posted February 18, 2012 02:45 PM            

according to our local pundit great britain was fast turning into a socialist gulag.

lately the conservatives regained power, albeit as part of a coalition...and much kudos to them for signing off on the eurodeal...

but if you think only "socialists" are sticking their noses in your dinner and business, think again. british conservatives are about as conservative as it gets, and that does NOT mean they don't want to control you!

posted February 19, 2012 12:34 AM            

he has plenty of good points. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559604576176620582972608.html
that doesn't make him the only conservative there! the privatization of all those "nationalized" institutions has been going on steadily since margaret thatcher, another conservative recognized as such by americans.

interestingly hannan does not define obama as a socialist! he also mentions that the english govt has reneged on voting them out of the eurozone, but i hear from brits it has been done..

however i find hannan contradicts himself a lot. he will make no change in england by sitting in brussels! nor does he seem to realize, in the article linked above, that england joined the european community BY PUBLIC REFERENDUM.

the fact that the world has become so much smaller is causing a lot of the confusion. i don't know what the answer is, because there is no turning the clock back.

posted February 19, 2012 01:55 PM            

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc9TVlzdEsc
Daniel Hannan says what GOP members of Congress SHOULD be saying about Obama! Why can't this guy move to America and run for President? Just hide his birth certificate and it should be ok.

posted February 19, 2012 04:48 PM            

it's amazing how many european parliamentary members think the european parliament is a tool of the devil...yet they keep going back to brussels. it's a cushy number from what i hear, and after all, as hannan points out, europe is run not by the parliament but by 27 faceless unseen governors...so those who like to hear the sound of their own voices and don't mind their impotence are content there i guess...

and i repeat that he considers the "socialist" label conservatives have pinned on obama's forehead is way off base.

posted February 19, 2012 05:49 PM            

And yet owning and operating American companies is exactly what O'Bomber has done.

He bailed out auto companies and then ran them with a Czar.

He bailed out AIG and ran the company with his own installed executive.

He took over 1/6th of the US economy by annexing the health care industry...and then prceeded to tell insurance companies what must be in policies everyone must purchase or be fined...including churches who O'Bomber says must provide abortion pills and contraception which is against the tenets of their religious teachings. That violates their 1st Amendment rights.

O'Bomber may not be the kind of Socialist Hannan is used to seeing but everything Hannan says about European governments, including the EU is based on the Socialist model.

Lastly, Hannan DID NOT SAY those who say O'Bomber is a Socialist..."are way off base".

This is what Hannan did say:

"Is he a socialist? No, at least not in the sense of wanting the state to own key industries."

posted February 19, 2012 06:19 PM            

however how long will it take you to "get" that we did not take over general motors, but LOANED them the money they needed to get back up and running? saving thousands if not millions of jobs directly and indirectly in the process?

and that the LOAN was repaid!

posted February 20, 2012 03:44 PM            

Just look what they are doing to the national health service reform bill...

Doesn't seem to matter who is in Government these days, the face may change but the policies don't change much...

posted February 20, 2012 04:38 PM            

Ron Bloom is O'Bomber's Car Czar.

"auto czar, car czar Senior Advisor President's Automotive Task Force-Bloom, Ron[13] 2009–present President appointed-Obama, Barack."

You don't think General Motors came up with the idea of building the Chevy Volt...which btw, catches on fire do you? In the last quarter for which sales numbers are available, GM sold a total of 700..that's not a misprint..they sold 700 Chevy Volts total.

The idea that General Motors has paid back taxpayers the billions loaned to them is nonsense. GM used TARP government funds to pay back the other government loans...then, O'Bomber and GM crowed about GM having paid off their government loans ahead of schedule. They just all forgot to tell America that GM paid back the government loans...with more government loaned money.

In effect, the US government owns about 60% of General Motors. More properly, it should be renamed O'BomberMotors.

GM repays federal loan with government money
Kathleen Pender
San Francisco Chronicle
April 27, 2010

You'd think that General Motors Co., having been rescued by U.S. taxpayers, would be more up-front with them.

In an ad that has been blanketing the airwaves since last week, General Motors Chairman and chief executive Ed Whitacre boasts that "we have repaid our government loan, in full, with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule."

In a press release, Whitacre said GM was able to repay the loans "because more customers are buying vehicles like the Chevrolet Malibu and Buick LaCrosse."

Neither the ad nor the press release mentioned that GM repaid its government loan with other government money, or that U.S. taxpayers could lose money on the roughly $50 billion they still have invested in General Motors.

In a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said the repayment "appears to be nothing more than an elaborate TARP money shuffle."

Treasury spokeswoman Meg Reilly says Geithner hopes to respond to Grassley's letter, perhaps by today. General Motors did not respond to calls for comment.

How did taxpayers get into this situation?

Before and during its bankruptcy, the U.S. Treasury loaned General Motors $49.5 billion from the Troubled Assets Relief Program.

When GM emerged from bankruptcy as a new company in July, the Treasury converted most of those loans into a 60.8 percent stake in the new company's common stock, $2.1 billion in preferred stock and $7.1 billion in loans. About $400 million in loans was repaid almost immediately, leaving GM with about $6.7 billion in government debt. The balance of the loan was originally due July 2015, but the date was later accelerated to June 30, 2010.

GM had already repaid $2 billion in loans. Last week, it announced it had repaid the remaining $4.7 billion.

posted February 21, 2012 06:14 PM            

Americans want nothing to do with the Chevy Volt...the O'BomberMobile....not even with the government rebate checks attached to the sale. You know, rebate checks whereby your neighbors contribute their tax dollars to induce you to buy something they don't want.

posted February 22, 2012 11:30 AM            

You're way too hung up on words...without knowing what those words...and especially "conservative" means in different countries.

The British DID NOT elect a conservative government...at least not "conservative" by any standard an American would recognize.

Your so called "conservative" British government raised income taxes on those considered wealthy or high income individuals...you know, just like the idiot O'Bomber wants to do here.

Now, government geeks and shiiit for brains morons are pi$$ing and moaning that the tax rate increase didn't produce the amount of government revenue they thought it would. In fact, with the new higher taxes, government revenues WENT DOWN.

Those of us who actually know how to increase revenues to a government keep telling idiots like O'Bomber, like Pee-Lousy, like Hairy Reid, like Geithner, like Chuck Shyster that whatever government taxes to excess, there will be less of that thing produced.

Raise taxes on business investment..Capital investment..and investors will stop investing...in businesses, in business start-ups, in plant expansion, in product inventory, in hiring more employees, in product R&D.

Raise a tax on a cup of coffee to increase revenues to government...and people will drink less coffee; on boats, jet skies and airplanes...and people will stop buying those items.

Raise taxes on income above a certain level and people will make damned sure they arrange their work schedules and structure their incomes so they don't fall into that tax category.

So now, the "not so conservative British government" has just found out what any American conservative could have...and would have told them.

If you raise taxes on the most productive citizens in your country...those who use or used their knowledge, personal drive, their wits, their hard work to rise to the top of the income ladder...and your revenues to the government from those people are not going to go up...THEY'RE GOING DOWN!

People with a lick of common sense are not going to have a bunch of fat assed, brain dead, bloviating moron, members of congress and a president with the very same attributes; become their 50-50 partners in everything they earn..in their businesses or in their risk investments and every investment carries a built in risk of loss.

50p tax rate 'failing to boost revenues’
The amount of income tax paid fell sharply last month in the first formal indication that the new 50p higher rate is not raising the expected amount of revenue.

A Treasury source said the relatively poor revenues from self-assessment returns was partly down to highly-paid individuals arranging their affairs to avoid paying the 50p rate
Smith By Robert Winnett, and James Kirkup
21 Feb 2012

The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.

Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate. The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad.

The self-assessment returns from January, when most income tax is paid by the better-off, have been eagerly awaited by the Treasury and government ministers as they provide the first evidence of the success, or failure, of the 50p rate. It is the first year following the introduction of the 50p rate which had been expected to boost tax revenues from self-assessment by more than £1billion.

Although the official statistics do not disclose how much money was paid at the 50p rate of tax, the figures indicate that it is falling short of the money the levy was expected to raise.

A Treasury source said the relatively poor revenues from self-assessment returns was partly down to highly-paid individuals arranging their affairs to avoid paying the 50p rate.

“It’s true that SA revenues are a bit disappointing — it’s still early, but it looks like there’s been quite a lot of forestalling and other manoeuvring to avoid the top rate,” said the source.

However, another Treasury source added that the tax deadline had been extended by two days because of industrial action at HM Revenue and Customs. Therefore, it was too early to begin assessing the revenues raised from the 50p rate of tax because about 20 per cent of self-assessment tax is paid in the hours before the deadline.

Francesca Lagerberg, head of tax at Grant Thornton, an accountancy firm, said: “My guess is that because the 50 per cent rate was flagged up in advance many taxpayers, particularly those with their own businesses, decided to extract dividends ahead of the change. It highlights the fact that high tax rates don’t always deliver high tax revenues.”

George Osborne, the Chancellor, is expected to receive a definitive analysis from the revenue on the 50p rate before next month’s Budget. The Liberal Democrats have insisted that it must stay because it is important to demonstrate that the rich are paying their fair share.***Note..does this sound familar to any supporters of our brain dead "Community Organizer?***

David Laws, a Lib Dem MP, has also suggested reducing tax relief on pensions for top earners.

The prospect of higher taxation on pensions comes as savers complain that low interest rates and quantitative easing have pushed down returns on savings and pensions.

Charlie Bean, the deputy governor of the Bank of England, last night insisted that those people should accept the pain as the price of restoring the wider economy to health.

The Confederation of British Industry, in its Budget submission today, urges ministers not introduce new levies on the rich, warning that the UK “will become a less attractive location for entrepreneurs and key employees”.***Note..listen to these people. They know what they're talking about.

posted February 22, 2012 05:29 PM            

and you are right, it is not really a conservative government, but a coalition conservative/liberal one at the moment. in other words a real botch up.

but i recall you crowing about the elections in europe when these folk were brought in...indication that europe and england didn't want leftists anymore!

hannan pointed out that things have been falling off since 1975, when england joined europe. however since then we had maggie thatcher, who lowered taxes and sold off the nationalized industries, and for awhile, that cash and north sea oil boosted the economy...but only in the short term.

as he also pointed out, the economy doesn't make ANYbody look good right now. in other words, when things are GROWING pretty much any government will work. when they are going down, as happens cyclically in all societies (what goes up must come down?)(a time for every season?) nobody looks good.

so probably if you want the "victory" you seem to be seeking, you should sit on your hands, like sarah palin is doing, and wait for an upturn...THEN it will look like the conservatives are really making it happen!

posted February 22, 2012 11:03 PM            

The government of Britain is not a conservative government as you asserted in the title of this thread you started.

No conservative government would believe for a second that loading up the very people who are the jobs creators in their country with higher taxes is going to result in more tax revenues to the government or more jobs in the private sector of the economy.

Your little Marxist Socialist Progressive Messiah O'Bomber has been demonizing the very same group of people in America and according to Gallup, the real unemployment rate of those out of work, underemployed and those who have stopped looking for a job is about 20% of the available workforce.

Further, revenues to the government are down, way, way down.

This result in Britain should be a wake-up call to you, O'Bomber and his Socialist comrades in Congress that what they're bloviating about is going to produce the very same results here, if implemented.

Unfortunately, O'Bomber and his congressional demoscat comrades are entirely too stupid to connect the dots.

posted February 23, 2012 01:28 PM            

or do you think harvard is owned by the govt, and the fed is a national institution? perhaps the huge companies holder worked for are also national possessions?

the title says the brits "elected conservatives". they also elected liberals. YOU are the one who was ranting about how the english have turned away from the labour party. yes they did, in a way, but as it happens not for long!

hannan gives the game away...it is all about whether the economy is on an up or downswing. same as it ever was.

england is a monarchy. the queen may be a "figurehead" however she still has a HUGE amount of power should she ever choose to use it. she can shut down parliament today if she likes. most socialist indeed.

meanwhile our so-called jobs creators have created more and more OVERSEAS jobs and fewer home jobs, and are angling for abolishing the minimum wage and crowing themselves kings to our serfs. call that experiment (boosting up the job "creators") a fail, since in destroying their purchasing base they are about to put themselves out of business!

in any kind of society there will be rich and poor. so far no one has been able to find a "fix" for that. i agree with you that it can't really be legislated, however one can look out for the bottom line and prop up the whole show, or one can learn to live with beggars in the streets, thieves in your home, and the super-rich running the government - if one so desires.

posted February 23, 2012 10:36 PM            

Thanks for making my case that none of these clowns have made anything useful in the private sector.

O'Bomber...Harvard Law Review is a STUDENT position at Harvard Law School. Further, none of O'Bomber papers regarding issues being discussed in federal courts in those days have ever been found.

Geithner...President of the New York federal reserve bank. Please explain how loaning federal reserve notes into circulation at interest is providing something useful. Useful perhaps to the federal reserve since they get those federal reserve notes for the cost of the ink and paper on which they're printed by the US Treasury..regardless of what denomination the bills happen to be. It costs the fed the same amount to have a $100 bill printed as a $1 bill printed.

Eric Holder...has been in the federal government most of his professional life. He was in the Clinton administration and acted as Fidel Castro's de facto attorney in the Elian Gonzales case where Elian's mother died at sea to get him to America and out of communist Cuba. Only to have Eric Holder conduct an armed government raid on Elian's American relatives, remove Elian at gunpoint and return him to Fidel's communist Cuba.

Holder is also the little shyster who set up the deal for Kommander Korruption to issue a pardon to Marc Rich...for a large contributions to Kommander Korruption's presidential library and the demoscat party. Marc Rich fled US jurisdiction to avoid prosecution for tax evasion, 51 counts of tax fraud and for participating with Iran in oil deals while Iran was holding US diplomats hostage for more than 440 days.