White House Says Detroit Bailout Deal 'Very Likely' Today

[Spectre]

But, they gave it up eventually. The immigration amnesty issue will pale in comparison to the phone-melting backlash from this.

And even aside from that, all GM and Chrysler's excuses will be gone. The "but the jobs!" defense will be pretty muted, as all their suppliers will have moved onto other businesses and dealers will have moved onto other manufacturers; the only jobs they can speak for will be the ones they directly account for, and downsizing is a natural byproduct of a business getting smaller. The "good for the economy" defense will be gone, as nobody will be buying their cars anyway. The MSM will have a field day with this, and if the Dems actually do give them more money on just a "cuz we needs it" defense, heads are going to roll.

I don't think the Dems are smart enough to realize the Damoclean sword hanging over their heads - or their counting on their spinmaster allies in the media to save their butts yet again.

Alternately, there may be some equally stupid suppliers taking the BL route and assuming that there won't be a need to switch clients as "da gummermint will bail us out all we want". They could use that for propaganda value and thin cover for the next session.

So, if/when this passes the Senate and gets signed into law, do we have a betting pool as to how much GM's market share will plummet in the following 30 days (or next sales month)?


* They *do* seem to be letting just anyone into the Thieves' Guild these days, don't they? There used to be a competency test...

 

[Dogbert]

So the suppliers will be relying on the manufacturers relying on the politicians relying on the media to save them.

Got it. :lol:

 

[Spectre]

Well, the dumbest ones will, yeah.

 

[Dogbert]

I would think even the moderately dumb ones would realize that there's an astronomically high risk/reward rate in that complex... thing. All it takes is one backstab or otherwise failure in that to bring the entire farce down, which I think Mulally has already set in motion. I'll even argue that the media is already against them, too, seeing as how the only MSM publication I've seen that has been behind a bailout this entire time is the Detroit Free Press.

Greed is a funny thing, though. I could certainly see a lot of politicians going down with this ship.

 

[Spectre]

The MSM may change their tune about that.. the Tribune bankruptcy and the impending NY Times bankruptcy have some in the MSM asking for a bailout of their own industry.

 

[Plissken]

A lot, since they spent $400 million to get Obama elected and they're *still* totalling up how much they contributed to Dem congressional campaigns.

Bollocks mate, just bollocks. I've been studying the Obama campaign and no matter how many times you repeat it, the clear fact is that the "Unions" haven't given $400 million to Obama. If you genuinely believe that, then there is nothing I can do, except feel glad that you enjoy the work of Bill O'Reilly.

In case it has escaped your attention, you've had a Republican in the White House for eight years. You had a Republican Congress and Senate as recently as 2006. Trying to blame it on people who aren't even in their frickin' jobs yet is mendacious in the extreme. Where is the Republican President right now? A million Americans could be losing their jobs and where the hell is he? What about the VP? Where are all those who queued to throw money at the banks?

The Big Three problems aren't to do with Capitol Hill or the White House. They are of their own making. Unions and management. At the end of the day, they've worked to produce cars that people don't want to buy and it doesn't matter who you vote for, that isn't changing any day soon.

 

[Spectre]

Bollocks mate, just bollocks. I've been studying the Obama campaign and no matter how many times you repeat it, the clear fact is that the "Unions" haven't given $400 million to Obama. If you genuinely believe that, then there is nothing I can do, except feel glad that you enjoy the work of Bill O'Reilly.

In case it has escaped your attention, you've had a Republican in the White House for eight years. You had a Republican Congress and Senate as recently as 2006. Trying to blame it on people who aren't even in their frickin' jobs yet is mendacious in the extreme. Where is the Republican President right now? A million Americans could be losing their jobs and where the hell is he? What about the VP? Where are all those who queued to throw money at the banks?

The Big Three problems aren't to do with Capitol Hill or the White House. They are of their own making. Unions and management. At the end of the day, they've worked to produce cars that people don't want to buy and it doesn't matter who you vote for, that isn't changing any day soon.

Nobody said they gave $400 million to Obama. They did spend $400 million on parallel campaigns ("The UAW says vote Obama to save your job"), turning out their own members, "get out the vote and oh by the way vote for Obama" drives, etc., etc:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122592993592603103.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://washlaborwire.com/2008/11/13...n-the-labor-and-employment-legal-landscape-4/

Because of US election laws, they *couldn't* give that money to Obama directly, but there are other ways to support your candidate without supporting your candidate, if you know what I mean.


The President can propose what he wishes, but unless the proposal is within the limited scope of an Executive Order, the President pretty much can't do anything unless Congress sends him a bill to sign. The Democrats have had a majority, and more than a majority, since the 2006 elections. They pretty much have refused to cooperate with the President on most any issues, and just about anything he proposed, if introduced as a bill, has summarily been shot down by Nancy Pelosi & Co, or Harry Reid & Co.

The sudden downturn in the economy, if you really look at it, coincides with the start of the Democrats' new policies in 2007 and is the culmination of several different Dem-sourced policies (the Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act, the Clinton decision to start enforcing it and requiring banks to accept bad loans in exchange for the ability to expand, forcing lenders to lend based on racial and gender reasons rather than credit rating, etc, etc.). Most of those who queued up to throw money at the banks, by definition (Dems had the majority, remember?) were Democrats. Most of the people who were the architects of the collapse ("You must extend credit to minorities and illegals even though you know they will never pay you back!") were, surprise, Democrats. The only thing that has changed with this election is that we now have an incoming President that will have no barriers to his ideas in Congress from the ruling party, who can find plenty of water-carriers to get whatever he wants rammed through both houses in record time.

So, where *are* all the Democrats who were screaming for the bailout of the banks (which I am still very unhappy with)? Can you tell me that? Here's a hint. Chris Dodd (a Democrat) was one of the architects of the banking collapse, he was right there front and center demanding that we bailout his mistakes... and yet he was right there on the committee demanding GM justify to *him* why he should even consider bailing them out. Likewise, Barney Frank (a Democrat) - same deal. Gave billions to his cronies, publically saying he doesn't want to give dime one to the automakers.

Yeah. Take the above, add in the stated policies of the current Dem leadership and what you get is a thousand reasons for me to lay this right at their doorstep every chance I get.

FYI, I'm *not* a Republican. Conservative, yes. Republican? No. There were plenty of Republican "useful idiots" that went along with the bailout, and I want every single one of them run out of office on a rail. Thankfully, a lot of them failed of election this time around. There were also plenty of Republican bankers that gamed the system and exploited it to make boatloads of money... but those responsible for the regulations, the social programs, and the directives that made all this happen are almost all Democrats.

 

[Dogbert]

The Big Three problems aren't to do with Capitol Hill or the White House. They are of their own making. Unions and management.

But that's the whole issue; Wagoner, Nardelli, and the UAW are making it Capitol Hill's problem... "unions and management". Spectre's vitriolic UAW hate aside, you can't deny that they have a large lobbying force in Congress that's fueling at least part of this bailout conundrum, too.

 

[Spectre]

Vitriolic? Me?

I always thought of it more as volcanic, a great fiery hatred, something from the center of a star perhaps. Nothing so simple as an acidic burn.

 

[Dogbert]

I always thought of it more as volcanic, a great fiery hatred, something from the center of a star perhaps.

Vitriolic is easier to type.

 

[Plissken]

Nobody said they gave $400 million to Obama. They did spend $400 million on parallel campaigns ("The UAW says vote Obama to save your job"), turning out their own members, "get out the vote and oh by the way vote for Obama" drives, etc., etc:

So Obama owes them... nothing then.

Because of US election laws, they *couldn't* give that money to Obama directly, but there are other ways to support your candidate without supporting your candidate, if you know what I mean.

The President can propose what he wishes, but unless the proposal is within the limited scope of an Executive Order, the President pretty much can't do anything unless Congress sends him a bill to sign.

Oh come on. You are telling me the President, and especially this President can't do anything until Congress/the Senate tell him to. The same guy who stamped his feet until he got what he wanted on funding Iraq. So you are OK that he's throwing paper darts in Oval Office until someone else does something?

The sudden downturn in the economy, if you really look at it, coincides with the start of the Democrats' new policies in 2007 and is the culmination of several different Dem-sourced policies (the Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act, the Clinton decision to start enforcing it and requiring banks to accept bad loans in exchange for the ability to expand, forcing lenders to lend based on racial and gender reasons rather than credit rating, etc, etc.).

So the downturn started in 2007, because of an Act signed into law before 1980 and enforced in the 1990s. Despite the bills being signed into law by a Republican President?

Most of those who queued up to throw money at the banks, by definition (Dems had the majority, remember?) were Democrats.

Just out of interest, what is the current party balance in the Senate? As of Dec 2nd? Which of the two parties in the Senate could get a majority? And don;t give me Lieberman, who was a possible Republican VP choice - he's only still with the Dems due to as you said "usefuil idiot" status. What is the affiliation of the President right now?

Who refused to support McCain when he put his neck on the line for the original proposal?

Who wrote the initial three page Bill that effectively gave them a blank, no strings attached, cheque? Hank Paulsen. Who said no when he was, literally on one knee begging for support? Nancy Pelosi?

Most of the people who were the architects of the collapse ("You must extend credit to minorities and illegals even though you know they will never pay you back!") were, surprise, Democrats.

Ignoring the O'Reillyesque extend credit (yeah, right, and the Dems are cancelling Christmas and forced people to extend bad credit as opposed to just got very, very greedy), what you are saying is the people who wanted less regulation of the financial markets weren't but that historic party of less government, the Democrats?

Yeah. Take the above, add in the stated policies of the current Dem leadership and what you get is a thousand reasons for me to lay this right at their doorstep every chance I get.

FYI, I'm *not* a Republican. Conservative, yes. Republican? No. There were plenty of Republican "useful idiots" that went along with the bailout, and I want every single one of them run out of office on a rail. Thankfully, a lot of them failed of election this time around. There were also plenty of Republican bankers that gamed the system and exploited it to make boatloads of money... but those responsible for the regulations, the social programs, and the directives that made all this happen are almost all Democrats.

So the Administration for the last eight years is blameless. The Congress/Senate up to 2006 is blameless. The people who aren't even in power yet are the problem?

Sigh. I shouldnt be surprised. In this country, apparently the only person who can get us out of our problems is the glass-eyed idiot who led us into them.

 

[Dogbert]

So you are OK that he's throwing paper darts in Oval Office until someone else does something?

He's not. He's saying "fuck off, we're not just going to give you money". I think it might be the only time in the past eight years that I've actually agreed with him on something. Believe me, it was a 'cold shower' moment.

 

[Plissken]

You got a source for that? Not that I don't believe you, but I'm trying to find something to corroborate it. All the Guardian website is coming up with is Congress presenting stuff to the White House, but that's the Grauniad for you.

 

[Spectre]

So Obama owes them... nothing then.

Oh, he owes them quite a lot. So do the rest of the Democrats. Just about everyone accepts this - if a special interest group helps get you elected even if they didn't actually donate to your campaign, you do owe them.

Oh come on. You are telling me the President, and especially this President can't do anything until Congress/the Senate tell him to. The same guy who stamped his feet until he got what he wanted on funding Iraq. So you are OK that he's throwing paper darts in Oval Office until someone else does something?

Not really happy about it, but please - tell me *what* he can do without Congress sending him a bill, instead of just complaining about it, hm?

So the downturn started in 2007, because of an Act signed into law before 1980 and enforced in the 1990s. Despite the bills being signed into law by a Republican President?

Bush has been quite the useful idiot for a number of recent Dem programs. My guess is that they were payback for allowing Iraq to proceed.

Downturn started because of a number of new programs that were implemented - the idiotic corn-ethanol fuel mandate, jacking CAFE to sky high levels, the minimum wage hike... the *banking* crisis, while not unrelated, was mostly a delayed reaction left over from the Clinton Administration "CRA 'rewrite'" that a lot of us had been wondering when it would go off. (I made quite a bit of money shorting bank stocks once it became clear who was going down - and I'd programmed those trades years ago because I thought they were eventually going to tank.)

Just out of interest, what is the current party balance in the Senate? As of Dec 2nd? Which of the two parties in the Senate could get a majority? And don;t give me Lieberman, who was a possible Republican VP choice - he's only still with the Dems due to as you said "usefuil idiot" status. What is the affiliation of the President right now?

Who refused to support McCain when he put his neck on the line for the original proposal?

As of right now, if you don't include the Democrat seat left open by Obama's resignation to take higher office, it is 48 Democrats, 1 Independent Democratic (Lieberman), 1 Independent (Jim Jeffords, who caucuses with the Democrats and votes with the Dems - so might as well be a Dem), 49 Republicans, 1 Vacancy. So, at best, 50-49, Dems still in the majority.

If you go back before the election, it was 49 Democrats, two Democrat stand-ins, and 49 Republicans. 51-49 for all intents and purposes.

That said, there are a number of Republican idiots who often vote with the Dems anyway. This are called RINOs, Republican In Name Only. A number of them just lost their jobs to actual Dems in the past election. The Dems will have a net gain of 8 seats and little change in their lineup.

At no point in 2007 or 2008 were the Republicans in charge in either the House or Senate.

Who wrote the initial three page Bill that effectively gave them a blank, no strings attached, cheque? Hank Paulsen. Who said no when he was, literally on one knee begging for support? Nancy Pelosi?

She said no because she wanted to attach more pork to it, and GOD is that thing porked out.

Paulson's a RINO.

Ignoring the O'Reillyesque extend credit (yeah, right, and the Dems are cancelling Christmas and forced people to extend bad credit as opposed to just got very, very greedy), what you are saying is the people who wanted less regulation of the financial markets weren't but that historic party of less government, the Democrats?

Actually, you should look into the history of the CRA. Between that and the "community organizers", yeah, institutions were being forced to extend credit to otherwise uncreditworthy people. Doesn't mean they didn't take advantage of necessity and milk it for all it was worth.... but I can't think of a banker who would have ever extended credit like that if the government hadn't endorsed, nay, mandated that.

Remember, the Democrats are all about using regulation and government to accomplish social engineering. See affirmative action (which should have been killed years ago and even though it was *just* proven to no longer be necessary, will probably continue on indefinitely, see the ridiculous lengths that an employer has to go to for ADA compliance, etc., etc. As a small business owner, the number of idiot regulations that I have to comply with to accomplish various Dem "diversity" goals set forth in law are bad and get worse the more people I hire.

So the Administration for the last eight years is blameless. The Congress/Senate up to 2006 is blameless. The people who aren't even in power yet are the problem?

Considering that most of the people are going to be the SAME people, yeah, I can blame them. How many committee chairmanships do you think are going to be changing parties? About zero. Remember, Greenspan was in his office through both Republican and Democratic administrations, and I have no doubt that Paulson and Bernanke will be the same. Remember also, that these appointments had to be confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate, and they'd only pass moneymen acceptable to them.

Blameless? No. Clearly there are things that they should have done better. Not spending money like a drunken sailor comes to mind. Not passing McCain-Feingold comes to mind. Not implementing the tighter code of conduct and ethics that's been proposed for years comes to mind.

Sigh. I shouldnt be surprised. In this country, apparently the only person who can get us out of our problems is the glass-eyed idiot who led us into them.

You shouldn't be surprised. Remember, generally only those people who could not succeed at any other field take up politics. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach run for public office.

As far as I am concerned, BOTH parties have failed and they ALL need to be tossed out of office. It's just that IMHO, the Dems have done more to be worth tossing out of office of late. And just as the MSM and Dems have blamed everything on the Republicans (as well as conservatives and anyone who wasn't a Dem) for the past eight years, I am returning the favor full force, wherever I go. Hope they like the "equal treatment" they so loudly espouse yet never seem to actually give out.

 

[Dogbert]

You got a source for that?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/05/news/economy/economic_fallout_jobs/index.htm

He basically said "lets just fast-forward them money we were going to give them later", and was against "lets give them more money".

 

[NooDle]

erm, won't this have EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WHOLE OF THE ENTIRE YOU ESS OF EY go "give me money too, because there's a crisis and if you don't, I'll go bankrupt. You gave monies to the carmakers, why not us too?"

 

[Dogbert]

erm, won't this have EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WHOLE OF THE ENTIRE YOU ESS OF EY go "give me money too, because there's a crisis and if you don't, I'll go bankrupt. You gave monies to the carmakers, why not us too?"

Hence why I wanted to march on my state capitol.

 

[Plissken]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/05/news/economy/economic_fallout_jobs/index.htm

He basically said "lets just fast-forward them money we were going to give them later", and was against "lets give them more money".

Cheers.

Does seem like he's just waiting around though.

Following the president's statement, a White House spokesman told reporters that a stimulus plan is "something we expect to happen in the next administration" and that Bush's focus will be on the programs already implemented to stabilize the financial system and prevent avoidable foreclosures.

Basically look after the banks and their mortgages and wait until the 20th January. Sheesh.

Still, our Prime Minister announced yesterday that "he saved the world".

 

[Spectre]

erm, won't this have EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WHOLE OF THE ENTIRE YOU ESS OF EY go "give me money too, because there's a crisis and if you don't, I'll go bankrupt. You gave monies to the carmakers, why not us too?"

That's part of the logic that GM and Chrysler are using already - "You gave the banks $700B, can't you spare even a fraction of that for us? There's a crisis and we're going bankrupt too!"

Some of the major media conglomerates in the US are starting to go under (yay!) - and they're starting to talk of asking for bailouts. God alone only knows where the cycle will end.

Hence why I wanted to march on my state capitol.

Bingo. My rep and senators are on speed dial and get calls from me as I get updates on where the legislation is in Congress. My idiot Rep at least voted "no" on it, so I suppose I should leave him a thank you call, and then proceed to melt down the Texas senators' phone lines with calls.

Cheers.

Does seem like he's just waiting around though.

That's one of the issues with the US system - the President is very powerful in some areas and in others he has to wait for Congress to do something. That's one advantage of a Brit-style parliamentary system - the Prime Minister has a lot more general power. The disadvantage is that the Brit-style parliamentary system makes it very hard to do necessary but unpopular things because if you do you suddenly get floods of "no-confidence" votes and changing alliances, etc., etc.

Only Congress has the overall power of the purse.

Basically look after the banks and their mortgages and wait until the 20th January. Sheesh.

Pretty much. You know what the opposite of Progress is, right? Congress.
They won't do anything until EVERYONE has had their say, got their soundbite to send back to the people back home, etc., etc.

Still, our Prime Minister announced yesterday that "he saved the world".

Let me guess, Brown? Why hasn't he been tossed yet? Isn't he basically hanging on by a thread at this point?

 

[Plissken]

Not really happy about it, but please - tell me *what* he can do without Congress sending him a bill, instead of just complaining about it, hm?

Decide. Lead. Be a bloody President.

Hell, and this is a daft idea, if he isn't interested himself, then offer to work towards implementing Obamas plan early. Bi-partisan, across the aisle, all that and at least doing some good before getting out of office.

Bush has been quite the useful idiot for a number of recent Dem programs. My guess is that they were payback for allowing Iraq to proceed.

Hold on. Are you are saying that Bush is doing things in the interests of the Democratic Party? I'm not often rendered speechless but that is... wow. I need a LOLCat or something.

Downturn started because of a number of new programs that were implemented - the idiotic corn-ethanol fuel mandate, jacking CAFE to sky high levels, the minimum wage hike... the *banking* crisis, while not unrelated, was mostly a delayed reaction left over from the Clinton Administration "CRA 'rewrite'" that a lot of us had been wondering when it would go off.

So this timebomb has been there for eight years, minimum, and noone spotted it? Eight years of opportunities to fix it, eight years of a Republican President, six years of a Republican Congress and Senate and they didn't see it and that is the Democrats fault?

As of right now, if you don't include the Democrat seat left open by Obama's resignation to take higher office, it is 48 Democrats, 1 Independent Democratic (Lieberman), 1 Independent (Jim Jeffords, who caucuses with the Democrats and votes with the Dems - so might as well be a Dem), 49 Republicans, 1 Vacancy. So, at best, 50-49, Dems still in the majority.

Far be it from me to correct you, but I think you mean Bernie Sanders and not Jim Jeffords.

If you go back before the election, it was 49 Democrats, two Democrat stand-ins, and 49 Republicans. 51-49 for all intents and purposes.

Yup. And for the last two years, the Republicans have not been strong enough to persuade a moassive number of one Democrat to dissaude from majority opinion. You don't have the whipping system over there that neuters our MPs, but that is a hell of a record.

At no point in 2007 or 2008 were the Republicans in charge in either the House or Senate.

Bush vetoed plenty from Congress/Senate, generally war-based. Checks and balances.

Paulson's a RINO.

So your argument is that when a Republican does something that you disagree with, it is because he is secretly a Democrat?

but I can't think of a banker who would have ever extended credit like that if the government hadn't endorsed, nay, mandated that.

Come to the UK, we've got loads of them! 125% no credit check mortgage - just sign here! And we're way more regulated here. This entire fiasco started in the US and we jumped in with both feet to join you.

Remember, Greenspan was in his office through both Republican and Democratic administrations, and I have no doubt that Paulson and Bernanke will be the same. Remember also, that these appointments had to be confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate, and they'd only pass moneymen acceptable to them.

Flat out wrong.

Paulson - was confirmed by a Republican controlled Senate and Congress. (30th May 2006, elections not until November.)
Bernanke - appointed 1st Feb 2006, so confirmed by a Republican Senate and Congress.

Look fella, no disrespect, but I'm a Brit and I'm correcting you on your own history using two minutes of Wikipedia searches. Unless - and I fully remain open to this - Wikipedia is wrong.

As far as I am concerned, BOTH parties have failed and they ALL need to be tossed out of office. It's just that IMHO, the Dems have done more to be worth tossing out of office of late. And just as the MSM and Dems have blamed everything on the Republicans (as well as conservatives and anyone who wasn't a Dem) for the past eight years, I am returning the favor full force, wherever I go. Hope they like the "equal treatment" they so loudly espouse yet never seem to actually give out.

Oh, I do. But seriously, you can try to rewrite history all you like. You can throw around rubbish like "Mainstream Media" like Bill O'Reilly on speed but those pesky facts will get you in the end.