Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Insanity of the Socialist Left

Let me be clear:

Honeywell Chief Executive David Cote, a Republican who supported Mr. Obama in the election, says he was taken aback by the president’s rhetoric on the tax issue. “You can’t love jobs and hate those who create them,” he says.

Cote is a fool who is just discovering the idiocy of those with whom he cast his lot.


ChrisA said...

“You can’t love jobs and hate those who create them,” he says.

Wanna bet? It happens everyday! I must say it is nice to see a CEO regain his senses. I just hope it isn't too late.

mazenko said...

It's the absolutist use of the words "love" and "hate" concerning jobs and business that makes this whole issue completely ridiculous.

But the Grand Ol' "Glen Beck" Party has taken up residence in "RidiculousLand" so often over the last couple years that I am not surprised. It's why Obama is president and Congress shifted. Just keep talking Sarah Palin. Tell it like it is (not) Michelle Bachmann.

There's a reason that a conservative sate like Colorado (not counting Boulder) turned from red to blue in six years - the Republicans became the party of "crazy" and the moderate, independent, libertarian, conservatives that populate this state shifted their votes to the moderate Democrats who, first and foremost, aren't crazy and don't say ridiculous things like David Cote does.

Anonymous said...

The employers of America could stop all of Obamarx's el toro poo-poo easily. They just need to tell the idiot in the White House that the businesses will lay off ALL of their employees starting tomorrow unless Obamarx resigns today.

EVERYONE may need to "go John Galt" in order to stop the nonsense that is coming out of DC these days.


Darren said...

Mazenko, did you notice the guy was an Obama supporter?

And Chicopanther, "el toro poo-poo" is a phrase I'm going to file away. Definitely a keeper!

David said...

I hope David Cote isn't a *total* idiot, given that I'm a Honeywell shareholder. But he indeed should have been able to predict Obama's policies in advance better than he did. Hope he does better with products, acquisitions, etc.

It's alarming how many seemingly-sharp businesspeople did support Obama, Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan being among them.

mazenko said...

Yes, Darren, I know he supported Obama. And, I simply pointed out that saying Obama "hates" employers is ridiculous, if not downright stupid.

Chicopanther - No one is "going John Galt." That is a work of fiction - and not a well written one at that. But the real world doesn't work that way. To imply that businesses should, or would, lay off employees and stop making any money just to stand on a principle is, as I noted before, ridiculous. No company is going to stop earning money to make a political statement. If you believe they would, you know less about business than you do about literature.

Be a rational human being and understand that the republic and the national economy are far more vast than you could ever imagine, and both will survive a president with whom you disagree.

If we survived Warren G. Harding and the Gilded Age, we can certainly survive now. Have some faith in your country. If the situation worsens as a result of this administration, then in 1.5 years, the country will shift Congress back the other direction. And two years after that, the White House will change as well.

As an unaffiliated, independent moderate (like a majority in Colorado) I will watch the news and cast my vote accordingly in two years. In the meantime I am not going to "go delusional" and hysterically believe the sky is falling.

Wait a year, and vote. It's worked for two hundred years.

Doug said...

Didn't know how else to contact you - did you see the article in the WSJ about an imminent failure of an apartment complex in NYC? It lists the investors about to lose millions, including CalSTRS. Check it out...

Darren said...

(/sarcasm on) Doug, it's OK. My pension is guaranteed by the California taxpayers. What do I care if CalSTRS makes a bad investment? (/sarcasm off)

Anonymous said...

Mazenko, Atlas Shrugged *was* a well-written book, if overly wordy. It correctly depicted the kind of looters we have in the government today, a government that punishes the productive and rewards the non-productive. If anything, the Mr. Thompson government in Atlas Shrugged wasn't even as bad as Obama and his cronies.

Sooner or later, the productive types WILL say "screw it" and WILL stop producing. That's when society will resort to the law of the jungle, which is why I'm well stocked with food, water, and ammo.

And for Darren, I got the phrase "el toro poo-poo" from an old hockey coach. I too thought it was a keeper!


allen (in Michigan) said...

Ah, Mike the Internet Psychiatrist prescribes being rational.

It's a worthwhile prescription. Not for the patient of course but for Herr Doktor since it relieves the good doctor of the tedious chore of assembling a cogent and defensible response.

While I share your certainty that the nation will survive our second avowedly socialist president the first one left a wake of wreckage that took a couple of decades to set right so I'd rather not enjoy the dubious benefits of New Deal Part Deux. A couple of decades of a couple of hundred million people paying for the excesses of an irresponsible, master manipulator was quite enough the first time around I'm sure. No need for a repeat performance although the lesson does show signs of having been inadequately learned. Possibly a fault of the education system.

Ellen K said...

If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. Like so many CEO's it was socially simpler to drink the Koolaid without reading the fine print. Now that we have several billions out in loans and several million people out of work, he's having voters' remorse. Wake up call!

mazenko said...

A valid criticism, Allen. While we don't often agree, you generally present a rational argument. I'm just less of a "chicken-little-sky-is-falling-capitalism-is-being-destroyed-by-oppressive-liberals" kind of guy. Granted, I am bothered by the deficit and certain expansions of government power, but I am not as gung-ho on govt paying for roads and the military only.

Chico-panther, good luck in your bunker. The only thing I can say about those productive types who stop producing is they will go out of business and starve in the mountains with their buddy Galt. Because plenty more will keep producing. Even when conditions are crappy, people still accept jobs because they need to. Authors and Fox commentators stand on principle. The rest of us vote our conscience and then get up and go to work in the morning.

In the past, some in the NFL have argued that owners should band together and not sign the whiny, overpaid troublesome superstars. They should "go Galt" on the prima donna players. But there is no agreement, because even if 9 out of 10 agree, the other one will sign the guys and ultimately burn the other 9 in the playoffs. No one is taking the chance.

The guy who takes his ball and goes home (ie. Galt) just goes out of business, and there is a mad rush of others to take his place. And history has shown you can take that to the bank.

neko said...

Yes, but if government puts in too many taxes and too many hassles to running a business, there is no mad rush... except perhaps to another country where those taxes and hassles aren't a factor. When that happens, all those taxes, all those revenues and all those jobs are gone. And recent history has shown that you can take that to the bank.

mazenko said...

Neko, if you have some specific examples that would be great. Because the reality is for companies that have off-shored many jobs in computers, finance, engineering, and manufacturing, it is about cheaper labor and property, not lower taxes and regulations. In fact, while the US has higher marginal tax rates, it allows so many loopholes that the taxes paid are cheaper here. So, when a company can move a factory abroad, they will. And lower tax and regulation incentives still won't draw the jobs back here if we have a higher standard of living that leads to higher labor costs. And back to the bank we go.