If there was an lingering doubt, the events of the last two days will have removed it for all thinking human beings.
In the short span of those two days we have witnessed the ousting by the Obama Regime of the CEO of a major American corporation, Rick Wagoner of General Motors; and now Barney Frank's House Financial Services Committee's empowering of the Treasury Secretary to impose the 1984esque Pay For Performance Act Of 2009. According to this legislation, the Secretary would be empowered to use his subjective judgment in determining "reasonable compensation" for ALL employees of companies receiving bailout funds.
As if there weren't enough reasons already to end and rescind the bailouts, here now is the most pernicious to date.
The exact intent of this legislation is difficult to determine.
Unless it is as it's author Alan Grayson says, "to protect the public's money." Well, if that's the intent, then please just return the money to the public. You should never have given it away to begin with.
Or, perhaps, the purpose is, according to Grayson, to "show which Republicans are so much on the take from the financial services industry." Maybe it will show precisely that.
But what it already shows is that liberal Democrats continue apace to implement their own brand of fascist economics on the American people.
In a classic "Who you gonna believe me, or your lying eyes?" moment, Barack Obama fired the CEO of General Motors, announced the US Government would stand behind the warantees of their vehicles, then insisted that he didn't want government running the company.
It would laughable, if it weren't for the nationalization.
General Motors, instead of being allowed to die a quiet, dignified death, will now become the new Amtrak: a taxpayer subsidized black hole.
Say goodbye to your tax dollars every time GM sells a car.
AIG employees are receiving vile death threats, and wishes of misfortune for their children and grandchildren.
The rank-and-file of America, economically ignorant & easily duped, have fallen for the utterly phony outrage of the political set over bonuses handed out at the (bankrupt) insurance giant, after having been the beneficiary of government largess to the tune of $170 billion.
Why aren't Americans absolutely livid that this company was bailed out to begin with?
Why do they care less about $170 billion than they do about $170 million?
Why do they fail to understand the government is the real culprit here?
Why do the fall for the antics of such obvious phonies as Barney Frank, Charles Grassley, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama?
This, my friends, is why the free market in this country is in peril.
You would think it would be relatively easy to find a couple of free market champions in the political ranks in America.
You'd be wrong.
The list ends after Ron Paul.
Thank God for the Czechoslovakians!
It's no secret that Vaclav Klaus is free enterprise enthusiast. But today we learn that Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek is made from the same mold.
Here's the PM scolding Obama, "All of these steps, these combinations and permanency is the road to hell," Topolanek said. "We need to read the history books and the lessons of history and the biggest success of the (EU) is the refusal to go this way."
In a naked attempt to save his unprincipled hide, semi-Republican Senator Arlen Specter has let it be known that he will be voting Nay on "Card Check", aka the Employee Free Choice Act, aka the Union Thuggery Act.
Thanks for the political expediency, Arlen, but don't expect it to get you elected to another term.
"What is needed to stimulate that all powerful entrepreneurial competitive process upon which the free market depends is nothing more than freedom of entry to anyone with an idea of how to profit by serving consumers more faithfully than they are being currently served." -Irving M Kirzner
Christopher Buckley recaps for us: "I voted for Barack Obama largely on the basis of his temperament, which I thought superior. He is only 47 years old, but to me seemed older than that: a man of precocious aspect and judgment. In the French wording, un homme sérieux."
Which is funny.
Because Obama seemed to me to be a socialist. In the French wording, socialiste.
Mr Buckley, on the other hand, seemed to me naive. In the French wording...naive.
Proving that poor liberals have absolutely no shame, a busload of them showed up at AIG headquarters in Wilton, CT and chanted, "Money for the needy, not for the greedy." If rhymes were dollars, poor liberal morons would be...well, a lot like AIG employees. But rhymes are not dollars, so these liberal morons are likely to remain poor, and resentful of those who have applied themselves and been able to achieve greater monetary success in life. Tough luck!
These good-for-nothings also showed up at the homes of some executives and marveled at how rich people live, then begged the executives to give their hard earned money to their good-for-nothing relatives, some of whom are allegedly facing foreclosure.
Here's a clue: you and your relatives aren't facing foreclosure because of anything AIG did. Indeed, AIG is facing bankruptcy (or, at least, should be) because you and your deadbeat relatives are facing foreclosure!
"Economies grow when entrepreneurs can take resources and create more goods than before. Period. They cannot grow any other way, and they certainly cannot grow when governments shower people with newly printed money. If that were the case, countries like Zimbabwe, Bolivia, and Germany in 1923 would have been the riches countries in the world." -William Anderson
No other class of people is better at feigning righteous indignation than the political class.
When insurance giant AIG was given "Too Big To Fail" status, they also got a check for $170 billion, written on the account of the American taxpayer. They then decided to reward themselves, in perfect object-lesson style, for failing. To the tune of $165 million in bonuses.
Well, those DC profligates, who signed the check, weren't going to let this kind of thing pass without jumping on the livid bandwagon. To wit: "Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money," declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you," said Chuck Schumer of New York. "They're not going to get the financial benefit of those bonuses," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. "One way or another, we're going to try to figure out how to get these resources back," said Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., the panel's chairman. Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., said AIG executives "need to understand that the only reason they even have a job is because of the taxpayers." Senator Grassley even went so far as to suggest that they either give the money or kill themselves. Evidentally he feels the best way to recoup the money is through double taxation of the bonuses, first as income, then as inheritance.
Let's be clear. It was these same politicians who gave AIG our money. AIG should never have had the money to begin with.
Don't hate AIG. Hate the politicians who voted in favor of giving them the money in the first place.
Don't let them fool you, as they hope to do, into believing they aren't the real villians in this piece.
We discover that in Barack Obama's White House there is a sinister little plot afoot. And is is a sinister little plot, but it may tell us much about the man ultimately behind it.
Concocted by beady-eyed Clinton mouth-breather James Carville(Hey, why wasn't he one those 430 per day who were losing jobs in Louisiana!) and his cohort Stanley Greenberg, probably a knuckle-dragger, through their Democratic polling company, Democracy Corps(Love the militant connotation!), and tacitly approved by White House muckety-mucks Axelrod, Pfeiffer, Gibbs and Rahm "The Ballerina" Emanuel, the plan was to, after learning that radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh wasn't that popular with certain segments of the American public, establish him as leader of both the Republican party and the Conservative movement, then knock him down, thus also tumbling the dominoes of the party and the movement.
The question immediately begged: Why?
Certainly not because Limbaugh holds any real sway over elected officials on the right or their policies. If he did, we wouldn't have endured a big spending George W Bush, nor his would-be successor, John McCain.
Certainly not because Republicans pose any serious threat to the present Democratic reign. Obama was elected convincingly. And Democrats control both houses of Congress.
Certainly not because Republicans need any assistance when it comes to being shot down. I mean, these people tiptoe down the halls of Congress shoeless should the emergency need arise to shoot themselves in the foot.
Certainly not because the Socialist-Democratic agenda is not being enacted. It is. And at rapid speed.
Why the need to demonize the opposition when you've only just given them a royal thrashing at the polls?
Why this effort to squelch the opposition when everything is going your way?
Why attack a private citizen?
This smacks more of a campaign tactic than it does of an element of governance.
But why continue the campaign when the battle's been one?
Because that is the Democrat mentality. Attack, attack, attack.
Republicans and Conservatives could take a lesson from Blackbeard: No quarter will be given, and none taken!
Parenthetically, what elected Republicans should find most worrisome is the fact that none of them were targeted. That, actually, should concern all of us in the opposition.
When Christopher Buckley,who infamously voted for Barack Obama, proposes in jest that Mr Obama, Mr Reid and Ms Pelosi subject themselves to the same compensation strictures they would impose on "porcine" CEOs, what he doesn't seem to realize is that it's not very funny. The reality he fails to grasp is that the real financial pain to be caused by Mr Obama and his crew and their socialist policies will be felt by those least able to afford the yucks Mr Buckley seems to find inherent in the situation.
Not that Christopher Buckley really ever succeeds at making anyone laugh.
I said earlier that I wouldn't help those on the left by explaining how Louisiana is not losing 400 jobs per day.
But after being linked as a liar over at County Fair on Media Matters for labeling Joe Biden a liar for his lying about Louisiana losing 400 jobs per day, I feel the need to set it all straight.
Firstly: County Fair agrees that Biden got it right and cites two sources to back themselves up. One of their sources is a column at Think Progress. Funny thing is, when you visit there, you find they have struck through their original title, "Bobby Jindal's Louisiana Losing 430 Jobs Per Day", and replaced it with, "Louisiana Had 430 New Unemployed Everyday In December". So, in actuality, Think Progress does not agree with Joe Biden, Think Progress agrees with me.
County Fair also cites Media Nation as a source confirming that Biden was correct. All you'll find here is a lot of tortured math, proving they know nothing more than how to get it wrong. They will discover this happens as often as the number of times you attempt to defend Joe Biden of one of his idiotic statements.
Here's how Biden lied, and how those defending him are just as stupid as he is: he based his claim entirely on the increase in the number of people being listed as Unemployed from November to December in 2008. While this tells us that there was an increase in unemployment, it tells us little about how many "jobs were lost."
So, while it's true that about 400 people per day were added to Louisiana's unemployment roll, it is demonstrably false that Louisiana lost 430 jobs per during this same period.
How do we know this? We simply, using the November-December 2008 figures everyone is so fond of, subtract the number of people employed(jobs) in December from the number of people employed(jobs) in November. After all, a job has to actually exist before it can be lost. A simple fact seemingly lost on many right now. (But then, when does reality ever get in the way of a good Democratic hatchet job).
Anyway. In November 2008 there were 1,941,515 people employed in Louisiana. In other words, there 1,941,515 jobs. So jobs can be "lost" from this number. In December 2008 there were 1,939,131 people employed in Louisiana. In other words, there were 1,939,131 jobs. So, at the end of December there were 2,384 fewer people working than at the end of November. Hardly 13,000; hardly 400 per day.
It was intentionally dishonest, a lie, of Joe Biden to use the unemployment figures. Any number of factors might contribute to a rise in the unemployment rate, but it is not necessary that "jobs be lost" for that to happen. It is stupidity, or ignorance, of his defenders to continue to rely on those same figures.
In a previous post, I called Joe Biden a liar, repeatedly, for stating in his typically buffoonish fashion that Louisiana was losing 400 jobs per day.
August "Master Of Simple Subtraction And Division" Pollack came to the same idiotic conclusion as his hero, the clown, Joe Biden.
Using the figures available on the laworks.net website anyone not as dumb as August Pollack and Joe Biden can easily figure out that in December there were 1,939,131 people working in Louisiana. In November there were 1,941,515 people working in Louisiana.
Am I going to help numbnut August Pollack figure this out? No, I'm not. Why? Because I'm mean. Because playing nice with morons on the left has never gained conservatives and libertarians anything.
I'm only to happy to allow these imbeciles to continue to wallow in their ignorance.