Democrat Senator Levin and Democrat Congressman Dingell TOP recipients of Big 3 $$$

KingCondanomation said:
This is false, Waxman is the chair.

And if you say it's because Democrat Dingell serves in the majority why is it that he was the top recipient in 2003-2004 when Repubs were the majority?
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00001783&cycle=2004

Again, true or false, Leftists have a general philosophy of taxing that which is healthy and subsidizing that which is not.
I would like to see your answer to that.

I'm not saying there aren't other factors, there almost always are, but other things being equal when corps come to DC rattling their tin cup (and especially unionized corps), they know Dems are their best shot.
Click to expand...


Waxman will be the chair when the new Congress convenes. Until then, Dingell is the chair and has been since the Democrats took over control of the House. In fact, Dingell has been the senior Democrat serving on the committee for 28 years. These facts, and not your silly horseshit, are why he gets campaign contributions from the autos.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Would you have argued in favor of a bailout in the recession of the early 70's, 80's or 90's?

You are only delaying the inevitable, trying to push off a recession will only make it that much more spectacular, especially when as we have seen, much of the bailout money is subsidizing failure that is not in demand. How can you expect return from that?
And you are piling on yet more debt for the next generation. Someday someone will have to deal with that.
Click to expand...

This isn't the recession of the 70's, 80's or 90's. This is much, much worse. Oh, and we're already IN it, pretty deep. Again, 500,000 jobs were lost last month.

Anyone against the bailout simply doesn't comprehend what 1 or more of these companies failing will do to the economy now. We're right on the precipice.
 
Dungheap said:
Waxman will be the chair when the new Congress convenes. Until then, Dingell is the chair and has been since the Democrats took over control of the House. In fact, Dingell has been the senior Democrat serving on the committee for 28 years. These facts, and not your silly horseshit, are why he gets campaign contributions from the autos.
Click to expand...

You only responded to one point.

If you say it's because Democrat Dingell serves in the majority why is it that he was the top recipient in 2003-2004 when Repubs were the majority?
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...783&cycle=2004

Again, true or false, Leftists have a general philosophy of taxing that which is healthy and subsidizing that which is not.
I would like to see your answer to that.

I'm not saying there aren't other factors, there almost always are, but other things being equal when corps come to DC rattling their tin cup (and especially unionized corps), they know Dems are their best shot.
 
Onceler said:
This isn't the recession of the 70's, 80's or 90's. This is much, much worse. Oh, and we're already IN it, pretty deep. Again, 500,000 jobs were lost last month.

Anyone against the bailout simply doesn't comprehend what 1 or more of these companies failing will do to the economy now. We're right on the precipice.
Click to expand...
Nearly all British car companies went down the shitter decades ago, are they in economic crisis from that?

Why do you keep dodging my point that other manufacturers like Toyota and Honda employ tens of thousands in manufacturing in the US?

Honestly if say Ford died in the free market driven 90's, no one would care that much and the other 2 would be that much more healthy. It's ok for a business to fail, others take their place, that's how a market works, we are not welfare socialists and geezus it seems ludicrous telling a lefty that we are certainly not corporate welfare socialists.
Principled Liberals oppose corporate welfare, look at blackascoal, no lefty on here puts his principles ahead of his party choice more and he opposes it. Follow his lead if you don't want to listen to me.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Nearly all British car companies went down the shitter decades ago, are they in economic crisis from that?

Why do you keep dodging my point that other manufacturers like Toyota and Honda employ tens of thousands in manufacturing in the US?

Honestly if say Ford died in the free market driven 90's, no one would care that much and the other 2 would be that much more healthy. It's ok for a business to fail, others take their place, that's how a market works, we are not welfare socialists and geezus it seems ludicrous telling a lefty that we are certainly not corporate welfare socialists.
Principled Liberals oppose corporate welfare, look at blackascoal, no lefty on here puts his principles ahead of his party choice more and he opposes it. Follow his lead if you don't want to listen to me.
Click to expand...

I'm not dodging your point. I am unwilling to cede what is left of our manufacturing base to Japan & other countries. How long do you think America can remain viable as a superpower without a solid manufacturing base, of American-owned companies?

You're so short-sighted; always have been. I'm opposed to corporate welfare on principal, but please; it's ridiculous to think that the economy can survive a huge hit to the big 3 right now. Everyone will be affected; it will end up costing us trillions.

Pennywise, pound foolish.
 
KingCondanomation said:
You only responded to one point.

If you say it's because Democrat Dingell serves in the majority why is it that he was the top recipient in 2003-2004 when Repubs were the majority?
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...783&cycle=2004

Again, true or false, Leftists have a general philosophy of taxing that which is healthy and subsidizing that which is not.
I would like to see your answer to that.

I'm not saying there aren't other factors, there almost always are, but other things being equal when corps come to DC rattling their tin cup (and especially unionized corps), they know Dems are their best shot.
Click to expand...


Because he represents Detroit in addition to being the longest serving member on the Energy and Commerce Committee and a lifetime ally of the auto industry.

This stuff is not that difficult to understand Damo.

GWB got the most cash in 2004. Spencer Arbraham in 2000. Bob Dole in 1996. In 2008 Knollenberg got more than Dingell, receiving the most of any House member.

Your dumbass reasoning doesn't hold up to even cursory scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
I'm not dodging your point. I am unwilling to cede what is left of our manufacturing base to Japan & other countries. How long do you think America can remain viable as a superpower without a solid manufacturing base, of American-owned companies?
Click to expand...
Very long. The list of countries that have next to no manufacturing is immense, Britain, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Singapore, New Zealand. I could go on.
Do you think America got worse in the 90's when manufacturing, especially clothing and plastics manufacturing went down?

Onceler said:
You're so short-sighted; always have been. I'm opposed to corporate welfare on principal, but please; it's ridiculous to think that the economy can survive a huge hit to the big 3 right now. Everyone will be affected; it will end up costing us trillions.
Pennywise, pound foolish.
Click to expand...
It will not. You are just rewarding failure. Only ONE would fail and their share would largely be eaten up by the other 2 domestic auto makers. And who knows, in the future a new company may start.
And thinking about debt for future generations is as UNshortsighted as a person can get.
 
You don't think it will cost America trillions to see one or more of the big 3 fail?

Then you don't understand the economics of the situation, and it's a waste of time talking to you.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Very long. The list of countries that have next to no manufacturing is immense, Britain, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Singapore, New Zealand. I could go on.
Do you think America got worse in the 90's when manufacturing, especially clothing and plastics manufacturing went down?


It will not. You are just rewarding failure. Only ONE would fail and their share would largely be eaten up by the other 2 domestic auto makers. And who knows, in the future a new company may start.
And thinking about debt for future generations is as UNshortsighted as a person can get.
Click to expand...


1) Heavy manufacturing is important for national security purposes. I think this is something that we can all agree to.

2) The idea that GM failing would result in Chrysler and Ford eating up GM's share of the market is not based in reality at all. In fact, Ford claims that it has sufficient cash to make it on its own for a while but is pushing for a bailout of GM nevertheless. Why? Because if GM does down the shocks will be felt throughout the supply chain, a supply chain that Ford itself relies on to produce cars. If the suppliers go down, Ford can do down too. That's not "creative destruction." That's just destruction. Sure someone else might eventually crop up to fill the void, but it won't happen overnight and it will be very very painful.
 
Dungheap said:
Because he represents Detroit in addition to being the longest serving member on the Energy and Commerce Committee and a lifetime ally of the auto industry.

This stuff is not that difficult to understand Damo.

GWB got the most cash in 2004. Spencer Arbraham in 2000. Bob Dole in 1996. In 2008 Knollenberg got more than Dingell, receiving the most of any House member.

Your dumbass reasoning doesn't hold up yo even cursory scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Just because you are wrong doesn't mean you need to insult and you are wrong again here, Knollenberg received less than Dingell:
"In the House, Rep. Joe Knollenberg received $879,327. Rep. John Dingell got nearly a million from the industry."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/03/cbsnews_investigates/main4646424.shtml

And back in 1996-2004, the domestic automakers were not doing that bad and not looking for handouts, just tax cuts and less regulation (nothing wrong with that), now they are in the shitter and guess who they think has the best chance of subsidizing their failure?

Answer the true or false question.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Drowning in debt but no problem giving tens of millions in political donations to keep them afloat with your money.

Liberal Democrat senator Levin gets the most for the senate and Liberal Democrat congressman Dingell gets over a million with millions of his already at stake in investments of stock and options with GM, his wife being a lobbyist for GM.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/03/cbsnews_investigates/main4646424.shtml

Small wonder Dems in congress are pushing so hard for billions more to Detroit.

Blech, aren't Democrats supposed to be against corporate welfare? Repubs were bad with spending and now we get to see Dems being worse. Yes it was possible.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't them gettoing the most contributions make sense given they are from Michigan .. where the Big 3 are?
 
Onceler said:
You don't think it will cost America trillions to see one or more of the big 3 fail?

Then you don't understand the economics of the situation, and it's a waste of time talking to you.
Click to expand...
Translation: I have only my opinion to offer and as I have no facts to debate you with, I will respectfully run away to bother someone less persistent with again nothing but my opinion.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Translation: I have only my opinion to offer and as I have no facts to debate you with, I will respectfully run away to bother someone less persistent with again nothing but my opinion.
Click to expand...

It's not my "opinion" that the American economy will lose trillions if one or more of the big 3 fails, you towering bonehead. Do you really not see that? Do you know how much the economy has lost, and as a result, how much revenue the gov't has lost, because of what has happened in the past 2-3 months?

I feel like I'm trying to explain the grown-ups world to a 3rd grader. Dano, if GM fails, we are FUCKED. Entire towns will disappear, and that isn't "fear mongering", it's a reality that is already taking place. The Dow will go below 7,000, maybe more, and we will hit double-digit unemployment.

And you're griping about $32 billion; it is NOTHING compared to the alternative. God, are you myopic.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Just because you are wrong doesn't mean you need to insult and you are wrong again here, Knollenberg received less than Dingell:
"In the House, Rep. Joe Knollenberg received $879,327. Rep. John Dingell got nearly a million from the industry."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/03/cbsnews_investigates/main4646424.shtml

And back in 1996-2004, the domestic automakers were not doing that bad and not looking for handouts, just tax cuts and less regulation (nothing wrong with that), now they are in the shitter and guess who they think has the best chance of subsidizing their failure?

Answer the true or false question.
Click to expand...

You really are an idiot. let me say it again very clearly for you, IN 2008 Knollenberg got more than Dingell, receiving the most of any House member.

To answer your question regarding who they think has the best chance of subsidizing their failure, well, Knollenberg based on your reasoning.
 
Dungheap said:
1) Heavy manufacturing is important for national security purposes. I think this is something that we can all agree to.
Click to expand...
???
But we are talking auto manufacturing. Defence manufacturing is healthy can not in this discussion.

Dungheap said:
2) The idea that GM failing would result in Chrysler and Ford eating up GM's share of the market is not based in reality at all. In fact, Ford claims that it has sufficient cash to make it on its own for a while but is pushing for a bailout of GM nevertheless. Why? Because if GM does down the shocks will be felt throughout the supply chain, a supply chain that Ford itself relies on to produce cars. If the suppliers go down, Ford can do down too. That's not "creative destruction." That's just destruction. Sure someone else might eventually crop up to fill the void, but it won't happen overnight and it will be very very painful.
Click to expand...
I'd like a link to your theory. I strongly disagree. Supply chains are more driven by parts makers, Chrysler relies on Mopar, GM relies on AC Delco, etc...
And again, even if this were true, other car companies do manufacturing in the US like Toyota and Honda, the supply demand is fine.

So you admit, you will never allow one of the big 3 to fail? Why should they bother to be accountable with our money then?
Holy fuck man, how did we go from what we had in the 90's to socialism that is so extreme it won't even allow a (shitty) business to fail?
 
Dungheap said:
You really are an idiot. let me say it again very clearly for you, IN 2008 Knollenberg got more than Dingell, receiving the most of any House member.

To answer your question regarding who they think has the best chance of subsidizing their failure, well, Knollenberg based on your reasoning.
Click to expand...

Relax. The link I posted IS from 2008 and it says Dingell got more.
Here you are, this time I'll bold the parts that you never bothered to read:

"The auto industry spent nearly $50 million lobbying Congress in the first nine months of this year.

And people tied to the auto industry gave another $15 million in campaign contributions, CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports.

It's not surprising that a lot of that money went to members of Congress from Michigan, where the auto industry is the biggest employer and politicians are passionate advocates for their constituents.

Take Sen. Carl Levin, who received $438,304 from the automotive industry. And in the House, Rep. Joe Knollenberg received $879,327. Rep. John Dingell got nearly a million from the industry. All have enjoyed generous support from the auto industry over their careers, with GM and Ford as their two top contributors. All support a bailout.

But nobody's been a bigger advocate for Motor City interests than Dingell."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/03/cbsnews_investigates/main4646424.shtml
 
KingCondanomation said:
???
But we are talking auto manufacturing. Defence manufacturing is healthy can not in this discussion.
Click to expand...

That's pretty short-sighted of you. Again.

KingCondanomation said:
I'd like a link to your theory. I strongly disagree. Supply chains are more driven by parts makers, Chrysler relies on Mopar, GM relies on AC Delco, etc... And again, even if this were true, other car companies do manufacturing in the US like Toyota and Honda, the supply demand is fine.
Click to expand...

Disagree all you want, strongly or otherwise. I usually find that the stronger you disagree with me the more correct I am.

http://www.cargroup.org/documents/FINALDetroitThreeContractionImpact_3__001.pdf

KingCondanomation said:
So you admit, you will never allow one of the big 3 to fail? Why should they bother to be accountable with our money then?

Holy fuck man, how did we go from what we had in the 90's to socialism that is so extreme it won't even allow a (shitty) business to fail?
Click to expand...

I admit only that under current circumstances it is insane to allow GM to go through a Chapter 7 liquidation, nothing more. You see, I am capable of complex thought, not merely lizardbrain reactionary nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top