Too Bad this isn’t all just an April Fool’s Joke……


"I do not want to Run GM and Chrysler, but......"

In an unprecidented move, the president has just “governmentized” our auto industry, (except for Ford of course because they refused the help in the first place.). We have a huge problem with this my friends, and the problem comes in when you take into account the amount of money this man has spent since he came into office about 65 days ago.

But when it came to the auto industry, Rush Limbaugh predicted this last year, and on his show, on November 24th, of 2008, he said this:


The fact of the matter is, when you look at what the auto industry is being asked to do here, “Show us a plan that will honor all these overpriced union agreements, show Congress this plan; turn out cars the environmental extremeists demand, stop producing cars consumers want, manufacture cars liberals say people should be driving, and every time the liberals in Congress change their mind, you have to change your production lines and retool, and while doing all of this, you have to make a profit.” I would not want to be a CEO of a big automaker these days, what with is headed their way given their needs. Thy’re going to have to bend over a whole bunch of times, grab the ankles for whatever sustenance they get from the government.

Now isn’t this special? Now, Rick Wagoner is out. And there has to be a question asked here my friends. Does Obama or anyone in his cabinet know anything about the automobile industry? Does Obama even know what a tire gauge is? Do any of the people that he has on his automobile task force know anything about what it takes to manufacture an automobile? I think not. After all, Obama is nothing more than an inexperienced Community Organizer.

But in taking over the automobile companies, Obama is saying this: “I’m am not taking over to run these companies!” To that I say, Oh Yeah? Is that why you have fired the CEO of General Motors? Sounds like you have taken over to me.

Is that why your doing what you can to make the automakers do what you and your liberal cronies want? Sounds like you have taken over to me.

My friends, here is what is going on here. Obama wants us to all drive little bitty cars that either get huge amounts of mileage, or, run on Electricity. The Global Warming thing is going again. The Obama administration and the Liberal Left in this country only want tiny “GREEN” cars made.

The only vehicles that GM is selling now that is making them money are the SUV’s and the trucks. But OBAMA wants to change that. He wants them to only make “GREEN” cars that the public doesn’t want. The SUV’s and the trucks that the public does want, will be taken away. And the way he plans to do this, is to start taxing Gasoline and oil so that the price of Gas starts going up. Another way is to make it so that public lands that have oil under them will be off limits to oil exploration. That part has already started.

He knows that the public’s breaking point on the price of Gas is 4.00 per gallon. And mark my words here my friends, it will get that high again. He wants to make sure that the American public accepts what OBAMA wants. And with him running the GM and Chrysler products, he is in the perfect place to do what he wants.

I really wish that this whole thing was an April Fools Joke, because he is going totally against what the people want. We have to make sure that we let him know that we do not want this. He is determined to push this on our lives, whether we want it or not my friends. This has to be stopped. NOW!


God Bless America and our troops
God Bless my readers, listeners and viewers…..

-Robert-

About Robert P. Garding

I am a Reagan Conservative, who is very alarmed at the Liberals who have just lost their majority over our government, but continue to act like it never happened. They have to be stopped. NOW or even sooner.
This entry was posted in Conservative Talk Blog host. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Too Bad this isn’t all just an April Fool’s Joke……

  1. MysticMaria says:

    But is it not a good idea to use green cars for so many reasons? Why push something that is bad for the environment? Aren’t cars supposed to be mainly for transportation, and not for looking good?

    reply from Robert Where the left is totally missing this is, green cars are not that green. Electric cars for example only get about 40 miles per charge…then gues what….the carbon footprint starts up and you have to charge it for up to 8 hours….before driving it again. Gasoline cars are more fuel efficient and cleaner burning than ever before in history, and the cars that burn ethanol are only about 1/2 as efficient as gasoline burning cars. I think that the people should be free to choose what vehicle they drive, I myself want to and will drive my 96 Mustang. It is a gas burner, but I keep it tuned up and clean running, and it probably does less damage to the environment than any lib would admit. So you can drive a gasoline car and still be green.

  2. Seane-Anna says:

    And the Obamabots assured us the Big O wasn’t a socialist. Yeah, right!

    And MysticMaria, green cars are good for the environment, but so are many other things. Many environmentalists think that smaller homes, fewer people, and a vegetarian diet are good for the environment. Do you want the government in charge of what kind of house you can buy, what food you can eat, or how many children you can have?

    MM, you need to stop and think before you get carried away with the notion that just because something is good that means the government ought to mandate it. Very often, putting the government in charge of a good thing is the quickest way to make it go bad.

    reply from Robert: great reply to MM Seane Anna.

  3. Seane-Anna says:

    Btw, MysticMaria, LOVE your name!

  4. Jinno says:

    I’m not seeing the problem here. GM, and the rest of the auto industry for that matter, came to the government for a bailout, to save them from going under and having to file bankruptcy.

    As such, the government in this case is acting as a bank. With that in mind, our money comes at the cost of stipulations until that money is paid back. That’s how a bank lends copious amounts of money.

    Given that our leaders are now democrats, and wish to push a pro-environment agenda, their requirements are quite likely to include certain things like contract negotiations, salary caps, and product requirements. Those are the stipulations involved with giving money.

    Again, I would have, as a free market economist, let the business croak, possibly giving loans to companies that weren’t tanking to buy up assets should the tankers want to liquidate. But unfortunately that plan makes certain things worse. For instance, unemployment. The liquidation of larger companies and the closing down of major lines would surely have meant the laying off of hundreds if not thousands of people. The Obama and Bush administrations did not want to see this happen, and so they have been working to keep the Industry from going under.

    Also, lets not forget, even though it was on a decidedly smaller scale, Reagan’s administration also did a round of bailouts (During the savings and loan crisis…) with tax payer money. So when a necessity dictates usage, bailouts do serve a purpose.

    reply from Robert: It is true that Reagan did a smaller version of bale outs…but not during a recession….doing this during a recession is suicide and only steals money from future generations…and Obama’s spending in the 68 days he has been in office has been more, than every president from Washington on to Obama’s inauguration has……and that is TOO MUCH. I don’t relish my grandchildren being in complete debt to the government before they can even get a chance to start.

  5. #

    I’m not seeing the problem here. GM, and the rest of the auto industry for that matter, came to the government for a bailout, to save them from going under and having to file bankruptcy.

    As such, the government in this case is acting as a bank. With that in mind, our money comes at the cost of stipulations until that money is paid back. That’s how a bank lends copious amounts of money.

    Look kid, you obviously are a drone and haven’t the slightest concept of economics. Just “Hopenchange!!1111” So let me give you an example. You borrow 500 bucks from your bank for, say a home improvement loan, but you spend it on a new X box, a family sized bag of Doritos and an ounce of kush. And then the bank says “Wait, you can’t spend it like that now that we’ve lent it to you! we’re gonna take over your house and kick you out of your basement! And take your damn hooka bong with you!”

    Make sense now?

    reply from Robert: The trouble is, being a bank is NOT the governments lot in life. They were never made to be a bank.

  6. Jinno says:

    “Look kid, you obviously are a drone and haven’t the slightest concept of economics. Just “Hopenchange!!1111″ So let me give you an example. You borrow 500 bucks from your bank for, say a home improvement loan, but you spend it on a new X box, a family sized bag of Doritos and an ounce of kush. And then the bank says “Wait, you can’t spend it like that now that we’ve lent it to you! we’re gonna take over your house and kick you out of your basement! And take your damn hooka bong with you!””

    By reading that, I’m really thinking that you’re the one with no clue how things work. We’re not talking about a personal loan here. Loans made to an individual are non-designated, unless used for an auto or a house. Thus the individual is making a promise to pay the money back, backing it with their personal credit score, the bank can do nothing but make claims on that credit, and sue for the money later.

    High capital loans such as the ones the government is making to GM, are similar to the type that JP Morgan Chase has made to companies like Boeing. Yes, we’ll give you the money, but we get a guy on your board of directors who will have our say in what you do.

    Rather now, instead of having a member on the board, the government is providing a contract for the money, with certain requirements. It becomes a business investment, and if the company doesn’t fulfill their contractual obligations, we are able to sue for breech of contract.

    And for the record, if you’re going to make assumptions of someone’s character, don’t make yourself out to be a complete arse.

    reply from Robert: No assumptions made here Jinno. All I am saying, is this country was founded with a government that’s only duties is to serve the people and protect them. NOT BE A BANK. When we started allowing our government to do that, then we started heading into an area that our government was never meant to go into. As for helping out companies……let them go under. There will be plenty more to take they’re places. Always has been. A business goes under, be it for bad business practices or the market…..there will always be another to take it’s place and be better at it. Understand now?

    As for me being a kid…..experience has it’s rewards, KID, and the way they are teaching economics now, is a fallacy, because things do not work that way. Bailing out companies to keep them from failing when they should fail, is not helping the economy. It is pushing back the inevidable, and making what will happen, be worse and last longer. The great depression is a good example. We would have come out of that at least 5 years sooner if the government had stayed out of it. Yes things would have gotten bad, but I seriously doubt if they would have been as bad as they got, nor would the depression lasted near as long.

  7. Jinno says:

    “Again, I would have, as a free market economist, let the business croak, possibly giving loans to companies that weren’t tanking to buy up assets should the tankers want to liquidate. But unfortunately that plan makes certain things worse. For instance, unemployment. The liquidation of larger companies and the closing down of major lines would surely have meant the laying off of hundreds if not thousands of people. The Obama and Bush administrations did not want to see this happen, and so they have been working to keep the Industry from going under.”

    I’ve actually already addressed that, Robert. The thing is, there’s an immense pressure to interfere so as to cushion the blow as opposed to taking it straight on the chin. Our government already runs a deficit, and has been pretty much since the Kennedy/Johnson days (with the exceptions being the beginning of Nixon’s term, and the large surpluses at the end of the Clinton era. seen here: http://i.scribd.com/profiles/images/auw7rfzmnovul-large.gif). As such, our economic standing relies highly on the stability of our markets.

    But, as it goes, stuff happens. Housing bubble, oil crisis, and credit crunch have wreaked havoc upon our economy. This is a big problem in terms of revenue generation for two reasons. A, our people aren’t spending, so sales taxes aren’t coming in. B, the credit crunch created a situation where mortage backed securities essentially became worthless, and were sold off by investors here in America and outside of it. As a result, banks were put in a position where it wasn’t safe to lend, and so the loan as a means of business capital has been sharply reduced. Businesses had to accommodate to these market changes and either the lack of loan-based capital or the same capital but at higher interest rates. By and large this caused companies to cut spending, for the most part in their employment, causing the unemployment problems we have today.

    So, the bigwigs on Pennsylvania Avenue were really put in a situation where they didn’t have much choice. In the event of a crisis, it is often perceived that he who does nothing does not care. So anyone touting a line of let them fail would take the blame of the resulting downfalls in derivative markets and labor markets, IE business closures and unemployment. Furthermore the impact this had on revenue flows put them in a bad position as far as international debt balancing goes. Both of these were conditions that needed controlling, or they would result in harsh consequences. High unemployment and a banking system unwilling to lend? An economic depression in the modern age. Not to mention your statement of “there will always be another to take it’s place and be better at it”, is not quite true. There’s a huge capital investment required for an automobile business, as such this is a huge barrier to entry. With banks unwilling and unable to provide capital investment on such ventures, the only companies able to compete would surely have come from outside of America without the implementation of highly protectionist policies that are outlawed by our adoption of GATT and WTO policies.

    Foreign bonds buyers weary of the economic stability of America selling off their bonds and securities? An even more slaughtered banking system, and a fiscal collapse of the American bonds system, giving the potential to ruin the ability of the government to undertake the most necessary functions of defense, and recovery from the other things that would likely have happened.

    So you cushion the blow. You push capital into the system, and you buy the toxic securities, and you give money to businesses that employ thousands of Americans so that there’s more people able to be out spending confidently, not on unemployment, further draining cash reserves.

    reply from Robert: Your thinking, but the Government was never meant to be a bank, and businesses were never meant to stay in business forever. It is a fact of life that a business would go out of business. Government cannot stop this, only delay it. Let the automakers go out of business, and they will be replaced with a more vibrant and effective tool to do the same thing.
    Where the government went wrong, is thinking that the businesses were too big to fail. Nothing is too big to fail. Countries have failed.
    As for your idea that pushing capital into the system is good. Yes, I agree, when the economy is good and the money is there to do it with. But when you have to borrow and make it to do it, then it is the worst idea that can happen.
    During the Reagan years there was a bail out then, but when that happened, money didn’t have to be borrowed from an outside source, and we didn’t have to make the money. So then the bail out was okay, though not a preferable thing. Government was not made to be a bank. They can insure banks, with FDIC, but that is as far as it should go.
    Your statement: “anyone touting a line of let them fail would take the blame of the resulting downfalls in derivative markets and labor markets,” is wrong, because through out the history of the world businesses have always gone out of business, and others have taken their places. Maybe the businesses coming in weren’t the same…but the need was taken care of, with better, and possibly more advanced things. It is well known, if you check, that there are inventions out there that would make your automobile as it sits now obsolete, and because the auto industry has such a strangle hold on movement in this country, they have been forced down. There have been cars made, that run on water, yet, the development of them have been pushed down because it would hurt the oil industry. There are car batteries that essentially last for the lifetime of a car, yet they have been pushed aside because they would be putting the automobile battery industry pretty much out of business because no one would ever need to buy batteries. Get the picture? In a free market society, Jinno, there is always something to take the place of something that fails. It may not be something that we can think of now, but the inventiveness of the American people has always won out, if allowed to be inventive. Keeping the automakers in business artificially does not work to stimulate anything but the making of money to keep them going. And, on top of that Jinno, GM has been bailed out and they are in need again. Where will it end? With the bankruptcy of the government of the United States? That is coming. I speak on this from having years and years of experience that someday, you will have. Artificially stimulating something is just a temporary fix my friend, and if the funds are NOT there to do it in the first place, it will nearly always fail. The funds are not there. If they were, we would not have to be printing money faster than ever before, and we would not be borrowing from China….both of which will come back to bite us all in the butts in the near future…..and also in the futures of your children and grandchildren. It is nothing more than Generational Theft, as I and so many have said before. And that is not fair to them.

    We don’t do anything, and yes there will be some hard times, but they will last a much shorter time than what is coming will.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s