Is this the future of the Auto industry in America?

[Denny Crane]

Wasn't that congress?



GM was profitable too. And then it became insolvent, as did AIG. You aren't seriously going to claim that AIG was just fine and the government bailout was some sort of a Bush administration plot?



You know that gross profit isn't net income, right?

barfo

You asked for a profitable business, and I found you the obvious one.

And you realize that net income isn't the same thing as cash flow, right?

 

[barfo]

You asked for a profitable business, and I found you the obvious one.

And you realize that net income isn't the same thing as cash flow, right?

No, I asked for a prosperous business, not one with a positive gross profit. Big difference.

And yes, I do realize the difference; however AIG's cash flow and net income are both negatives.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

No, I asked for a prosperous business, not one with a positive gross profit. Big difference.

And yes, I do realize the difference; however AIG's cash flow and net income are both negatives.

barfo

AIG has been used as a conduit to funnel $100B or more into the coffers of Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. Goldman Sachs would be where Geitner came from (as well as NJ Governor and former senator Jon Corzine), and Citi is where Clinton Fed Chairman Robert Rubin hangs out (or did). Dollar figures that pale in comparison to any that was paid to, say, Halliburton. Favoritism.

AIG's problem is they had to write off $80B in bad loans due to all the foreclosures you might have read about.

 

[barfo]

AIG has been used as a conduit to funnel $100B or more into the coffers of Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. Goldman Sachs would be where Geitner came from (as well as NJ Governor and former senator Jon Corzine), and Citi is where Clinton Fed Chairman Robert Rubin hangs out (or did). Dollar figures that pale in comparison to any that was paid to, say, Halliburton. Favoritism.

The trouble with that theory is that if you replace Goldman and Citi with any other big banks, you could find the same sort of connections. The governor of New Jersey? And a Clinton appointee? Those aren't exactly smoking gun connections.

AIG's problem is they had to write off $80B in bad loans due to all the foreclosures you might have read about.

So, the play was enjoyable, Mrs. Lincoln?

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

What does it matter who owns them? If grandma and grandpa are smuggling heroin, should we look the other way?

Grandma and Grandpa aren't smuggling heroin. Grandma makes the best and most popular cookies in town, and people pay a premium for eating them. That doesn't make them vile and evil. [/quote]

The Japanese, obviously. They know railroading.

Why the Japanese and not the EU? And what about the whole "keeping stimulus money in America" thing?

To the extent this is an executive branch action rather than a legislative, and to the extent you didn't vote for Obama, then I guess you didn't vote for it. It's kind of like how I didn't vote to go to war in Iraq, I suppose.

It's absolutely nothing like that. What makes buying companies an executive action?

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/ 77-23 in the Senate
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/attack/main524191.shtml 296-133 in the House

The majority of Congress voted for the Iraq Resolution. If the majority of Congress voted to buy GM? I wouldn't have much to say, other than do what I can to try to not have the same people elected again.

 

[boatsandstars]

"Waaah, I want to drive a stupid car that is illogical and bad for the earth, but I wanna *foot stamp* and you can't tell me no or i'll hold my breath."

 

[boatsandstars]

Prove that auto emissions "destroy [our] kids' planet". If you are concerned about greenhouse gases, you should worry more about methane emissions from bovine flatulence more than cars.

Maybe he should care about both. Maybe you shouldn't try to destroy his freedom by telling him what to care about. Maybe you should quit trying to look smarter than you are. Messageboard Superstar. Good job, you win.

 

[Denny Crane]

"Waaah, I want to drive a stupid car that is illogical and bad for the earth, but I wanna *foot stamp* and you can't tell me no or i'll hold my breath."

I want my govt. potatoes they hand out at the warehouse 30 miles away on Tuesdays, but only if you get there early enough to be near the front of the line before they run out.

Waaah.

 

[Denny Crane]

Odd news today.

GM found a buyer for the Hummer product line. You'd think there'd be no market for such massive gas guzzling beasts and that Hummer would be the last asset GM would be able to sell (vs. the first).

Saved 3,000 jobs, too.

woot

 

[BrianFromWA]

300M people in US. Potentially new landscape in emissions legislature.

~3B people in India and China, on much less infrastructure and no one cares about emissions, pollution, etc. I'm not saying every one of those 3B has the ability to buy a Hummer, but then again, not a whole lot can here, either.

Boatsandstars, you think we should worry about bovine flatulence? Or Chinese coal burning? Or Indian sewage treatment? By all means, though, continue thinking that the US government should regulate more and more of your personal choices for some utopian progressive ideal. It's your right as a citizen. Until you let it not be your right, which is what you're advocating that MessageBoard superstar do. Sounds hypocritical to me. (Or is that "hypercritical"?)

 

[BrianFromWA]

Reading this thread has made me think of something else.

So Hummers are potentially going to be legislated as being illegal to operate in the US due to emission control, gas guzzling, whatever. But someone else (I imagine a foreign entity) buys it to sell somewhere else, which allows the US to keep 3000 jobs.

Going back to barfo's analogy of grandma selling heroin: if it's illegal to use in the US, is it right that we produce it here and ship it to somewhere that doesn't recognize the dangers? Should we be praising 3000 jobs being saved when all they're doing is contributing to the destruction of the earth? Or are emissions from a Hummer (insert your double-entendre here) less harmful in China or France or Australia than in the US?

Seems like it shouldn't be both ways.

 

[barfo]

If the majority of Congress voted to buy GM? I wouldn't have much to say, other than do what I can to try to not have the same people elected again.

Really? You just keep silent about anything Congress does that you disagree with?

Curious.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

"Waaah, I want to drive a stupid car that is illogical and bad for the earth, but I wanna *foot stamp* and you can't tell me no or i'll hold my breath."

"WAAAAHHH I want to complain and cry about how emissions are destroying my childrens' planet and future. Meanwhile the president that I blindly worship is destroying their future by quadrupling our national deficit and running up debt that they won't be able to repay."

Dude, get a grip.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Really? You just keep silent about anything Congress does that you disagree with?

Curious.

barfo

For the most part. For instance, I don't generally protest abortions b/c our country has decided to make it legal, and the Supreme Court has upheld it. I wouldn't perform one myself, but it's the law of the land. If we voted on it, I wouldn't vote for it, but there are established ways of legalized protest, and supposedly a system of checks and balances to make sure things aren't overstepped. I disagree with the gov'ts stance on welfare and social security, but there's not much I can do to protest. If there are issues currently up for debate/discussion/legislation, I have no problem trying to point out facts, some opinion, and generally trying to steer away from groupthink. But I think you could go back, if so inclined, and find few outbursts from me on issues that Congress and/or the rest of the government has voted or ruled on that I disagree with.

(On a tangent), it frustrates me when I hear the idiotic view that Bush "Stepped all over the Constitution". Really? Assuming that he did, there are multiple avenues for the congress or supreme court to regulate his actions should they agree with that view. But it seems that, "in these tough economic times", the actions of the President ARE overstepping his bounds, it's happening in broad daylight on national TV, and none of the checks-and-balance system really cares.

 

[maxiep]

I've now come to a new conclusion about the future of the American auto industry: Amtrak.

We purchased it (I believe) in 1971 with the intention of holding it just long enough to reorganize it and manage it back to profitability. After all, we HAVE to have passenger trains everywhere in this country, right? Well, it's been 38 years and we're still funding this albatross to the tune of $3B annually, but profitability is right around the corner.

GM will really become Government Motors. After all, we HAVE to save union jobs, right? Instead of $3B annually, it will be a multiple of that figure, but profitability is right around the corner.

 

[maxiep]

"Waaah, I want to drive a stupid car that is illogical and bad for the earth, but I wanna *foot stamp* and you can't tell me no or i'll hold my breath."

You own a Vespa. It sounds like you live in NYC. Terrific. Why you own any form of transportation in NYC is beyond me. I lived in the Lower East Side for years and never brought my car onto the island except to move in and out. It seems to me that you're being awfully unkind to the earth driving your own personal vehicle when there are so many public transportation options available to you.

You let me know how that Vespa would work hauling tools and equipment necessary to do your job in the middle of winter in North Dakota.

 

[Blaze01]

We will have to see what kind of cars that GM now comes out with, but I doubt many Americans are going to be happy driving Opals & Prius look-alikes....the government can lecture all they want about driving small cars....but they can't force people to buy cars they don't want or like....or can\will they?

Are you ready for your cadillac-prius look alike?

What do we tell those parents of large families? Take two trips?

I still think there will be SUV's, and they should be hybrid and get better gas mileage...but I question whether or not they can hit the new governement mandate...and people are not going to just give thier SUV's up...no matter how much liberals and misguided environmentalists want them too.....

 

[maxiep]

We will have to see what kind of cars that GM now comes out with, but I doubt many Americans are going to be happy driving Opals & Prius look-alikes....the government can lecture all they want about driving small cars....but they can't force people to buy cars they don't want or like....or can\will they?

Are you ready for your cadillac-prius look alike?

What do we tell those parents of large families? Take two trips?

I still think there will be SUV's, and they should be hybrid and get better gas mileage...but I question whether or not they can hit the new governement mandate...and people are not going to just give thier SUV's up...no matter how much liberals and misguided environmentalists want them too.....

I think you're going to see something out of Cuba, where they're still driving cars from the 1950's. You're going to see SUV's being held together with bubblegum and rubberbands to keep them on the road.

A buddy of mine with three kids just bought a new Suburban because a) he got a great deal; and b) he's afraid that he won't be able to buy a car that size in a few years. He says he plans to take perfect care of the car becuase he wants it to last 20 year. It doesn't matter to him if he has to pay $10-$15/gallon, he wants to be able to have a large car that can fit his entire family and survive an impact in case of an accident.

As for me, I own a Chevy pickup which I use to haul things around. I'm going to sell it and buy a new Ford pickup (I now refuse to buy GM or Chrysler) so I can ensure that I'll have the cab space and towing capacity I'll want for the future.

 

[blazerboy30]

We will have to see what kind of cars that GM now comes out with, but I doubt many Americans are going to be happy driving Opals & Prius look-alikes....the government can lecture all they want about driving small cars....but they can't force people to buy cars they don't want or like....or can\will they?

Are you ready for your cadillac-prius look alike?

What do we tell those parents of large families? Take two trips?

Further, what do we tell people that need trucks for their occupation? Carry your ladder in your SmartCar?

What do we tell retirees that want to take their trailer or 5th-wheel on cross-country trips? Pull it with your Prius?

 

[blazerboy30]

As for me, I own a Chevy pickup which I use to haul things around. I'm going to sell it and buy a new Ford pickup (I now refuse to buy GM or Chrysler) so I can ensure that I'll have the cab space and towing capacity I'll want for the future.

Dude, put a hitch on your Prius. What more could you need?

 

[barfo]

(On a tangent), it frustrates me when I hear the idiotic view that Bush "Stepped all over the Constitution". Really? Assuming that he did, there are multiple avenues for the congress or supreme court to regulate his actions should they agree with that view. But it seems that, "in these tough economic times", the actions of the President ARE overstepping his bounds, it's happening in broad daylight on national TV, and none of the checks-and-balance system really cares.

So the checks and balances somehow went away when Bush left office? How did that happen?

Couldn't it be that you just disagree with what Obama is doing, and agreed with what Bush was doing? Wouldn't that be a simpler explanation?

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

It would be simpler, it would be a great way of dismissing the question, and it would be wrong.

IMHO, it went away b/c, last I checked, there was a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate (with the supermajority in the Senate)...that the most vocal/visible leaders in both are not interested in crossing the President as long as he is espousing their personal idea of where the country should be going. Pelosi and Frank, for instance, instead of talking about CIA records from years ago or business trips to Vegas, should (IMO--according the my limited knowledge of the Constitution) be saying things like--"Uh, Mr. President, where are you getting the funds to make the US taxpayer the majority stockholder of GM? Don't we have to authorize that? I didn't see it in the last budget we passed, or the last bailout bill you passed (but didn't read, apparently), or any special requisition."

And if they decide to, and Congress votes on a resolution to buy GM, fine. They have the power (as demonstrated by the bailout) to not care about my feelings or agreement in passing legislation.

It seems weak to just say "you don't agree with Obama and agree with Bush". I thought we were a bit past that.

 

[maxiep]

It seems weak to just say "you don't agree with Obama and agree with Bush". I thought we were a bit past that.

Don't you get it? Those that possessed a visceral hatred for President Bush can only see a mirror image. It's not conceivable to them that you can think differently, only feel differently. The Left in this country sees the world like a cartoon.

 

[maxiep]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124381255295170405.html

The Obama Motor Co.

Back in December, in an economy far, far away, then-CEO Rick Wagoner tossed out the scary cost to taxpayers of $100 billion if General Motors wasn't saved by the government. Well, GM was saved in December and again in March, and as early as today the feds will rescue it a third time in a prepackaged bankruptcy that is already costing at least $50 billion, and that's for starters. Welcome to Obama Motors, and what is likely to be a long, expensive and unhappy exercise in political car making.

Taxpayers have so far put up nearly $20 billion, which was supposed to be a loan at market rates but under Treasury's forced restructuring will mostly be converted into equity in the new GM. The feds are also putting up $30.1 billion in "debtor in possession" financing and will effectively nationalize the once-mighty auto maker by taking roughly 60% ownership. (That's not counting $12.5 billion to save GMAC, the company's financing arm.) The Canadian government will go along for the ride for 12% of the new GM, the UAW will get about 17.5%, and the hapless bond holders have to settle for 10%.

The Obama Treasury is portraying this as the best solution to the mess it inherited, leaving GM with much-reduced legacy costs for health care, a cleaned-up balance sheet, a humbler UAW that has forgone some performance pay, and a more efficient dealer network and product line. GM, we are told, will now be able to make a profit and some day even return money to taxpayers. If you close your eyes and imagine that GM's private managers would be able to make decisions based solely on business judgment, you can even start to believe.

But then you snap out of it.

Every decision the feds have made since December suggests that nonpolitical management will be impossible. First they replaced Mr. Wagoner -- whom they are nonetheless still paying -- with the more pliable Fritz Henderson as CEO and Kent Kresa as Chairman. The latter are good at playing Washington but unproven in making popular cars. Then Treasury bludgeoned the bond holders in both Chrysler and GM to take pennies on the dollar, which will not make creditors eager to lend to the companies in the future.

There's also the labor agreement that the UAW approved last week, which goes some way toward reducing costs but probably not enough to make the new, smaller GM competitive. The new agreement simplifies some work rules and job descriptions but makes no reductions in hourly pay, pensions or health care for active workers. The agreement must also be renegotiated in two years by an Obama Administration running for re-election and weighing the need to keep Big Labor happy against the risks to taxpayer-shareholders. Who do you think wins that White House debate?

The Administration's concessions to the UAW also restrict the company's ability to import smaller, more fuel-efficient cars that it already makes overseas. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger boasted on PBS's "NewsHour" last week that "we, quite frankly, put pressure on the White House, the [auto] task force, the corporation" to bar small-car imports from overseas. GM is also selling its Opel operation in Europe as part of this restructuring, and the Washington Post reports that one of Treasury's sale conditions is that Opel's new owners must stay out of the U.S., and even out of China, where GM's business is strong.

This is raw trade protectionism. It is also textbook cartel behavior and would be an antitrust violation if practiced by a business. But the benefits for GM are illusory because the import limits mean the company will have to spend even more to retool its domestic plants to make the little green cars that President Obama and Congress are demanding. No one knows if Americans will buy such cars, even if GM can make them competitively in the U.S.

The Administration promises to wield a light ownership hand, but it's only a matter of time before Congress starts to micromanage GM's business judgments. Every decision to close a plant will be second-guessed, much like a military base-closing. And what about buying parts from foreign suppliers? Will those also be banned when Mr. Gettelfinger demands it, even if the costs are lower? GM's managers and directors will have one eye on enhancing shareholder value, but the other on pleasing their political minders in Washington.

The Obama Administration has been whispering to the press that it could start selling its stake within a year to 18 months, and that it hopes to be out of the business entirely in five years. But even assuming that the taxpayer investment stops at $50 billion, GM would have to be worth a cool $80 billion for taxpayers to break even on their 60% stake. By way of comparison, GM's market capitalization at its recent peak in 2000 was only $56 billion.

The larger corruption will be when government tries to vindicate its ownership by favoring GM over Ford and the other auto makers that aren't wards of the state. The TARP legislation contained one blatant example in the form of a $7,500 tax credit for consumers who buy GM's new electric car, the Chevy Volt. Expect more such favoritism, including huge new subsidies for green cars if consumers prove resistant to their charms.

Mr. Obama likes to say he's a pragmatist who only prefers a government solution when it will work. But in resurrecting an industrial auto policy that even the French long ago abandoned, the President has made himself GM's de facto CEO. Our guess is that he'll come to regret it as much as taxpayers will.

 

[barfo]

It would be simpler, it would be a great way of dismissing the question, and it would be wrong.

IMHO, it went away b/c, last I checked, there was a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate (with the supermajority in the Senate)..

Weren't there republican majorities in both the house and senate for part of Bush's reign? What checks and balances existed then?

Isn't the supreme court still conservative majority today, just as it was during Bush's term?

If anything it appears there are more checks and balances now.

.that the most vocal/visible leaders in both are not interested in crossing the President as long as he is espousing their personal idea of where the country should be going.

Well, duh. Why would they cross him if they agree with him? That makes no sense.

Pelosi and Frank, for instance, instead of talking about CIA records from years ago or business trips to Vegas, should (IMO--according the my limited knowledge of the Constitution) be saying things like--"Uh, Mr. President, where are you getting the funds to make the US taxpayer the majority stockholder of GM? Don't we have to authorize that? I didn't see it in the last budget we passed, or the last bailout bill you passed (but didn't read, apparently), or any special requisition."

Do you have any evidence that the president is spending money that he isn't legally authorized to spend? Or is this just an assumption?

It seems weak to just say "you don't agree with Obama and agree with Bush". I thought we were a bit past that.

It seems even weaker to claim there were constitutional checks and balances on Bush but not on Obama. As far as I know the constitution hasn't changed.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Obama is spending money he has authority to spend. He just has a rubber stamp congress that isn't willing to be the least bit fiscally responsible. He's authorized to spend what congress passed last year as a budget, plus the TARP funds, plus the so-called emergency so-called stimulus package, plus anything else congress has voted to allow him to spend. Given that they're not the least bit fiscally responsible, they'll rubber stamp his massive deficit and blueprint for increasing the overall debt for the foreseable future (years).

I do wonder what authority he has to fire CEOs and cap executive pay.

 

[barfo]

I do wonder what authority he has to fire CEOs and cap executive pay.

On the latter, I believe Congress passed, as part of the stimulus bill, executive pay caps on bailout firms. Congress passed it, Obama signed it, therefore it is law. I'm not sure who specifically has the authority to enforce it, but the authority is clearly legally there.

As for firing CEOs, I don't believe he has fired any. In particular, Wagoner resigned. What's the difference? Obama had the leverage to force Wagoner to resign, but he didn't have the authority to fire him.

I have no authority to fire you (from your day job, I mean), but if I was going to give your company billions of dollars that it desperately needed, and my condition for doing so was that you leave the company...

It's a weird thing on this board, people believe that government spending is bad (and that is a reasonable point of view), and they believe that government oversight is bad (also a reasonable point of view), but then they put those two together and suggest that government oversight of government spending is bad. And that's not reasonable at all. Unless you actually want government to waste money.

Since we spent the money on GM, it is the government's duty to do its best to make sure the money is used wisely. If that means removing the CEO, so be it. Of course it is reasonable to ask whether removing that particular CEO is a good idea, but it isn't, in my opinion, reasonable to claim we shouldn't ever exercise that leverage. We paid for that leverage.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

It's a weird thing on this board, people believe that government spending is bad (and that is a reasonable point of view), and they believe that government oversight is bad (also a reasonable point of view), but then they put those two together and suggest that government oversight of government spending is bad. And that's not reasonable at all. Unless you actually want government to waste money.

I can't speak for others, but what you described isn't true, IMO (the point about the lack of government oversight of government spending being bad).

The government gave away a lot of money. But as bad as GM was run, I don't believe that Obama and / or a government could run a car company any better, especially given where GM stands now.

They shouldn't have given the money away, but since they did, let the private industry do what it does better than the government, and have the government stay out of it.

Unless, of course, you believe that Obama can run this country and GM at the same time.

 

[barfo]

I can't speak for others, but what you described isn't true, IMO (the point about the lack of government oversight of government spending being bad).

The government gave away a lot of money. But as bad as GM was run, I don't believe that Obama and / or a government could run a car company any better, especially given where GM stands now.

They shouldn't have given the money away, but since they did, let the private industry do what it does better than the government, and have the government stay out of it.

Unless, of course, you believe that Obama can run this country and GM at the same time.

I don't think he intends to run GM in a day-to-day sense. I think giving government money to GM's existing management and telling them to do whatever they want with it, no strings attached, would have been very very stupid. But, like I said, I know a lot of you folks disagree with that.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

On the latter, I believe Congress passed, as part of the stimulus bill, executive pay caps on bailout firms. Congress passed it, Obama signed it, therefore it is law. I'm not sure who specifically has the authority to enforce it, but the authority is clearly legally there.

No, it didn't. It limited bonuses only.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021303288.html

Critics of excessive executive pay assert that companies have always found ways around compensation rules. Yesterday, they noted that more stringent measures -- such as a $400,000 cap on all forms of compensation -- did not survive last-minute wrangling by House and Senate leaders on the final compromise stimulus bill. To offset the new rules, inserted by Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), compensation boards could just significantly raise the base salary of executives, the critics said.

"Congress missed a huge opportunity to set a strict and measurable limit on executive pay," said Sarah Anderson, a director at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington. "I'm afraid companies will find ways to shift compensation to other pots and continue to make massive payouts that have so outraged the American people."

As for firing CEOs, I don't believe he has fired any. In particular, Wagoner resigned. What's the difference? Obama had the leverage to force Wagoner to resign, but he didn't have the authority to fire him.

I have no authority to fire you (from your day job, I mean), but if I was going to give your company billions of dollars that it desperately needed, and my condition for doing so was that you leave the company...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/31/unions-demanding-obama-fi_n_181187.html
Your request is being processed...

Unions Demanding Obama Fire BofA CEO In Wake Of Wagoner Ouster

oust·er
Pronunciation: \ˈau̇s-tər\
Function:noun
Etymology:Anglo-French, from oster, ouster to oust
Date:1531

1 a: a wrongful dispossession b: a judgment removing an officer or depriving a corporation of a franchise
2: expulsion

It's a weird thing on this board, people believe that government spending is bad (and that is a reasonable point of view), and they believe that government oversight is bad (also a reasonable point of view), but then they put those two together and suggest that government oversight of government spending is bad. And that's not reasonable at all. Unless you actually want government to waste money.

Since we spent the money on GM, it is the government's duty to do its best to make sure the money is used wisely. If that means removing the CEO, so be it. Of course it is reasonable to ask whether removing that particular CEO is a good idea, but it isn't, in my opinion, reasonable to claim we shouldn't ever exercise that leverage. We paid for that leverage.

barfo

Govt. spending isn't all bad, it's just inefficient and excessive borrowing kills the private sector's ability to borrow. There's only so much money to lend. Excessive debts mean excessive amounts of the tax dollars collected are being given out to the rich as interest (they're the ones who can afford to loan the govt. money) instead of being able to be spent on your favorite pet programs.

What really matters is what the money is spent on in the govt. budgets. Some things literally produce shit (giving people food vs teaching them to earn their own food or finding a job for them). Some things are actual investments that pay dividends for decades (Marshall Plan, VHA, GI Bill, taking out Saddam). We're spending on things that produce shit.

I don't know if you're old enough to remember Reagan - I am. The guy came into office and inherited a terrible economy: inflation was double digits, interest rates (mortgages) near 20%, unemployment as high as it is now. He articulated a plan, explained the Laffer Curve, and told us things would be worse for a year and then they'd get better. Things were pretty tense in that year and people doubted it would work out, but like clockwork it did. People may not have agreed with the plan, but it was well articulated and it was well Reasoned and made sense.

Obama is renowned as a communicator, yet there is no articulation of any plan that makes any sense. One week, it seems that there's an emergency and we have to spend money to keep Democrats in office with hundreds of $billions in pork barrel spending, and the next week "we're out of money." One can only deduce what the plan is, if there really is one, by watching what they do, and the plan seems to be "borrow our way out of debt" which makes zero sense and flies in the face of Reason. Nobody's writing anything that makes sense on his teleprompters. Get it?

Blindly defend the guy no matter what, people do that. We're all going to look back on this and curse the 80% tax bracket that everyone will be paying, and this administration will be the sole source of decades of pain and the death of social security and medicare.

Carry on.