Van Helsing over at RightWingNews hit the nail on the head with this one, here’s a clip:

Say Group A works hard and has created $1 trillion in wealth out of nothing. Group B smokes crack and watches Oprah, and doesn’t create any wealth at all. It receives food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, et cetera, ad nauseam, but say Group B has no more wealth than it creates. If Chairman Zero wants to spread the wealth around so that both groups have the same amount, he doesn’t have to take half a $trillion from Group A. All he needs to do is give Group B $1 trillion dollars that doesn’t exist in the form of mortgage bailouts and stimulus packages.

Since the money doesn’t exist, the government will have to print it. Instead of $1 trillion dollars, there is now $2 trillion that represents $1 trillion of actual wealth. By making money worth half as much, Obama has effectively seized half of what Group A worked to create.

DMobile Economic, Values Bailout, coup, marxism, Obama, redistrubution, socialism

Just when you thought it was safe to put your shoes on and go about your day, we get this:

Where’d the bailout money go?

a more articulate version of this rant is available at HotAir

WASHINGTON – It’s something any bank would demand to know before handing out a loan: Where’s the money going?

Not exactly, they just want to know how to get the collateral if you default, but let’s continue

But after receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation’s largest banks say they can’t track exactly how they’re spending the money or they simply refuse to discuss it.

Whoa, wait a sec, for a moment there I thought you said…oh wait, you did

“We’ve lent some of it. We’ve not lent some of it. We’ve not given any accounting of, ‘Here’s how we’re doing it,’” said Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money. “We have not disclosed that to the public. We’re declining to.”

Translation: “thanks for the dough you suckers, have a nice day”

Ok, so it’s just JPM&C right, surely other banks will be more grateful and cooperative, right? (and don’t call me Shirley)

The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what’s the plan for the rest?

None of the banks provided specific answers.

Excuse me WHAT?!

Yup, you heard right, NONE of them are cooperating, a few gave ambiguous answers like “we put all the money in a big pile and burn spend it all from there”

Now sure, you could stretch that, (ignoring common sense and your accountant friend that works at a bank) and it almost sounds believable, but you think they could have made some exception considering this was taxpayer money that they did absolutely nothing to earn or deserve?

Good thing the whole TARP idea came with strict oversight and accountability, or else we’d never be able to track that money.

Wait…don’t tell me….

Since it was such an “emergency” and “the world as we know it could end”, TARP was passed without most congressmen even reading it.  And per CNN, and anyone not voting for it was a “detached rich guy with a political agenda”…helloo, have you met Henry Paulson?

Read the full story if you like, but it doesn’t get any better.

Congress recently summoned a handful of bank execs and “asked” them to please start lending money.  Know why they asked them that?  Because that’s all they could do - ask.

Since Paulson decided to write checks to banks instead of buying an actual physical asset, toxic as it may be, we now have absolutely nothing to show for our money.

I have an idea for the next $350B - DONT SPEND IT!  But since that’ll never happen, how about this:

The US population is roughly 310 Million so you could cut a check for about $1125 to each man, woman & child in America.  At least then we’d know where it went.

DMobile Economic Bailout, Paulson, thievery

So after all the calls to congress, late night senate sessions, more calls to congress, being on hold & disconnected at the white house, it’s come to this.

Yeah, we’re pretty frustrated.  We did everything legal.  We called, we petitioned our representatives and some of them even listened and we voted to NOT provide tax money for failing car companies.

And the president says, that’s ok boys I got yer back.

Too angry to type, this editor has thrown his shoes…and pen…and keys…and laptop-no wait, that was expensive.

Several questions have come up:

Did the Whitehouse tell anyone that “if congress doesn’t help, we will”?
If so, did the UAW walk away from negotiations knowing that they’d get paid anyway?

I happen to watch some video of GWB2 durring the 2000 primaries & election - wow what a different man that was.  It made me really sad acutally to contrast that guy with the now bought and beaten man we know as President.  He’s been given one more chance to stand on what’s left of his conservative principles…and he won’t do it. 

I really miss the GWB I voted for in 2000.  I really do, I liked that guy.  Not as much as people seem to like Obama, but pretty close.  I had really high hopes for him and our nation after that election. 

Got a bit off-topic but my point is, that here’s a final chance (and not many people get one) for redemption of his principles - I wish he’d take it.

NOTE:  This editor does not hate domestic cars, or UAW workers, and wants no one to be fired right before Christmas.  HOWEVER - the right principles and the right decision, are always the right principles and the right decision.

DMobile Economic, Patriotism, Policies, Political, Values automakers, Bailout, George Bush

For the record, let me state that I am a big Detroit Red Wings fan. 

Only problem is that last year’s Stanley Cup is the most valuable asset Detroit has right now.

It seems pretty common sense to me that any proposed automaker (I use that term loosely) bailout would be in complete defiance of many economic laws.  Since I’ve never been to college, and economics can be downright complicated I’ll keep it simple.  Lets go with 3rd grade economics:  The law of supply and demand. 

(After proofreading, I realize I’m unable to fully express the situation with out at least one non-simple example.  sorry)

How does it work? Well Mr. Congressman it goes like this:  As supply goes up, demand (prices and/or sales volume) goes down.  And conversely as supply goes down, demand goes up.  Now of course there are other market conditions that can lead to an increase or decrease in demand, which then must be met by the apropriate adjustment of supply.   But I promised to keep it simple so I’ll stop there.

Now lets take a situation where supply & demand have achieved some balance, like an automaker for example.  Company HN is making x number of cars, and the market population is buying roughly x number of cars also.   When the market is buying fewer HN brand cars, call it x minus 10 (X-10) then to balance HN would either need to increase that demand (through price insentives, or quality increases, or good marketing), or make the supply match: X-10.  Yeah, make fewer cars to match the decreasing demand.  That’s how it works.

But what would happen if instead of reducing supply, HN company kept on making the same amount of cars?  Well then as supply goes up, demand would go down.  So since supply never went to X-10 to match the demand but rather stayed at X, demand now goes to X-20.  And if supply continued to remain at X?

You got it, X-30, X-40, etc…untill suddenly there isnt’ enough money at HN to meet payroll.

And that’s my point, by giving GM money, taxpayer money, YOUR money, MY money, we’d only be enabling them to keep producing X amount of cars, whlie the demand has fallen to somewhere around X-100,000.

Sure, I dont’ want to see people lose their jobs, pensions, etc.  But you can’t go meddling with an economic law.   It’s like crossing the beams - only bad things can happen.

DMobile Economic automakers, Bailout, Detroit