The next time somebody tells you that the Obama administration is a haven for Afro-Marxists, you might want to remember that it’s most important economic policymaker is the man who fired Cornel West. And here is a clip of Cornel West still complaining about it -and describing the Obama administration as a “profound disappointment.”
The Larry Summers material begins about minute 43. As transcribed by the Huffington Post:
[H]ere’s somebody who has no history whatsoever of sensitivity to poor people or working people, who had been supporting deregulation for a long time as a Clintonite, in the Clinton administration. What is going on here? Or has Obama already become so comfortable with the establishment that you had to have an economist who was legitimate to the establishment in order for him to get his regime off the ground? OK. I mean, if that’s the kind of argument you have, then put it forward. But don’t tell me you’re a progressive, then, and generate that kind of support or major advisers speaking to you–speaking to you every day. Now, if he had Paul Krugman or Joseph Stiglitz or Sylvia Ann Hewitt, I’d say, “Hey, you got something going here. I think we’ve got a chance for some progressive policy that actually focuses on poor and working people.”
But I do forgive Larry Summers for this reason: that I think we all ought to have joy in life, and you can only have joy when you overcome arrogance and open to your own ignorance, because you end up being smart and brainy, but suffering from spiritual malnutrition, emptiness of soul, you see.
46 responses so far
1 johnmarzan // Oct 4, 2009 at 9:08 am
the top officials are respectable, but many of the undersecretaries, czars and mid level officials in the obama admin are a bunch of leftwingers.
2 sinz54 // Oct 4, 2009 at 10:08 am
Sorry, but Summers did NOT fire Cornel West over a policy dispute.
Summers fired Cornel West for neglecting his academic responsibilities to focus on self-aggrandizement. So that doesn’t mean that competent doctrinaire Leftists aren’t welcome in the Obama Administration. They are. And many are there. Van Jones’ talent was never at issue. What was at issue was his radical Leftism.
I have no idea what Summers thinks of West’s ideas or proposals. And you haven’t enlightened us on that either.
The Obama administration is a doctrinaire liberal administration, the first in over 40 years. That’s an undeniable fact.
3 MFarmer // Oct 4, 2009 at 11:29 am
I really don’t understand this apologist role, stretching to find the smallest kernel of evidence to support the administration as friendly to free market principles. The whole direction of government is progressive, regardless of the resentments held by one of it’s most radical, progressive fringe members. Yes, radicals such as West may be disappointed that Obama has not moved more boldly and quickly, but just because our government still has pockets of resistance doesn’t mean that when given the opportunity the administration and the progressives in congress won’t move as boldly and quickly as possible.
At some point the moderates and true liberals — the liberals who haven’t crossed the line into progressive madness — are going to have stand up like brave adults and resist the progressive movement, or be marginalized as lackeys complicit in the greatest destruction of the free market we’ve witnessed in a long time.
4 MFarmer // Oct 4, 2009 at 11:35 am
“The whole direction of government is progressive, regardless of the resentments held by one of it’s most radical, progressive fringe members.”
This should read: “The whole direction of government is progressive, regardless of the resentments held by one of the progressive movements most radical, fringe members.”
5 sinz54 // Oct 4, 2009 at 11:41 am
Polls show that Obama is regarded by most of the public as definitely liberal.
I believe that for most of them (and for me), the tipping point was the nationalization of General Motors.
The TARP bailout, I actually defended as a necessary evil to keep the credit markets from collapsing.
But nationalizing General Motors was an act of pure socialism, nothing more. The Government took over the company to save its union, the UAW.
And Obama has never promised that this would be the last nationalization.
If General Motors had gone bankrupt, there would still be all the valuable assets–the factories and the trained workers. Once Ford or even a foreign company like Fiat had bought up those assets, those workers would still have jobs. That’s what should have happened–the Obama Administration should have helped negotiate the sale of those assets.
6 EscapeVelocity // Oct 4, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Bingo sinz.
7 EscapeVelocity // Oct 4, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Government Motors was nationalized and divied up with the Union.
Competition will be destroyed to promote the government and union interests…via legislation.
Just one kernel in the multi pronged attack on private property, markets, and liberty.
8 Oneon1isto // Oct 4, 2009 at 4:49 pm
re: GM. While it left a poor taste in my mouth, the argument at the time very clearly was in favor of saving jobs and preventing the unraveling of yet more industry when we needed jobs to be maintained the most. It was a minor “too big to fail” moment that was primarily done to prevent another shock to a quavering system.
To caste this in the light of “socialism” is disingenuous at best. The government will unwind its purchase and remove itself from GM, it has no interest in holding those assets. It was an emergency move that was done in the thick of economic pain–and was not part of some broad socialistic plan put in place by progressives. Because that’s what all progressives and dirty commie socialists want: General Motors.
While GM’s assets would have eventually been bought up by the likes of Fiat, or a reconstituted, that would’ve been a long ways a way towards economic recovery. Workers may return to work, but after an unforeseen amount of time. And when you’re losing half a million jobs a quarter, the administration chose the safer route of maintaining and protecting the shock of losing millions in one fell swoop.
9 Oneon1isto // Oct 4, 2009 at 4:50 pm
“or a reconstituted Ford”
10 Oneon1isto // Oct 4, 2009 at 4:51 pm
oh, and rather, “half a million jobs a month”. It was that dire, oh ye of short memory.
11 bm // Oct 4, 2009 at 5:08 pm
It would be good for the country if mainstream economic types like Larry Summers and Paul Volcker did indeed have as much influence with Obama as they did with Clinton. But that may not be the case.
Here’s an article by the financial journalist Charlie Gasparino claiming that, according to the Wall Street big guys he talks to, the economics team carries little weight with Obama and the small team of political insiders he counts on for all important decisions (Emmanuel, Axelrod, Jarrett). Gasparino does not name his sources, but he’s a well-respected and credible person in his field — and certainly a superior source on economics and finance than Cornel West!! — so there’s likely some basis in reality for the story. Some quotes:
” I’m told that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and chief economic adviser Lawrence Summers have both complained to senior Wall Street execs that they have almost no say in major policy decisions. Obama economic counselor Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman, is barely consulted at all on just about anything — not even issues involving the banking system, of which he is among the world’s leading authorities.
At most, the economic people and their staffs get asked to do cost analyses of Obama’s initiatives for the White House political people — who then ignore their advice. …
Obama, according to Wall Street people who regularly deal with his economic and budget officials, is acting as if he has a blank check to do what he wants, while ignoring the longterm costs of his policies.
As one CEO of a major financial firm told me: “The economic guys say that when they explain the costs of programs, the policy guys simply thank them for their time and then ignore what they say.”
In other words, the economic people feel that they have almost no say in this administration’s policy decisions. ”
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/burned_by_obama_CRw506e4NQv1C9IkTVM7tO
12 MFarmer // Oct 4, 2009 at 6:39 pm
“To caste this in the light of “socialism” is disingenuous at best.”
To use the “socialist” tactic to frame the opposition as scare-mongers worked for a minute, but it’s been played and now we are faced with a progressive agenda that is all too real, all too expensive and all too antithetical to a free market. You can always reduce the progressive agenda down to one or two necessary acts ostensibly designed to stave off financial collapse, but that “crisis” shield has holes in it. The progressive movement is intent on transforming capitalism, and they will if given the freedom to do so.
What’s being done to small businesses is economically criminal and the rising unemployment numbers are evidence of the crime.
13 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 4, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Sinz wrote: “I believe that for most of them (and for me), the tipping point was the nationalization of General Motors . . . The TARP bailout, I actually defended as a necessary evil to keep the credit markets from collapsing.”
Like TARP, the GM bailout was an act of the Bush administration. Bush gave GM billions in loans with no strings attached. Obama gave GM billions more in loans, but attached some strings for the purposes of protecting taxpayers and attempting to attain some corporate accountability.
Sinz, himself, supported the GM bailout in the early days of NM as the lesser of two evils – the other being the incredible loss of jobs that would have been unavoidable absent the bailout.
If Obama’s policies (vs. those policies that were actually enacted by Bush) are so bad why don’t conservatives identify the specific policies and offer better alternatives? Instead, conservatives aren’t even capable of identifying which policies were Bush’s and which ones are Obama’s. Worse yet, conservatism is completely devoid of policy ideas that would address any of the problems this country faces.
14 EscapeVelocity // Oct 4, 2009 at 6:51 pm
The Combo no brainer National Security/Jobs Program F22 Raptor, was scrapped pretty quick.
I see a trend.
15 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 4, 2009 at 6:53 pm
MFarmer,
Are you able to cite any actual Obama initiatives or policies that are, as you claim, antithetical to the free market?
Also, except for laws that prohibit theft, fraud and other similar activity, isn’t practically all regulation of any kind an interference with a free market?
16 bm // Oct 4, 2009 at 7:44 pm
spartacususnotdead said:
“Are you able to cite any actual Obama initiatives or policies that are, as you claim, antithetical to the free market?”
Here is one that might arguably or partially fit the bill. According to the Congressional Budget Office, on current (Obama) policies, the fiscal position of the US government is unsustainable. The word “unsustainable” is used in a technical sense here: on current policies the US government is insolvent. It will be unable to meet its future obligations. There are 3 possible outcomes. (a) large expenditure cuts or tax increases; (b) explicit default on government obligations (e.g. on government debt, social security, pensions, promised health care benefits etc); (c) implicit default on nominal obligations that are not indexed to inflation by means of high or hyper inflation.
To the extent that default or high inflation are bad for free markets, and to the extent that Obama has made these two options more likely, one could argue that his fiscal policies will be antithetical to free markets. Of course this still leaves option (a), which is the subject of classical left-versus-right arguments about whether expenditure cuts or tax increases would be more harmful for free markets.
A second area might be foreign trade policy and an apparent willingness to pander to special interests like organized labor or friends in big business with increased trade protection. e.g. the recent Chinese trade tariffs.
A third might be rising corporate welfarism, as evidenced by the auto industry or the continuation of Bush’s rotten ethanol subsidies.
A fourth might be the methods used to address the financial crisis, generally buttressing moral hazard and the too-big-to-fail syndrome, which is simply laying the groundwork for even bigger financial crises not too far down the road.
Before anyone says it, OF COURSE all these things were also done by the GW Bush administration. I fear that under Obama the country is simply continuing to slide down a dark slope that it’s been on for some time, the endpoint of which is going to be terrible for all of us, and where the good old republican-versus-democrat dogfights are not going to be all that helpful.
17 sinz54 // Oct 4, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Oneon1isto:
You should live so long.
I can’t see any roadmap for GM to return to profitability and stand on its own.
The taint of being the only government-owned major company in America, for one thing. Just about all consumers will worry about buying a car from a bankrupt government-owned company. Why should they take the risk when they can buy a Ford. And the half of the nation that doesn’t like nationalization on principle won’t go near GM.
Finally, the liberals who supported the nationalization of GM will probably keep buying Toyota Priuses.
18 sinz54 // Oct 4, 2009 at 7:54 pm
spartacusisnotdead:
I never favored nationalization of GM. I favored a controlled bankruptcy and sale-off of all of GM’s assets.
When Chrysler got into trouble in the 1980s, it was extended Government loans. That’s all Lee Iacocca needed to restructure the company, pay back the loans with interest–and become profitable again for many years afterward.
That’s as much as GM should have gotten too.
19 sinz54 // Oct 4, 2009 at 7:55 pm
spartacusisnotdead: Are you able to cite any actual Obama initiatives or policies that are, as you claim, antithetical to the free market?
Senator Obama’s opposition to free trade (specifically NAFTA) really bothered me.
We’ll see how he does as President. So far, the way he’s acted regarding trade with Latin America has not been encouraging.
20 athensboy // Oct 4, 2009 at 8:06 pm
The last 30 years of unfettered free market capitalism have been a sick joke. The rich got richer, the poor poorer. Socialism certainly isn’t the answer, but isn’t there something in the middle that could work? My theory is that losing our industrial base and its good paying jobs has come back to bite us in the rear. I blame both political parties and their rich corporate friends for this. I also blame Americans for living beyond their means. We can’t afford to be the world’s policemen including our bloated military budget. Our country is falling apart but we can afford our NASA program? Thats another sick joke. Cut spending including military spending, quit worrying about controlling the world, and take care of America.
21 MFarmer // Oct 4, 2009 at 8:11 pm
I was opposed to what Bush did and what Obama is continuing — I think the overall movement is progressive-inspired. Capitalism is a system which punishes failure — all the bailouts, the stimulus package, Fannie and Freddie, manipulation of banks, healthcare reform which favors a huge government role, cap and trade, tarrifs, subsidies to certain industries, manipulation of “green” jobs, corporate welfare in general — all of this is antithetical to the free market. Obama is a progressive, despite all the talk about his pragmatic nature — Bush acted as a progressive when push came to shove. I am a libertarian, not a conservative, and I didn’t support Bush.
22 MFarmer // Oct 4, 2009 at 8:13 pm
“The last 30 years of unfettered free market capitalism have been a sick joke.”
Calling our mixed economy of longer than the last 30 years “unfettered free market capitalism” is a sick joke. You’ve go to be kidding.
23 MFarmer // Oct 4, 2009 at 8:18 pm
California is a microcosm of what’s happening to the rest of the country — http://www.ocregister.com/articles/state-california-regulations-2578521-businesses-government
24 EscapeVelocity // Oct 4, 2009 at 8:50 pm
The Crypto Marxist Crypto Muslim/Atheist/Black Liberation Theologist in Cheif
25 EscapeVelocity // Oct 4, 2009 at 8:50 pm
The Crypto Marxist Crypto Muslim/Atheist/Black Liberation Theologist in Cheif
26 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 4, 2009 at 8:58 pm
bm,
I understand your criticism that Obama has not done enough to halt Bush’s policies, but except for the war in Iraq and tax cuts under both Bush and Obama, much of the conditions that make the current policies unsustainable have absolutely nothing to do with either president. Our current policies are unsustainable because of entitlement spending. If anything, Obama’s proposed cuts to some of those entitlement programs (e.g. Medicare Advantage) are promotive of free markets, yet conservatives have still opposed these policies.
While it is literally true that Obama’s policies are antithetical to free markets to extent his policies are a continuation of certain Bush policies, I did not interpret MFarmer’s comment in the manner your post suggests. I may have been mistaken, but I read MFarmer’s comment as a critique of policies that have been initiated by Obama.
As for those policies, I accept that the recent trade tarriffs on tires from China are antithetical to a free market. However, I think the better policy question is whether those tarriffs are in the best interest of the U.S. The U.S. and China are members of the WTO, and the tarriffs Obama imposed are the remedy the WTO provides for China’s impermissible conduct. I’m not a trade expert, but I am prepared to accept the collective judgment of the WTO members that the imposition of tarriffs in circumstances such as this are necessary for long-term growth and the promotion of international trade.
I’m not sure I clearly understand your point about “too big to fail.” If you’re suggesting that we should allow institutions to become as large as they choose irrespective of the potential adverse consequences, then I agree with you that preventing “too big to fail” is antithetical to an unregulated free market. However, I believe preventing “too big to fail” is the better economic policy.
In essence, I don’t believe the appropriate economic policy question is whether a particular policy is antithetical to a free market. As I stated in my post, practically all regulation is, to some degree, antithetical to a free market. The appropriate question is what policies will promote widespread, sustainable economic growth. In most instances, the policies that promote free markets will be the policies that also promote growth. But, by no means, is a free market the end objective. It is merely a method for achieving the goal, and its benefits must be balanced against its obvious drawbacks.
The larger point I was attempting to make in my post to MFarmer is that many government policies that seem to anger conservatives the most are policies that were initiated by Bush, and the failure to vociferously criticize these policies during the Bush years causes reasonable people to believe that conservative criticism of Obama is not based on the substance of his policies, but instead on the fact that he is a Democrat. Indeed, even when Obama proposes policies like cuts to Medicare and the payroll tax that have been robustly promoted by so-called conservatives, he still gets lambasted. Consequently, it’s practically impossible to take conservative criticisms seriously.
27 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 4, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Sinz,
I apologize for incorrectly stating your position on GM. I apparently misinterpreted some of your ealier posts.
As for a controlled bankruptcy, the U.S. government still would have ended up owning a majority share of GM because it was its largest creditor by far. A controlled bankruptcy would not have prevented this. The only purported advantage of the controlled bankruptcy was that it possibly would have made some of the subsequent loans unnecessary. Of course, this is dubious because GM was in desperate need of cash for operating purposes – not just for repaying its creditors. Consequently, the U.S. would almost certainly have had to extend it additional loans despite a controlled bankruptcy.
As for NAFTA, Obama is not opposed to NAFTA. As a candidate, he proposed renegotiating it (not ending it). As President, he has taken no steps to do either. Consequently, I’m still trying to figure out what actual policies of his (vs. rhetorical comments) are antithetical to free markets.
28 BoolaBoola // Oct 4, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Cornell West is an embarrassment to smart black people–he’s an obvious token, an obvious AA baby. He’s as strong an argument against affirmative action as Clarence Thomas himself.
I’ve seen him (West) on Cspan, on Bill Maher, all over, and all he does is pretentious litsy-babble, of the sort Yale was famous for when I was there (the nonsense known as “Deconstructionism”. You know, Jaques Derridadadadadadadadadda.) The stuff the people who speak and write it don’t understand themselves, and proudly so–”You see, if you understand it, that means you’re not getting it!” is the line.
I’d rather take a class from Rodney King than from Cornell West.
29 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 4, 2009 at 11:28 pm
BoolaBoola,
What does Cornell West have to do with affirmative action? Are you suggesting that because he is black he is or was a beneficiary of affirmative action?
Also, why would he be an embarrassment to smart black people? Are Charles Murray and Katrina vanden Heuvel an embarrassment to smart white people?
Please explain.
30 balconesfault // Oct 5, 2009 at 8:07 am
Sparticus: Consequently, I’m still trying to figure out what actual policies of his (vs. rhetorical comments) are antithetical to free markets.
Really, except in not running around touting “tax cuts are the panacea to everything!” Obama hasn’t been running an economic policy that’s radically different from the Bush Administration. In many ways, this incrementalism is hampering his ability to quickly stem the growth of unemployment in this country, although in the long run it will probably play out better.
But a socialist Obama wouldn’t have been supporting TARP – he’d have been pushing for establishment of national banks to act as the lender of last resort directly to businesses and individuals, rather than pumping money to private lending institutions with the hope that they’ll actually make that capitol available to the public. A socialist Obama wouldn’t be using stimulus funds to encourage private development of power projects and electric transmission – he’d be using the DOE and BLM in concert to build huge new federally funded power projects, and expanding the publicly owned electric grid system we’ve had for decades (WAPA, TVA) to cover much more of the country. A socialist Obama wouldn’t be trying to introduce a “Private Option” for insurance – he’d be pushing for a federally funded hospital system to cover all the rural areas that are currently underserved.
In short, this whole “socialist” meme is the most ridiculous form of hyperbole.
31 midcon // Oct 5, 2009 at 8:48 am
What would be more useful than labeling something leftism, progressivism, or socialism is to analyze results. Many of you here are way to invested in spotting socialism. Using the GM takeover for instance, what was the purpose of the takeover? did it accomplish the purpose? was the outcome beneficial or detrimental to the economy?
While the takeover of GM was distateful and antithetical to free market principles that recognizes businesses will fail, the takeover directly saved jobs at a time when job losses were in free fall. It also protected many thousands of other supplier jobs and businesses. So why don’t you debate the cost vs benefit of saving those jobs without worrying that whether it was socialism or capitalism. I mean really who cares? In my opinion the takeover should not have happened because it propped up an industry that is inefficient and ineffective for the 21st century and the energy put into saving the company may have been better spent replacing it with something that is more geared to the future.
You spend your time decrying socialism and leftism as if they are meaningful. What matters is how do we sustain (or restore) our economic well being and provide for our national security (militarily and economically). I could care less whether something is Engel’s socialism than what the outcome is of government policies and actions.
32 sinz54 // Oct 5, 2009 at 9:25 am
midcon:
Fine.
The benefit was to the Democratic party, which nationalized GM to bail out the UAW and preserve the lush wages and fringe benefits that the UAW had negotiated all these years. The alternative–bankruptcy of GM–would have rendered those contracts subject to renegotiation.
The cost to the nation is unbounded–because GM won’t be privatized again for years, if ever. Instead, we taxpayers are owning a corporate white elephant whose cars just aren’t selling. What we’re doing, basically, is paying the wages of UAW members with our taxes. They are now, basically, welfare recipients, all of them.
33 Oneon1isto // Oct 5, 2009 at 11:41 am
Sinz: I don’t think the UAW went into it at all.
Here’s good, deep, fly on the wall reporting, some of which is includes the decision to save GM: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/12/091012fa_fact_lizza?printable=true
And here’s an excerpt–clearly they were concerned for the UAW:
“In January, the White House added a half-hour meeting each morning, in which Obama is briefed by the top members of his economic team: Summers, Geithner, Romer, Orszag, and Bernstein. Obama officials said that the extra layers were intended to insure that no one person dominates the economic advice going to the President.
This system was sharply tested during the debate over the fate of G.M. and Chrysler. In mid-March, Summers and eight advisers dealing with the issue met around the conference table in his office. Summers called for a vote: who thought Obama should save Chrysler? The group was deadlocked. Four were in favor and four were against. Summers abstained, but he believed that Chrysler should get another chance at survival, especially since the Italian automaker Fiat had announced that it was willing to take over the company. Austan Goolsbee, who is both the staff director of the PERAB and one of Romer’s deputies at the C.E.A., cast the strongest of the no votes, arguing forcefully that saving Chrysler would damage the long-term prospects of G.M. and Ford, and for that reason Chrysler should be allowed to go bankrupt and be liquidated. ”
Repeating my statements, and supporting midcon, the decisions made at the highest level were macro, and in keeping with trying to prevent the country from spiraling further into freefall. Calling socialism is disingenuous.
34 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 5, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Sinz wrote: “The benefit was to the Democratic party, which nationalized GM to bail out the UAW and preserve the lush wages and fringe benefits that the UAW had negotiated all these years . . . What we’re doing, basically, is paying the wages of UAW members with our taxes. They are now, basically, welfare recipients, all of them.”
So is the main complaint with the GM bailout is that the Democratic party may benefit because union workers did not have their wages slashed? How childish and petty has conservatism become?
First of all, it’s a well known fact to all who are not impervious to facts that the bailout was implemented by Bush. Secondly, it is logically incoherent to suggest that a controlled bankruptcy which requirs the cooperation and consent of all the creditors would have produced worse results for the unions than an actual bankruptcy which grants the court much more leeway in determining the outcome.
Secondly, ALL GM creditors are receiving taxpayer money. That was the purpose of the loans that both Bush and Obama extended to GM. It makes absolutely no sense to call the workers who will build the millions of cars GM will sell this year welfare recipients. If anything, the bondholders who are receiving payments from taxpayer money are the welfare recipients.
35 EscapeVelocity // Oct 5, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Sinz at 32 hits it out of the park.
People that produce goods that this country can use…high value goods, namely cutting edge tech F22 Raptors wont be producing those goods anymore.
The UAW gets the spoils, and the American taxpayer gets it up the arse.
Ill take F22 Raptors to protect this country or sell to allies that are drooling for them (like the Australians) over cars that nobody wants to buy, not even in the US.
36 balconesfault // Oct 5, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Ill take F22 Raptors to protect this country or sell to allies that are drooling for them (like the Australians)
If others are drooling for them … why would the free market not produce them without government subsidy?
(escape’s head explodes)
37 EscapeVelocity // Oct 5, 2009 at 1:22 pm
If others are drooling for them … why would the free market not produce them without government subsidy? — balconesfault
Restrictions on trade for National Security reasons.
Did you have a double helping of stupid today?
38 balconesfault // Oct 5, 2009 at 1:44 pm
So what you’re asking for is not subsidy – but relief of trade restrictions. That would be consistent with a small government/anti-socialism ideology.
I’ve read a number of your comments today … so yeah, I have had a double helping of stupid. Perhaps even a triple.
39 Oneon1isto // Oct 5, 2009 at 2:05 pm
What the hell do F22’s have to do with whether or not the GM decision was in fact a handout to the UAW (which it wasn’t)?
I love a world where defense contractors are held up as the paragon of American capitalistic virtue. Ha!
40 David Frum’s Got It Wrong Again « NewsReal Blog // Oct 5, 2009 at 5:18 pm
[...] Cornel West intellectual featherweight, David Frum shills for Obama by David Horowitz Why is David Frum pretending that the Obama administration is less radical than it is. Just because an intellectual [...]
41 sinz54 // Oct 6, 2009 at 8:21 pm
spartacusisnotdead:
NO.
My main complaint with the GM bailout is that it uses tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money for something that (unlike the credit markets or the aerospace industry) has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with U.S. national interest.
GM is finished, kaput. It exists under U.S. government ownership indefinitely because it can’t produce cars Americans want to buy. (In 2006, Consumer Reports stated that ALL TEN of their ten top-rated cars were from Japanese auto makers.)
So exactly what are we taxpayers paying for? We’re paying to give GM workers make-work jobs so they can continue to build the same crappy, unsellable cars they’ve been selling till now. And GM will never, never, get privatized again. It’s a permanent “zombie” corporation, a national embarrassment that Obama can’t pull the plug on without alienating his AFL-CIO supporters.
There is NO NATIONAL INTEREST, none whatsoever, in spending zillions of dollars to keep GM workers drawing paychecks. The worst that would happen, if GM flopped under Chapter 7, is that those assets would be sold off–to Japanese or European automakers–and maybe THOSE managers could figure out how to build cars that Americans want to buy.
42 EscapeVelocity // Oct 6, 2009 at 10:01 pm
…and create jobs for American Workers.
Sinz has once again sailed it out of the park.
Its likely that we see GM as the sole supplier of Government vehicles at a minimum. Then we will see protections, taxes, and tariffs to protect GM. We already see GM offering the never before in history incentive of 6 months money back gaurantee (the Government is backing them, not GM or the UAW).
Its a shame, because GM was successful in every other market. Its North American devision, was run into the ground by the UAW.
43 EscapeVelocity // Oct 6, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Thems Blue and Purple States….elections are coming soon….the gravy train will never stop.
44 sinz54 // Oct 7, 2009 at 10:12 am
escapevelocity:
I guess this is the liberals’ “public option” for automobiles.
Which will be no better than the liberals’ “public option” for health care.
45 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 7, 2009 at 11:32 am
Sinz wrote: “My main complaint with the GM bailout is that it uses tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money for something that (unlike the credit markets or the aerospace industry) has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with U.S. national interest.”
Ok. That’s a legitimate argument based on the merits of the loans themselves, but it is certainly conflicts with your comment @ #18 in which you say GM should have gotten loans.
46 David Frum’s Got It Wrong Again (NewsReal Blog) – by David Horowitz | FrontPage Magazine // Oct 18, 2009 at 2:13 am
[...] is David Frum pretending that the Obama administration is less radical than it is? Just because an intellectual [...]
You must log in to post a comment.