Democrats support corporate welfare, why no outcry

There is article after article about the Democrats trying to get bailout money for the big three. I am left to wonder for all the claims about corporate welfare under the Republicans why no outcry from the usual groups? Where are all those outraged that taxpayers money is being used to prop up private business? Where is the hate that would have been poured upon the Republicans if this was their plan? We are going to be forced to give our money to three companies with faulty business plans to shore them up when they should have be allowed to die if they can't make it.

Because Obama isn't on TV telling them to be outraged. If he tells them how to feel, they'll feel that way.

JaxRes wrote:

Because Obama isn't on TV telling them to be outraged. If he tells them how to feel, they'll feel that way.

So sad.
So true.

Westside conservative wrote:

There is article after article about the Democrats trying to get bailout money for the big three. I am left to wonder for all the claims about corporate welfare under the Republicans why no outcry from the usual groups? Where are all those outraged that taxpayers money is being used to prop up private business? Where is the hate that would have been poured upon the Republicans if this was their plan? We are going to be forced to give our money to three companies with faulty business plans to shore them up when they should have be allowed to die if they can't make it.

Many of those voters who will be affected by the closing of plants and suppliers are located in democratic states. Many of the workers who would loss there jobs are Union and who what party receives both support and masses amounts of money from the auto unions.

I guess you could sum it up by saying, they are politicians, and self-preservation of the power and money they have is the ONLY important thing.

Hmm because they demand the bailout after the 600k U.A.W. members voted for him?

nomansland 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Ander Crenshaw, a republican, supports corporate welfare. He sent me a 2 page letter saying why it is necessary after I called his office and questioned his position.

what's your point?

Riverside Rob wrote:

Hmm because they demand the bailout after the 600k U.A.W. members voted for him?

The only thing to be bailed out is the UAW. You KNOW its payback for all those votes. It certainly won't turn the company around or protect jobs by making the companies viable. Just the the union execs salaries. I never understand how Joe Union never understands that.

nomansland 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Capitalism has failed.

You mean the bastardization that that Big Fat Nanny Government has been experiment with for the last 19 years. Sorry what we have is not capitalism.

If you had as much invested in sour "derivative" paper and major auto corps as top Demos then you also would support bailouts.

It's been 50-y since the Dems gave-a-d*mm about the working man. They have new "dependency" classes: the febs, f*gs and freebooters( wetbaaaks) and shysters who peddle them like so many (modern)pieces of the true-cross.

nomansland 1 wrote:

Another fact is the Florida legislature, which is republican dominated, renewed the forced auto insurance laws. Thats not capitalism, is socialism.

That's exactly correct, but then $$$.hoe RepubliFat$ have always looked after their own. Principles and prudence be d*mmmed!

nomansland 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Capitalism has failed.

Yes. American capitalist economy failed. And ten years before the Marxist Russian economy failed.

Hellbelles even prudent Icelands carefully managed mixed-economy failed. They are back to eating cod not beefsteak, and wearing sweaters !

Foolish arrogant bankers one-and-all. As the Chi.com s say "this too will change".

nomansland 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Capitalism has failed.

Because dimocrats along with the unions have done their best to kill it.
If you can, please give me a better system than capitalism.

It sure didn't look like many Democrats were giving the auto industry a pass during the hearings yesterday, did it?

What's your solution? Put millions of people out of work and remove $100 billion dollars in wages from a struggling economy on general principal?

That type of idiotic fiscal policy directly contributed to the beginning and the lengthy duration of the Great Depression.

Phread01 wrote:

It sure didn't look like many Democrats were giving the auto industry a pass during the hearings yesterday, did it?
What's your solution? Put millions of people out of work and remove $100 billion dollars in wages from a struggling economy on general principal?
That type of idiotic fiscal policy directly contributed to the beginning and the lengthy duration of the Great Depression.

No, you let them file bankruptcy so that the insane union contracts can be voided and a better business model installed. The automakers can not compete with the outrageous salaries paid to union memebers. Why should we put them on life support with no cure for the underlying disease? A bailout will only prolong the inevitable.

Phread01 wrote:

It sure didn't look like many Democrats were giving the auto industry a pass during the hearings yesterday, did it?
What's your solution? Put millions of people out of work and remove $100 billion dollars in wages from a struggling economy on general principal?
That type of idiotic fiscal policy directly contributed to the beginning and the lengthy duration of the Great Depression.

How about Ch 11, make two or three companies that can actually survive to provide jobs (but at the going non union wage)and relocate them out of Detroit? There would be viable jobs and shareholders (largely composed of mutual. retirement and pension funds) would have a chance at recouping part of their investments as well.
You apparently would rather take 25B+ to pour into this rat hole of their current failed business model and prolong the inevitable. They would burn through it by Feb and still not solve the problem. And you, me, our children and our grandchildren will be paying for this foolishness. This is more the bailout of the UAW than it is of the workers of GM.

It is sad to say but Chrysler, Ford and General Motors are like a terminal Cancer patient with Lung, Bone, Liver, and Brain cancer, their deaths are inevitable but it is difficult to no when to pull the plug. Those three companies have so many internal issues, which have lead to this point and I am not sure if they have the will and corporation within the different factions to survive. From the outside looking in it appears that they are all in a life boat heading to the water fall, but its factions is fighting against the others for their on survival within the boat. Because of that at this time, they all will parish.

However, there is hope for Ford and General Motors outside the U.S and Canada with some of the newer technological advances and small car designs that are still good sellers in the eastern Europe areas.

I am sure before all is said and done that the bailout will happen, but it would not surprise me, that once the money has been infused, that one or all three will merge or be partially purchased by another car company.

Phread01 wrote:

It sure didn't look like many Democrats were giving the auto industry a pass during the hearings yesterday, did it?
What's your solution? Put millions of people out of work and remove $100 billion dollars in wages from a struggling economy on general principal?
That type of idiotic fiscal policy directly contributed to the beginning and the lengthy duration of the Great Depression.

Funny, the Republicans often justified corporate tax breaks by saying it helped create jobs but that was never good enough for the dems. They would rant and rave about corporations getting all that welfare despite Republican assertions that it created jobs as it freed up capital. Now we are not only going to give them tax breaks but a 25 billion dollar handout to patch up a broken system. There is a reason that area is referred to as the rust belt. It is antiquated in its thinking and functioning and can no longer keep in step with the rest of the world. If they can't fix their problems with chapter 11 then their problems are not fixable. Chapter 11 would allow them to get out from under the contracts that are killing them. The reason these companies don't want to do it is because they will lose their stocks which I am sure is or was worth millions. They are holding onto the glimmer of hope that the feds will bail them out and they will keep their stocks and the value will go back up.

Numerous economists have pointed out that government intervention actually prolonged the depression. The more that we intervene here and prop up companies that are not productive the more harm we do to all financial sectors. If these businesses collapse someone will come and fill that void. I personally am a huge GM guy and have never bought anything that wasn't a GM product but if they fail they fail. I wonder how many of you who support this bailout drive GM cars. Do you drive a foreign car? If so you show why they are failing. Many businesses have come out of chapter 11 to prosper and they should be no different.

What amazes me is those who find no problem with bailing out a handful of rich old fat bald guys in suits, but are opposed to spending a portion of the money to help companies that employ thousands of blue collar middle class Americans

I couldn't agree more, WS. There is such a dire prediction about the parts makers being at risk, but I find it hard to believe that some ambitious american entreprenuer won't exploit that and build a new and better "GM." Get out of Detroit and take advantage of our current unemployed pool. I can't believe that you wouldn't be able to find enough workers to fill a competitively priced job (albeit probably non union) and make a decent living and sell a desirable car for a profit instead of a loss.

Mr Logic in Jax wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean the bastardization that that Big Fat Nanny Government has been experiment with for the last 19 years. Sorry what we have is not capitalism.

Georgie-Porgie economics? Pure-as-driven-snow Libertoonian RepubliFat $$$.hoe social_Darwinist mebby not!

But ... a robust economics (system) is incrementally robust. The closer it models the ideal the better its performance. And contrawise. BUT my friend ...

Bubba Bills 3rd-way mongrel mixed economy was much more successful than Georgie-Porgies b*stardized $$$.hoe caricature of cut-throat capitalism. Bubba ran a Gub'mnt surplus. Bankers eat fat. Workers lap graaaavy. OTOH GP goes bankrupt. Bankers drink SlimFast. Workers get f*cked.

ERGO ... you are proven wrong. Pathetically wrong. Hopelessly wrong. Unless you believe PERFECTION in execution is required for any amount of success. Then --- go join a monastery. Give up women. Eat beans and potatoes. Pray.