UAW: Better Unemployed, Than Take Pay Cut?

John Hawkins had a text messaging exchange with a Senate aide in this regard an hour or so ago.

AP just got the story on the wire. The GOP wanted wage cuts right away to bring Detroit into line with other auto makers. The UAW said not for 3 years.

As Hawkins notes at first link, don't be surprised to see Bush fund this anyway - from TARP. I don't think he wants to risk GM going down during his last month in office.

WASHINGTON – A $14 billion emergency bailout for U.S. automakers collapsed in the Senate Thursday night after the United Auto Workers refused to accede to Republican demands for swift wage cuts.

Reid called the bill's collapse "a loss for the country," adding "I dread looking at Wall Street tomorrow. It's not going to be a pleasant sight."

The implosion followed an unprecedented marathon set of talks at the Capitol among labor, the auto industry and lawmakers who bargained into the night in efforts to salvage the auto bailout at a time of soaring job losses and widespread economic turmoil.

Comments

[WBestPresidentEver]

Well, from what I heard now, they can't get it rammed through the front door then they will go the back door route. It will come from the 700 billion.
One way or another they will get their share of the money bank. LoL
Little weasal Reid is more worried about the stock market than he is the car industry. Guess he took a big loss when the market dropped. Welcome to the real world Harry. LOL

[jharp]

Harry Reid,

"Given the unhappy choice between a bridge loan and bankruptcy, Democrats have always believed that we must give the Big Three and the millions of Americans they employ every possible chance to succeed.

"By rejecting every good-faith bipartisan compromise – including those from the White House and Senator Bob Corker – it is now abundantly clear that Republicans have no interest in keeping the Big Three from collapsing.

"Because Republicans failed to act, three million Americans are more likely than ever to lose their jobs and our economy is at risk of suffering even greater damage. Our hearts go out to those families who will now have to deal with this burden as the holidays near.

"Republicans may think that rejecting this legislation sent a message to the auto industry. Instead, they sent a message to every single American that they are more interested in settling scores than solving problems."

[Lala]

In 1999 I bought a 1994 Toyota Camry for $5000.00. In 1997 my husband bought a 1992 Ford Ranger for $6000.00. I never spent another dime on the Toyota. In 2006 the Toyota was totaled in an accident and the insurance company gave me $5000.00. Pretty good.

Meanwhile, my husband paid over $5000.00 in repairs to his lousy Ford Ranger until he finally had to get ride of it because it was rusting away.

Ford makes lousy, rust prone oil-burners. Let them go bankrupt.

[jharp]

Lala,

I bought a Camry Wagon in 94 for $16,800. 185,000 miles later with no repairs I sold it for $3,500. Best value ever for me.

Worst for me was a 2002 Volvo Wagon. About $35,000 and repairs out the ying yang. Horrible deal.

Had one Ford Ranger in about 95 and it was OK.

Anyways, I don't think the point is Ford making shitty cars. It's much deeper than that. And I don't know the answer. I tend to be anti bailout but this seems to have echoing consequences.

And love those station wagons. I wish Toyota would bring them back.

[CINDI]

Let them all go bankrupt.

[Carolynp]

I'm sure it does have echoing consequences. At the same time, I think we can suck it up and take it now, or we can wait till later and take it then. If the enormous cost of US labor cannot be justified by a far superior product, clearly these businesses will fail. If this were a good investment, these companies could borrow the money from a bank. Let Bush kick this ball forward to the Obama administration.

[Dion]

Does anyone know what concessions the UAW is going to make? How are they planning on being competitive? Is the "car czar" going to make them--GM, Chryseler-- more competitive by demanding unionization of smart companies like Honda USA, Toyota USA, Nisson USA? Hahahaha

[Dion]

Maybe that's what the "card check" fantasy proposes--sloppy, lazy, overpaid work that will drive manufacturing to third world countries. We'll be buying melamine coated cars from China. I can't wait.

[jharp]

Let Bush kick this ball forward to the Obama administration.

Posted by: Carolynp | Friday, December 12, 2008 at 01:40 AM

Of course. No matter what it means to our economy at least we can blame it all on Obama. Might as well pass on bringing Osama bin Laden to justice and the Iraq War. Why didn't I think of that.

Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope it all works out.

[jharp]

It's late but here's something I think I can thank the republican senators for. Seems fair enough to me.

Bank bailout funds could be used for Detroit

Sources: White House warning GOP senators Wall Street bailout funds might be used for automakers now that auto loan package has failed.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The proposal to loan $14 billion to Detroit's struggling automakers collapsed late Thursday night but the Big Three may get some money anyway.

Bush officials warned wavering GOP senators that if they didn't support the legislation, the White House will likely be forced to tap the Wall Street bailout to lend them money, two Republican congressional officials told CNN earlier.

This is a noteworthy change since the White House and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson have previously refused to use bank bailout funds to help General Motors (GM, Fortune 500), Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500) and Chrysler LLC.

[daleyrocks]

Let's have the government lend the money to Toyota, Nissan and Honda to expand their U.S. production facilities instead of putting a bandaid on the Big 3 when what they need is radical surgery.

[Dion]

jharp:

It's not surprising that you get your news from the leftist echo chamber, CNN. It's a little stale though. NPR, ABC. NBC, CBS, LA Times, NY Times just laid off a bunch of people and could use some free propaganda; so you should offer you services while they await their bailout money.

[SacTownMan]

Chapter 11 is the only real recourse for the big three!

As long as they are on the hook for the outrageous labor contracts and continue to be run by the same losers that got em into this mess they don't have a chance in the long run.

And sorry LaLa but NO self respecting truck owner would drive a POS Ford Ranger. I have a 2002 F150 that has never needed anything other than tires, a battery, oil changes and of course gas (lots of gas!). A 1992 Ford Ranger is a far cry from the quality vehicles produced today.

As far as the crappy Ranger rusting away you have to help out this California boy... What's rust?

[Fred Beloit]

Rust, Sac, is a sort of reddish crust or powder that forms on old metalic stuff or metals, especially iron-based metals, left out in the rain. There is supposed to be a wide swath of it running from Michigan through Ohio on to Albany or Poughkeepsie, New York or Waterbury or even Bridgeport, Connecticut. That is pretty close to where all the smart people live, at least all the smart people in the East. (You just have to ask them, they'll tell you.) It might be very valuable in the future because it has a lot of oxygen in it I hear. Al Gore probably keeps his eye on it. Al is from Tennessee I think.

[Fred Beloit]

Harpo, my good friend, suck on this:
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/on_15_of_americans_support_obamas_plans_for_health_care/

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

Congrats, conservatives. Your first act after getting trounced in the 2008 election, in part, because the public perceived you to be out of touch with respect to the economy - wait for it - is to openly and actively help kill the big 3 auto makers. Why? Because some southern GOPers wanted to protect their non-union, foreign constituents. The GOP is already extinct in the north-east. Goodbye, midwest. Ohio? Indiana? PA? Blue for at least a generation.

Good work.

[Lala]

My husband bought a truck because he likes to sit up high. Occasionally, he would help someone move furniture or something like that. He really has no compelling reason to have a truck, he also doesn't know that much about autos. At the time he bought the Ranger, it was cheap and he needed a car right away. It was good for about two years and then it started to break down, one repair after the other.

The Ford rusting away underneath was helped along by the salt air here.

[Brad S]

But the real concern that involves conservatives right now is what will YOU CONSERVATIVES DO, PERSONALLY, to help your local GOP senator out when he/she gets the crapstorm in response to your much-desired filibuster of the auto bailout bill? Will you back him up and stick with him?

Or will you again do what blogger DRJ on Patterico suggested when the financial bailout failed: “Anyway, Brad S., I’m covered. I have one family member who adamantly opposes the bailout, one in favor, and one on the fence. Someone at my house will be happy no matter what happens.”

Conservatives need to take responsibility for the positions they espouse, and not keep hoping Daddy Lame-Duck Bush will bail them out. So when are you going to take responsibility, Dan?

[Anon]

The problem with this debate is it is pure rhetoric. "OMG 3 MILLION people will lose their jobs unless!!!" That is pure bullshit. If all 3 million auto industry workers are going to lose their jobs before March then a bridge loan is going to do exactly nothing to save their jobs in April and May. This is nothing but pure pandering and fear mongering.

The public is AGAINST this bailout because most people not only believe that US cars are overpriced and underperforming but they are not so stupid as to think that a company which can't meet its payroll for 2 months is going to somehow magically turn into a profitable company w/a decent business model in the next 60 days.

The UAW is getting exactly what it deserves here. The unions may once have protected workers who needed it, but all they have been for the last 25 years is obstructionist me-firsters, not only did they refuse to negotiate any meaningful solutions to the pension and health care issues but they also were 100% on board with the industry's refusal to consider higher mileage cars.

[Anon]

The problem with this debate is it is pure rhetoric. "OMG 3 MILLION people will lose their jobs unless!!!" That is pure bullshit. If all 3 million auto industry workers are going to lose their jobs before March then a bridge loan is going to do exactly nothing to save their jobs in April and May. This is nothing but pure pandering and fear mongering.

The public is AGAINST this bailout because most people not only believe that US cars are overpriced and underperforming but they are not so stupid as to think that a company which can't meet its payroll for 2 months is going to somehow magically turn into a profitable company w/a decent business model in the next 60 days.

The UAW is getting exactly what it deserves here. The unions may once have protected workers who needed it, but all they have been for the last 25 years is obstructionist me-firsters, not only did they refuse to negotiate any meaningful solutions to the pension and health care issues but they also were 100% on board with the industry's refusal to consider higher mileage cars.

[Dan Riehl]

"So when are you going to take responsibility, Dan?

I have no idea what you're talking about. As for the Big 3, I did my part post 9/11 when I bought a new Trailblazer. After years of driving carefree Subarus, Hondas and Toyotas, I pretty much lost my shirt on that piece of junk. Less than 3 yrs out it was going to cost me more to have it repaired (again) than it was worth. They had to take the engine out to rebuild the tranny. The dealer even said it was a waste of time and money.

I took responsibility for Detroit when I bought that new car. The way I see it, they owe me. You want my tax dollars to support the folkss dumb enough to tithe to the UAW by decree who designed and built that crap?

Good luck with that.

[jharp]

What ever happened to the "just give it an up or down vote" republican talking point.

What is it the GOPers used to call this? Obstructionism?

Kind of looks hypocritical today, huh?

[Lala]

Good ad - go to link to see

"You wouldn't buy our sh"tty cars, so we'll be taking your money anyway"'

http://www.gopmike.com/2008/12/auto-bailout-who-gives-let-it-die.html

[joeb]

Unions= killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

[joeb]

Oh yes don't forget, "At Ford Quality is Job One".

[IslamoLlama]

"-- As Hawkins notes at first link, don't be surprised to see Bush fund this anyway - from TARP. --"

But that money was supposed to go to Wall Street Bankers and Stockholders! Why waste it on the blue collar industry when the market for secondary insurance derivatives is far more vital to the economy than the auto business.

"-- I did my part post 9/11 when I bought a new Trailblazer --"

Yeah, you bought the wrong vehicle. The Ford Focus is regularly rated on par with the Honda Civic or the Toyota Corolla. But the American car business model has historically been centered on after-market parts and labor. The cars are DESIGNED to break. By contrast, the Japanese have been pushing very basic cars and upgraded luxury models, banking on people flipping their ride every four or five years based on their income status and without regard to how well it runs over the long term. Hence a focus on resale value. They want you to feel comfortable selling their cars back to them so they can sell you a newer model, then flip the used car to a younger buyer.

The American Car market just got completely outclassed like that. But tossing 3 million auto workers to the wolves because of the sins of the industry at large isn't going to improve the economy at large. If the car companies fall, you need to make it a soft landing. Cratering the industry overnight is going to cost us more in the long run.

[Anon]

Islama,

Where is there any actual evidence that '3 million jobs will be lost' 'overnight'?

What is so bad about bankruptcy and why is it verbotten for the auto companies to do what other bankrupty companies do, which is file for Chapter 11, reorganize, downsize and go on from there?

I think this is a totally false crisis. After a few billion are spent hundreds of thousands will STILL lose their jobs unless the companies are nationalized and we go to a USSR ecnoomic model.

The auto industry is very powerful, so powerful that they have been about to PREVENT any meaningful change or regulation for decades. Why do you believe this crap about millions of workers all of a sudden out of a job, and why do you think a bridge loan is going to save anyone's job in the long term?

It isn't logical. Whatever is wrong w/the business models will have to be fixed, that includes UAW contracts, why not let the bankruptcy court fix it instead of throwing billions down another black hole?

"But we bailed out the bankers" isn't really a good reason either, so we did one stupid, hasty, pointless bailout, so why not do another?

[jharp]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/business/12rescue-web.html?_r=2&hp

The companies have been warning that they would run out of money for some time, but crushing bills from their suppliers are coming due. It appeared unlikely that they could hold on until President-elect Barack Obama takes office next month, when he and a new Congress might be able to provide a lifeline, as a Congressional rescue this year looked increasingly unlikely.

As a result, the hypotheticals about the domino effect of the companies’ troubles through the vast network of auto supplier firms — which employ more than twice as many workers as the carmakers — are becoming real.

General Motors and Chrysler, for example, owe their suppliers a total of roughly $10 billion for parts that have been delivered. G.M. has held off paying them for weeks, and Chrysler is paying in small increments. But the cash shortages at G.M. and Chrysler are getting more severe, according to their top executives and other officials.

G.M. has said its cash reserves are falling by more than $2 billion a month, and the company has hired bankruptcy advisers, including Harvey R. Miller of the firm Weil Gotshal & Manges. Chrysler is a private company, but its sales are falling faster than any other company in the industry, and has acknowledged it will run out of money soon, too.

Many of their suppliers are teetering on the verge of bankruptcy themselves, and do not have the luxury of extending credit much longer.

“I don’t think that suppliers will be able to get through the month without continued payments on their receivables,” said Neil De Koker, chief executive of the Original Equipment Suppliers Association in Troy, Mich., a trade group.

When suppliers big and small start failing, the flow of parts to every automaker in the country will be disrupted because as suppliers typically sell their products to both American and foreign brands with plants in the United States.

“There’s no question it will hit Toyota, Honda and Nissan too,” said John Casesa, principal in the auto consulting firm Casesa Shapiro Group.

“Many of the small suppliers will simply liquidate because they don’t have the resources to go reorganize in Chapter 11 bankruptcy,” Mr. Casesa said. “They’ll just go away.”

[Anon]

I call bullshit on that. They're not paying their suppliers so they can claim the suppliers will go bankrupt and have to fire everyone. Gee, what a suprise that an 'auto consultant' would be saying exactly what the auto industry wants him to. Shocking.

I can't believe people are falling for these transparent lies.

This country deserves to be in absolutely the spot its in. We are simply today too stupid and too partisan to ever succeed in the future.

[jharp]

You have no idea whether it is bullshit or not. None.

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2080073/

"This country deserves to be in absolutely the spot its in."

You reap what you sow. And two terms of George Bush with a Republican controlled Congress has it's consequences.

They certainly have fucked things up. And the hell of is, 25% still approve of Bush's performance.

[Lala]

Hugh Hewitt and Mark Steyn weigh in

HH: Now do you expect the kind of disaster that my friend from the White House, Joel Kaplan, was telling me, that you know, we’re going to have massive layoffs, massive unemployment, hundreds of thousands…do you actually think that’s going to happen if a decent deal isn’t resurrected?

MS: No, I don’t think so. I mean, the fact of the matter is that when you look at the sums of money being talked about per person, the bailout doesn’t make sense on those terms alone. It would, in fact, actually be better for them to stop making cars and give everybody incredibly generous unemployment pay, because what’s happening at the moment is that they cannot make a car at a price any customer in the United States is prepared to pay for it. And secondly, this idea that it’s the end of Chevy, or it’s the end of Ford is ridiculous. Those brands are potent brands, and will survive. But they can’t survive under the present regimes. If you…what’s dangerous about all this is that we’re talking about the kind of money it’s very easy for Congress just to shovel at them every couple of months. You know, it’s small enough, $15 billion, $20 billion, $25 billion…

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=71b0c3f9-6300-4fe2-9270-d1c62160596b

[Anon]

I do know, logically without a doubt that three million people will NOT lose their jobs if GM or Chrysler declare bankruptcy.

I do know, logically, without a doubt, that thousands if not tens of thousands of people in the auto industry are going to lose their jobs if any kind of meaningful restructuring is to take place.

I do know, logically and without a doubt that we then have two choices (1) bailout with no meaningful restructuring, no one loses their job, auto industry becomes a huge welfare program or (2) many, many people will lose their jobs during a restructuring of the companies so it doesn't matter whether they lose them today, in March or in May and it certainly isn't worth $25 billion to keep these thousands of people in their jobs for six more months.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Where is there any actual evidence that '3 million jobs will be lost' 'overnight'?

What is so bad about bankruptcy and why is it verbotten for the auto companies to do what other bankrupty companies do, which is file for Chapter 11, reorganize, downsize and go on from there? --"

Chapter 11 reorganization only occurs when you have creditors willing to extend you cash and allow you to reorganize. By contrast, the auto industry is looking more seriously at Chapter 7 (because no one will loan them money in the current credit market), which would result in qualification of assets and an immediate dismissal of large portions of the work force.

[IslamoLlama]

-- "But we bailed out the bankers" isn't really a good reason either, so we did one stupid, hasty, pointless bailout, so why not do another? --

Valid point. I'm all for just tapping the TARP funds which - to date - don't seem to be doing much good for the credit market anyway. We've got $700 billion specifically set aside for bailouts and banks have shown a serious unwillingness to extend the generosity provided by the government to their respective clients. At the very least, when GM offers you a 0.9% APR loan on a new car, you get a loan and a new car. We've been funneling money into Citi, Capital One, and a number of the major credit cards and they've been contracting credit to the tune of trillions of dollars.

I think pulling $14 billion out of the $700 billion fund and aiming it at the auto industry might serve a two-fold purpose - giving the auto industry time to downsize and reorganize while putting a bit of fear back into the "too big to fail" financial sector.

[Anon]

All the auto bail out does is set the stage for another set of bailouts for another industry that is 'too big to fail' or has 'too many workers'.

The $700 billion bailout was doomed from the start, and I would think that simply the fact that Paulson put it together--the same guy who first said the sub prime mortgage was no big deal, everyone has enough capital reserves, then said it wouldn't migrate to the wider economy, then said it was going to be a soft landing, then said Bear Sterns was the end of bailouts---

Geeze,if this guy was the supply orderer for McDonalds and was wrong this many times on the same subject he would have been fired.

And whether you will admit it or not the Democrats didn't care about a crap bailout because the bailout itself is a huge part of what got Obama elected, even Axeldrod admits this, so don't anyone bother to deny it. The Dems knew that any bailout would and could be blamed on Bush, so they wouldn't have any negative fall out..Paulson's panic sealed the deal.

No one in their right mind could possibly have believed that this bail out conceived in a couple of days to deal with a problem that took at least 3-5 years to fully develop, that dealt with exotic financial instruments that obviously no one understands and was long enough to be written on the back of a postage stamp was a good idea.

So, what do we do? Same thing all over again for another industry. Another quick fix, nobody knows the real numbers, but somebody somewhere says 'the sky is falling' 'this will hurt main street' and everyone lines up to fork over my tax money.

[Anon]

What is the criteria for a badly run business to get a taxpayer bailout with no strings?

Size? Location? Union workers? How big do you need to be? How many 'workers' do you need to have before you can't fail or is it just union workers who count?

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

"The UAW is getting exactly what it deserves here. The unions may once have protected workers who needed it, but all they have been for the last 25 years is obstructionist me-firsters, not only did they refuse to negotiate any meaningful solutions to the pension and health care issues but they also were 100% on board with the industry's refusal to consider higher mileage cars."

Does your assessment change knowing that the UAW actually agreed with GOP demands that they roll back wages in order to get the thing passed. I just find it ironic that folks who constantly argue for pure "me-first", i.e. "arms-length" negotiations among private parties operating in the free market, constantly bash the UAW for obtaining a good deal for themselves. They negotiated and got a deal that was the result of private negotiations. Now, GOP senators from non-union southern states want the federal government to step in and un-do these private negotiations. That's socialism BY DEFINITION. Why? Because they hate unions and live only to serve their non-U.S. corporate masters.

Give me a break.

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

"What is the criteria for a badly run business to get a taxpayer bailout with no strings?"

I'd say the size of the industry, coupled with the number of individuals employed as a result of its existence. In the case where a consumer-driven economy is running off the rails as a result of more and more people being unable to consume, what we do not need is a huge chunk of unemployed persons RIGHT NOW, where there are no more jobs to make up for it. Perhaps the economy can stomach such a hit in a year or 18 months once we are experiencing something resembling positive growth.

[Anon]

Private negotations? What are you talking about? Private negotiations to get public money? How big of them. If you want someone's money you had better be amenable to making changes they demand.

No, my assessment doesn't change because NOW the UAW agrees to some compromises with a bankruptcy gun to their heads. They successfully negotiated a series of deals over many years that have in effect, killed the auto industry, so they need to live with those deals. Not reap the benefits during the good times while they were killing the US car industry and then continue to reap more benefits on the back of the taxpayers.

There is nothing free market about a government bailout of a failing business.

Non union corporate masters? That's pretty overheated rhetoric which doesn't add much to any discussion of who is to blame for the auto industry fiasco, and whether there is any merit to giving a failed business model billions of dollars to continue to squander especially when there isn't any indication that these companies have Idea One on how to return to profitability. And I don't happen to believe that an injection of federal cash is going to turn any of these morons into geniuses.

I'm against the bailout. I was against the banking sector bailout though I would agree that in that case--the collapse of the entire financial system--that some kind of injection of money to stabilize was necessary. But it should never have been basically 'given' to the banks themselves, but should have been structured in such a way that the government maintained control over what was done w/the money and/or got assets in return. The bank bailout has done nothing to return liquidity to the market and I believe the auto bailout will do nothing to return us car makers on the road of profitability.

We are witnessing the fall of rome whether we care to admit it or not.

[jharp]

Ponder this, Anon.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2008/12/the_bailout_deal.html

“Under normal economic conditions we would prefer that markets determine the ultimate fate of private firms,” Dana Perino, Mr. Bush’s spokeswoman, said in a carefully nuanced statement released minutes before the financial markets opened in New York. “However, given the current weakened state of the U.S. economy, we will consider other options if necessary — including use of the TARP program — to prevent a collapse of troubled automakers.”

The Treasury Department promptly indicated that it would provide short-term relief to the automakers. “Because Congress failed to act, we will stand ready to prevent an imminent failure until Congress reconvenes and acts to address the long-term viability of the industry,” a Treasury spokeswoman, Brookly McLaughlin, said.

This whole thing just gets stranger and stranger. Bush sent a handpicked squad of West Wing bigfeet to Capitol Hill a couple of days ago to press Republicans to pass the bill, and they failed miserably. In one sense, of course, this is just more of the same: Bush is a lame duck, even his own party sneers at him these days, and this is yet another demonstration that they couldn't care less about what he does or doesn't want.

Fine. But did he tell the reluctant Republicans that the Senate bill was their best chance for genuine industry restructuring? That if they didn't pass it, he'd be forced to use TARP funds and both the UAW and the car companies would probably end up getting a better deal? And then they'd get a way better deal next month after Democrats took over?

[Anon]

Bush doesn't give a f**k about the auto industry or the banking industry, all he is trying to do is forestall yet another disaster that occured during his term. Nobody in his lame administration saw the bank collapse coming and then, true to form, they screamed and squeaked about a "crisis" only this time it wasn't 'national security' and 'WMD' but 'credit liquidity'. Same tactic: fearmongering. Same result: crap.

Bush: cares about legacy

Democrats in Congress: care about 2010 election cycle, Democratic special interests

Republicans in Congress: care about 2010 election cycle, Republican special interests.

Obama: cares about 2012 election.

Number of elected officials in either party who care about the future of this country and are willing to make the hard decisions needed to save it: ZERO.

[jharp]

Number of elected officials in either party who care about the future of this country and are willing to make the hard decisions needed to save it: ZERO.

Posted by: Anon | Friday, December 12, 2008 at 04:00 PM

Anon,

Don't let yourself get too down. We've just endured the worst President in out history. And with a republican congress rubber stamping everything he asked for made the perfect storm.

We'll survive and we'll prosper again. Believe it or not many politicians do actually care and do the right thing.

One of them is our President elect.

[Anon]

I don't believe it. I don't see any evidence of this other than once in a while a lone wolf renegade will tell some actual truth.

I also don't believe that Obama has the vision to make the changes necessary to save the country, and I'm not sure even if he had the vision that given the level of dysfunction, special interests, greed and corruption in the government at ALL levels, that he could get it done. John McCain didn't have the vision either. He would have been a caretaker of another sort, with a different set of muddled and wrong priorities than the muddled and wrong priorities that Obama has.

Obama is a classic 'liberal', there are no new ideas in any of his proposals, they are the same ideas that liberals have been talking about for 50 or 60 years. Many of those ideas are discredited and have already been proven vacuous. Despite your belief, universal health care is not going to save the country, neither is getting out of Iraq, even if we could, which we can't, neither is a highway rebuilding program or a 'jobs for the noble working man' program, or a tax the rich program.

That isn't to say that Republicans are any better, they haven't had a new idea since Reagan was president and they are now so full of religious conservatives that they can't even stick together on Reagan's ideas. Many of the GOP's ideas are discredited and have been proven vacuous.

I don't see any hope long term and that is the truth. The country is too far down too many wrong paths to right itself.

This isn't Bush's fault, though his presidency has certainly exacerbated many problems and most definitely accelerated the decline.

You, yourself, jharp, are a product of this failed society because just like almost everyone else you see things in black and white, us vs. them. If the GOP is for it, you assume it must be bad, just like the GOP has assumed if the liberals were for it, it must be bad. So, all kinds of idiotic logjams have sprung up over every imaginable kind of policy. There is virtually any discussion, and god forbid, anyone ever change their mind, because that is a sign of weakness. Everything is totally dogmatic, people, including you, rely on soundbytes and propaganda, same as the conservatives. The end result is that nothing gets done. Part of Obama's genuis in campaigning is that his rhetoric hit both sides of many issues, which is why a lot of people, myself included, didn't trust him, because he spoke all things to all people. That is a good way to get elected but you can't govern that way. Obama is going to have a lot of slack, because he's black and because the country is sick of Bush. But, slack and good press won't fix the country either, it might get Obama a second term, but it won't change our future, which is bleak.

[Dion]

Anon has something worth repeating:

You, yourself, jharp, are a product of this failed society because just like almost everyone else you see things in black and white, us vs. them. If the GOP is for it, you assume it must be bad, just like the GOP has assumed if the liberals were for it, it must be bad. So, all kinds of idiotic logjams have sprung up over every imaginable kind of policy. "There is virtually any discussion, and god forbid, anyone ever change their mind, because that is a sign of weakness. Everything is totally dogmatic, people, including you, rely on soundbytes and propaganda, same as the conservatives. The end result is that nothing gets done. Part of Obama's genuis in campaigning is that his rhetoric hit both sides of many issues, which is why a lot of people, myself included, didn't trust him, because he spoke all things to all people. That is a good way to get elected but you can't govern that way. Obama is going to have a lot of slack, because he's black and because the country is sick of Bush. But, slack and good press won't fix the country either, it might get Obama a second term, but it won't change our future, which is bleak."

Well put. But, he did get elected and now it will be a 4 year fight to maintain personal freedom. Every goofy leftist peeve will now be introduced for consideration as law. Who's to stop them?

[anon]

The best thing for conservatives, and that doesn't necessarily mean Republicans, would be for the Dems to go 'hog wild' and try and pass every tax and spend program they could think of and implement a host of politically correct nonsense. But, they still need to get their act together and provide an alternative that is appealing to the middle class on grounds other than abortion and gay marriage.

So far though, Obama isn't looking like the closet socialist I have thought him to be, he's looking more like Bill Clinton every day...which, all things considered, isn't so bad, better than Karl Marx.

[Scrapiron]

I can understand why the American car industry builds junk. The UAW leadership was in the spotlight for the past two days and proved they can't walk and chew gum at the same time. I think that the workers are of the same mental capacity which is why it requires three people to install a bolt, one for the bolt, one for the washer, and one for the nut. Then three supervisors have to check to make sure the bolt it there. I've purchased dozens of vehicles (currently own two Fords) over the years and never owned a foreign named one. With the display of stupidity by the UAW/CEO's shown to the world i'll never buy another vehicle from GM,Ford, or Chrysler.

It appears the entire country has been struck supid. Congress is controlled by the democrats in both houses but it's the republicans who were responsible for killing the bailout (which is good) even though the democrats had enough votes to pass it, but several decided not to vote. Evidently the congressional democrats know the democrat voters are too stupid to figure that out and think the rest of the people are to.

[Scrapiron]

Totally Heterosexual Conservative, wake up and smell Reid's fart. The republicans didn't kill the bill. The democrats did. Go find the votes and add them up. Reid ran another game on the country. Guess that's what he learned in Vegas.