Taxpayers likely to lose money on the GM IPO

by John Lott on September 3rd, 2010


The government will apparently own part of GM for three more years. These guys don’t seem to understand how prices work. The current price is the future expected price of the stock. The government might hope that future stock prices will rise, but they are losing money on the current sale and that means that future prices will have to rise by enough to make up those losses. As to the claim that the Obama administration is selling off the stock as quickly as possible, that is false. If they wanted to, they would sell it off all at once. Doing that would also help the stock price as political meddling with business decisions is surely helping to depress the stock.

The U.S. government is likely to take a loss on General Motors Co [GM.UL] in the first offering of the automaker’s stock, six people familiar with preparations for the landmark IPO said.

Subsequent offerings of the government’s holdings may be profitable depending on how investors trade the newly listed stock, the sources said.

But the question of whether taxpayers are ultimately made whole on GM’s $50 billion bailout could be left open for years, the people said.

It could take more than three years for the Treasury to sell down its remaining stake in GM after the IPO, one person said. That would push a final accounting into the next presidential term. . . .

The Obama administration has pledged to exit its investment in GM as quickly as possible while holding out the prospect that taxpayers could ultimately be paid back in full. . . .

Go straight to Post

GD Star Rating
loading...
This entry is part 9 of 9 in the topic Bailouts

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm

Obama Wants to be Bush

by Daniel Greenfield on September 3rd, 2010


The so-called “Middle East Peace Process” is usually the last resort of a weak occupant of the White House.

Presidents traditionally improve their approval ratings when the focus shifts to foreign policy, and for almost a generation now, the “Middle East Peace Process” has been a safe way to do that, without any real domestic cost or risk. Of course people die as a result. The death toll in Israel from Obama’s latest effort to pander to Muslims and boost his domestic approval ratings is up to 5 now just this week. It was nearly even higher than that. And that is a lot of blood to spill for 2 or 3 percent in the polls.

But what other choice does Obama have? His domestic program is wildly unpopular, so he’s shifted over to an emphasis on foreign issues. And so we got a high profile announcement that the War in Iraq had ended (it hadn’t) and another high profile bid for Middle East Peace. Five dead is a small price to pay for that. The process is pointless, but the point is the process.

The Democrats to salvage something from the upcoming disaster, for Obama that means moving to disassociate himself from the Democratic congress, ObamaCare and the future legislative program with such items as Cap and Trade and Amnesty, and instead make it look like he’s hard at working, instead of hardly working, on weighty international matters.

“You didn’t like that Iraq war? Well I took care of it. You wish someone would put a stop to all that violence in the Middle East. I’m on it.” It’s a sham, but it’s not a terribly original sham. And what it really highlights is Obama’s weakness, a perception of weakness that has even managed to filter through into the White House bubble. A brief focus on foreign affairs is supposed to repair Obama’s damaged credibility and approval ratings. First Iraq, then Israel and cap it all off with September 11.

The irony of course is that now that Obama is acting as if he really wants to be Bush. Taking ownership of Iraq, Middle East Peace negotiations and September 11 is supposed to give him the same bona fides that Bush had.

It’s a thoroughly misguided strategy, but we’re also seeing the beginning of a new talking point, that began evolving around the time of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. That Bush was a moderate, and Obama is a moderate like him. The current Republicans on the other hand, and that “crazy” Tea Party movement are crazed fanatics and extremists.

1 2 3 4 5
Go straight to Post

GD Star Rating
loading...

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm

Unfair, Butt True

by Alan Caruba on September 3rd, 2010


It is clearly unfair to compare, from left to right, Princess Letizia of Spain, Carla Bruni, the wife of France’s president, and Aunt Esther…I mean Michelle Obama, seen here together. That said, one picture is still worth a thousand words.

It’s wrong! Wrong to compare first ladies, but this one is always going on about what we should eat and how much.

Go straight to Post

GD Star Rating
loading...

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm

Harry Reid Campaign: Saying ‘War is Lost’ Helped Win the War!

by Doug Powers on September 3rd, 2010


Harry Reid is a genius when it comes to military tactics — just ask him.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal recently questioned the Harry Reid and Sharron Angle campaigns on various issues.

Here’s part of the Reid campaign’s explanation for why the Nevada Senator once said “the war is lost”:

On REID’S COMMENT THAT THE IRAQ ‘WAR IS LOST’

REID: At the time Sen. Reid made this comment, President Bush had been pursuing a failed, stay-the-course strategy that had cost thousands of American lives and billions of taxpayer dollars. Iraq appeared to be on the verge of a sectarian civil war. He was simply pointing out what our military leaders, including Gen. Petraeus, had been saying for months: that we could not win by staying the course; the war needed to be won diplomatically, politically, and economically. Sen. Reid and his colleagues were successful in forcing President Bush to finally abandon his failed approach and refocus on political reconciliation. This is what ultimately paved the way for the Iraqi government to take greater responsibility for Iraq’s future.

Sun Tzu himself couldn’t have thought up a more brilliant strategy. Congratulations, General Reid.

And all along we thought Reid was being pathetic and weak — I for one feel bad for ever criticizing him.

Here’s a flashback to when Harry “Patton” Reid rallied our brave men and women to victory with his trademark Churchillian leadership style:


Go straight to Post

GD Star Rating
loading...

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm

Big Labor’s legacy of violence

by Michelle Malkin on September 3rd, 2010


Thugs-in-chief

My syndicated column today takes on the rise of President Obama’s best new Big Labor buddy, Richard Trumka — whose looming presence on the political scene I first flagged in April. As we noted last week, he’s got a combined $88 million war chest with his labor alliance and a Marxist get-out-the-vote force behind him. When they are through, they’ll make the SEIU Purple Army’s political expenditures (and its thuggery) look like a pittance.

On a related note, the NLRB (with SEIU attorney Craig Becker recess-appointed onto the catbird’s seat) is set to launch an assault on workers’ rights to a secret ballot to remove an unwanted union. See here. Card check through the back door. Who needs the legislative front door?

And yesterday on Megyn Kelly’s show, I noted that union members can opt out of having their hard-earned dues used for political purposes. Several readers e-mailed that they had never heard of the process by which this was possible and wanted to know how they could do it. Here are your rights as a union worker. Here is a backgrounder on the permissible use of forced dues. Here’s my 1999 column on how public school teachers in Washington state challenged their union over their political dues power grab. Free speech not only means the freedom to voice your political views, but also the freedom from being forced to pay for someone else’s. U.S. Supreme Court precedent established by the D.C.-based National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation guarantees the right to full financial disclosure from a union and a right to challenge the figures in court if they disagree. Spread the word.

***

Big Labor’s legacy of violence
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

To mark Labor Day 2010, President Obama will join hands with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka in Milwaukee and pose as champions of the working class. Bad move. Trumka’s organizing record is a shameful reminder of the union movement’s violent and corrupt foundations.


Go straight to Post

GD Star Rating
loading...

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm

First ‘Hillary for President in 2012′ Ad Hits the Airwaves

by Doug Powers on September 3rd, 2010


You know it’s been a long year and a half when you can sit back, watch a pitch for Hillary Clinton for president, and fool yourself into thinking that she (and her husband) looks like Reagan compared to Barack Obama.

From CNN:

We’ve still got two months left until the 2010 midterm elections, but we now have our first television commercial of the 2012 presidential campaign. And the ad advocates for a person who says she has no intention of running for the White House.
[...]
The commercial was paid for by a Chicago dentist named William DeJean.

When asked why he put the ad up, DeJean told CNN Thursday that “I’m a dentist and I don’t think this country is headed in the right direction.”
[...]
DeJean adds that he thinks people are having buyer’s remorse about President Barack Obama and says the current administration is ruining the Democratic Party. He says he spent $5,000 to create the commercial and tells CNN that besides New Orleans, the ad will run in Washington, New York and Los Angeles, and possible Houston. DeJean says he chose to first run the ad in New Orleans because he’s a native of the city and because the city’s in the news due to the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.

DeJean sunk some money into Hillary’s efforts in the past, so what’s a little more root-canal cash spent trying to ensure that the 3 a.m. phone call isn’t answered with “we’re buying shrimp here guys, call back later”?

This has more overstatements than an ad for x-ray glasses in a comic book, but hey, it’s a start:

Editors Note: Warning! Hillary = more of Obama policies. Don’t fall for more empty promises and socialist policies. They are on the same team – Liberal Democrats. Voters beware!

Go straight to Post

GD Star Rating
loading...

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm

Obama Doesn’t Regret Calling it ‘Recovery Summer’ — And Why Should He?

by Doug Powers on September 3rd, 2010


This morning, President Obama was asked if he regrets his administration branding the past three months of economic misery as “Recovery Summer.”

His answer: “I don’t…”

I can’t blame him, really. Who couldn’t be fully recovered after this kind of a summer:

null

I feel more rested & recovered just looking at the pictures.

When they dubbed it “Recovery Summer,” nobody thought they were talking about us, did they?

Update: By way of HotAir, here’s an actual Time headline: What’s good about rising unemployment

Note the distinct lack of a question mark at the end.

Update II: Robert Reich didn’t get the memo that Recovery Summer was a huge success.

Go straight to Post

GD Star Rating
loading...

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm

Johann Hari and the Dying Wails of a Small Minded Mission

by US Weapon on September 3rd, 2010


We begin another week with another look into the fascinating world of the global warming alarmists who, at this point, are merely incapable of using reason or logic to think things through. I have to admit that I admire the tenacity that these folks have. Despite massive amounts of counter-arguments, they still manage to move forward with the warning calls, completely ignoring all the things that simply render their argument moot. I think the thing that fascinates me the most about these carnival barkers is that they continually lambast opponents for using faulty logic or ill-conceived arguments, and then they go right ahead and do exactly what it is they just railed about. It boggles the mind. Global warming is something that I simply cannot ignore. The consequences of allowing the progressive movement to move forward with their plans are simply too devastating. At this point, I see the really loud voices in the debate as nearly as crack-pottish as Cesca is about racism. Therefore, I will continue to hammer them until the world shouts them down as the fruitballs that they are.

As a quick side note, it is amazing to me to watch the two sides of the political spectrum (GOP and DEM) continue to trounce each other, each accusing the other of using a campaign of fear to trick the American public. It isn’t surprising that they both use the same tactic. It is, after all, the best tactic they have found. And they are two different color shirts both on the same team. No, what is amazing to me is that each side is so quick to see through the fear the other side falsely uses, while simultaneously completely ignoring the fact that their side is doing to exact same thing. Progressives scream and holler about the right’s campaign of fear being used to take us to war or to pass something as dumbfoundingly unconstitutional as the Patriot Act or to oppose health care. Yet they somehow never seem to recognize, or at least refuse to acknowledge, the same bullshit coming out of their camp. They can’t seem to recognize the fear mongering around global warming and corporate bailouts and gun control or the urgency to pass health care. Just an observation. Mind-boggling at best how blind folks are to the tactics of the side they agree with.

Back to the topic of global warming. As an example of their tenacity, we have yet another article published this week over at the most popular far left think-tank, the Huffington Post. I have discussed Johann Hari and his madness around the global warming stuff before. But despite the insanity of what he says, he still gets published over there writing this stuff. I could say that he is hateful, but I don’t think he is. I leave that title to Bob Cesca, who is perhaps the most dishonest and hateful writer on HuffPo. No, Hari instead falls into the category of dishonest environmental alarmist. And you cannot ignore that he has written this piece. Hari was named one of the most influential people on the left in Britain by the Daily Telegraph. That he has influence with the nonsense that is below is downright scary. THAT is something to be alarmed about.

I have long disliked the environmental activists, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, I find that they almost always have a passion for what they are doing that is so overriding that they simply don’t make any sense. Hari, for example, wants so badly to believe what he is spouting that he simply ignores logic and reason. I understand their hatred of corporations and of war (war activists and environmental activists tend to come from the same womb). But their belief that humans are somehow less important than some tree or bird is ridiculous. And their hubris as to the power of humans to do real damage to this planet is almost laughable, at least it would be if they weren’t so good at making small minded people agree with them.

I know that some folks think that global warming is not a topic worth discussing, but I disagree. I mentioned above that the potential for usurping our freedom and liberty under the guise of environmental activism is gigantic. Just the fact that Cap and Trade, which has failed miserably in every country or region foolish enough to attempt it, is still on the table is proof enough of how dangerous these global warming hangers on still are. And if you think Cap and Trade is bad based on its effectiveness, that is nothing compared to its impact on our freedom and our wallets. And as I mentioned, this article was posted in the last week over there at HuffPo. The environmental liars are still working hard to raise a false alarm, so we have to work just as hard to point out their lies and talk people off the proverbial ledge. So I will tonight point out the madness in his ridiculously misleading article (which for the record had a remarkable number of “right on” comments to it).

This Is the Hottest Year Ever, and the Climate Catastrophe Has Begun
by Johann Hari at the Huffington Post

Thank god man-made global warming was proven to be a hoax. Just imagine what the world might have looked like now if those conspiring scientists had been telling the truth. No doubt NASA would be telling us that this year is now, so far, the hottest since humans began keeping records.

Johann Hari

Interestingly, a partial year’s worth of temperatures is given as proof of something, right before he gets to the part of the article where he points out how stupid people are for thinking a snowy winter last year meant something. Very small length trends are only proof when it gets hotter, not colder. The other misleading statement here is “hottest since humans began keeping records.” Care to guess how long that time period is? Not thousands of years…. no, just 160 years with instruments and only about 60 years with any accuracy or global coverage. The truth is, the earth has been significantly warmer than this within the last 10,000 years. But it doesn’t sound as scary when you tell the truth, so Hari makes it sound as bad as possible.

The weather satellites would show that even when heat from the sun significantly dipped earlier this year, the world still got hotter. Russia’s vast forests would be burning to the ground in the fiercest drought they have ever seen, turning the air black in Moscow, killing 15,000 people, and forcing foreign embassies to evacuate.

Notice that he didn’t make use of other periods of drought, such as say the worst drought in history in China from 1876-79 (killed 9 million), or its second worst in 1942-43 (killed a million). In fact he ignores reality in even Russia. It isn’t the worst drought they have ever seen. Droughts are an inherent feature of the climatic conditions in the main agricultural zone of Russia. From 1891 to 1983 (92 years) Russia has spent a total of 27 years in moderate drought or above. Almost every article I could find on the Russian drought said that this drought is the worst in 50 years. A few speckled in with a hundred years. But no one but the environmental con-artists are claiming it as the worst in Russian history. And how about this for a whopper: “killing 15,000 people!” I could not find a single source anywhere that put the death toll from the Russian fires higher than 50. Hari’s ridiculous claim is 300 times higher than reality.

Because warm air holds more water vapor, the world’s storms would be hugely increasing in intensity and violence — drowning one fifth of Pakistan, and causing giant mudslides in China.

Again Hari attempts to distract by using false numbers presented in a way to scare the crap out of readers. The world’s storms are not reaching some unprecedented level of intensity or violence. A 1970 Cyclone in Bangledesh killed 500,000. One in 1737 in India killed 300,000. or even the worst storm in history, which was in 1287, part of a horrible storm year in Europe. The fact is that history is full of massive storms that did major damage and took hundreds of thousands of lives. And we find another misleading figure from Hari: “drowning one fifth of Pakistan.” The death toll in Pakistan is somewhere between 1,600-1,800. Pakistan is the world’s sixth highest population at over 170 million. One fifth of the population drowning would be 34 million people. Hari here implies that the death toll was 19,000 times higher than reality.

As for floods, there are far worse ones in recorded history. China had floods that killed a million people in 1887 and 300,000 in 1642. All this talk about the flooding that is happening is misdirection. It ignores the massive amount of data on past flooding that was worse, and attempts to baffle with bullshit, pointing to anything recent as unprecedented.

The world’s ice sheets would be sloughing off massive melting chunks four times the size of Manhattan. The cost of bread would be soaring across the world as heat shriveled the wheat crops. The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be fizzing into the oceans, making them more acidic and so killing 40 percent of the phytoplankton that make up the irreplaceable base of the oceanic food chain. The denialists would be conceding at last that everything the climate scientists said would happen — with their pesky graphs and studies and computers — came to pass.

Has Hari ever looked at a map? First of all, I have read all the hype that a ice shelf three times the size of Manhattan sloughed off (see, they can’t even do a single thing without at least a little number manipulation), or is about to, I can’t remember which. I look at a big old world map, though, and can plainly see that Manhattan, despite it’s gigantic ego, isn’t really that big of an area. Even putting something three times that in the world’s interconnected water surface is like dropping an ice cube into a swimming pool. The claims of massive flooding or rising sea levels due to this are borderline insanity. But what Hari really misses in this whole thing is that THIS IS NOT A NEW PHENOMENON. That ice has melted, sloughed off, and reformed time after time in history. But it sure sounds like a dire emergency when he says it, doesn’t it. I am only surprised that he didn’t tell us about how millions of polar bears made their homes in that shelf.


Go straight to Post

GD Star Rating
loading...

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm

Joe’s Answer To Feds: More Illegal Alien Sweeps.

by Skip MacLure on September 3rd, 2010


Sheriff Joe Arpaio speaks to the media in Phoenix, after learning that he is to be sued by the US Justice Department.

If the Republican Party had one tenth the courage and determination of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, we might not be having this conversation.

Sheriff Joe has stood like a rock throughout attack after attack by the liberal Marxists, and never wavered in his determination to serve the people by whom he was elected. Joe is a gutsy, no-nonsense lawman who says just what he thinks and does what he says he’s going to do, which has been to incarcerate some 10,000 offenders, both domestic and illegal alien.

President Obama’s government has singled out Arizona for punishment, for being the first to stand against the statist tyranny of Washington. Eric Holder, at the orders of Barack Hussein Obama, initiated a lawsuit against Arizona’s anti-illegal alien legislation SB 1070, which had passed with overwhelming support from the people of Arizona. Gutsy Conservative Governor Jan Brewer stood against Obama’s hectoring. She told Holder to go pound sand and informed reporters that she was confident that the State’s argument would prevail.

In the meantime, it’s not like this is Joe Arpaio’s first rodeo with people who would love to see him dragged down. He’s faced them all and he’s still here. Now he’s become such a pain in the posteriors of the drug traffickers that they’ve put out an open contract on his head. Joe’s defiance has helped bolster the confidence of other border lawmen to stand up against an illegal rogue government that is obviously bent on the destruction of our society, at least as we know it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-hQNxJBKtU

Joe is an everyday American hero. There are heroes just like Joe all over the country. Look around. They’re your friends and neighbors… your family… your community.
Keep at it Joe, we’re with you.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Go straight to Post

GD Star Rating
loading...

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm

Ground Zero mosque not about religious freedom

by Robert E. Meyer on September 2nd, 2010


The Ground Zero mosque controversy has been erroneously portrayed by certain news pundits as being an issue about religious freedom. Of course this is another red herring designed to demonize those protesting against locating the mosque at ground zero — as if those opposing it want to deny a segment of Americans equal access to the First Amendment. Is it not ironic that only a few years ago we were told that dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Now that those people are in power we have an Orwellian reversal and dissent is again unpatriotic, with the added feature of being bigoted and phobic.

Muslim’s are certainly within their constitutional rights to build a mosque there if they desire. The question is whether they ought to. The issue is one of propriety, not religious freedom. Until pro-mosque apologists get past that fact they have yet to make a legitimate counter argument. That we are endowed with certain rights is granted by our national charter. How judiciously we are stewards of those rights will determine whether we can keep them and maintain our freedoms.

What is the motivation behind placing the mosque there if doing so causes so much public grief, considering that the Imam behind the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has indicated he wants to build bridges? Interesting, that in the discussion, the most obvious thing that could be done to facilitate a peaceful resolution is scarcely mentioned. The Imam could just decide to build the mosque elsewhere. In fact, were I a Muslim, this is what I would be calling on my leadership to do. Some might argue that we must show the world that we are tolerant. Of course, according to the enlightened commentators, allowing the mosque to be built on the designated site is just the medicine we need to establish that impression.

But are not Muslim nations the ones suffering from the image problem? When we consider the austerity and human rights abuses within Muslim nations, shouldn’t they be trying to demonstrate that they are tolerant?

There are parallels between this issue and the soldiers’ funeral picketing performed by Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church congregants, a story which has popped up in the news again.

Members of that church have a constitutional right to their freedom of speech, but does anyone think they are building bridges or affecting positive change with their obnoxious and misguided efforts, merely because protesting is their constitutional right?

If those in charge moved the mosque to another location, think of the public relations bonanza it would be for Islam. It would put egg on the face of those who claim Islam is intolerant, it would silence the people who think the mosque construction is an effort to pour salt in the wounds of 9-11 survivors. and it would shut up the people who are claiming that building the mosque at ground zero coincides with the Islamic tradition of triumphalism(building mosques at the locations of great conquests). But we can offer them good advise and bank on the presumption they will ignore it.


Go straight to Post

GD Star Rating
loading...

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm




The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only, not of Back to Basics.