GOP Senator Warns of 'Riots' if Automakers Are Bailed Out

At least one Senator understands the consequences of bailing out the auto industry:



Here is the news link, also:

www.businessandmedia.org...

GOP Senator Warns of 'Riots' if Automakers Are Bailed Out
Sen. Jim DeMint says unfair union influence and the bailout culture will anger many Americans.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
12/11/2008 1:28:37 PM

me and again we’ve heard about the lost jobs and economic impact of failing to bail out the beleaguered American auto manufacturers. But little mention has been made of the consequences of going through with the bailout, and how such an action would be viewed by other Americans.
In an interview following a Dec. 10 press conference where he and four other senators aired their opposition to the proposed bailout deal struck by congressional leaders and the White House (and approved by the U.S. House of Representatives 237-170 that evening), Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., warned that the perception that some industries are being bailed out and some aren’t could lead to violence.
“We’re going to have riots. There are already people rioting because they’re losing their jobs when everybody else is being bailed out. The fairness of it becomes more and more evident as we go along. The auto companies may be hurting,” he said, but “there are very few companies that aren’t hurting and they’re going to hurt. We don’t have enough money to bail everyone out.”

Oh please, more BS from politicians.

If Americans didn't riot over the banker bailouts what on earth makes anyone think they will riot over automaker bailouts.

We have sadly become a society of sheeple (for the most part)

I'm glad to see there are still some in Washington looking out for us instead of themselves. There are quite a few GOP members who are standing up to this bailout, as well as some Democrats.

I applaud each of them for their actions.

Unfortunately it won't do any good.

reply to post by redhatty


I think the "sheeple" ( hate the term so very much) were sold on needing the bank bailouts. They have now seen how corrupt that was and how nothing has come of it, when they were told it would happen right away. In fact it has gotten worse.

Because of that people are tired of the money. They also finally realize that giving these corporations money doesn't help them keep a job or keep their house. If you take food out of peoples mouths it doesn't matter what their IQ is, they will be mad.

It's funny in Amerika it seems like the politicians tell us when it's okay to riot. "There will be riots if we do this or this" . Oh that's our queue guys Let's go!

I think Americans are to ignorant to riot on our own. If there ever is another riot here it will most liekly be set up.

reply to post by redhatty

If Americans didn't riot over the banker bailouts what on earth makes anyone think they will riot over automaker bailouts.

The answer to your question is an old adage:

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice. shame on me. "

I don't think Americans want to be shamed. Your view of Americans is rather tainted, in my humble opinion. At some point, Americans won't take it anymore. It is getting close to that point.

reply to post by whoshotJR


well when the auto companies go under and all their supplier companies go under and all the people have no jobs and the unions start screaming and all the lost revenue in medical insurance which will no longer be supplied, etc. happen...


THEN you MIGHT see riots

Are bailouts the right way - no, let them restructure then give them the loan to be paid back (which is kinda how this deal is structured) - we've done it before for airlines and auto during financial crises for those industries. Do it the same way again.

But after the back end scroomage we have gotten with the banker bailout, yes, more and more americans are very fearful of the term "bailout"

We know it just means we didn't get enough KY the first time

reply to post by theendisnear69


I was thinking along the same lines when I read the article. Sounds like somebody wants the people to riot.

Originally posted by whoshotJR
I think the "sheeple" ( hate the term so very much) were sold on needing the bank bailouts.

You think? I don't believe so considering an overwhelming majority of American citizens were fiercely opposed to the bailout from the very beginning.

The people know what we need to do, but the government doesn't listen to the people anymore.

Originally posted by nyk537
I'm glad to see there are still some in Washington looking out for us instead of themselves. There are quite a few GOP members who are standing up to this bailout, as well as some Democrats.

I applaud each of them for their actions.

Unfortunately it won't do any good.

What if they're not looking out for us, but instead warning TPTB to be careful how hard they push us?

They've been pushing pretty hard with all the last-minute looting of the country's wealth... you never know just what might push us over the line and into the streets to build the guillotines.

[edit on 12/11/08 by kattraxx]

reply to post by kattraxx

They've been pushing pretty hard with all the last-minute looting of the country's wealth... you know never just what might push us over the line and into the streets to build the guillotines.

A tightly covered pot of boiling water, shows no sign of popping its top unless it happens, and the lid is blown sky high.

From Karl Denninger

Auto Bailout Passes House

Tonight The House passed the "auto" bailout bill.

There are some key differences between this bill and the EESA/TARP:

1. Its $15 billion for four months (roughly).
2. The "bailed out" must opt in (Ford has said "No Mas!")
3. There are strict limits on executive compensation and dividends must be suspended.
4. The firms have until March 31st to present a detailed operational plan to repay the loans and exit government assistance, or the funds may be called back by a oversight "czar."

Let's deal with this one at a time.

First, $15 billion isn't much money, all things considered. Treasury has already pissed $335 billion into a black hole with the banks.

Second, there is no arm-twisting. One of the automakers (Ford) said no thanks, and was not forced to take the money.

Third, the limits on compensation and dividends are meaningful. GM's CEO already said he'd work for a buck a year, unlike Thain who wanted $10 million and the tens of billions being paid out in bonuses to the bankers.

Fourth, the plans that must be submitted and passed upon are meaningful. There is no open-ended commitment; either the debt is restructured and costs contained before March 31st, or the game's up.

Do I like handing more money to what I believe are failed businesses? No.

But:

1. I believe there's a very good chance that the government could recover most or even all of this money even if these firms subsequently fail, because (1) its a small amount of money in the total capital structure, (2) its super-senior, and (3) there is a short leash in terms of time on the firms requirement to proffer a real turn-around plan.
2. Everyone involved is going to have to take their haircuts, including the UAW and debtholders. If any of them refuse then Chapter 11 will come in three months. Not might - will.
3. The process will be transparent. We either will or won't have turnaround plans. We either will or won't have bondholder and UAW haircuts. And we either will or won't see all of it before one more dime is disbursed - not on a "must vote down" bill, but on a "must ask for more via a separate bill." This is the precise opposite from the TARP/EESA.

Is this bill perfect or even good? No. I believe the proper thing to do was and is to force these firms through a prepackaged Chapter 11, and I think there is a very high probability they're going there in any event.

But - if the EESA/TARP was structured like this bill I would have had a lot less trouble with it. It would have addressed most, but not all, of the objections I had to it.

So Congress, given that you grilled Mr. Cash-And-Carry (to his friends) today, when are you planning on modifying the EESA/TARP to add these provisions to that legislation?

I know, its a rhetorical question.

But it does need to be asked, considering that you've violated the taxpayers to the tune of $350 billion for a boondoggle that has simply gone to bonuses and corporate raids, and done exactly nothing to help the broader economy or Main Street.

America is watching you Congress, and its time for both you and our incoming President-Elect, Mr. Obama, to not only say but also do the right things.

think CONgress will listen?

Me Neither

can we stop calling it a bailout!?!?! It's a LOAN! The automakers have to pay it back. If outrage is reached over that then we should be upset and anyone getting a home loan or business loan.

reply to post by Jkd Up

can we stop calling it a bailout!?!?! It's a LOAN! The automakers have to pay it back. If outrage is reached over that then we should be upset and anyone getting a home loan or business loan.

OK, it's a loan which will NEVER be paid back, just as all of those foreclosures are LOANS that will NEVER be paid back. If you are so confident that they'll pay it back, then why don't YOU personally loan them the money?

One very important factor to consider when asking "If nobody rioted over the banking bailout, why would they over an automaker bailout?" is to consider the difference between when the banking bailout happened and today. America was looking down the barrel of national elections when the banking bailout occured. Those of us who were mad as hell over it, had some form of light at the end of the tunnel via simply voting the bastards who were screwing us out of office. There is no upcoming election to vent our fury in this time around. Also, consider this, even the most timid dog will only be teased and tormented for so long before it bites it's tormentor. I think the surviving GOP in Washington are starting to realize that the federal government is about to be bitten.

They are also wisely setting themselves up to reclaim Congress & the Senate in 2 years, IMO. In 2010. when we're experiencing crushing inflation and Detroit is either kaput or still begging for money because their sector is still completely slumped, the American voter would be smart to remember exactly supported these "loans" (which, after they've been defaulted on and the companies have disolved won't qualify as loans anymore, now, will they?) and who it was that was saying "Hey, let's put the brakes on this federal spending party now while we still can and let's begin to actually use our heads for something other than a hat rack."

Originally posted by Jkd Up
can we stop calling it a bailout!?!?! It's a LOAN! The automakers have to pay it back.

How'd that work out for AIG so far?

Oddly enough, I'm more pi**ed about the auto bailout than the bankers bailout.

I expected the politicians to bail out their Wall Street buddies as there is too much money involved with international loans and playing politics.

As for the car industry, I don't see a bail out for Circuit City or KB Hobby. Now it's just scale. An industry that produces a product that no one wants has no real reason to be in business. A business that has higher overhead than what their market can handle has no business being in business.

Americans now have the most coddled workforce in the history of the planet. We are seeing the victim game played to the hilt with all the gloom and doom of laying off thousands of overpaid autoworkers who will still be paid union wages while laid off. What is wrong with this picture.

So a few billion to save ALOT of jobs people would riot....but they sit their docile,watching the sports when the government have already spent $7 trillion on...well..practically nothing,that doesnt make any sense

reply to post by hinky

An industry that produces a product that no one wants has no real reason to be in business. A business that has higher overhead than what their market can handle has no business being in business.

That is absolutely correct. That is what free enterprise is all about -good companies succeed, while those that don't properly assess the marketplace, and adjust their products accordingly, should FAIL. Congress is trying to change the natural order of things. In the long run, all they will do is delay the inevitable, at a huge cost to us, the taxpayers.

reply to post by Solomons

So a few billion to save ALOT of jobs people would riot.

No, in the long run, jobs won't be saved. In fact, more money out of the US coffers will COST more jobs. Furthermore, if one or more of the auto companies fail, someone that CAN make cars at a profit, like Toyota, will pick up many of the workers. The others will need to retrain, just like many in other manufacturing areas, had to retrain. Why should they be any different than other workers who were displaced? The unions caused the ultimate demise of the American auto companies, with outrageous wages and benefits, and ridiculous severance clauses, like collecting 95% of their wages, if they are laid off.