And don’t ask about their $93,000 per member increase in expense accounts this year:
http://bloggingredneck.blogspot.com/2009/01/congress-gave-itself-93000-raise-to.html

So the legal arrangement was that if they ran their companies into the ground they would get big bonuses? And then the more they could leach from the taxpayers (serf class) the more they would get?

MB4 on January 31, 2009 at 3:05 AM

No, the legal arrangement was in place before you ever had any reason to give a damn. Or pay attention.

Neither you, nor Obama, have a right to invalidate those contracts. But then, I guess you’d have no problem with it as long as it were only “rich people” getting screwed.

“Serf class?” Are you a Marxist?

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/claire-mccaskills-idiots.html

Because America has decided to reject corporatism as an economic strategy. Wake up and smell the national ideological shift and either deal or whine.

DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 9:18 AM

Considering that a pretty good chunk of Obama voters couldn’t tell you what “corporatism” is or could even pronounce the word, I don’t think so.

She coulsd not run a dog kennel, much less a serious business, yet she calls these successful business nen idiots.
She should look to the political experts who caused this mess, Clinton, Dood, Blarney,Nasty and of course good old Harry.

It was the commies of the SCOTUS that redefined what public use was.

Since that point your claim to your own property was decreased.

Much/most of this catastrophe was cause by all the derivatives (hyper leveraged gambling) and no one made them do that.

MB4 on January 31, 2009 at 3:18 AM

Derivatives amplified the problem but they didn’t cause the problem.

hillbillyjim on January 31, 2009 at 6:30 AM

Let’s just say that the derivatives and such turned a cat 1 or 2 into a cat 4.

Don’t think that did not have some small marginal effect of the outcome.

Because America has decided to reject corporatism as an economic strategy.

DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 9:18 AM

The people who condemn “corporatism” typically are intellectually incapable of understanding free markets. Someone once said you could explain Marxism (and by extension all “alternatives” to free markets) to a five-year old and they’d get it, to which the response was, yes because they are all that simplistic.

“What will destroy our country and us is not the financial crisis but the fact that liberals think the free market is some kind of sect or cult, which conservatives have asked Americans to take on faith. That’s not what the free market is. The free market is just a measurement, a device to tell us what people are willing to pay for any given thing at any given moment. The free market is a bathroom scale. You may hate what you see when you step on the scale. “Jeeze, 230 pounds!” But you can’t pass a law making yourself weigh 185. Liberals think you can. And voters–all the voters, right up to the tippy-top corner office of Goldman Sachs–think so too.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/791jsebl.asp?pg=1

But the goal of the leftist Democrats is NOT to turn companies around, or even to “save” the US economy. Their aim is to vilify the private sector to soften up the electorate for a takeover of banking and industry.

Bye American Republic, Hello social democracy similar to those in Europe, ALL of which punish productivity and banish individual liberty.

US of A was nice while it lasted. Atlases, prepare to shrug.

“I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!” — movie Network

I wonder if she got silence or a standing ovation… I waited to hear, but the video was cut off.

oh but that would reduce the amount of power that the government has over people….can’t have that now can we??

Obama popular vote 69,456,897
Bush 2004 popular vote 62,040,610

DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 12:40 PM

The population in 2004 was about 295 mil, while in 2008 it was about 303mil.

I’m pretty sure that all of those extra people would have voted for Bush had he run in ’08, so you lose by about 1 mil. votes.

Hey!..just reasoning like a lib.

Obama got as many as he did because he ran unopposed.

volsense on January 31, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Tell yourself whatever you need to.

Esthier on January 31, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Patently false.
Obama popular vote 69,456,897
Bush 2004 popular vote 62,040,610

Sorry..I feel dirty now.

Did a guy who ran against corporatism just not get elected to the President with bigger wins than Bush in either 2000 or 2004?

DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Actually, Bush had more votes in 2004 than Obama got. It’s not being played up much, but it’s true. So, no, on that part, and considering McCain was fairly anti corporatism, it’s hard to say the voters had a choice in the matter.

Besides, I think you’re giving the average voter too much credit. I don’t think most get that deep into economics.