So much for conservative "corporatists."

[fivepoint]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/03/auto.poll/index.html

Sixty-one percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey out Wednesday are dead set against the federal government providing billions of dollars in assistance the the auto makers, with 36 percent favoring such a bailout.

The poll also suggests that a vast majority of Republicans, 70 percent, oppose the bailout, with 62 percent of independents and 55 percent of Democrats also opposed.

Hmmm... strange. Those conservatives who are supposedly 'in the pocket' of big business don't support this corporate welfare, but the liberals are split on the idea. Thank God some people in this country still care about the free market and a small (constitutional) government. Thank God we haven't TOTALLY given up on healthy competition and the business life-cycle. Thank God some people aren't willing to sit back and let the government give 'free rides' to everyone that asks for them.

"Right now, I don't think there are the votes. I don't know of a single Republican who's willing to support the auto bailout."
-Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

I hope everybody here writes their congressman or senator and tries to get this bill stopped before it's too late! We shouldn't let the senior Democrat legislators run this through!

[BigHungry04]

All I got to say is if Chrysler fails, I sure hope someone picks up my lifetime powertrain warranty, and lifetime bumper to bumper warranty I have on my Dodge Avenger!

[leekohler]

If the votes aren't there, why are you worried? :confused:

And if you're going to be honest, who was it who asked for the bank bailouts again?

[mactastic]

Surprise surprise... conservative corporatists eagerly supported a bailout of the white collar non-union financial sector, but won't support a bailout of the blue collar unionized automotive sector.

Wonder why that could be?

[leekohler]

Surprise surprise... conservative corporatists eagerly supported a bailout of the white collar non-union financial sector, but won't support a bailout of the blue collar unionized automotive sector.

Wonder why that could be?


Gee, I have no idea. :rolleyes:

Fivepoint, is it too much to ask for you to start a thread that also doesn't come across as a jab at members here? This is a worthwhile subject, but the way you title your threads....jeez.

[bradl]

Okay.. let's do some Government Math.

Congress = 535 (435 in the House, 100 in the Senate)

First, the House. of that 435, 236 are Blue, 198 are Red.* Of that 236, add 48.** Of the 198, add 49. So you're at 284 and 247. Of that 284 of the Blues, 156 are against this. Of the 247, 172 are against. Of the independents, if 2/3rds are opposed that means that there are 3 independents in the entire Congress, with 2 of them opposed.

And you're talking a non-filibuster proof Senate that has been stagnant because of an even stalemate, and thinking this is going to PASS?!?

You do realize this hot air here, right? nothing anyone needs to write their Senator or Congressman about if the MAJORITY of them are totally against this anyway.

BL.

* 1 seat is vacant
** seat vacated by Obama

[leekohler]

Wow! Talk about post and run! :)

[fivepoint]

Surprise surprise... conservative corporatists eagerly supported a bailout of the white collar non-union financial sector, but won't support a bailout of the blue collar unionized automotive sector.

Wonder why that could be?

How about you post some data to back that up. I'm pretty sure I read several polls at that time which showed that a majority of Republicans and Conservatives DID NOT support the financial sector bail-out.



Gee, I have no idea. :rolleyes:

Fivepoint, is it too much to ask for you to start a thread that also doesn't come across as a jab at members here? This is a worthwhile subject, but the way you title your threads....jeez.

The reason this comes across as a jab to you, is because it goes against your worldview. It comes across as a jab because you are a liberal, and these are conservative principles. How is it a JAB to state the facts about who supports it, and who doesn't, and then state a personal opinion about how I value the free market and a constitutional government? How is that a jab?

Heck, look at some of the other threads on here, which you DON'T criticize as a jab. Just a few threads from here there's one called "What's not hanging at the White House" with comments like "Laura Bush is a jackdick." which you never commented on as being "jabs" or biased. The reason my posts bother you is because you are not a fiscal or constitutional conservative. Seems pretty obvious.



Wow! Talk about post and run! :)

Hmmm... sorry I don't spend my entire day on these forums, Lee. It has been around 45 minutes since I started the thread. Sorry I was away for so long! JEEZ!

[mactastic]

How about you post some data to back that up. I'm pretty sure I read several polls at that time which showed that a majority of Republicans and Conservatives DID NOT support the financial sector bail-out.
Um... OK (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14233.html).

The reason this comes across as a jab to you, is because it goes against your worldview. It comes across as a jab because you are a liberal, and these are conservative principles. How is it a JAB to state the facts about who supports it, and who doesn't, and then state a personal opinion about how I value the free market and a constitutional government? How is that a jab?
How about you post some data to support your contention that liberals support this bailout?

[fivepoint]

Um... OK (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14233.html).9/QUOTE]

Here's a quote from your article which backs up the idea that conservatives are against bailouts in general.

[QUOTE]Given the conservative, often populist rhetoric against what critics describe as a “Wall Street bailout,” no one expects to find the same level of support in the House.


Besides, what we're talking about is public support (read the first post). My point here was to show public support of bailouts and compare registered republicans and democrats.



How about you post some data to support your contention that liberals support this bailout?

I already did! Again, read the first post. It's not that difficult, man. And if you want to change the topic and discuss the legislators, than again... the Dems are pushing it through and the Republicans are fighting it almost completely.

[leekohler]

The reason this comes across as a jab to you, is because it goes against your worldview. It comes across as a jab because you are a liberal, and these are conservative principles. How is it a JAB to state the facts about who supports it, and who doesn't, and then state a personal opinion about how I value the free market and a constitutional government? How is that a jab?

Heck, look at some of the other threads on here, which you DON'T criticize as a jab. Just a few threads from here there's one called "What's not hanging at the White House" with comments like "Laura Bush is a jackdick." which you never commented on as being "jabs" or biased. The reason my posts bother you is because you are not a fiscal or constitutional conservative. Seems pretty obvious.

You don't know jack s*** about me. If you did, you'd know that I hold some values that are conservative and some that are liberal. You also have no idea what I believe fiscally, as is quite obvious from your post. I've been against all the bailouts if you've been paying any attention at all.

And yeah, your OP uses extremely inflammatory rhetoric, so it does come across as at least hysterical, if it's not indeed a jab.

[abijnk]

The reason this comes across as a jab to you, is because it goes against your worldview. It comes across as a jab because you are a liberal, and these are conservative principles.

And here I thought it had something to do with the fact that it was dripping with sarcasm and calling liberals unconstitutional. Silly me... :rolleyes:

Personally I don't support a bailout of the big 3, but it has nothing to do with 'conservative principles' and everything to do with the fact that I think it would be wasted money, just prolonging the inevitable.

I was at the LA auto show last week and was struck by the Honda and Ford exhibits. They were relatively close together, and easy to compare.

Honda:
2 new hybrid concepts (one, the Insight, coming in 2010, the other I don't remember)
1 natural gas vehicle
0 muscle cars
1 truck
2 SUVs

Ford:
1 new hybrid (the Fusion hybrid)
0 natural gas vehicles
1 muscle car
2 (maybe 3, I can't remember) trucks
2 (maybe 3, again, I can't remember) SUVs

I mean seriously... Come on guys, this isn't hard!

[Blue Velvet]

I read an interesting article about polling and media framing during the election campaign about the hooha in Washington to do with Paulson's $700billion... and it was to do with how the public's response in many polls varied to the question depending on which word or phrase was used. The word 'bailout' performed worst of all; it has the stench of losers.

Food for thought. ;)

[fivepoint]

I read an interesting article about polling and media framing during the election campaign about the hooha in Washington to do with Paulson's $700billion... and it was to do with how the public's response in many polls varied to the question depending on which word or phrase was used. The word 'bailout' performed worst of all; it has the stench of losers.

Food for thought. ;)


I saw that as well. The same can be said for almost any polls... The percentage of people who are "pro-life" and "anti-choice" are starkly different. However, trends are easy to recognize. Fiscal liberals generally have no problem with the government stepping in and bailing out private/public companies. Fiscal conservatives support the free market and a small (constitutional) government which does not buy stock in companies and bail out entire industries.

It's pretty clear here, that with nearly half of Americans who describe themselves as Democrats, supporting the auto bail-out and almost every Democrat in the Senate supporting it, which side of the fiscal line the party Democratic party is on.

The majority of republicans in this country however have shown a principled skepticism and moral abhorrence to both of the bailouts. I am asking everyone here to justify this to me. If Republicans are supposed to be evil corporation lovers, how come they don't support them when they're dying? And why do the Democrats?

[MacNut]

I would rather not give anyone a bailout. Lets just grin and bare it and let everything tank and pick up the pieces later. Fear is what is causing the bailouts not common sense.

I would rather see 700 billion go to people that will put it to good use. Lets start some new companies that have fresh ideas. Lets pay off the debt. Lets put it towards healthcare. Don't give it to corrupt businesses.

[leekohler]

Hmm...this is interesting:

http://www.southernstudies.org/2008/10/investigation-how-did-republicans-get-8.html

[MacNut]

Hmm...this is interesting:

http://www.southernstudies.org/2008/10/investigation-how-did-republicans-get-8.htmlMore reason not to give bailouts.

[rdowns]

I would rather see 700 billion go to people that will put it to good use. Lets start some new companies that have fresh ideas. Lets pay off the debt. Lets put it towards healthcare. Don't give it to corrupt businesses.

The 700 billion is debt and therefore can't be used to pay off the debt.

[.Andy]

It's pretty clear here, that with nearly half of Americans who describe themselves as Democrats, supporting the auto bail-out and almost every Democrat in the Senate supporting it, which side of the fiscal line the party Democratic party is on.

The majority of republicans in this country however have shown a principled skepticism and moral abhorrence to both of the bailouts. I am asking everyone here to justify this to me. If Republicans are supposed to be evil corporation lovers, how come they don't support them when they're dying? And why do the Democrats?
Because republicans are motivated by the ideology of government not spending money, ergo republicans pay less taxes and have more money for themselves. It has very little to do with how you paint it - skepticism and morality. I think you'll find that people on both sides of your synthetic political divide would much rather not bail out anyone, the problem lies with what is the best for your economy (which is debatable). I'm 100% sure that of the people polled very few thought about it in any more detail into the socioeconomic ramifications of their choice. It was all down to their ideology.

[MacNut]

The 700 billion is debt and therefore can't be used to pay off the debt.You mean more debt. If we are gonna just blow money on something lets at least get something in return.

How can we afford to bail out with money we don't have. Who will be flipping the bill in the long run. The tax payer. We are going to suffer no matter what.

[.Andy]

You mean more debt. If we are gonna just blow money on something lets at least get something in return.
I though the economic aim behind the spending was the hope that you'd still have some domestic industry, a whole heap less unemployed citizens, and an economy that doesn't slide into an ice age?

[MacNut]

I though the economic aim behind the spending was the hope that you'd still have some domestic industry, a whole heap less unemployed citizens, and an economy that doesn't slide into an ice age?Hope is the key word. We don't know if this will work.

No matter what people will lose jobs and businesses will close.

The bailout is like a band aid. Eventually it will fall off and the pain will return.

[hulugu]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/03/auto.poll/index.html



Hmmm... strange. Those conservatives who are supposedly 'in the pocket' of big business don't support this corporate welfare, but the liberals are split on the idea. Thank God some people in this country still care about the free market and a small (constitutional) government. Thank God we haven't TOTALLY given up on healthy competition and the business life-cycle. Thank God some people aren't willing to sit back and let the government give 'free rides' to everyone that asks for them.

"Right now, I don't think there are the votes. I don't know of a single Republican who's willing to support the auto bailout."
-Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

I hope everybody here writes their congressman or senator and tries to get this bill stopped before it's too late! We shouldn't let the senior Democrat legislators run this through!

I wish you'd quit framing the argument this way. You keep promoting the idea that there exists a dichotomy between Constitutionalists (those who believe in "small government" and "free-market" principles [really more framing]) and everyone else.

Secondly, it appears that the executives are their own worst enemies. From the article:
In early November, polls indicated that nearly half the public supported federal assistance to the big auto makers when this issue first came before Congress.
But evidence in surveys from other organizations suggests that the poor performance by executives from GM, Ford and Chrysler at congressional hearings, and the admission that they had taken private jets to get there, resulted in a steep drop in support for government assistance to automakers.

So, rather than a suddenly libertarian revolution, we see the public frustrated by overprivileged executives at a moment when their worried about their own skin. And, the people polled are thinking about their own skin, as the article points out: "forty-three percent say they would eventually feel an effect from such a bankruptcy, and 24 percent say they will never feel the impact."

I'd think rather than framing this as conservative principles at work, you should really think that Americans, tired to seeing bailout after bailout to poorly managed corporations are willing to sacrifice the Detroit auto-industry because they believe it won't really affect them. It's an entirely reasonable viewpoint, but not the one you ascribe to, necessarily.

I saw that as well. The same can be said for almost any polls... The percentage of people who are "pro-life" and "anti-choice" are starkly different. However, trends are easy to recognize. Fiscal liberals generally have no problem with the government stepping in and bailing out private/public companies. Fiscal conservatives support the free market and a small (constitutional) government which does not buy stock in companies and bail out entire industries.

It's pretty clear here, that with nearly half of Americans who describe themselves as Democrats, supporting the auto bail-out and almost every Democrat in the Senate supporting it, which side of the fiscal line the party Democratic party is on.

The majority of republicans in this country however have shown a principled skepticism and moral abhorrence to both of the bailouts. I am asking everyone here to justify this to me. If Republicans are supposed to be evil corporation lovers, how come they don't support them when they're dying? And why do the Democrats?

Well, there's a multitude of reasons, but I think the Democrats relationship to the UAW means a lot, and I also think the Republicans contempt for unions also matters. For instance, in Mitt Romney's NYTimes Op-Ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html), he writes:

That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Now, I'm not critiquing Romney in this case, I think the piece is pretty good, but standing firm on this bailout dovetails very nicely with an idea that has run through conservative cycles for generations.
Similar arguments have been repeated in the WSJ and the FT.

I continue to be a pragmatist about this issue, I'm beginning to think that Romney might be right and a reorganization driven by bankruptcy might be the key for Detroit, but at the same time I like the deal given to Tesla, a loan so they could continue to produce their electrically-driven cars.

[rdowns]

You mean more debt. If we are gonna just blow money on something lets at least get something in return.

How can we afford to bail out with money we don't have. Who will be flipping the bill in the long run. The tax payer. We are going to suffer no matter what.


I'm not crazy about these bailouts and loan guarantees but I think the alternative is worse.

If these companies fail, the government will end up footing much of the bill anyway (unemployment, food stamps, welfare etc.) so I think we ought to give it a shot. Ford and GM are worth saving, I don't think Chrysler is.

[abijnk]

I don't think Chrysler is.

That's another thing. Chrysler isn't even a publicly traded company is it? At least with Ford and GM we kind of know what is going on behind closed doors.

[leekohler]

I'm not crazy about these bailouts and loan guarantees but I think the alternative is worse.

If these companies fail, the government will end up footing much of the bill anyway (unemployment, food stamps, welfare etc.) so I think we ought to give it a shot. Ford and GM are worth saving, I don't think Chrysler is.

Why not Chrysler? At least they have decent design. ;)

[Blue Velvet]

Because republicans are motivated by the ideology of government not spending money

Erm, except when they're spending many hundreds of billions with Lockheed Martin and Halliburton to name a few, for instance.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Why not Chrysler? At least they have decent design. ;)Best styling of the 3 if you ask me, But I dont get it Congress wants to give 700 billion to wall street,banks and fannie and freddie without any plan at all but 25 billion for the automakers???? Must be Fuzzy math Congress is using.

[.Andy]

Hope is the key word. We don't know if this will work.
No we don't know. We're not economists (Well I haven't sat a class since university). This is largely for them to put their case as to why the bailout will/won't work. However clinging to ideology, as always is not helpful.

No matter what people will lose jobs and businesses will close.
But the numbers can be limited with clever/lucky economic policy.

The bailout is like a band aid. Eventually it will fall off and the pain will return.
Possibly. Or alternatively businesses and legislation will learn and be shaped by the current crisis and the problem will not return. If we let businesses fail now who's to say the exact same problem won't rear it's head in the future with other businesses? The bailout is of course only part of the solution. I don't believe anyone has presented it as the be all and end all.

Erm, except when they're spending many hundreds of billions with Lockheed Martin and Halliburton to name a few, for instance.
Yeah except then :). Unfortunately when you go through the list of things that you're stereotypical republican would be happy money was spent on the list seems rather inflammatory.

[rdowns]

Why not Chrysler? At least they have decent design. ;)

Because Chrysler was bought out by a private equity firm and its strategy has been to find someone to buy them. They have nothing in their pipeline and are smaller than the other 2. The only thing Chrysler has that's worth anything is Jeep.

[leekohler]

Because Chrysler was bought out by a private equity firm and its strategy has been to find someone to buy them. They have nothing in their pipeline and are smaller than the other 2. The only thing Chrysler has that's worth anything is Jeep.

Design-wise they've got some damn nice looking cars though:

Crossfire
300m
Charger
Challenger (my favorite)

I'm sorry- those cars are hot.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Because Chrysler was bought out by a private equity firm and its strategy has been to find someone to buy them. They have nothing in their pipeline and are smaller than the other 2. The only thing Chrysler has that's worth anything is Jeep.You forgot the new Challenger me thinks.

[rdowns]

Design-wise they've got some damn nice looking cars though:

Crossfire
300m
Charger
Challenger (my favorite)

I'm sorry- those cars are hot.


All are very nice looking cars. The Crossfire was already cancelled. The Charger and Challenger don't sell well.

[Blue Velvet]

I think the piece is pretty good

Except that those agreements have already been signed.

In 2007, the Big Three signed a breakthrough contract with the United Auto Workers (UAW) designed, once and for all, to eliminate the compensation gap between domestic and foreign automakers in the U.S.

The agreement sought to do so, first, by creating a private trust for financing future retiree benefits--effectively removing that burden from the companies' books. The auto companies agreed to deposit start-up money in the fund; after that, however, it would be up to the unions to manage the money. And it was widely understood that, given the realities of investment returns and health care economics, over time retiree health benefits would likely become less generous.

In addition, management and labor agreed to change health benefits for all workers, active or retired, so that the coverage looked more like the policies most people have today, complete with co-payments and deductibles. The new UAW agreement also changed the salary structure, by creating a two-tiered wage system. Under this new arrangement, the salary scale for newly hired workers would be lower than the salary scale for existing workers.

One can debate the propriety and wisdom of these steps; two-tiered wage structures, in particular, raise various ethical concerns. But one thing is certain: It was a radical change that promised to make Detroit far more competitive. If carried out as planned, by 2010--the final year of this existing contract--total compensation for the average UAW worker would actually be less than total compensation for the average non-unionized worker at a transplant factory. The only problem is that it will be several years before these gains show up on the bottom line--years the industry probably won't have if it doesn't get financial assistance from the government.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1026e955-541c-4aa6-bcf2-56dfc3323682

And once again, you come back to the same circular issue... workers need those benefits in the US because you don't have the social provisions you have in other countries like Japan, for instance. Why spend a large chunk of your pay on health insurance in a country where your health costs and retirement are covered?

And if people think skilled workers should be paid Mexican standards of pay, then you'll end up with a Mexican-level economy.

When Mitt Romney says:

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car.

without any data, sources or attribution to back that up, then I smell a political argument in search of a scapegoat, not a financial and business one.

[mactastic]

[QUOTE=mactastic;6706510]Um... OK (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14233.html).9/QUOTE]

Here's a quote from your article which backs up the idea that conservatives are against bailouts in general.



Besides, what we're talking about is public support (read the first post). My point here was to show public support of bailouts and compare registered republicans and democrats.
Interesting that this (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0908/Bailout_Poll_30_percent_for_45_against_.html) poll seems to show that more Democrats opposed the financial bailout of the banking sector than Republicans.

Sorta drives a stake through the heart of your "conservatives opposed the bailout while liberals supported it" argument.

I would also note that while fewer Republicans support the auto bailout than Democrats, in neither case do a majority of either party support the bailout. I'd hardly say that's definitive proof that liberals support bailouts, while Republicans do not. Sounds like neither side's rank-and-file support the bailout.

I already did! Again, read the first post. It's not that difficult, man. And if you want to change the topic and discuss the legislators, than again... the Dems are pushing it through and the Republicans are fighting it almost completely.
Again, you have to ask "why"? Why would Republican legislators support the bailout of the non-union banking sector, and not support the bailout of the unionized automotive sector? Could it possibly have something to do with their decades-long effort to destroy unions in this country?

[hulugu]

Except that those agreements have already been signed....

I'll have to look at those agreements, but I also didn't make my point very clear. I used Romney's article as a way to prove that conservatives are banging on the UAW drum. I don't necessarily agree, but I think it's worth talking about and that's why I think the Romney article might be correct.

And once again, you come back to the same circular issue... workers need those benefits in the US because you don't have the social provisions you have in other countries like Japan, for instance. Why spend a large chunk of your pay on health insurance in a country where your health costs and retirement are covered?

And if people think skilled workers should be paid Mexican standards of pay, then you'll end up with a Mexican-level economy.

Well, that's interesting, because Honda and Toyota also make cars in the US, but they make them in "right-to-work" states like Tennessee and Georgia without union contracts. Now, there's problems in this, for instance Honda uses "temp" workers at half-wages and there have been safety complaints from line-workers, and yet Honda and Toyota are able to make this work and workers are doing rather well. If my quick research is correct the base salary at Honda is $25 per hour, putting Honda's workers at slightly above the national average income.

When Mitt Romney says....without any data, sources or attribution to back that up, then I smell a political argument in search of a scapegoat, not a financial and business one.

The figure is a strapped-chicken, I guess I automatically filtered it, but I think the argument is still valid. Ford, Chrysler, and GM need to reorganize their business and this should include new agreements with the UAW. Read the rest of Romney's op-ed.

[takao]

All are very nice looking cars. The Crossfire was already cancelled. The Charger and Challenger don't sell well.

to make it worse for chrysler it's former staples jeep + chrysler voyager also stopped selling great abroad (at least around here)

amplified with the fact that the prices seem ridiculous high on some modells like the 300c ... where people would rather take a basic Mercedes E with less features than the 300C which is based on the _old_ E plattform to beginn with


that said i just read that Chrysler needs 7 billions before the end of the year and GM 4 billions in december as well
GM Fritz Henderson is quoted with "There is no Plan B"

you gotta be kidding me

[fivepoint]

I wish you'd quit framing the argument this way. You keep promoting the idea that there exists a dichotomy between Constitutionalists (those who believe in "small government" and "free-market" principles [really more framing]) and everyone else.

I don't see this as framing at all. These are fundamental core philosophies. Do you deny that a 'small government' is more constitutional than a large one? Are you indicating in some way that the founding fathers and the constitution did not consider limiting the size and scope of the federal government as one of the (if not THE) main underlying foundation of everything they did? Do you make that claim?



So, rather than a suddenly libertarian revolution, we see the public frustrated by overprivileged executives at a moment when their worried about their own skin. And, the people polled are thinking about their own skin, as the article points out: "forty-three percent say they would eventually feel an effect from such a bankruptcy, and 24 percent say they will never feel the impact."

I'd think rather than framing this as conservative principles at work, you should really think that Americans, tired to seeing bailout after bailout to poorly managed corporations are willing to sacrifice the Detroit auto-industry because they believe it won't really affect them. It's an entirely reasonable viewpoint, but not the one you ascribe to, necessarily.

I guess neither one of us can be sure, but I strongly disagree with your assessment that no one is concerned about "libertarian views". Every single conservative I've talked to about the bailouts does not support them because they consider it to be an overreach by the government. They mention words like 'personal responsibility' and bring up the constitution a lot. They talk about the constitution and the powers it provides to the legislative branch which does not include investment in private business. Sure, I think they're very pissed that it's THEIR money being given to these corporations... but that's natural instinct, as well as conservative ideology. That's common sense, side by side with conservative principle. I would hope that EVERYONE has these sorts of gut reactions, but for many any sort of governmental spending is a GOOD THING, and it's those people who scare me.



Well, there's a multitude of reasons, but I think the Democrats relationship to the UAW means a lot, and I also think the Republicans contempt for unions also matters. For instance, in Mitt Romney's NYTimes Op-Ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html), he writes:

How the hell is any company supposed to survive when they're paying unskilled laborers $25/hr? How about the THOUSANDS of union workers being payed 95% of normal wage to do NOTHING? How is this a free market? This is just one example of the inefficiencies which are rampant in these companies. This business model is ruined and deserves the death that's coming. (not to mention the fact that they shouldn't have saved Chrysler the FIRST TIME so that we wouldn't have to be back in the exact same position now, only worse) Hopefully some people much smarter than the ones currently in charge make the changes necessary AFTER bankruptcy.



Now, I'm not critiquing Romney in this case, I think the piece is pretty good, but standing firm on this bailout dovetails very nicely with an idea that has run through conservative cycles for generations.
Similar arguments have been repeated in the WSJ and the FT.


I'm glad you see the logic in Romney's case. It's pretty clear cut. Again, almost every single conservative I've talked about this to was against the financial sector bailout as much as this one. The only reason there were a few more people being wishy-washy about it, were because the scare tactics being implemented by the media and the politicians. Most conservatives didn't have nearly as good of a handle/understanding of the financial sector, so many were forced to simply throw up their arms and say "I hope they do whatever is right. My gut tells me this is wrong, and I know government shouldn't be involved in this, but maybe it's the only way." I think your implication that conservatives are against the auto bailout because of the unions is LAUGHABLE, short-sighted, and just plain ignorant/biased. (no offense in intended. I'm talking about what you said, not who you are) Have you actually talked to conservatives about it? I have. They may not like unions, but as study after study has proven, conservatives are also far more giving and willing to offer charity than liberals... most conservatives would never wish anything bad to happen to American workers, especially in the heartland and rustbelt. Don't lower the conversation to that level and claim that one side is against it just to 'stick-it' to those "dern union folk!"

[pseudobrit]

I don't see this as framing at all. These are fundamental core philosophies.

Economic theory has advanced greatly since our Constitution was written at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and our understanding and institutional control has increased to allow for important controls.

Proper regulation must exist to provide free and fair markets. Responsible monetary policy must be used to insulate the citizenry from dramatic swings in the markets and the economy.

Any core philosophy that disdains the concept of market regulation and monetary control is deeply flawed and purely dogmatic in an arena that demands pragmatism above idealism.

[hulugu]

...I think your implication that conservatives are against the auto bailout because of the unions is LAUGHABLE, short-sighted, and just plain ignorant/biased. (no offense in intended. I'm talking about what you said, not who you are) Have you actually talked to conservatives about it? I have. They may not like unions, but as study after study has proven, conservatives are also far more giving and willing to offer charity than liberals... most conservatives would never wish anything bad to happen to American workers, especially in the heartland and rustbelt. Don't lower the conversation to that level and claim that one side is against it just to 'stick-it' to those "dern union folk!"

I'm going to be generous and chalk this up to a poorly written post, but you've completely misunderstood what I was trying to say. My point was that Republicans (notice the big 'R' and not the use of the rather nebulous "conservatives") have often been against unions, and in this case this viewpoint fits with how they seen the UAW and the Detroit automakers. They have pursued this idea in print, including the article that I linked to by Mitt Romney, a Republican.

[AP_piano295]

Hope is the key word. We don't know if this will work.

No matter what people will lose jobs and businesses will close.

The bailout is like a band aid. Eventually it will fall off and the pain will return.

Band aides also keep that injury from becoming infected and developing a life threatening disease...just saying

[leekohler]

Band aides also keep that injury from becoming infected and developing a life threatening disease...just saying

Unfortunately, we really don't know which one we'll end up with. Historically, it's even hard to tell. It's gone both ways.

[fivepoint]

I'm going to be generous and chalk this up to a poorly written post, but you've completely misunderstood what I was trying to say. My point was that Republicans (notice the big 'R' and not the use of the rather nebulous "conservatives") have often been against unions, and in this case this viewpoint fits with how they seen the UAW and the Detroit automakers. They have pursued this idea in print, including the article that I linked to by Mitt Romney, a Republican.

Maybe I'm a bit confused. Where is the "big R?" I thought I quoted you directly... here is what you said:

but standing firm on this bailout dovetails very nicely with an idea that has run through conservative cycles for generations.
Similar arguments have been repeated in the WSJ and the FT.


You seem to be indicating that by standing firm on THIS (which you italicized) bailout, the 'conservatives' are sticking with what they've done for generations... suggesting that 'conservatives' have supported non-union bailouts while not supporting bailouts of unionized industries.

Was this simply a mis-print? Did you mean Republican, and not conservative? If so, that's fine. I'll also give you the benefit of the doubt... just seemed pretty clear that you weren't talking about republicans "with a big R".

[fivepoint]

Economic theory has advanced greatly since our Constitution was written at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and our understanding and institutional control has increased to allow for important controls.

Proper regulation must exist to provide free and fair markets. Responsible monetary policy must be used to insulate the citizenry from dramatic swings in the markets and the economy.

Any core philosophy that disdains the concept of market regulation and monetary control is deeply flawed and purely dogmatic in an arena that demands pragmatism above idealism.

A. If our theories about regulation have changed, could you please tell me why the constitution has not been amended to reflect such a change in policy? Certainly you don't support the government's ability to do whatever they want without a proper amendment to the founding documents? That is, after all, the very reason the ability to make amendments even exists. You can support regulation all you want, but until amendments are made they are still unconstitutional.

B. I'm not criticizing regulation in this thread. I'm criticizing governmental bailouts of private business. Can you please find me the part of the constitution which gives the Legislature the RIGHT to do so. The constitution is very explicit on these sorts of things, so I'm sure you'll be able to find a very good quote.

C. You mentioned the large swings in the economy. Have you ever stopped to wonder if the Fed's manipulation of the interest rate has anything to do with this? Do you think that artificially low mortgage rates had ANYTHING at all to do with the current housing bubble/crisis? Maybe you can demonstrate for me how/why a couple of bankers can more efficiently determine interests than the free market?

How about the government unofficially 'backing' freddie mac and fannie mae? Do you feel that the competitive advantage they had from that backing affected the mortgage market at all?

Or the governmental bills aimed at increasing minority and low-income housing? Was this regulation related at all to the current crisis? Getting people who couldn't afford homes into homes?



Anyway... this isn't even what we're talking about in this thread. We're supposed to be talking about why in this case the supposed 'corporatist' republicans seem to be the ones willing to let these companies die, while the liberal democrats in the legislature and nearly half of the democrat public wants the taxpayers of the US to pay for the auto-maker's failures.

[leekohler]

A. If our theories about regulation have changed, could you please tell me why the constitution has not been amended to reflect such a change in policy? Certainly you don't support the government's ability to do whatever they want without a proper amendment to the founding documents? That is, after all, the very reason the ability to make amendments even exists. You can support regulation all you want, but until amendments are made they are still unconstitutional.

B. I'm not criticizing regulation in this thread. I'm criticizing governmental bailouts of private business. Can you please find me the part of the constitution which gives the Legislature the RIGHT to do so. The constitution is very explicit on these sorts of things, so I'm sure you'll be able to find a very good quote.

C. You mentioned the large swings in the economy. Have you ever stopped to wonder if the Fed's manipulation of the interest rate has anything to do with this? Do you think that artificially low mortgage rates had ANYTHING at all to do with the current housing bubble/crisis? Maybe you can demonstrate for me how/why a couple of bankers can more efficiently determine interests than the free market?

How about the government unofficially 'backing' freddie mac and fannie mae? Do you feel that the competitive advantage they had from that backing affected the mortgage market at all?

Or the governmental bills aimed at increasing minority and low-income housing? Was this regulation related at all to the current crisis? Getting people who couldn't afford homes into homes?



Anyway... this isn't even what we're talking about in this thread. We're supposed to be talking about why in this case the supposed 'corporatist' republicans seem to be the ones willing to let these companies die, while the liberal democrats in the legislature and nearly half of the democrat public wants the taxpayers of the US to pay for the auto-maker's failures.

The votes aren't there for the bailout, so what is the problem? And the majority of Democrats in the country are against it. I don't know why you keep harping that it's "almost half". It doesn't matter. The public as a whole doesn't support it.

[fivepoint]

The votes aren't there for the bailout, so what is the problem? And the majority of Democrats in the country are against it. I don't know why you keep harping that it's "almost half". It doesn't matter. The public as a whole doesn't support it.

C'mon Lee, this is just taking the easy road out and you know it. Don't you want to know why 45% of the party you voted for in November supports the bailout? And why almost 100% of that party's representatives in the Senate support it?

You want to simply ignore the issue because the votes aren't CURRENTLY there? You want to ignore the issue, sweep it under the rug, even though TODAY the big 3's CEO's are making their case in Washington?

Can't we discuss the merits of the bailout?

[bradl]

C'mon Lee, this is just taking the easy road out and you know it. Don't you want to know why 45% of the party you voted for in November supports the bailout? And why almost 100% of that party's representatives in the Senate support it?


Here is the more important question. It would be better to know whether Lee's representatives in the Senate support it or not? If they do not, it is a non-issue for Lee, because the reps for this State would not support it. He really can not do anything about the reps in States he is not eligible to vote in.


You want to simply ignore the issue because the votes aren't CURRENTLY there? You want to ignore the issue, sweep it under the rug, even though TODAY the big 3's CEO's are making their case in Washington?

Can't we discuss the merits of the bailout?

It's kind of hard to discuss the 'merits' when you have that much of a cynical title. But I'll bite. Each one has egg on their face still from flying in on corporate jets the first time. That is not going to go away in the faces of the Senate, let alone the people (keep in mind, the people are footing this bill). The Big 3 also decided afterwards to block their jets from being tracked, then shut down their flight department.

None of the Big 3 have any answers for the innovations happening in Japan right now. Nissan and Toyota are ripping them to shreds with hybrids. You honestly can't believe that it is just the American People that are pushing for bigger cars. The Big 3 have been supplying that vision to the People, and glamourizing it. The Big 3 realized too late that the Japanese automakers are playing a different game, and have been beating them at it for the past 3 - 4 years. The finally realized how deep they are in way too late.

Honestly, the only reason I can see the Blues being in some support for this is to keep morale up as far as jobs are concerned. Case in point: Imagine this happening 79 years ago (with a modern day Big 3) and Congress completely said no. Morale would be nearly the same now as it was then, if not worse. So as far as that goes, I can empathize. Financially, they got themselves into this; they need to work their way out.

BL.

[leekohler]

C'mon Lee, this is just taking the easy road out and you know it. Don't you want to know why 45% of the party you voted for in November supports the bailout? And why almost 100% of that party's representatives in the Senate support it?

You want to simply ignore the issue because the votes aren't CURRENTLY there? You want to ignore the issue, sweep it under the rug, even though TODAY the big 3's CEO's are making their case in Washington?

Can't we discuss the merits of the bailout?

I would love to discuss the merits of the bailout. But as long as you feel the need to play tit-for-tat about who's supporting this and who doesn't support that, when THE MAJORITY of people on both sides of the aisle don't support it, it's kind of difficult. Why can't you see the glass as half full instead of half empty? Especially when the glass is almost full?

[freeny]

And once again, you come back to the same circular issue... workers need those benefits in the US because you don't have the social provisions you have in other countries like Japan, for instance. Why spend a large chunk of your pay on health insurance in a country where your health costs and retirement are covered?


Bingo

[takao]

how about sending the big 3 the Canyonero song from Simpsons 1998 and be done with it ? ;)
"
Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
smells like a steak and seats thirty-five..

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown!

Canyonero! (Yah!) Canyonero!
[Krusty:] Hey Hey

The Federal Highway comission has ruled the
Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.

Canyonero!

12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
65 tons of American Pride!

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!

Canyonero! Canyonero! (Yah!)

She blinds everybody with her super high beams,
She's a squirrel crushing, deer smacking, driving machine!

Canyonero!-oh woah, Canyonero! (Yah!)

Drive Canyonero!

Woah Canyonero!

Woah!"

[bradl]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/03/auto.poll/index.html

"Right now, I don't think there are the votes. I don't know of a single Republican who's willing to support the auto bailout."
-Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

I hope everybody here writes their congressman or senator and tries to get this bill stopped before it's too late! We shouldn't let the senior Democrat legislators run this through!

A single Republican? hmm...

http://www.npr.org/newsinbrief/index.html#MT97856934


Bush Pushes For Auto Industry Bailout

President Bush used the word "recession" to describe the economy for the first time Friday and demanded that Congress bailout the auto industry and require car makers to pay back the loans.

"Our economy is in a recession," Bush told reporters on the South Lawn of the White House. Bush supports using $25 billion in Energy Department loans meant to promote the development of fuel efficient automotive technology.

He said it is important for Congress to redirect the Energy Department money next week. He was skeptical about Congress approving new aid and said some of the automakers may not survive.

"I am concerned about the viability of the automobile companies," he told reporters on the South Lawn. "I am concerned about those who work for the automobile companies and their families. And likewise, I am concerned about taxpayer money being provided to these companies that may not survive."


Sorta undermines the thought that Senior Democrats are pushing for this...

BL.

[leekohler]

A single Republican? hmm...

http://www.npr.org/newsinbrief/index.html#MT97856934



Sorta undermines the thought that Senior Democrats are pushing for this...

BL.

Oops. So much for that claim. :)

[MacNut]

To be honest I would rather of given the bailout to the car companies over the banks. The banks scammed money from people and got away with it. The big 3 just made mistakes. I don't like the idea of bailing out anyone that didn't use money wisely but the big 3 is needed a lot more in this country.

[pseudobrit]

A. If our theories about regulation have changed, could you please tell me why the constitution has not been amended to reflect such a change in policy? Certainly you don't support the government's ability to do whatever they want without a proper amendment to the founding documents? That is, after all, the very reason the ability to make amendments even exists. You can support regulation all you want, but until amendments are made they are still unconstitutional.

The Constitution doesn't have to change because it allows for Congress and the Executive to be as fluid as they need to be, within limits. If we had to pass an Amendment every time Congress wanted to slightly alter the scope of its omnibus spending bills we'd have a paralyzed and worthless government. The Constitution was specifically written to expand the powers of the Federal government because of the severe limitations of a concrete constructionist structure under the Articles of Confederation.

B. I'm not criticizing regulation in this thread. I'm criticizing governmental bailouts of private business. Can you please find me the part of the constitution which gives the Legislature the RIGHT to do so. The constitution is very explicit on these sorts of things, so I'm sure you'll be able to find a very good quote.

Article 1 Sections 7 and 8 gives Congress the right to tax and spend.

Do you really plan to lay out a case that Congress has no right to pass spending bills?

C. You mentioned the large swings in the economy. Have you ever stopped to wonder if the Fed's manipulation of the interest rate has anything to do with this? Do you think that artificially low mortgage rates had ANYTHING at all to do with the current housing bubble/crisis? Maybe you can demonstrate for me how/why a couple of bankers can more efficiently determine interests than the free market?

The Federal Reserve has done a decent job of handling this particular crisis. In the grand scheme of things, the Fed target rate under Greenspan had only a correlational attachment to the problems we face today. The derivatives market would have found some way to inflate itself had housing not taken off. The free market with its inefficiencies and its myopia was the reason for this mess. Without regulation, without Sarbanes-Oxley, this thing would have been much worse.

Can you imagine how bad things would be today if BSC, LEH and C had been allowed to hide garbage derivatives and AAA rated junk securities in their level 3 assets and mark them to maturity?

How about the government unofficially 'backing' freddie mac and fannie mae? Do you feel that the competitive advantage they had from that backing affected the mortgage market at all?

Or the governmental bills aimed at increasing minority and low-income housing? Was this regulation related at all to the current crisis? Getting people who couldn't afford homes into homes?

It wasn't implicit backing; FNM and FRE were private corporations, and the fact that many assumed they were government instruments did not change or affect the mortgage market in any real way. The market knew they were private even if you didn't. Minority and low-income mortgages are not responsible for this in any way. Most of them did not get subprime loans. Subprime mortgages were only the bottom layer of a housing market pyramid scheme set in motion by the rapid, uncontrolled growth of the international derivatives market.

Anyway... this isn't even what we're talking about in this thread. We're supposed to be talking about why in this case the supposed 'corporatist' republicans seem to be the ones willing to let these companies die, while the liberal democrats in the legislature and nearly half of the democrat public wants the taxpayers of the US to pay for the auto-maker's failures.

These same Republicans were busy deregulating the financial markets and making sure the automakers weren't held to increased pressure from CAFE, the EPA or CARB while encouraging small business owners to purchase the largest, thirstiest and highest profit margin vehicles with a tax code that favored these vehicles for writeoffs.

You're straining to make this point and it's notably disingenuous.