President Bush Shoots America the Finger

[GoldenRivet]

"I know the people dont want this... but im doing it anyway" President Bush said with the stroke of a pen, signing over 14.4 billion dollars of our money to these anal sphincters :nope:

It is officially time for our government to be removed... again

[Hylander_1314]

That's twice now. First time, "The Constitution is just a GD piece of paper".

He has sold us down the river to the globalists, and now this.

3rd times acharm to me. Grab my flag with the stars in a circle, and the other one with an eastern diamond back on it with the caption DON"T TREAD ON ME on it, and my musket.

[Dowly]

Would be nice to have a reference for us non-US ppl to check whats this all about. ;)

[PeriscopeDepth]

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSSP15512620081219

History is going to be very unkind to this administration.

PD

[August]

Would be nice to have a reference for us non-US ppl to check whats this all about. ;)

They are attempting to blame the president for signing an auto maker bailout bill created and sent to him by a Democrat controlled Congress.

[Frame57]

Would be nice to have a reference for us non-US ppl to check whats this all about. ;)

They are attempting to blame the president for signing an auto maker bailout bill created and sent to him by a Democrat controlled Congress.Yea verily...Especially the finance committee that has been Dems for quite awhile now.

[Onkel Neal]

I'm glad Bush pushed through this emergency loan package for the auto industry. It may have something to do with the 5000 shares of Ford (F) stock I bought 11/25, ;) but I also think the US needs a viable auto industry. We cannot keep shutting down all our industries, people. Pretty soon all we'll have left are Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and McDonalds.

[A Very Super Market]

I have less than no respect for most American companies but keeping them in business is directly related with keeping the global economy from going to bits

[Dowly]

but I also think the US needs a viable auto industry.

Right you are. The way I see it now, the America's car industry's main customers are americans. And that's the problem. Take BMW or Audi for example, they are very popular all over the world. There's huge market for European and Japanese cars, while the US cars get only a little share of it. They should start to build less "american dream" cars and instead build cars that sell well worldwide.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Would be nice to have a reference for us non-US ppl to check whats this all about. ;)

They are attempting to blame the president for signing an auto maker bailout bill created and sent to him by a Democrat controlled Congress.
This bill was blocked by the Senate. There was no bill sent to him, if I understand correctly. He is effectively going around the legislature that blocked this.

PD

[PeriscopeDepth]

but I also think the US needs a viable auto industry.
Right you are. The way I see it now, the America's car industry's main customers are americans. And that's the problem. Take BMW or Audi for example, they are very popular all over the world. There's huge market for European and Japanese cars, while the US cars get only a little share of it. They should start to build less "american dream" cars and instead build cars that sell well worldwide.
Which they have failed to do since the first bailout in 1979. We are not a manufacturing nation anymore. We ARE a service economy. Giving companies that have proved themselves unable to compete in the market for the past couple of decades billions of dollars of its citizens' money AFTER it failed to move through the legislature is simply irresponsible.

PD

[PeriscopeDepth]

We cannot keep shutting down all our industries, people.
The free market dictates we do EXACTLY that when we are unable to produce things here for less money than Mexico or China can. Either socialize our auto manufacturing base completely or let it burn. A loan to keep them going is ridiculous.

PD

[Digital_Trucker]

We cannot keep shutting down all our industries, people. The free market dictates we do EXACTLY that when we are unable to produce things here for less money than Mexico or China can. Either socialize our auto manufacturing base completely or let it burn. A loan to keep them going is ridiculous.

PD

Supposedly, it's a loan that allows the governemnt to take shares of the companies if they don't repay them. Nice idea, President ShoeDodger, what good are shares of a worthless company after they blow the loan and don't change their ways?

[August]

Would be nice to have a reference for us non-US ppl to check whats this all about. ;)

They are attempting to blame the president for signing an auto maker bailout bill created and sent to him by a Democrat controlled Congress. This bill was blocked by the Senate. There was no bill sent to him, if I understand correctly. He is effectively going around the legislature that blocked this.

PD

Can't be done according to the Constitution. Congress is the holder of the national purse strings. If he's actually spending this money it's with their approval.

[subchaser12]

Wait what? Bush took yet another big steamy dump all over America?

Here, give me a minute. I am going to have to rehearse a little but so I can look like I am surprised.....

[August]

Wait what? Bush took yet another big steamy dump all over America?

Here, give me a minute. I am going to have to rehearse a little but so I can look like I am surprised.....
Your President Elect as well as the Congressional Democrat leadership wants the same exact thing so I guess it's actually the Democrats who are "taking yet another big steamy dump all over America".

[PeriscopeDepth]

Would be nice to have a reference for us non-US ppl to check whats this all about. ;)

They are attempting to blame the president for signing an auto maker bailout bill created and sent to him by a Democrat controlled Congress. This bill was blocked by the Senate. There was no bill sent to him, if I understand correctly. He is effectively going around the legislature that blocked this.

PD
Can't be done according to the Constitution. Congress is the holder of the national purse strings. If he's actually spending this money it's with their approval. I believe he is diverting money from the already passed $750 billion bailout. But while the auto bailout has many elements of the one the House passed, it never got past the Senate. And therefore never made it to Bush's desk.

PD

[August]

I believe he is diverting money from the already passed $750 billion bailout. But while the auto bailout has many elements of the one the House passed, it never got past the Senate. And therefore never made it to Bush's desk.

PD
He still has to be doing it with the Congressional leaderships approval (as well as that of the President-Elect) or they could block him.

Unfortunately it would be all too typical of Congress to abrogate their constitutional responsibilities in this manner.

[Frame57]

I'm glad Bush pushed through this emergency loan package for the auto industry. It may have something to do with the 5000 shares of Ford (F) stock I bought 11/25, ;) but I also think the US needs a viable auto industry. We cannot keep shutting down all our industries, people. Pretty soon all we'll have left are Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and McDonalds.Well, look at the bright side Neal, we can be a nation of hyperactive obese people wearing really cheap stretch band sweats...:D

[PeriscopeDepth]

Yeah, according to this (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agmm0JYrdbHA&refer=home) article:

"The money will be drawn from the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the automakers will get an additional $4 billion from the fund in February, according to a statement from the Bush administration. The money would allow GM and Chrysler to keep operating until March."

This "rescue" is one huge cluster*******.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_fun d

And from that wikipedia article:
"However, the Treasury currently lacks the statutory authority to direct TARP funds to the automakers under the statute passed by Congress. TARP is clearly limited to “financial institutions" under Section 102 of the TARP. Suggestions for providing TARP funds to automaker's financing operations, such as GMAC, runs counter to the intent of Congress for limiting TARP funds to true "financial institutions" in the first place.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_fun d#cite_note-7) On December 19th, 2008, President Bush used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds may be spent on any program he personally deems necessary to avert the financial crisis, and declared Section 102 to be nonbinding."

PD

[subchaser12]

Would be nice to have a reference for us non-US ppl to check whats this all about. ;)

It's like this. You know how we laugh at despots in Africa that get in power and use the government coffers like a personal bank account? Well this is all Bush is doing here. We laugh when dictators print more money to stimulate the economy, but that's all America does. They just fire up the printing presses. Now they fire up the computers actually because all that "money" on the books doesn't exist. The economy is melting down because all the chickens are comming home to roost at once and that money is just a fake number in a computer with nothing behind it.

The Bush supporters want to blame congress but that ignores the fact that the executive branch has made itself much more powerful over the last 8 years thanks to the Bush regime.

August said it's a democrat congress, it is but he isn't saying that the simple majority they have is not enough to override the executive.

Now Neal is right about the only thing left in America is Starbucks, McDonalds and Wal-Mart but bailing out one small manufacturing sector doesn't solve this. What about all the other thousands upon thousand of American factories that lie shutterd all over the country? America stopped making the things it consumed years ago and used credit to buy the things they needed for consumption from other countries. Now other countries are tired of funding America's leisure on credit that looks like we won't be able to pay.

Many experts warned of this but were ignored because it wasn't a politically good things to say.

[Aramike]

Wait what? Bush took yet another big steamy dump all over America?

Here, give me a minute. I am going to have to rehearse a little but so I can look like I am surprised.....Wow, you do it in every thread. Clearly a pattern.

Umm, as has been said, the President-Elect who's praises you've been singing supports Bush on this one.

Thanks for proving that it's not what Bush does that you hate, it's just Bush. Shallow.

By the way, I completely disagree with the bailout. I've outlined the only plan I would support in another thread. I just HAVE to hate it because Obama supports it. HA!

[subchaser12]

Unfortunately it would be all too typical of Congress to abrogate their constitutional responsibilities in this manner.

I like how ol poor Bush never has anyhing to do with it. ha ha

[PeriscopeDepth]

I believe he is diverting money from the already passed $750 billion bailout. But while the auto bailout has many elements of the one the House passed, it never got past the Senate. And therefore never made it to Bush's desk.

PD
He still has to be doing it with the Congressional leaderships approval (as well as that of the President-Elect) or they could block him.

Unfortunately it would be all too typical of Congress to abrogate their constitutional responsibilities in this manner.
I agree with subchaser here. This isn't Congress abrogating anything. It is Bush going around them in a blatant example of "executive authority" that his administration has championed.

PD

[August]

The Bush supporters want to blame congress but that ignores the fact that the executive branch has made itself much more powerful over the last 8 years thanks to the Bush regime.

Bull. Anything the Executive branch has done in the past is with the approval of both the legislative and the judicial branches of government.

August said it's a democrat congress, it is but he isn't saying that the simple majority they have is not enough to override the executive.

No, what I said is that the Congressional leadership, you know DEMOCRATS?, as well as the man you elected to be the next President both want this to happen, have provided the funds for this to happen, and could seek redress according to the US constitution to block it from happening if they didn't. So saying that it's Bush "taking a dump on America" is hypocritical at best and a bald faced lie at worst. So which is it?

What does your "O-man" tell you do do?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Read the emphasized part again guys...

Yeah, according to this (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agmm0JYrdbHA&refer=home) article:

"The money will be drawn from the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the automakers will get an additional $4 billion from the fund in February, according to a statement from the Bush administration. The money would allow GM and Chrysler to keep operating until March."

This "rescue" is one huge cluster*******.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_fun d

And from that wikipedia article:
"However, the Treasury currently lacks the statutory authority to direct TARP funds to the automakers under the statute passed by Congress. TARP is clearly limited to “financial institutions" under Section 102 of the TARP. Suggestions for providing TARP funds to automaker's financing operations, such as GMAC, runs counter to the intent of Congress for limiting TARP funds to true "financial institutions" in the first place.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_fun d#cite_note-7) On December 19th, 2008, President Bush used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds may be spent on any program he personally deems necessary to avert the financial crisis, and declared Section 102 to be nonbinding."

PD

[August]

Read the emphasized part again guys...

Then i expect we'll see this issue land in court just as soon as someone files suit.

What no one seems to want to acknowledge is that Bush is just doing the Democratic Congressional leaderships dirty work for them. Obama will do the same thing in February with that extra 4 billion.

[Hylander_1314]

From Henry Morgenthau to Henry Paulson (http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/473) Written by William F. Jasper Friday, 31 October 2008 00:58 [/URL]
http://www.thenewamerican.com/plugins/content/alphatoolbar/images/icon-chart.gif[URL="http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/473#"]http://www.thenewamerican.com/plugins/content/alphatoolbar/images/icon-small.gif (http://www.thenewamerican.com/component/mailto/?tmpl=component&link=aHR0cDovL3d3dy50aGVuZXdhbWVyaWNhbi5jb20vaGlzd G9yeS9hbWVyaWNhbi80NzM%3D)http://www.thenewamerican.com/plugins/content/alphatoolbar/images/icon-medium.gif (http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/473#)http://www.thenewamerican.com/plugins/content/alphatoolbar/images/icon-large.gif (http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/473#)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/History/ap-2423history.jpgThe circumstances of today's $700 billion bailout are eerily similar to those of FDR's New Deal, and today's Pied Pipers are playing the same bipartisan, power-grabbing tune.
"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury Department spokeswoman told Forbes.com concerning how the figure of $700 billion was arrived at for the financial bailout package. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

Choosing a "really large number" helps, of course, if one is trying to convince the American public that the nation is facing a really large emergency, and that the government must be given really large powers and really large sums to deal with the emergency. Which is why governments love emergencies and crises, whether real or imagined.

Over the past few weeks, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has led a team of Henny-Penny alarmists sowing panic over the troubled financial markets. "The sky is falling, the sky is falling, and only massive emergency government intervention can save us," they claimed in so many words.

The panic strategy worked, and the Henny Pennies have won — for now. On Friday, October 3, despite massive public opposition to the bailout (with members of Congress and media organizations reporting that calls were running 100 to 1 against), the House of Representatives followed the Senate's lead and approved the so-called Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which may prove to be one of the biggest wealth-transfer schemes in history. On October 4, Bloomberg.com reported:
The House approved the measure 263-171 yesterday, four days after rejecting an earlier version by 228 to 205. The bill's defeat caused a 778-point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, prompting dozens of lawmakers to switch their vote on the package, the government's largest step into the markets since Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.
Another "New Deal"?

The Bloomberg reference above comparing the current bailout to FDR's New Deal is chilling to all who are even remotely familiar with the tyrannical powers and policies that accompanied the Roosevelt revolution.

Some important insights into that important era have been provided by Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, whom FDR affectionately referred to as "Henny Penny," a moniker which was then picked up by the press and affixed to the treasury secretary. In his private diary, "Henny Penny" told of the strange daily ritual known as the "bedside conference" that greatly affected the economy of the entire nation and, indeed, much of the world. According to Secretary Morgenthau, he and Jesse Jones, head of the federal Reconstruction Finance Corporation, would meet in the morning in the president's bedroom, where Roosevelt ate his breakfast in bed from a tray. The three of them would then proceed to set the daily price of gold. Here's how Morgenthau described the process in his diary: "The actual price of gold on any given day made little difference. The amounts settled on were generally arbitrary. One day, for instance, the bedside conference decided on a rise of 21 c[ents]; 'It's a lucky number,' the President remarked, 'because it's three times seven.'"

Morgenthau commented: "If anybody ever knew how we set the gold price through a combination of lucky numbers and so forth, I think they would really be frightened."

Contrary to Henny Penny Morgenthau's diary claim, the price of gold on any given day made a great deal of difference — which was the whole point of the daily bedside conference. Having already confiscated all gold from the American people by executive fiat, FDR's Brain Trust then proceeded to steal the people's wealth through the hidden confiscatory tax of inflation. The great gold robbery had been effected by Roosevelt's Executive Order 6102, of April 5, 1933, which, invoking the ongoing "national emergency," declared: "All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency thereof ... all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates."

Refusal to comply could earn one a $10,000 fine (a king's ransom in 1933 dollars) and/or 10 years in the federal slammer. Upon delivering their gold, owners were paid the official price of $20.67 per ounce of gold. However, FDR and his bedside conferees then immediately began upping the price of gold, thus devaluing the dollars they had just paid to the former gold owners. Before long, they had pegged gold at $35 per ounce, by which point they had already robbed the American public of more than 40 percent of the value of their cash and savings. Reveling in their new-found powers, the Brain Trusters took great delight in dictating not only the price of gold, but of virtually everything else, as well.

It had all started under circumstances eerily similar to those we face today, and to the same bipartisan, power-grabbing tune the pipers are playing now. The Emergency Bank Act of 1933 was whisked through Congress sight unseen on a voice vote. House Minority Leader Bertrand H. Snell (R-N.Y.) urged Republicans to vote for Roosevelt's plan because "the house is burning down, and the President of the United States says this is the way to put the fire out." Rep. Ernest Lundeen of the Minnesota Farm Labor Party, one of the few who refused to cave in to FDR's legislation-by-hysteria campaign, rebuked his fellow members of Congress for their willingness to pass a bill they had not seen, read, or debated. He noted that the bill had been "driven through the House with cyclonic speed," and argued: "We must not allow ourselves to be swept off our feet by hysteria."

But hysteria triumphed and arbitrary power was unleashed in a profusion of new government agencies exercising dangerous and unconstitutional powers: the Office of Price Administration (OPA), the Office of Production Management (OPM), the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA), the Surplus Commodity Corporation (SCC), etc. FDR's new hydra-headed FedGov monster, led by the likes of Henny Penny Morgenthau, General Hugh Johnson, Leon Henderson, Henry Wallace, and Rexford Guy Tugwell, proceeded to redesign and restructure America according to the collectivist thinking of the times. They all were enamored of the supposed wonders produced by central planning under Stalin and Mussolini, and could barely contain themselves in anticipation of the opportunity to exercise the same god-like powers.

Like Morgenthau, FDR's Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, through her diary entries, provided a revealing and disturbing glimpse into the inner workings of the Roosevelt Brain Trust. "At the first meeting of the Cabinet after the President took office in 1933," wrote Perkins, "the financier and advisor to Roosevelt, Bernard Baruch, and Baruch's friend, General Hugh Johnson, who was to become the head of the National Recovery Administration, came in with a copy of a book by Gentile, the Italian Fascist theoretician, for each member of the Cabinet, and we all read it with care."

Of course, admissions such as those by Morgenthau and Perkins did not publicly surface until years after the fact. Likewise, it was decades later when the secret, decoded NSA transcripts known as the Venona documents were released, confirming that high-level Roosevelt administration officials and some of FDR's most intimate confidants were actually Soviet agents. Like the Henny Penny of childhood fable, Morgenthau had his Turkey Lurkey, Goosey Poosey, and Cocky Locky. As it turns out, his policies aimed at nationalizing and socializing our economy had, for the most part, been hatched by his right-hand man, communist agent Harry Dexter White. And the AAA, which sent an army of bureaucrats onto America's farms to confiscate, slaughter, and bury millions of pigs and cattle and millions of tons of grains and produce while much of America went hungry — well, those grand schemes under Agriculture Secretary Henry Wallace (an ardent and professed socialist) were the brainchildren of actual Soviet agents in the Agriculture Department such as Lee Pressman, Nathan Witt, Donald Hiss, Victor Perlo, and John Abt.

All of which proves the wisdom of our Founding Fathers against succumbing to appeals to concentrate power — even in (rather, especially in) times of supposed emergency. For those who make such appeals, once unbound from the chains of the Constitution, invariably show by their actions to be holding to a secret agenda far different from the beneficent one they had professed. "To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress," cautioned Thomas Jefferson, "is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." Or, as George Washington similarly warned: "Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."

Is there a hidden agenda behind the appeals for arbitrary power by Henry "Henny Penny" Paulson, Ben "Turkey Lurkey" Bernanke, George "Goosey Poosey" Bush, and their bipartisan barnyard menagerie choir? Of that you can be certain. And as with Congress in 1933, you can be certain that virtually none of the 263 members of Congress who voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 on October 3 had even read, let alone studied and digested, the 451-page piece of legislation and the "boundless fields of power" it has opened to licentious abuse.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/473

[Zachstar]

That's twice now. First time, "The Constitution is just a GD piece of paper".

He has sold us down the river to the globalists, and now this.

3rd times acharm to me. Grab my flag with the stars in a circle, and the other one with an eastern diamond back on it with the caption DON"T TREAD ON ME on it, and my musket.
Say hello to the us.gov cannon shell before it tears you to pizza toppings.

There is no way in hell and I repeat NO WAY IN HELL a violent revolution will EVER work again. You cant buy stingers you cant buy M1s you cant buy longbows... And you can't buy equipment.

Want to do something about it? Publicly pledge to never buy American again. That is the best you can do as it seems Obama is just stepping up to enjoy the power Bush carved for the central gov.

[Zachstar]

Would be nice to have a reference for us non-US ppl to check whats this all about. ;)

They are attempting to blame the president for signing an auto maker bailout bill created and sent to him by a Democrat controlled Congress.

What are you talking about? The bailout failed in congress. Your spin is useless.

[August]

Want to do something about it? Publicly pledge to never buy American again. That is the best you can do as it seems Obama is just stepping up to enjoy the power Bush carved for the central gov.

I'd say that would be punishing your fellow citizens but won't do much against the central government. They'll just get their money from taxing imports.

[Zachstar]

I believe he is diverting money from the already passed $750 billion bailout. But while the auto bailout has many elements of the one the House passed, it never got past the Senate. And therefore never made it to Bush's desk.

PD
He still has to be doing it with the Congressional leaderships approval (as well as that of the President-Elect) or they could block him.

Unfortunately it would be all too typical of Congress to abrogate their constitutional responsibilities in this manner.

That does not matter. The president is acting on his own. Congress shut down the bailout bill period.

Yes they could turn around and say "Oh hell no" or "Oh hell yes!" but that has nothing to do with the fact that president Bush is following through with a threat to do the bailout on his ground if the repubs in congress failed to support the bailout.

[Zachstar]

Want to do something about it? Publicly pledge to never buy American again. That is the best you can do as it seems Obama is just stepping up to enjoy the power Bush carved for the central gov.
I'd say that would be punishing your fellow citizens but won't do much against the central government. They'll just get their money from taxing imports.

And risk alienating the world and Wal-Mart?

Very funny!

You can't just slap a tariff down in the middle of a recession. It is hostile and will only be met with tariffs from the other side which will harm American business more.

Wal-Mart is of course partially a joke but not too much so considering how many Americans will go nuts if prices jumped at Wal-mart.

[August]

What are you talking about? The bailout failed in congress. Your spin is useless.

The bailout failed in Congress but Congress doesn't have to release the money for purposes other than what it was appropriated for. They can freeze it if they want to but we both know that they won't because both the Congressional leadership and the President-Elect have both publicly stated they are in favor of it.

As I said what Bush is doing is their dirty work. Am I wrong?

[Hylander_1314]

That's twice now. First time, "The Constitution is just a GD piece of paper".

He has sold us down the river to the globalists, and now this.

3rd times acharm to me. Grab my flag with the stars in a circle, and the other one with an eastern diamond back on it with the caption DON"T TREAD ON ME on it, and my musket.
Say hello to the us.gov cannon shell before it tears you to pizza toppings.

There is no way in hell and I repeat NO WAY IN HELL a violent revolution will EVER work again. You cant buy stingers you cant buy M1s you cant buy longbows... And you can't buy equipment.

Want to do something about it? Publicly pledge to never buy American again. That is the best you can do as it seems Obama is just stepping up to enjoy the power Bush carved for the central gov.

Frustration brother, frustration. As far as boycotting my bretheren goes, there ain't much left out there that's domestically made. You have to look far and wide for it anymore. the other thing to do is what this gentleman suggests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk

[Zachstar]

It is simple. Instead of buying a Ford or GM buy Toyota or even better a Mini or something.

I have no loyalty to the US car industry. They have stopped at little to prevent technology from rocking the boat over the years. They deserve to perish and boycotting them is the fastest way to end these bailouts (After they are back for their 5th)

[Hylander_1314]

Since I had to shut my business down back in May, I haven't found any work. So buying a new car is out. I will have to hook up the boat to the little BroncoII and head back to Michigan as that's the only place I have family left. And the y don't want me to wind up on the streets. So hoefully I can land a driving job there. I have 6 years of mountain driving in commercial vehicles in all sorts of weather from blistering heat to blinding blizzaeds. And not one blemish mark on my driving record. And the boat wasn't new either. It is a 1966 aluminum runabout.

I think Ford declined as they asked the CEO or one of the bigwigs if they would be willing to work for 1 dollar for the year, and the response was no. I don't see what the problem is, the guy made like 21 million last year.

[Aramike]

That does not matter. The president is acting on his own. Congress shut down the bailout bill period.The Republicans in Congress shut it down. Good for them. The Democrats wanted to shove it through.

It's too bad Bush went with the Democrats on this one.

[nikimcbee]

The unions own BO, when he gets in he'll do whatever the unions want.:nope:

[SUBMAN1]

Which they have failed to do since the first bailout in 1979. We are not a manufacturing nation anymore. We ARE a service economy. Giving companies that have proved themselves unable to compete in the market for the past couple of decades billions of dollars of its citizens' money AFTER it failed to move through the legislature is simply irresponsible.

PDI think you better go look at how much this economy does manufacture - you are wrong.

However, Bush is ticking me off with this bailout. The bankruptcy courts are designed to deal with this sort of crap, not my tax dollar! The airlines went bankrupt, and guess what? They are still there too.

The auto industry just made up for its slumping sales alright. They just got the biggest sale in history.

-S

[GoldenRivet]

im personally opposed to the bailout.

We simply cannot socialize big business in America. The government shouldnt have the power to pick which companies fail and which succeed.

[nikimcbee]

im personally opposed to the bailout.

We simply cannot socialize big business in America. The government shouldnt have the power to pick which companies fail and which succeed.

huzzah to that GR:up:

They were saying on the radio that Toyota? and GMC? had sold the same amout of cars, one made a profit, one for a loss! Guess which is which:roll: :nope: . I think people are voting with their wallets. Personally, I'd blame the UAW.

[Zachstar]

I partially Blame UAW.

Mainly because they outright supported the move to big and expensive SUVs instead of cheap and effective electric cars. And now they are willingly being used as a shield by heartless greedy and technology destroying bastards at GM.

But to outright blame them means nothing. They will have power period. Thus you must go back to the source.

It is fine to keep paying them a ton of money if they are willing to retrain to build the next gen electric cars.

[Iceman]

I find it intresting that Ford elected after all not to partake of the "apple". I think if they can stay afloat maybe they're strategy is to buy up the other two failing companies somehow...monopoly....or if not maybe they are hoping they outright fail...which I think would end up being good for them as the last remaining big guy on the American block that may after all help them...I think some should fail as painful as that is, is'nt that what America is all about...opportunity...one mans failure will create opportunity for others here if they are smart....personally the UAW needs to dissapear as it has become a death weight about the neck of that industry....they must be able to compete with the foreign makers that have moved right on in the backyard.

[August]

It is fine to keep paying them a ton of money if they are willing to retrain to build the next gen electric cars.

Bah, fire them all I say and train a new generation of auto workers. There are plenty of unemployed people who would jump at the chance to earn half the wages of an overpaid UAW dinosaur.

[Aramike]

I wonder if Obama's supporters know just how happy Obama is that Bush did this?

Obama wanted nothing to do with something so controversial early in his term.

[August]

I wonder if Obama's supporters know just how happy Obama is that Bush did this?

Obama wanted nothing to do with something so controversial early in his term.

I don't think he will be able to avoid it as he'll be doing the same thing come February with the other 4 billion mentioned in PD's link.

The whole thing is driven by the Democrats anyways...

[Aramike]

I wonder if Obama's supporters know just how happy Obama is that Bush did this?

Obama wanted nothing to do with something so controversial early in his term.

I don't think he will be able to avoid it as he'll be doing the same thing come February with the other 4 billion mentioned in PD's link.

The whole thing is driven by the Democrats anyways...Yeah, mostly I agree.

Democrats have essentially presided over the economic collapse as of late.

In fact, I believe they may have even lost seats in the Congress if Obama wasn't so wildly popular. People seem to have forgotten that Congress' approval is lower than Bush's.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Personally I don't believe Obama will be any more effective than Bush in solving our financial troubles. I don't blame this on the Dems, or the Republicans. I blame it on their hopelessly corrupt advisers. People like Paulson, Bernake, and Greenspan. I truly believe they should be put up against a wall and shot. They are all smart enough to understand what the possible effects of their "economic engineering" would be.

PD

[Aramike]

Personally I don't believe Obama will be any more effective than Bush in solving our financial troubles. I don't blame this on the Dems, or the Republicans. I blame it on their hopelessly corrupt advisers. People like Paulson, Bernake, and Greenspan. I truly believe they should be put up against a wall and shot. They are all smart enough to understand what the possible effects of their "economic engineering" would be.

PDGood post. In some ways, I agree. But I think the overriding problem is not so much corruption, but rather that these nitwits actually think they understand the workings of our essentially fiat economical system.

For instance, the reason stocks are so unpredictable and soemtimes volatile is that they aren't really based upon tangibles. In reality, emotional responses can effect the market more than real results. There's just as much money to be made from buying and selling as there is from actually investing.

It's common for people to sell stock from well-performing companies just because the market in general is tanking. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy because people actually SHOULD engage in this behavior. If they don't, others will and the people who stay lose money. It ends up hurting the company, the investor, and the market.

It's a very emotional system with few rational bounds. For anyone to think they really know how it works is not too plausible. I mean, do a poll. Ask 100 people how the Dow Average is calculated. I bet 99 have no idea.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I'm glad Bush pushed through this emergency loan package for the auto industry. It may have something to do with the 5000 shares of Ford (F) stock I bought 11/25, ;) but I also think the US needs a viable auto industry. We cannot keep shutting down all our industries, people. Pretty soon all we'll have left are Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and McDonalds.


Neal, you commie!:p :D

I'm sure you're not surprised that I disagree. I can't think of one good reason to keep the auto industry around any longer than the market allows. We're just putting the inevitable "FAIL" on the state's charge card.
This country performs poorly in a number of industries because this is no longer an industrial country. The standard of living has exceeded that provided by that type of economy for quite some time now. Many goods are simply not able to be produced profitably in America, and that's ok.

For the next step in our economic development, we need look no further than the market. Can you imagine what a nation with our resources, labor pool, and remaining social freedoms could do if we had an economic policy like that of Hong Kong? Heck, we could make it even more business friendly. We don't need factories or smelters or what-have-you on American soil to prosper, we just need to own the companies that own those facilities.
The easiest way to do that is to embrace economic freedom and step away from state control. We already have just about everything a global industry could want, and eliminating corporate taxes and excessive legal constraints could only help. We might even get some outsourced factories back as well.

Whether you believe that scenario or not, much of our industry will end up being outsourced, anyway. Nothing can stop that. No matter what measures the state takes, it cannot beat the market. Money always finds a way. Imo, the worst thing we can do is let the government get involved in any significant fashion. All we end up doing is concentrating political and monetary power even further.

Notwithstanding all that, the Federal Government has no power to issue bailouts to begin with. Neither that power, nor anything remotely like it, is enumerated in the Constitution, so they simply don't have that power. End of story. The longer we tolerate this state of affairs, the further we drift from the ideals of choice and liberty that made this country great to begin with.
The more you fight the market, the more you lose. How many pathetic socialist economies does it take to prove?

[XabbaRus]

I'm glad Bush pushed through this emergency loan package for the auto industry. It may have something to do with the 5000 shares of Ford (F) stock I bought 11/25, ;) but I also think the US needs a viable auto industry. We cannot keep shutting down all our industries, people. Pretty soon all we'll have left are Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and McDonalds.

Right you are, or else you will end up with a service based economy like the UK has thanks to Thatcher. Your auto-industry has screwed itself with bad management UK industry got screwed by the government and the managers.

[Enigma]

It's amazing to me that everyone is willing to point the finger at anyone but themselves. What roll did the consumer play in our economic woes? Hmm?

Oh, and the big 3 are failing because they make a crappy product, and foreign manufacturers make a superior product for less. I agree with someone above who said that the government should have no decisions in who fails and who succeeds. In this country, the right to succeed comes packaged with the right to fail, and if you want to run a business as blindly, and as follishly as the big 3 have, then you get what you have coming.

I am out of work, due to the economy. I drive a toyota, because it is better than a ford or chevy, and it cost less. Now my government has decided that not only has the economy cost me my job and possibly my general well being, but I will also have to pay to fix it. Oh, and since I never buy an American truck because its an inferior prduct, and since thos companies are run so poorly by foolish, arrogant people, I will now have to pay for that too. I hate this bailout. LET THEM FAIL, as failures do.

[GoldenRivet]

I have a Toyota Corolla and a Chevy Cobalt.

I have owned the Toyota for 4 1/2 years

I have owned the Chevy Cobalt for 2

The cobalt has been in the shop once in the past 2 years because the gear shifter would not come out of drive, thus i could not turn off the car's ignition, so if i wanted to park somewhere i had to leave the keys in the car :nope:

The Toyota... not one problem - nothing but routine oil changes and tire rotations. NOT ONE PROBLEM in 4.5 years of daily driving.. hot, cold, ice, snow you name it... not a single problem

Prior to that i had a 1999 WS6 trans am... a flip up head light failed twice, the exhaust flange came loose three times, the fuel pump died once, and i had numerous electrical problems with the vehicle throughout my ownership of it. - this all occurred within a 2 year span of daily driving - this equates to having the car in the shop once every 3 months on average

Finally sold the car... a $30,000 vehicle - get this... for a whopping $12,900

Vehicles are a rotten investment... yet whenever someone comes into money its always the first thing they rush out and do... buy a new car! :nope:

an expensive shiny new car that wont be worth its weight in dog crap 3 or 4 years down the road.

lesson learned... from now on, im buying foriegn, im buying for utility and reliability

[Enigma]

from now on, im buying foriegn, im buying for utility and reliability

Those were my sentiments exactly, and I purchased a 2006 Toyota Tacoma 4x4. I love it to death. Kicks the ass of every jeep, ford and Chevy I ever owned...

[nikimcbee]

I'm glad Bush pushed through this emergency loan package for the auto industry. It may have something to do with the 5000 shares of Ford (F) stock I bought 11/25, ;) but I also think the US needs a viable auto industry. We cannot keep shutting down all our industries, people. Pretty soon all we'll have left are Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and McDonalds.


Neal, you commie!:p :D

I'm sure you're not surprised that I disagree. I can't think of one good reason to keep the auto industry around any longer than the market allows. We're just putting the inevitable "FAIL" on the state's charge card.
This country performs poorly in a number of industries because this is no longer an industrial country. The standard of living has exceeded that provided by that type of economy for quite some time now. Many goods are simply not able to be produced profitably in America, and that's ok.

For the next step in our economic development, we need look no further than the market. Can you imagine what a nation with our resources, labor pool, and remaining social freedoms could do if we had an economic policy like that of Hong Kong? Heck, we could make it even more business friendly. We don't need factories or smelters or what-have-you on American soil to prosper, we just need to own the companies that own those facilities.
The easiest way to do that is to embrace economic freedom and step away from state control. We already have just about everything a global industry could want, and eliminating corporate taxes and excessive legal constraints could only help. We might even get some outsourced factories back as well.

Whether you believe that scenario or not, much of our industry will end up being outsourced, anyway. Nothing can stop that. No matter what measures the state takes, it cannot beat the market. Money always finds a way. Imo, the worst thing we can do is let the government get involved in any significant fashion. All we end up doing is concentrating political and monetary power even further.

Notwithstanding all that, the Federal Government has no power to issue bailouts to begin with. Neither that power, nor anything remotely like it, is enumerated in the Constitution, so they simply don't have that power. End of story. The longer we tolerate this state of affairs, the further we drift from the ideals of choice and liberty that made this country great to begin with.
The more you fight the market, the more you lose. How many pathetic socialist economies does it take to prove?

It's the Russian women you know. It corrupts you every time.:up:
Yes, I would like 2 scoops of sourcream on my borsch.


hhhmmm borsch.

[nikimcbee]

This is old-school US auto industry. My parents owned a ply-mouth voyeguer. What a piece of poop. Our van ran so poorly, GM just gave up and re-placed the whole thing. And the replacement had issues also.:x

[PeriscopeDepth]

Not a service economy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gdp-and-labour-force-by-sector.png

PD

[XabbaRus]

Well the two cars I have owned have both been vauxhall.

The first was a Nova that when it was scrapped had gone round the clock almost twice, the engine and running gear were fine just the body was starting to suffer from rust. It was 12 odd years when it died.

My current car is a little 1.0 litre Vauxhall Agila, not fast but I can fit a 3 seat sofa in it and close the door. And when the snow comes, I have left bigger heavier cars behind when going up a hill. I'll never buy brand new and will probably get another Vauxhall or maybe a Honda.

[Wolfehunter]

I'm glad Bush pushed through this emergency loan package for the auto industry. It may have something to do with the 5000 shares of Ford (F) stock I bought 11/25, ;) but I also think the US needs a viable auto industry. We cannot keep shutting down all our industries, people. Pretty soon all we'll have left are Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and McDonalds.No neal Government should help new companies. Small to medium ones. Those who are trying to make something and get somewhere. Give opportunities for new entrepreneurs the right to start a business and see where it takes. Yes its risky but that's business. Why should we keep beating a dead horse?

Those large companies owner don't put a cent back into their own business. Tax payers pay for it. Let them close and help build new industries.

Put back tariffs and help restore the countries economy. What is globalization? But a handful of people who control the world while the rest take handouts. Slaves to the masters..

But what can you do when a government it totally corrupted and bought off on all levels.:nope:

By the way investors will also get screwed when they belly up.:-?

[August]

I've never bought a new car and all the used ones i have bought have been American made except for the Nissan Pathfinder I drive now and a 1974 Saab.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I know it's long. And probably not what you want to hear. But read it. It is, at the very least, "provocative".

http://market-ticker.org/archives/695-Were-All-Madoff.html

PD

[TheSatyr]

The auto makers needed the bailout for national security reasons more than anything else I think. Who do you think builds the tanks,apcs,humvees,trucks etc. that the military uses?

I for one don't want to see our military have to go begging to Germany or Japan to get new military vehicles built. Good way for our tank and apc specs to end up on a desk in Beijing or Moscow.(They probably have them already but why make it easier for them?).

[Aramike]

The auto makers needed the bailout for national security reasons more than anything else I think. Who do you think builds the tanks,apcs,humvees,trucks etc. that the military uses?

I for one don't want to see our military have to go begging to Germany or Japan to get new military vehicles built. Good way for our tank and apc specs to end up on a desk in Beijing or Moscow.(They probably have them already but why make it easier for them?).The automakers don't product any of that stuff. Am General builds the HMMWV, General Dynamics manufactures the M1A1, the Bradley is produced by BAE Systems Land and Armaments, etc.

The automakers' products are more mass-produced assembly-line vehicles, doesn't work well for military hardware.

[August]

I thought the Abrams was made by Chrysler?

[Aramike]

I thought the Abrams was made by Chrysler?It was designed by Chrysler Defense, which General Dynamics purchase in the early 80s, I believe.