Limbaugh, Christie and the "Real" Reagan – UPDATE

Running out to store, I heard Rush Limbaugh criticizing Chris Christie for using the word “compromise” too often in his speech last night.

Said Rush — who wants nothing of compromise in our governance: “Winners don’t compromise with losers.”

Well, alright, I guess that’s one point of view, but it seems to me the man wants to have his cake and eat it too. He (and I, and many others) criticized President Obama for saying at his first meeting with the GOP, “I won,” and for later reminding them on another occasion that he won in ’08 and that “elections have consequences.”

We hated that. We found that arrogant (because it was arrogant) and said — “this is not how one governs. How can he not listen to half the country!”

But now — shoe on other foot, suddenly Rush Limbaugh is suggesting that a GOP candidate must essentially be willing to turn to the Democrats in ’12 — assuming he or she were to win — and say, “I won,” and perpetuate the stalemate that is preventing constructive solutions to our problems.

It’s the stagnant mindset that keeps something like Paul Ryan’s serious plan to replace Obamacare in the DOA pile, in Congress.

It’s the stagnant mindset that has a “post-partisan” president out there on the campaign trail throwing red meat and demonizing the loyal opposition, which may feed his base, but still does not allow for real solutions to our problems to be explored and developed.

Limbaugh’s shouting, “where do you want to compromise with Nancy Pelosi; where do you want to compromise with Harry Reid; where do you want to compromise with Barack Obama?”

It’s stirring rhetoric to the faithful, but it does nothing at all to get us out of this mess. No, I don’t especially want to compromise with Pelosi or Reid, but you know what? You have to live in the world “as it is.”

That doesn’t mean roll over — it means fight for what you believe in, but also recognize that no one likes to be steamrollered and the people with whom you are in opposition need to feel like they’re participating, or nothing goes forward.

I know, I know, Limbaugh is looking at a big picture — his intention is to stir up his listeners and get momentum going to elect not only a GOP president but collect a super-majority in both houses (as though we loved it so much when one party was in total control from 2008 to 2010) but in his passion he’s encouraging his listeners to forget that a president must be president of the whole nation — not just of the base.

This “winners don’t compromise with losers” language. It turns me off, because it’s what we’re living with right now. And it sucks.

Limbaugh is misleading when he says “St. Ronaldus Magnus” “never compromised.” Limbaugh knows darn well that Reagan was the one who wrote in his biography, An American Life:

” When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it. “Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything. I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933:

‘I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.’ If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.”

I’m always astonished at conservatives who deify Reagan with one breath and then completely ignore the fact that he wrote that — he knew that politics is the art of the possible, and that nothing is possible with a steamroller but destruction and waste.

I don’t know who I am going to support for President; I do know that Christie has made a positive difference in his state by being tough when toughness mattered — I’ll never forget him sending the Democrat budget back within five minutes of receiving it, with his veto. He got what mattered to him in the budget. He got what mattered with regards to the unions. And he even cut off funding for Planned Parenthood. I give all of that a lot more weight than how many times he used the word “compromise.”

I think Christie has more than demonstrated that you compromise where you can — get your 75% and fight again another day. And that is downright Reaganesque of him. The real Reagan, not the “pure and perfect conservative” hagiographic fiction that so many cling to.

We are currently being governed by an “I won-do-as-I-say” president who is catering to the nit-pickers on his side. I frankly don’t want another, not from either side.

Anyone currently running for president from the GOP side would be an improvement over Obama. But I want a president who has demonstrated that he can actually lead, and bring others around to his way of thinking — not browbeat and not make end-runs around the congress or the constitution.

And I will point out to some of the “purists” that even Sarah Palin made her reputation — and governed effectively and successfully — by being a conservative who stuck to her guns on what mattered to her, but still was able to work with the opposition.

It’s an old chestnut that in a storm it’s the rigid trees that fall, while those that still have a small reserve of flexibility survive. Being stubborn and single-minded can often accomplish much, but being completely inflexible just blocks solutions and foments resentment. It gets us to where we are, today.

A reserve of flexibility matters. I don’t want another president who does not have it.

UPDATE: Hot Air has more

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • http://jscafenette.com/ Manny

    Completely agree with everything you said. Rush Limbaugh, though entertaining, is a radio commentator. I admit I listen if I’m in the car when he’s on and I both enjoy him and mostly agree with his points of view. But he’s not elected to anything; therefore he’s really not worth taking that seriously.

  • fiestamom

    I heard it too, but Limbaugh asked, where do we compromise with higher taxes, environmental regulations and Obamacare?

    Not to be tit for tat, but Obamacare is destroying the economy. I want it totally repealed! Not compromised with. Obama just spent a trillion dollars that we don’t have, and I don’t want Republicans compromising on cutting the spending. My grandkids that aren’t even born yet are going to have to pay for the Solyndra debacle, the extra 230,000 EPA bureaucrats.

    Limbaugh then went on and compared Christie to McCain- I was tired of McCain going on and on about crossing the aisle, working with his friends the democrats. I want someone with principles, and to stand by them.

    Yes, the President has to be the president of the whole nation, not just his base. Do Pelosi and Reid care about the nation or their base? Democrats never compromise on their principles. Look at the Obamacare/TARP votes.

  • Terrye

    I absolutely agree. I remember Reagan and sometimes when I hear conservatives talk about him today, I wonder if they do remember the man at all. It is as if they have replaced the real Reagan with some super hero character that bears little resemblance to the real thing.

    As for winners not compromising with losers…maybe Limbaugh needs to read the constitution again..or at least study civics. Our system is not based on mob rule or even straight up majority rule. It has within it certain rules designed to protect the rights of the minority party and give that minority a say in the way the government is run. We call it checks and balances.

    When on group decides to ignore the other party…like when the Democrats went forward with Obamacare without any support from Republicans..people react badly. They don’t like it, and they won’t like it one bit better if the Republicans do it.

  • Terrye

    fiestman,

    Tarp worked and the money has been paid back. The idea that any president, including Bush would do nothing when the financial system was in freefall is ridiculous. People like Limbaugh can say what they like, but they are not the ones people hold responsible when things get bad. The only thing Limbaugh has to run is his mouth.

    And I dislike Obamacare too, but I am not going to say it is okay for the Republicans to take the same tact and do what most people do not want done..just because they have the votes.

    As for beating up on McCain, that is just the usual bellyaching. McCain is a fiscal conservative and a war hero. He is also a member of the United States Senate and as such there are times when he has to work with the other party. Reagan raised taxes for heavens sakes…back in 1983 when social security was facing bankruptcy Reagan worked with the Democrats to raise social security taxes and save the system.

  • Gregg the Obscure

    Flexibility can be very bad in the wrong place. Reagan’s compromises on “social issues” (killing the human life amendment, the complete capitulation to left extremists in response to HIV, etc.) have ongoing bad consequences.

  • Greta

    When FDR made the statement, he had massive majorities in both houses of Congress and got almost eveything he wanted as a result, much of which was ruled onconstitutional. When Obama made his statement about winning and go sit in the back of the bus and you drove us into a ditch and we are not going to give you the keys, he had large majorities in both houses of congress.
    When Reagan “realized he had to compromise” it was reality that the House was and had been for decades in the hands of the Democrats.

    The Democrats when they have power as under FDR, LBJ, Obama, etc. push through a radical progressive socialist agenda. It has impact on everyone that follows as with social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, Obamacare, etc. I cannot remember in my lifetime when the Republicans held the white house and anything close to the majorities in both houses that Obama or FDR had on election. So compromise happens when you have closer parity and legislation is passed. But it also requires a grown up leader in the White House who loves the country and is willing to not take credit for everything good thing that happens and blame someone else when things go wrong.

    However, when the courts decided to legislate from the bench and dove into values and morals, it was bound to lead to what we have today. Prior to the move to remove religion from our schools and everywhere else possible and mandate aethism as our national religion, most of the things we cared about were still decided on the local state level. Once morals was no longer to be considered, the attack on life itself and the family started. The political parties formed around those who liked no moral values and the ability to kill infants in the womb and attack families and those who wanted to protect the babies and families. They formed around government is in charge of everything and the other side seeing government as the problem and God as the solution. As you as a blogger know, if you post anything about religion or abortion or big government or special rights for gays, you will bet both sides posting huge numbers of comments and the solution most bloggers take is to avoid the topic or to close off the comments. The courts made it impossible for us to have one set of morals and values in Ohio and another in NY. Our only solution was to get our side in power and for them to appoint judges who shared our belief in getting the courts out of our business on a federal level. Moral majority did not exist until the federal government court came up with the big lie about separation of religion being in the Constitution rather than the exact opposite and started push aethism as our state religion requiring the removal of God everywhere they could.

    For those eager to find compromise like the good ol days before the federal courts took over, please demonstrate how that works on an issue like life. Show us how to make that work by bringing the pro abortion and pro life people to a compromise position. Some have tried with phrases like make abortion legal and rare or “if only we gave each pregnant mom full support of as many children as she wants for life abortion will go away.” That last one was what allowed some Catholics to vote for the abortion candidate thinking his socialist agenda would give everyone all they needed to keep them from killing the baby. However, 40 years of welfare and food stamps did not end abortions, only fostered more kids who grew up with single moms on these social programs and went on to do the same thing. So I will be eager to see comprise on display.

    Our solution is to remove legislating from the bench and to have the federal government only doing what the states allow with the morals of the country returned to be worked out in the states. If there is a need, form a group to sell it to the people and a constitutional amendment will then settle it when the people are sold. This would allow the federal government to do what it needs to do for things like protecting the borders, defense of the country, and getting the government out of the way of business’s and the people. Thus you have the tea party…

  • GA Dean

    Great post. Of course the comment about Reagan is complete nonsense, some of his compromises were quite notorious amongst conservatives of the day. But to your larger point, a burden of life in a democracy is that you must deal with people with whom you disagree. As much as I personally disagree with the Democrats that Limbaugh lists, they have managed to win elections, and that has to matter for something in a healthy democracy, like it or not.

    The best reason that a Republican should deal honestly with the likes of Obama, Pelosi and Reid is that we are not them nor like them.

  • Jeff S.

    I, too, had an initial negative reaction on first hearing Christie’s strong endorsement of compromise, but upon further review I realized a couple of things:

    1) I think Christie’s idea of compromise is very different from Obama’s. Christie negotiated from a position of strength to reduce NJ’s fiscal problems–problems that affected *all* citizens of NJ. Obama’s idea of compromise means submitting to his partisan initiatives that benefit various narrow interests, at best.

    2) Christie explicitly stated that his NJ Democratic counterpart agreed with Christie’s plan at the expense of stated goals of his own (Democratic) party. Christie’s talk of compromise takes on an entirely different meaning if he’s talking about real solutions that work for the good of all. The fact that those solutions just happen to be based in increasing personal liberty and free markets is just bad luck for progressives.

  • http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/ Todd

    One solution that we won’t get is to kill the two-party system. With it, the losers are always in second place. It might be that there are better ideas out there, but the system on the federal level is paralyzed.

    We have a federal government, and while some Republicans might dislike it, and some Dems take it for granted, it requires people willing to make it work. Otherwise we might as well close up shop and send it to the cities, counties, and townships.

    If we had at least two more viable parties and a parliamentary system, political parties would be forced to come to the table, collaborate, and come up with effective ideas. I’m not holding my breath.

    Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Why he gets print is beyond my understanding. Why not just ask Mike Myers or Lindsay Lohan for their opinions. They’re not any less informed.

  • fiestamom

    Hi Todd, I listen to Rush Limbaugh a lot, and he is way more than an entertainer. He has a real gift for using humor to illustrate his points, it is entertaining, but also informative. He has an encyclopedic mind about politics. Sometimes he remembers obscure things (usually about Democrats) like who signed the Dear Daniel Ortega letter in the 80′s, or Lord Bentsen. Sounds like you don’t agree with him, but he is not uninformed.

    As you can see, his listeners aren’t uninformed either. The Anchoress wasn’t in agreement with Rush today, and some of the posters weren’t either, but look at the facts they cited here on the post.

  • Rob Crawford

    In DC, “compromise” means the left gets what it wants, just a little later.

  • Mandy

    Agree with Rob C. above. As someone who has worked in the swamp known as the Nation’s capitol, I understand that “compromise” to the Democrats means “Shut up and agree with me.”

  • http://jscafenette.com/ Manny

    Just a reminder. Reagan did comprimise, but he comprimised after the dabate had been engaged and legislation needed to get over a hump and be finalized. He did not comprimise before the debate was even engaged.

  • http://theundergroundconservative.wordpress.com The Underground Conservative

    Limbaugh: “Where do you want to compromise with Nancy Pelosi; where do you want to compromise with Harry Reid; where do you want to compromise with Barack Obama?”

    He’s right. There is no place to compromise with the likes of that Axis of Evil. Or any of today’s Democrats. These aren’t your father’s Democrats, the ones Reagan dealt with as Governor or President. There’s no JFK or Truman or Scoop Jackson.

    You get Bela Pelosi. Dingy Harry. Bawney Fwank. Chuck-U Schumer. John F-ing Kerry. Algore. There are hard-core socialists, willing to do significant and irreparable harm to America. Why? Because the America we know and love, they hate.

  • Greta

    Todd 9, you are of course wrong on Limbaugh not being informed. If he was not informed, he would be one of the losers on a station like Radio America or MSNBC. But you do make a great point. In contrast, those who support someone like Obama would be of the expertise of someone like Lindsay Lohan. I note that Obama was running tight with Lady Gaga, another master of issues. fiestamom is right in that Limbaugh has a way of delivering his point with humor that is often devastating to the nanny state ideas of the left. That is why the left hate him with such a vengence and why year after year is audience on radio grows ever larger.

    As to those who still think the current government is going to somehow get better by hope and change or magic, it is not. It is like the words largest, fattest, and most greedy person alive who sees nothing he does not want to control. The government was carefully devised as three equal branches of government with checks and balances that have long ago been whittled down until there are in effect only one and that is most often against the American people. It is as I said above, a country which must have a strong religious faith component on what is right and wrong and a willingness to sacrifice. With everything we have seen in government in the last 40 years or so, we should have seen a massive outrage and revolt demanding real change and a return to a very small limited federal government. We see corruption run rampant, and a few sacrificial lambs are offered at most while the mildew and stench are left behind in full control. Each side seems to think that if they can just get a few more elected on their side that the situation will be fixed. Some believe that compromise is a possible solution, but if both sides have severe faults and the government balance has been distorted and God has been removed, is compromise a real potential concept? It is wishful thinking and many with wishful thinking bought into the last guy pushing hope and change and promises to set a new tone. How many times are the people going to listen to the vacuum cleaner salesman promising to end dirt in our homes and buy the same product. W. Bush was going to bring compassionate conservative solutions and when he brought “no child left behind” with Ted Kennedy and expanded medicare coverage to deal with a real problem for seniors, it did not bring solutions to education or to our ongoing issue of how to fund medicare. Clinton got his hat handed to him after HillaryCare fiasco cost the Democrats the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years upon which Clinton signed welfare reform he had vetoed a vew times and the promise that the era of big government was over. It might have been in a slight pause leading to a balance budget, but the beast was soon lose and upon us.

    I hate to be the 77 year old lady ruining the party, but I have seen their act for most of my life and the federal government always gets bigger, always gobbles up more of our money, and always does what is best for the political hacks and not for business or to create jobs. They gain more power with regulations and laws each of which are a hidden tax reducing our liberties. We are at the point where the colonist were when they finally said no more to the king and parliment of England. As some said, if we do not declare our indepence, we become slaves.

    I am also amazed that when someone says tax the rich because it is fair, that they do not realize they are not being fair, but also being stupid. If I see 100 people going into a resturant and 46 of the people eat for free, 5 people paying for 60% of all the meals, and the other 49 paying a portion of their meal, I suppose fairness would be for those eating for free to demand dessert in the resturant and one to take home with them while the dessert tab is added to only the 5 folks already paying for their meal in total. It seems like it would be fair for those getting the free meal to say, thanks for the meal, at least let me pick up the tab for dessert not only for me, but also for you. The only way this tax thing works without total shame, is the the 46 folks getting the free meal have the government take away the money outside the resturant and then claim to be picking up the tab themselves while bashing the 5 guys they stole the money from in the first place. At long last, is there no shame to the constant complaining and asking for more from those who now pay zero income tax and yet often eat up more resources than the 5 folks at the top? If we still had a people who had a strong religious faith, this would not be America today. What happens when the rich guys no longer make enough if all their money is taken to feed the mob and the mob has grown to over 50% and we have killed all morals and personal responsibility and work ethic? You have the French Revolution and a blood bath.

  • ds

    Obama is a centrist, maybe even a center right president. If you think he’s a socialist you are clueless. A few nods to gays, some very minor concessions to the pro-choice crowd (which will do nothing to the abortion rate), healthcare consisting largely of ideas put forth by the Heritage foundation and he’s got you conservatives barking at the moon. The fact is Obama and the GOP don’t care about you – especially the conservative catholic vote. To the republicans you’re easy, they only have to say they are pro life (not actually do anything about it) and you drool all over them.

    The real GOP base – the filthy rich – have not stopped getting what they want: huge tax breaks. The tax burden on the multi-millionaires and up is lower than its been in decades. Who do you think run the banks that caused housing the housing crisis? Lesbian socialists? No, another bunch of rich conservative white dudes, many of whom were bailed out with our money, almost all of whom will walk away with millions in bonuses, and none of whom will ever even be investigated let alone prosecuted.
    Y’all better get used to Obama; he might be a lousy president but he’s an excellent campaigner and he will wipe the floor with any of these mopes that keep pouring of of the GOP kampaign klown kar. Look at the bumbling idiotic debates, look at the fact that conservatives are actually excited about the possibility of a belligerant slob like Christie entering the race, and tell me you think the republicans stand a chance in ’12. Four more years of Obama trying to find his own butt with both hands.
    And oh yeah, St. Reagan, the patron of supply side economics. Blessed are the poor, may a few pennies trickle down to them after I take care of my rich buddies. You people are disgusting.

  • http://jscafenette.com/ Manny

    Some really great laughs here to wake me up:

    From Greta #15:
    “Todd 9, you are of course wrong on Limbaugh not being informed. If he was not informed, he would be one of the losers on a station like Radio America or MSNBC.”

    You certainly have a way with words. ;)

    From ds #16:
    “Obama is a centrist, maybe even a center right president. If you think he’s a socialist you are clueless.”

    He may not be socialist by the strictest of definitions, but if you think he’s “center right” I wouldn’t if I were you be going around calling people clueless.

  • ds

    Manny- well, I have been known to be an idiot at times, so maybe you’re on to something (have we met IRL? :) ).

    Mike – tell you what, you hold the football this time, and I promise to try and kick the ball and not part of your anatomy. Guess we aren’t gonna see eye to eye on politics, but I’m glad I did read it all – I just made a loan.

  • fiestamom

    Anchoress- I know you’ve heard Rush say it, I know I have- where do we compromise with democrats on the abortion issue?

    My democrat governor (NC) just announced she would prefer to suspend the elections. And Obama’s former budget director, Peter Orszag opined that he would rather bypass the legislative process and use apparatchiks to make laws. I don’t see anywhere to compromise with this.

    We live in such different times than when Reagan was president, 20 years ago.

    [This is why I said you don't compromise on what "matters." It's a subtle point, apparently, but the fact is, a GOP that takes over the WH and both houses and then throws its weight around without compromise like the Dems just did? That's a GOP that will keep power for two years. The other side has to feel like it has some participation, or this whole experiment does not work. And frankly, if ABORTION is your issue then you should love Christie. Others talk; he's actually affected funding for PP. -admin]

  • Kt

    Then you’re just begging the question: what matters? It all matters to Rush because he has a coherent political philosophy: that government and the private sector cannot coexist except in the most limited sense. In almost every area, excluding military and public works, there is no compromise possible because government distorts incentives. If you disagree with Rush, then you champion the sort of furious mish mosh of ambiguity about what the rules should be in every aspect of life, and that in itself becomes a waste of energy, time and resources. So who decides what matters, Anchoress? It should be obvious that “what matters” is different for everyone. Your critique puts us back at square one.

    [No, it doesn't. Go back to Reagan. He fought for what mattered, and took what he could get, ready to go back and fight some more, later. He knew that governance by "ramming it down people's throats" which is what we're currently living with, was not healthy governance, or lasting governance. You call Rush's ideas "coherent" and that's fine -- I respect Rush and think he's a downright genius in some (not that he'd care what I think, and nor should he). I am suggesting that while they're passionate and bright, they're ignoring a reality that cannot be ignored, if one wants to govern effectively and with lasting impact. I'm frankly done with "we have all the power, now we'll put it all through according to our own lights" thinking. I've hated it these past two years, and I don't understand anyone who thinks it would somehow, magically, be a less divisive and bitter way to live, if only the right party were in charge. Who decides what "matters"? We do, the voters. But even the voters have to understand the whole concept of BALANCE as regards power and what is possible, and communicate it to people. THAT is why we need leadership that can demonstrate that balance. Michele Bachmann, for instance does not strike me as someone who can do that. Perhaps Cain or Christie or someone else can. -admin]

  • Doc

    I’d like to see the exact quote where Rush said Reagan never compromised. I find it hard to believe he’s say something so obviously wrong. Of course Reagan compromised. The Democrats controlled the House. He had to. He didn’t compromise with the Soviets on missile defense. He stood firm and they were the ones who blinked. Where Obama, Pelosi, and Reid went terribly wrong was that they not only refused to compromise, they wouldn’t even listen to Republicans and the American people when they held all the cards. I don’t see any Republican president doing what the Dems did in ’09 and ’10. Republicans are not afraid of a debate. If they are then they don’t deserve to win back power.

    Greta, great comments.

    DS, there is too much falsehood and nastiness in comment 16 to go through. Get educated, man. If Obama is center-right, please tell me which American politician is acceptably left wing enough for you.

  • Joe Doakes

    Reagan made compromises in light of his fully developed conservative political philosophy (conservative, not GOP, they are not identical).

    When Liberals said Yes, Reagan started from No and worked toward Maybe. Governor Christie starts from Maybe and will end up at Sure, Why Not?

    That’s why we don’t want a compromiser from the get-go.

    .

  • kt

    Sorry, Anchoress, your reply doesn’t clear up “what matters” at all. Because when determining “what matters” we have to look to principles — not the vagaries of public sentiment. After all, in 2008 people voted for Obama because he wasn’t Bush, and while that was certainly not a good enough reason, that’s definitely “what mattered” in 2008. True Conservatives won’t budge when negotiating with Obama because they are *already* working from a position of enormous compromise, and all of Obama’s negotiations take complete repudiation of conservative principles as their starting point. It’s ALREADY a compromise that we aren’t expressly insisting on a flat tax and trashing this ridiculous tax regime. It’s ALREADY a compromise that we aren’t insisting on enormous spending cuts that are necessary. We are ALREADY compromising, by pretending government and the private sector can coexist without problems — and not only has such compromise gotten us nowhere, it has made things far far worse.

  • kt

    Also, I reject your “concept of BALANCE”. You can’t “BALANCE” good and evil, right and wrong. Similarly, you cannot “BALANCE” mutually exclusive philosophies of government.

    [You're free to reject whatever you want. We're all entitled to our opinions. I am still battling a bug and find myself too drained to engage any further today. - admin]

  • ds

    kt #23:
    The way you wrote it one would think YOU were negotiating with Obama. In reality, it’s Boehner and the rest of the establishment GOP negotiating with Obama, and they have about as much interest in a flat tax and spending cuts as Obama does. Conservatives criticize libs as “tax and spend,” modern republicans are “don’t tax and spend,” viz W Bush.

    You’re right about government and the private sector not coexisting, like when GM borrowed all that TARP money so that they wouldn’t have to declare bankruptcy and lay off a lot of good paying american jobs and then they paid it all back when they got on their feet again. Wait – what?

  • kt

    ds, I frankly don’t see what your argument with me is. GM is socialized entity now; an arm of the government, not the private sector. Any entity that gets a huge government bailout is de facto a government subsidiary and no longer operating within the private sector.

  • ds

    kt, maybe I really don’t understand what you’re talking about.

    GM took a loan from the government that helped them avoid dire consequences. But they paid it all back, they are beholden to the government for nothing now that they weren’t before the loan.

    They didn’t have to take the loan. (Ford didn’t. I guess they are the only remaining non-socialist american auto maker, huh? They should use that in their advertising.) de Gaulle nationalized Renault after world war 2 and they had no choice, THAT’S socialism.

    If some party apparatchik remained on the GM board and directed the company’s decisions, sure that would be socialism. Are you saying that just because at one time in the past they got help from the government, they are tainted and they will be socialist forever?

    In what fantasy world does this pure capitalism you envision exist?

    I bailouts make you socialist, then yeah I guess Obama is a socialist, and so was George W Bush, and all the bailed out investment banks are socialists now too.

    Congrats, kt you live in a socialist country.

    btw, Reagan bailed out Chrysler.

  • Greta

    ds, not sure how anyone would try to answer your first rant in 16 above including the statement that Obama is a Centrist and maybe Center Right. Last time I looked, a Center right president does not push for forcing every American to purchase health insurance by law. Last time I looked, a center right president does not go around the country screaming that the rich do not pay their fair share of taxes which if examined is the old class warfare rhetoric and a total lie. 5% of payers of income tax pay about 60% of all income taxes.

    In fact, according to the goverments own figures, when W. Bush took office, the top 5% paid 56.47% of all personal income taxes paid. In 2008, the top 5% paid 58.72% of all personal income taxes paid. Yes, the top 5% paid a larger percentage of the total personal taxes after 8 years under W. Bush.

    The bottom 50% paid 3.91% of all personal income taxes paid with many in this group, about 90% paying no personal income tax. By the time W. Bush left office, those bottom 50% paid 2.7% of all personal income tax paid and of those, over 92% of them paid zero personal income tax.

    Yes, incomes of the wealthiest 5% went up during the Bush years, but far less than most have been told. And just taking money away from the rich does not make the poor’s life better. In 2008-2009, the bottom 50% were $8 billion closer to Warren Buffet’s total income, but not because they did that much better, but because he lost that much during that time frame. In fact, much of the rhetoric about Buffett paying less taxes are a result of how he handled the 8 billion $ loss with carryovers provided in the tax code which also helps others making far less who invest or have losses far more than the benefits given to the rich. One of the biggest winners on this was the union leaders that support Obama, but who he never mentions in his rants.

    So next time you hear someone screaming about the 7 million or so taxpayers that make up the top 5% out of a total population of 304 million people, remember that those 7 million pay almost 60% of the total personal tax income needed by the 304 million, and that the same folks seldom can line up for many of the benefits only available to the bottom 50% who pay less than 3% of the burden.

    Think about the country we live in here in America. We have 50% who pay almost zero personal income taxes Those who pay virtually nothing, get to vote and have the same rights as determined by the government of the country as the wealthy. But instead of praising these folks, our president blasts these 7 million folks as not paying their “fair” share??? I would hate to go to dinner with the Obama’s and have him determine how to split the check fairly. The simple fact is that if all the income were taken from the top 5%, it would not make a serious dent in the financial problems of this country. The benefits are flowing out to the other 297 million folks of whom a majority pay nothing in personal income taxes. Of course if you did take 100% of all the assets of 7 million americans at the top income levels, you would lose jobs for much of the 297 million people who need to work as we are finding out. This only takes common sense, not a economist or mathematician. However, what you find in those who support Obama is largely folks who do not want to hear common sense or logic, but class warfare rhetoric.

    Also just an FYI, Carter bailed out Chrysler in 1979 and it was law when Reagan took over with little that could be done about it. It worked out fine as Lee Ioacoca was the president and he made Chrysler profitable at the time.

    As to GM paying the money back, I would like to have the same type of loan that they were provided. The money used to pay back what they paid did not come from earnings on sellling cars, but when it was looked into, it was paid back by a seperate TARP fund. In other words, they paid back taxpayers using tax payers own money. When called on the lie, the Treasury and GM finally had to admit that this is where the payback came from. GM stopped running their lying ad.

    The administration’s so-called Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee, a TARP excise tax intended to recover TARP losses, was the subject of the Democrat led Senate Finance Committee hearing. The Office of Management and Budget, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, estimate that overall taxpayer TARP losses will exceed $100 billion, and the auto companies will account for over 30 percent of that amount, more than $30 billion. GM refused to testify and the media did not cover the hearings or the facts.

    And one more fact..
    in all the fanfare and patting themselves on the back, Treasury and GM made no mention of what happened to the $2.5 billion loan GM owes its union health care plan. The union loan carries a 9 percent interest rate and runs until 2017. Don’t most Americans try to pay off their higher-interest debts first? Well, the union loan was not paid off. Why not? Does the union get to keep collecting 9 percent from GM until 2017, courtesy of the American taxpayer, while taxpayers give up a 7 percent return over the next five years. One reason that this was not mentioned and that GM was given a waiver on ObamaCare as this loan would have surfaced and the massive beneifts awarded to GM unions to approve the TARP bailout would also have been known and according to the Obamacare bill, union members would have had to pay penalty taxes for this excessive healthcare coverage.

  • Kt

    Thanks Greta. And ds, I guess you wish to elide the fact that the entire reason GM was bankrupt in the first place is that the cars it makes are crap, since for years now the majority of its resources have gone to satisfy union demands. GM was, and continues to be thanks to Obama, a cushy annuity for union retirees/workers that halfheartedly manufactures cars on the side. It only got a bailout –what you evidently like to call a “loan”, nice to see you got the White House memo — so it could continue to operate as host for the parasitic UAW, which in turn concentrates political power for the democrats.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X