So much for conservative "corporatists."

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by fivepoint, Dec 3, 2008.

  1. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #1
    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!
     
  2. BigHungry04 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #2
    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!
     
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    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?
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    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?
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5

    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.
     
  6. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #6
    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
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
  8. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #8
    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.



    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.



    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!
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    Um... OK.

    How about you post some data to support your contention that liberals support this bailout?
     
  10. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #10
     
  11. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    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.
     
  12. abijnk macrumors 68040

    abijnk

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #12
    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!
     
  13. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #13
    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. ;)
     
  14. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #14

    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?
     
  15. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #15
    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.
     
  16. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
  17. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #18
    The 700 billion is debt and therefore can't be used to pay off the debt.
     
  18. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #19
    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.
     
  19. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #20
    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.
     
  20. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #21
    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?
     
  21. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #22
    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.
     
  22. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #23
    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:
    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.

    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, he writes:

    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.
     
  23. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #24

    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.
     
  24. abijnk macrumors 68040

    abijnk

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page