Really? Isn't this America? Why is Obama naming another "czar"? We used to have a process here in the United States. Now we have a government taking over companies, firing and hiring and naming "Czars"?? This really is outrageous. We have a global warming Czar, Ms. Browner, a health care Czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle, a big-picture economic Czar, Paul Volcker and a bank bailout Czar, Herb Allison. According to Steve Holland, "There's a drug czar, a U.S. border czar, an urban czar, a regulatory czar, a stimulus accountability czar, an Iran czar, a Middle East czar, and a czar for both Afghanistan and Pakistan, which in Washington-speak has been lumped together into a policy area called Af-Pak."
Many now feel that Obama’s unprecedented installation of “Czars”, lackeys that have to report directly to the President, overstepping any other branch of government or oversight, is a dangerous new direction for the United States and surely has no precedent in our Constitution. One does wonder why the Senate and the House aren't up in arms over this. In the past a current "urgent" issue may have catapulted a new bureaucracy to try to reign in an out of control entity, but what we have here is simply unacceptable. All on the government's dime (read that as our money) we have groups here, there and everywhere coming up with new and in most cases, ridiculous ideas. How is this helping our economy? How is this keeping us safe? Well, it isn't.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
Another one under the bus.....
They do seem to drop like flies in this administration. Bummer, one would assume this guy at least paid his taxes.........
Jon & Kate
It seemed quite inevitable to us the first time we watched Jon & Kate plus 8 that this was a union doomed to fail. Forget that almost every "reality" show that has ever been on ends in some kind of failure for the participants. These two people never talked to or about one another like a loving, normal and stable couple would. Nice to say here we are, warts and all, but on TV, well the warts really are magnified. Also easy to be glib and say we don't listen to the nonsense in the tabloids, etc. Hogwash! If it is okay to be disrespectful while on the tape one can only imagine how utterly uncivil they must be when by themselves.
The children really are delightful though. Kate does a phenomenal job with the large brood. Obviously she has her priorities spot on when it comes to their meals, their schedules, their health, hygiene, expectations, etc. She runs a tight ship and I would say is pretty lucky to have the help she has, considering her sharp tongue. It is not easy to run a household full of little children! Jon, almost from the beginning, seemed to be sort of hapless. He then morphed in to this pity poor me character. Kate on the other hand really started looking more lively, perhaps from her writing and the opportunities it was affording her. I do believe she has clear vision as to how financially beneficial this show is to her family and their future. I don't fault her for that. Money is pretty dog-gone important when you have children, especially eight children. Apparently the two of them were not or are not on the same page on this. Jon doesn't seem to really like that Kate is "out on her own" promoting the book and the show. Maybe it is more he doesn't like being trapped at home, something millions of stay at home Moms could commiserate with him about at times. Wasn't his complaint that it is all "Jon & Kate", not just Jon? If she would have said that I would have said to her, same as I say to him, good Lord, get over yourself and grow up! That is what you sign up for when you have kids. There are no guarantees that all is going to be wonderful or easy.
When someone has as much at stake as one would surmise Jon does, it certainly is stunning to think he is out partying with college kids. There is an icky factor there I can't seem to get by. Hope they don't have young ladies doing any of the "nanny" work (and yes Kate-even though you said you would NEVER have a nanny, that is what your "helper" is). Not a prayer I would let my teenage daughter babysit for them. Makes no difference what one thinks of Kate. The guy has eight kids, five of them are girls and he is out partying with young women?
What is really sad is of course what this is going to mean for the children. There is no way on earth they aren't touched or harmed by this. Kids don't want to have to choose between parents, they don't like being in the middle and certainly don't like it when their parents are unhappy. And typically children act out when such tension is present in the home between their parents. If you've ever had marital problems you know how difficult it is to focus on anything besides the relationship that is in tatters.
Maybe Jon and Kate should stop the "tours", stop the show and work out the free fall that is their marriage. I don't have much hope for any success but they have eight good reasons to work like hell to fix it and fix it soon.
The children really are delightful though. Kate does a phenomenal job with the large brood. Obviously she has her priorities spot on when it comes to their meals, their schedules, their health, hygiene, expectations, etc. She runs a tight ship and I would say is pretty lucky to have the help she has, considering her sharp tongue. It is not easy to run a household full of little children! Jon, almost from the beginning, seemed to be sort of hapless. He then morphed in to this pity poor me character. Kate on the other hand really started looking more lively, perhaps from her writing and the opportunities it was affording her. I do believe she has clear vision as to how financially beneficial this show is to her family and their future. I don't fault her for that. Money is pretty dog-gone important when you have children, especially eight children. Apparently the two of them were not or are not on the same page on this. Jon doesn't seem to really like that Kate is "out on her own" promoting the book and the show. Maybe it is more he doesn't like being trapped at home, something millions of stay at home Moms could commiserate with him about at times. Wasn't his complaint that it is all "Jon & Kate", not just Jon? If she would have said that I would have said to her, same as I say to him, good Lord, get over yourself and grow up! That is what you sign up for when you have kids. There are no guarantees that all is going to be wonderful or easy.
When someone has as much at stake as one would surmise Jon does, it certainly is stunning to think he is out partying with college kids. There is an icky factor there I can't seem to get by. Hope they don't have young ladies doing any of the "nanny" work (and yes Kate-even though you said you would NEVER have a nanny, that is what your "helper" is). Not a prayer I would let my teenage daughter babysit for them. Makes no difference what one thinks of Kate. The guy has eight kids, five of them are girls and he is out partying with young women?
What is really sad is of course what this is going to mean for the children. There is no way on earth they aren't touched or harmed by this. Kids don't want to have to choose between parents, they don't like being in the middle and certainly don't like it when their parents are unhappy. And typically children act out when such tension is present in the home between their parents. If you've ever had marital problems you know how difficult it is to focus on anything besides the relationship that is in tatters.
Maybe Jon and Kate should stop the "tours", stop the show and work out the free fall that is their marriage. I don't have much hope for any success but they have eight good reasons to work like hell to fix it and fix it soon.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Senior Spector?
Spector must not have been paying attention. His fellow Democrats only say things to make people feel better, they don't actually do what they say they are going to do. It is laughable that he thought he could just change because he didn't think his constituency was with him anymore. Sort of looks like he was a useful idiot for at least one or two news cycles. What do you suppose the over/under is on him being re-elected?
Class Warfare
And this goes to show that the Democrats have successfully amped up the class warfare. Taxes are one issue. We all pay way too much in taxes, regardless of what we earn. It is reckless and unconscionable that our very own government has nothing but disdain for business and the people that work in those businesses. Crooks belong in jail. Too say or imply that all managers or owners are greedy because they work hard and want to make money is absolutely stunning. There is a reason many came to America and were very happy to raise their children in a country that put no limits on their potential. Amazingly Americans don't know what the "American Dream" is or was anymore. We have a President that talks about "greedy" speculators? Hello world, those "speculators", better known as stockholders, are all of us that have retirement accounts. Our hard earned money goes in to those companies and unlike the government, those companies are expected to produce and earn! Class warfare, straight up. Are there terrible companies that deserve to fail? Of course. Are there lousy cheats running various entities? Of course. And who props them up? Our government. Banks that made bad business decisions should have been left to fail. Our Government that likes to regulate everything sees to it they can pull all sorts of shady crap on their customers-they are not looking out for us as they should be-they get their cash from the bank lobby and screw us. Car companies that have not been able to build a car people want to buy should have been left to fail. In their defense they have bureaucrats that have never produced anything telling them how to build their vehicles. They have also not stood up to unions and that is also a big part of their demise. People that bought houses they clearly couldn't afford should lose those houses. Our Government and idiots like Barney Frank had a huge hand in that debacle. Government interference in all of these areas has exacerbated the problems. But for the government that simply takes and takes and takes to vilify people and businesses that work hard for a profit, shame, shame on them. Folks need to wake up because the “rich” bar keeps getting lowered. Those of us that have worked for 45 years and saved for our retirement don’t feel like greedy rich people! All this stimulus BS cash? If they would have sent $100,000.00 to each of us we could have been more successful at stimulating and the cost would have been substantially lower. The fat cats, both sides, just pulled off the biggest scam in the history of this country!
Monday, May 4, 2009
PETER FERRARA: Obama’s Auto Bailout Plan STEALS From Investors and Gives to the Government
Click title to read the article (article also follows my post).
Well, it is pretty dog gone scary when the President says we are going to assume you are guilty and you have to prove you are innocent. Yes indeed, tax cheats running the joint and a President that has nothing but disdain for job creators. Ayn Rand so eloquently said: “Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter.” Our President is telling us that shareholders are evil and "greedy speculators". No Mr. Obama, they are the ones investing and taking risks. And folks, that would be you if you have a 401K or any other retirement account. We don't put that money in Gore's "lock box"; we spread that wealth around hoping to gain more wealth. That is not evil, that is called planning for your future! To Lonie & Bob from the Old School, hey you will have no choice about the cars you will buy in the future-your government will be dictating what can be made and what you can buy. Worked real well in the Soviet Union didn't it? WAKE UP people! This administration is too outrageous for words. Oh, and ask the people in Kenosha WI how they feel about the government helping the car makers out. They got the big screw today and I think they are quite possibly "seeing the light".
As posted on the Fox News site:
By Peter FerraraDirector, Entitlement and Budget Policy, Institute for Policy Innovation/General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union
How is Obama not a socialist? Under his “auto bailout” policy, the government would be taking GM and Chrysler away from the investors, with majority controlling interest for GM placed instead in the hands of the government (with 50% common stock ownership), and the majority interest for Chrysler (55%) to be given to the UAW union. This is exactly what socialism is.
This policy basically involves stealing the company from the investors and giving it to the federal government and the auto union. This is especially clear for the senior bondholders that Obama has now taken to deriding as greedy. These bondholders agreed to lend money to the auto companies on the condition that the debt owed to them would be senior to the debts of others. Senior means they would be paid first out of the company’s available revenues.
The problem with stealing as national policy, besides being immoral, is that it is impractical.
But the auto bailout Obama wants them to agree to would pay these senior bondholders somewhere between 5% and 30% of what they are owed, while everyone else, including the unions and the government, would get a much higher percentage of what they are owed. So Obama’s deal means they would be last instead of first, as was agreed, to get them to lend the money in the first place. The bondholders were consequently quite right to object to this theft of their money and force the whole deal into bankruptcy court, where the rights of senior creditors are understood and respected.
The issue is not whether these bondholders should sacrifice as part of the auto bailout deal, as Obama claimed last week. None of them are claiming they should get 100% of what they are owed. But given that they agreed to lend their money in the first place on the condition that they be paid back first before others, they should at the very least get back the same percentage as the others. I think that Obama is ignorant of this whole concept of senior bondholders, and, therefore, doesn’t know what he is talking about in discussing the auto bailout.
The problem with stealing as national policy, besides being immoral, is that it is impractical. If the rights of these senior bondholders are not respected, then the auto companies will never be able to borrow money again on the promise that the lender will be paid back first out of available revenues. This will worsen the prospects for success of the bailout. It will also mean more costs for the taxpayers, who will have to pay more in the future to cover what the companies can no longer borrow.
This is made all the worse because the entire auto bailout is illegal. The TARP funds funding the bailout were originally authorized by Congress to be used to bail out the banks, not auto companies. So what is involved is stealing from the taxpayers as well. Hopefully, someone will sue in the bankruptcy court on behalf of taxpayers making this argument, and seek to shut the whole bailout down.
Obama’s lawless piracy in regard to the auto bailout has broader implications. Investors nationwide and around the world will see that their legal and property rights may not be respected if they invest in Obama’s New Amerika. So they are less likely to invest here and promote economic recovery, and more likely to look to invest where the thieves will not accuse them of stealing and immorality for looking to get their own money back.
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation, and General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Harvard College.
Well, it is pretty dog gone scary when the President says we are going to assume you are guilty and you have to prove you are innocent. Yes indeed, tax cheats running the joint and a President that has nothing but disdain for job creators. Ayn Rand so eloquently said: “Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter.” Our President is telling us that shareholders are evil and "greedy speculators". No Mr. Obama, they are the ones investing and taking risks. And folks, that would be you if you have a 401K or any other retirement account. We don't put that money in Gore's "lock box"; we spread that wealth around hoping to gain more wealth. That is not evil, that is called planning for your future! To Lonie & Bob from the Old School, hey you will have no choice about the cars you will buy in the future-your government will be dictating what can be made and what you can buy. Worked real well in the Soviet Union didn't it? WAKE UP people! This administration is too outrageous for words. Oh, and ask the people in Kenosha WI how they feel about the government helping the car makers out. They got the big screw today and I think they are quite possibly "seeing the light".
As posted on the Fox News site:
By Peter FerraraDirector, Entitlement and Budget Policy, Institute for Policy Innovation/General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union
How is Obama not a socialist? Under his “auto bailout” policy, the government would be taking GM and Chrysler away from the investors, with majority controlling interest for GM placed instead in the hands of the government (with 50% common stock ownership), and the majority interest for Chrysler (55%) to be given to the UAW union. This is exactly what socialism is.
This policy basically involves stealing the company from the investors and giving it to the federal government and the auto union. This is especially clear for the senior bondholders that Obama has now taken to deriding as greedy. These bondholders agreed to lend money to the auto companies on the condition that the debt owed to them would be senior to the debts of others. Senior means they would be paid first out of the company’s available revenues.
The problem with stealing as national policy, besides being immoral, is that it is impractical.
But the auto bailout Obama wants them to agree to would pay these senior bondholders somewhere between 5% and 30% of what they are owed, while everyone else, including the unions and the government, would get a much higher percentage of what they are owed. So Obama’s deal means they would be last instead of first, as was agreed, to get them to lend the money in the first place. The bondholders were consequently quite right to object to this theft of their money and force the whole deal into bankruptcy court, where the rights of senior creditors are understood and respected.
The issue is not whether these bondholders should sacrifice as part of the auto bailout deal, as Obama claimed last week. None of them are claiming they should get 100% of what they are owed. But given that they agreed to lend their money in the first place on the condition that they be paid back first before others, they should at the very least get back the same percentage as the others. I think that Obama is ignorant of this whole concept of senior bondholders, and, therefore, doesn’t know what he is talking about in discussing the auto bailout.
The problem with stealing as national policy, besides being immoral, is that it is impractical. If the rights of these senior bondholders are not respected, then the auto companies will never be able to borrow money again on the promise that the lender will be paid back first out of available revenues. This will worsen the prospects for success of the bailout. It will also mean more costs for the taxpayers, who will have to pay more in the future to cover what the companies can no longer borrow.
This is made all the worse because the entire auto bailout is illegal. The TARP funds funding the bailout were originally authorized by Congress to be used to bail out the banks, not auto companies. So what is involved is stealing from the taxpayers as well. Hopefully, someone will sue in the bankruptcy court on behalf of taxpayers making this argument, and seek to shut the whole bailout down.
Obama’s lawless piracy in regard to the auto bailout has broader implications. Investors nationwide and around the world will see that their legal and property rights may not be respected if they invest in Obama’s New Amerika. So they are less likely to invest here and promote economic recovery, and more likely to look to invest where the thieves will not accuse them of stealing and immorality for looking to get their own money back.
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation, and General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Harvard College.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
