For Smart People, You’re Awfully Damn Dumb

Filed under:Jerks,Politics,Priorities,Sad — posted by Anwyn on March 31, 2009 @ 9:12 pm

Auto execs who flew their corporate jets to DC to shill for taxpayer money for stockholder corporations? Dumb. Bankers and financial gurus who insisted certain businesses were too big to be allowed to fail? Dumb.

You shilled for all that taxpayer money and honestly didn’t believe it would have government filaments unbreakably attached to every single dollar? Really? You didn’t consider the possibility of Obama handing you your marching orders every day from now on? Really?

God, are you dumb.

I’d rather be the one to be telling you what to do, since it’s my money, but hey, it’s some untraceably small percentage, so my elected representatives whom I didn’t vote for get to tell you what to do instead. Isn’t it fun to get barrels of money from an apparently limitless well?

God, are you dumb. Our country’s economy may die, and if it does, your hands were on the stake through its heart.

Buy Honda. And Toyota and Nissan. And Hyundai. And Mercedes and BMW and Volvo and Volkswagen. Drive the government out of the car business. And hoard your cash and drive them out of the banking and financial services business, too. Out.


  1. I don’t see what was so dumb about accepting federal funds and thinking the only strings attached were the terms they agreed to at the time. That’s how contracts normally work, even when the counterparty is the government. Of course I’d agree that anyone who accepts Trouble Relief of Assets Program (TRAP) funds now, after seeing how the .gov handled GM and AIG, is truly dumb. That’s why so many banks are trying to give back their TRAP funds now.

    Comment by Xrlq — April 1, 2009 @ 5:05 am

  2. If there were such binding contracts at the time, why aren’t the companies making more of a fuss about GM’s exec ouster, etc.? Instead of other companies rushing to give the money back, why isn’t GM suing if the government is overstepping a contract?

    Cute play on words, as always. I just don’t see how they didn’t even consider the possibility that the catchwords would be I’m altering the deal; pray I don’t alter it any further.

    Comment by Anwyn — April 1, 2009 @ 7:48 am

  3. I don’t know how “binding” a contract is against a government that doesn’t want to abide by it. If the government doesn’t consent to be sued, and if needed retroactively changes the law to ensure it can’t be, where do you go? From where I sit, the companies accepted TARP money in good faith, agreeing to whatever (loose) terms were imposed on them at the time. They had no reason to anticipate that a future administration would turn around and impose new terms on the deal that weren’t agreed upon in advance, any more than I can give a buck to a homeless guy and expect him to be my slave from that point forward.

    Comment by Xrlq — April 1, 2009 @ 6:28 pm

  4. What makes you think that Mercedes, BMW and Volkswagen take no government funds? As I understand it, the Euros are heavily subsidizing new car sales.

    Not that I think it’s a good idea to subsidize failing car makers. This recession cannot end while Chrysler is still in business.

    Comment by Kevin — April 2, 2009 @ 8:07 am

  5. I don’t assume that, or think it, but in a choice between the two evils of a U.S. nationalized car or a Euro nationalized car, I’d take the latter … but I don’t give myself that choice because I buy Hondas.

    Comment by Anwyn — April 2, 2009 @ 8:18 am

  6. Don’t forget that Ford has taken no money from Uncle Sam. They’re worth a look if you’re in the market for a new rig.

    Comment by jbarntt — April 6, 2009 @ 8:09 pm

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace