The House passed the Auto-Bail Out last night, which now moves on to the Senate. This bill would grant the big 3 auto companies $14 billion, and create the new position of "Car Czar". What's that, you say? A "Car Czar"? Were we transported to the 18th Century Russia? The Car Czar will provide the necessary oversight of the three automakers, can force them into Chapter 11 bankruptcy if they don't meet the requirements, and aid in business restructuring. Who could serve as Car Czar? Here are a candidates that have been suggested:
Michael the Rich: As current mayor of New York City, he is a savvy businessman and listed as Forbe's 8th Richest American. He is a switch hitter, both Republican and Democrat, that is. He has explained his 'fiscal conservative'-ness in this way: "means improving the efficiency of delivering services by finding innovative ways to do more with less" and "And most importantly, being a fiscal conservative means preparing for the inevitable economic downturns — and by all indications, we've got one coming". (2007)
Mitt the Great...Turnaround: Former Presidential Candidate, Former Governor of Massachusettes, Former Chairman of the Salt Lake Olympics, Former VP of Bain & Co., Former... lots of things. While leading a spin off company, Bain Capital, their average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent. In 1990, Bain & Co. was facing financial collapse. As CEO, Romney managed an effort to restructure the firm's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Within a year, he had led Bain & Company through a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without layoffs or partner defections.(reference) He is also known for the great turnaround of the SLC Olympic Games, which before he arrived was under corruption investigation and was close to an embarrassing collapse. He turned it around, with a high revenue of $100 million, and donated his salary to charity.
Iacocco
+
Michael J. Jackson
+
Henry Kissinger?
Iacocca-Michael J. Jackson-Kissinger Combo: According to automotive insider, Jack Young, this would be the perfect combination of qualities. He stated, "the ideal candidate would possess the manufacturing skills of Lee Iacocca, former president and CEO of Chrysler, who is credited with reviving the company; have the retail abilities of Michael Jackson, CEO of AutoNation, the largest chain of auto dealerships in the country; and have the diplomatic skills of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to negotiate with the auto unions "to realign and restructure their compensation and benefits package to enable domestic manufactures to be competitive."
I am against the Auto-Bailout, just as I was completely against the Financial Bailout. And how is that 'necessary piece of legislation' working out? Don't know what the companies are doing with the money? Sect. Paulson isn't using it for what was promised? Is anyone surprised!?!? Why on earth do we believe this will save the car companies? Is it because there will be over-sight from a CAR CZAR?!?!? I think the language used is foreshadowing of upcoming years of our free-market system. It is not coincidence that a communistic term 'czar' is being used, because a communistic theory is being applied! Although I think that the names floating around of who would be the Car Czar would be great assets to help these failing companies, it should NOT be a governmental position!
14 comments:
Amen, Amen and Amen!
Yes, this is a MESS. Ok, if the automakers can't do it on their own, what makes me think that Govt. overseeing the operations is going to make the situation better. Give me ONE example that shows the govt. can do better than a private company (not saying we don't need some govt programs that are somewhat wasteful in spending ie. The Military). If they (the car companies) can't do it on their own, maybe they shouldn't be doing it. I lived in Russia in 1998--English Teacher. I have seen the LOVELY "Lada" brand Russian cars made by the United Soviet Socialist Republic. YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK! More Govt=More problems. We are pretty smart as Americans. If we're being dumb, like the American car companies, then we need to learn from our mistakes by falling on our faces, not by being bailed out.
My sister and nephew happen to work for Tyson's Ford in McLean Virginia. They are one of the top selling Ford business in the U.S. They work there because they are friends with the GM. They ALL admit that Ford had a bad run with their cars. To quote my nephew "They were making some pretty crappy cars." Now they are actually making really good cars, they rival the Japanese. But, because they had such a bad run, their reputation SUCKS and they are suffering because of it. That's what you get for making crap.
P.S. My vote is for Romney.
While I'm not particularly for the Big 3 bailout either, for me, it's for entirely different reasons. The cold war is over ladies. This is not the paranoid McCarthy era 40's and 50's. I just don't buy the favorite phrase amongst many conservatives, that Big, Bad Communism is just around the corner. In your heart of hearts, do you REALLY believe that communism is where this country is headed? Really???
Doesn't alot of Europe adhere to socialist principles? How many of those countries are currently headed towards communism?
It truly amazes me that one old man's theories - Reagan - could still be dominating the conservative landscape. Maybe it's time to chose a different word.
Did anyone here see the moive "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas"? I am in NO way saying that we are on our way to concentration camps or anything of the like, so let me get that out of the way. The thing that was so disturbing to me was that seeminly good people went about their normal lives completely oblivious to what was REALLY going on around them. The propoganda machine is an incredibly POWERFUL thing. My conclusion is that we need to minimize government control. When the government has too much control it's never EVER a good thing. People and country suffer. Do I really believe that communisum is around the corner? I have NO idea, but when I see us hand over more and more of our own rights and powers to the government I see forms of socialism, fascism and communisum. Will it get AS ugly? I sure hope not, but anytime our freedoms are chipped away at isn't a good thing. If people really understood Abortion--not just the idea of a woman's body but the idea of humanm life, would they let it happen? If people REALLY understood the importance of a family unit, would they be more understanding of upholding the definiton of marriage? If people understood what it meant to turn our govt. into banks, would they really have signed off on the initial bailout? If people took a better look at the cars made by governments vs. private companies, would they really allow the govt to have such power? I'm just glad that the car bailout didn't pass.
First, to answer Lula's question (and nice to see you again) I highly doubt we will become a communist country. There are too many people, like us included, who would understand the horrible consequences. I just find it ironic...or troubling that they coined the 'car czar' title. BUT, to use a phrase I heard from a leader of our Church (Elder Bednar in a fireside on Ricks campus) when talking about sin, "If you don't think it will happen to you, it will." Meaning, if you don't do what you can to prevent it, it CAN happen. If as a country we think we're above what has happened to other countries, we become more seceptible.
Second, Jen. To argue the other side in regards to abortion and definition of marriage, I could use your argument of leaving govt out of it. As they might say, don't let govt become the moral police. Although I am anti-abortion and pro-traditional marriage, I could easily play devil's advocate and argue the other side.
But you echoed my montra (sp?), the more power govt has, the more it corrupts itself. And when will the bailouts end? What if Google or Apple were close to bankruptcy? Are they too big to fail even though they hypothetically made bad business decisions and products that wouldn't sell? WHEN DOES THE BAILING OUT END?
I don't want to be accused of being defensive or anything of the like. I really did write the comment with a level head and w/out much emotion. More in thought than emotion. I know that I have been guilty of heated debates in the past, but I really do think that often my tone, just like everyone else's is misintrepreted. So if anything sounds personal, please know that it isn't personal at all, just wanting a discussion that is open and looks at both sides.
Okbush, the only reason why I bring up the specific example of abortion is because the constitution gives us the right to defend life. Yet, propoganda and people's "Honest" desire to give a women the right to choose, has completely redefined life. This is something that would have been UNHEARD of years ago, so we need to be careful of the propoganda machine that redefines completely horrible things and paints them as beautiful or right. I know I didn't make the point well, at all, but this is what I was referring to when I mentioned the movie and Nazi Germany. The Germans lived their life, almost completely unharmed while all this horrible stuff was going on around them. They were oblivious to the complete horror that was occuring and they even excused it. I think that regarding many issues in this country, we walk around just as ignorant--me included. No, we don't have concentration camps and we are exterminating complete races, but there is a COMPLETE holocaust against the unborn and is is accepted. And there are many other things going on in this country that really align with the Nazi party platform. I would LOVE for you to do a post that lists the party platform of the Nazi's. It's really alarming.
I know that Lula doesn't believe that communisum can exsit again, but I would challenge this discussion by looking at their party platform. Also, Lula, I would honestly like to know what your personal definition of communisum is. The reason I ask is becasue it seems we keep making claims back and forth and I don't think we can really get anywhere in the discussion if we don't understand each others definiton. What might be clear to you looks completely different to me. If we have common ground I think we can have a better discussion that looks closer at the actual issues w/out making emotional attacks at each other. I would really actually like a more healthy rather than heated discussion--as I gather you would too from your comments on your blog.
I also challenge the generally accepted ideas of socialism that are so widely accepted by the left and in some areas accepted by the right. The reason is because we are contiunally looking at Europe as our examples, but as of recent, Europe is moving away from socialism. They are already reforming their tax system to give tax breaks to companies etc. They are moving towards capitalism and away from socialism because it really isn't working so well for them.
Who knew making a name comparison between the Car Czar and former USSR would get us talking about abortion and McCarthy!
I think to assume that because someone is a voting Democrat signs on with everything the party promotes is untrue. I know I don't agree with everything the Republican's have propaganda'd, and they are just as good a machine as the left.
If we want to warn about communism, lets start with our own party. The Republican's are signing away the free-market society almost as quickly as the Democrats. This has grown beyond party lines, in my opinion. Who's administration is at the head of the bailouts!?!? Also, communism had the 'secret police', which didn't need warrants. What would we call the Patriot Act? Sure, it is in the name of national security, but it gives the govt too much power. One could argue (and if I play devil's advocate here) Bush introduced the country to communisitic idea's after 9-11, which typically happens in countries after a major catastrophic event (9-11, current recession, etc).
Dang it! I just wrote a whole response but it got lost...here I go again.
I completely agree, that's why I said in my above comment "I also challenge the generally accepted ideas of socialism that are so widely accepted by the left and in some areas accepted by the right." I see it more in the democratic party, but the republican party is moving quickly that direction. In my comments on your Blagojevich post, I mentioned that I would like to have seen Sarah Palin as VP because I had hope that she would clean up not only the dirty politicians, but also get our party back to it's true conservative principles because she seems to hold on to them much better than the other choices. I personally don't consider myself a republican because they are much to center for me. Yes, I am a registered Republican but that's because I want to be able to vote in the primaries. I can only truly call myself a conservative. I have looked at the Libertarean and the Constitutional Party, but even they don't completely fit. I just try my best to align myself with the politicans who hold closest to my values and who have a chance of winning. And you mentioned the Patriot Act. Yeah, let's just chip even further away at our freedoms. Ron Paul might be a bit of base, but he's making a lot of sense to me lately.
I failed to mention that I am a conservative because to me the constitution is at the very core conservative principles and the constitution MUST be protected. I believe in limited government, free markets, the right to govern ourselves and the right to protect life...along with a bunch of other things, but that's the jist of it.
Just curious what your definition of communism and socialism are.
Okbush, I will get back to you later today. I really want to do more than just give you a definition, which anyone can look up. I want to explain more what socialism looks like and what it does and examples of it. I also want to get a little more into the ideas of communism which in it's "pure" form is highly unlikely, it's just what happens when people try to accomplish communisum ie. Russia wasn't communist they were socialists working towards communisum which was never actually acheived. Anway, I have a HUGELY busy day today so I will get back to you later. They both are very fascinating to look at.
ps. I love the added sites on the right. I frequent those sites often. Glenn Beck and Drudge are great. I mentioned it before, but I highly recommend Dennis Prager also. He is VERY different that most conservative talk radio hosts. He has a very through thought process that is clear and concise.
My husband and I are wanting to tag-team and write an essay about communism, socialism and fascism. So I will do my best to keep this brief and then let you read in more depth, if you’re even interested, our essay when it’s finished.
“None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free....”
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
The reason why I mention this particular quote is because those who don’t believe that communism can exist is probably living without certain freedoms and don’t even recognize it.
We already know that we have socialism in this country (welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, public education etc.) The question is, can communism exist even in this “free” country that we live in. Without sounding like a complete loon or extremeist, I believe that it already does.
Communism: As I mentioned before, in its “pure” form it is highly unlikely and has never actually been achieved. Ironically you need socialism and capitalism to achieve pure communism. It is otherwise known as “stateless communism”. We would need no state and no class. Everyone is equal and nothing is necessary. All is for all. Even if you have a “communist party” in power, it doesn’t mean that you are officially living under pure communism.
Ideally a communist society would be atheistic and would have complete absence of money, prices and wages for everyone thus minimizing need. There would be no marriage. Stalin believe that a “cleansing” needed to happen and that’s why he murdered so many. If they were disloyal and hindered his movement towards communism then there was absolutely nothing wrong with them being executed. It was for the good of Russia, for the good of the country.
So will the cleansing happen as the US adopts ideas of communism? I doubt it, but we are subtly adopting these ideas into our society and quite honestly, a lot of them seem very normal to me also.
The idea of an extreme brutal dictator like Stalin is far less likely to achieve which is why people think the idea of communism has collapsed with the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain. But certainly communism, or the more politically correct term “International Democracy” is alive and well. One of the greatest achievements of communism in the US is the slow loss of freedoms, but I will address that more heavily when I talk about socialism.
I am going to list some of the communist goals from 1963 and include a link if you would like to look at the entire list. You can see where the communists have already achieved a lot of what they were trying to do. My list doesn’t include things that have actually happened yet—but a lot have. You can see where these ideas are already being voiced, quite loudly.
The full list can be found at:
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
1.Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
2.Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
3.Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
4.Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
5.Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
6.Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
7.Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
8.Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
9.Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
10.Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
11.Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
12.Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
13.Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
14.Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
15.Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
16.Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
There is another list called “The Ten Planks of Communism” which can be found at: http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/10planks.htm
This list talks about the “ten planks” of communism from The Communist Manifesto, and how once they are achieved then you are actually living in a communistic society. I’ve written enough, but it’s a really interesting comparison.
I am going to save my definition of socialism for later tonight in a separate comment. The kids are getting up from their naps and we have gymnastics tonight so I’ve gotta run.
Post a Comment