Regular American citizens are busy with work and family, and those Americans who aren't busy normally don't pay attention to the big budget numbers flying around these days.
A recent ad by GM surprised me. Perhaps you've seen it. The CEO of GM walks through a factory and claims that "GM has paid back $5.8 billion to the U.S. Treasury and Export Development Canada...--in full, with interest, years ahead of schedule--loans made to help fund the new GM." My first reaction was "Great!" but after then commercial played a few times something began to nag at me. Wasn't the loan to GM much bigger, say between $42 billion and $58 billion (*1). It seems that some of the loans have been reclassified as equity purchase. In other words, the government has purchased a large chunk of GM (Government Motors?). This was once called a loan, but is now being quietly called "equity equivalent." The next question is "Where did GM come up with the $5.8 billion payment? GM is the fourth worst loser among corporations in the US. In fact, they lost $30.9 billion in 2009! They couldn't have paid the money back from profit -- they had none. It turns out that they used TARP money to pay the government back. So the bottom line is GM borrowed money from the government to pay back the government (albeit indirectly). It's a shell game. Are the American people stupid to believe this rubbish? No, they are busy working to pay taxes and provide for their families. They don't have time to dig into every little nefarious scheme that the elites contrive. In essence, the people are not stupid, they are too busy to be bothered.
(*1) There are many numbers floating around and I can't find the correct one)
3 comments:
Numbers are indeed hard to pin down.
Goldman Sachs is claiming that it did nothing wrong in spite of mounting proof, or what is being bandied about as proof (I don't know what to believe anymore.)
It is true that the people are not stupid, we are just otherwise gainfully and purposefully (if not gainfully) going about our business as the hard workers. Thing is, our business is our families, homes, and menial employ.
I feel this way about quite a few issues that I would normally care a great deal about but can't seem to put my mind to.
I knew it! Now Goldman Sachs is claiming that what it did was not only not wrong but that it, as an institution, was only a victim of bad circumstances.
Immorality is not only measured by secular/religious laws. It is also, and perhaps especially, measured by intent.
Goldman Sachs' intent was to make $ regardless of inevitable negative results for others. Like producers of cigarettes, alcohol, slutty rap music, and certain faulty products, Goldman Sachs was, in my opinion, clearly immoral.
I agree with Doug.
Now, if only the timing wasn't so suspicious, and if only Congress were more thoroughly held accountable.
Post a Comment