Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Republicans don’t want Americans to make good wages
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, December 13, 2008

Mark Finkelstein over at NewsBusters says, "I normally find Rachel Maddow a kinder, gentler, smarter version of Keith Olbermann". Not to mention easier on the eyes (yes, yes, I know, so stifle yourself).

But he says last night, she was anything but a "kinder, gentler, smarter version of Keith Olbermann". She was, instead, the prototypical lib without a clue.

The rant concerned those evil (racist?) Senate Republicans and what I have come to call the "UAW vote"?
RACHEL MADDOW: Hell, high water? Feh! Last night, with both hell and high water all around, Senate Republicans killed $14 billion in emergency loans to save GM, Ford and Chrysler. Why? Because they've apparently looked back at the Great Depression and decided Hoover is their role model. Of course the government shouldn't spend money to shore up its economy and save jobs in a downturn! That might make economic sense. Couldn't do that!

The Senate Republicans are counting on our economic and historic ignorance to win short-term political points for refusing to spend government money on something that it hurts to spend money on. Nobody wants to bail anybody out. But sometimes, you have to. And frankly they are seizing the ideological opportunity to crusade against the unions, and against the very idea of Americans making good wages at their jobs.
Of course, anyone with a passing understanding of the Constitution knows that saving jobs and wages isn't supposedly something within the function of this government. So perhaps, those fighting against this give-away were concerned with preserving the integrity of that document vs. seeing it further shredded.

However in the evolving "spread the wealth" culture, where "transfer payments" apparently equal "productive employment" and "wages", Maddow's nonsense doesn't come as a complete surprise, does it?

But you have to marvel the total non-sequitur that she wrenches from the cognitive dissonance of her "reasoning" - "... And frankly they are seizing the ideological opportunity to crusade against the unions, and against the very idea of Americans making good wages at their jobs."

To many of those opposing this, it really isn't about wages at all, but about the function of government (although I'll be quick to add I'm sure many of the other "Republicans" don't agree with me on this or the other bailout, given their votes). It isn't now, nor has it ever been, the function of this government - according to its own Constitution - to use taxpayers money to bailout private industries, institutions or companies. To pretend it is smacks of cluelessness (or obtuseness, which is actually worse). And to further pretend, in a fit of pique, that those opposing it only do so because they don't want Americans to make good wages is beyond stupid or dumb.

It is Olbyesque.

Of course Maddow still has a long way to go to catch Olby in that department, but clueless rants like that will quickly close the gap.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Does this silly bint know that enough GOP members voted for it to make it pass, except for the DEMS who voted against?

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Is no one able to make a distinction between workers and unions? They are not the same.
 
Written By: Rick
URL: http://
To pretend it is smacks of cluelessness (or obtuseness, which is actually worse). And to further pretend, in a fit of pique, that those opposing it only do so because they don’t want Americans to make good wages is beyond stupid or dumb.

How do you explain the fact that many of the same Republicans who killed the car industry bailout voted for the Wall Street bailout — and without requiring Wall Street employees to take a cut in wages or benefits?

 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreet.wordpress.com
How do you explain the fact that many of the same Republicans who killed the car industry bailout voted for the Wall Street bailout...
Did you miss this, Kathy?
(although I’ll be quick to add I’m sure many of the other "Republicans" don’t agree with me on this or the other bailout, given their votes).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
No, I didn’t miss that, McQ. I am interested in your thoughts about why Republican legislators who supported the Wall Street bailout *didn’t* support the automotive bailout. You said "(although I’ll be quick to add I’m sure many of the other ’Republicans’ don’t agree with me on this or the other bailout, given their votes".

So again, what about the Republicans who did NOT support the automotive bailout, but DID support the Wall Street bailout? Why, in your opinion, did they support one but not the other?
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreet.wordpress.com
I am interested in your thoughts about why Republican legislators who supported the Wall Street bailout *didn’t* support the automotive bailout.
Well since those aren’t the ones I’m talking about I think I’ve covered that in the parenthetical statement, wouldn’t you say?

I’m talking about the ones who voted for neither bailout for the reason I’ve highlighted who are now being accused of not wanting Americans to make good wages at their jobs.

Couldn’t possibly be for any other reason, could it?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I ask this question not so much to get an answer, but I ask it nonetheless:

Can anyone tell me how in the name of God’s green earth Rachel Maddow got a show to spout off her Marxist sludge on television? I could go into the street, spit into the air, and the saliva could come down on someone and the chances would be far better that they would have far more talent than that cow.

She is ugly, she is a man hater (that’s why she is a disgusting lesbian), and her sickness and love of Marxist boilerplate is stunning.

She is no more talented to wash toilet bowls than she is to host a show in which she makes a fool of herself nightly.

Now I finished my moment of anger.

 
Written By: James Marsden
URL: http://
Rachel Madcow is actually very similar to Olberdork. Neither have a lick of sense, a shred of decency, or any sanity. That’s what happens when the weak minded get caught up in Leftism. They can’t handle it, after a while the hate and cognitive dissonance just drives them out of their minds.
 
Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
This illustrates just why I was not going to cry if the Dems got to 60 in the Senate- because there would be absolutely no political fig leaf for them.

Now we have 2 years of "it’s the GOPs fault!!!" when the Dems screw something up.

The average voter barely realized the Dems controlled congress in the last election anyway.

The surest way for the GOP to win back is not voa any legislative positions. Just make sure to get the narrative across every single day that the Dems are in charge across the board.

Period.

As for Olby/Maddow.....well, hate is repayed by hate. And I’ll have a big horse laugh when they get paid.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The KlausFiles stuff on the UAW talking out both sides of their mouths is priceless. On one side of their mouths, they are telling Congress that UAW workers are on par with Nissan, Toyota and Honda workers in the US, but on the other side they are saying that making GM, Chrysler and Ford workers on par with Nissan, Toyota and Honda will destroy UAW workers (the latter killed the bailout).
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I know this won’t be popular here, which is fine, but I can give you a reason why someone might support a bailout for Wall Street but not for the Big 3. Finance and banking flows through the economy like oil, lubricating everything. Doesn’t matter if its a tech company, General Electric, or frankly any company that uses debt to finance operations. Auto manufacturing, not so much.

If GM goes under, that sucks for employees there and in attached industries, but it will not ripple through the economy like a bankruptcy of BofA or Citi would. Whether you think that justifies bailing out banks or not (and most here won’t find the argument persuasive), there is a difference.

Tom
 
Written By: Tom
URL: http://
Therer’s also the arguement, Tom, that the banking failure was due, at least in part, to a failure at the federal level.

There is no such failure for the Big 3.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Many of the banks and other companies that would have been lost if the financial markets seized up were fundamentally sound. Propping up the credit markets may have prevented a lot of unnecessary destruction. (I still opposed it but wasn’t certain about it. The other side at least had an argument for why the government should intervene.)

That isn’t the case with the car industry. Some companies are doing fine and the ones that can’t compete simply can’t compete as they are now. That is what bankruptcy is for. It is the only way to get out from under the costs that keep them uncompetitive and try to restructure the core business for a return to profitability.
 
Written By: CAL
URL: http://
I think the bailout money would have been provided if GM/Chrysler could provide a detailed plan on how their companies would turn it around without

a) A miracle (like gas going under a dollar again and government sponsored autoloans to poor credit consumers).
b) A periodic injection of tax payer funds
c) Pixie Dust.

Baring that all an injection of 14 billion would do is delay the inevitable. Although there is 1 ray of hope for them.

If they can survive until nationalized health care is drafted and passed, and strong arm the unions into transitioning the union plan’s to the US plan, their finances look alot better.

GH
 
Written By: GeekHeretic
URL: http://geekheretic.com
YOu want my money to save the car companies?
Fine.

Eliminate unfunded mandates from the government on the car companies.... yes, including the government backing for the unions.
Which means, all of them go bye bye.

Else, don’t tell me about how you’re all for saving them, because nothing less will work.

It’s that simple, that direct.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Of course, anyone with a passing understanding of the Constitution knows that saving jobs and wages isn’t supposedly something within the function of this government. So perhaps, those fighting against this give-away were concerned with preserving the integrity of that document vs. seeing it further shredded.
A person with a ’passing understanding’ might think that, but no one who has studied constitutional law and has an indepth knowledge of the constitution would think that. The constitution sets up a framework of government. It does not specify all policies. Government action is generally permissible as long as the constitution doesn’t forbid it (and is legal and the people can hold the government accountable).

On the main point of the post (besides complaints about the media), one problem with the bailouts is that it perpetuates the fundamental problem that brought us this mess: people want something for nothing. This isn’t just welfare recipients, but goes all the way up the ladder to big finance and big business. It’s a cultural disease of a sort, and the recession is the treatment.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://scotterb.wordpress.com
A person with a ’passing understanding’ might think that, but no one who has studied the post-modernist version of constitutional law and has an indepth knowledge of the constitution would think that. Why you dense righties are so foolish, you think the word "constitution" should be capitalized!

The constitution (small-c!) sets up a framework of government. It does not specify all policies. And that point is not an obvious platitude I say to sound wise and informed, no sir, so stop saying that! Government action is generally permissible as long as the constitution doesn’t forbid it. And even when it is explicitly forbidden, we wise leftists can use the holy principles of post-modernism to get around it. I know you dense righties think that plain English as expressed in the constitution (you know, that "Congress shall make no law" stuff) actually means something, but it doesn’t. We got rid of that nonsense with FDR. Suck on it, righties.

On the main point of the post (besides complaints about the media), one problem with the bailouts is that it perpetuates the fundamental problem that brought us this mess: people want something for nothing. This isn’t just welfare recipients, but goes all the way up the ladder to big finance and big business. It’s a cultural disease of a sort, and the recession is the treatment.

But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have universal healthcare and various other leftists policies, oh no. I favor those wise leftist solutions, and they are not either something for nothing. I decree it. And the fact that I sponge off the government for my own salary isn’t something-for-nothing either. I work hard, producing long-winded platitudes that all you dense righties ought to take seriously. And the stuff I teach is important. I’m helping indoctrinate, uh sorry, educate a new generation in how leftist, post-modern principles completely replace all that silly honor and duty and limited government stuff our country was founded on.

And I’m not either a coward, like that nasty Justin Case guy said! It takes bravery to come hear and read such nonsense about honor and duty and personal responsibility, and then respond to you militiaristic righties, because any one of you might take it into his head to come up here and shoot me. As I’ve discussed many times, you ex-military types are so scarred by the experience that you’re all basket cases, and there’s no telling what you’ll do.

But I do it because I’m brave, really brave, stop laughing! And not because I have to come here and stir stuff up to get attention and validate my own self worth, so stop saying that, do you hear!?! And stop laughing! I’m serious! I just want to inform and educate you clueless righties, and it’s all out of the goodness of my brave heart since I have absolutely no respect for you.
 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://ImNotADweebSoStopSayingThat.doofus/pompous/smug/ignorant/dumbass
But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have universal healthcare and various other leftists policies, oh no. I favor those wise leftist solutions, and they are not either something for nothing. I decree it. And the fact that I sponge off the government for my own salary isn’t something-for-nothing either
Bingo. You can’t preach that we need to consume less and make more of what people need, while advocating even greater spending and consumption from an inefficient government. And of course, he sees no inconsistency with cashing his own paycheck for a job that may well offer little or no value in society.

Like all liberals, what’s good for thee is not for me.
 
Written By: Darrell
URL: http://
"Because they’ve apparently looked back at the Great Depression and decided Hoover is their role model."

So Hoover created the Great Depression or made it worse by failing to bail out large industries and the Unions with taxpayers’ money? Am I missing something here?
 
Written By: Valens
URL: http://
Conservative Republicans have not opposed middle class prosperity - they encourage it by reducing the size and cost of government. Tax cuts benefit the middle class more than the wealthy in two ways - not taking away their money and encouraging the wealthy to invest in our economic health. We have not had a true conservative administration since Reagan.

The constitutional problem with government bailing out private firms is use of public funds. The constitution requires that all people are treated equally under the law. If the government decides to use taxpayers’ money to rescue the mortgage bankers, how can they not bail out Detroit, airlines, truckers and everyone else in financial trouble?
 
Written By: arch
URL: http://
You dense righties got me so flummoxed that I typed in the wrong link about Justing Case above. It’s actually here.

Maybe someday you computers geeks can teach me about how to use cut and paste. It should only take a few hours for me to catch on. That would be great. I already write blog entries that are so massive they affect the gravitational pull on the whole campus, and the guys over in the physics lab are pretty upset about that. But just imagine what I can do when I learn how to copy my previous massive posts and embellish them with even more turgidity.
 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://NotADweebReallyImNot.silly/and/smug/at/the/same/time
A person with a ’passing understanding’ might think that, but no one who has studied constitutional law and has an indepth knowledge of the constitution would think that. The constitution sets up a framework of government
Silly me.....I always thought the constitution was quite clear on what can and cannot be done.

I guess it’s all about the nuance
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
shark, I think we should depend on someone with a bit more authority for our understanding of how to interpret the Constitution. How about Clarence Thomas?
Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution — try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores.
Personally, I’m in the "discern as best we can what the framers intended" camp. It’s pretty clear that most on the left, especially those who believe post-modernism has a shred of validity, are in the "make it up" camp.

I wish they would just be honest enough to admit it.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://qando.net
I am interested in your thoughts about why Republican legislators who supported the Wall Street bailout *didn’t* support the automotive bailout.
Probably for the same reason some Democrats did the opposite—they’re supporting their donor base and/or voting blocs.
 
Written By: Joe R.
URL: http://leninvsmussolini.blogspot.com
Bruce,
Of course, anyone with a passing understanding of the Constitution knows that saving jobs and wages isn’t supposedly something within the function of this government. So perhaps, those fighting against this give-away were concerned with preserving the integrity of that document vs. seeing it further shredded.
Are you seriously making the argument that the Republicans fought this out of their sincere belief in the Constitution?

You know that I agree with you on a lot of things, but this is one too far... These are mostly the same Republicans who stood behind No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, the Bipartisan Incumbent Protection Campaign Finance Reform Act, and (although this one is debatable for most Republicans) the PATRIOT ACT.

Constitutionality wasn’t their strong suit when we had unified Republican government. I refuse to believe they’ve suddenly changed their principles now that they’re out of power... Their rhetoric, sure, but not their principles.
 
Written By: Brad Warbiany
URL: http://thelibertypapers.org/
Scott Erb - A person with a ’passing understanding’ might think that, but no one who has studied constitutional law and has an indepth knowledge of the constitution would think that. The constitution sets up a framework of government. It does not specify all policies. Government action is generally permissible as long as the constitution doesn’t forbid it (and is legal and the people can hold the government accountable).

I add to the pile-on...

So, would you say that that whole list of enumerated powers in Article II sect. 8 is more on the lines of "helpful suggestions" about what the government can and can’t do rather than a strictly defined set of powers and authorities? I suggest the the Constitution has become something like the speed limit in the minds of too many people, including many of those who have "studied constitutional law and [have] an indepth knowledge of the constitution": well, you should more or less adhere to it, but nobody’s going to mind too much if you exceed its limits here and there. Further, because our law is decided so much on precedent, once a court makes an exception or finds some new power or authority, subsequent courts can use that precedent to find MORE powers and exceptions.

Kathy - How do you explain the fact that many of the same Republicans who killed the car industry bailout voted for the Wall Street bailout — and without requiring Wall Street employees to take a cut in wages or benefits?

McQ and CAL have already dealt with this, but let me throw in my two cents. Could it be that the members of Congress who foolishly voted for the Wall Street bailout only to see corporate fatcats throw themselves a party and give themselves bonuses realize that they made a mistake and don’t want to repeat it? That being said, I think Joe R. really hits the nail on the head: the dems (spit) want to bail out Detroit so the money keeps flowing from the workers to them via the UAW. Republicans aren’t very interested in propping up a corrupt scheme that funds their political rivals, especially since they don’t get much of a slice of that pie.

Now, I will say that Kathy raises a good point about expecting people to take cuts in pay and benefits. I was rather indignant when people like Barney Frank were demanding that Wall Street executives take a cut in pay as a condition of the bail-out: who the hell is Congress to dictate what people should and shouldn’t be paid? The same logic applies to the unions: the government should not mandate that a worker take a hefty pay cut just so his incompetent boss can get his hands on a fat pile of cash to save the company that he’s been running into the ground. This is not to say that the workers SHOULDN’T take a pay cut: if they want to save their jobs, they should be willing to do what it takes. However, I recall the airline industry and especially Eastern back in the ’80s: the workers, when told that their company was going to fold and that they had to make concessions to keep it (and their jobs) afloat, did so. They got raped by unscupulous management and lost their jobs anyway. It may be that, to some extent, the UAW and the workers it represents don’t want to go down that path. O’ course, Eastern didn’t have the White House and members of Congress salivating to write them a check. How times have changed...

The solution, of course, is that the government should stay the hell out of the market. If GM is going bankrupt, let them solve the problem or close their doors. It doesn’t fall to Uncle Sugar to pay them to keep running an inefficient business. I would also add that it doesn’t fall to Uncle Sugar to prop up corrupt and greedy unions when it supports them in contract disputes, either.
 
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
Are you seriously making the argument that the Republicans fought this out of their sincere belief in the Constitution?
Republicans as a whole? No - that’s why I made the parenthetical statement.

Some Republicans? Yes. Some have been consistent in their opposition to all of the bailouts for the very reason stated. It isn’t a large group, obviously, however it exists and ought to be defended.

The point, of course, is the cited stereotypical hyperbole from Maddow requires you to believe that Republican opposition stemmed from only one source - they don’t want Americans to make good wages. It’s nonsense.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
A person with a ’passing understanding’ might think that, but no one who has studied constitutional law and has an indepth knowledge of the constitution would think that. The constitution sets up a framework of government. It does not specify all policies. Government action is generally permissible as long as the constitution doesn’t forbid it (and is legal and the people can hold the government accountable).
Scott is right. At least in the modern view, where the 10th Amendment is ignored.

If we actually follow the full Constitution, including the 10th, then most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
However, I recall the airline industry and especially Eastern back in the ’80s: the workers, when told that their company was going to fold and that they had to make concessions to keep it (and their jobs) afloat, did so.
The Eastern Mechanic’s union went on strike in 88 or 89. The Pilots and Hostesses followed them in sympathy strikes. Eastern was ultimately forced to go into bankruptcy in 89 or 90 without a resolution to the strike. That’s when they lost their jobs, arguably as a result of their own unwillingness to compromise.

Sorry about the inexactness of the dates, but the only reason I recall this at all is that one of my Dad’s friends was an Eastern pilot. After this, he never flew a plane again and was utterly furious with the unions from the start of the bankruptcy to the day he died.
 
Written By: Terry
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider