Crony Capitalism

Export-Import Bank: Too Dumb to Fail?

Crony capitalism run amok.

|

If you want a pluperfect example to epitomize the stupidity of America's team-sports approach to politics, look no further than the Export-Import Bank, which Virginia's two senators—Mark Warner and Tim Kaine—recently endorsed.

Once upon a time, liberals condemned Ex-Im. It was "little more than a fund for corporate welfare," candidate Barack Obama said in 2008. Left-wingers routinely deplored the way the bank did big favors for big businesses such as Boeing and Enron, at the expense of the little guy both at home and abroad. Although the bank was created by FDR, its biggest friends long have been Chamber-of-Commerce Republicans who think government's principal business should be helping the business community.

Lately, the bank—it's actually a government agency—has come under fire from tea party populists, too. They oppose it for many of the reasons liberals did, plus one more: its distortion of the free market. Government, they say, should not be picking winners and losers.

Lo and behold, suddenly Ex-Im is becoming a cause célèbre on the left. While principled liberals such as Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders still oppose it, many so-called progressives have come to its defense (Sen. Elizabeth Warren, for example). Apparently, some folks would rather think the other side is wrong than be right themselves—even if that means passing up what everybody in Washington claims to want: bipartisan cooperation on an issue of substance.

Of course, Ex-Im's supporters might have another motive as well: campaign contributions. Some of America's biggest companies reap the benefits of Ex-Im, and they can be mighty generous around campaign time.

The support can't have much to do with genuine substance. Not every argument made by the bank's critics is equally strong. But every argument made by the bank's supporters is astoundingly weak.

For instance: They routinely concede that the critics have the moral high ground. As former Sen. Judd Gregg put it not long ago, the critics object to Ex-Im "picking winners and losers, and supporting the big boys with influence. To be fair, this is basically true." In an ideal world, the bank's defenders agree, Ex-Im would not exist. They say the only reason we provide export subsidies to our guys is that other countries provide export subsidies to theirs. "We live in the real world, not the theoretical world," Mark Warner said late last month.

Boy, that's some defense: "We know what's right—but what's right is not expedient."

Warner also insists failure to reauthorize the bank "would cost us thousands of American jobs." But the studies a spokesman provided as proof said something very different: e.g., that Ex-Im "help[s] to sustain" jobs or that last year the bank "supported over 200,000 jobs." Well. When you buy your daily cup of coffee at a convenience store, you, too, are helping to sustain jobs. That doesn't mean any jobs would disappear if you stopped.

As Veronique de Rugy, a scholar at George Mason University's Mercatus Center, pointed out not long ago: According to the Government Accountability Office, "the bank doesn't actually count jobs related to its projects; it simply extrapolates" from statistics used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In plainer language: It guesses.

Here's another reason to suspect the jobs claim is overblown: Supposedly, the bank creates U.S. jobs by lending foreign companies the money to buy American products. This means it is creating (or at least steering) demand. Yet, one-fifth of the bank's funding goes to export credit insurance, which buffers exporters against the possibility that an overseas customer might not pay. That doesn't generate any demand at all.

Moreover, the bank's defenders ignore another big Ex-Im effect. If, say, a foreign company uses Ex-Im financing to place a big order for American-made construction machines, that's a great deal for Acme Construction Equipment. But it's not such a great deal for other companies—including American ones—that also buy from Acme. All of a sudden, U.S. companies are bidding against foreign ones that are, through Ex-Im, using the American government as leverage against them. (Something just like that happened in 2013, de Rugy notes, causing a Cleveland mining company to protest an Ex-Im subsidy that helped an Australian mining company buy heavy gear from Caterpillar.)

When Ex-Im supporters talk about "leveling the playing field," they never bring that up. There's something else they don't do, either: They don't answer, specifically, "level for whom?"

The U.S. aerospace industry is one of the biggest beneficiaries of Ex-Im financing. In that sector, at least, it's pretty clear who the competitors are: Boeing is going up against Airbus, which gets hefty European subsidies. Virginia-based Orbital Sciences Corp. is going up against the subsidized French satellite maker Thales—as well as Russian and Chinese satellite enterprises. So you can argue that any Ex-Im support on behalf of Orbital simply levels the playing field.

In many other cases, however, the ostensible leveling of the playing field might not occur at all. That's because, for a great many of the Ex-Im Bank's deals, the U.S. company is not competing against a subsidized foreign competitor. A U.S. supplier could be competing against a company that receives no subsidies at all. In that case, the Ex-Im subsidy would actually create an unlevel playing field, not a level one.

But wait, it gets worse.

Suppose Procter & Gamble reaches out to Ex-Im so a foreign company can buy a few million rolls of paper towels. In that case, Procter & Gamble isn't competing just against Chinese paper-towel companies. It's also competing against Kimberly-Clark and other U.S. companies that didn't get a subsidy. How level is that?

Ex-Im supporters admit they have no principled argument. Their practical argument is full of gaping holes. It will be interesting to see what they come up with next to avoid admitting the opposing team might actually be right about something. Please, anything but that.

NEXT: California Congressman Wants to Ban Civilians from Buying Body Armor

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If you want a pluperfect example to epitomize the stupidity of America

    For some reason, I stopped right there and glanced at the picture to the right. Satisfied that there was no more to the story, I stopped reading, convinced.

    1. I too, was upset, that I was forced to look at a picture of her and her high cheek bones.

      1. Man hands.

        1. 2016 Democrat dream team:

          Man Hands and Cankles.

        2. Do all the Indians also have manhands?

          1. All the proggie women have them. That’s what happens when you have to use them so much, if you know what I mean.

    2. I also felt this sentence should’ve been copied and pasted into the alt-text field.

    3. I stopped at pluperfect. I do not know how to conjugate verbs in the pluperfect tense.

  2. Way to stand up against crony capitalism, Fauxcahontas.

    1. I thought that proggies hate capitalism?

      1. Like all collectivists, progressives hate real capitalism.

        They love crony capitalism, but with the right sort of cronies.

        “so-called progressives” love them some Solyndra, Fannie Mae, GM, and Boeing.

        They’re just as crapitalistic as any country-club Republican.

      2. Crony capitalism isn’t capitalism (in the same weird way in which a dwarf planet isn’t actually a planet).

  3. Principals, not principles. Progs have always been at war with Eastasia.

  4. It’s not fair that other countries are forcing taxpayers to pay us to buy their stuff!

    We need to force our taxpayers to pay them to buy our stuff!

    Because… fairness!

  5. This govt agency will be renewed in one of two ways:

    1. emergency last-minute legislation with “reforms” to save billions of American jerbz

    2. an amendment included in some emergency support-the-troops? funding for bombing Iraq

    1. and there’s the vehicle…

      In a memo sent to House Republicans on Friday, McCarthy enumerated a likely September agenda including a jobs-related bill, an energy package and a healthcare measure.

      http://www.reuters.com/article…..BB20140808

  6. And the pictured one is the new hero of the proggies. There is a lesson to be learned here. There are two distinct parts of the proglotardia. The ruling class and the useful idiot serfs.

    It works like this:

    Ruling elite: Hitler was the true savior, Jesus was da debil! The moon is made of cheese!

    Useful idiot prog: Heil Hitler, Jesus is da debil! The moon is made of cheese and the Koch brothers are keeping us from eating it!

    That’s pretty much all there is to it. You have to at least admire what a simple, yet effective, business model it really is.

  7. Government, they say, should not be picking winners and losers.

    Preposterous hogwash. I have it on good authority that our President, based on his inestimably successful performance picking industrial winners while in office, will transition into venture capital upon leaving office. They’re lining up to give him money.

    1. Judging by the success of others, like Shillary, he won’t have to do anything but run around the country giving speeches to crowds of brain dead leftists, and make millions by doing it.

      But I still stick by what I’ve been saying for years, Obama will not be satisfied by that. He will seek a position in the U.N., the guy envisions himself as king of the world.

      1. Judging by the success of others, like Shillary, he won’t have to do anything but run around the country giving speeches to crowds of brain dead leftists, and make millions by doing it.

        It isn’t the braindead leftists she’s getting paid by. The speeches are payment for access. And you can take a guess at who’s doing the paying. The braindead leftists are just window dressing.

        1. Right. But it might be embarrassing if none of the useful idiots show up to listen. But they will.

        2. And the fawning audiences are nothing more than industrial apparatchiks who have been instructed, like Soviet politburu trained seals, to applaud frequently and not be the first to stop clapping.

      2. Just to show how fucked up government is, let’s just assume for a moment that imminent, catastrophic global warming were to be conclusively shown to be real. Like, we’re ten years away from a disaster.

        In Reality #1, the governments of the world go on a crash course to try to deal with the problem.

        In Reality #2, the markets are incentivized by this news to go on a crash course to try to deal with the problem.

        Which would work better?

        1. Didn’t we experience a miniature version of this with the Y2K crisis? I haven’t seen any post-apocalypse analysis of who did what. I do remember all kinds of fixes being offered, and we even put away about a week’s worth of staples in case our local grocer was not up to snuff.

          1. Why do you use so many staples, hmmm?

            -not the NSA-

  8. Proglodytes hate crony capitalism just as much as libertarians. The difference is that, while libertarians hate the cronyism, proglodytes hate the capitalism. Mark my words, when it comes to cronyism, if Warren ever gets anywhere near power, she’ll make Obama look like a piker. Remember, we’re talking about someone who got paid $300K for a part-time government job. They don’t have a problem with inequality. They have a problem with not deciding who gets what.

    1. Libertarians hate cronyism and love free markets.

      Proggies don’t know the difference between cronyism and free markets.

      1. We understand that to prevent something you have to, like, enforce that prevention and not assume capitalists in the absence of oversight will all behave like altruistic unicorns.

        1. But you do assume that your masters in government will behave like altruistic unicorns.

          The irony is hysterical.

          1. You don’t understand. The solution to abuse of power is giving those with power more power to abuse. And if they continue to abuse their power, give them more power. Eventually they’ll have so much power that they’ll make themselves stop abusing it. Or something.

          2. Markets aren’t self-regulating, so we need oversight by government, which is. I thought everyone knew that.

            1. Government gets replaced with a new one every 2 years depending on the judgment of the voting public. Markets reward virtue only incidentally. They are amoral and are meant to be.

              1. Government gets replaced with a new one every 2 years depending on the judgment of the voting public.

                Now that is really stupid. I mean, really really stupid.
                Regulations are not replaced.
                Legislation is not replaced.
                The bureaucracies that enforce said regulation and legislation are not replaced.
                Shitty regulation and legislation that causes more harm than good is not replaced.

                Markets replace things. That’s why we have mp3 players. If government was in charge we’d still be using cylindrical wax records.

                1. If government was in charge we’d still be using cylindrical wax records.


                  And you could choose between both kinds of music; Country and Western
                  !

                  1. Country and Western!

                    Rock and Roll
                    Rhythm and Blues
                    Toccata and Fugue

              2. Markets reward people who give other people what they want at a price they can afford. Markets reward people who make the most efficient use of scarce resources. And firms in a free market are replaced constantly by the desires of their customers.

                As for your last sentence, you are utterly clueless about morality. You think theft, violence, and intimidation are perfectly moral as long as its done by people you like.

              3. Government gets replaced with a new one every 2 years depending on the judgment of the voting public.

                Refresh my memory as to how that works out in practice, both generally and from a gay man’s perspective.

                1. Ours isn’t the best example of a well-functioning government, for sure. Not sure what being gay has to do with it.

                  1. Tyranny of the majority, anyone?

                  2. What’s the best example, Tony Baloney?

                    1. According to Forbes, Denmark.

                    2. There it is a again. Denmark.

                      You can do a lot when you have a small, homogeneous country of five million who all think alike. Not so easy with one as deep and diverse as America with a population of 310 million.

                    3. By way of example: The DFW metroplex has more people than Denmark. And DFW is far more diverse by any metric.

                    4. I’d love to read the scholarship on this ubiquitous claim that Scandinavia does socialism so well because they lack diversity. Because I’m not getting why there’s a connection.

                      Are you saying that if only this country didn’t have lots of people who get fidgety at the thought of a bigger welfare state, it would work just fine here? Okay, I can agree with that…

                    5. Long time reader, first time poster. I’m also a Danish ex-patriot living in the United States.

                      “According to Forbes, Denmark.”

                      Absolutely Denmark has a well-functioning government, much to the detriment of it’s citizens. It works so well that it forces 64% of its work force to pay for the other 36%, who either has a government job or gets paid to sit at home and get drunk all day.

                      As generations come and go, more and more people come to the conclusion that tax payer money financed income is their right, not just something for an emergency. And the Danish parties (all socialists, the “Libertarian” party there believes that income tax should be lowered to 40%) are more than happy to oblige an ever increasing moocher voting bloc.

                      So yeah, the Danish government is pretty well-functioning, much like flesh-eating bacteria functions really well, just not for the host. It doesn’t benefit those who are still stupid enough to work there. Like my friends and family who see more and more of their incomes disappear, while government services (except welfare) gets worse and worse.

                      In contrast I make less money here, but have twice the disposable income. On top of more disposable income, the buying power of every $ I earn is vastly higher. Add to that, that healthcare is cheaper and light years ahead of what I had in Denmark, it’s no contest.

                      If you love Denmark so much, you should go live there, I’ll write you a reference.

                    6. +1000 HolgerDanske is my new mancrush

                    7. gets paid to sit at home and get drunk all day

                      That’s kind of how I remember Denmark (OK, that’s what everyone in Flensburg says about them so it must be true amirite?)

                    8. “That’s kind of how I remember Denmark (OK, that’s what everyone in Flensburg says about them so it must be true amirite?)”

                      Close enough anyway. There’s a lot of population overlap in the border region, and people know whats up on either side.

                      Any poll that shows you how ecstatically happy Danes are, were drawn from the 36% percent. The rest are too busy trying to survive to answer silly polls.

                  3. Tony|8.11.14 @ 1:29PM|#
                    “Ours isn’t the best example of a well-functioning government, for sure”

                    Yep, damning with faint praise there.
                    Our government hasn’t yet committed mass murder of the citizens, so we should give thanks.

                    1. Trail of tears? Wounded knee?

              4. Imagine if you get to pick what to eat for dinner or what clothes to wear every two years.

              5. Government gets replaced with a new one every 2 years depending on the judgment of the voting public. Markets reward virtue only incidentally. They are amoral and are meant to be.

                Ahhh but electorates are true bastions of moral decision-making.

              6. “Markets reward virtue only incidentally.”

                True, but they are good at it. And incidental rewarding of virtue is still better than deliberate thwarting of virtue, which is what governments tend to do.

          3. of course not. the reality is we need a balance of government oversight and markets. Of course on blogs like this one extreme or the other is the only thing being discussed.

            Anyone with an IQ over 10 knows it is impossible to achieve such balance due to money and the various dick measuring contests required.

            1. Other than reacting to force and fraud, enforcing contracts, and providing courts where people can resolve disputes, I can’t see any need for government oversight in markets.

              Anything more than that snowballs.

              1. so you are fine with slave labor, unsafe workplaces, child labor, no breaks, no vacation, $1 a day pay, massive pollution (see china, not that you can due to smog), insider trading, monopolies, price fixing, dumping, etc…?

                1. Wow. That’s a lot to respond to.

                  No I’m not fine with slave labor. However, like Jim Crow, you do realize that that was because of government, not in spite of it.

                  Workplace safety comes naturally as economies grow richer. No need for government there.

                  Children should be allowed to work. Seriously. And for cheap too. Though I’m sure union folks would have a thing to say about that. After all, the first child labor laws were crafted for unions who didn’t like cheap competition.

                  Breaks, pay, and vacation should all be up to the employer and employee. After all, no one forces anyone to work anywhere. They can always leave.

                  Pollution should be left to tortes.

                  Monopolies generally require government force to suppress competition. There are exceptions, but they are rare.

                  Price fixing can be solved by government allowing competition.

                  Dumping is fine. If someone else wants to subsidize consumers, that’s their deal.

                  1. Typical Libertarian fantasy land response. I did not expect anything else.

                    1. I think you’re gonna have to get a bigger stupid meter, sarc.

                    2. I think you’re gonna have to get a bigger stupid meter, sarc.

                      I think you are correct. JM is threatening to break my smugness meter.

                    3. Typical Libertarian fantasy land response.

                      I see. So you worship violence. Gotcha. That’s about what I expected.

                2. “so you are fine with slave labor,…massive pollution…”

                  What part about “Other than reacting to force and fraud” did you not understand? As for the rest of this, it’s amusing to us what you assume about how things will play out under voluntary exchange.

                  1. History shows us exactly how it will play out. Your ignorance not withstanding. See early 1900’s in the USA.

                    1. Actually, history shows us what offers the better chance for economic improvement, and it’s not government coercion.

                    2. guess you failed US history class. The most vibrant economic times in US history were after the government reigned in the monopolist and abusing corporations. Oh and the taxes on the wealthy were at their highest levels.

                      Funny how reality differs from fantasy land.

                    3. guess you failed US history class. The most vibrant economic times in US history were after the government reigned in the monopolist and abusing corporations. Oh and the taxes on the wealthy were at their highest levels.

                      You mean right after WWII when we were the only country with factories that hadn’t been bombed to shit? I wonder if that had anything to do with anything.

                    4. Suggest you read a bit more history before you comment. In the early 1950’s Germany’s economic output was over double what it was before the war. Italy, France, Japan, etc… were rapidly growing too.

                    5. Jim. You have no concept of history. Our highest tax rates on the wealthy were during the depression. Our lowest in the last 150 years were in the 1980s, which showed the highest recorded level of growth.

                    6. “Our lowest in the last 150 years were in the 1980s, which showed the highest recorded level of growth.”

                      Sure for you 1%ers. Normal peoples wages have declined since the 70’s.

                    7. But you’re the one that was quoting economic output and the vibrancy of the economy. You just changed the conversation based on what is convenient to your agenda. That makes you a child throwing a tantrum.

                    8. “Jim. You have no concept of history. Our highest tax rates on the wealthy were during the depression.”

                      no. the highest personal income tax rate was 94% in 1944-45. The highest rates during the 1930’s were at 25%…the lowest _ever_

                    9. Please cite.

                    10. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/…..ual-1.html

                      did it for you.

                    11. Dumb thing to argue about either way. Keynesians gonna Keynes.

                    12. Suggest you read a bit more history before you comment. In the early 1950’s Germany’s economic output was over double what it was before the war. Italy, France, Japan, etc… were rapidly growing too.

                      Those countries were bombed into ashes. Every new log that was cut and every new factory built represented an enormous unit of economic growth, that doesn’t mean warfare made them prosperous. When your starting point is 0% a 100% increase in wealth isn’t something to get too excited about.

                    13. Well, the bombing of Dresden did break a shit-ton of windows…

                    14. Ah, yes. WWI, Great Depression, WWII. Vibrant economic times those were. For what vibrancy that did occur during that time and following, don’t give the government any credit.

                    15. Great Depression was caused by lack of government oversight…greedy investors running amok. Just like the latest recession we are still recovering from…well everyone except the 1%. Funny how history repeats itself.

                    16. But we had 90% taxes under Hoover. And massive government programs used only for the sake of fixing the economy. Then FDR extended them and the depression got…you guessed it, even worse! You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

                    17. “You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.”

                      You should take your own advice. The only reason we came out of the depression was due to government programs. And the whole reason we ran into a depression was because of capitalism running amok without some regulation.

                    18. Government programs started by Hoover and extended by FDR. They were basically the same president.

                    19. capitalism running amok

                      That has only ever happened in your head.

                    20. ‘Capitalism running amok.”

                      /rolls eyes.

                      Jim is your run of the mill shrill left-wing bot with a tenuous grasp of history.

                    21. Great Depression was caused by lack of government oversight…greedy investors running amok. Just like the latest recession we are still recovering from…well everyone except the 1%. Funny how history repeats itself.

                      There’s no substance to this argument. Just the talking points drilled into young serf’s heads by the public schools. Populist buzzwords don’t constitute an argument.

                    22. “Great Depression was caused by lack of government oversight…greedy investors running amok. Just like the latest recession we are still recovering from…well everyone except the 1%. Funny how history repeats itself.”

                      If there’s one thing we’re not lacking in now, nor were we in the 20s, it’s government oversight. The 1% are just the one with the keys to government rules and policy. Funny how history repeats itself.

                    23. You mean during the depression retard?

                    24. History shows us exactly how it will play out. Your ignorance not withstanding. See early 1900’s in the USA.

                      You mean the era of such a profound expansion of wealth and increased standards of living that the world had never yet seen?

                      Typical Libertarian fantasy land response. I did not expect anything else.

                      That’s not an argument.

                      guess you failed US history class. The most vibrant economic times in US history were after the government reigned in the monopolist and abusing corporations. Oh and the taxes on the wealthy were at their highest levels.

                      Which era was this? Give me dates. The world we live in was created by the profound innovation of markets fueled by individuals trying to make their material existence better. The industrial revolution was a thing the people made happen, not the state. What history class taught you this?

                3. You need to work on your reading comprehension. But it’s typical for lefties to assume that there need to be explicit laws determining what is or is not allowed in order to have a functioning legal system.

                  Seriously, you think slave labor would be allowed in a Libertarian society, just because there is no law to specifically outlaw it?

                  That’s the same kind of idiocy that makes you people assume the Second Amendment is some kind of fictional right to murder people.

            2. “of course not. the reality is we need a balance of government oversight and markets. Of course on blogs like this one extreme or the other is the only thing being discussed.”

              Just because progressives demonize libertarianism by creating a caricature of it doesn’t mean that that’s what most libertarians want.

              In fact, by and large, libertarians would be happy with cutting back the size of the federal government by 50%, reducing federal regulations by 80%, and have a balanced budget.

              And if you think that’s extreme, that’s actually the federal government of a few decades ago.

        2. You just broke my stupid meter. It went up to eleven, but you just broke it.

      2. Proggies don’t know the difference between cronyism and free markets.

        Proggies think that everything that they don’t like is just one undifferentiated blob of evil. I’ve talked to progs who either don’t know or won’t admit to knowing otherwise.

    2. I disagree, proglodytes love crony capitalism. That’s the true purpose of their quest for power. It’s only that up until now, they’ve at least attempted to disguise it. The mask has fully slipped now.

  9. My employer has an intranet that posts industry relevant news. Typically it is very specific but last month one really stuck out. They had posted an impassioned defense of the Ex-Im Bank. Now, like most libertarians, I’m a dyed-in-the-wool crony capitalist so I think our government should protect entrenched domestic interests at the expense of free markets wherever possible. GO EX-IM! EX-IM FORERVER.

    1. I’m the same way about my ag subsidy checks. I’m 100% libertarian, okay, but you have to have sympathy or something for the poor, struggling family farmers. Keep my ag subsidy checks coming. AG WELFARE FORErVER!

      And, when I turn 65, you damn-well better not cut my social security, you damn hippies.

  10. It will be interesting to see what they come up with next to avoid admitting the opposing team might actually be right about something. Please, anything but that.

    Feel free to put this in damn near any article regarding TEAM….it applies, always.

  11. Look, Tony has showed up to support cronyism. Wonders never cease.

  12. It’s the same with everything. Both teams ok with imperial presidency and big brother stuff as long as it’s there guy or they thought of it first.

  13. Is there anyone with more than seven brain cells (Tony, this is where you take a smoke break) that there’s little to no difference between the two parties? The two parties have swapped roles over time, some issues oscillating back and forth. The one constant is both becoming dyed in the wool Statist and buying and selling cronyism like it’s on an exchange of some kind.

    1. Long answer: one pays lip service to economic liberty while being openly hostile to personal liberty, while the other gives lip service to personal liberty while being openly hostile to economic liberty.

      Short answer: no.

      1. But Sarc, it’s your best hope for protecting your life, liberty and property, right? There is no system that could ever be conceivably better than this.

        1. Why do you keep claiming that I believe government is the best and only way to do this? I’ve never said that.

          I’ve only said that government is inevitable and unavoidable.

          When it comes to the last word in organized violence over a given geographical area, there can be only one.

          Death and taxes.

          1. I’ve only said that government is inevitable and unavoidable

            Yes yes “death and taxes”. The problem with that analogy is that one of those things is a biologically inescapable outcome of the laws of nature and the other is a thing that exists entirely within human relationships and has not always existed and has not been demonstrated to be necessary in making those relationships function.

            When it comes to the last word in organized violence over a given geographical area, there can be only one.

            No, you’re thinking of Highlander.

            1. Dude, just look at the Middle East. That’s what happens when you have groups competing over who decides conflicts. Eventually one will win, and it will become government. You can’t escape it.

              Now will you please stop saying that I think that government is the best way to protect your life, liberty and property?

              Accepting reality is not the same as liking it.

        2. They can pay lip service and be hostile to whatever they want, I don’t care. What I do care about is that they try to impose their social and economic views on the country as policy, and that they simply have no constitutional authority for.

          The system is fine in principle, it’s just been undermined by a supreme court that has ignored the constitutional limits on the federal government.

  14. Caption: “My tits are this big. The fact that you think they are smaller shows you are a tool of the patriarchy and its narrow and racist view of reality. Resist the hegemony of your senses and glory in my big, firm tits!”

    1. Big and firm? I don’t believe it.

  15. …”Government, they say, should not be picking winners and losers.”…

    This applies to mid-east power-blocks along with the Solyndras of the world.

  16. I did not expect that from Warren. We just got a glimpse of what she would be like as president–strikingly similar to just about any politician! She’d probably be not too far off from Obama, probably a dovish Bush IV.

  17. missed alt-text opportunity:

    The blood of the innocent: You’re soaking in it.

  18. The article is right. This should be one of the easiest things that the left/right derps should agree on. The fact that anyone on the left (OWS!) thinks the Im/Ex is good idea, just proves that they will disagree with anything anyone on the right thinks.

    Seriously, just get a repub to say they are against cap punishment and soon, all lefties will be for it.

    Tonys, can you please explain how the Ex/Im is a good idea. (No, you can’t).

  19. Other than Elizabeth Warren, are there any other fake Indians that support the import-export bank?

    1. Fake Indians are a really small and endangered minority, and they are subject to severe discrimination in employment and housing. It’s not fair, we need to include Fake Indians in civil rights legislation as a protected class!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.