Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Or that Dog still Barks
Published on December 5, 2008 By Dr Guy In Politics

Recently, several members of JU have been engaged over the latest hot political topic in the US - The Auto Bailout.  Tis the season as they say, but not the Christmas one.  As it appears every company that now has to struggle is going hat in hand to congress for a bailout.  And the Auto industry is just the latest.

In the discussions that ensued, one of the popular themes was that the only reason the Auto industry was asking for the bail out, and congress - solidly in the democrat (read: American liberals) hands - is entertaining the idea was that going the regular route of Chapter 11 would negate all contracts - and the liberals could not stomach that!

Why you ask?  The whole purpose of Bankruptcy is to get a company time to restructure and come out (hopefully) leaner and meaner and to get rid of contracts written in plenty, but unaffordable in tight times.

Like the UAW contract.  No one has been arguing that the UAW was never needed, or that it was not at one time a good counterweight to large corporations.  But times have changed.  Laws have changed.  And the market has changed.  So much so that the Rust belt is no longer king of auto making in this country, and in areas not dominated by unions, auto makers and employees are making cars and good wages without the animosity and greed that is now associated with Detriot and the UAW.

But all this goes to the point of what a liberal is - and what a conservative is.  American style. 

For indeed, it is the liberals arguing, tooth and nail, for the bail out.  for one reason only. To prevent the elimination of the UAW contract.  A contract that is bloated by the incestous relationship that has developed between the UAW and the Big 3 Auto makers.  Yes, liberals are very conservative (in the dictionary sense) when it comes to unions.  Failing to see that while they were necessary and needed to get us to today, they have long outlived their usefulness and are now not a boon to the industries, but a hindrance.  The Big 3 are in Trouble because they cannot innovate and change.

They are locked into contracts and ways of doing things by a contract with an organization that no longer has their members best interest at heart, but their own retention of a power long ago changed from good to abusive.

And so the big 3 probably will get a bailout.  Probably will be allowed to continue to waste huge sums of money, and products because they are no longer able to grow and adapt. 

Lilke a body that has a sickness, the Auto industry (at least the Big 3) are in trouble.  And if they are not allowed to take the medicine that will cure them, it will only get worse.  Until the time when no bailout will work.  hastening the coming of that day will be the new government controls forced on them by this bailout.  Politicians dont know how to do much other than get elected.  Making cars is not their strong point.  And when they are running auto companies, all they will be offering are Yugos.


Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Dec 05, 2008

Maybe they should change the date to send in your taxes so we can get our money back faster.

My local congressman has proposed a bill to establish a 'tax holiday' whereby taxpayers (income and FICA) are exempt from tax for January and February 2009.

Info here:

http://gohmert.house.gov/Article.aspx?NewsID=1355

For the record, he voted against the bailout both times.

 

It should also be noted that this is not calling for additional money.  Instead the approx $350 Billion that would normally be collected in revenue for this period would be offset by the $350 Billion that hasn't been spent of the original $700 Billion bailout.

on Dec 05, 2008

No. not even close. Not when Obama can rake in 750 million for one campaign!

Well I mean all of us together

on Dec 05, 2008

My local congressman has proposed a bill to establish a 'tax holiday' whereby taxpayers (income and FICA) are exempt from tax for January and February 2009.

Info here:

http://gohmert.house.gov/Article.aspx?NewsID=1355

For the record, he voted against the bailout both times.



It should also be noted that this is not calling for additional money. Instead the approx $350 Billion that would normally be collected in revenue for this period would be offset by the $350 Billion that hasn't been spent of the original $700 Billion bailout.

Hmm, sounds interesting

on Dec 05, 2008

ok so let me get it straight:

1. Bailout the banks.

2. Bail out home owners who have loans for more then the house is "worth". (by buying it down)

3. Bail out the auto industry...

4. ?

5. Profit?



I see a little problem with this plan so far.

That's because 4. We're supposed to collect the underpants.

on Dec 06, 2008

Did anyone watch 20/20 last night regarding this issue?  John Stossel did another "gimmie a break episode. 

He outlined the whole drama even showing how Toyota and Honda are doing ok because they made better decisions and kept the pay scale reasonable all along. They managed to survive by keeping their costs down. They don't own expensive jets for one thing. 

Then at the end of the program he went on to report that the Dems did in fact, give them a bailout until March of next year.  But he made it quite clear the DEMOCRATS voted to bail them out before he said his "gimmie a break!" . 

The question is....are people listening out there?   This is our money they're playing with.  Remember that! 

on Dec 06, 2008

KFC Kickin For Christ
Did anyone watch 20/20 last night regarding this issue?  John Stossel did another "gimmie a break episode. 

He outlined the whole drama even showing how Toyota and Honda are doing ok because they made better decisions and kept the pay scale reasonable all along. They managed to survive by keeping their costs down. They don't own expensive jets for one thing. 

Then at the end of the program he went on to report that the Dems did in fact, give them a bailout until March of next year.  But he made it quite clear the DEMOCRATS voted to bail them out before he said his "gimmie a break!" . 

The question is....are people listening out there?   This is our money they're playing with.  Remember that! 

 

You wont hear the uproar because it IS the dems that supported it. This should not shock you. Now if it was the Rep that backed this that they would be all over the news and people would be up in arms.

 

Rep back = bad idea all over the news and let the bashing begin

Dem backed= Its all good Dems know best

on Dec 07, 2008

I don't think this is the right time for ideology. The US auto industry is on the verge of collapse and its no time to take out a checklist and tick off what conservatives or liberals would traditionally do. If all 3 US automakers go down, it will be a severe black eye to all Americans and it will probably hurt our e3conomy in ways we can't yet imagine.

on Dec 07, 2008

Anthony R
I don't think this is the right time for ideology. The US auto industry is on the verge of collapse and its no time to take out a checklist and tick off what conservatives or liberals would traditionally do. If all 3 US automakers go down, it will be a severe black eye to all Americans and it will probably hurt our e3conomy in ways we can't yet imagine.

 

Once again americans will not stop buying cars. The slack will be picked up form the other companies here in the US that employee US workers....

 

Yeah there will be some backlash at first but it will recover. Its not like the jobs are gonna get outsources to india or something

on Dec 07, 2008

I am a liberal opposed to the auto industry bailout. Just to let you know. Be well.
Cowardice.

Yeah there will be some backlash at first but it will recover.
You profess to be a hardworking citizen whether unionized or not. but you don't seem to give a damn for those facing layoffs.

Its not like the jobs are gonna get outsources to india or something
Ther's nothing to prevent the Big 3 from continuing their overseas plants.

on Dec 07, 2008

It is funny to see StevenDedalus arguing like a classical conservative though.
Au contraire! It's not that I echo the new deal and good old days of the ninety day warranty and 1,000 mile oil change, but I do feverishly believe in bargaining rights which nevetheless to not necessarily always favor unions. The UAW should not be the fall guy, though it deserves a long overdue kick in the ass for protecting ancient pensions as opposed to horrible layoffs in the hundreds of thousands over the years. My point is that Detroit auto deserves some praise, even though they have beaten down UAW, for at least honoring a comprising but decent living wage, healthcare and pensions. If we had gone to Truman's universal healthcare, particularly, we wouldn't be having this discussion. In the heat of the moment, most of us forget the larger issue of supplementary pensions, healthcare, not to mention maintaining middle income wages.   

on Dec 07, 2008

Anthony R
I don't think this is the right time for ideology. The US auto industry is on the verge of collapse and its no time to take out a checklist and tick off what conservatives or liberals would traditionally do. If all 3 US automakers go down, it will be a severe black eye to all Americans and it will probably hurt our e3conomy in ways we can't yet imagine.

You give money to a sick business, its just gonna lose it the way it lost all the rest of its money. More money isn't gonna suddenly make it profitable.

And if the companies do go under, someone will buy out their remains and keep things going. Maybe someone more competent who knows how to manage a business.

Besides, its not like those makers are even making their cars in the united states anymore. Ford and GM are both classified as "multinational", not as american.

on Dec 08, 2008

My local congressman has proposed a bill to establish a 'tax holiday' whereby taxpayers (income and FICA) are exempt from tax for January and February 2009.

While it is an interesting idea this will never pass because an uproar will begin that this benefits the rich when it's the poor that are struggling.

on Dec 08, 2008

I mean there are people that truely got screwed.... but a majority are just people that should have not gotten a loan to begin with

But the government cannot wield a scalpel, only a scythe.

" OOOO MEEE!!!! ITS NOT MY FUALT!"

For some, if they stopped and listened to themselves, they would see how childish they sound (even on the news).  For others, they never grew up anyway.

on Dec 08, 2008

It should also be noted that this is not calling for additional money. Instead the approx $350 Billion that would normally be collected in revenue for this period would be offset by the $350 Billion that hasn't been spent of the original $700 Billion bailout.

Actually not a bad idea.  At least then those that are paying taxes would be the ones benefitting.  But that is why it will never fly.

on Dec 08, 2008

Well I mean all of us together

Those that had gave to charity.  Those that wanted only "me me me" gave to Obama.

4 Pages1 2 3 4