The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Quality Start Machine]

Still more on Chrysler.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217356836613091.html

By stepping over the bright line between the rule of law and the arbitrary behavior of men, President Obama may have created a thousand new failing businesses. That is, businesses that might have received financing before but that now will not, since lenders face the potential of future government confiscation. In other words, Mr. Obama may have helped save the jobs of thousands of union workers whose dues, in part, engineered his election. But what about the untold number of job losses in the future caused by trampling the sanctity of contracts today?

The value of the rule of law is not merely a matter of economic efficiency. It also provides a bulwark against arbitrary governmental action taken at the behest of politically influential interests at the expense of the politically unpopular. The government's threats and bare-knuckle tactics set an ominous precedent for the treatment of those considered insufficiently responsive to its desires. Certainly, holdout Chrysler creditors report that they felt little confidence that the White House would stop at informal strong-arming.

There's all kinds of wrong about this deal.

and a guy who was in the FTC under W. is the best guy to critique what Obama does.

[morpheus]

Still more on Chrysler.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217356836613091.html

By stepping over the bright line between the rule of law and the arbitrary behavior of men, President Obama may have created a thousand new failing businesses. That is, businesses that might have received financing before but that now will not, since lenders face the potential of future government confiscation. In other words, Mr. Obama may have helped save the jobs of thousands of union workers whose dues, in part, engineered his election. But what about the untold number of job losses in the future caused by trampling the sanctity of contracts today?

The value of the rule of law is not merely a matter of economic efficiency. It also provides a bulwark against arbitrary governmental action taken at the behest of politically influential interests at the expense of the politically unpopular. The government's threats and bare-knuckle tactics set an ominous precedent for the treatment of those considered insufficiently responsive to its desires. Certainly, holdout Chrysler creditors report that they felt little confidence that the White House would stop at informal strong-arming.

There's all kinds of wrong about this deal.

and a guy who was in the FTC under W. is the best guy to critique what Obama does.

You're not serious, are you?  That's really your response to an Administration that basically said through its actions that contract law is what they say it is?  That re-ordered the seniority of claims on Chrysler's assets to directly benefit a constituency that helped get the Administration into office?

[Tank]

...an Administration that basically said through its actions that contract law is what they say it is?

I'm still waiting on details of what exactly they threatened to do if the creditors did not voluntarily sign on to their plan.

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22444.html

If you make big bucks — or enjoy alcohol, cigarettes and Coke — the government might hit you up to pay for fixing the nation's health care system.

On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee peeked into vending machines and liquor stores, company payrolls and health savings accounts, looking for a mix of tax increases and spending cuts as a way to pay for a health overhaul — which could cost more than $1.5 trillion over 10 years...

...Still, it's easy to see why the bad-habits tax was so tempting: Taxing tobacco, junk foods and alcohol could raise $600 billion over 10 years.

They can have my bacon when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

What a shock that a guy from Iowa thinks taxing soda is a bad idea. The state probably makes a helluva lot more on HFCS than they ever will on Ethanol.

It is a bad idea. Give me (normal tax rate) soda, or give me death

This. I'm not a big fan of sin taxes.

I haven't really read about the specific proposals, and I avoided yesterday's SBox "soda tax" argument like the plague, but my less-than-totally-informed opinion is that sin taxes are generally bad policy and worse politics.

I don't get why they are trying to tax something that the government subsidizes.  If the idea is to get more revenue while making sugary sodas more expensive, wouldn't eliminating the sugar subsidy be the first step?

[Brownie]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22444.html

If you make big bucks — or enjoy alcohol, cigarettes and Coke — the government might hit you up to pay for fixing the nation's health care system.

On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee peeked into vending machines and liquor stores, company payrolls and health savings accounts, looking for a mix of tax increases and spending cuts as a way to pay for a health overhaul — which could cost more than $1.5 trillion over 10 years...

...Still, it's easy to see why the bad-habits tax was so tempting: Taxing tobacco, junk foods and alcohol could raise $600 billion over 10 years.

They can have my bacon when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

What a shock that a guy from Iowa thinks taxing soda is a bad idea. The state probably makes a helluva lot more on HFCS than they ever will on Ethanol.

It is a bad idea. Give me (normal tax rate) soda, or give me death

This. I'm not a big fan of sin taxes.

I haven't really read about the specific proposals, and I avoided yesterday's SBox "soda tax" argument like the plague, but my less-than-totally-informed opinion is that sin taxes are generally bad policy and worse politics.

I don't get why they are trying to tax something that the government subsidizes.  If the idea is to get more revenue while making sugary sodas more expensive, wouldn't eliminating the sugar subsidy be the first step?

If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
If it stops moving, subsidize it.

[ChuckD]

I don't get why they are trying to tax something that the government subsidizes.  If the idea is to get more revenue while making sugary sodas more expensive, wouldn't eliminating the sugar subsidy be the first step?

Few soft drinks/pop/soda use sugar; it's all HFCS except for a few niche producers. But, your point stands as far as corn subsidies go. I won't get in to the soda tax issue (again), but let's just say I'm less than a fan of corn subsidization.

[Chuck to Chuck]

I don't get why they are trying to tax something that the government subsidizes.  If the idea is to get more revenue while making sugary sodas more expensive, wouldn't eliminating the sugar subsidy be the first step?

Few soft drinks/pop/soda use sugar; it's all HFCS except for a few niche producers. But, your point stands as far as corn subsidies go. I won't get in to the soda tax issue (again), but let's just say I'm less than a fan of corn subsidization.

You need to go down to Decatur and see the Archer Daniels Midland HQ.  They have a big statue out front of Mr. Corn Subsidy himself, Ronald Reagan.

[Philberto]

I don't get why they are trying to tax something that the government subsidizes.  If the idea is to get more revenue while making sugary sodas more expensive, wouldn't eliminating the sugar subsidy be the first step?

Few soft drinks/pop/soda use sugar; it's all HFCS except for a few niche producers. But, your point stands as far as corn subsidies go. I won't get in to the soda tax issue (again), but let's just say I'm less than a fan of corn subsidization.

[RV]

Max Borders has to be a fake name, right? Whatever the guy's name is, I like the cut of his jib - particularly the first 4 ideas.

http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i

[Jon]

Idea two is awesome.

[morpheus]

Max Borders has to be a fake name, right? Whatever the guy's name is, I like the cut of his jib - particularly the first 4 ideas.

http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i

I like all five. Excellent.

[Oleg]

Max Borders has to be a fake name, right? Whatever the guy's name is, I like the cut of his jib - particularly the first 4 ideas.

http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i

I like all five. Excellent.

I can dig this; even if just means that the debate shifts to more important things.  If the Republicans get rid of the religious right wing of their party and implement these ideas, we really will raise the discourse on policy in this country.

Number 3 is downright socialist, though.  Not sure if Newt will like it.

I, however, do like it!

[Chuck to Chuck]

Max Borders has to be a fake name, right? Whatever the guy's name is, I like the cut of his jib - particularly the first 4 ideas.

http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i

I like all five. Excellent.

I'm sold.

The problem is that 1, 2, 4 and 5 are anti-current-GOP.  Current dems would be for 1, 2 and half of 5.  No politician who wants to be re-elected is going to be pro-3.

Maybe we need politicians who are willing to serve instead of simply have power.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Lovely:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/arkansas-gop-senate-candidate-apologizes-for-calling-schumer-that-jew.php?ref=fp2

Arkansas state Sen. Kim Hendren, who is currently the only announced Republican candidate for U.S. Senator against Democratic incumbent Blanche Lincoln in 2010, has apologized for referring to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as "that Jew," at a county Republican meeting last week.

"I don't use a teleprompter and occasionally I put my foot in my month," Hendren told Arkansas blogger Jason Tolbert.

"At the meeting I was attempting to explain that unlike Sen. Schumer, I believe in traditional values, like we used to see on 'The Andy Griffith Show,'" he explained. "I made the mistake of referring to Sen. Schumer as 'that Jew' and I should not have put it that way as this took away from what I was trying to say."
-------------
The teleprompter bit is clearly a dig at Obama because we all know that without a promper Obama's as dumb as a box of rocks.  So it must be OK for this guy to be ass stupid as well.

And it's nice to know that he DOES apologize for using the term "that Jew" but DOES NOT for suggesting that Jews don't share in traditional values.

[RV]

Max Borders has to be a fake name, right? Whatever the guy's name is, I like the cut of his jib - particularly the first 4 ideas.

http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i

I like all five. Excellent.

I'm sold.

The problem is that 1, 2, 4 and 5 are anti-current-GOP.  Current dems would be for 1, 2 and half of 5.  No politician who wants to be re-elected is going to be pro-3 or pro-1.

Maybe we need politicians who are willing to serve instead of simply have power.

Reality'd. As evidenced by Obama's lame-ass jokey reaction to the 'legalize pot' question in his internet town hall meeting, I don't think any of the gasbags in power in either party currently support something so sensible. They still want to be TOUGH ON CRIME and KEEP THE CRACKHEADS OUT OF YOUR CUPBOARD.