Doug Orleans ([info]dougo) wrote,
@ 2009-04-04 13:17:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
A real corker
CBS News:
Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee said that the Obama administration's demands of General Motors and Chrysler set "a dangerous precedent."

"I think for all of us who believe in free enterprise, this is the crossing of a major threshold, and it actually should send a chill to people all across the country," Corker said.
This is incredible doublethink. The administration is asking for changes in the auto companies because we gave them billions of dollars and they're asking for more. If they don't want to make the changes, they are more than welcome to give us the damn money back. You know what's not free enterprise? Asking the government for free money, no strings attached. Corker (and the pundits who are echoing his talking points, or is it the other way around?) should be criticizing GM for wanting to go on welfare, not the administration for offering them a deal that protects the people's interest.

(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]hahathor
2009-04-04 05:33 pm UTC (link)
You know, when I go to a restaurant, and I give them my money, I often make demands of the kitchen (like - keep the goddam tomatoes far, far away from my food).

I didn't realize that I was undermining free enterprise just by demanding the the restaurant DO something in exchange for my money.

(Reply to this)


[info]ghudson
2009-04-04 06:17 pm UTC (link)
Well, does he want the government to loan GM money with no strings attached, or just to not loan them money at all?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]dougo
2009-04-04 06:21 pm UTC (link)
Given that he thinks this is the major threshold, and not the bailouts three months ago, I'm guessing the former.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ghudson
2009-04-04 06:28 pm UTC (link)
It is consistent and reasonable to think that bailouts are a waste of taxpayer money, and that bailouts with major strings attached are even worse because they are a step towards a command economy. Keep in mind that the existence of companies with significant government backing makes it hard for other companies to compete in that industry without similar government backing and thus similar strings.

(I'm not a free-market conservative by any meas, but I'm getting a little tired of the "these people hate X but think giving lots of free money to banks is fine" argument without any effort to show that the person in question actually supported the bank bailouts.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]hahathor
2009-04-04 06:46 pm UTC (link)
That's a pretty logical interpretation of things.

However, the auto industry was the one who initially asked for the money. Blaming the gov't for giving them the money & then expecting them to actually do something for it is like blaming other countries for the debt the US owes them (and yeah, I know a lot of pundits have done that as well). If the argument is that it's bad for the gov't to give money to industry, then I think it makes sense to fault the industries who came begging for the money as the government who gave them the money. A lot of the complaints seem to be aimed solely at the government with, perhaps a bit of "Oh, the poor conglomerates. They are being stripped of the ability to do their jobs, because they are now accountable to people who know less about their industry than they do."

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]dougo
2009-04-06 02:19 am UTC (link)
I'm pretty sure Corker didn't support any of the bailouts, and I don't really care. What I'm objecting to is the proposition that bailouts with conditions is worse than bailouts with no conditions. I blame the media for reporting it (and Letterman and SNL mocking it) as "President Obama can just fire CEOs at whim now", and Corker and others are making political hay of this egregious misrepresentation.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]nothings
2009-04-04 09:58 pm UTC (link)
Similar comment about the bank bailout.

(Reply to this)


[info]inthatoneway
2009-04-05 12:26 am UTC (link)
It isn't doublethink, it's no think. The GOP, or at least the rabid right, are desperate to paint Obama as a socialist menace. Anything that has the least whiff of socialism or communism or anything of that nature will be pounced upon and held up as proof positive that Obama is a marxist menace that any right thinking American will fear and revile. Facts, truth, reality? Utterly irrelevant, it's all about perception.

(Reply to this)

(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…