Herbert Hoover's Heirs

In its editorial today, the New York Times quotes Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell thusly:

Senate Republicans determined to block the $14 billion rescue package for Chrysler and General Motors have trotted out predictable rhetoric about the dangers of Big Government. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, warned on Thursday that a government big enough to give us everything we want is a government big enough to take everything we have.

Herbert Hoover lives! In the Republican Party.

Speaking for me only

< Jesse Jackson, Sr. Denies Being Emissary for His Son | BushCo Leaving Office As "Socialists?" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It is a constant shock to me (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Lil on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 09:51:57 AM EST
    that people don't operate from a perspective of doing what is right.  I don't know if the bailout is right or not, but to watch these guys come out and fillibuster this thing, they just seem so dishonest to me. When I waver in my support of the bailout, I just have to remember Mc'Connels' face and Vitters, et. al. and I support Unions again. The personal thing i don't understand about myself is why I get shocked everytime "they" do something because it is politically motivated rather than do it just because it is the right thing to do. I'm sick watching them and starting to feel a little guilty that I just bought a Toyota.

    I can't stand Mitch. (none / 0) (#7)
    by liminal on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:34:24 AM EST
    I live near the Kentucky border, so I got all the McConnell-Lunsford ads on my local teevee.  Near as I can tell, McConnell's main argument to Kentuckians was that he brings home the bacon.  He ran so many ads touting this or that project that he managed to get funded through federal largesse. So-and-so's senior center.  Such-and-such sorghum fair.  Expansion of XYZ college.  Whatever.  He even made that argument explicitly during some newspaper interviews, pointing out that he and Bruce Lunsford were the same age, and Lunsford would never get McConnell's sort of seniority and would therefore never have McConnell's pork-barrel-power in the Senate.  

    Now less than two months later, on the eve of the New Great Depression, he puts on his limited government hat?  What a frakking liar that dude is.  


    I wouldn't want to be a Republican (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by oldpro on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:00:16 AM EST
    running for Congress in Michigan any time soon.

    Although, one of the things that struck me in Ron G's remarks this morning is his constant referral to "the GOP Senate caucus."  In my state, nearly all R candidates began using 'GOP' instead of Republican on their signs, ads, literature.  The research shows that over 10% of DEMOCRATS think GOP refers to the Ds...not the Rs.

    Not good to think union leadership doesn't know this...

    I was struck by that appelation too. (none / 0) (#11)
    by DFLer on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 12:17:55 PM EST
    But, if party ID is confused by using GOP instead of R, by using GOP along with Republican, I think Ron was educating and reinforcing the link between GOP and Republican party.

    So....a good thing, heh?


    Wish I thought so... (none / 0) (#12)
    by oldpro on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 01:38:19 PM EST
    Already "it's Herbert Hoover time", says (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by scribe on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:19:11 AM EST
    none other than Deadeye Dick Cheney.

    Go read my comment up the site, but the Republicans own this - all of this - every bit as much as Hoover and the Republicans owned the Great Depression.

    Well, the market didn't agree (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 07:46:25 PM EST
    it finished 65 up....

    Surprised the heck out of me.


    Here's my problem with the current idea... (none / 0) (#3)
    by sweetthings on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:02:05 AM EST
    Let's be clear. The rescue plan passed by the House this week won't fix the ailing automakers that are hemorrhaging cash as sales plummet.
    I'm not opposed to using the government to help the Big Three become economically viable once again. But the idea of giving them $15 billion so they can limp along for a few months is silly. If we're going to fix them, then let's dial up Paulson and tell him we need $150 billion STAT, appoint a car czar with the same powers as a bankruptcy judge, roll up our sleeves and get to work. If we're not, well, better to get it over with sooner rather than later.

    The idea that we need more information before making this decision is ridiculous. We know enough. We know how bad Detroit's situation is. (truly awful) We know how much it will hurt to let them fall. (a lot) We know how much it's going to take to fix them. (hundreds of billions, at least) Saying that we 'need more information' before really saving them or letting them die is the same ridiculous stall tactic that people use about global warming. It's an excuse to kick the hard decisions down the road a few more steps. Ridiculous. Either we save Detroit or we don't. Either way, there will be a hefty price to pay.

    Please (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:23:04 AM EST
    The point of the short-term loan is to buy time until we get into the next administration and next Congress.

    Yes... (none / 0) (#8)
    by sweetthings on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:35:38 AM EST
    But the next president and the next Congress are not going to have a magic wand. Detroit is still going to cost hundreds of billions to fix. It's still going to take someone with SERIOUS power to get all the sides talking the same language. The consequences of letting the Big Three fall will remain the same.

    Sure, our next President (and hopefully Congress) will be better than the one we have. But neither the situation or the various outcomes is going to have changed much. And the bailout as it is currently written will still fail, because it doesn't really address the situation one way or the other. But it will have set a terrible precedent going forward.

    It pains me to agree with Republicans on anything, but the bailout was a crappy bill, and it shouldn't have passed. That doesn't mean we shouldn't come to Detroit's rescue, but we shouldn't do it with $14 billion and an auto-Mediator-In-Chief. If Paulson wants to grant them a royal dispensation, well, that's his business, I guess, but Congress needs to do better.


    You're still not getting it (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 11:28:02 AM EST
    The $14b isn't a bail-out, it's a short-term loan until the next Congress and administration can sort this out.

    It's not intended as a bail-out, isn't a bail-out, won't function as a bail-out.  That's not its purpose.  Its purpose is to prevent GM from going out of business altogether-- which it's about to do-- while we change administrations and get some serious plans together.

    All it's intended to do is buy some badly needed time-- not much more than six weeks, if GM is telling the truth about the state of its finances.

    Personally, speaking as a taxpayer, I would just as soon NOT have a longer-term rescue plan slapped together in 24 hours.

    This is a short-term bridge loan.  You're making no sense when you try to evaluate it as a solution to GM's problems.  Of course it isn't, and nobody but you is suggesting that it's intended to be.


    I suppose that view makes sense... (none / 0) (#10)
    by sweetthings on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 11:49:45 AM EST
    If you believe that Detroit must ultimately be bailed out, and thus must be kept alive now.

    I guess I'm just not there yet.


    If the $14B isn't done (none / 0) (#13)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 02:07:16 PM EST
    by somebody now, there will be no decision to make later.

    The economy simply cannot afford to lose the jobs that a collapse of GM would take with it.  And it's entirely possible that if GM goes down now, so will even Ford as all the parts suppliers etc. they have in common have to fold.

    It just makes zero sense to me to let this happen now.  Later, after the economy gets back on its feet, if GM is clearly no longer viable and can't possibly become viable, then let it go out of business in an orderly way and we'll deal with the consequences.

    We simply can't absorb the losses now.


    What makes you think (none / 0) (#15)
    by cal1942 on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 09:15:57 PM EST
    that Detroit will take hundreds of billions to fix?

    This is so not the same as the finance industry.


    I agree with everything except.... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by vml68 on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:23:06 AM EST
    the car czar part. Can we try car emperor, king, etc. instead. I am particularly partial to Supreme Commander... :-).  I am really tired of all the czars we have now, none of them seem to be accomplishing much.