57 responses to “Message to Team Romney”

1. 

   Michael Anderson

   17 May 2012

   George, could not the same question be asked of every president’s second term? I mean, it kinda goes with the territory.
   I’m all in favor of one 6 year term for president, no second time around. These plebiscites on presidential performance just aren’t all that helpful in the long run, it pulls the executive branch into a more legislative function.
   Just my 2 cents.

   LikeLike

2. 

   George Rebane

   17 May 2012

   MichaelA 730am – of course the same question could and should be asked. The voters need to consider it in light of what was accomplished in the first term. But your thought about a two term president being pulled into a legislative function is interesting; why does the possibility of a second term do that?

   LikeLike

3. 

   Ryan Mount

   17 May 2012

   A one term, six year Presidency? What an interesting idea. We should try it out. And why not? If we’re brave enough to create and actually eat a KFC Double Down or a batch of In-N-Out Animal style French Fries, we probably have the courage to amend the Constitution again for a 6 year Presidency.

   LikeLike

4. 

   Michael Anderson

   17 May 2012

   George asked: “…why does the possibility of a second term do that?”
   Because with 2 terms, the first term becomes all about trying to please a constituency of everybody, which is not really an executive function. The second term is when the executive finally gets to feel his oats, as you suggest, but by then enough voters are sufficiently pissed off that even though they have given the president another four years, they usually also place a legislative block in Congress by handing either one or both of the halls of Congress to the opposing party.
   I’m all about getting things done, even if it’s “bad.” I would much rather see the presidency and Congress vacillate together with one-party domination every six years or so, rather than be crushed beneath the gridlock we’ve experienced since Nixon resigned.
   The last 4 decades feels like we’ve been watching algea grow. Our antiquated federal political system is holding us back in the 21st century.

   LikeLike

5. 

   Douglas Keachie

   17 May 2012

   And what on earth has Mitt presented that indicates that anything more would be accomplished with him at the helm? Less regulations for more pollution, jobs will still go overseas, probably in greater numbers (no restrictions on off shore tax free earnings, or incentives to make it in the USA), Visa’s will still be issued to destroy the American programming industry, and taxes will be set up to screw the middle and working clssses even further, and banks will run amuck and invent new derivative-like scams. All the while Americans pay the highest for healthcare in the world and yet the service is 37th place.
   Oh Joy!
   Let’s give AZ back to Mexico, and let the Mexicans kick out anyone without a birther certificate that says they were born in AZ.

   LikeLike

6. 

   Michael Anderson

   17 May 2012

   Keach is cranky this morning.

   LikeLike

7. 

   George Rebane

   17 May 2012

   MichaelA 844am – but putting “a legislative block in Congress” does not require that the Presidency acquires a legislative function.
   Your view of government having done nothing is more than surprising. In the last 40 years government has grown and done more than in the preceding 200, almost all of it overwhelmingly bad as far weakening the Bastiat Triangle, and diminishing Americans’ freedoms and opportunities. The effect of that ‘algae growth’ has also been non-uniform and exponential. What we have in Washington and Sacramento are ineptocracies.
   Ineptocracy: (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
   Were I king, Congress would get at least equal credit for ‘doing’ away with dated and dysfunctional laws, as they would by the pell mell addition of new ones. Witness the reactionary farce that it is going through in its hurry to again do something in response to a private company losing private monies in private dealings. Michael, your promoting such governance puts each of us way on opposite sides of the growing chasm.

   LikeLike

8. 

   Michael Anderson

   17 May 2012

   “Witness the reactionary farce that it is going through in its hurry to again do something in response to a private company losing private monies in private dealings.”
   But they’re not private dealings, are they? When the big banks–those deemed too large to fail–were headed for the cliff in 2008, us taxpayers coughed up $7.7 trillion dollars to make them whole.
   The current derivatives market is ~$600 trillion dollars. This has me a hell of a lot more worried than bloated public-employee pensions.
   BTW, as I’ve said before, I would love to get rid of dysfunctional laws, and trim the California Code, and get rid of overlapping agencies. My libertarian side loves to streamline. And as we’ve also agreed, tax reform should be one of the main topics of this year’s presidential campaign.
   The governance I am promoting is where each side gets a shot at making real change for a prescribed amount of time, without gridlock. IMHO, gridlock promotes ineptocratic bloat, regardless of whether the Republicans or the Democrats are in charge.

   LikeLike

9. 

   George Rebane

   17 May 2012

   MichaelA 1111am – How again are they not private dealings??? Just because we made a mistake in bailing out banks that should have failed (their assets would have been picked up by other financial institutions), and thereby plastered in another layer of moral hazard for future failures, doesn’t mean that everything these banks do from now on is public business – that is indeed perverse.
   Every day we are seeing more evidence of the cost of discarding the wisdom of von Mises, ‘Do nothing, sooner!’
   That there is a $600T derivatives overhang about which you (and others) are “more worried” has no bearing on the obligated disposition of unsustainable defined benefit pensions that have accrued a several trillion dollar national unfunded liability account that the retired state workers expect taxpayers to now make good. The answer to that is a clear NFW! The rapacious public service unions and the lamebrained politicians (elected by lamebrained voters that included public employees) got us there, and now there is no way out but defection and default.
   ‘That Which is Unsustainable Will Go Away: Pensions’
   http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-which-unsustainable-will-go-away-pensions

   LikeLike

10. 

    Douglas Keachie

    17 May 2012

    “Just because we made a mistake in bailing out banks that should have failed ” our leaders were paid by them to make those kinds of mistakes, for their benefit. Look at the latest Goldman Sachs has to offer:
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/accidentally-released-and-incredibly-embarrassing-documents-show-how-goldman-et-al-engaged-in-naked-short-selling-20120515
    BTW isn’t “naked shorts” an oxymoron?
    A stock brokerage house in in the game and gets to see everyone’s cards and all their planned future moves. Given computers, it’s only total restraint that keeps them from running off with everything in less than a month. It is better to shear the sheep than kill them. This has been obvious to me since the mid 80’s, when I learned what computers could do.

    LikeLike

11. 

    Douglas Keachie

    17 May 2012

    That which is unsustainable will go away, the top one percent grabbing everything in sight without thought as to what the other 300 million Americans are going to do about it.

    LikeLike

12. 

    Michael Anderson

    17 May 2012

    I guess that’s where we see things differently, George.
    These banks have a hold on Washington D.C. that is a lot more gripping than that of the unions, so my money is on another too-big-to-fail bailout instead of public employees causing gov’t default.
    It’s all about leverage. The unions will pitch a fit and stomp their feet, then take it in the shorts like good little serfs.
    The banks will threaten global catastrophic economic fail, and they will get their way as always.
    Herein lies the dichotomy of our positions.

    LikeLike

13. 

    Ryan Mount

    17 May 2012

    Does it matter which one(derivatives and pensions in this discussion) is more dangerous? It seems to me both are very concerning for different reasons, but both given recent history will look to the government’s central banks for help.
    I think Greece is an interesting study here. Lots of unreasonable government liabilities which the EU was willing to bail out contingent on austerity reforms, twice if I recall. Then their voters threw the reforms into instability. And the EU (Germany, really), said “we’re done. You folks are perfectly entitled to play the game your way. We choose not to play anymore. Good luck.”
    In the case of the USA, we’re the lender of last resort. So my dove-ish friends like to harp on that in a very cynical way. They tell me, “Ryan, if it gets to the point where the USA can’t pump enough liquidity into the economy it won’t matter anyway. Stop worrying and get back to your gin.”

    LikeLike

14. 

    George Rebane

    17 May 2012

    A more accurate portrayal would, “In the case of the USA, we’re the PRINTER of last resort.” We are a net borrower, we have nothing to lend.

    LikeLike

15. 

    Brad Croul

    17 May 2012

    Obama made promises, or you took campaign rhetoric a little too seriously?
    Bush/Cheney also said lots of things and they got re-elected.
    http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2004/broken_promise.html

    LikeLike

16. 

    Todd Juvinall

    17 May 2012

    Yeah but they are our promisers. LOL!

    LikeLike

17. 

    billy T

    17 May 2012

    Here is my take. President Obama comes into office after a long fought campaign complete with women fainting at his words on a daily basis. Never mind that Hillary got more popular votes than Obama in the primaries (if you count Puerta Rico) and he backed into the nomination by losing the last 4 or so contests. He won. He came with zero administrative experience and said in the debates he would rely on Joe Biden for foreign policy experience. But the no economic experience nor economic curiosity has come back to haunt him. His first economic team of advisers and experts had zero private sector experience and zero job creating experience unless you think working at an Ivy League school is private sector experience. Be that as it may, he threw nearly a trillion bucks at the problem then wiped his hands and moved on to health care. Throw enough money in the air and surely the GDP will rise a percent or two…for awhile. This economy keeps bouncing along the bottom month after month. Every single week the jobs reports come giving us a glimmer of hope for a green sprout or two on the horizon. We are an optimistic people. But every single week the government revises the figures upward so the next’s weeks numbers look good by comparison to the revised numbers and the broken record repeats itself. Like today they said last week’s count of first time people applying for unemployment has been revised to 375,000, a wee bit too close to 400,000 for my liking. States have their share of blame as well. Obama dumped hundreds of billions to the states and most states like California used a HUGE big hunk of that to pay Medicaid. Another big hunk went to local governments to keep one cop around or keep from laying off a teacher….for a year or two. It was just a temporary patch covering a deep open gash infested with gangrene and flesh eating bacteria and the temporary fix is over. Obama had the House and Senate eating out of his hand, yet had no clue how to fix the economy. He still does not. People may like him more than Romney by a mile, but in the end we vote with out pocket books and too many people have run thin in the wallet and cannot wait forever. Obama may be able to do many things in a second term, but fixing the economy is not one of them. The economy will eventually fix itself if left alone, but nothing will fix the debt that Obama has run up. Ok, lets tax the rich, support gay marriage, pass out free contraception upon demand, forgive some student debt, decrease our nukes in Europe, hold a beer summit, spout there will hundreds of millions of economy saving green jobs, etc, etc, etc, but don’t do one thing to fix the debt or turn the economy around or get anything resembling our financial house in order. Like him or despise him, time is running out. People want results and hurting people want results sooner than later. I see the race tightening at a minimum and the chances of a Romney route a distinct possibility.

    LikeLike

18. 

    Gregory

    17 May 2012

    “He came with zero administrative experience”
    No, he was CEO of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge from ’95 to ’99, helping the grant application author, Bill Ayres, blow through something like $150 million while implementing Ayre’s theories on educational reform via community organizing of the parents. No positive educational outcomes of the exercise were ever found.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html

    LikeLike

19. 

    Russ Steele

    17 May 2012

    Gregory 10:13
    Right, he learned how to spend other peoples money with out producing any results. It looks to me like the lesson was well learned, we have spent trillions to goose the economy and produced zero results.

    LikeLike

20. 

    Ryan Mount

    18 May 2012

    “we have spent trillions to goose the economy and produced zero results.”
    Except that new $1,125,832 fire station in Rough and Ready?
    http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/Pages/RecipientProjectSummary.aspx?AwardIDSUR=44058&PopId=334699

    LikeLike

21. 

    Brad Croul

    18 May 2012

    So, you got one guy who was hired to oversee a privately funded social experiment in getting people to take an active roll in their communities and government; and you have another guy who used to run a corporate “pick and pull – Bain wrecking and salvage. Ralph Nader: where are you?

    LikeLike

22. 

    Gregory

    18 May 2012

    Russ, 10:20… not zero results. He helped to slather millions of bucks across Chicago and that launched him into Illinois and national politics. He succeeded beyond the dreams of Ayres and Dorhn.
    Without Bain, CalSTRS might already be belly up. There’s a Kimberly Strassel piece in the WSJ today, the dead steel company being used to trash Romney was about to be closed down when Bain acquired it and pumped in the capital it needed, and was doing OK before foreign dumping ruined the specialty market it was serving.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303360504577410573651845802.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

    LikeLike

23. 

    George Rebane

    18 May 2012

    I continue to be almost startled at how compartmentalized our news seem to be. It is especially noteworthy how many of RR’s more liberal readers arrive here without knowledge of basic factual news reports that only come to their news sources either days or weeks after they have been thoroughly discussed on the blogosphere. A good example is the Dems’ hammering of Romney’s Bain Capital ‘transgressions’ that Gregory’s 1053am cites.
    Many of these folks arrive here and see such news for the first time on RR, and then proceed to take either me or RR’s better read readers to task for ‘introducing’ such outlandish notions. None of them have ever recanted after later finding out what the rest of the world already knew and opined. They just continue patronizing their carefully blindered news sources, and return here to repeat the same harangues.

    LikeLike

24. 

    Gregory

    18 May 2012

    Contrary to BC’s screed, $49.2 million of the money pissed away by the Chicago Annenburg Challenge was indeed public money. And all of the private money expected educational gains that did not occur.
    However, just because I’m against BS political blather falsely blaming Romney for some unionized steel workers who lost their jobs (and would have anyway, thanks partially to their inflexible unions) doesn’t mean that I think private equity firms were a force for good; to the contrary, I think they helped wind down the US manufacturing base with help from public pension funds that didn’t care how the high returns were made or where the private jobs got shipped.

    LikeLike

25. 

    Ryan Mount

    18 May 2012

    49.2 million of the money pissed away by the Chicago Annenburg Challenge
    That’s absolutely true. Poof went the money. Measure [judge] results, not intentions.
    I think they helped wind down the US manufacturing base with help from public pension funds
    Yep. Nailed it.

    LikeLike

26. 

    George Rebane

    18 May 2012

    Ok Gregory (517pm) and RyanM (610pm), please enlighten us on what the alternative scenario would have been had not private equity funds capitalized on the (inevitable?) migration of manufacturing to overseas venues where capital commanded higher returns.

    LikeLike

27. 

    Todd Juvinall

    18 May 2012

    RE: Brad Croul | 18 May 2012 at 07:38 AM on RR.
    That one comment by BC is why there is a Great Divide in America between us here, the conservatives or even Indies, and the nuts of the left. How a person could be so dumb is now exposed. I hope others do their homework better than him. Ban Capital saved over 100,0o00 jobs in America and lost 6,000 or so to foreign competition. Why don’t these libs thank Bain for that? A net 95k fore America. Amazing.

    LikeLike

28. 

    Douglas Keachie

    18 May 2012

    I was first aware of Bain Romney at least two months back, probably Reuters, that old left wing conspiracy group.

    LikeLike

29. 

    billy T

    18 May 2012

    Bain Capital? Bain Capital is all you got? Read them and weep, boys. Romney and Co dumped millions in that steel company and kept it going until Romney left in 1999 and the plant closed in 2001. 17 US steel mills closed in 2001 mainly due to foreign dumping of steel that made it unprofitable to continue. Ok, we will wait and see to see how this issue pans out. Yes, Mrs. Romney raised 5 boys without the help of a nanny but she knows nothing about what soccer moms worry about. We were promised by the libs that Scott Walker was toast. Maybe, maybe not. We were told after 2008 that the Republican party was toast for 20 years, relegated to a small regional party in the Bible Belt. We were scolded for not jumping on the hang George Zimmerman band wagon because a white guy shot a black teenager and we said wait and see. We were told Zimmerman is toast. Now the evidence coming forth is that Zimmerman will walk and he was pummeled by the 6’2′ young man. Maybe he will walk free, maybe not. Obama can run on his record? Well, he ain’t running on his record. Nay, President Obama is running away from his record. We were told that the Interstate Commerce Clause trumped everything concerning Obamacare and only ignorant haters and corporate pawns such as I could not see beyond the noses on our faces. All those Constitutional experts said the Supreme Court would NEVER overturn the individual mandate. Maybe, maybe not. So, is Bain Capital all you got?

    LikeLike

30. 

    Douglas Keachie

    18 May 2012

    Whoever first patents and markets a Skittle gun will have a winner for next Christmas as a gag (on it) toy.

    LikeLike

31. 

    Brad Croul

    19 May 2012

    Here is a new one from Team Romney supporters,
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/17/us/politics/17donate-document.html

    LikeLike

32. 

    Ryan Mount

    19 May 2012

    A firm that gobbles up other firms either to turn them around, reorganize them or even to liquidate them is an example of the Austrian school’s idea of creative destruction. This term, of course was ironically forged from Karl Marx’s process of accumulation and destruction of wealth by he Superstructure.
    It’s actually a good force, over time. In the short term, it’s very disruptive particularly to the working classes (there’s a Marxist term for this, but I will avoid allowing my union slip to show under my dress) who generally take it up the rear.
    In America we’ve attempted to avoid this conundrum by constant innovation and investment, both public and private. We are, after all, extraordinarily optimistic relative to the rest of the world. And when this destruction goes too far, we print money, put it jars, bury them and then have the working classes go and find them. Figuratively speaking.

    LikeLike

33. 

    George Rebane

    19 May 2012

    Neither Marx nor the Austrian school get to claim invention of the notion of ‘creative destruction’. Like the rest of free market capitalism, this ongoing process is a natural one that has been going on for more than a billion years. The other main component of natural evolution is that it proceeds without the centralization of control or of knowledge, having ‘chosen’ the alternative of distributed control and knowledge. A high level of wealth generation and broad improvement of quality of life on earth have been the emergent properties of such a system when adopted my mankind.

    LikeLike

34. 

    Brad Croul

    19 May 2012

    @T3 (trash talking Todd) 8:15pm Friday – were you drinking and keyboard surfing? You sure are rude sometimes.
    My post could have been interpreted, but was not (why am I not surprised), as an appeal to a third party. The right lovers dredge up some old Obama history like the Annenberg challenge, and the left lovers do the same with the likes of Bain capital.
    I don’t pretend to be an expert on political history and the work history of the candidates.
    My reference for my Annenberg comment was here,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge
    What I noticed while skimming through the article is that Annenberg donated $100s of millions through the challenge. Chicago put up some matching funds but the majority of the funds appear to have come from private donations.
    Regarding the public funds used, this section seems to explain it,
    ” In recognition of preexisting strong support by local foundations—which were already spending more than $12 million per year on Chicago school reform (including $4 million per year from the MacArthur Foundation and nearly $3 million per year from the Joyce Foundation)—the Annenberg Foundation agreed that the Chicago Annenberg Challenge could draw upon existing commitments as a source of matching funds.[18][34] The public match would come from public funds committed to implementation of the 1988 school reform law, including some of the $261 million per year state Chapter 1 antipoverty funds provided to Chicago public schools (an average of $500,000 per elementary school and an average of $800,000 per high school).[18][34]”
    Millions of public monies were already being spent, right? So, why the feigned outrage directed at Obama?
    As far as what’s up with Bain, I have no knowledge, and don’t really care. I only mention it because it the latest “gotcha” (political noise) from the left.
    I would think a candidate who is referred to as the father of Obamnicare would have more to worry about than his past successes or failures in the private sector. Do we need a paternity test to determine if Romney or Obama are the father of that evil spawn?
    How about a Ron Paul write-in campaign?

    LikeLike

35. 

    Douglas Keachie

    19 May 2012

    “And when this destruction goes too far, we print money, put it jars, bury them and then have the working classes go and find them. Figuratively speaking.”
    And literally speaking, the banks, by holding properties off the market, and allowing them to deteriorate to the point where major repairs are needed, due to simple aging compounded by vandalism by teenagers and the homeless, are creating jobs for those who can buy for cash and fixer up. Then rentals become available to the former homeowners, at rates guaranteed to make sure they don’t get uppity again and buy their own homes. Keep the workers poor and ignorant, seems to be the solution reached in the board rooms and resort conference rooms of America. I don’t think this squirrel cage model for the economy will serve the country well over the long run, even though we ourselves have bought such a second house, about a year ago, and work progresses, and we no longer has such a long commute.

    LikeLike

36. 

    Gregory

    19 May 2012

    George, it’s the impatient capital focused on short term gain that concerns me. Get in, restructure, take a profit and get out… there’s certainly a place for it, but public employee pension funds itching for huge gains took it to a new level.
    Hawker Beechcraft went chapter 11 a few days ago. Goldman Sachs, who is taking part of the $2 billion haircut on that deal, did a number on them not long ago, part of the strategy apparently thinking their parts inventory was a gold mine they could exploit, but they only got pennies on the dollar… seems the only time an airplane owner is willing to pay a huge amount for a part is when they need it, not when the vulture wants to sell it. The new company will only have $2.5 billion of debt to service, but the new owners (and the continents they are from) have not been identified.

    LikeLike

37. 

    Douglas Keachie

    19 May 2012

    “That will be 10,000 yuan for a 4″ framsit transitioner gasket.”

    LikeLike

38. 

    Gregory

    19 May 2012

    BC the only outrage I have is that Obama got away with describing Ayers as ‘just a guy in my neighborhood who I don’t exchange ideas with on a regular basis’ in a debate with Hillary Clinton. Somehow, our professional journalists never figured out Obama helped him spend $150 million as part of their (Ayers and wife, the infamous Bernadette Dohrn) launching their favorite community organizer into politics. And even though the $49.2 million of tax money was going to be spent on the public schools anyway, spending it based on Ayer’s theories (he gave up bombs for a doctorate in Education) meant it was pissed away to no good effect, which wasn’t what taxpayers expect for their education dollars.
    Obama was CEO of a non-profit that spent $150 million over his ~5 years in the position that he left for elected office, his only administrative experience prior to being sworn in as President. Why wasn’t it covered during the campaign? [he asks knowingly…]

    LikeLike

39. 

    Ryan Mount

    19 May 2012

    We’re picking the fly poop out of the pepper here in terms of coining the phases, but certainly Marx and the Austrians added them as categories of discussion. I guess I was pointing out that in a Hegelian sense, our modern notion of creative destruction was ironically popularized by Austrian thinkers, using Marx as their text.
    The American Left’s complaint, is that money that should be distributed to the population is currently being hoarded by large institutions and the mega-wealthy. Which is congruent with both Marx and the Austrians in terms of wealth accumulation.

    LikeLike

40. 

    Douglas Keachie

    19 May 2012

    This is more more of an accurate view of the left’s view of the economy:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIhOXCgSunc

    LikeLike

41. 

    Gregory

    19 May 2012

    Ryan, you spent too much time at Humboldt State. Most rational folk can go years without mentioning Hegel or Marx or wealth redistribution.
    Ultra rich leftists seem to hold onto their money as well as their less revolutionary peers.

    LikeLike

42. 

    Brad Croul

    19 May 2012

    Greg, you may correct regarding Obama and Ayres, but I would question the time frame being assumed in Obama’s answer. I would guess that the two did talk frequently – at some point in time – but I cannot speak to their relationship at the time he was asked the question.
    Yes, a lot of money was pissed away in Illinois, on education in general, just as it has been in California (as has been pointed here on RR).

    LikeLike

43. 

    George Rebane

    19 May 2012

    RyanM 1108am _ “The American Left’s complaint, is that money that should be distributed to the population is currently being hoarded by large institutions and the mega-wealthy. Which is congruent with both Marx and the Austrians in terms of wealth accumulation.”
    The use of “hoarded” implies that these monies were 1) obtained from a zero-sum economy, and then 2) kept out of productive circulation under some giant mattress. In my Austrian studies I missed that interpretation. Could you point us to it please?

    LikeLike

44. 

    Gregory

    19 May 2012

    BC, you’re conveniently ignoring it was Obama and Ayres who did the pissing away of $150 million of Other People’s Money, and trying to focus on the exact nature of the Ayres/Obama relationship only at the time of the debate is a “meaning of the word ‘is’ ” moment. Splitting hairs to try to not be caught in a fib.
    “Yes, I got my start in politics in a coming out reception in the Ayres/Dohrn living room, and Bill subsequently had me hired for my only real private sector job, President and CEO of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge where, together, we spent $150,000,000 to no measurable effect on the education in Chicago public schools, but we no longer share ideas on a regular basis” might have been honest, don’t you think?

    LikeLike

45. 

    Brad Croul

    20 May 2012

    I just watched the Romney, Steel Dynamics, commercial. What the commercial didn’t say is that Bain received $77 million in subsidies for its plant in DeKalb County, Indiana (Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, June 23, 1994).
    Bain also got $18 million in local tax incentives for a structural steel mill in Whitley County, Indiana (AP State & Local Wire, October 21, 1998, via Nexis).
    But, hey, its OK. If he didn’t have his paws in the subsidy honeypot (commons) like all the other greedheads, he would not be competitive.
    What a hoot!

    LikeLike

46. 

    Todd Juvinall

    20 May 2012

    What I find fascinating about our system as it has morphed in America is this. The government regulates all businesses to such a degree they make them non-competitive with other countries, then in order for the business to survive the government then offers subsidies to “save” the business. If that is not the screwiest way to proceed. I think the steel business was affected as is the timber and mining industries. Look at textiles, I was told we have no more businesses that make socks! None the make shoes and sneakers and TV’s! (But we have great regulations for them) So, I would not blame any business that is trying to survive the regulations to survive the cut from taking the “subsidy” from the very set of scofflaws regulating them. Oh, the complicated web we weave in order to deceive,

    LikeLike

47. 

    George Rebane

    20 May 2012

    ToddJ 719am – you nailed it Todd. Government comes in and regulates and/or taxes the bejeezus out of an industry or process. Then in order for the local a jurisdiction to attract new business, they lobby the feds to give the company tax breaks (subsidies, etc) or cobble together their own package to make the financials hang together. But the real kick in the butt is when the loonie left then begins howling that government is doing business favors and ‘putting the burden on the backs of the peehpul’.
    As noted many times in these pages, socialists recognize no win-win contracts; it’s always a zero sum game with win-lose being the rule of the day.

    LikeLike

48. 

    Todd Juvinall

    20 May 2012

    When the CARB people were going to regulate cow farts I knew we were in seep trouble. Then I watched the State Senate Committee discuss moving ten billion from cap and trade over to the high speed rail. When I was Supervisor I read and listened to some of the most creative ways to spend “designated” funds a mafia accountant would pale over. The government can make any nexus they want on any thing they want and the fiasco of the high speed rail is just the latest. At least Doug LaMalfa has submitted a redo to the people about the scam.

    LikeLike

49. 

    billy T

    20 May 2012

    Agree with the last two posts. Mr. Juvinall nailed it. We are becoming a dependent society (dependent for survival on our Great White Father in Washington) on ever single level imaginable. Even businesses must be brought to depend on Big Brother to make life grand. It drives Big Brother nuts that there is a watch maker or Facebook or GM out there that has not bowed a knee to the Feds. Remember when Ford ran that commercial showing an interview with the guy who bought a Ford (not an actor) because he said Ford did not take a penny of bailout money. Caused quite a stir within certain circles. The ad suddenly was yanked. All deny any political pressure had anything to do with the decision, lol. Reagen’s words ring truer today than ever. Truth has a way of standing the test of time. Reagen said something like the most fearful words in the English language is “I am from the government and I am here to help.”

    LikeLike

50. 

    billy T

    20 May 2012

    Mr. Juvinall, you are spot on this beautiful morning. One’s imagination can only venture into the realms where regulating cow farts will take you. The sky is the limit I suppose. I followed closely the theories that cockroach flatulence is the major factor causing the greenhouse effect. We can deal with cow expulsion of gas from their anuses (usually a foul odor). The Save the Whales people and the vegan banana heads would be all for eliminating beef from the planet. Maybe we can stomp on all the cockroaches with pointed shoes in corners like they do in San Juan, but others say the cockroaches will be the only ones to survive an all out inter continental nuclear war. But, if dinosaur farts are impacting our climate, how do we deal with that???

    LikeLike