Bankrupt Bailout Spends Billions to Shut Factories

posted by John Nichols on 05/02/2009 @ 07:02am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (70)

Subscribe Now

President Obama says that, after the brief inconvenience of a bankruptcy filing and the ensuing reorganization, Chrysler will "a going concern" with "a strong chance of success."

"The necessary steps have been taken to give one of America's most storied automakers, Chrysler, a new lease on life," argues Obama.

That sounds good. And Obama is not just offering rhetoric. The federal government has loaned Chrysler more than $4 billion and indicated a willingness to pump billions more into the fight for the carmaker's survival.

Unfortunately, Chrysler officials indicated on Friday that, while the company plans to survive, thousands of Chrysler workers – and the communities where they live – are not likely to make it.

On Friday afternoon, Chrysler LLC acknowledged – after the fact was revealed in documents filed as part of the bankruptcy proceedings -- that eight of the company's factories will not be transferred to the "new Chrysler," which will be co-owned by Italian carmaker Fiat Group SpA.

Rather, the auto firm announced, most of these factories are now "scheduled to close by December 2010."

The five plants that are most likely to be shuttered -- in Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin – employ close to 5,000 people.

Chrysler is planning to shift work done in some of those plants to new factories being built outside the United States.

So the auto bailout that was supposed to keep U.S. workers on the job is instead providing taxpayer dollars to companies that plan to shutter idle factories and lay off workers in the industrial Midwest while shifting work to other countries.

Pardon the residents of the targeted towns for thinking that, while Chrysler may be getting a "new lease on life," their communities are not going to be so lucky.

"We have been sold out by the president of the United States and his so-called car czar," says Patrick Juliana, a city council member in Kenosha, Wisconsin, where 800 jobs are likely to be lost. "It should have been up to them to make sure that every United States autoworker had a shot at keeping their job."

That's an angry, bombastic response. But it is grounded in legitimate fury over recovery plans that still seem to be more about saving corporations than jobs.

The whole point of getting the federal government into the business of bailing out auto companies was supposed to be to keep production lines running and United Auto Workers union members on the job.

An auto bailout that shuts factories and lays off workers is not just a bad deal.

It is a bankrupt policy.

Comments (70)

"Bailing out Chrysler" to some apparently means "saving the wealthy people at the top of Chrysler", not "saving the company production capacity" or even "reducing the damage to the people who depended on Chrysler for jobs". That this outcome of the automaker crisis is coming to pass is appalling, but not shocking.

Posted by syfriendly at 05/02/2009 @ 09:56am
Here's a thought:

Some of those 8 factories to be shut, and they needed to be shut to account for lost sales, could be turned over to NEW, entrepreneurial owners to build NEW products....could even be vehicles of some kind but w/a much more flexible labor force.

Anyone remember the birth of Nucor Steel? Out of the ashes of old US Steel plants and USW!

This thought is a `gift' from an Econ Conservative that don't believe in these auto bailouts AT ALL...just trying to get you Gloomers & Gubber-Lovers to look on the bright side.

Posted by Happy at 05/02/2009 @ 10:09am
The one thing Chrysler, Chrysler workers, and all the rest of us need is sound, genuinely conservative fiscal policy: cutting Bush's structural deficit by rescinding his tax breaks for the wealthy. Republicans got elected for 28 years by promising something for nothing: growth without taxes. We're left with nothing because Republican deficits created bubbles and shifted capital away from industry and toward finance.

Our economy recovered from the last Republican bubble and created millions of manufacturing jobs in the 1990s simply because our federal government stopped driving up interest rates with borrowing. Sustained low interest rates make manufacturing more profitable and finance less so. And small, affordable tax breaks for the workers like Billy Clinton's increase in the standard deduction and earned income credit boost demand for necessities; tax breaks for the wealthy have done nothing but inflate (temporarily) the values of assets like stocks and real estate.

Obama's recovery deficit will disappear of its own accord as the economy recovers, but only if the foundation for sustainable growth, a government that lives within its means, is laid now.

Posted by samcrossett at 05/02/2009 @ 10:12am
Wow! All in one week, worker's and unions get fu**ed while exec's at Chrysler get rich. And homeowner's get fu**ed on the "Helping Families Save Their Homes Act", that was sponsored by Dick Durbin but was deafeated 45-51 by a bunch of bank dick sucking democrats.

Yes, it was another good week for the middle class.. How many more "good weeks" will the middle class tolerate before we rise up and start burning it down?

It is past high time that we start polishing up those pitchforks and applying kerosene to those torches in order to show our government what "real change" can mean..

Posted by chaoszen at 05/02/2009 @ 10:21am
Posted by samcrossett at 05/02/2009 @ 10:12am

It is naive beliefs like what you expressed, and held by those in power at ALL levels of Gubberment today, that gives folks who live, breathe and direct our economy via investments (yea, like ME), little hope for "sustainable growth, a government that lives within its means"!

What little pockets of 'growth" there will be, will be parasitic in nature relying on tax subsidies and DC politics....just like how I profited from buying/selling ADM stocks when ethanol was `hot'.

Posted by Happy at 05/02/2009 @ 10:21am
Oh! I forgot to mention. Rich folks and Corporations already have the ability to re-negotiate interest rates and mortagage principle on THEIR debts in Bankruptcy Court! But apparently that is only available to THEM, presumably because THEY are special!!

Posted by chaoszen at 05/02/2009 @ 10:28am
Oh! and of course "Corporations" are looked upon as have the same rights (and more) of a real Human Being! Imagine that!

Posted by chaoszen at 05/02/2009 @ 10:32am
Well now isn't that cute! Mr. Nichols clearly demonstrates that blind pigs (and a myopic leftist) CAN find acorns and even obvious truth occasionaly!

Payoffs to marxist unions putting American workers in financial graves, imagine anyone pointing out the obvious fallacy of totalitarian rule by the marxist "Obamanation that makes desolation" and the Demoncrat congress!

Posted by comancheamerican at 05/02/2009 @ 10:36am
Payoffs to marxist unions putting American workers in financial graves, imagine anyone pointing out the obvious fallacy of totalitarian rule by the marxist "Obamanation that makes desolation" and the Demoncrat congress!

Posted by comancheamerican at 05/02/2009 @ 10:36am

I do hope you realize that what you just said makes absolutely NO SENSE. I could parse that paragraph in many ways. But the end result would still be that you are a right wing lunatic.

Posted by chaoszen at 05/02/2009 @ 10:41am
Obama's recovery deficit will disappear of its own accord as the economy recovers, but only if the foundation for sustainable growth, a government that lives within its means, is laid now.

Posted by samcrossett at 05/02/2009 @ 10:12am

Has to rate as one of the more ignorant posts of recent time.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/02/2009 @ 11:06am
History repeats itself. That's why I sold stocks and bought bonds in 2007; the deficit-inflated economy under Bush Jr. could not fail to deflate as it was, like the deficit-inflated economy under Reagan, "parasitic in nature relying on tax subsidies and DC politics", namely war profiteering and the refusal to enforce laws against securities fraud.

And history is about to repeat itself again. Remember how 'conservatives' predicted disaster in 1993-94 when Billy Clinton cut the Republican deficit and cut taxes on the workers? What happened instead was the longest economic recovery in our history, a surplus that could have saved Social Security and Medicare, and unprecedented job growth in manufacturing, including autos.

That's why I say that what we need now is the kind of sensible fiscal policy once advocated by Republicans like Jerry Ford, before the party converted to voodoo. Deficits during depressions are unavoidable, but bankrupting the country with federal borrowing that competes with borrowing by private enterprise has caused capital to flee productive industries in favor of parasitic endeavors like 'financial services'.

Posted by samcrossett at 05/02/2009 @ 12:09pm
"How many of the BLATANTLY FAILURE -LADEN 'executives' at Chrysler LLC have been replaced during their filing (get out your re-org boots!)?"

Posted by snowball666 at 05/02/2009 @ 07:57am

I'm guessin', quite a few. Why don't you find out, and get back to us? No point in having executives if you're not making autos.

"Rich folks and Corporations already have the ability to re-negotiate interest rates and mortagage principle on THEIR debts in Bankruptcy Court!" Posted by chaoszen at 05/02/2009 @ 10:28am

Really? What law allows "rich folks" to do that, and denies it to poor people? This sounds more like some old-fashioned class warfare to me.

Posted by twillie at 05/02/2009 @ 12:30pm
President the people's advocate -- Obama betrayed our trust

Yes we have three branches of government, President, Congress and Courts, but two are dead set against us.

For lawyers and judges gratify the most those who mutually gratify them the most and that is big business.

For senators are graded on how well they improve the economy in their district, and how well they gratify the big business people who fund their election campaigns. In reality paid actor politicians helping those with wealth and power who need no help.

But a candidate for president who has a majority support of the people, he needs no help from those with power as he is funded directly by the people, and above all those with wealth and power he stands in full support of the people.

We the people above all things want the peace and security of a social democracy, one controlled by the majority. But to achieve this we need a president who is our servant not our leader, one who responds to our every command. Yes he should tell us our needs, but never should he deny us our wants. For he must always consider our pleasures and desires to be his highest priority.

For with Congress and the Courts striving to maintain a dictatorship over us, only a submissive president from such tyranny can save us.

But to give we the people absolute control of government, our president must never hide anything from us. And if he considers something top secret he must allow a commission selected by us, not by Congress or the Courts, to have full access to all secrets.

Comes now President Obama to investigate nothing, disclose nothing and to never ask us what we want. He instead to tell us what we need. For he has yet to follow our lead, and to the contrary shown strong arbitrary leadership by

Posted by Alabama.John at 05/02/2009 @ 12:47pm
posted by John Nichols on 05/02/2009 @ 07:02am – in part:

"President Obama says that Chrysler will be "a going concern" with "a strong chance of success." …because.. "Chrysler is planning to shift work done in some of those plants to new factories being built outside the United States"

As sad, even tragic, as this might be, and as a retired union worker (UFCW 770 – Los Angeles) I know the anger and fear being felt by my brothers and sisters, the market has spoken. Price and perceived product quality has won over quality of life of the workers and even country of origin. The auto industry will survive in the United States; it will however be smaller and more specialized. I'm sure you can still buy buggy whips and typewriters, but the size of those industries now reflect market demand.

Posted by Incoming at 05/02/2009 @ 12:51pm
EVERYONE SEEMS TO FORGET:

That before President Obama and Government decided to rescue the automobile industry (Rememver Tarp1) Republican Government included; I know the Democratic Congress passed it; that the Auto industry was CRYING, "Default" AND BANKRUPTCY AND LAYOFFS, PLANT CLOSINGS ETC.

SO, what do you think would have happened if the Government didn't step in, to help the Banking industry and even attempt to help the auto industry?

Answer that one!!

Instead of blaming Government, lets change the topic and think. Could the Banks have survived and the auto industry survive without help? It seems like the Republicans didn't want to bail out anyone either. We seem to forget this point also.

I voted for the Democratic party, and I'm not to thrilled about all this "debt" and bail-outs. But I'm sure someone would blame them anyway for not helping out etc.

And if the U.S. fell into a deeper depression; maybe we would all LIVE with in our MEANS Without Credit. "Now what a great idea" Savings, who would have thought of that.

Posted by lucaserenity at 05/02/2009 @ 1:35pm
The prohibitively high cost of good attorneys. This sounds like some good old-fashioned class whining to me. Posted by snowball666 at 05/02/2009 @ 12:44pm

Legal Aid, Pro bono? "Whining", huh? How does a "rich guy", in BANKRUPTCY COURT, pay a high-cost attorney? Again, sounds like class warfare.

Posted by twillie at 05/02/2009 @ 1:50pm
Bailouts are for the owners of the business and not for the ordinary worker. The irony of the situation is the ordinary worker is the market, and without jobs, along with his disposable income, there is no market. The auto companies will be all dressed up, and have no where to go to sell their cars. This globalized economy is falling on it's face. These people are very stupid, and it will take a worldwide depression over several years before they learn.

Posted by pjcasey at 05/02/2009 @ 3:29pm
The legacy costs for GM and Chrysler are what killed them. Ford may have the same problem in a few months. Due to dumb contracts negotiated many years ago, the companies have become large retirement funds for the UAW. Allowing people to retire after 30 years with full benefits regardless of age is pure insanity. Note this only applied to UAW members, not white collar employees. This is just the chickens coming home to roost. The only way this can work is if the "new" companies have similar structure to the foreign auto firms in the south without all the legacy costs.

Posted by pyeatte at 05/02/2009 @ 5:30pm
If I'm waging class warfare, I'm waging it on myself anyway. I just don't act as an apologist for incompetent automobile execs. Posted by snowball666 at 05/02/2009 @ 2:25pm

Did I say YOU were waging class warfare? No, I didn't.

Posted by twillie at 05/02/2009 @ 7:04pm
This is just the chickens coming home to roost. The only way this can work is if the "new" companies have similar structure to the foreign auto firms in the south without all the legacy costs.

Posted by pyeatte at 05/02/2009 @ 5:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Significantly correct, exept that the "chickens" are and will be living well off your and my tax dollars in perpetuity! I will buy NO GM or Chrysler corp. products EVER now that the Marxist Obamanation and Demoncrats have taken them over!

Posted by comancheamerican at 05/02/2009 @ 7:18pm
Has to rate as one of the more ignorant posts of recent time.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/02/2009 @ 11:06am

Actually it's essentially the Republican line that Reagan used. By lowering taxes it would create increased productiviy which would increase overall tax revenue. He is saying that right now we spend a bunch on recovery, the recovery increases tax revenue which then takes out the deficit. So unless you thought Reagan was ignorant the man then the man has a point.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/02/2009 @ 9:25pm
Actually it's essentially the Republican line that Reagan used. By lowering taxes it would create increased productiviy which would increase overall tax revenue. He is saying that right now we spend a bunch on recovery, the recovery increases tax revenue which then takes out the deficit. So unless you thought Reagan was ignorant the man then the man has a point.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/02/2009 @ 9:25pm

No, because at the same time, Obama has increased spending more than the total of all previous presidents before him. We have a deficit that is projected by the CBO to be nearly 2 trillion for at least the next decade and beyond.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/02/2009 @ 11:56pm
No, because at the same time, Obama has increased spending more than the total of all previous presidents before him. We have a deficit that is projected by the CBO to be nearly 2 trillion for at least the next decade and beyond.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/02/2009 @ 11:56pm

And Regan said a deficit record when he was President, what's your point?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/03/2009 @ 05:09am
set*

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/03/2009 @ 05:10am
Regan held the deficit record until Bush was President. I guess the only people who truly care about the deficit are Democrats, considering it was Clinton who ran the surplus.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/03/2009 @ 05:22am
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/03/2009 @ 05:22am

Here's where they credit Gingrich, not Clinton.

Posted by Mask at 05/03/2009 @ 06:59am
by Mask at 05/03/2009 @ 06:59am...

Better living through bluster

Cracks the Democracy

All the tricks we can muster

Beyond what the eyes can see

Behold... our revision of squanders

Unfolding in front of our eyes

Rejoice in new pragmatic ponders

And follow the thoughtful surmise.

Posted by ttr at 05/03/2009 @ 08:46am
by snowball666 at 05/03/2009 @ 10:28am...

If you feel like being a jerk... it has nothing whatever to do with me.

It is you perceived 'need' to be one that concerns me... because on this, you are spot off.

Posted by ttr at 05/03/2009 @ 11:22am
i hear goldman sachs is gonna open a few new plants.

they're gonna make innovative products!

Posted by frosty zoom at 05/03/2009 @ 11:34am
And Regan said a deficit record when he was President, what's your point?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/03/2009 @ 05:09am

Here's where they credit Gingrich, not Clinton.

Posted by Mask at 05/03/2009 @ 06:59am

insurmountable deficits mean nothing to CCC and Mask when a Dem is in office.

Reagan vs. Clinton

From: Dinesh D'Souza To: E.J. Dionne Posted Thursday, Nov. 6, 1997

Americans are enjoying an era of peace and prosperity not seen since the 1950s. Perhaps this golden age will prove to be short-lived, but while it lasts, we would do well to ask: How did it come about?

President Clinton and the Republican Congress are both trying to take credit for the robust health of the economy. But, E.J., you have to admit that these guys are just surfing a wave that none of them created.

Today's politicians tout the historic significance of the recent budget deal. They tell us it will balance the budget for the first time in decades.

When we consider the ingredients of the current boom--the taming of inflation, the revival of economic growth, the restructuring of the economy, the reduction of the deficit, the opening up of world markets, the peaceful climate generated by the end of the Cold War--we see that in virtually every case, the turning point came in the 1980s.

Yes, it's true. Ronald Reagan is the man most responsible for America's economic restoration. Few are willing to credit his achievement because most people--and especially intellectuals--accept the facile stereotype of Reagan as an intellectual lightweight who napped on the job and was too detached from the daily operations of government to have a lasting impact.

http://www.slate.com/id/3665/entry/24002/

Posted by antisocialist at 05/03/2009 @ 6:02pm
More from the same Slate article

"Two factors are responsible for reducing the deficit. The first is the continued vitality of the Reagan boom--a bonanza for the U.S. Treasury. The second is America's huge defense savings as a consequence of winning the Cold War. In real terms, America today is spending around $100 billion less each year on defense than at the height of the Cold War era. Consequently, even the deficit reductions of the 1990s must be largely credited to Reagan's legacy. Future generations will remember Reagan as a great president. E.J., I know how hard it is for liberals to admit that Reagan was right, because it means that all this time you guys were sadly wrong. But ideological prejudices aside, isn't it only fair that we, who are benefiting enormously from the Reagan legacy, should do the man the honor of acknowledging his achievement during his lifetime?"

Posted by antisocialist at 05/03/2009 @ 6:04pm
Those who denounce the Reagan deficits should answer the following questions:

Would you bring back the Soviet empire? President Reagan spent $3 trillion on defense, well above the $2.2 trillion baseline. What did that extra $800 billion buy? The end of the Cold War -- saving, perhaps, a billion lives from nuclear extinction.

No less than former Soviet Union Foreign Minister Alexander Bessmertnykh has been quoted crediting President Reagan's defense buildup for the accelerated collapse of the Soviet Union. The fragile communist economy, already stretched thin by substantial defense spending, could not keep up with America's defense buildup. The possibility of American missile defense, and President Reagan's powerful rhetoric, further persuaded the Soviets they could not win the Cold War, and induced the reforms that culminated in the collapse of the Soviet empire -- without America firing a single shot. It was the best $800 billion investment America ever made.

Would you raise the top income-tax rate back to 70 percent? Commentators also blame the 1980s deficits on President Reagan's insistence on reducing taxes in 1981. Yet President Reagan inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. Excessively high tax rates were discouraging work and investment and therefore damaging the economy while raising little revenue. President Reagan removed barriers to entrepreneurship by reducing tax rates, cutting red tape, and stabilizing the economy, thereby encouraging risk takers. The centerpiece of this policy was a radical series of across-the-board tax cuts that lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, and eventually to 28 percent. (It stands at 35 percent today.)

Posted by antisocialist at 05/03/2009 @ 6:20pm
And don't forget the 12 percent inflation rate and 21 percent interest rates that Reaganomics slew.

The Reagan tax cuts replaced the deepest recession since the Great Depression with the largest 20-year boom in American history. Tax revenues actually grew faster in the low-tax 1980s than in the high-tax 1970s, and rising incomes meant the share of taxes paid by the wealthy actually increased throughout the 1980s. Millions of people who had entered the 1980s in the lowest income quintile surged to the highest income quintile by 1990.

All a coincidence? As Reagan would say, "there you go again."

Sure, President Reagan would have preferred to minimize the deficits by eliminating wasteful spending. However, the only way to persuade a Democratic Congress to accept a defense buildup and pro-growth tax cuts was to agree to their domestic spending demands.

Ironically, the 1980s budget deficits made the 1990s surpluses possible. The budget was balanced by surging tax revenues from a booming, low-tax economy and defense savings brought on by the end of the Cold War.

http://tinyurl.com/d4cy3m

Posted by antisocialist at 05/03/2009 @ 6:21pm
"Reagan's across-the-board tax rates were, and are still, legendary, lowering the top rate from a whopping 70% during the Carter years, all the way down to 28%. Much of prior economic theory had believed income tax cuts, of such enormous magnitude, would have the effect of decreasing revenues coming into the treasury.

However, more tax revenue was collected during every year of the two Reagan terms than had ever been collected and any single previous year in the history of the United States. By the last year of the Reagan administration in 1988, the federal government (in that year alone), collected over $391,000,000,000 more than any year of the just prior Carter administration. In percentage terms, the federal government took in 76% more that year than it had ever collected in any year of any other administration!

Why, then were there large deficits? Because as much as the tax revenues increased, government spending increased even more!

The huge tax cuts have been referred to as causing, "the Reagan Deficits," by his political enemies. However, all spending bills originate in the House of Representatives, and Reagan was never a member of the House. In fact, the Republicans didn't control the House of Representatives during either of the Reagan administrations. And, in all but one of the Reagan budgets, the Democrats proposed even more spending than Reagan did (approx. $200 billion less). However, I've never heard the congressional leaders of that era take any responsibility whatsoever.

Is it a current coincidence that the budget deficits mushroomed after Pelosi and Reid took control of both houses of Congress in 2006?

http://tinyurl.com/cnlae7

Posted by antisocialist at 05/03/2009 @ 6:28pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/03/2009 @ 6:02pm

Wow, that's a stretch. So far I'm surprised you didn't fall out of your chair just posting it.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/03/2009 @ 8:59pm
Ha! Duped again! All you people who voted for Mr. Obama. Just wait till he takes your gun sending you into forced victimization. Tax and spend! Lets see how many more 100,000s of jobs have not been saved in a few weeks. Ya'll get a check but no J-O-B. Maybe the Chinese can spare a dime?..I think not. Heaven forbid we cut corporate taxes. Confiscate and redistribute! Can't wait till we all have to pay for "illiterates" to go to college. What a comedy.

Posted by mike63 at 05/04/2009 @ 12:36am
I credit the Solidarity movement in Poland with the demise of USSR. This demise seems overstated now.

Posted by Dennis1957 at 05/04/2009 @ 08:14am
As D'Souza noted in his article, liberals will never acknowledge that they were wrong and Reagan was right. I share his view; liberals can never acknowledge that the man most polls show as one of our greatest presidents was right and they were wrong.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 08:52am
"Has to rate as one of the more ignorant posts of recent time" (RE: samcrossett, 05/02, 10:12am)

-- antisocialist at 05/02 @ 11:06am

So, SAM gets dissed by ANTISOCIAL. SAM is, of course, a former Republican who became disgusted with the righist drift of the party as he has previously emphasized on this webpage.

So what next for ANTISOCIAL in the spirit of ideological cleansing? Let's envision the press release...

ANTISOCIAL REACTS TO THE PASSING OF JACK F KEMP, 73: "Good riddance to Kemp and his ideological deviationism against purity and doctrinal abuses that made him the prototype of psuedo-Republican Marxism"

From his garden with Jesus at his side (well, invisably), ANTISOCIAL could barely control his rage as he sputtered and railed aginst Kemp. "The party demands no deviationist agendas of the type that defined Kempism. Kemp's offences against doctrine went far beyond insufficient knee-time despite his pathetic attempts to pander to us in the Rapture crowd. What I mean is that Kemp displayed his lack of purity and his embrace of ideological deviationism for being part of the Marxist conspiracy in GHW Bush's cabinet. Bush Sr was himself an unreconstructed Trotskyite."

ANTISOCIAL's rage is now vein-popping explosive as he explains from his garden which doubles as a bunker: "GHW Bush's Marxist regime actively repressed the beloved doctrinal purities of Wolfie and Cheney. Sure, they had apppointments but they were not important enough. It was an idelogical pogram carried out by Marxists who are impure in their doctrine and bodily fluids. James Baker's doctrines are indistinguishable from those of Brezhnev or Castro with whom 'Bake' had long been in league. And do not forget the human rights abuse heaped on Dummy who had no role at all in the cabinet!"

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 05/04/2009 @ 09:28am
You libertard Obama worshioers have gotten exactly what I expected you'd get. ZERO.

Obama: Let Them Eat Hope.

He makes Bush look like a rank amateur in the number of illegal power grans already committed: AKA--his tirade against the Chysler senior creditors which consist of teachers and senior citizen pension plans.

Now you sit here and whine about it.

HA

Posted by laughingpolatheist at 05/04/2009 @ 10:24am
Well now isn't that cute! Mr. Nichols clearly demonstrates that blind pigs (and a myopic leftist) CAN find acorns and even obvious truth occasionaly!

Posted by comancheamerican at 05/02/2009 @ 10:36am

Well, I don't know about acorns, but certainly truffles!

Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/04/2009 @ 11:15am
Really? What law allows "rich folks" to do that, and denies it to poor people? This sounds more like some old-fashioned class warfare to me.

Posted by twillie at 05/02/2009 @ 12:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Uh, I dunno, maybe because they own the banks?

Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/04/2009 @ 11:20am
If saving and creating jobs is the real issue, and Chrysler is worth saving in some form to save jobs, and if Chrysler is heading toward bankruptcy, why give $4 billion to Chrysler (or is it Fiat) and possibly more? Why not give $4 billion to the communities where plants are being shut down to create new industries (green technologies?), job re-training if necessary, and temporary support for the displaced workers? Giving money to a company entering bankruptcy makes no sense at all since whether the money is given or not, a financial workout will need to be done anyway. Why is it always the workers that take it in the shorts? Unions have already made major concessions; what concessions have management (that steered the company over a cliff) made?

Posted by EdGoldman at 05/04/2009 @ 1:10pm
Why not just let car companies that can't make it fail, like other smaller businesses. Guaranteed lifetime employment is passe now. The workers got high pay and benefits for years. It is unreasonable to expect the good life to continue forever.

Posted by jsens at 05/04/2009 @ 2:39pm
It is unreasonable to expect the good life to continue forever. Posted by jsens at 05/04/2009 @ 2:39pm

Of course not. We must attend to the needs of the top 1%. We owe our lives to them. Thanks for that pearl. Surely you will be rewarded in heaven. Good things happen to those who prate.

Posted by Sorelish at 05/04/2009 @ 4:38pm
Oh my, a typical liberal knee-jerk reaction...attack the messenger personally. Please read about corporate tax rates here:http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22917.html Ill let the jobs report speak for itself when it comes out soon. I'm sure thet when Obama pushes for a "college degree for everyone" they will be very creative ways to overturn math, science, and physics laws and formula to reflect "cultural diversity" and "life experiences" the same way libs have tried to do away with the SAT. Should be fun to watch. But how do you sue for "discrimination" for failing to understand "equal and opposite" reactions?

Posted by mike63 at 05/04/2009 @ 6:08pm
This is great. I hope the MSM picks that little tidbit up. But I guess it might make the first black president look bad that he is taking jobs overseas.. Ha ha hah ah ha hah ah snort ha ha Ha . UAW got suckered... ha ah ah ah aha ah ah.....

Posted by apoorspic at 05/04/2009 @ 9:38pm
"I'm sure thet when Obama pushes for a "college degree for everyone" they will be very creative ways to overturn math, science, and physics laws and formula to reflect "cultural diversity" and "life experiences" the same way libs have tried to do away with the SAT. Should be fun to watch. But how do you sue for "discrimination" for failing to understand "equal and opposite" reactions?"

Posted by mike63 at 05/04/2009 @ 6:08pm

Speaking of "doing away" with SAT scores...did George W Loser get admitted to Yale on the basis of his sterling scores? Or was it...something else? Was George W Loser the beneficiary of Affirmative Action for the Rich that discriminated against some working class kid who could have had Loser's slot in New Haven (& would have used the op' to become something more than...a cheerleader)?

[Watch now as, like a trained circus animal, MIKE goes on a wild and angry screed that apes the thought leaders of his community for its invective against...John Kerry!...Emmanuel Goldstein (Al Gore)!...and in doing so demonstrates no grasp of the issues at hand]

ConservaLosers are addicted to flattering themselves with pompous and laughable standard issue garbage about being the guardians of academic standards. Yet, a defining characteristic in practice of being a conservaLoser is to set abysmally low standards for one's self. And then fail dismally in meeting even these absurdly low standards.

Exhibit "A": Let's take a look at the sore loser's sore loser, Norm NoManCole. What is it about saying, "Al Franken garnered more votes than you, Norm NoManCole, thus Al Franken is the US Senator from Minnesota. And you can not" -- to use MIKE's favorite little word -- "SUE your way out of this arithmatically defined fact" that conservaLosers don't get?

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 05/05/2009 @ 07:19am
Obama: Let Them Eat Hope.

Posted by laughingpolatheist at 05/04/2009 @ 10:24am

That is very amusing. I snorted out loud.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/05/2009 @ 08:24am
Posted by snowball666 at 05/04/2009 @ 07:51am

There's a book I've been dying to read about the fall of Communism:

The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World

The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister is a sweeping, dramatic account of how three great figures changed the course of history. All of them led with courage--but also with great optimism. The pope helped ordinary Poles and East Europeans banish their fear of Soviet Communism, convincing them that liberation was possible. The prime minister restored her country's failing economy by reviving the "vigorous virtues" of the British people. The president rebuilt America's military power, its national morale, and its pre-eminence as leader of the free world. Together they brought down an evil empire and changed the world for the better. No one can tell their intertwined story better than John O'Sullivan, former editor of National Review and the Times of London, who knew all three and conducted exclusive interviews that shed extraordinary new light on these giants of the twentieth century.

http://www.amazon.com/President-Pope-Prime-Minister- Changed/dp/159698550X/ref=sr_1_1? ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241530231&sr=1-1

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/05/2009 @ 08:32am
I wonder if Chrysler realizes America is their market for the Pheonix 6 cylinder engine? If they move all their plants over seas or to Mexico, there will be no middle class to buy these cars. And these are middle car cars not high class. People with real bank accounts prefer BMW or Volvo if they are going to buy foreign cars. They have the foresight of a wall eyed squirrel.

Posted by prairiepress at 05/05/2009 @ 08:49am
As D'Souza noted in his article, liberals will never acknowledge that they were wrong and Reagan was right. I share his view; liberals can never acknowledge that the man most polls show as one of our greatest presidents was right and they were wrong.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 08:52am

A little humility, please.

Quite often I get the sense that I am the gnat who thinks he's driving the bull or the snowflake who thinks it's driving the avalanche.

We are not immune to external forces. So whether we prevent the avalanche or not, we'll still eventually melt and run into the river and end up in the sea. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

Given that we are a collection of 300 million people, all with different experiences, opinions, and values, there is no presidential decision that is "right", or "wrong" for that matter. We all hold different opinions as to what the future holds.

Now, obviously, I agree with Reagan's actions. I don't deify him, but acknowledge that he accurately foresaw where the economic forces were taking the world. And his policies helped move us toward our inevitable destination with a minimum of bloodshed and death.

I think that deserves to be applauded, but does not require the acknowledgement of those for whom the future was not what they envisioned.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/05/2009 @ 09:12am
Now, obviously, I agree with Reagan's actions. I don't deify him, but acknowledge that he accurately foresaw...

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/05/2009 @ 09:12am

Larry, I didn't mean to imply that I think you deify him. That's obviously ridiculous give the first commandment.

I wanted to head off charges from other's that I deify him.

Sorry for any confusion.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/05/2009 @ 09:21am
FUN REAGAN FACTS for "non-worshipping worshippers" like Larry and Darin-

First...on the subject of torture, guess who said this?-

"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."----Ronald Reagan, May 20, 1988, transmitting the Convention Against Torture to the Senate for ratification

Second....DO NOT READ THIS ARTICLE-

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0301.green.html

Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 10:10am
Lets see what happens with a bankruptcy. Its amazing how people get reorganized thru one of those. The airlines have all done it and come out ahead.

If only the car czars had forseen an energy crisis....duh!!!! And built fuel efficient cars that people actually want. How about having Chrysler merge with Toyota and just build Prius' in those 8 factories. If you build 5 million Priuses a year the price will come down, we will use less gas, etc. Toyota has a 10 year head start on hybrid technolegy. My bets on them

Posted by notsleepy at 05/05/2009 @ 10:22am
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 10:10am

It seems you left out some very relevant and critical remarks from Reagan that were agreed to by the Senate

<In view of the large number of States concerned, it was not possible to negotiate a treaty that was acceptable to the United States in all respects. Accordingly, certain reservations, understandings, and declarations have been drafted, which are discussed in the report of the Department of State. With the inclusion of these reservations, understandings, and declarations, I believe there are no constitutional or other legal obstacles to United States ratification. The recommended legislation necessary to implement the Convention will be submitted to the Congress separately.

Should the Senate give its advice and consent to ratification of the Convention, I intend at the time of deposit of United States ratification to make a declaration pursuant to Article 28 that the United States does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture under Article 20 to make confidential investigations of charges that torture is being systematically practiced in the United States. In addition, I intend not to make declarations, pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the Convention, recognizing the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from States and individuals alleging that the United States is violating the Convention.>

In other words, the US does not recognize the right of outside bodies to investigate US citizens for charges of torture.

Posted by antisocialist at 05/05/2009 @ 10:41am
This thought is a `gift' from an Econ Conservative that don't believe in these auto bailouts AT ALL...just trying to get you Gloomers & Gubber-Lovers to look on the bright side.

Posted by Happy 05/02/2009 @ 10:09am

Here's another thought. Instead of Chrysler purchasing Opel, why don't they retool some of those factories to build a hybrid car?!

Oh, I know the answer to that already, they'd prefer to retool a factory in South Korea or someplace else they can get labor dirt cheap (at American tax payer expense) to maximize their bottom line.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/05/2009 @ 10:42am
Posted by antisocialist at 05/05/2009 @ 10:41am

Yes, anti, and that's the implementation process....but YOU are ignoring what Reagan said-

"Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today."

Now....WHERE WAS that "abhorrent practice" practiced in, say, the last 7 years and who endorsed it?

Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 11:34am
Here's another thought. Instead of Chrysler purchasing Opel, why don't they retool some of those factories to build a hybrid car?!

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/05/2009 @ 10:42am

For the same reason that they don't retool them to make buggy whips: There is not enough consumer demand to justify it.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/05/2009 @ 11:36am
'...recovery plans that still seem to be more about saving corporations than jobs...' -- John Nichols

'But they would defend the status quo with the same skill and vigor as their white counterparts of two decades before.' -- Barack Obama -- 'Dreams From My Father'

'I'm shocked, SHOCKED!' -- Captain Louis Reynaud -- 'Casablanca'

Posted by HonestLiberal at 05/05/2009 @ 11:39am
"Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today."

Now....WHERE WAS that "abhorrent practice" practiced in, say, the last 7 years and who endorsed it?

Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 11:34am

Point one: Larry took your selective quotation and spanked you with it. (Good one, Larry.)

Point two: Can you find the quote where Reagan explicitly denouces waterboarding as torture? You are certainly implying that Reagan agrees with you and that he is talking about waterboarding, but I'm not convinced.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/05/2009 @ 11:41am
torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 11:34am

I can guarantee you that 1000 year from now there will still be "torture". It might not be waterboarding, it might be tickling until they wet their pants, It might be forcing the terrorist to miss his son's graduation from suicide bomber school, it might be sending them to bed without cookies and milk, but I guarantee you there will be liberals incenced at this barbaric treatment of individuals with human rights, who, through no fault of their own, murdered countless thousands of civilians.

Have you ever seen the instruments of torture from the Spanish Inquisistion? There are things that even make Al Queda squeamish. In the movie "Braveheart" when he is captured, there is a scene of him tied down before being "drawn and quartered" where the midgit minstral is pulling rope from a sack to simulate how they were going to open his belly and pull his intestines out while he was still alive.

And the liberals of the day were incenced that their countryment were so barbaric.

In addition to defining deviancy down, Liberals will forever be defining torture down. That is why we will never ever eliminate torture.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/05/2009 @ 11:49am
Hey, speaking of torture, here's Ann Coulter: ***********************************************************

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20090429/ cm_ucac/muslimswedothatonfirstdates

MUSLIMS: 'WE DO THAT ON FIRST DATES'

The president's release of the Department of Justice interrogation memos undoubtedly hurt America's image abroad, as we are snickered at in capitals around the world, where they know what real torture is. The Arabs surely view these memos as a pack of lies. What about the pills Americans have to turn us gay?

The techniques used against the most stalwart al-Qaida members, such as Abu Zubaydah, included one terrifying procedure referred to as "the attention grasp." As described in horrifying detail in the Justice Department memo, the "attention grasp" consisted of:

"(G)rasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator."

The end.

There are rumors that Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney wanted to take away the interrogators' Altoids before they administered "the grasp," but Department of Justice lawyers deemed this too cruel.

And that's not all! As the torments were gradually increased, next up the interrogation ladder came "walling." This involves pushing the terrorist against a flexible wall, during which his "head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a C-collar effect to prevent whiplash."

Indeed, with plastic walls and soft neck collars, "walling" may be the world's first method of "torture" in which all the implements were made by Fisher-Price.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/05/2009 @ 11:59am
If you need a few minutes to compose yourself after being subjected to that horror, feel free to take a break from reading now. Sometimes a cold compress on the forehead is helpful, but don't let it drip or you might end up waterboarding yourself.

Further up the torture ladder ... comes the "insult slap," which is designed to be virtually painless, but involves the interrogator invading "the individual's personal space."

If that doesn't work, the interrogator shows up the next day wearing the same outfit as the terrorist. (Awkward.)

I will spare you the gruesome details of the CIA's other comical interrogation techniques and leap directly to the penultimate "torture" in their arsenal: the caterpillar.

In this unspeakable brutality, a harmless caterpillar is placed in the terrorist's cell...

Human rights groups have variously described being trapped in a cell with a live caterpillar as "brutal," "soul-wrenching" and, of course, "adorable."

Finally, the most savage interrogation technique at Guantanamo was "waterboarding," which is only slightly rougher than the Comfy Chair.

Thousands of our troops are waterboarded every year as part of their training, but not until it was done to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- mastermind of the 9/11 attack on America -- were liberal consciences shocked.

As non-uniformed combatants, all of the detainees at Guantanamo could have been summarily shot on the battlefield under the Laws of War.

Only three terrorists -- who could have been shot -- were waterboarded. This is not nearly as bad as "snowboarding," which is known to cause massive buttocks pain and results in approximately 10 deaths per year.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/05/2009 @ 12:05pm
Working people--or rather, people who used to be working people--are not part of this government's constituency. Congress doesn't care about people being out of work, and it's not clear it worries our new President much either. Keep giving us empty Hope and Change and "the Big Fat Troll" will see his ruinous party back in control in 2012.

Posted by Citizen54 at 05/05/2009 @ 12:07pm
'Before the Trumpet - Young Franklin Roosevelt' by Geoffrey C. Ward, 1985, Harper & Row, pages 183-184:

'Pumping was dreaded more, imposed before the entire school [Groton] with the tacit sanction of the rector and only after a solemn, drawn-out ceremony that made its cruelty all the more excruciating for the victim. ... "the fourth formers seized him and rushed him down the back stairs to the cellar, where he was turned upside-down and held under the gush of a faucet - the water power was excellent - until he had almost fainted" ... Having suffered all the initial sensations of drowning, still retching and gasping, he was then asked if he fully understood the seriousness of his offense, and if he failed to be properly enthusiastic ... the tap was turned on a second time... The next fall he [Franklin Delano Roosevelt] reported, "You will be pleased to hear that George Cabot Ward Low has been pumped, & a pretty sight he was! He left off swaggering immediately!"...'

Posted by HonestLiberal at 05/05/2009 @ 1:19pm
Posted by HonestLiberal at 05/05/2009 @ 1:19pm

So FDR waterboarded one of his school mates with the approval of the headmaster?

Ouch.

I tell ya, it's defining torture down.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/05/2009 @ 2:18pm
This is great. I hope the MSM picks that little tidbit up. But I guess it might make the first black president look bad that he is taking jobs overseas.. Ha ha hah ah ha hah ah snort ha ha Ha . UAW got suckered... ha ah ah ah aha ah ah.....

Posted by apoorspic at 05/04/2009 @ 9:38pm

Tiresome. Got to ignore. Now.

Posted by apoorspic at 05/04/2009 @ 9:38pm | ignore this person |

Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/05/2009 @ 6:52pm
I'm sure thet when Obama pushes for a "college degree for everyone" .....

Posted by mike63 at 05/04/2009 @ 6:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Sure that's really gonna happen, Mike?

Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/05/2009 @ 6:58pm
For the same reason that they don't retool them to make buggy whips: There is not enough consumer demand to justify it.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/05/2009 @ 11:36am | ignore this person | warn this person

Durwood, Last I checked, Opel wasn't a big time selling car in the U.S. either. Most of the businessmen running companies these days don't know how to run companies. All they know to do is buy, sell, merge and liquidate. Coming up with new ideas isn't their forte.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/06/2009 @ 08:19am