When Liberals Become Conservative

Or that Dog still Barks

from JoeUser Forums

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.

politics
19,497 views 55 replies
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

It is funny to see StevenDedalus arguing like a classical conservative though.  But at least he makes sense most of the time.  I cant say the same for most of the ones trying to argue as he does.

Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

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

Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

All I can say with the beating Colleen and I have taken in the stock market, we are applying for a bailout ourselves 8C

Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting Moderateman, reply 4
All I can say with the beating Colleen and I have taken in the stock market, we are applying for a bailout ourselves
End of Moderateman's quote

 

Well if your not a big donater to the politicans dont count on any money :rofl:

Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

I could use a bailout myself. Maybe they should change the date to send in your taxes so we can get our money back faster.

Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top

Well if your not a big donater to the politicans dont count on any money
End of quote

Well, considering politician payroll checks come from tax payers money. I'd say we are the highest political contributors in this country. :P

Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top

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.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

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

There are always exceptions.  But writing an article with endless qualifiers gets monotonous.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

All I can say with the beating Colleen and I have taken in the stock market, we are applying for a bailout ourselves
End of quote

WE ALL are taking!  But I refuse to burden others because of my decisions.

Mac and Cheese anyone? ;)

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

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

Fat chance. ;)

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'd say we are the highest political contributors in this country.
End of quote

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

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

I see a little problem with this plan so far.
End of quote

I see a lot of problem with the whole concept!

Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting taltamir, reply 8
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.
End of taltamir's quote

 

#2 should be requoted to say

 

"bail out home owners that took on too much without doing simple math"

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

Reply #15 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting Dr, reply 10

All I can say with the beating Colleen and I have taken in the stock market, we are applying for a bailout ourselves
WE ALL are taking!  But I refuse to burden others because of my decisions.

Mac and Cheese anyone?
End of Dr's quote

 

BUT BUT DR.! Didnt you know thats the way to do things now? cry " OOOO MEEE!!!! ITS NOT MY FUALT!" and hold out your hand! those of us that knew better not to buy even though we could , could now bail you out! I mean come on!

 

Hey at least your a man and do the right thing... You took it on and now your accepting the fact that its YOUR RESPOSIBILITY... I give you props on that

Reply #16 from Stardock Forums Top

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

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.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

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

Well I mean all of us together

Reply #18 from Stardock Forums Top

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.
End of quote

Hmm, sounds interesting

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.
End of quote

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

Reply #20 from Stardock Forums Top

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! 

Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting KFC, reply 20
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! 
End of KFC's quote

 

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

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #23 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting Anthony, reply 22
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.
End of Anthony's quote

 

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

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

I am a liberal opposed to the auto industry bailout. Just to let you know. Be well.
End of quote
Cowardice.8C

Yeah there will be some backlash at first but it will recover.
End of quote
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
End of quote
Ther's nothing to prevent the Big 3 from continuing their overseas plants.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

It is funny to see StevenDedalus arguing like a classical conservative though.
End of quote
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. :beer: