Michelle Malkin » Road to GOP redemption: Roll back the bailouts, draw a line in the sand

Road to GOP redemption: Roll back the bailouts, draw a line in the sand

By Michelle Malkin • November 17, 2008 07:36 AM

While Republican strategists and Beltway blowhards convene VIP retreats and meetings and save-the-party parties, the road to GOP redemption starts right now. There is opportunity to be seized right now. There is a line in the sand to be drawn.

Right now.

The first step toward GOP redemption is to stop the automakers’ bailout and roll back the creeping conversion of the Crap Sandwich 2.0 into an all-purpose bailout bonanza for every last American industry and corporate special interest in financial peril. The second step is barbecue Naked Emperor Hank Paulson and the Federal Reserve over their refusal to disclose how they are dispensing billions of dollars in loans.

John McCain screwed this up. The out-of-touch Republican leadership in Washington screwed it up. And let’s be honest: Too many of the same tired old faces now trying to reclaim seats of power — like Newt Gingrich — crumbled on the massive banking bailout and capitulated to Reid/Pelosi/Paulson/Bush when steel spines were needed most.

President-elect Barack Obama’s got Rahm-bo spearheading the push to fork over a piece of the banking bailout pie to the auto industry. This comes on top of the $25 billion loan package (supported by both Obama and McCain) to the car makers in September. And it comes at the same time that the feds are acknowledging that the multi-billion-dollar AIG bailout was not enough and is not working.

Has there ever been a starker case of throwing bad money after bad?

The auto industry’s troubles began well before the subprime crisis started. Is using the Crap Sandwich to rescue every “vital” industry from failure what House Republicans signed on to? Ask your congressional representative.

Stalwart fiscal conservatives like Rep. Mike Pence and Sens. Jim Bunning, Richard Shelby, and Jim DeMint were right from the get-go. They have proven their leadership. While pundits babble about the need to stand up for conservative principles, the anti-bailout conservatives who withstood scorn of their “ideological purity” have walked the walk.

We’ve seen where ideological pollution on core free-market issues takes us:

Time to turn back. The fiscal conservative counterinsurgency starts now.

***

Lasting words of wisdom from Rev. Robert Sirico of The Acton Institute, who recently spoke on “The Way Forward” (hat tip: rossputin):

Most often Wall Street, functioning as a surrogate for the free economy, is denounced for all the wrong reasons: for seeking and making a profit, as though running in the red was somehow a moral virtue and every attempt to be productive was greed. No, if we are going to offer a moral critique of Wall Street, let us not do it because free markets allocate and produce capital, without which people’s homes and savings evaporate, or to be more precise, never get created in the first place. Rather, let us offer a moral critique because all these previously private businesses are now waddling up to the governmental trough begging to be nationalized or subsidized and demanding their share of the dole. Isn’t it obvious that once we concede the principle of a bail-out for those “too big to fail,” we invite a queue that will wrap around the globe?

But if tonight I appear to be a generous distributor of anathemas, let me now turn my attention to the institution which initiated, enabled, enhanced and will deepen and sustain this economic and moral hazard. I speak of that institution which has been doing this for the last several decades, and that is the Invasive State as opposed to a limited government. Tocqueville taught us long ago the lesson we are about to re-learn, namely that a society where the moral tie is weakened and where no one accepts responsibilities and consequences for their actions will quickly morph into an authoritarian, State-centered society.

The only society worthy of the human person is a society that embraces freedom and responsibility as its two indispensable pillars which is a society that understands that our individual good depends on our common good and vice versa. Let us reflect upon some crucial facts that are too often overlooked.

The institution of government—what many view as the first resort of charity—is the very thing that unleashed and encouraged those vices of greed and avarice and reckless use of money that got us into the current financial imbroglio. It did so by first placing a policy priority on a worthy goal, increased home ownership, but pursued it with a fanaticism that neglected other goods such as prudence, personal responsibility and rational risk assessment.

Moreover, its official banking centers enjoyed subsidies which distorted that most sensitive of price signals—the price of money—to delude both investors and consumers into believing that capital existed to support vast and extravagant consumerism when in fact no such capital and savings existed.

It’s an obvious point but one the mainstream media appears intent on missing: The financial crisis did not occur within a free market, a market permitted to work within its own indigenous mechanism of risk and reward, overseen by a juridical framework marked by clarity, consistency and right judgment. Quite the contrary. The crisis occurred within a market deluged and deluded by interventionism…

…As a priest, part of my calling is to defend that Tradition. As a child of America and the West, I have a second birthright to defend—the free and virtuous society. Please help us in the critical task of demonstrating why it is not merely the technical proficiency of markets that will enable us to surmount the economic crisis we face. Help us to continue our effort to convince people that economic and moral excellence is of a piece.

***

Every Senate Republican should get behind Sen. Inhofe’s accountability plan:

Dear Colleague,

I write to inform you of the actions I will be taking during the lame duck session of Congress regarding the funding status of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Given the recent news about Secretary Paulson’s execution of the TARP program, I firmly believe action is required by Congress. I plan to push for legislation that will require Secretary Paulson’s plan for the remaining $350 billion in authorized TARP funds to be ratified by an affirmative vote in the U.S. Congress.

In my statement opposing the Paulson Plan last month, I laid out two primary reasons why I voted ‘no.’ The first is that I wasn’t convinced that asset-purchase program was the right way to do this, and the second is that it would lead to increased lobbying for handouts and bailouts by any industry facing financial trouble.

I stated at the time that my vote was against the Paulson plan – not against taking extraordinary action to provide necessary confidence to financial markets. I stated that “The Paulson plan would have Washington take $700 billion worth of toxic Wall Street assets from financial firms’ balance sheets and put them on the balance sheet of the federal government…. I’m not confident in its success.”

The critics were right. On October 14th, in a significant shift, Treasury outlined a plan to directly purchase equity stakes in of major financial institutions. The Wall Street Journal noted that “critics…say Treasury should have formulated a comprehensive plan earlier in the crisis.” This past week, Secretary Paulson announced that he has completed a remarkable about face, as summarized by November 13th Investor’s Business Daily front page headline, which read, “In Major Reversal, Treasury Won’t Buy Bad Mortgage Debt.” This is a complete reversal. Why did Paulson reverse course? Thursday’s Los Angeles Times provides the answer. “Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson’s decision to abandon plans to buy troubled bank assets shows that he has come to two conclusions about what was once the chief focus of the government’s $700-billion bailout: The first is that it wouldn’t work.”

I know many of you have serious concerns about how Secretary Paulson has executed the financial rescue program and I share them with you. Congress abdicated its Constitutional responsibility by signing a truly blank check over to the Treasury Secretary. However, the lame duck session of Congress offers us a tremendous opportunity to change course. We should take it.

During the lame duck session, I will be taking the following actions. First and foremost, if Secretary Paulson submits his plan to Congress in order to access the remaining $350 billion while we are in session, a doubtful prospect, I plan to immediately introduce the disapproval resolution pursuant to Section 115 of the EESA and push for its enactment. I will also introduce and actively pursue enactment of legislation to do two things: First, it will amend Section 115 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) to require an affirmative vote on the part of Congress to approve Treasury’s plan for the remaining $350 billion, instead of the current statutory process which gives Secretary Paulson far too much latitude. Second, it will require a freeze on any remaining funds of the first $350 billion. It is imperative that we not allow that amount of money to be added to a deficit approaching $1 trillion this year without any input from the legislative branch.

Secretary Paulson stated in a CNBC interview at 2:00pm on Friday, November 14th that “the financial markets have been stabilized.” If that is the case, it is Congress’s duty to have a say in what happens with the remaining authorized amount of $350 billion. It is clear that it was a mistake to sign a blank check to one man for such a tremendous amount of money. Though there are still significant challenges in financial markets, it appears that the threat of a catastrophic financial crisis, which was the justification for the grant of such sweeping authority, has subsided. Perhaps the additional $350 billion should not be added to the deficit. Congress should have a debate.

I appreciate your time and attention to this matter and look forward to working with you in the coming week.

Sincerely,

Senator Jim Inhofe

And every GOP governor should be sending a letter like GOP SC Gov. Mark Sanford’s letter to the Naked Emperor Paulson:

Governor Mark Sanford today called on South Carolinians to make their voices heard to Congressional leadership about the “gaming of the nation’s taxpayers” being spurred by Congress’s lack of oversight of the recent federal bailout bill.

In a letter sent Friday to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the governor urged the Secretary to take whatever steps he could to prevent taxpayers being exposed to additional and unnecessary liability from the bailout, writing that, “The federal government, and by extension taxpayers, are being gamed. I think it’s dangerous over the long run the way that taxpayers are being sapped, and this dynamic is playing out in South Carolina.”

The governor cited a number of examples today and in Friday’s letter, including:

- The sooner-than-expected retirement of Carolina First CEO Mack Whittle. Some have surmised that Whittle’s retirement date was moved up so that his bank could apply for federal bailout money while Whittle retained his “golden parachute.” The estimated value of Whittle’s retirement package is $18 million, a deal that would have been compromised if the bank had asked for a taxpayer bailout before Whittle left.

- A growing number of banks are applying for federal bailout money despite not having engaged in risky lending practices, to make sure they receive a portion of federal “free money” and not be put at a competitive disadvantage.

- The Federal Reserve is now putting $150 billion in AIG after an initial bailout attempt failed to stem massive losses, $27 billion more than previously extended. After an initial bailout with taxpayer money in September, AIG treated some staff to spa retreats in California ($440,000) and a hunting trip in England ($500,000). The Wall Street Journal reported last week that some $40 billion is being paid to executives of banking giants that are getting bailout payments. On top of that, Bloomberg reported today that the Federal Reserve is refusing to identify who is even getting $2 trillion in emergency loans.

“In the rush to ‘do something’ about the turmoil in the credit markets, Congress has failed miserably in keeping an eye out for the taxpayers and watching for unintended consequences of this bailout,” Gov. Sanford said. “To put it simply, taxpayers are getting gamed. While we continue to believe that the bailout was an incredibly bad idea in the first place, it’s being made worse by loose rules and oversight that are putting taxpayers on the hook for billions more. I’d urge every South Carolinian to make their voices heard to Washington D.C. about the need for real oversight of the bailout going forward.”

***

Take action: Contact the Treasury Secretary. Demand accountability. Where is your money?

Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220

Telephone: 202-622-2000
Fax: 202-622-6415

Posted in: GOP, Subprime crisis

Printer Friendly

comments (137)

trackbacks (37)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#547265

On November 17th, 2008 at 11:29 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

On November 17th, 2008 at 11:12 am, MtsEdge said:

Redpill, most of the time (99%) I agree with you. But not all Dems are the devil. Perhaps this guy was more of a Bob Casey, or Zell Miller.

I’ve said the same on my blog…there is a difference between DemoNcrats and Democrats.

I love Zell Miller. But in this election I would have voted for any Republican (conservative or RINO) over even a conservative Democrat. Why? because headcount majority determines whether or not Pelosi and Reid run Congress. If Democrats have the numbers, prepare yourself for the Communist Bill of Fascist Government Rights. They will try to codify the Communist agenda into our Constitution if they believe they can pass the Amendments and get them ratified by 38 state legislatures.
#547269

On November 17th, 2008 at 11:33 am, MtsEdge said:

But in this election I would have voted for any Republican (conservative or RINO) over even a conservative Democrat. Why? because headcount majority determines whether or not Pelosi and Reid run Congress.

I hear you, but I think I’d rather vote for a Dem w/convictions closer to mine than a RINO that claims to have the same convictions but disses them when they get the chance. I think a RINO-led Congress is (almost) as dangerous as a lib Congress. Both can do severe, if not irreparable, damage.
#547284

On November 17th, 2008 at 11:46 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

Tocqueville taught us long ago the lesson we are about to re-learn, namely that a society where the moral tie is weakened and where no one accepts responsibilities and consequences for their actions will quickly morph into an authoritarian, State-centered society.

Weakening the moral tie is called demoralization, and it is
phase 1 of 4 on the path from Capitalism to Stalinism.

Democratic President Harry S. Truman said something very similar:

The most important business in this Nation–or any other nation, for that matter-is raising and training children. If those children have the proper environment at home, and educationally, very, very few of them ever turn out wrong. I don’t think we put enough stress on the necessity of implanting in the child’s mind the moral code under which we live.

The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.

If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.

-President Harry S. Truman

And a great Republican President:

The American experiment in democracy rests on this insight. Its discovery was the great triumph of our Founding Fathers, voiced by William Penn when he said:

“If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants.“

Explaining the inalienable rights of men, Jefferson said,

“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.“

And it was George Washington who said that

“of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.“

And finally, that shrewdest of all observers of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, put it eloquently after he had gone on a search for the secret of America’s greatness and genius — and he said:

“Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the greatness and the genius of America. America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.“

…

There is sin and evil in the world, and we’re enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might.

…

I pointed out that, as good Marxist-Leninists, the Soviet leaders have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further their cause, which is world revolution. I think I should point out I was only quoting Lenin, their guiding spirit, who said in 1920 that they repudiate all morality that proceeds from supernatural ideas — that’s their name for religion — or ideas that are outside class conceptions. Morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of class war. And everything is moral that is necessary for the annihilation of the old, exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.

Well, I think the refusal of many influential people to accept this elementary fact of Soviet doctrine illustrates a historical reluctance to see totalitarian powers for what they are. We saw this phenomenon in the 1930s. We see it too often today.

…

Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness. Pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the State, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.

Who said that?

Was it former pastor Mike Huckabee?

No, it was former President Ronald Reagan.

Go re-read Reagan’s speech. It’s never been more relevant than right now.
#547311

On November 17th, 2008 at 12:11 pm, Jet Jaguar said:

On November 17th, 2008 at 11:08 am, AmericanPatriot said:

….
There was no intent in spamming the blog.
…

AP, I enjoyed reading your post. One thing seems missing from that projected scenario is the state of mind of the American people. If things get as bad as they look like they’re going to get, I wonder if we’ll just sit there and take it. The imagined conversation should have mentioned something about that. Maybe it did and I just missed it.

Regards…
#547319

On November 17th, 2008 at 12:22 pm, AlohaGuy said:

the creeping conversion of the Crap Sandwich 2.0 into an all-purpose bailout bonanza for every last American industry and corporate special interest in financial peril.

AlohaGuy Massive Industry wants his bailout too. It’s unique, vital, and too big to fail. What it does, I cannot disclose but let me just say – votes are at stake…
#547320

On November 17th, 2008 at 12:24 pm, AlohaGuy said:

Do you know who did have a steel spine and stood strongly against the bailout?

Mike Huckabee.

Oddly enough, he was the guy I saw all over the tube denouncing the bill. Gotta give him credit for that.
#547367

On November 17th, 2008 at 12:57 pm, conservativesRus said:

On November 17th, 2008 at 11:11 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

You are right Governors do not “control” federal immigration policy, however, they can greatly influence what happens in their particular state regarding those here illegally. Huckabee did nothing to discourage illegal immigration into his state.
Your love of the fair tax is laudable – but like anything, it’s the details that concern me. There is no such thing as “fair” tax policy. No matter how you work it, some will pay more than the services they receive (any tax based on “income”/wealth/or transactions) or some will be taxed beyond their income (a “per person” tax). Further, taxation without fiscal restraint (at ALL levels – something Huckabee did not do as Gov) is a exercise equivalent to attempting perpetual motion.
#547373

On November 17th, 2008 at 1:00 pm, EdDantes said:

What a joke! Leave it to the US Congress to solve a problem caused by lack of oversight with a solution that provides…no oversight. Brilliant.
#547395

On November 17th, 2008 at 1:12 pm, sandyb said:

His response was to insult me by saying my three college economic courses were dangerous and I should leave the financial decisions up to those in Washington who have had a real education.
IOW, the idiots who caused the crisis in the first place?

This is quite similar to all those (RINOs esp.) who decry Sarah Palin as a moron. Let’s review, shall we?

Question 1: Who is responsible for the Fannie/Freddie mess as well as all the deficit spending?

Answer: Why, that would be the career politicians in DC.

Question 2: Who has a massive SURPLUS under her leadership vs. those rocket scientists in DC?

Answer: Sarah Palin.

Okay. Tell me more about how bad Sarah Palin would be as prez.
#547453

On November 17th, 2008 at 1:48 pm, lonewolf said:

What puzzles me is, if the American public is so disenchanted with the state of the economy, why did they vote to increase the number of Democrat legislators who caused it?
#547482

On November 17th, 2008 at 2:02 pm, Mister P said:

I suggest this slogan: “Spread the Responsibility.” Obama is for no responsibility, no accountability and Power to the Democratic Party lead by himself. It is Authority without Responsibility. It leads to disaster. Just ask the German Youths of the ’30s.

First the Republicans must wage war against the Democrats. The same war the Democrats ran in 2008 (while Republicans were sleeping). They must make sure a Republican is nominated for President. I have no doubt that McCain was selected by the Democrats to make Obama look moderate. He ran interference for the most radical president since Andrew Jackson.

So make the primaries Republican primaries (how many Democrats crossed over to get McCain nominated?).

Start an organization like the Democrats. Lets have a Conservative version of “move-on.org”. We must start engaging in battles on many fronts exposing the Marxism of these coming 4 years. Start looking into the lives of the MSM and expose their connections.

There is a ton of work to do.
#547489

On November 17th, 2008 at 2:03 pm, dadinseattle said:

It seems to be a fact that:
The socialists have indeed taken over the country and we are out organized.

We need leaders now!

If some of these leaders don’t draw a line in the sand now they can only expect to be backing up further and further.

Hanging by two threads
#547492

On November 17th, 2008 at 2:06 pm, rightisright said:

FamilyMan, try getting a copy of this to your democrapic leader, looks like he needs the education in a form he can understand. I do not propose or support Mr. Schiff’s no-tax position, you can see where that got him(prison). I think every government employee and elected official should read this pamphlet, they maybe able to understand how the real financial system works. The only way it can work and prosper.

http://home.earthlink.net/~schiffeconomics/index.htm
#547508

On November 17th, 2008 at 2:13 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

I wonder when the Dems and weak-spined Republicans in Congress are going to wake up and see that Paulson is not their buddy and has his own interests in these matters?

Also, just wait until news emerges of the billions of dollars that went to people and businesses that had no business getting any of it. If you thing Oil for Food was a disaster… stay tuned. This might just top that.
#547521

On November 17th, 2008 at 2:24 pm, jkline23 said:

The problem stems from the fact the white house is for sale to the person who will give the most from the public troth. About 40% of American now receives some benefit from the government so the choke chain has been set and will get tighter when more and more people sign up.

We no longer have the ability to revolt since FDR changed our tax system from pay the prior year’s taxes by April 15th of the next year to a pay as you go system meaning they have your money in advance.

The game is deception after deception and the honest people will lose. For example, if you removed all of the big city politics from the election the past 20 years who would have won. The republican would have won all of the races but the corruption that occurs in our cities trends the national stage.

Here in the Oregon, Moscow on the Willamette (Portland) chooses our political players all day long. The prior governor’s races from this last one, the runner up won 34 of the 36 counties while the governor won two.

Too many people in the cities get government assistance and they continue to vote that way. Until we enact a law where people are not allowed to vote if they receive money from the government the trend will continue until we are truly a socialist nation, which with the current choice of president isn’t too far away.

All we can do is cling to our bible, our guns, and have faith…..

If having faith against the law yet?
#547630

On November 17th, 2008 at 3:22 pm, Tanya said:

Do you know who did have a steel spine and stood strongly against the bailout?

Mike Huckabee.

I think this guy will be the GOP nominee in 2008. He shares many of the same beliefs and values as Palin, but he also comes across as poised and quite intelligent. As much as the media would have like to treat him like a bumpkin, his intellect wouldn’t allow it. He was great in the debates and ran a fantastic campaign. He is Palin with talent. Even some liberals at least like and respect him. He’s smooth, smart and witty on camera or behind the mic. If the bailout fails, he has a strong populist case to run on in 2012.
#547638

On November 17th, 2008 at 3:27 pm, sonofdy said:

Is having faith against the law yet?

Is it a state authorized politicaly correct faith?
#547654

On November 17th, 2008 at 3:43 pm, John Deaux said:

On November 17th, 2008 at 3:22 pm, Tanya said:

Do you know who did have a steel spine and stood strongly against the bailout?

Mike Huckabee.

I think this guy will be the GOP nominee in 2008.

Would that be same Huckabee that leased a huge building to the Mexican government to serve as a consulate and hand out matricula consular cards for just a dollar a year?

Thanks, but no thanks. Huckabee isn’t the best choice.
#547698

On November 17th, 2008 at 4:09 pm, Irish Rose said:

I agree with a lot of what I’m reading here, but I feel compelled to put in that it’s not just the auto dealerships that are going to suffer.

It’s important to remember for the sake of discussion, that manufacturing jobs in the auto industry create thousands of spin-off jobs.

Some of these spin-off jobs are in industries that actually supply the auto industry. Automotive computer technology, electronics, steel, plastics, transportation, business services, quality assurance, etc. etc. etc.)

Other spin-off jobs are in industries that depend on the consumer spending of those who work for the auto industry and the above related industries. Food service, for example.

So you see, when you talk about “letting em’ fail!”, you are also talking about letting all of THESE jobs and businesses fail. We’re talking thousands and thousands of workers here, vulnerable families with children.

Sure this is an emotional arguement, but what’s wrong with that? When it comes to fiscal conservatism, it’s all too easy to formulate opinions that are purely analytical with zero empathy… especially when your life is not going to be directly impacted by what goes down in Washington.

I understand why people are raising a hue and cry about the auto industry bailout, but drop the logical analysis long enough to actually think about how this might affect your fellow Americans.

Is this something that we really want to do for the sake of fiscal conservatism, folks? Destroy the lives of thousands and thousands of innocent workers who have absolutely nothing to do with the irresponsible management of the big 3?

There simply has to be a better solution.

Waiting for someone to call me a “liberal” in 3… 2… 1…
#547718

On November 17th, 2008 at 4:26 pm, Irish Rose said:

This is a very difficult situation and I don’t claim to have the answers, but I’d personally like to see some strong conditions attached to any kind of bailout. Jettisoning the UAW is critical, and has to be done… first and foremost.

These companies should be also be required to bring a specified number of outsourced jobs back to American workers, and move their corporate headquarters back to the US if they want any bailout money at all from American taxpayers.

For starters.
#547781

On November 17th, 2008 at 5:06 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

It’s an obvious point but one the mainstream media appears intent on missing: The financial crisis did not occur within a free market…
Quite the contrary. The crisis occurred within a market deluged and deluded by interventionism…

Very true, and there is a very good reason why the mainstream media appears intent on missing this point…

The Vast LEFT-Wing Conspiracy of Democratic Socialists truly want to “bring an Empire to its knees“. They created the crisis and want the blame to be on Capitalism and “Wall Street greed”.

Create a crisis and blame the crisis on your adversary. Then make drastic changes to the government.

Reminiscent of 1930’s Germany…
#547874

On November 17th, 2008 at 6:05 pm, FilmLadd said:

On November 17th, 2008 at 4:09 pm, Irish Rose said:

So you see, when you talk about “letting em’ fail!”, you are also talking about letting all of THESE jobs and businesses fail. We’re talking thousands and thousands of workers here, vulnerable families with children.

Sure this is an emotional arguement, but what’s wrong with that? When it comes to fiscal conservatism, it’s all too easy to formulate opinions that are purely analytical with zero empathy… especially when your life is not going to be directly impacted by what goes down in Washington.

Back up for a moment and think.

Why are these jobs in danger to begin with? Why is the economy in such a mess?

Intervention. Socialism. Taxes. Red tape. Etc.

Proposing even more of this “medicine” is as stupid as proposing a good leeching for an anemic.
#547876

On November 17th, 2008 at 6:07 pm, FilmLadd said:

And p.s., not calling you a liberal. But prescribing medicine in a fit of emotion is a terrible thing to do… sometimes the best prescription is no medicine at all.

The motto should be, “first, do no harm.”
#547891

On November 17th, 2008 at 6:17 pm, Marie said:

Everyone has a congressman and two senators. The message to them should be “No bailout. Get out of our life. Don’t try to save us, we’ll do that ourselves with free market and less regulation and less taxation. There are enough laws on the books to stop the scammers and cheaters and corrupt jerks. If you see corruption and cheating, step up and reveal it. If you won’t be honest and upfront, then get the hell out.”
#547911

On November 17th, 2008 at 6:31 pm, Irish Rose said:

On November 17th, 2008 at 6:07 pm, FilmLadd said:

in a fit of emotion

If suggesting to others here that they need to take a closer look at the human beings who are actually going to be affected if we just “let em’ fail!” qualifies as an “emotional fit”… then I guess I’m guilty.
#547918

On November 17th, 2008 at 6:38 pm, Marie said:

Don’t under estimate the human spirit if they are denied the “goodies”. People have a way of doing the best for themselves….inspite of themselves.
#547931

On November 17th, 2008 at 6:48 pm, FilmLadd said:

On November 17th, 2008 at 6:31 pm, Irish Rose said:

If suggesting to others here that they need to take a closer look at the human beings who are actually going to be affected if we just “let em’ fail!” qualifies as an “emotional fit”… then I guess I’m guilty.

Don’t take what I said the wrong way. Wasn’t meant to be harsh.

But really, think on it. Who says we haven’t considered the human costs?

The taxes, the UAW, the environmental + workplace regulations… these are why our automakers are having these problems in the first place, and why all of these other jobs you speak of are in danger of evaporation.

Advocating more of the same poison that caused the mess in the first place is a terrible idea.

It may alleviate some suffering today, but will only cause greater suffering in the future.

Imagine if we had bailed out the horse-drawn carriage industry. Tens of thousands of jobs and peripheral jobs might have been saved (horse breeders, tenders, etc.) but imagine what the costs might have been in lost technology and innovation over the decades.

Take one possible loss: the motorized ambulance. How many lives have been saved by rapid transportation to a hospital?

It’s sort of like the prime directive from Star Trek: governmental interference can have dire and unintended consequences.

Consider what might happen if the big three are bailed out. What other transportation technologies are being damaged as a result?
#547941

On November 17th, 2008 at 6:57 pm, Irish Rose said:

On November 17th, 2008 at 6:38 pm, Marie said:

Don’t under estimate the human spirit if they are denied the “goodies”. People have a way of doing the best for themselves….inspite of themselves

All due respect Marie, but I’m not talking about “goodies” here.

I’m talking about a basic job with an income, so that people have the money that they need to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads without having to rely on temporary unemployment benefits (that will eventually run out), food stamps and welfare.

Food stamps and welfare, for thousands and thousands of newly qualified recipients… think about it.

Something else to look forward to, if we just “let them fail!”
#547951

On November 17th, 2008 at 7:01 pm, FilmLadd said:

On November 17th, 2008 at 6:57 pm, Irish Rose said:

Something else to look forward to, if we just “let them fail!”

Again, it doesn’t matter – government intervention will only make it worse for them (and everyone else, for that matter), even if (big if) there is a temporary “stay” of execution.
#547958

On November 17th, 2008 at 7:05 pm, Irish Rose said:

Well OK then FilmLadd, what in your opinion is the remedy for this mess?

Try as I might, I just can’t see the logic of “letting them fail!” A restructuring perhaps, with some very hard terms and conditions and very strict oversight…. but to let the entire American automotive industry simply go under? Taking thousands and thousands of jobs with it?

I just can’t see it. There has to be a better solution.
#547984

On November 17th, 2008 at 7:20 pm, AlohaGuy said:

but to let the entire American automotive industry simply go under?

They are already under. Poor management, over regulation, unrealistic unions in the face of well-managed competition. Fewer auto jobs in Michigan than 20 years ago? Well there are more in Alabama and Tennessee. In a country of 300 million people, about 1500 wanted an Escalade last year. I’ll bet they lost money on all of them, and now they want a handout….
#547994

On November 17th, 2008 at 7:28 pm, Marie said:

Sorry Irish Rose…. you are looking at letting “US” let them fail and I am looking at them to rise to their own well being. If they fail, it is at their own hand. Over extended credit card spending, not saving. Having every toy in the world, big car. Nopers, Irish Rose – these are the “goodies”. And they will not have these “goodies” anymore. But I do think these people will survive okay – inspite of themselves.
#548231

On November 17th, 2008 at 11:04 pm, Silkyinfamous said:

Who’s next in line for a bailout after these crooks and Union barons?

The street walker. I read an article saying the “John” rate was going down and it had to do to the economy. Perhaps Stardust, Sapphire and Blue Sky will be next up on Capitol Hill.
#548239

On November 17th, 2008 at 11:12 pm, FilmLadd said:

On November 17th, 2008 at 7:05 pm, Irish Rose said:

Well OK then FilmLadd, what in your opinion is the remedy for this mess?

I just can’t see it. There has to be a better solution.

The remedy is simple:

1) Reduce their taxes. Why would we borrow money to bail them out so that they can then pay taxes? This is stupid.

Reduce their payroll taxes, etc. Make it less expensive for them to do business by reducing their labor costs.

2) Reduce the costs of energy. Energy costs are a big hunk of making a car. By reducing regulations on oil drilling, etc, means that the inputs (steel, metals, plastics) are cheaper.

3) Reduce the labor redtape across the entire country. Right-to-work states attract Toyota and Honda plants. Despite the ailing economy these companies are doing just fine and don’t need bailouts from Japan. That’s because they’re not stuck with the UAW.

Those are just a few things.
#548264

On November 17th, 2008 at 11:36 pm, Digshot said:

What a coincidence. Conservatives control the government almost exclusively for 8 years, and it’s only after they’ve racked up a massive tab and been thrown out of office that all of you alleged fiscal conservatives feel like piping up about it? The bailout is hardly the first fiscally irresponsible course of action taken by this administration. Bush had conclusively demonstrated he didn’t actually subscribe to any of the small, fiscally responsible government stuff by the end of his first term, and you guys still enthusiastically supported him. Bush didn’t have to govern as a conservative because no one held him to account. This is the problem with your guys’ party; the leaders aren’t expected to do anything but win. You can torture and invade and wiretap to your heart’s content when you’re winning elections, the moment you stop, that’s when they turn on you and start accusing you of betraying conservatism.

As hard as rank-and-filers in the conservative movement might try, your party isn’t going to get out of this until you all individually start taking some responsibility.
#548295

On November 18th, 2008 at 1:22 am, Jet Jaguar said:

On November 17th, 2008 at 11:36 pm, Digshot said:

What a coincidence. Conservatives control the government almost exclusively for 8 years,

No, RINO-libs controlled it.

and it’s only after they’ve racked up a massive tab and been thrown out of office that all of you alleged fiscal conservatives feel like piping up about it?

Not me. I’ve been unhappy w/Bush for many years. He seems to have been good on the WOT (war-on-terror), a ridiculous concept, by the way; war is made on nations, not an emotion. Am not sure how much of his success there has been on his part or the ineptitude and/or weakness of the Islamofacists. What kills it for me on Bush is his failure on illegal immigration, his failure to protect our borders, and recently, his buy-in/sell-out to the bailout fiasco.

Actually, I believe all of our presidents have been bad, Constitutionally speaking, for a long while… maybe since the late 1800s… but that’s a topic for another discussion.

The bailout is hardly the first fiscally irresponsible course of action taken by this administration. Bush had conclusively demonstrated he didn’t actually subscribe to any of the small, fiscally responsible government stuff by the end of his first term,

no argument there

and you guys still enthusiastically supported him.

As a Conservative, I gave him a small percentage of support.

Bush didn’t have to govern as a conservative because no one held him to account. This is the problem with your guys’ party; the leaders aren’t expected to do anything but win.

Preach it, brother!

You can torture and invade and wiretap to your heart’s content when you’re winning elections, the moment you stop, that’s when they turn on you and start accusing you of betraying conservatism.

The Republican **and** Democrat politicos have betrayed conservatism for a long time.

As hard as rank-and-filers in the conservative movement might try, your party isn’t going to get out of this until you all individually start taking some responsibility.

Please tell us how to do that. I am being sincere. How would you advise conservatives to take responsibility? I will weigh your analysis/advice and, if sound, will put it into practice. What would you have us do? I am speaking to you as a Patriot, one who believes that God inspired our nation, and has set it up as a light on a hill, to give hope to the oppressed… that by vision, hard-work, and personal sacrice, they can make a better life for themselves, their families, neighbors, and countrymen.
#548348

On November 18th, 2008 at 5:28 am, graysonret said:

As hard as rank-and-filers in the conservative movement might try, your party isn’t going to get out of this until you all individually start taking some responsibility.

What party? I’ve been trying to find a good conservative party. Certainly, it isn’t Republican, if that’s what you mean. I would like to see true conservatives in power, so they can take some responsibility. Hard to do when there are few of them in government, right now.
#548357

On November 18th, 2008 at 7:10 am, zorro said:

The hosts and Huck on Fox and Friends are discussing this post on the air.

The blue print for redemption is right here, republicans. I doubt you will understand it, but it’s here.
#548377

On November 18th, 2008 at 8:00 am, hayroller15 said:

I thinks its time for a new party. The republican party is infested.From my experience when things get like that you burn it and start over.So a new party looses for twenty years.People will wake up and realize its their only hope.I know by then things will be even more out of control but the republican party has a deep disease that I don’t think can be fixed.Burn it.
#548388

On November 18th, 2008 at 8:25 am, Irish Rose said:

On November 17th, 2008 at 11:36 pm, Digshot said:

What a coincidence. Conservatives control the government almost exclusively for 8 years, and it’s only after they’ve racked up a massive tab and been thrown out of office that all of you alleged fiscal conservatives feel like piping up about it? The bailout is hardly the first fiscally irresponsible course of action taken by this administration. Bush had conclusively demonstrated he didn’t actually subscribe to any of the small, fiscally responsible government stuff by the end of his first term, and you guys still enthusiastically supported him. Bush didn’t have to govern as a conservative because no one held him to account. This is the problem with your guys’ party; the leaders aren’t expected to do anything but win. You can torture and invade and wiretap to your heart’s content when you’re winning elections, the moment you stop, that’s when they turn on you and start accusing you of betraying conservatism.

As hard as rank-and-filers in the conservative movement might try, your party isn’t going to get out of this until you all individually start taking some responsibility.

LOL.

The Dems have been in control of Congress and setting fiscal policy for the last two years now, Dig.

“The most ethical Congress ever” with the near single-digit approval rating knew that this fiasco was coming when they assumed fiscal control in Washington two years ago, and they did nothing to stop it… therefore, they own it.

But hey, don’t let something as insignificant as fact get in the way of a good neocon smackdown!

You might try taking a good hard look at the irresponsible idiots in your own party, before you come over here and criticize ours… just a suggestion.

Go ahead now, give us the arguement that two solid years of fiscal control in Washingon were not enough time to avert this debacle.

Go ahead… we’re waiting.

your party isn’t going to get out of this until you all individually start taking some responsibility.

Uh huh.
#548394

On November 18th, 2008 at 8:32 am, longbow said:

Anyone who thinks the bailout is a good idea and that it must be done, has no understanding of fiscal responsibility, no understanding of what “social justice” really is, and no understanding or no caring of what our Constitution says is permissible for the Federal government.

The bailout is just plain wrong on so many levels. Anyone who backs it does not have my support, ever.
#548408

On November 18th, 2008 at 8:54 am, Irish Rose said:

I’m sure that Dig up there is still trying to come up with a way to deflect criticism. I expect he’ll try to blame the Republicans… like liberals do every single time their ethics, governance and policies are questioned.

They immediately point fingers and howl, “Not our fault!”

It’s classic, really. Jenny Granholm has been the Governor up here in Michigan for nearly two full terms, and she’s still trying to blame her predecessor for the current mess in Michigan.

We stopped listening to her a long time ago .
#548525

On November 18th, 2008 at 10:25 am, DBNinKY said:

Bush had conclusively demonstrated he didn’t actually subscribe to any of the small, fiscally responsible government stuff by the end of his first term, and you guys still enthusiastically supported him.

I didn’t notice many Democrats abandoning Clinton in `96, after he’d signed into law better than eighty-five percent of the Republicans’ Contact w/ America. You’re using selective memory on this one, Dig.
#548727

On November 18th, 2008 at 12:06 pm, seveneleventy said:

Wow, possibly four relevant questions asked in two and one-half hours of testimony. Pathetic!
#548764

On November 18th, 2008 at 12:18 pm, brad_sk said:

On November 18th, 2008 at 5:28 am, graysonret said:

As hard as rank-and-filers in the conservative movement might try, your party isn’t going to get out of this until you all individually start taking some responsibility.

What party? I’ve been trying to find a good conservative party. Certainly, it isn’t Republican, if that’s what you mean. I would like to see true conservatives in power, so they can take some responsibility. Hard to do when there are few of them in government, right now.

Well said and agree completely…The stupid policies by Bush in addition to arrogant non conservative policies by Cheney and Rumsfield have unfortunately made a joke out of traditional conservative party.
#548787

On November 18th, 2008 at 12:28 pm, Digshot said:

LOL.

The Dems have been in control of Congress and setting fiscal policy for the last two years now, Dig.

“The most ethical Congress ever” with the near single-digit approval rating knew that this fiasco was coming when they assumed fiscal control in Washington two years ago, and they did nothing to stop it… therefore, they own it.

But hey, don’t let something as insignificant as fact get in the way of a good neocon smackdown!

You might try taking a good hard look at the irresponsible idiots in your own party, before you come over here and criticize ours… just a suggestion.

Go ahead now, give us the arguement that two solid years of fiscal control in Washingon were not enough time to avert this debacle.

Go ahead… we’re waiting.

You want me to defend the Democrats? I’m not going to, because there is none. But that’s mostly because they’ve been deferring to Republican ideas. They’ve continued to finance the war with no timetables. They covered for Bush’s wiretapping with immunity for telecoms. They went along with this ridiculous bailout fiasco, another Bush idea. Since the 2006 elections all they’ve done consistently is roll over for Republicans in both the Congress and the White House. And let’s not pretend after 8 years of Bush expanding Presidential power and authority unprecedentedly that having the House and a 51-seat majority in the Senate that swings on Joe Lieberman amounts to a massive sliver of power in Washington.

And by the way, Democrats did take a look at the people in their party, and now Obama is the President.

Or you can go the Sarah Palin path.
#548814

On November 18th, 2008 at 12:49 pm, Digshot said:

Please tell us how to do that. I am being sincere. How would you advise conservatives to take responsibility? I will weigh your analysis/advice and, if sound, will put it into practice. What would you have us do? I am speaking to you as a Patriot, one who believes that God inspired our nation, and has set it up as a light on a hill, to give hope to the oppressed… that by vision, hard-work, and personal sacrice, they can make a better life for themselves, their families, neighbors, and countrymen.

God, I wouldn’t even know where to begin. There’s almost nothing good to work with in the conservative movement, as far as I can tell. So much of the problem is that it is designed to be that way. There’s so many layers of obfuscation and paranoia and mistrust and ignorance that it should leave anyone who would want to repair it at a loss. You know it’s a bad sign when prominent people start leaving the fold, Colin and Powell for example, and are universally demonized. That’s cult behavior. How do you get people out of a cult? Because that’s what we’re dealing with here.