Legacy Fan Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 ...with his own Executive Orders. Didn't take long to throw that whole "for the people.." bullshit under the bus. Didn't Bush's abuse of unauthorized power epidemic used to be a problem for you guys (Obama supporters)? Or is it ok when it's your guy? And holyshit has Westside Steve been right all along? In the article we also find out that Obama's COS Emmanuel plans to bail out GM/Ford -the very companies that neglected to heed any warnings re: climate change and adjust their R&D as such. So much for the GOP being the only "Big Oil" bedfellows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 Huh? Leg, you're way off on this. The president has executive authority. None of the Bush rulings the Obama team has mentioned overturning were criticized as extra-legal or unprecedented by Democrats, but rather as unwise. For instance, Bush's stem cell decision is one that is likely to be overturned quickly, and not because people thought Bush exceeded his executive authority, but because they thought it was a bad decision. I think you're confusing these types of decisions with things like his expansive views of the president's authority in war time, including things like claiming the legal authority to torture prisoners, or to hold someone indefinitely without formal charges or a trial, or his unprecedented use of "executive privilege" claims, or Bush's overuse of signing statements, etc. That's what Democrats - and many Republicans, and government officials - were on about. As for bailing out the auto industry, it's supposed to be to help maintain what is the most important and largest manufacturing industry in the country, and to help them make transition to the cars of the future that are less dependent on oil. Whether this is wise or not is certainly subject to debate, but it's not some sop to the oil companies. So I think you're unduly upset on both counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We need Tom Tupa Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 As for bailing out the auto industry, it's supposed to be to help maintain what is the most important and largest manufacturing industry in the country, and to help them make transition to the cars of the future that are less dependent on oil. This is getting eerie. It's like the left is trying to disprove Hayek by acting exactly as he predicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted November 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 Bush's EO on bioethics was signed in 2001. Congress has had the time to reverse the decision if in fact the reversal of his order is "in the interest of the country". I'm not legitimizing Bush's original order here, just pointing out the channels have been available to make the change, if that's what the country wants, and not what Obama and his team want. That's my problem. And re: auto bailout. By your logic, I could argue that the Bush admin's hands off policy regarding the industry's implementation of greener technology, could have been an effort to "help maintain what is the most important and largest manufacturing industry in the country, and to help them make transition to the cars of the future that are less dependent on oil." by allowing them to shore up cash in the short term for future investment in R&D by profiting off of the popular gas-guzzlers. We're getting more of the same here. I dont like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 Sure, you could argue that. And I could argue that fishing causes AIDS. Detroit has a lot of problems, many of them intractable. But the biggest is that they don't make cars that enough people around the world want to buy. The idea that throwing their lot in with SUVs was just a strategy to make a lot of money to fund the future production more fuel efficient cars is a bit fanciful. Toyota and Honda, despite their present slump - which everyone is experience to varying degrees - are kicking Detroit's ass for a reason, and it's not because they didn't want to invest in more fuel efficient cars. Again, whether or not a bailout would be a good idea is another discussion. But your claim was that the bailout was a sop to big oil. I don't see how that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted November 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 Sure, you could argue that. And I could argue that fishing causes AIDS. Detroit has a lot of problems, many of them intractable. But the biggest is that they don't make cars that enough people around the world want to buy. Perhaps. For the past 100+ years, "people around the world" has not been the target. Americans have, and the big 3 has done a fantastic job of producing what Americans want. The idea that throwing their lot in with SUVs was just a strategy to make a lot of money to fund the future production more fuel efficient cars is a bit fanciful. As fanciful as suggesting that Obama's bailout dollars would go to any course of production that would significantly effect the bottom line negatively, regardless of green-ness? No. And that's part of my point. The big 3 has consistently made decisions/moves that catered to their shareholders present status with little regard for any potential shift in the market/industry. That's why they're up to their eyeballs now. That's why I think $$ from Barry would go directly into the same pocket. Again, whether or not a bailout would be a good idea is another discussion. But your claim was that the bailout was a sop to big oil. I don't see how that makes sense. There have been plenty of posts connecting the big 3 to big oil on the previous board. I think it's just as a ridiculous connection as you probably do which ought to verify that I certainly didn't dream it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 why is it ok to bail out financial institutions but not the auto manufacturers? do you realize what kind of trouble we ALL would be in if GM was allowed to fail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 by building SUV's, the big 3 were giving the public what they wanted. It's supply and demand. there was no demand for small cars, and the big three with their legacy costs, could not afford to offer a competitive small car. Simple economics laws. The more demand there is for something, the higher the price, the more suppliers there are that can supply it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 Maybe we should make them earn it! we can put a new Buick in everybodies driveway. fascism is here to stay, and that is sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 why is it ok to bail out financial institutions but not the auto manufacturers? do you realize what kind of trouble we ALL would be in if GM was allowed to fail? Better than listening to you bitch about socializing 'em. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted November 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 why is it ok to bail out financial institutions but not the auto manufacturers? do you realize what kind of trouble we ALL would be in if GM was allowed to fail? I know you didn't read it, but where in any of my posts have I suggested the financial bailout was "ok"? Or that I was OK with it? Break out the hokey, hacky, corny-meter, but last I checked America was the land of opportunity, not guarantee. And losing "$2 bil a month from their CASH CUSHION" doesn't particularly represent industry failure (nor draw any tears from me). Maybe trim back a little here and there on your "neck-car" R&D? Wise-the-fcuk-up! I don't get to go purchase and play every new guitar gadget that line 6, marshall, and gibson offer because I don't want to - I don't because I can't afford it right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 why is it ok to bail out financial institutions but not the auto manufacturers? do you realize what kind of trouble we ALL would be in if GM was allowed to fail? I know you didn't read it, but where in any of my posts have I suggested the financial bailout was "ok"? Or that I was OK with it? Break out the hokey, corny meter, but last I checked America was the land of opportunity, not guarantee. I agree Leg. I was for the bank bailout only because I figured it Newt Shumer Obama and McCain were all on board, we should hold our noses and pull the trigger. (maybe that shoulda been a red flag....) I may regret that in the end and it looks that way so far. I'm not a fan of bankruptcy, I think it rewards irresponsible behavior. I prefer taking the handcuffs off business as in tax and regulation. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 This is the beginning of the Socialist Obama agenda. Stay tuned for more to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 Didn't take long to throw that whole "for the people.." bullshit under the bus. I dunno, the folks who voted for him, and I'm sure a bunch that didn't ("the people") support these things that Bush's Exec Orders tried to take away...so I think the "for the people" bullshit still lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB&J Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted November 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Didn't take long to throw that whole "for the people.." bullshit under the bus. I dunno, the folks who voted for him, and I'm sure a bunch that didn't ("the people") support these things that Bush's Exec Orders tried to take away...so I think the "for the people" bullshit still lives Which solidifies my point even more that the channels for overturning Bush's EO's have been available (and willing apparently) for at least 7 years. My point of the thread (if you hadn't noticed) is that I don't care for Exec Orders regardless of who is signing them. Pelosi is the laziest bag of skin I've ever seen in a position of authority that I have ever come across. Use your "mandate" "clean out the swamp!" ugh. Shut up, you dumb c-word. to clarify: That last tirade obviously directed at Pelosi & not you, mz the pussy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 As to Pee Bee's cartoon, uh, we? The bailout was pretty bipartisan though the resistance was mostly from the right. Both houses are Dem. As far as growing government? Yep. Every election cycle it will be bigger no matter who's in office. Unless the US of A experiences a big population drop or an actual reduction in entitlements and services. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.