Bailout bucks moved one step closer to Detroit pocketbooks yesterday, as Senator Barack Obama cozied-up to pro-taxpayer-tit-sucking organized labor. Harley Shaiken outlines the cunning plan to The Detroit News: "Senator Obama is using the Detroit Labor Day kickoff to emphasize three messages," the professor of labor studies at the University of California-Berkeley said. "Addressing the needs of working people, the key role unions play in the election, and the role of manufacturing and the auto industry." Three key areas of Obama's seduction of the UAW and other unions: getting that $50b into Motown's coffers, backing a bill in Congress making it easier to organize new members and renegotiating parts of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The Unions' other suitor, Senator John McCain, believes the best way to an organized laborer's heart is getting that $50b into Motown's coffers, cutting taxes and creating more jobs (through cutting taxes, strangely enough). Is it enough? Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are swings states and the key voting bloc are union members. The presidential candidate who turns up for their date with nothing more than a bunch of flowers, a box of chocolates and $50b is at real disadvantage.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Here’s where McCain gets my vote over Obama’s trolling in Michigan for votes. Right now it’s make promises you likely won’t pursue. Obama always supported the bailout whereas McCain is more conservative and took a harder stance which I figure he’ll go back to if he’s elected.
McCain is more conservative and took a harder stance which I figure he’ll go back to if he’s elected
I think you might be right, but rephrasing a little, “I’m voting for McCain because I think he’s lying”.
McCain would rather spend the money in Iraq. :-)
No matter who wins there will be a bailout. Count on it. That’s how America works these days. Money is taken from the prols and given to the fat cats. It’s like socialism in reverse.
“Money is taken from the prols and given to the fat cats. It’s like socialism in reverse.”
No, that’s what socialism is all about.
It’s easy to blame the candidates for caving in, but the Detroit automakers and their allies have traditionally had one of the most powerful lobbies in the country. Why is anyone at all surprised at how this is playing out?
Seriously. Can anyone point to a plausible alternative scenario? In other words, one that doesn’t include, “and then a miracle occurred”?
One good thing that Bush’s presidency did was not bend over to the pressure the Big 3 (at that time) put on him through lobbying and corrupt House members – Bush even canceled many of their meetings which was quite hilarious as I’m sure it pissed off Wagoner and the inept gang of mismanagement millionaires.
Dr. Lemming is right — why should we be surprised that with all of the rhetoric involving US job losses that these candidates would not attempt to shore-up American industry? No matter what stupidly run money-pits they’ve become.
My guess is that Obama will end up throwing some taxpayer money at the Chevy Volt and related projects – but neither he nor McCain has $50b lying around, after Bush’s eight year spending orgy. This is what I think the whole purpose of the Volt was to begin with: attract government subsidy $$$…
Nice line about the UAW, Cammy. =:-)
I’m no Obama junkie, but the funniest thing yesterday was how McCain kept acting like he already was president and was taking credit for the disaster relief put in place by the current administration. I guess if your going to continue doing what the current president is doing you get to take credit for anything that is currently working.
No, that’s what socialism is all about.
Uh, no. Socialism is (and this is a gross simplification) taking money from everyone and using it to provide services for everyone.
You could simplify it further to “taking more money from the rich and giving it to the poor.”, which isn’t exactly right, but is close enough. It’s also what the American well-to-do are terrified of, and the reason that they’ve spent the last eighty years demonizing it.
This is corporatism; a blatant handout to industry from government. Not even remotely the same thing.
“Uh, no. Socialism is (and this is a gross simplification) taking money from everyone and using it to provide services for everyone.
You could simplify it further to “taking more money from the rich and giving it to the poor.”, which isn’t exactly right, but is close enough. It’s also what the American well-to-do are terrified of, and the reason that they’ve spent the last eighty years demonizing it.
This is corporatism; a blatant handout to industry from government. Not even remotely the same thing.”
Yeah, I know what it says in the books. Forget about the administration of the past 80 years it didn’t need to discredit this particular boogeyman, every country who has ever attempted a socialist society has bourne out the fact that the opposite of what is supposed to happen does.
” This is corporatism; a blatant handout to industry from government. Not even remotely the same thing.”
I do agree with that statement, though. Regardless of what you call it, giving them $50b is not a good idea by any measure.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
Alice made a good point. So what IS socialism? Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, or taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich, or taking money from everyone and giving it to everyone, or … Dang, let’s check the dictionary!
Hmm .. Merriam-Webster says socialism is “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”. Nothing there about taking and giving, rich and poor. Socialism and a welfare state are often found together, but they’re not the same thing. I once knew some grad students in poli sci who called anything they didn’t like “fascism.” They were wrong too.