Politics: Merle isn’t following the modern Republican line
Merle Widmer’s reaction to hearing Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli beg for a $25 billion bailout:
Everything I read, heard and watched says let them go bankrupt just like everyone else who is inefficient, unrealistic, greedy, arrogant, etc …
And then there’s Merle’s reaction to hearing that newly elected Congressman Aaron Schock isn’t quite sold on the bailout either:
Today’s JS quoted Aaron as saying regarding the auto industry bailout, “Fundamentally, I don’t like the federal government getting involved in the private sector.” That’s noble, Aaron but I believe you strongly supported the massive agriculture subsidies, the unequal distribution of a trillion dollars, (McCain didn’t and said so) during your campaign. Agriculture certainly is a “private” sector.
Back in the day, the GOP at least gave lip service to supporting free market economics. These days, they proudly proclaim their support for various forms of corporate welfare.
November 19th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Maybe he’s a “small-r republican” the way you’re a “small-l libertarian.”
November 19th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Shrinkage?
November 19th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Let the BigThree file for Bakruptcy and reorganization; they will have to submit plans to do so, more than what they are willing to do before Congress in asking for these billions of dollars; then we will know their plans and whether we should loan them the money and our chances of getting it back. I tink they have a better chance with a Democratic administraion, so it might get stalled for awhie.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:12 am
If we keep bailing out these big corporations, where will it end?
November 19th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Yeah they should be allowed to fail. It will suck for Michigan. It will suck for a lot of folks. But it needs to happen. Instead of bailing out the government should be focusing on retraining programs and programs to help start ups.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:25 am
I agree with CJ. No bailouts for anyone. Stick with the fundamentals of capitalism and let the chips fall where they may. Yeah, it will hurt, maybe badly. But at some point, someone has got to feel the pain. In the long run, it is what is best for our future generations. You know, the children of our children…
November 19th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Oh boy, it’s finally happening. Elected Republicans are distancing themselves from the party now that they don’t have a guy in the White House. Civilian Republicans are pretending to agree and act like they support traditional conservative policies all along as opposed to the neo-con orgy they’ve participated in–and defended–over the past 8 years. The facade continues.
In an odd turn of events, I agree with them this time. These companies need to fail and the American model of business needs to change dramatically. Not because of any imaginary fantasies about the invisible hand of the market, but because when you have such a top-heavy model, it capsizes. Too many people steering the boat, not enough rowing.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Everyone is missing the bigger picture. Almost everyone here is willing to make over a million Americans suffer to uphold a principle. In ordinary times, I would agree, but these are not ordinary times. There is a credit crunch. The banks are not even lending to each other, so do you think they would lend to a “bankrupt” auto company. Chapter 11 then becomes Chapter 7 liquidation. Kiss over a million jobs goodbye. that makes sense as we pummet into recession. That’s not “stimulus”.
Secondly, there is a national security angle. During World War II the U.S. served as the “arsenal of democracy.” Our factories weren’t bombed. We won because our factories outproduced the Axis’ factories. George Kennan’s containment theory was predicated upon preventing the U.S.S.R. from acquiring the factories of Europe and Japan.
Thirdly. Let’s assume that we allow the big 3 to be liquidated on account of principle. Who in the world had the pocket change to buy them? China perhaps. Let’s give the Chinese access to our technology. We can buy Fords from Beijing.
Fourth, lets not forget the many years of losses that Toyota had before being successful. The Japanese subsidized them for years.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Brian G, you make some reasonable, rational points; too bad your waisting your time on this crowd. Making people suffer to prove your point – thats what conservatism is all about.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
See, it’s not “on account of principle.” It’s following mismanagement to its natural conclusion. Last I checked, Ford’s stock was around a $1.50. Remember what’s happening to Gatehouse right now? They were there not too long ago. Now we have a household name like Ford in the same boat. We need to wake up and smell the reality: jobs are going to be lost whether we like it or not.
As for investors–the big three would indeed be purchased by somebody. They’re not going to be selling for what they were worth five years ago. They’re essentially going to be bought for pennies on the dollar. Any able company would be crazy not to take advantage of that.
WHEN, not IF, that happens, many of those jobs will be recreated. Not all of them, naturally, because there are going to be cutbacks no matter what happens and the worker always seems to be the first to go. The question we ought to be asking is whether some temporary suffering is worth taking the steps needed to decrease the likeliness this will happen in the future, thereby building a stronger industry overall with more secure jobs?
November 19th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
also–did I just get called a conservative?
At this moment, I am unspeakably tickled.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Postsimian, you, a conservative? Nonsense. But, you do seem to be afflicted with conservative-like symptoms on this issue. My prescription: read this every four hours and then call me in the morning
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/passingthrough/384140/zapping_the_volt
November 19th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
dd wrote: Making people suffer to prove your point – thats what conservatism is all about.
DD, We teach our children via a series of consequences, don’t we? Why should disciplining a nation be any different?
November 19th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Well, Diane, you make a point: Nation, you are in time out.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Let’s see, the banks and Wall Street get a bailout.
Asshats like those who run AIG continue to party like it’s 1999. Money is handed over to these people like rice is wasted at a wedding. Then, the banks that get said money freeze credit.
Meanwhile, automakers, who rely heavily on credit whether they are in the best or worst of times, ask for a 25 billion dollar LOAN, not a GIFT, which they have stated and shown plans for how they’ll pay it back (no such guarantee from the GOP’s buddies on Wall Street, btw), and get told to piss off.
Unbelievable. Bottom line why repubs/conservatives don’t like it? Because they hate unions. That’s the bottom line. Period.
Well, lemme tell ya, folks, EVERY one of us with ANY kind of livelyhood depends on the United States auto industry at some point. Much like all sorts of satellite companies around Central Illinois rely on how much Cat buys from them to stay in business, there are hundreds upon thousands of businesses that rely on the automotive industry in this country.
But we just want to see them go belly up while AIG execs party, and banks who DIDN’T WANT THE MONEY were FORCED to take the government handouts. Un-freakin’-believable. Wait, it’s really not when you consider the location many of these posts come from, but it’s still unbelievable that Washington can’t see fit to prop up these guys with 25 bill, while 700 bill was a drop in the hat to Wall Street.
Some of you people need to educate yourselves a bit more before you so quickly destroy the auto industry. I did. I changed my mind in a freakin’ hurry.
From this story: http://www.newsweek.com/id/168941
comes this excerpt, which is basically what I just said:
“…But General Motors wouldn’t be a typical bankruptcy…And because of its size and the place it occupies in the supply chain, the failure of GM would likely trigger the bankruptcy of hundreds of suppliers and other companies that rely upon GM.”
Is that what we all want?
November 20th, 2008 at 6:55 am
While in the spirit of recommending self-education, the weest bit would reveal to you that your posits regarding AIG could hardly be more wrong.
While on a self-education roll, a couple more clicks could inform that it isn’t the republicans who hate unions who are killing the auto bailout in the Senate, but rather the democrats. Harry Reid announced the canceled vote because, notwithstanding your assumption, the democrats will not legislate it as a simple loan.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:25 am
There has been some commentary in the Financial Times (print edition) to the effect that GM and Ford wouldn’t be able to file for Chapter 11 at all. Chapter 11 requires credit lines and the ‘analysts’ seemed to think that the credit markets right now were far too tight to bankroll a Chapter 11 restructuring on the magnitude that the Big Three would entail. Because of the tight credit markets the analysts felt that the Big Three would be forced into Chapter 7, which is total liquidation. Reading what the CEOs of the Big Three are saying… it seems they may feel that way as well, that Chapter 11 may not be a realistic option.
The silver lining is that someone out there would surely find the brands and assets of GM and Ford to be of some future value and would therefore snap them up from the auction block. They felt that the transition, while extremely painful, would not be the total end of domestic automotive production.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:55 am
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gbjFY-o07QeryRxtFR3oC1w_v1PwD94I44OG0
From it:
…”Reid told Senate colleagues, “it will still be up to the White House and the Treasury Department to take the steps that I believe are necessary and warranted.”
President George W. Bush and Republicans in Congress have been reluctant to use the Treasury Department’s $700 billion financial bailout program to finance the loans. And White House press secretary Dana Perino has said Congress should draw the funds from an Energy Department program established by law last year to encourage production of fuel-efficient cars…”
What part of that don’t you get, there, nontimendum? Despite what your handle implies, I think there’s plenty “timendum” from the last two months of 2008 for the car makers.
Basically, the Dems are asking for 25 billion out of the 700 billion that was already approved to be given to the automakers. The GOP is saying they will give the automakers 25 billion, but NOT from the 700 billion, and ONLY for “retooling” of factories. So let’s just take MORE of the taxpayers’ money, but NOT from Wall Street’s precious cache of newfound cash.
BTW, retooling is not what’s needed, new management is. If we let the automakers go Chapter 11, it actually HELPS the existing poor management to stay in place. If they get out from under their current problems and avoid bankruptcy, it will be MUCH easier to get new management in place at these automakers.
Either way, a bailout or loan, from the 700 billion or from new funds that we can’t afford, it’s unfortunate that it even has to be considered. But, in the big picture, it’s more important to prop up the auto industry than it is to prop up what they’ve already propped up.
The other effect of bankruptcy, of course, is that while managers keep their jobs, the attempt will be made to bust unions, which is what the right ultimately wants. I’m not a huge fan of Barney Frank, but he’s dead on:
“…Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., disagreed with that, saying choosing the bankruptcy option would likely mean abrogation of labor contracts. “We already have too much union busting,” Frank said.
At a hearing of his House Financial Services Committee later, Frank pointedly suggested that a congressional bias exists to the extent that lawmakers seem more inclined to intervene to help white-collar bankers than blue-collar auto workers…”
Amen, Mr. Frank. There’s the truth.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Oh, and the “retooling” the GOP speaks of? NOW they want the carmakers to go green. Where have the been the last eight years on that regard, or for the last generation, for that matter?
They want the carmakers to put the loan/bailout/call it what you want into new alternative energy vehicles. Good, so do I. But why now? Where was the concern during the Reagan years? Where was it during the last eight? Hint: It wasn’t. Being close friends with Big Oil…hell, BEING Big Oil, as we’ve had to put up with the current oil men in office since 2000…does NOT portend to being “eco-friendly”. But they pay lip service to it now?
How convenient. GM, Ford, and Chrysler, again, need not retool until they get management in place that knows what it’s doing and works for a much more fair compensation package, not the greedy morons running the collective show now. Again, bankruptcy helps the current rich guys, hurts the current blue-collar workers. A loan/bailout/call it what you want might be the way to save the blue collar jobs that drive the economy, and hopefully will lead to new management.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Dead on BJ.
I got a big kick out of disciplining a Nation, and all this talk about consequences. I’m amazed that no one has advocated not providing disaster assistance the next time a hurricane hit the Gulf, or whenever California has an earthquake, mudslide, or forest fire, or whenever the river floods in Rome, or if a F5 tornado hits Peoria. Perhaps there are some people in our nation who need a refresher on the Good Samaritanship if there is such a word. Present company excluded, of course.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
BrianG – You will really want to equate the consequences of greed, laziness and corruption to the consequences of a natural disaster? I’m fighting a losing a battle here. Carry on.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Meh, I see your points but I think we’re creating a false dilemma here. One side is saying it’s either a bailout or they’ll go bankrupt and 13 million jobs will be lost. Frankly, that’s a pretty stark contrast and not one I would consider realistic by any means.
I think it is more reasonable to say that something bad will happen if nothing is done. However, if we do nothing about the company’s management, who have been steering us into this proverbial iceberg, they’re going to end up right back here. I also think it’s reasonable to say that, given the brands’ histories, products and familiarity, they would be purchased by an entity which sees an opportunity to enter the market or expand their own share.
Now, no one can accuse me of supporting one bailout and not the other. I wasn’t too hot on the 700 billion that’s being squandered on luxury junkets by an elite class of bozos who are unconscionably disconnected from reality, because I knew crap like this would happen.
Anyway, people are suffering and they’re going to suffer until we ride out this recession–whether or not the auto industry is resuscitated. They’re going to be making massive cuts if they’re forced to restructure, mark my words.
In the meantime we ought to be focusing our resources towards long-term solutions to these problems, not quick fixes which will only delay the inevitable (I’m talking about you, GM).
BrianG — apples and oranges. FEMA is not a private industry on the verge of bankruptcy due to mismanagement and, since Katrina, they’ve made substantial improvements to their response policies and practice.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
In the name of political expediency, the democrats wanted the $25 billion to come from either the TARP funding or from the funds earmarked for fuel economy innovation to avoid ownership of any ensuing eventualities. When faced with the reality that either of those proposals would be illegal, they chose to puss out and blame republicans rather than legislate a stand-alone loan package.
Put simply, they are now faced with choosing between another unpopular “bailout,” or the very likely implosion of an industry that employs millions of their staunchest supporters. In round 1, they blanched and ran away. Forced back to the table, they will now produce a SB that provides the $25 billion, but with meaningless, face-saving conditions attached. It’s proving to be much tougher to be for something than against everything.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Free markets rule. As a result there are whiners and losers, I mean winners and losers. The winners will need dependable workers, those that want to be part of the answer instead of part of the problem. It is pretty basic.
Capitalism works. It always has, and it always will, unless we allow government to get in the way.
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:09 am
There’s no such thing as a free market. The concept is an aspirational, supernal fallacy. Our economy is as close as it gets and it’s pretty darn good, but government will always play a role.
No one should make their decision on this until first imagining that they are a 10-year old child living in Detroit whose subsistence depends on her father who installs fenders at the GM plant.
Also don’t forget that the auto industry didn’t cause this mess. Instead, as is typical of most recessions, it results from someone creating a perfectly legitimate money-making idea, which is subsequently overused by the wrong people.
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:20 am
And suppose it is 100 years ago. Should Congress have passed legislation while considering 10 10-year-old child who’s subsistence depends on a father who makes buggy whips for a living?
Please.
The fact is that this country has enormous resources available to catch people who find themselves in the position of working for a company that cannot or will not survive competition.
We are on the verse of becoming pre-Thatcher United Kindom here, folks.
November 22nd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
That is a flawed analogy. The car has been replaced by what?