More Fiscally Responsible Republicans Opposing Auto Bailout

[uscitizen]

K, we'll get right on it handing out unemployment to the million or so workers. That's not going to cost as much as giving out a loan until the market re-emerges.

Retard.

And when will the market re-emerge ? How well will it re-emerge ? As well as it was before ? How many of these 14 billion bailouts will it take until the market does re-emerge? How many will be laid off anyway even with the bailout.

Me no retard.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Opposing a bailout of the auto industry (with terms for how the money is spent) is the height of fiscal irresponsibility.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Opposing a bailout of the auto industry (with terms for how the money is spent) is the height of fiscal irresponsibility.

Not only do they have the terms for how the money is spent, but also for how the money will be paid back. Some people seem to have a hard time differentiating between a loan and a bailout.

 

[uscitizen]

Not only do they have the terms for how the money is spent, but also for how the money will be paid back. Some people seem to have a hard time differentiating between a loan and a bailout.

Just an attempt by the repubs to not oppose the auto bailout politically , just the terms of it

 

[Onceler]

I think the Republicans are trying to use this to draw a line in the sand regarding what the "new" GOP is going to stand for.

Great way to start off re-defining a party: hey, America - we'll fight for hundreds of thousands of job losses, a further erosion of our manufacturing output & a massive deepening of an already bad recession. Vote for us!

 

[uscitizen]

I think the Republicans are trying to use this to draw a line in the sand regarding what the "new" GOP is going to stand for.

Great way to start off re-defining a party: hey, America - we'll fight for hundreds of thousands of job losses, a further erosion of our manufacturing output & a massive deepening of an already bad recession. Vote for us!

Probably right, sounds like a poliical thing. The bastiges do not have the balls to be against the bailout. has to be the terms of it.

We need to stimulate new jobs in new and innovative industries for those displaced workers. Anyone can make cars and most countries will make them cheaper than we will.

Now if we want to continue to lower our standard of living more towards the rest of the world, by all means keep trying to directly compete with their cheaper labor .

The way to a successful future is not to keep trying the same thing. Change is a happening, and it will take balls to embrace parts of it for the long term good of the USA.

 

[ironhead]

"WASHINGTON (AP) - A House-passed bill to speed $14 billion in loans to Detroit's automakers stands on shaky ground in a bailout-weary Congress, undermined by Republican opposition that could derail the emergency aid in the Senate.

Republicans are challenging lame-duck President George W. Bush on the proposal, arguing that any support for the domestic auto industry should carry significant concessions from autoworkers and creditors and reject tougher environmental rules imposed by House Democrats."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081211/D950GI5G0.html

GOOD.
Hopefully we can stop this obvious corporate welfare gift that is starting to look like nationalization with the auto czar and gov having a stake that the Dems want to do for JUST the 3 unionized Detroit automakers.

Less debt and fighting for smaller government.

While I'm glad anyone opposes corporate welfare (in this instance or any other), the reasons why they are opposing it are bogus. They still want government to stipulate to the market. They want there to be meaningless "protections" in place. The market has spoken, these outdated companies and their bloated unions are moribund in their current form.

This is just another version of central planning, which always fails to anticipate market demand, among other things.

 

[Socrtease]

"WASHINGTON (AP) - A House-passed bill to speed $14 billion in loans to Detroit's automakers stands on shaky ground in a bailout-weary Congress, undermined by Republican opposition that could derail the emergency aid in the Senate.

Republicans are challenging lame-duck President George W. Bush on the proposal, arguing that any support for the domestic auto industry should carry significant concessions from autoworkers and creditors and reject tougher environmental rules imposed by House Democrats."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081211/D950GI5G0.html

GOOD.
Hopefully we can stop this obvious corporate welfare gift that is starting to look like nationalization with the auto czar and gov having a stake that the Dems want to do for JUST the 3 unionized Detroit automakers.

Less debt and fighting for smaller government.

That is the word that makes you repubs maddest. If they were not unionized, everything else being equal, the bailout would go with a very small minority saying no. Republicans subsidize foreign automakers in the US in KY, TN AL and SC. Taxpayers are fleeced yearly with taxbreaks for Japanese, German and Korean automakers.

 

[Blackflag]

I think this is a case of principles clouding reality.

If the senate passes the bill, there are protections and demands that the automakers must follow.

The bill failed so now Bush will give them the money from the TARP fund with no strings attached.

 

[Damocles]

I think this is a case of principles clouding reality.

If the senate passes the bill, there are protections and demands that the automakers must follow.

The bill failed so now Bush will give them the money from the TARP fund with no strings attached.

And still those who managed them into obscurity will maintain their positions driving them ever further down the road to destruction so that we can have another economic crisis in a few years time because one every 5 years isn't enough...

 

[Bonestorm]

I think this is a case of principles clouding reality.

If the senate passes the bill, there are protections and demands that the automakers must follow.

The bill failed so now Bush will give them the money from the TARP fund with no strings attached.

I suppose you mean the principle of loving to spend money except on anything that the Democrats want?

 

[Blackflag]

I suppose you mean the principle of loving to spend money except on anything that the Democrats want?

Well true of course as evidenced by the last 8 years but I don't want the point to get lost.

(R) are fighting this so people will think they are helping when in reality the bills failure makes it worse because now they get the money for free.


Thanks braniac dano and all you others for once again not understanding the intricacies of the things you support.

 

[Cancel7]

And still those who managed them into obscurity will maintain their positions driving them ever further down the road to destruction so that we can have another economic crisis in a few years time because one every 5 years isn't enough...

No, I don't think so. This is a very temporary measure. Once obama gets in, they're going to need more. That is when the restructuring is going to take place. He has said he envisions a revitalized, GREEN, US auto industry as one of the foundations of his new economy. I believe him.

 

[Bonestorm]

By the way, for those that are curious and those that do not really know what they are talking about, there is a graphic from the NY Time that accompanies the article linked below concerning the domino effect down the supply chain if the Big Three go down. It details the interconenctedness of the supply chain and why Ford, for example, was pushing for GM and Chrysler getting a loan:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/b...&hp&adxnnlx=1229094000-SnFLt5 /c5FDHUPziXQmcg

 

[uscitizen]

From what I reas for every job lost at 3 big 3 companies 1.3 more jobs will be lost.

Many of those suppliers will not sshut all the way down though as they supply parts to multiple manufacturers.

My stance on this is if GM does not sell cars how many will be laid off anyway ?

I know people at one supplier and they have already laid off 60% of their workforce due to no demand for parts from GM.

 

[KingCondanomation]

That is the word that makes you repubs maddest. If they were not unionized, everything else being equal, the bailout would go with a very small minority saying no. Republicans subsidize foreign automakers in the US in KY, TN AL and SC. Taxpayers are fleeced yearly with taxbreaks for Japanese, German and Korean automakers.

Tax breaks are not subsidies and certainly not temporary ones.
Sure I don't like unions and think they harm all of our economy, but you miss the point, the Dems are only looking to help unionized automakers. They are the ones playing politics.

 

[leaningright]

From what I reas for every job lost at 3 big 3 companies 1.3 more jobs will be lost.

Many of those suppliers will not sshut all the way down though as they supply parts to multiple manufacturers.

My stance on this is if GM does not sell cars how many will be laid off anyway ?

I know people at one supplier and they have already laid off 60% of their workforce due to no demand for parts from GM.

My wife's cousin and her husband worked at one of those parts manufacturing/supplier places (supplied parts for GM) in Kentucky and were laid off months ago. Fortunately they have since acquired other jobs through a temp agency and now have made them more permanent. There is truth to what uscitizen says here. We don't know exactly how bad of an effect there will be when 2 of the big 3 go bankrupt.......but we know it will be bad.

 

[KingCondanomation]

No, I don't think so. This is a very temporary measure. Once obama gets in, they're going to need more. That is when the restructuring is going to take place. He has said he envisions a revitalized, GREEN, US auto industry as one of the foundations of his new economy. I believe him.

Green car sales have dropped dramatically even in leftier greener places like the UK. They are a luxury because they are more expensive. Obama can envision all he wants, people choose regular vehicles because that is what they can afford and certainly in this economic climate.

 

[Bonestorm]

Tax breaks are not subsidies and certainly not temporary ones.
Sure I don't like unions and think they harm all of our economy, but you miss the point, the Dems are only looking to help unionized automakers. They are the ones playing politics.

In what fucked up world are tax breaks granted to corporations to build a plant in state or city X not subsidies?

And I guess Bush and the 32 House Republicans that aren't batshit crazy are just playing politics, too?

Please.

 

[KingCondanomation]

My wife's cousin and her husband worked at one of those parts manufacturing/supplier places (supplied parts for GM) in Kentucky and were laid off months ago. Fortunately they have since acquired other jobs through a temp agency and now have made them more permanent. There is truth to what uscitizen says here. We don't know exactly how bad of an effect there will be when 2 of the big 3 go bankrupt.......but we know it will be bad.

I think as soon as one goes, the others will get healthier - by a pickup in demand and by investors capital as they know the domestic automarket share is still healthy enough to support 2 domestic automakers. I predict only one of the big 3 will fail - you heard it here first.
Hopefully they can come out better after this.