It is no secret that there are people in power around the world who would like to see the USA brought to its knees, for no better reason than envy. Why are we allowing the current political leaders of our nation to assist them? And why are we allowing them to put us all at risk? Why is it that any idiot sitting at their kitchen counter, watching the news, can figure this out yet the most wonderful, intelligent, evolved, fashionable, suave and articulate President ever, can not?
Popularity: 5% [?]
Review this site
Nice… I think that’s the first F-bomb I’ve seen dropped in these parts
I felt it was appropriate here.
“We have new legislation asking for more and more paid sick days every year, legislation being proposed that will give employees “a month of paid vacation” every year (a la France), “free” health care for all, a free “excellent” education for all, from birth through college, a clean, green planet and the list goes on. Um, how are we going to pay for all of this?”
1. You write: “We have new legislation asking for more and more paid sick days every year…”
The US currently has no federal law providing paid sick days. There is a piece of legislation before Congress (the Healthy Families Act) that would require most employers to provide most of their employees (there are exceptions and exemptions) seven paid sick days. The government doesn’t keep perfect data on the issue, but most estimates suggest that 40 to 50 percent of workers don’t have any paid sick days under the current voluntary system.
2. “…legislation being proposed that will give employees “a month of paid vacation” every year (a la France)…”
There is only one piece of legislation before Congress on paid vacation (the Paid Vacation Act of 2009, proposed by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL)). After a phase-in period, the proposed law would require large employers (100 or more employees) provide 10 days of paid vacation; smaller employers (16-99 employees) would have to provide 5 days; and the smallest employers (15 or fewer employees) would be exempt.
So, other than the fact I may or may not have jumped the gun on the “month” of paid vacation, you’re just fine with the Fed dictating how many days employers should “give away” every year? Who do you work for? I’d like to hear their opinion. On the upside, socialist, nanny-state policies like this will do wonders for small business!
What you call socialist, nanny-state policies seem to work very well for promoting small businesses. If you look at international data for self-employment, the United States has one of the lowest rates in the world.
Data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), for example, put the US third from the bottom in self-employed workers as a share of the total workforce. Norway is worse. We’re about the same as France. We’re behind, sometimes well behind, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, the UK, and every other country in the OECD. (Link below.)
One reason for this is that people considering self-employment or a small business don’t need to worry about how they are going to get health insurance for themselves, their families, and their employees.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/40/37964116.pdf
Interesting – especially the farm info. But I was referring to small business not self-employment. Although, my husband is self-employed and getting health care coverage is easy. You’re inaccurate in that it can’t be had but I understand you need the information to back up the “Universal Healthcare” argument. Maybe people who are “self-employed” just don’t care about getting health care – they might not have employees or families. Or maybe their self-employment is a lark.
But small business owners are a different story altogether. The policies I noted made exceptions for employers with under 15 up to under 100 employees – all recognition that these policies are damaging to the bottom line.
Example #358 of Mom simply trolling the web trying to find something, anything, no matter how small, to rant about.
No interesting link from Malkin today to rile you up?
Your people have to much faith in a fucking idiot. Unemployment has now reached 10.2%, up from 7.5% in one fucking year. Whos’s fault is that? Didn’t Obama say he was going to fix all this? Now he’s doing nothing but spending our money how he wishes. Take the Fort Hood crisis. Obama went public with his stupid fucking “Health Care Reform” before saying a damn thing about Americans getting killed in a military installation. Obama is a ignorant fuck that doesn’t deserve to be where is.
He is not one of us. He hates America and all it stands for. He is systematically destroying our nation and all it is understood to stand for in the name of “remaking” it to achieve “social justice”. He will continue to offend, as he did with the Ft. Hood terrorist attack, because he does not value America or those that serve. We are all one of two things in his eyes – an obstacle or a tool. More of us need to become obstacles – quickly.
Well we can’t all be like you ATG and just simply roll over when things get out of hand. Remember, you’re the guy who has no beliefs, holds nothing dear, no morals, no values, just simply does not care as long as you have your laptop, blackberry and can afford to got o Applebee’s for a burger once in awhile, right? So, am I supposed to be envious of you because nothing bothers you? Or is it even worse than that – you’re actually looking forward to the time when the government tells you at what time of day you can flush your toilet. Life a little too difficult, too many decisions to make, the unknown a bit scary? You just need Papa Obama to make everything easy for you? I must have hit on something or you wouldn’t have commented.
Or are you just getting a tad nervous because so many people across the nation have hit their limit and are fed up with the Obama agenda? Despite all of your best efforts, we’re still not buying. Even Obama isn’t buying his own rhetoric anymore. (Gitmo, no torture trials, and now Katrina evictions – sounds a lot like that hard-hearted Bush, no?) Could it be you’re slightly disillusioned with your hero? Little more self-reliance, little less adulation of false gods and you’ll be fine.
If this “socialism” that the UAW forced on GM is so catastrophic to the well being of a car company, then why is it that foreign auto makers like Toyota are not folding as well? Maybe, it’s not the UAW that is responsible but the woeful management that Detroit has practiced and the insipid line of cars that appeal only to the deranged “Buy America” crowd. This isn’t standing up for the management of the UAW, which is a farce of a union to begin with, but blaming everything on this one entity while ignoring symmetrical situations like Toyota is simplistic and ignorant.
As for the economic blip comment. Mint.com has a flow chart since it appears you’re incapable of reading a reasonable newspaper http://www.mint.com/blog/finance-core/a-visual-guide-to-the-financial-crisis-unemployment-rates/
Personally, I’d pay closer attention to Schmitt’s argument which is that government purchased insurance plans relieve the burden of some entry costs on small business and allows them to operate on a fixed cost model for a longer period of time. Additionally, they give purchasing power to the government and the possibility to reduce overhead by operating at a zero profit.
And mom, try to stay away from the slippery slopes and false dilemmas, not every bill asking employers to allow their employees to be sick for a few days will result in a month off, nor does it imply another step toward socialism. All it asks is that employers let their employees be human and get sick once in a while without risking their financial stability.
I think you’re confusing having different beliefs than you with having no beliefs at all. I believe that the government should do more to help the poor. I believe the government should leverage its scale to guide the economic direction of the country. I believe that dehumanizing our enemies (or, for that matter, anyone else who disagrees with us) is not a formula for success or long-term safety. I believe two dudes should be able to get married if they want to.
They’re all beliefs based on my own morals and values, which happen to be a more meaningful set of values to use in forming political opinions than simply “everything Sarah Palin believes is right, everything Barack Obama does is wrong,” which is why I commented on this post… you turned a minor piece of legislation sponsored by a Democrat in Florida trying to boost the travel industry into an anti-Obama screed, because, well, you don’t need to be given reasons to launch anti-Obama screeds, you just need to find excuses.
Applebees? Really?
“I believe that the government should do more to help the poor.”
I’d rather see the government focus on the helpless. Many of our poor are that way for a reason. It’s those who truly cannot help themselves that I help, and would like to see our focus on.
Just helping the poor from the government standpoint is too easy a way to garner votes for their help, and all too tempting for officials who typically focus more on election and re-election than accomplishing goals.
I see helping the poor/helpless as a goal in and of itself. Pretty much every action of government is an easy way to garner votes from some constituency, but that doesn’t make garnering votes the only ends of those actions.
You need to separate poor and helpless. There is all too often a difference. Many of our poor are not motivated to dig themselves out of their situation, and the lure of someone who will give them a handout is a MUCH greater incentive than other constituencies get. I do not believe it our government’s responsibility to help those who don’t NEED it.
I agree with your statement with helping the “helpless as a goal in and of itself”, and a noble one that should be pursued by as many as possible.
I don’t buy that there are lots of people who are poor of their own accord, or at least not enough that it should matter to the way we treat the poor. Sure this is a country of opportunity, but it’s not a country of equal opportunity for every person from every walk of life.
Plus, given that it’s near impossible from a policy perspective to separate out the “needy” from the “lazy,” I’d rather err on the side of helping some people who are lazy than err on the side of not helping people are truly in need.
Woah.
“Many of our poor are not motivated to dig themselves out of their situation,…”
What?
The poor do not choose to be poor. Who in their right mind would? Many, would just like to be comfortable. Many, do not crave riches, fame, or fortune. Many, would just like to keep their heads above water. And if that means taking whatever government assistance is out there, then so be it. But do not settle into this notion that ‘many’ are happy sitting where they are.
ATG,
If someone has a physical disability, then yes, they are needy. If someone can’t seem to hold down a job because they lack the focus, have personality issues, or substance issues, then we can leave some simple tools out there, but they have to sink or swim. If they prefer to sink, and want our rescue, I firmly believe it should be just enough to survive, not provide for the luxuries of life as much of our system does.
Marie,
There are different levels of choice here. I chose as a person who grew up poor to work one year after college, often 80+ hours per week to save. I then worked 50+ hours per week and got a college degree, and was able to use that as a tool to turn things around and get a good-paying job. During college, my friends thought it was funny that if I needed a new pair of shoes (because my old ones wore out) I had to eat pasta all week, and hang out by the free samples around the supermarket. But, I did what I had to in order to get out of my situation.
There are choices out there. Some choose to deal with more that others. What I suggest is that there are some truly needy, there are some who truly have had some horrible events to justify the situation, and many who just won’t sacrifice to get ahead, and instead look to others to make the sacrifices for them. If we allow people the tools and they won’t use them, then I’m fine with them remaining poor. Not everyone can have the high-paying job.
Not everyone wants the high paying job. People just want to make due.
But how can you, as an individual, sit there and judge the masses over a few? You cannot say that there are more out there that are greedy then those out there who truly need it. So why not help them?
Marie,
I have no problem with people just making due… as long as they don’t require public assistance.
And that’s nice of you. But you can’t assume that everyone can work three minimum wage jobs with four kids to do this.
There has to be some form of relief.
Wow! I guess you guys are celebrating Memorial Day by perusing obscure hobby-blogs on the net? Well, what else would you expect from Liberals. Could you just try to got to a parade or something, maybe fly a flag?
What surprises me the most though is that with all the comments, all the responses, not one of you yet has actually come out and said “Barack Obama is not effing stupid”. What’s the matter? I though he was your boy? You’re picking apart something I wrote in three minutes out of frustration regarding the continuous onslaught of socialist policies that will stifle our free market and kill any hopes of a true economic recovery and you fail to defend your president? You’re slipping.
Toyota does not have the same contracts of enslavement tot he UAW GM and Chrysler have. If you want to site an example, look at Ford, who told the UAW to back off. And people buy American cars because they are good cars – that argument is false. There was a small drop-off due to gasoline rices in 2008 but since prices fell, sales of American made trucks is off the charts. Companies are successful if they make a profit – period. That means there must be money left over after employees are paid, goods are manufactured, taxes are paid, benefits, etc… This includes paying employees who don’t come to work. It’s fine for the government to make a suggestion – mandating is another story. I’ll make you a deal, as soon as the government starts making a profit – at anything – I’ll reconsider resisting their attempts to dictate how the free markets should operate.
I find the reality of socialism to be frightening.
The theory of socialism/communism is wonderful and comforting — people working together for the common good without greed. The problem with the theory is that even if you eliminate greed from the populace, you don’t eliminate laziness. This drives down productivity and increases disconent.
So, I’m back to the reality of our current situation where we are looking at a socialized motor industry, socialized medicine, etc., and have been eying that bottle of Jack on the shelf.
I watched a commercial for the USPS (socialism in action) and they’re pitching this great service (also offered by UPS and FedEx) to ship packages. Their wrinkle: one rate, no matter what the rate, as long as it fits in the package. Two issues for me: Why is the government spending tax dollars (the USPS loses money, so yes, it’s tax dollars) to advertise a service that is offered by private businesses? The next issue that came to mind was, maybe if this was such a great idea, the USPS wouldn’t lose so much money doing it, right? This is just another example of why moving toward socialism is a horrible option. If history isn’t a deterrant, maybe logic should be…
You really think business CARES about you. That’s sweet. If it weren’t for our govt. and our regulations, they would work you 80 hrs a week, pay you little to nothing, no health care, no safety, dump even more toxic junk in your back yard, and give zero paid vacation days. Big business wants to make money by any means necessary – which is why they get behind the ’small government, freedom’ platform, and coax muleheaded losers into voting for their paid-for candidates.
But the reality is that ALL GOP states suck the govt teat for their subsidies and pilfer the public lands (cattle grazing on govt land, logging on forest service land). There’s no end to the insanity. Plus, two terms of little Georgie?
A wonderful rant!
The WSJ recently had an article about UPS and FedEx. Apparently, UPS wants FedEx to unionise so that its costs will go up and UPS will be better able to compete. No one seriously complains that FedEx mistreats its employees or does not pay them enough; this is all about driving up costs even more, which are ultimately paid by the consumer or by people who have invested their retirement savings in company stocks.
Sometimes I think we should just split the country into two – let the liberals have their socialism, their climate control, their solar-powered lives, gun control, universal health care, and resulting poverty. No need to drag us all down.
Elf, How can we possibly expect the supporters of the liar in chief to require their fellow citizens to adopt self-responsibility and self awareness when their infallible leader is permitted, without reproach, to “jet off to NY” for an evening of entertainment, on the taxpayers’ dime? There is no honest view of reality here. Marie and ATG simply see what their ultra-Liberal, reparations seeking, victimization proclaiming “teachers” have taught them. In their world, if you do not have everything you want and desire, the cost be damned, you are a victim of something – most likely a rich, white guy. Except nobody seems to be able to find that guy these days, right?
Since the reality of the world does not fit in to their belief system they have no recourse but to accuse those of us who do not subscribe to it of hard-heartedness and bigotry, as if we “hate” the “poor” and are too greedy to give up any of what we have earned to help. Reality differs. Conservative Republican Christians give away more personal wealth in this nation every year (and remember what a small percentage -2%, 5% – of the population we are according to the MSM) than any other sector of our society. This inconvenient statistic is always dismissed or ignored or even worse, scorned, as in “we have enough we should be giving it away.” What is always ignored is the inconvenient reality like how even the wealthy Obamas do not give away their money to help their extended family – which should be their first priority, no? And how about their favorite media darling, Oprah, who has publicly admitted the misery that is her family and their constant demands of support and gifts. She gives away millions to complete strangers, who have, ironically, shown their worthiness by working their own way out of their troubles, while at the same time refuses to give one more dime to the ungrateful failures that are her family, who blow their bounty and return once again for handouts. Yet, these two powerful, Liberal social and political leaders and their fawning public would lecture us about how and who we should give our money to?
It’s just more of the “right for me but not for thee” mentality of the left – and their pathological inability to accept responsibility for anything, even themselves. Marie and ATG have bought into it hook, line and sinker. It’s quite sad, really because they are both smart and (soon to be or already) accomplished people who have bought into this fantasy that if we all just chip in enough, everyone will be risen up to a “comfortable, respectable and admirable” life(style) – except no definition of this exists because everyone always wants more than they have – there is no “just making do” anymore. They completely disregard human nature – both good and bad. But they are perfect examples of it – some people will just never learn, no matter how hard you try to show them the truth. (Refer back to the title of the post.)
Thanks for your efforts. I was quite ill this week – not the Swine Flu but absolutely miserable.
You should have let us know. I think we owe you the return favor of some amazing chicken noodle soup, from when you swooped in to the rescue a few months back.
No worries.
Actually, Wrench and I were just saying we should have you at the next BBQ – he’s been keeping the smoker busy.
Yeah. Relief for the taxpayer is definitely needed. What kind of stupid must you be to have four kids when it requires more than one job to support them? That’s inexcusable and no taxpayer should have to pay for that kind of irresponsibility.
What Can we common Poeple do about the Bailout? Nothing.. we just have to wait and see if the company comes up and develops new cars and prototypes to please the americal consumer
Morgan,
Everyone in this country has a vote. Yours is no more or no less valuable than mine or anyone else’s. Politicians care about votes above all else. If they see the tide rising against them, they’ll start paddling a different direction. You as a voter need to call, write, and email your congresspeople, and let them know you disagree with their decision to mortgage your future.
While you may not see a large response, if you’re one of many who have also done the same, you may see your representative or senator waiver in their support of the spending (or be more firmly against it).
Agreed Morgan!
We all have a voice, and if we all unite and carry out voices, WE THE PEOPLE will be heard!
How’s This?
Stop mortgage interest deductions, stop giving so much money to Israel, and a few other countries I could mention, end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq today, stop daycare subsidies, Section 8 type subsdies, Earned Income Credits, and a few other things.
There would be so much money it would take a drop in the bucket to give everyone basic health care. However, you might have to raise the minimum wage so that people could afford to pay rent. Give everyone a living wage, & then they would be on their own, more or less.
As there will still be people having 4-5 kids and then being surprised that they are laid off/divorced/widowed, you might have to have some form of public assistance.
There are also too many groups who would be upset about defunding all these things, but I can dream.
Oh, we could also stop subsidizing the Post Office, but would you want to pay $4.95 to mail a First Class letter? Or $6.95 to have your Playgirl Mag mailed to you?
Just asking.