Top Republican senators oppose automaker bailout, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 16-11-2008 @ 04:22 PM by LowLevelMason
reply to post by GamerGal


Repeating the talking points on this doesn't make it true. You are rabidly attacking the Republican party because you think that somehow because the auto industry mainly gives money to the Democrat party that Republican's won't vote for it.

You of course ignore the fact that Republicans have been in the vocal minority in opposing both bail outs, and that the House shut down the first bail out even though both parties have lobbyists in the financial industry. You are harping all over John McCain when your party's President-Elect voted and supported BOTH BAILOUTS and is even going so far as telling everyone that he is going to pass this in the next session of Congress if he can't get it done now.

If you were really concerned you'd be pointing out that the Democrat Party, who has lobbyists in both the financial and auto industry, is voting for this simply because they get money from auto unions. Its inconsistent, illogical, and sheer propaganda that you are trying to spread.

[edit on 16-11-2008 by LowLevelMason]



reply posted on 16-11-2008 @ 04:33 PM by tmbandt
reply to post by dooper
Excellent post. To go even a bit further, these companies are now building plants in Russia. How much of that bailout money they are asking for will go towards further offshoring?

To the OP, I understand your disdain for the seeming hypocrisy, but if you did indeed vote for Ron Paul, then you should realize that any bailout is the wrong way to go. They screwed up with the banks, let's not go any further.


reply posted on 16-11-2008 @ 04:37 PM by LowLevelMason
reply to post by redmage


You are completely incapable of seeing your own partisan propaganda, its pretty amusing. The facts are that more Republicans are opposed to the bail out - both bail outs, - than Democrats, and the numbers are even larger when you take into account House members. Thats just looking at, with the current auto bail out, the number that have expressed support for or against it as the vote has not yet taken place. But of course I'm sure you'll just ignore that because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe.

You continue to fail because you are arguing with a straw man. I never claimed that a majority of Republicans in the Senate opposed the bail out, only that top senators and the majority in the House did so. When measuring opposition, the party against the bail outs is crystal clear - which is why it was hilarious that the OP was making it look like Republicans only opposed the auto bail out because they don't get money from them when they in fact get money from the finance industry that they opposed (as did the Democrats, except more of them voted FOR the finance bail out).

[edit on 16-11-2008 by LowLevelMason]


reply posted on 16-11-2008 @ 04:53 PM by GamerGal
reply to post by mrwupy


Exactly! The Auto Companies EMPLOY AMERICANS! Name one person you know who works for for Freddie Mac or Lehman Brothers, besides John McCain and the GOP. I know personally four people who work for the auto industries. But again the GOP isn't best friends, swapping wives, or owned by the Auto Industry so they won't get a penny while Billionaire Bankers get it.



reply posted on 16-11-2008 @ 04:58 PM by anachryon
Originally posted by mrwupy
I DON'T CARE WHO VOTED FOR WHAT, BAIL OUT THE DAMN AUTO INDUSTRY.


If we bail out the UAW/autos, we're just going to have to bail them out again in a few months. And then again. And then again.
The "Big Three" are broken. GM, for example, was nearly $60B in the hole at the end of June. Things certainly haven't gotten any better for them. They bled out more than $2B per month for 3Q, twice what it was at the beginning of the year, just to maintain operations.

You're right, it doesn't matter who votes for what - how can anyone put that kind of loss on the American public? GM/Ford/Chrysler isn't going to turn around and become a profit machine immediately upon bailout receipt. They don't have some magic affordable cars hiding in a back room ready to roll out. They're going to keep losing money, and they're going to need more bailouts, over and over. A bailout would be like putting a bandaid on an arterial spray, just like the AIG bailout. The blood will just keep soaking through the patches.

A bailout could possibly prolong G/F/C, but not as a long term solution. They're another Weekend at Bernie's style company, along with AIG, Fannie, Freddie - they'll keep going with people moving their arms and legs around, but when it comes down to it they're dead.


reply posted on 16-11-2008 @ 05:04 PM by Rockpuck
Originally posted by GamerGal
reply to post by Rockpuck


Why I voted Ron Paul. But well, all the BS gets my blood boiling. If your lobbyists run McCain's campaign, you get 700billion, if it didn't you get nothing.


Maybe.. if anything, if you where a lobbyist you got to add a # ton of garbage to the bills lol..

The Auto Industry is served by both Reps and Dems..

They do not exclusively pander to Democrats.

The problem is, is that the companies are so corrupted, out dated, inferior and all around junk that no bank will lend them money, if the go bakrupt, they are doomed to fail..

Dems want to throw money at it and hope that works, Reps want to allow free market capitalism and let them die..

Of course it's not party exclusive, many reps want to prop them up and some dems want to see them fail..

Either way, propping them up won't fix their problem, and the most likely case is they will export the jobs over seas to generate income and get rid of the pesky union.

Not propping them up means over 2 million people could loose their jobs..

Essentially, we sit once again in 2008 on the edge of the greatest economic depression ever and throwing money has not seemed to stem the tide of bad news...


reply posted on 16-11-2008 @ 05:21 PM by redmage
Originally posted by LowLevelMason
You are completely incapable of seeing your own partisan propaganda, its pretty amusing.


I'm glad at least one of us in pretty amusing. I'd say the same about your stance, but honestly it's just sad.

Originally posted by LowLevelMason
The facts are that more Republicans are opposed to the bail out


That's true. 15 is greater than 9; however, your "fact" means very little when most of the party voted in support. If anyone attempted to make the point that "DEMOCRATS OPPOSED THE BAILOUT", based on their party's minority voting, I'm sure you'd be screaming "partisan propaganda" from the rooftops. Yet you fail to see it coming from your own keyboard.

Originally posted by LowLevelMason
You continue to fail because you are arguing with a straw man.


On the contrary, I havn't failed at all. Claiming "SENATE REPUBLICANS OPPOSED THE BAILOUT" clearly implies majority when in fact it's based on their minority voting.

Originally posted by LowLevelMason
When measuring opposition, the party against the bail outs is crystal clear


Are you referring to Libertarians? Maybe the Green party? The only thing "crystal clear" about the voting was that the Republican and Democratic parties both voted in favor of it. Personally, I voted against every congressman in my state who voted in favor of the bailout; that included members of both parties.

Unlike you, I have no party allegiance; so your cries of "partisan propaganda" mean nothing to me. I lean very conservative on many issues; those being fiscal-in-nature are certainly among them. Perhaps it's you who should "let me know when you're capable of handling a discussion beyond partisan talking points".

[edit on 11/16/08 by redmage]


reply posted on 16-11-2008 @ 05:36 PM by GamerGal
reply to post by redmage


It is clear. Ron Paul was against it. He is more Libertarian then Republican, thank the Lord. But he is once voice fighting against the majority of Republicans. So, Bush's and McCain's friends get 700billion, companies that actually HIRE AMERICANS(oh the horror of hiring Americans!) get nothing.


reply posted on 16-11-2008 @ 05:54 PM by Rockpuck
reply to post by GamerGal


Not just Bush and McCains friends (seem to have something against Republicans? lol)

Why don't you research who all of Obama's financial advisers are.....



reply posted on 16-11-2008 @ 06:04 PM by LowLevelMason
reply to post by redmage


I enjoyed debunking your partisan propaganda claims and watching you viciously attack the straw men arguments you set up, but frankly you are so blinded its not even worth it. Welcome to the ignore list. Let me know when you can hold a discussion beyond your pre-produced party talking points, troll.

Now, returning back to topic, any bailout of the automobile industry has to be considered in a cost/benefit context. IF the automobile industry is truly in the dire state it claims, then the cost of letting it go under includes all the jobs lost in it and its business clusters and the loss of tax revenues. Is that worth more than $50 billion? I haven't seen the numbers, but I know for sure it would.

The question is whether or not the companies truly need this "or else," I am not convinced they are truly on the brink of failure. I think instead its a case of "hand out hysteria" where everyone wants a piece of the government pie in light of the financial bail out.


reply posted on 16-11-2008 @ 06:59 PM by GamerGal
reply to post by beaverg


Its not that I don't have a problem its that this is BS. Freddie Mac ran McCain's campaign. Freddie Mac "donated" 2million to the GOP before getting a 700billion dollar return. And look at that. Only the people who own the GOP are getting money. How many people can go with out six mansions, a private jet, a dozen million dollar cars, private yachts, for a year? According to the GOP their friends can't and need my money, just as long as they own the GOP.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^