Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says that the federal government should double the amount of money allocated to the Department of Energy’s Detroit-friendly low-interest “retooling” loans. For those of you keeping track of our federal deficit, that would be $50b. But that’s not all! “Barack Obama’s top economic adviser said Monday an Obama administration would consider steps to rescue a failing domestic carmaker,” The Detroit News reports (without a single huzzah). “‘We should keep all options on the table’ to help the battered industry, Obama aide Jason Furman said. When asked twice if that meant Obama would prevent Ford, GM or Chrysler from going under, Furman would not commit to a specific strategy, repeating that ‘nothing would be off the table.'” Now how much would you pay? But wait! There’s more!
“Among the emergency measures Obama outlined on Monday was a call for the Treasury Department to buy troubled securities backed by auto loans, as well as the mortgage-backed securities that have gotten most of the attention during the crisis, an idea McCain also would consider.” As Neil Cavuto asked Reverend Jesse Jackson, “whatever happened to the idea of personal responsibility?” Or, as I want to know, why should responsible borrowers/taxpayers have to foot the bill for the people who aren’t? Oh right; so Barack Obama or John McCain can get elected. Right. Carry on then.
Solidarity forever baby.
Barry, Nancy, Harry, and Ronnie G.
And don’t forget card check to quickly unionize the US transplant factories. Maybe a dose of import tariffs too.
AS I ask here yesterday, With all this tax payer money going to the Big 2.8 do we still think the Camaro is going to be a good buy? or any American car for that matter? This is just nuts!! Why in Hell would anyone buy a car from one of these loser’s and support this Black hole of never ending spending? No wonder people go Postal!
Or, as I want to know, why should responsible borrowers/taxpayers have to foot the bill for the people who aren’t? Oh right; so Barack Obama or John McCain can get elected. Right. Carry on then.
Thank you for this pearl of wisdom. As a progressist who’s also a fiscal conservative, I have been aghast at the recent proposals from both candidates to basically spend as much money as possible on all the things that went wrong.
Well, there may have been a reason why they went wrong.
At times like this, the government has to keep the system liquid, actually working. It is such hubris to see the Bush administration, that champion of capitalism, bailing out banks. Doubly so to see our “free market rules!” denizens actually buying bank shares. Buying banks is about as socialist as it gets. But to prevent a depression it has to be done; you see, 400 people in the USA control 1.6 TRILLION if fluid capital, real hard cash. They know if there is a run on Wall Street, they can buy it all up at lower price later and devil may care how many working stiffs lose their homes. It is government’s duty to keep that from happening again. Yesterday’s rally was a signal that the bottom has been hit and these 400 may as well buy low now.
Preventing this kind of mess happening in your country again is certainly what needs to be done. The absurd concept of selling loans has to stop. The equally absurd idea of giving huge bonus payments to those who don’t make money also has to stop.
Finally, America has to be the only country in the world were the link between paying taxes and delivering government services is not fully understood. Want a war that costs $10bn a month? Want to eliminate taxes on those making more than $250bn a year? Well, you either borrow to cover your shortfall, cut services or raise taxes somewhere else. If you fail to do this, the disaster that has gone on in October is a result.
I love watching McCain do the “we have to live in a budget” thing. There is only one obvious place to cut spending in America. Defense. It has more than doubled under Bush. But are Americans really ready to cut Social Security and unemployment insurance payments? Besides, cutting social spending is absolutely the worst thing a government can do at moments like this. That is what happened with Hoover in 1930 and look what happened. Ironic that McCain is proposing the same thing.
Finally, make sure Canada is not used as a model. Sure, we have every single government is surplus, not a single financial institution is in trouble and the lowest debt to GDP ratio but we are just a bunch of moose herders. We are, however, very financially conservative commie pinko moose herders.
I’m done with buying UAW built vehicles. And that comes from a Jeep guy sad to say. I recently ordered a Civic in fact.
indy500fan, I think it’s great that you’ve managed to memorize the top names on the right wing talking points hit list. Now can explain to me how this would be better under Palin?
I agree with you “AIRHEN” I am done buying anything that is built by the UAW. I been saying this for the last couple years, and just because we may have no choice in how the Government spends our money I can stop buying from those Company’s that have been given a handout.At some point there will be a price to pay for all this madness, If we think it is bad now this will be nothing compared to when this mess unfolds.
Obama is all for fostering incompitence using our money, sounds like a great person to be running out country and now banks. If the American public doesn’t want to buy their products to keep them in business do you think you want us to have our money stolen from us, our kids, & grand kids to keep them building sh*t we don’t want.
Obama and Wagoner 2 peas in a pod. I hate them both. Change my ass, he’s the same old sh*t.
Don’t worry, McCain will put out a similar plan to Obama’s on this issue within a day or two.
Semi-related news…
http://kotaku.com/5063001/barack-obama-campaigns-on-burnout-paradise
Why don’t they just go all the way and promise everyone that the government will now be cleaning their windows for free?
This is another great argument for getting rid of the Electoral College system. Trivial states like Michigan have no business deciding presidential elections.
McCain has been kissing ass to the big three just as badly as Obama, and also voted for the $25 Billion in plant subsidies: https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/presidential-candidate-john-mccain-responds-to-gm-plant-closures/
Also, McCain has proposed paying FULL PRICE for the bad mortgages that financial institutions have, instead of using a reverse auction system to price those assets. New York is not a swing state, so there is no excuse for that proposal.
It’s disappointing that Obama would even talk about more bailouts for Detroit (even though there is very little chance they will see the light of day once he gets the Michigan vote), but it is much more disappointing that McCain wants to use $300 Billion of the $700 Billion in financial bailout money to buy bad loans from banks at full price.
I encourage all true fiscal Republicans to stand for their principals and vote Bob Barr this year.
So bailout aside, who else is NOT looking at the “big 2.8” because of warranty concerns?
Say I buy this brand new big 2.8 vehicle with 3 year warranty. How do I know the company will be around for the entire warranty? What about in 10 years? Will I be able to get replacement parts? Who will be around to fix recall issues? Who will be around to ISSUE recalls?
I consider my computer data (family pictures etc) pretty important. I wouldn’t buy a used hard drive with no warranty unless I got a 50%+ discount so I could buy 2 or 3 incase one breaks. Why should something as important as a car be any different?
Why don’t they just go all the way and promise everyone that the government will now be cleaning their windows for free?
I think the Simpsons episode where Homer becomes the Commissioner of the Waste Disposal Unit in Springfield is appropriate here. During his campaign, he promised that as Commissioner, garbagemen would do everything for you, including taking out the garbage, changing diapers, washing your car, etc. Well, Homer spends the departments yearly budget in a few months.
And for those that know the episode, I bet I have “The Garbageman Can” stuck in your head.
faster_than_rabbit: Now can explain to me how this would be better under Palin?
Simple, Sarah Palin knows a witch doctor that can cure the big 3 of all their witches:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN7hJDS26rI
Exorcism is painful, but according to Rick Waggoner it provides him more job security is less painful than Chapter 11.
Robstar,
If you can’t pay cash for the repairs, then the warranty is a big deal. However, if you are financially sound, you can likely get such a good deal on the car that the warranty value is overcome. Of course, it’s a gamble, but not a bad one.
“Obama is all for fostering incompitence using our money, sounds like a great person to be running out country and now banks”
Interesting to blame this on Obama. The banks are being bailed out with tax payer money as I write this. Obama isn’t president yet, either. It is the Bush administration that is doing it
Unless America really wants a repeat of the Great Depression, the government has to spend like crazy in a way that actually puts money in people’s pockets. This does not mean cutting taxes on people who are already billionaires. They don’t buy Fords and Chevys anyway. Billy-Bob Beerbelly has seen his family income go down $2500 since 2001 and HE is the one who needs a bail out more than anybody.
Detroit is a joke but when your country is teetering on the edge of a depression, these jobs cannot be lost. On the other hand, perhaps America can stop blaming and finger pointing and actually take responsibility for this happening and not let it happen again.
The 2008 election has the feel of two men dueling on the deck of the Titanic.
Landcrusher>
If I had to choose between a D2.8 econobox & a foreign econobox, both the same price, even if the quality was SLIGHTLY BETTER on the D2.8 box, I’d go foreign, just because I figure they will be around during the warranty period.
If they want me to buy one of their vehicles with their current problems, it would have to be 30-40% cheaper than foreign econobox assuming the quality is JUST AS GOOD. If it is not as good, it would have to be at least 30-40% cheaper for me to even consider it.
With a 12k yaris around, I don’t think any big 2.8 sells an econobox of the same quality 40% cheaper.
He’s up big in Michigan, and he needs the electoral votes to secure victory so of course he’s going to be all for whatever Detroit wants.
Personally, I wouldn’t believe any of it until after Nov 4th. The bailout bill and his other economic initiatives will give him enough cover to claim that there isn’t enough of the pie left-over for Detroit.
If these dummycrats try to unionize the transplant companies, I have to wonder how many of them will say “fuggit” and shut down the plants, simply import cars?
They can pretty well handle all the demand we’ll be having from plants in Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Poland, Russia, India, Czech Republic, etc. etc.
As for “the Bush administration doing this” – how many of you still believe there is any true difference between the Repugnicans and Demoncrats, anyway?
Follow-up question; if you do, did you just step out of a Delorean which was going 88 mph, back in 1981?
Second follow-up question; do you suppose the Bush administration has total control over a DEMOCRAT run congress? If so, then I can see blaming Bush for this. I can’t stand Bush either, but fair is fair. He’s not responsible for every single bad thing that’s happened over the past 8 years in America. Even if we constantly hear from the lamestream media that he is…
@menno
that will be handled via import duties
Rob,
Sure, for econoboxes this may be true. But over the entire lineup, it looks more like what I am saying. The problem with econoboxes is that the value of the warranty is a higher percentage of the price, and right now, the domestics aren’t discounting them as much as they are the midsize and up. Compare the Malibu to a similar accord or camry. Also, compare a Tahoe to even the next smaller japanese competitor, and you will see what I mean.
Canucknucklehead: There is only one obvious place to cut spending in America. Defense. It has more than doubled under Bush.
No, this has been discussed on this very site, and the majority of federal spending is NOT for defense efforts. Federal spending has been driven by Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. And the rate of spending for those three programs is going to increase even more in the coming years as Baby Boomers retire. Defense spending is a drop in the bucket compared to the growth that these programs will undergo if nothing is done in the coming years.
Canucknucklehead: Besides, cutting social spending is absolutely the worst thing a government can do at moments like this. That is what happened with Hoover in 1930 and look what happened. Ironic that McCain is proposing the same thing.
The federal government engaged in little, if any, spending on social programs in 1930. There wasn’t much of anything for Hoover to cut. He was actually quite aggressive about instituting public works projects and even set up the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to save failing companies. Note that neither of these moves ameliorated the deepening economic crisis.
The Great Depression was NOT caused by a lack of spending on social programs. It was caused by actions of the Federal Reserve, and foreign nations’ retaliatory efforts against the Smoot Hawley Tariff, which the Republican Congress did pass, and Hoover did sign into law.
Canucknucklehead: Finally, America has to be the only country in the world were the link between paying taxes and delivering government services is not fully understood.
Really? Then how do you explain the other western countries, that do not have our level of military spending, that have government debt problems worse than ours?
Cannuck,
If we cut defense spending, who will defend Canada? Your guys are great (I met both of them) but I don’t think they can stand up to the Chinese alone. You guys should keep your comments on US defense spending at the pub.
Menno,
Your comment reminded me of a thought I had earlier: How similar to Pres. Bush is Barak Obama? They are both lawyers with ivy league educations. They both had little success financially before going into politics (W had all the advantages of his father, but really didn’t do all that great, Barak didn’t ever stand out either). Both had short political careers that gave them the advantage of little history to conflict their rhetoric. Both said “change” alot instead of any real plan that will really work. Both really depended on charisma over substance. Both claimed not to be idealogues (though for Bush this turned out to be true).
I am no McCain fan, but I hate to see us throw another young guy in over his head.
The reason Bush deserve so much of the blame is that he has been the proesident for the last 8 years and has simply sat around with his thunmb up his a$$.
We do elect a president for a reason and we expect LEADERSHIP, a concept this is lost on most Americans nowadays.
Bush has shown us ZERO leadership ability over the last 8 years and now we come to see that the country has been a “free for all” during his term(s).
Whenever you have an absence of leadership the scoundels will see an opening and hence we end up with the current situation.
@landcrusher
W is not a lawyer.
You can slander him with many labels, but not that one.
He’s a fellow Harvard MBA grad with Rick.
“Second follow-up question; do you suppose the Bush administration has total control over a DEMOCRAT run congress?”
This is a common excuse I hear. But the fact is both houses were controlled but the GOP from 1996-2006.
It is also correct that most of what the US federal government spends is not defense. However, cutting Social Security in order to buy a new aircraft carrier, when your enemies are throwing rock at you is not always the best spending decision. But perhaps it is. It is up to American voters what they want to cut, if anything. The present system of printing and borrowing isn’t going to work forever.
“If we cut defense spending, who will defend Canada?”
Again, heard that one many times. Defend from China? You are joking, right? But if America wants to spend upwards of $750bn a year to play self appointed world policeman, then the taxpayers had better pony up and pay. The present system of printing and borrowing money has contributed a major part in the financial meltdown your country is experiencing.
Canucknucklehead: There is only one obvious place to cut spending in America. Defense. It has more than doubled under Bush.
Defense spending is about 4% of GDP, half the level it was during the Kennedy administration.
indie,
He didn’t get a JD? I could have sworn he did. Oh well, MBA’s are just as warped. Thanks for the correction.
Cannuck,
It sounds silly doesn’t it? China invading Canada for their resources. Pish-posh.
Of course, the reason it sounds silly is because millions of men like me from both our countries, but mostly from mine, gave part of their lives, or even all of them, so that the very idea of invading North America was just a silly idea. It took a lot of dollars from tax payers as well. I have lived in Alberta, so I know that there are plenty of men who would answer your country’s call. Unfortunately, the overwhelming liberalism in your country has everyone convinced that the better idea is to spend money on social welfare rather than defense. It works quite well, but don’t forget for one second that it only works because of the US military. So when you talk about what the US ought to do, don’t be so stupid as to suggest killing the goose that’s laying your golden egg. Liberalism only works when someone else is able to pay the bill.
If we go socialist, the next generation will likely wish they were part of the WWII generation. They will think those folks had it easy.
One lousy drunk invaded your country a few years ago, and your border guards had to call US because he had a gun and your border agents had liberal idealism.
Rant over.