Gangsta Government

[Kathianne]

Indeed that is what we have. Buy a Ford.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Gangster-government-gave-Chrysler-to-the-UAW-44580592.html


Gangster government gave Chrysler to the UAW
By: Examiner Editorial
-
05/08/09 6:12 AM EDT
--
Give President Obama credit – he at least made the proverbial offer Chrysler’s secured creditors couldn’t refuse. The way Obama strong-armed creditors who rightfully expected to be treated justly under the law was right out of Juan Peron’s playbook. Like the Argentinian strong man, Obama muscled the owners and creditors out of a productive private company and gave it to union leaders, who will then fill his campaign coffers in gratitude for his generosity. The Examiner’s Michael Barone – who has forgotten more about American government and politics than most Washington political experts know – was correct to dub Obama’s Chrysler heist “an episode of Gangster Government.”

Forget what anybody in the White House or what is left of the Chrysler executive corps claims to the contrary because the UAW effectively owns the company now, holding 55 percent of its stock. True, the union doesn’t get an explicit controlling majority of the board of directors, but who needs that when you’ve got the White House guaranteeing your work and the U.S. Treasury Department making sure you never have to worry about the bottom line. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger’s place in Big Labor’s Hall of Fame is now secure. He found a sugar daddy with an endless supply of cash. So UAW members and retirees can keep right on drawing those pay and benefits so excessively generous they made it impossible for the old Chrysler to compete with Toyota and Honda....

[Joe Steel]

The Examiner’s Michael Barone – who has forgotten more about American government and politics than most Washington political experts know – was correct to dub Obama’s Chrysler heist “an episode of Gangster Government.”

Michael Barone is a political hack who's opinions are little more that rightwing boilerplate. They're not worth the trouble of reading.


The way Obama strong-armed creditors who rightfully expected to be treated justly under the law...

Investors earn interest because they're in a risky business. This time they lost. Too bad.

[Silver]

Michael Barone is a political hack who's opinions are little more that rightwing boilerplate. They're not worth the trouble of reading.



Investors earn interest because they're in a risky business. This time they lost. Too bad.

It wouldn't matter is Barone was a freekin' alien from Mars...whats true is true no matter who the messenger is...Obama bullied them to get the company and handed it over to the union....as simple as your mama must have been...

Inverters didn't lose..they were robbed...robbed by a thief in an expensive suit..

[emmett]

Isn't government controled enterprise wonderful?

[Kathianne]

Michael Barone is a political hack who's opinions are little more that rightwing boilerplate. They're not worth the trouble of reading.



Investors earn interest because they're in a risky business. This time they lost. Too bad.

As said about the messenger, your namecalling is pointless. However, what's being done is not good for the long term.

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2009/05/does_obamas_bul.html


Does Obama's bullying of investors portend real problems for the US?
Johnathan Pearce (London) Globalization/economics • North American affairs

....For those who have not been following this story, bond-holders have been pushed to the back of the queue, as far as potential recovery of capital is concerned, with the auto union membership getting preferential treatment. Maybe Mr Obama figures that investors can be rained on right now because it is more important to get the votes and support of traditionally Democrat-leaning car workers. With mid-term Congressional elections a couple of years away, he will have his sly, Chicago machine-politics mind working out how to garner important support in the event that the US economy is still sluggish by that time. But pissing off investors - such as, let it be noted, pension funds - is not smart. The US requires large amounts of capital for any economic recovery that may take place. Ask yourself one of the most basic questions any investor should ask: can I get my money back if I need to? If the answer is no or only maybe, and if there is the threat of governments robbing investors, then less investment occurs. The problems of such behaviour explain why, for example, Africa has been such a bad investment bet for so many years....

...Even so, it strikes me that the Obama administration is showing a level of political ruthlessness and "bugger-the-investor" attitude that is hardly going to endear people towards investing in that economy. My fear is that Mr Obama is making the cynical calculation that memories will fade; after all, how many investors in the UK remember how the Blair government, in the form of the charmless Stephen Byers, the-then industry minister, shafted investors in Railtrack?

Like I said, an ugly business.

[Joe Steel]

As said about the messenger, your namecalling is pointless. However, what's being done is not good for the long term.

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2009/05/does_obamas_bul.html

What's the basis of your opinion? The rantings of a political hack? Someone who sold his soul to the capitalist devil. Why should we believe anything he says?

[Kathianne]

What's the basis of your opinion? The rantings of a political hack? Someone who sold his soul to the capitalist devil. Why should we believe anything he says?

He's less a political hack than you. Most do not think capitalism evil.

[Joe Steel]

It wouldn't matter is Barone was a freekin' alien from Mars...whats true is true no matter who the messenger is

That's the point. We can't be sure it's true. The source of the statement isn't credible.

[Agnapostate]

He's less a political hack than you. Most do not think capitalism evil.

Evil? Why even bother making a morality statement when one could just illustrate the inefficiency of capitalism by making accurate observations about the realities of market concentration? IMO, this editorial is rather incorrect in jabbering about "productive private compan[ies]." There is a vibrant literature which illustrates the benefits of workers' ownership and management in improving efficiency, and a transition to economic democracy of that variety could also be facilitated by public decree.