Crony Capitalism

faethor said:
Come on Dammy we dare you to not accept this!

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=5325
Click to expand...

I don't like Perry either, what does that have to do with a Obama's Billionaire screwing the US government over for a half billion dollars? Oh, you rather talk about other guy when it's bad for your favorite Marxist? Is that it? Where is the screams of damnation and hellfire from the Progressives about these billions spent on Billionaires that are doomed to failure? Here is perfect example of Obama's corp welfare and I hear crickets, but ooh boy, if it's someone else, then there is the damnation and hellfire!

As much as it is distasteful to me, I have to point out that it's Obama that is President, it was Obama/Reid/Pelosi that created, passed, and signed into law all those billions spent on now failed corp welfare.
 
@Dammy,
Marxist?! -- I suggest you understand the meaning of words before you post.

And why is there little 'screamming' here? The government's role is to rule the Country. This does include regulation, investment and encouragement in the marketplace. There needs to be a player that's willing to take risks that the private sector is not. Landing on the Moon is a fairly big and visual example of a successful program. If anyone in your family has a pacemaker they cannot but thank the US gov for investment into an industry that, at the time, the private sector was unwilling to make. There will be times when these investments do not pay off.

In the case of Solyndra it was done more right than previous investments. The US Gov is the first in line for capital. So when things get sold off the money goes back to the Gov not to the owners or other investors.

Who was it that just have $1.5 Trillion to businesses w/o any agreement for payback? Oh yeah Republicans.... So at the poll when one is voting neither party is safe and actually Republicans, especially Tax Party Republicans, are even a worse option.
 
faethor said:
@Dammy,
Marxist?! -- I suggest you understand the meaning of words before you post.
Click to expand...

My, how elitist of you to say so.

And why is there little 'screamming' here? The government's role is to rule the Country. This does include regulation, investment and encouragement in the marketplace.
Click to expand...

There is specific powers the US government has been granted by the US Constitution and it is also limited to only those powers by the US Constitution. There is regulation and then there is centralized control, that is the issue.

There needs to be a player that's willing to take risks that the private sector is not. Landing on the Moon is a fairly big and visual example of a successful program. If anyone in your family has a pacemaker they cannot but thank the US gov for investment into an industry that, at the time, the private sector was unwilling to make. There will be times when these investments do not pay off.
Click to expand...

For initial research, I don't have issue with it. NASA was a great start but it developed into a anchor on industry developing space since it wanted to protect it's own turf and didn't want the industry to rival their own capabilities. Something I can agree with Obama on, is that change has to happen for industry not to depend on government hand outs. Privatizing the manned LEO travel is a must.

In the case of Solyndra it was done more right than previous investments. The US Gov is the first in line for capital. So when things get sold off the money goes back to the Gov not to the owners or other investors.
Click to expand...

No, the government is not the first line for capital. There is nothing in the US constitution giving the US Government the authority to pick winners and losers in the private sector. Solyndra is one of four solar companies that the US government gave 1% interest rate loans that were federal backed to file for protection. It was brain dead investment and I would be shocked if Obama's billionaire buddy didn't cover his bet by shorting. It had zero chance to survive against the pricing of Chinese solar cell producers.

Who was it that just have $1.5 Trillion to businesses w/o any agreement for payback? Oh yeah Republicans.... So at the poll when one is voting neither party is safe and actually Republicans, especially Tax Party Republicans, are even a worse option.
Click to expand...

Oh? What are you talking about? TARP was written and approved by Reid/Pelosi and signed by Bush with most of it being metered out by Obama. You all were in TOTAL charge for the past two years with owning both super majorities in US Congress and the White House. Plus you all owned US Congress the two years before that for a total of four years of Democrat domination of all laws and budgets created.
 
Dammy said:
My, how elitist of you to say so.
Click to expand...
Come on now ad-hominems don't further any sort of discussion.

There is specific powers the US government has been granted by the US Constitution and it is also limited to only those powers by the US Constitution. There is regulation and then there is centralized control, that is the issue.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. The US Constitution enables the government to make more laws. So many laws they make are under this provision and not explicitedly denoted in the Constitution. For example, you'll find no law in the Constitution out lawing murder. You will however find an explicit ability of congress to regulate Commerce. And Section 9 gives the explicit limitations on Congress.

Something I can agree with Obama on, is that change has to happen for industry not to depend on government hand outs.
Click to expand...
Certainly I'd agree to that. To help Commerce we shouldn't be giving big Tax Credits and payments to mature industries, eg oil and gas. We should be helping immature industries to get to market. This provides more competitive forces which, in theory, is good as provides more options for the consumer and lower prices to the consumer. Lower options and lower prices are improvements to freedom as this allows the consumer more choices for their spending and more items for their spending.

No, the government is not the first line for capital.
Click to expand...
Strawman as no one said they were the first line. Even with Solyndra there was spending prior to the Gov loan. Therefore Gov wasn't the first line.

There is nothing in the US constitution giving the US Government the authority to pick winners and losers in the private sector.
Click to expand...
Commerce clause of the Constitution gives the Gov the right to regulate commerce. As do other bills passing. For example eliminating slaves sure as heck picked the non-slave owning companies as winners over the losers, slave owners.

Solyndra is one of four solar companies that the US government gave 1% interest rate loans that were federal backed to file for protection. It was brain dead investment and I would be shocked if Obama's billionaire buddy didn't cover his bet by shorting. It had zero chance to survive against the pricing of Chinese solar cell producers.
Click to expand...
It in particular may have been bad. Though hindsight is always 20/20 and I think as long as it says 'Obama' you'll view it as bad. Too bad you can't seem to get behind the nation. Solar has been growing and investments in China over the last 5 years have created, it's estimated, about 100K new jobs. Isn't jobs something the US could use about now?

Oh? What are you talking about? TARP was written and approved by Reid/Pelosi and signed by Bush with most of it being metered out by Obama.
Click to expand...
Yup many Republicans signed TARP and Republican Bush made it the law of the land. Guess you don't believe in the 'Buck stops here' mentality.

Maybe someday you'll get behind the President. Even if he's not your guy. Personally, I hated Bush. I always cheered for him to do the right thing and was sad and pissed off because he often choose the path of failure. But, I never wanted him to fail. Seems to me your champion failure.
 
faethor said:
Come on now ad-hominems don't further any sort of discussion.
Click to expand...

Do you really want to go over the ten planks of the communist manifesto and see how it applies with today's laws and regulations? Stop being an elitist telling me what I do or do not know.

Yes and no. The US Constitution enables the government to make more laws. So many laws they make are under this provision and not explicitedly denoted in the Constitution. For example, you'll find no law in the Constitution out lawing murder. You will however find an explicit ability of congress to regulate Commerce. And Section 9 gives the explicit limitations on Congress.
Click to expand...

There is regulation of commerce and then there is control of commerce. This is why Obamacare is doomed in the courts.

Certainly I'd agree to that. To help Commerce we shouldn't be giving big Tax Credits and payments to mature industries, eg oil and gas. We should be helping immature industries to get to market. This provides more competitive forces which, in theory, is good as provides more options for the consumer and lower prices to the consumer. Lower options and lower prices are improvements to freedom as this allows the consumer more choices for their spending and more items for their spending.
Click to expand...

Corp taxes are screwed up from word go and is driving jobs offshore. Stop giving money (loans and grants) to business until we can afford it again in some future time. You see, conservatives don't like big business either. It's just the broad swath of the brush that nails medium and small business to the same cross you like putting in the multinational corps that are earning tens of billions that conservatives bulk at.

Strawman as no one said they were the first line. Even with Solyndra there was spending prior to the Gov loan. Therefore Gov wasn't the first line./quote]

Funny, lets look at exactly what you posted:
The US Gov is the first in line for capital
Click to expand...
from: http://www.whyzzat.com/threads/crony-capitalism.4272/#post-25628

Commerce clause of the Constitution gives the Gov the right to regulate commerce. As do other bills passing. For example eliminating slaves sure as heck picked the non-slave owning companies as winners over the losers, slave owners.
Click to expand...

Bringing to an end an abomination was not picking economic winners or losers. Actually, going to none slave probably saved the south because slavery is awful in ineffeciency (sp) compared to paying a person money for his labor.

It in particular may have been bad. Though hindsight is always 20/20 and I think as long as it says 'Obama' you'll view it as bad. Too bad you can't seem to get behind the nation. Solar has been growing and investments in China over the last 5 years have created, it's estimated, about 100K new jobs. Isn't jobs something the US could use about now?
Click to expand...

No, I agree with Obama on his space policies. Yes we need jobs, we need a tax system that will promote investment and creation of job creating businesses that isn't strangled in the crib by massive regulations and unfunded mandates. We are getting the opposite. I just posted that Obama just pulled EPA regulations because how much hard it would do to the business sector in a time he needs them to produce jobs. 9% unemployment will be his political death.

Yup many Republicans signed TARP and Republican Bush made it the law of the land. Guess you don't believe in the 'Buck stops here' mentality.

Maybe someday you'll get behind the President. Even if he's not your guy. Personally, I hated Bush. I always cheered for him to do the right thing and was sad and pissed off because he often choose the path of failure. But, I never wanted him to fail. Seems to me your champion failure.
Click to expand...

Lets take a look at that roll call under Pelosi: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml I see GOP ratio 2:1 voting against it while the Democrats voted 2:1 for it. Your party and Bush get all the credit for TARP. Even more so when most of it was spent under Obama's administration released the monies.

Failure? Of course I cheer failure of any plans/policies that aim at the destruction of the US. And that is what Obama wanted to do, destroy it so he could rebuild it into a Progressive's dream of state control.
Click to expand...
 
Dammy said:
Do you really want to go over the ten planks of the communist manifesto and see how it applies with today's laws and regulations? Stop being an elitist telling me what I do or do not know.
Click to expand...
I'd agree that with one cavot. You include when that activity started and how many Republican Presidents since followed that same law and regulation. Afterall I'm all for getting you out of the knuckle dragger camp.

Corp taxes are screwed up from word go and is driving jobs offshore.
Click to expand...
I agree Tax policies that don't favor the US are a problem. The Gov needs to fix them back into our favor.

Stop giving money (loans and grants) to business until we can afford it again in some future time.
Click to expand...
Progress doesn't stop. If we stop the loans and grants then someone else will have that business. It's happening this moment as China is quickly becoming the world leader in alternative energy manufacturing. One of the few growing businesses around the world. If you want to give up on loans you give up on growth. Your idea will simply spiral us quicker into the gutter.

You see, conservatives don't like big business either. It's just the broad swath of the brush that nails medium and small business to the same cross you like putting in the multinational corps that are earning tens of billions that conservatives bulk at.
Click to expand...
Conservatives love big business. Afterall Reagan couldn't let big business fail he bailed out the banks. Then Bush II repeated this again. Activities speak louder than words. You can complain about International Businesses taking advantage of the Tax Loopholes. This is nothing new for Obama. Bush failed to shore them up too. And actually made the problem worse. The largest offshore moves in manufacturing were during the Bush Era. And I'm with you that neither party is putting the nail sufficently to the Multinationals.
 
Maybe someday you'll get behind the President. Even if he's not your guy. Personally, I hated Bush. I always cheered for him to do the right thing and was sad and pissed off because he often choose the path of failure. But, I never wanted him to fail. Seems to me your champion failure.
Click to expand...
and the incompetent bastards in congress would rather help the country fail because their racism is stronger than love of country.
In fact i doubt any of those people love and respect their country
 
@Dammy
For initial research, I don't have issue with it. NASA was a great start but it developed into a anchor on industry developing space since it wanted to protect it's own turf and didn't want the industry to rival their own capabilities. Something I can agree with Obama on, is that change has to happen for industry not to depend on government hand outs. Privatizing the manned LEO travel is a must.
Click to expand...
I find you take interesting. The economics would say businesses do things to make a profit. If businesses aren't doing space travel it must be because space travel isn't projected to be profitable. One must conclude that government is doing it cost effectively or covering a need that would be a loss. So if the later is the case no businesses are going to do it. Personally, I see it as the Gov. is more cost effective than a business otherwise competition would arise.

And we're not just talking USA here. Think of all the multinationals and how they might launch from dozens of countries around the equator. It just isn't happening.

Thus, I don't see as the gov. should get out of the way. Clearly the gov. is providing a cost effective service that businesses can't compete with. Therefore the costs are as low if not lower than what private industry could provide. I think it more likely that we're doing space travel as efficently as we can at this time. Should a business discover a more cost effective method I'd imagine Cuba, Brazil, or many other nations would welcome them. (This is assuming the USA wouldn't which I'm fairly doubtful of.)
 
Dammy said:
Why are you attacking me? Why do you want to change the topic to me and away from Obama?
Click to expand...
Because Obama isn't the real problem. Partisanship is.
The people have to get rid of ALL the crooks but you can't do that by going after a party, voting for any party or against any party. Crooks are attracted to parties because that way they can hide behind the brand instead of exposing who and what they really are. They are attracted to the opportunity for power and they will put on whichever label they think serves them best. They'll flock to Tea Party seats if they think they have a good chance of winning there and they do.
Keeping the crooks away from the gold takes more than checking out which gang colours they are wearing.
 
Dammy said:
Where is the screams of damnation and hellfire from the Progressives about these billions spent on Billionaires that are doomed to failure?
Click to expand...
Everywhere, Dammy, everywhere. All the progressives see this, here, on the street, in the world, but you won't see it on the "liberal media" because the "liberal media" is owned by huge corporations that love corporate welfare.
Even the dreaded Michael Moore has lamented this corporate welfare and Ralph Nader and the unions. But if you have been getting all your information from the "liberal media" (or the other corporate owned media which some like to think of as less liberal) than you will never hear what progressives think, you will hear a parody of progressives or just outright lies -and you believe them because it makes you feel superior.
 
Dammy said:
Do you really want to go over the ten planks of the communist manifesto and see how it applies with today's laws and regulations? Stop being an elitist telling me what I do or do not know.
Click to expand...

Here, let me just post a link to one of the many examples of this "analysis" on the web so that you won't have to cut and paste it to prove how educated you are.

Of course it blows up completely in number 5 where the current problem is - because the Federal Reserve is owned by the private banks that comprise it.
 
faethor said:
Afterall Reagan couldn't let big business fail he bailed out the banks. Then Bush II repeated this again.
Click to expand...
Don't forget that the Bushes (and Walkers) have been associated with banking for decades. Prescott helped finance Hitler (contrary to US law at the time) and the Bush boys made money collapsing the S&Ls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top