Straight from our illustrious Senator's office this morning. (If Graham doesn't like it, I'll bet Demint is, well, totally demented over it.

I agree with Sen. Graham on this one. How 'bout the rest of you? (These are just his comments. Some of you might have to wait for the mainstream media to put it into context and spin it for ya or wait for the Republican Party or Democratic Party talking points du jour so you'll know what to think.) [image]

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement on President Bush’s plan to offer $17.4 billion to General Motors and Chrysler.

Graham said:

“I’m disappointed with President Bush’s decision in many respects.

“I do not believe it’s appropriate to use the TARP (Troubled Asset Recovery Program) funds to bail out the automotive companies. These funds were supposed to be used to stabilize financial institutions. The TARP legislation would certainly not have passed it we had known it was going to be used for this purpose.

“The plan announced by the President today will not lead to the necessary reforms which will make these companies profitable. The only viable solution is for them to enter Chapter 11 reorganization.

“There the companies would be able to renegotiate their labor and health costs to make them competitive in the global marketplace. It would also allow the reorganization to be accomplished without political considerations. Presidential or congressional restructuring will end up being a political exercise more so than a business exercise to make these companies profitable.

“If we continue down this road, I expect this will be the first of many government payments to the Big 3 automotive companies.”

-jdtippett

JD,

It's amazing to me that the Republicans were okay with giving away $684 billion to men in suits without strings attached (Wall Street), but they are taking this "principled" stand against giving away money without stipulation to GM & Chrysler when the people primarily affected by this are 3 million automotive workers in the midwest (and their Southern suppliers) who most definetly do NOT wear suits to work.

This whole idea of bailouts at all is the most heinous thing that anybody has ever voted through Congress since I started paying attention, but if we're going to give money indiscrimanately to banks who were equally incompetent compared to the automakers, why deny a tiny fraction to the automakers?

Besides, the incompetance and greed of the banks caused this whole "credit crunch" which just amplified the problems of the automotive industry.

If anything, the banks share some of the blame for the automotive industry crisis, but we wrote them a big blank check. Financially and Politically.

-ahammett

On fiscal issues, I long ago stopped trying to differentiate between "Republican" and "Democrat" and prefer, instead, to look at it in terms of "conservative" and "liberal." And I would contend that both bailouts are neither conservative nor liberal. They just represent irresponsible government, driven by the special interests on both sides.

There was some defense to be made for the financial industry bailout after it initially failed in Congress, then was revived and approved grudgingly when some so-called "controls" over the industry were put in place.

There is no defense whatsoever for this bailout. President Bush, noting that a failure of the Big 3 automakers in December would be a devastating body blow to the economy, threw enough money at them to get them through Spring '09 and said if they can't show "viability" by that point, the loans will be called in and the will be forced into bankruptcy.

Does anybody seriously believe that if an industry whose survival is that important in December, it will be any less important four months later? Does anybody seriously believe that an industry dominated by unions that Bush wouldn't allow to sink or swim on its own will be abandoned by Obama when the time comes? No way. I see more money being thrown into the auto industry, the financial sector and other areas of the economy in the future.

I'm the wrong one to defend Bush on this one, Andrew. I agree with PAPPY 100 percent here. Two wrongs don't make a right (oddly enough, three lefts do, but that's another story), and we are approaching the end game of a long series of government actions dating back to Franklin Roosevelt in which we all becomes, ultimately, wards of the state totally subject to the whims of government and unable to change our lot in life through personal initiative.

In the future, success and productivity will be punished by higher taxes on the fruits of that success, while laziness and lack of initiative will be rewarded with an ever-increasing subsidy from the government. You can already see the beginnings of that with the big oil companies - who have weathered tough times and enjoyed good times - facing a so-called "windfall profits" tax because people think they're too successful, while the auto industry, which obviously continues to follow a failed business model, is rewarded by billions of dollars in taxpayer largesse without having to give up any aspects of that business model.

We are one step away from the death of capitalism in the United States, and George W. Bush has admittedly done a poor job of defending the concept while stopping short of taking that final step. Didn't matter, though. That step was taken on November 4. Enjoy.

 JD,

 I would hazzard a guess that you personally will be better off in four years, Will you admit that the Democratic administration was the reason? I doubt it. 

 At least they will be "smarter than a fifth grader" which "W" was not. I do not hold him totally responsible on his own. he had lots of help with the people he chose to guide him and they let him down.

My calendar ends every year on December 31, but no big deal. On January 1, I just start on a new one. It's not the end of the world.

The only time a calendar comes close to marking the end of time is when I forget Mrs. Tippett's birthday, or our anniversary, or, worst of all, when I accidentally give her flowers on my ex-wife's birthday or on the anniversary of a previous marriage. But even that's not the end of the world - just the possible end of time for me.

Aren't there still some Mayans in Guatamala or somewhere? Maybe they can just make a new calendar over the next four years and save us all.