NewsViewz.com

President Obama: Shareholder in Chief (or power-hungry politician).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/29/AR2009032900708.html

This news is just sickening.  Have you stopped to even consider whether the President has any power to order the CEO of a private (albeit publicly-held) company?

What makes this even worse is that Congress has no doubt had a large role in the problems that the automakers have found themselves in.  The fact is that automakers have been under the thumb of congress for a few decades.

We lost our true free market economy when Congress started using the tax code to heavily regulate business.  And this is just another example of how far reaching this can become.

To a larger degree, this is way liberals do business with the American people and commerce:

First, you pass regulations, tax law, etc. to squeeze money from the taxpaying public.

Then you pass additional regulations to give "credits and rebates" to whatever social class/companies you want to control.

Finally, you step in and take over companies who can't compete under your heavy handed regulations.

Geithner requesting vast new power to take over any company he deems too big to fail.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/25/AR2009032502311.html?hpid=topnews

The news out of the Treasury just keeps getting worse.  Now the Secretary is before Congress today asking for broad new (unspecified) powers to take control over any company (not just banks) he and his "deem" too big to fail.

Do you really want some bureaucrat in Washington D.C. determining whether a private company needs to be taken over and controlled by the government?  Do they even have the Constitutional authority to do so?

The Dow's 2,000 point tumble since Obama was elected on Nov. 4.

Hat tip to the folks over at MichelleMalkin.com...

Since Barack Obama won the election on November 4th, the Dow has dropped some 2,000 points.

Today, the DOW is down again.  How low will it go before people start thinking that Wall Street doesn't like this stimulus package - or the new President's economic policies.

Stimulus spending could alternately pay off 90% of mortgages. Which would you prefer?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aGq2B3XeGKok

I hadn't thought about it quite like this article puts it.  But it is an interesting point to think about.

Do you think that paying off 90% of U.S. mortgages would stimulate the economy?  I think it might stand a better chance at economic stimulus than how it's being spent now.

What do you think?

But here's why it won't fly: It's not really about stimulus, it's about payoffs.  The Democrats who are cramming this so-called stimulus down our throats mainly cater their policies to lower income people who are least likely to own their home and have a mortgage.  (Hence, why they're so interested in throwing money at programs that supposedly get people into homes.)

If we paid off 90% of mortgages, we'd still be missing payoffs to the kinds of people who are likely to be Democrat votors.

Oh, so now we have to spend a trillion dollars - or we may NEVER recover?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090205/ap_on_go_pr_wh/congress_stimulus_126

This is just getting rediculous.  Does anyone actually believe we will NEVER -- NEVER -- recover if we don't spend a trillion dollars immediately?

I don't.  But apparently our President does.

Daschle Dashed. So what... Now taxes ARE a problem for a nominee?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9648BP81&show_article=1

This news is breaking.  Watch for more details...

The line between the States and the Fed continue to dissolve. Why do we have individual States again?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123292993332813959.html

This is a great article about the States who have their hands out for a bailout from the federal government.

Pay close attention to all the figures about how much various States have increased their budgets in the last several years.  Mind you, these years of excess were under the Bush Presidency that supposedly was so horrible on the economy.  How did these States come upon so much prosperity, hmm?

It's important to remember the proper role of the Federal Government here.  Remember, the Federal Government does not create any money.  It only takes money away from taxpapers who reside in the various States.  So, if the Federal Government "gives" (and I use the term GIVE very loosely here) money back to the States, they are essentially giving money back to the States (the people) who gave it to them in the first place.

This is in direct line with the redistributionist philosophies of the Obama White House, the Pelosi House, and the Reid Senate.

STEP #1) Take money from the productive members of society.

STEP #2) Redistribute said money to people who are unproductive; i.e. the States, social services, welfare, etc.

STEP #3) Repeat.

Big government shrinking during this recession, like the private sector? Fat chance.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090131/D9627HU00.html

This is an interesting article about the government actually GROWING BIGGER during this economic downturn.  Completely disturbing.

Already, I've heard that approximately one in five workers is employed by some form of government, be it local, state, or federal.  And now that number appears to be on the rise.

Remember, folks... The government does not create anything, it only takes from the private sector and from the taxed public.  The less people work for the private sector, the less real money there is being created in the marketplace.  The only way the government gets the money it needs to pay government workers is to take it from the taxpayers.

Speaking of bloated government...  Did you hear the announcement during the recent Hillary Clinton Secretary of State ceremony?  I believe it was Secretary Clinton herself who announced appreciation for the 20,000 workers in the State Department. 20,000?  Really?  How many of those jobs are political payoffs to big donors?  "Hey, we need a position filled over in (insert glamerous foreign city).  Who should we send to said city?"  I can just see it.

Where are the real economic conservatives?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95VULUO0&show_article=1

This article discusses President Obama's willingness to compromise on the so-called "stimulus package" that is likely to be voted on by Congress today.

Some Republicans quoted in the article say that they are getting more hassles from Democrats in Congress than the Democrat in the White House.  While I assume that's true, I think there is a bigger concern that Republicans (many - not all) have conceded the argument over whether it's the government's job to stimulate.

The argument they should be having on Capital Hill is whether they should even be spending any money to "stimulate" the economy.  Republicans seem to have conceded that core issue.  All that's left to discuss is the level to which it's appropriate for the government to spend.

If they truly believe that the economy is best recovered through government spending, then why stop at $800 or $900 billion?

Why's everybody in such a rush to stimulate?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090126/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy

Months ago, when the first "bailout" plan was announced, we were told that swift, immediate, and decisive action was mandatory.  We must act now... or else.

We've been told the same thing as it relates to the global warming panic for decades now.

And now this latest round of bailouts and supposed economic stimulus must be done right now.  There is a sense of urgency beyond anything else, and it's getting a little rediculous.

So what's the rush?  Usually, we would argue against making rushed decisions.  About anything.  But certainly about spending this kind of money.

Time tends to bring light to things previously unthought about or considered.  I wonder how many congresspeople have even read half of the stimulus bill?  I doubt many, if any.