Building houses and bilking firemen in the City Different

My column in the New Mexico Independent today discusses the relationship between the government-financed building of “affordable housing” and the fiscal belt-tightening that has led the top brass of the Santa Fe Fire Department in its entirety to take early retirement.

Our local city government cutting costs in a destructive way with its right hand, while sticking its left hand deep into what ought to remain private enterprise, has obvious parallels in Washington, where the Obama Administration has assumed unprecedented powers of hiring and firing businessmen in what used to be the private sector.  My critics will point out that since it’s taxpayer money  bailing out those companies, the President is entirely within his rights.  My point is that public money shouldn’t be commingling with private in the first place, so the question of the POTUS being de facto CEO of several major corporations shouldn’t even be an issue.

Comments 17

  1. Dan wrote:

    My point is that public money shouldn’t be commingling with private in the first place, so the question of the POTUS being de facto CEO of several major corporations shouldn’t even be an issue.

    If private corporations don’t want to take public money and the requirements that that public money comes with they should probably… you know… stop desperately begging for public money.

    Posted 31 Mar 2009 at 8:30 pm
  2. Rob Kerns wrote:

    Dan, I actually agree with you for once….to some extent. Just because they beg doesn’t mean the government has to give it to them. All the gov’t had to do was say “No.” Now, POTUS and congress have an excuse to start socializing private business. Didn’t the British government take over their auto industry at one time? Anyone remember how that turned out?

    Posted 31 Mar 2009 at 10:24 pm
  3. MIT Mommy wrote:

    I wonder if anyone has considered just giving the money to Ford instead. I heard they didn’t need any, but maybe that means they have some idea of what to do with it.

    Sorry, its hard for me to keep up with all these details.

    Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 3:23 am
  4. Dan wrote:

    I wonder if anyone has considered just giving the money to Ford instead. I heard they didn’t need any, but maybe that means they have some idea of what to do with it.

    If I recall correctly Ford asked for a line of credit to be made available but they didn’t need it immediately like GM and Chrysler did. Ford had already transitioned away from SUV-centric offerings and are now introducing their new small- and midsize cars. The new hybrid Ford Fusion is pretty awesome- it beats out the Prius in testing.

    Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 3:33 am
  5. Brigette Russell wrote:

    Dan, I actually agree with you for once….to some extent. Just because they beg doesn’t mean the government has to give it to them. All the gov’t had to do was say “No.”

    Thanks for saving me the trouble of saying this, Rob. Shame on the companies for coming begging to the government, and shame on the government for enabling them.

    The difference, of course, is that the companies are private entities (or they used to be anyway) what they do is their business (or it used to be anyway) whereas in theory at least the Congress and President work for us, the people, who pay the taxes that foot the bill to bail out the groveling, sniveling, bail-out-soliciting companies. Therefore it IS my business what they (the Congress and President) do.

    Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 5:10 pm
  6. Dan wrote:

    Therefore it IS my business what they (the Congress and President) do.

    Who was it who suggested it was none of your business? All workings of the US Government are the business of its citizens.

    Isn’t it odd that Obama is urging GM and Chrysler to file chapter 11 and reorganize prior to any further loans, as opposed to the Bush admin’s no-strings $17B handout to those companies?

    Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 9:19 pm
  7. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Isn’t it odd that Obama is urging GM and Chrysler to file chapter 11 and reorganize prior to any further loans, as opposed to the Bush admin’s no-strings $17B handout to those companies?

    What is your point? All of us here we’re for GM filing for BK a long time ago.

    Stop trying to link Brigette, myself and other conservatives to the bailouts. We we’re against them ALL THE TIME. Go back and read Brigette’s previous blog posts on this subject.

    Dan, you’ve got to get over the fact that BUSH ISN’T PRESIDENT ANY MORE. We here weren’t the supporters of him that you believe us to be.

    Posted 02 Apr 2009 at 1:57 am
  8. Dan wrote:

    What is your point? All of us here we’re for GM filing for BK a long time ago.

    My point is that I find it interesting that the “conservative” president gave that money to GM and Chrysler with no strings attached but that the “liberal” (or if you prefer, socialist) president wants an actual reorganization plan before giving any more.

    I don’t know why you take everything I say as an accusation. Do you mean everything you say as an accusation?

    As for GM & Chrysler going bankrupt (chapter 7, not 11), I wonder (note lack of accusation here!) if bailing them out is more expensive or cheaper than having to pay unemployment for the millions of workers who would lose their jobs as a result. If those two go under, so do all their parts suppliers, dealers, thousands of auto & body shops and other vehicle servicers – which would also almost certainly trickle back up to take down Ford as well.

    Dan, you’ve got to get over the fact that BUSH ISN’T PRESIDENT ANY MORE.

    Thank little eight pound, six ounce, newborn baby Jesus, in his golden, fleece diapers, with his curled-up, fat, balled-up little fists pawin’ at the air.. for that.

    Posted 02 Apr 2009 at 4:10 pm
  9. Bowden Russell wrote:

    My point is that I find it interesting that the “conservative” president gave that money to GM and Chrysler with no strings attached but that the “liberal” (or if you prefer, socialist) president wants an actual reorganization plan before giving any more.

    We’ve said to you, and Brigette has said in her blog posts, time and time again, that we/she we’re big fans of Bush. He wasn’t a “conservative” when it came to the size and spending of Government. No way, no how.

    You keep bringing up Bush and his spending/bailouts as some form of cover for Obama when he engages in a bailout.

    Give it up Dan, Bush isn’t President anymore and we here we’re supporters of him.

    Posted 02 Apr 2009 at 7:24 pm
  10. Bowden Russell wrote:

    We’re = weren’t. (Obviously).

    Posted 02 Apr 2009 at 7:33 pm
  11. Dan wrote:

    Give it up Dan, Bush isn’t President anymore and we here we’re supporters of him.

    Except for, apparently, his totally excellent adventure in Iraq.

    Posted 02 Apr 2009 at 8:41 pm
  12. Bowden Russell wrote:

    What’s your point Dan? Because I supported his Iraq policy, yet opposed about 70% of everthing else he did, means what?

    Posted 03 Apr 2009 at 12:10 am
  13. Dan wrote:

    What’s your point Dan? Because I supported his Iraq policy, yet opposed about 70% of everthing else he did, means what?

    I guess the point is that the part you support is the #1 most objectively evil thing he did.

    Even from a objectivist conservative point of view the invasion of Iraq cost $3Trillion and gained the US nothing. You have, after all, repeatedly stated you don’t care about anything that happens in other countries and therefore should not care about what was or is happening to the citizenry of Iraq.

    The invasion of Iraq makes the combination of TARP and the Stimulus look like chump change from a fiscal standpoint.

    Posted 03 Apr 2009 at 12:32 am
  14. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Even from a objectivist conservative point of view the invasion of Iraq cost $3Trillion and gained the US nothing.

    Yawn. I would ask you to cite your source, but what is the point? You’ll never own up to being misinformed-as I believe you are-and therefore you will cling to your world view, no matter how egregious your “facts” and “figures” are.

    You mention NASA as some source, I initially refute NASAs figures, which you then lable a “conspiracy”, then after admitting it as a “small mistake” on NASA’s part, you still cling to your argument.

    You’re a propagandist. You don’t come here for rational discourse, your here to push your and the DNC’s agenda down our throat.

    Posted 03 Apr 2009 at 5:05 pm
  15. Dan wrote:

    Yawn. I would ask you to cite your source, but what is the point? You’ll never own up to being misinformed-as I believe you are-and therefore you will cling to your world view, no matter how egregious your “facts” and “figures” are.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html

    You mention NASA as some source, I initially refute NASAs figures, which you then lable a “conspiracy”, then after admitting it as a “small mistake” on NASA’s part, you still cling to your argument.

    Lets review the actual events instead of your bizarre interpretation of them shall we? I mention that the Bush admin made a policy of censoring scientific reports to fit its political and religious beliefs and note NASA as an example. You begin wailing about a mistake in that NASA sample that in no way effects the veracity of the study. You refuse to discuss the Bush admin’s political meddling in it or other studies. You then bring it up later in an irrelevant context.

    You’re a propagandist. You don’t come here for rational discourse, your here to push your and the DNC’s agenda down our throat.

    You’re irrational. You have a black & white world view where anyone you agree with is good and anyone you disagree with is evil. You’re incapable of seeing shades of grey or ambiguity. And you don’t know what apostrophes are for. Here’s a cartoon to explain it to you:

    http://www.journalismcareers.com/gfx/apostropheposter.jpg

    Posted 03 Apr 2009 at 6:25 pm
  16. Brigette Russell wrote:

    Love the apostrophe cartoon. “The Russian’s are coming” type errors drive me nuts. Bowden actually does know how to use apostrophes; he just types fast and doesn’t always proofread.

    Posted 04 Apr 2009 at 3:32 pm
  17. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Brigette, he’s a Bolshevik whose goal is to spread disinformation and troll conservative blogs.

    Didn’t you tell me he does this to other websites? It wouldn’t surprise me as he’s got nothing better to do all day and every day.

    I’m through with the prevaricator. It’s nothing but DNC spin 24/7 with the troll.

    Posted 04 Apr 2009 at 6:22 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *