Robinson Cruz

GM had serious problems, no doubt. Democrats would of course want government involved. But House Republicans are holding hearings, led by the Republican chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Fred Upton.

GM's problems seem tailor-made for the free market. The market punishes GM when people buy a different car. [GM sales are just fine, by the way, including new and used Chevrolet.]

So why are House Republicans bypassing the free market? And where is the TEA party opposition?

http://www.autonews.com/article/20140603/RETAIL01/...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/06/1...

I'm just curious, because conservatives generally believe that government is the problem, not the solution. Would conservatives expect government to stop a religious group from building a facility on private property? I don't think they would. So then I have to wonder: when conservatives complain about the mosque, which they have every right to do, are they expecting someone to step in and make it go away? Who would that be, and what gives them the power to do it? Just curious.

As a political centrist and independent voter (which I think might make me a Marxist on Y!A, lol), I am actually sort of excited about the idea of Republicans taking control of Congress in 2011.

But I'm concerned that the Republican platform is repeal healthcare, repeal financial reform, cancel unspent stimulus funds, and extend the Bush tax cuts. That's OK, but that really just takes us back to where we were in 2008, which didn't end all that well. And let's face it. Republicans didn't exactly cut government when they controlled both Congress and the White House from 2001-2007. If Republicans win, the new speaker (Boehner) and the new Senate majority leader (McConnell) were both there from 2001-2007. Are they really different now?

Can someone point me to the Republican platform? I suspect a lot of independent voters want to see it Or are Republicans in Congress just going to pass stuff they know Obama will veto so we can have another 2-year food fight before 2012? Thanks.

I have seen so many posts about how PC played a role in the Ft. Hood killing. OK. Probably right. But it is one thing to send emails and say stuff that gets you on an FBI watch list, and quite another for a person on an FBI watch list to buy a gun with a high enough muzzle velocity to pierce body armor, and the bullets to match. At that point, the man showed clear intent to kill. But conservatives go ape **** when anyone suggests that we need to more closely monitor gun purchases with background checks that could have stopped this shooting spree. It is their PC. Say something about gun control and watch them get offended. Muslim extremists don't kill with words and emails. Tossing them all out of the army won't prevent them from killing either. But adamantly preventing ANY sort of gun control, including checking a gun purchaser against an FBI watch list, is just insanity. If he had bought a ton of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, he wouldn't have gotten it out of the store without a visit from the FBI. But someone like that wants a gun? Sure, no problem. Have at it buddy.

Conservatives jump up and down anytime someone suggests that we might want to monitor gun purchases by someone who is not a convicted felon or a known mental patient. They believe that gun purchases are absolutely protected by the 2nd amendment and even God himself.

Liberals scream and yell about monitoring of personal email and phone conversations. They believe that communication of a non-criminal nature is protected free speech, even when those communications suggest that someone is sympathetic to our nation's enemies.

Putting it together, don't you think it might have been nice to act on the knowledge that an al Qaeda sympathizer purchased a gun and cop killer bullets? Didn't both liberals and conservatives get in the way of stopping this guy? Which one do you think bears the greater blame? My personal view is that both are equally culpable.

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 created Medicare part D, which has a 10-year estimated cost of $1.2 trillion, more than any of the current healthcare bills under consideration. Yet 209 out of the 226 Republicans who voted that day voted for it in the House. Those voting aye included John Boehner, current Republican Hose leader, who warned today's Washington marchers that Democrats were set to pass a government takeover of healthcare that would massively increase the deficit as he waved a copy of the Constitution. But don't worry. Bush's medicare chief, Mark McClellan, acknowledged the $1.2 trillion price tag in 2006, but claimed it would be partially offset by $480 billion in cost savings.

Do Republicans think we're all too stupid to remember how just a few short years ago they overwhelmingly favored their own "government takeover of healthcare" and how little deficits mattered to them?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A932...

An interesting story appeared in the Washington Post over the weekend. Now that the media is allowed to cover the return of fallen soldiers from Afghanistan as they arrive at Dover Air Force Base, the media doesn't show up. The Post reports that only the Associated Press has been there to cover more than a third of these returns when the family has allowed media coverage.

I thought Fox News was the patriotic network. Shouldn't they be just a little interested in covering the return of fallen soldiers? This is particularly true now that Fox News is all over Obama for "dithering" over sending more troops to Afghanistan. It would fit very well into their right-wing agenda to show that soldiers are dying by the dozen each month in "Obama's war.".

Why isn't Fox News all over this? Don't say that Obama banned them because that isn't true.

Whether you are an Obama supporter, or a Bush supporter, whether your support neither or both, seems to me that this is why he won the prize. Perhaps the kicker was also to send a message to Americans: thank you for for not electing another douche bag president. Perhaps Obama should share half the prize money with Bush, and maybe even kick a little toward John Kerry for being such a horrible candidate that he couldn't even beat Bush, thus giving the world 4 more years of starting contrast before Obama took office.

A true conservative must adhere to ALL the rules: Keeping government out of our lives, low taxes, no government debt, self-reliance, and Christian moral values. No conservative would sacrifice any of these for any reason. Libs compromise their values, not conservatives. So who was the best president, conservatives?

Can’t be Washington. He was the very guy who opened to door to strong central government.. He is the only president to send federal troops against tax protestors (see Whiskey Rebellion). He even managed to increase the huge debt left from the Revolutionary War.

Can’t be Jefferson: He was for states’ rights and individual liberty, but he also presided over a huge increase in the national debt with the Louisiana purchase. The ends can’t justify the means. That’s what libs do.

Can’t be Lincoln: He was responsible for the Northern War of Aggression against southern states who were merely fighting for their rights. The war greatly increased the national debt. A true conservative should consider him to be history’s worst president.

Can’t be Teddy Roosevelt: The ultimate lib, he used government power to support labor against job-creating capitalists. He started conservative’s worst nightmare, the progressive income tax.

Can’t be Reagan. He presided over the largest peacetime deficit as a percentage of GDP in history (until the 2009 deficit that is, but that’s Obama’s fault, and he’s a lib). Bigger than the New Deal. Bigger than the Great Society. Yeah, the debt increase was to fight the commies, but that's compromising...the ends justify the means. That's what libs do. Debt is debt.

Maybe Jackson? He was for states rights and individual liberty, he was uneducated (a big plus for conservatives), he was a war hero, he abolished the National Bank of the U.S, and he was the ONLY president to wipe out the national debt. He even managed to deregulate our money supply, and thus leavethe financial panic of 1837 for his successor. Bush would have been proud. Only problem is that he was a Democrat. But is he still the one?

So who was it conservatives?

To operate a motor vehicle in the U.S., you must register the vehicle, take a test to prove driving competency, periodically renew your license to operate the vehicle, and re-register the vehicle every year. If you sell or dispose of the vehicle, you must inform the state. Your vehicle must be equipped with safety features. Laws prohibit operation of the vehicle in a manner deemed unsafe.

But propose similar regulations on a gun, and conservatives go ape ****. They claim that safety arguments are a ruse, and liberals just want to take their guns.

Why don't conservatives understand that the right to own a gun CAN"T go away because it is protected by the 2nd amendment and the constitutions of 44 states? But a little regulation for safety reasons might just be a good idea.

The Supreme Court struck down the D.C. gun ban. It is now legal to carry a gun in a national park. Yet there are metal detectors in D.C. federal office buildings. Insult answers are fun, but I would really appreciate it if a conservative would explain why it's OK to ban guns from D.C. federal office buildings. Isn't that just the first step to complete abrogation of the 2nd amendment? And if it's OK to ban guns from D.C. federal office buildings for safety reasons, where do we draw the line between a good gun law and a bad one?

Since handguns are now legal in D.C. (thanks Supreme Court), and it is so incredibly important for us all to pack heat when we visit Yellowstone Park (thanks, congressional Republicans), why on earth can't someone just walk right into the Capitol or the Supreme Court building wearing a six-gun in his belt? I thought gun rights were sacred. Maybe the dude was just going to see his Republican Congressman. Instead, he's dead. Guess guns rights are sacred, until you get just a little too close to those who think they are sacred.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99F6A682&...

Then which is better?

1. Last December, President Bush, believing that free markets should determine the fate of private enterprise, does not provide funds for General Motors to stay afloat. President Obama agrees. GM is out of cash. It cannot function, even in bankruptcy. It must be liquidated.

- All dealerships go bankrupt.

- All GM employees are out of work.

- GM pensions must be paid by taxpayers, as the law requires.

- Most GM suppliers in turn go bankrupt.

- All GM assets are sold in bankruptcy to foreign companies.

2. President Bush, followed by president Obama, gives enough money to permit General Motors to keep operating, but only under the protection of Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The government now owns 60% of the new company.

- Half of GM dealerships go bankrupt.

- Half of GM employees are out of work.

- GM pensioners get stock in the new company instead of tax dollars.

- Some GM suppliers go bankrupt.

- Some GM assets are sold in bankruptcy to foreign companies.

In other words, is there ever a time when government should step in to stop the total loss of a major American enterprise, or should the free market always rule, no matter what?

The Tooth Fairy party, which puts billion of dollars in tax cuts under your pillow, promising to cut spending later, or

The Santa Claus party, which brings you billions of dollars of new government programs for Christmas this year, promising you'll never pay a penny more in taxes later (unless you are rich, like Scrooge).

And about that party you think has done a better job, do you think they can deliver now if you just get out the way and let them?

A great line from Obama as he described the new members of his Economic Recovery Board on Friday:

"You've got some economists and some folks who think they're economists. By the way, these days, everybody thinks they're an economist."

Yes, we have 435 economists in the House, 100 in the Senate, and an untold number on YA. The truth is, however, no one knows if the stimulus will work, including you and me, despite our impeccable credentials in economics.

But seriously, if you think this will or won't work, tell us why. Don't speak in platitudes, like this is somehow obvious, because it isn't. We're all economists now, so tell it like (you think) it is.

By the way, here is a great article on the debate that rages among real economists. If they don't know, you and I sure don't know.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183611

We have two pieces of data: The tax rebate stimulus checks of 2001 and 2008. Money has to be spent to stimulate the economy. But the vast majority of those rebates weren't spent. They went to the bank. What are banks doing with money now? Nada. Tax cuts will stimulate nothing right now. We have the data.

Why don't Republicans get this? Is this a case where facts are so opposite to opinion that they just ignore facts?

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/08/07/economis...

Easy, huh. Liberals are a bunch of whiners who think government owes them a handout, so they don't work, while Republicans work and don't expect help from anyone. Right? Right?

And the data....well.....the data......well.....sorry.

9 of the top 10 states in per capita income voted Democratic in 2008 (CT,NJ,MA,NY,MD,WY,CA,NH,VA,CO). WY the exception.

9 of the bottom 10 states in per capita income voted Republican in 2008. (MS,WV,AR,SC,KY,UT,ID,NM,AL,MT) NM the exception.

If you read this far, why do you suppose that is? I thought Democrats were a bunch of socialists who wanted to take money from the wealthy and give it to people who don't work? Why on Earth would so many wealthy people vote for that?

Source data: Commerce Dept. Bureau of Economic Analysis, compiled in easy to read tables by the University of New Mexico

http://www.unm.edu/~bber/econ/us-pci.htm

I believe the best way to measure whether a president is on the right track is how much he royally pisses off extremists on the right and the left. Just the mere thought of Obama sends right-wing extremists into a spit-spewing hate-filled sermon, so that's to be expected. But the same is happening from left-wing pundits as well. They are furious at Obama for supporting tax cuts, for not arresting Dick Cheney, for supporting such a tiny stimulus package, and for not immediately revoking Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

I say "Well played, Mr. Obama. Keep 'em as angry as you can." What do you say?

Krugman (liberal, NY Times): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/opinion/23krugma...

Krauthammer (syndicated conservative columnist): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/...

Tracinski (right-wing blogger): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/...

Judis (liberal New Republic columnist): http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2...

I’m not a fundamentalist, so please correct me if I have this wrong. My impression is that Christian fundamentalists live life according to their view of the Bible. The appeal of this lifestyle is clear because there is never a need to be fearful of making an incorrect decision. Life becomes very black and white because there is only one place to look for the answer to any important question.

I see conservatives becoming “Constitutional fundamentalists” as well, and bestowing God-like qualities on the men who drafted the Constitution 220 years ago. Government similarly becomes very black and white because the Constitution is the only place to look for the answer to any important governmental question. If it isn’t in the Constitution, don’t do it.

Is constitutional fundamentalism the right way? Or did the framers show us how to conduct government, but not what government to conduct, knowing that society and government would evolve in ways they could not imagine in the1780’s?