# Bailout Fever



## stash (Jan 20, 2007)

Dorgan, Conrad and Pomeroy have bailout fever

Brent McCarthy; Bismarck, The Jamestown Sun
Published Tuesday, December 23, 2008

The North Dakota liberal media's proclaimed "protectors" of Social Security (Sen. Byron Dorgan, Sen. Kent Conrad and Rep. Earl Pomeroy) are at it again. They have caught bailout fever and are more generous with your hard-earned money and retirement trust funds than ever. They are feeding the hogs at the trough. Cities, states and businesses smell the slop and are scampering to the trough.

Fannie and Freddie are government agencies bankrupted by Democrats who demanded that banks give out home loans with nothing down to unqualified borrowers. With this, Conrad and Pomeroy voted for a "government," not "Wall Street" bailout. It's business as usual; they will need another.

The "auto" bailout that Dorgan, Conrad and Pomeroy support is a bailout of the UAW and Democrats. Unlike non-union automakers, U.S. automakers must pay extravagant health care and pension benefits to retirees and want you to pick up the tab. The automakers ran into problems because Democrats (whose campaigns are funded by unions) wouldn't allow domestic drilling which drove up the price of gasoline and slowed new car sales. One string for this bailout could be that auto makers produce battery powered cars that no member of congress would even consider looking at but us "little people" are "supposed" to drive. With that business plan, they will need another bailout. If the automakers filed for Chapter 11 like 55 percent of Americans want, they would stay in business without your money and no strings attached. Drilling would definitely help.

Social Security and Medicare were bankrupted by politicians who raided the trust funds to buy their re-elections. Because of this, by about 2014 these programs will require the mother of all bailouts. We won't be able to afford even a small bailout by then.

Elections have consequences that are not always immediate. If spending the Social Security and Medicare trust funds on wind farms, ethanol, "green" pork, farm bills, social welfare programs and massive bailouts preserves Social Security and Medicare then we made the right choice by electing Dorgan, Conrad and Pomeroy. If not, we will need to prepare for our own retirements because we won't be getting a bailout.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Better do some more fact checking on Byron Dorgan.

He voted against more speculating in the commidities markets, a huge factor in the unstable oil markets. He spoke on the senate floor against the de-regulation of the financial markets and even predicted that the financial industry will eventually be pushed out of control and the only way to fix it would be a taxpayer bailout, right on the senate floor. He voted against the financial bailout stating that there was not enough accountability and protection in the bailout, what is happening now? No one can figure out where the money is going. Dorgan has fought mexican trucking tooth and nail, protecting countless jobs across the country and looking out for the safety of all motorists. Dorgan is fighting to get rid of tax loopholes that benefit corporations that outsource jobs by making them pay the same tax rates that companies here in the US pay. Dorgan has fought for consumers, small businesses, and the middle class every day that he has been in office.

As far as the pork goes, someone is going to get it why not ND? ND has more to offer than any other state in the union. Dorgan, Pomeroy, and Conrad want the drilling not to be done offshore but here in ND, Pomeroy made this statement on WDAY, not exactly liberal media. As far as the UAW goes the wages, benefits, and pensions are all agreed and signed on the auto execs. These contracts were made when these companies were booming, the execs of these companies should share equal if not more blame than the UAW. How much money are they walking away with? If the auto industry fails we are in trouble. The auto bailout has more strings attached, including salary and bonus caps for execs and transparency in their accounting, that is why they are supporting it. The food industry is behind some of this anti-bio fuel rhetoric, they are making money at a rate that makes the oil guys jealous and they are using bio fuels as a scape goat and laughing all the way to the bank.

I feel that my savings, stocks, and other retirement funds are safer in the hands of Dorgan than other politician in the US. Check his record, read his books, and listen to him when he is on the media.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I forgot to mention he also has voted against all gun control bills.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

TK33 said:


> I forgot to mention he also has voted against all gun control bills.


That's not true. One bill that I called on his receptionist argued with me. I told her I didn't call for her opinion. He has more often than not voted blindly along with the party.



> I feel that my savings, stocks, and other retirement funds are safer in the hands of Dorgan than other politician in the US.


Your sabings, stocks and other retirement should not be in any politicians hands. To think otherwise is to have already drank the cool-aid.



> As far as the pork goes, someone is going to get it why not ND?





> That is what every other state thinks, and it's that attitude that created pork and allowes it to continue.


That's what the previous post stated, that he voted against Wall Street, but not the companies parasitized by the UAW.



> He spoke on the senate floor against the de-regulation of the financial markets and even predicted that the financial industry will eventually be pushed out of control


Again I think your talking apples and oranges. He wanted more regulations for Wall Street. Also, he and other liberals wanted more control of lending agencies. They already forced them to give high risk loans, but they would have pushed them even further. I'm sure next would have been preferential loaning just like Affirmative Action created preferential hiring.



> The auto bailout has more strings attached, including salary and bonus caps for execs and transparency in their accounting, that is why they are supporting it.


Thinking that the salary of an executive will have much affect is hopeful thinking. It is a pittance in comparison to the thousands of jobs and benefits of workers. Did you hear that when GM closes it's doors for a month that the workers get 95% of their salary. How long can that continue when the company is bringing in no profit? This is from the Union negotiations. They have the auto industry by the throat. Bailing out the auto industry is simply giving money to the unions. What gives them a right to the money of other hard working American taxpayers?

Think about this next time you buy a new car. A large percentage of the cost of that vehicle is for extravagant benefits that none of the rest of us get, and union dues. Union dues much of which will be used to elect another liberal president, senator, or representative.


----------



## Daren99 (Jul 6, 2006)

It would be nice to see the liberals put some stipulations in this auto bailout for the unions. But they won't shoot themselves in the foot. I've heard these guys get 45 days vacation per year, 17 paid holidays, 95% of their pay during layoffs and such. Now I realize the auto companies made these deals when they were booming, but why does the rest of the country have to pay for them now when they are failing. The uaw has made their fair share and then some. I don't understand why they feel like they owe the companies they work for nothing. Look at the airline pilots and flight attendants when the airlines go through tough times they help out at least alittle bit they don't like it but they do it. Where is this sacraficial attitude from the uaw? You won't see it unless they are forced into it kicking and screaming all the way. We bailout these companies and then what? It's a constant flow of money to keep the union workers working, and the problem will never be fixed. We'll just pay more taxes, we'll pay more for vehicles, we'll pay more for parts, etc... We could just as well turn everything over to the Czar and be done with it, lord knows the socialist government can do better than we can. :eyeroll: It would be nice if the government in this bailout plan, stipulated, unless the uaw gives some concessions you get no money. I'd like to see them drop it right in the uaw's lap. Whowever, I don't see the liberals doing that.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Dorgan's record on guns:

Opposed the assault weapons ban- stated "I think it goes too far and would cover many of the guns used by North Dakotans for hunting and shooting" -2004
Because of moderate democrats like Dorgan the amendment was never offered.

Voted for limited liability for gun manufacturers and distributors in the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. 2005
stated "I supported the bill because I believe that law abiding gun manufacturers and distributors should be protected from unreasonable lawsuits"

Here is another quote from 2008- "I want you to know that I do not support legislation that threatens the rights of law abiding citizens to own and USE guns for hunting, recreation and self defense."

Like all politicians Dorgan has voted with his party, but on guns and the economy Dorgan has an impeccable record.

These two bailouts have huge differences. The financial bailout has no taxpayer protections, and it has been all over the news and TV that no one has a clue where the money is going, except the money that went to the execs. The auto bailout has protections in it, including accounting transparency, salary caps, and repayment. The UAW has offered concessions now the execs must offer thier own. Keep in mind the execs at the big 3 make drastically more than their counterparts at Toyota. We have to look ahead, not look back at what the UAW workers got, that was a contract that cannot be touched or altered. The union is a problem no doubt, but the execs ran their companies into the ground, were in bed with the oil companies, and failed to change their ways when they knew they were headed downhill.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Like all politicians Dorgan has voted with his party, but on guns and the economy Dorgan has an impeccable record.


Your absolutely wrong about the gun issue. I don't remember the bills, but when I called his office on a number of occasions I would get a letter in about two weeks. They would always say sorry, I see this different and have to vote because of blah blah blah. He has voted against some of our rights. I wish I had the NRA report card, because if I remember he didn't even get a B.

Does anyone have that report card that the NRA puts out?

Also, I'm not trying to protect the executives that you speak of. I don't think they should get a penny. Why pay them for doing a poor job? Concessions from the unions isn't enough. They have misused their power and need to be dumped. At one time the provided a service by protecting the worker, and we still need that, but we need to dump the current unions just like the executives and start over. 95% pay while your laid off is ridiculous. Who would want to go back to work? That kind of layoff pay destroys initiative.


----------



## szm69 (Apr 28, 2006)

I am a firm believer in no bailouts........ever. The market will fix it self. Yes it will hurt, but it will work. And the funny thing is, that would be the quickest and best way to handle this mess. Make them figure out how to be profitable or let them go out of business. Bailouts are just prolonging the what will happen anyways.

Less federal government is always better.

Think of a bailout this way.....the governent took YOUR choice away by giving YOUR money to failing companies, how is that going to stimulate our economy? All I see is that Americans have 700 billion dollars less to spend at good businesses.

The government cannot "stimulate" any economy - they can only redistribute wealth.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Your absolutely wrong about the gun issue. I don't remember the bills


With all due respect Plainsman, you are absolutely wrong on the gun issue. Go to votesmart.org and look up Dorgan's record under the gun issue. The only one that you could be thinking of would be child safety locks on guns. That must have gotten his F rating from the NRA and the GOA. That is why all these stupid grades from special interests groups are just that-stupid. He even voted to kill the assault weapons ban.

How am I wrong about the gun issue when I have listed the bills? I have showed with direct quotes the bills and attempted amendment that would have seriously damaged the gun industry and gun owners. The only time I remember him speaking out against an issue was the cop killer bullets, and he was far from alone on both sides of the aisle. As I stated earlier impeccable.

I think everyone is in agreement on the auto bailout. I will always side with the worker over the exec. I have a lot of respect for small business owners and no respect for crooked execs who lack the business ethics that help keep our economic system running as free enterprise :sniper:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't remember the bills, but I personally called on three that I thought were important enough to call about and he simply sent me one of those kiss off letters. 
As for cop killer Teflon bullets there was no such thing and most of the liberals were all for the ban. The same thing happened to the Black Talon. That bullet was banned simply because of it's name. We have ignorant people making laws concerning subjects they have no knowledge of.
I will agree Dorgan is the best of the three we have. Conrad even voted to continue the assault weapon ban.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

szm69 said:


> I am a firm believer in no bailouts........ever. The market will fix it self. Yes it will hurt, but it will work. And the funny thing is, that would be the quickest and best way to handle this mess. Make them figure out how to be profitable or let them go out of business. Bailouts are just prolonging the what will happen anyways.
> 
> Less federal government is always better.
> 
> ...


and that my friend, will be the legacy of the Obama administration!


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> don't remember the bills, but I personally called on three that I thought were important enough to call about and he simply sent me one of those kiss off letters.


Unless there was some riders and nonsense that the votesmart site didn't list on the bills he has not voted against guns. He did however have some no-votes, I would be curious as to why he didn't vote on them because he has a good record. I can't figure out from looking at just the votes why he gets low scores unless there was some committee votes that rubbed the NRA and GOA the wrong way.

He is without a doubt the best of the three and one of the best in DC.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You could be nine to 90, blind, crippled, and crazy, but if you were honest be one of the best in DC.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

:beer:


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

szm69 said:


> I am a firm believer in no bailouts........ever. The market will fix it self. Yes it will hurt, but it will work. And the funny thing is, that would be the quickest and best way to handle this mess. Make them figure out how to be profitable or let them go out of business. Bailouts are just prolonging the what will happen anyways.
> 
> Less federal government is always better.
> 
> ...


excellent post im with you all the way!!!


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

hunter9494 said:


> szm69 said:
> 
> 
> > I am a firm believer in no bailouts........ever. The market will fix it self. Yes it will hurt, but it will work. And the funny thing is, that would be the quickest and best way to handle this mess. Make them figure out how to be profitable or let them go out of business. Bailouts are just prolonging the what will happen anyways.
> ...


actually hunter that will surely be the bush administrations legacy these bailouts have been cheered on all along by bush, and passed during his administration. honestly i fail to see a difference between the two parties most of the time. god only knows what obama has in store for us though


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

the Dems are definitely at the heart of the cause of this financial collapse, specifically Barney FranK and Chris Dodd and who is acting like they have the answer and like the problem was caused by Bush ??

Well you guessed it Barney Frank and Cris Dodd aided once again by the liberal rewrite history media. Its pathetic

Heres an example of Smarmey Franks stupidity



> "BARNEY FRANK: Bankruptcy would be very disruptive.... you could undo labor contracts. Now the unions to their credit have negotiated some concessions. But you know, we already have too much union-busting and too much income inequality for the average worker in this country for us to now say by the way, if you're a company and you haven't been able to totally get rid of the unions, then go bankrupt and rewrite, write down the contracts."


------------------

Barney Frank is so stupid that doesn't understand the difference between cause and effect :eyeroll: . Frank actually thinks the auto companies are going bankrupt so they can write down union contracts....Someone needs to explain to Barney Frank that the auto companies are going bankrupt *because they are losing money, i.e. they take in less money then they spend*. Giving them a 25 billion dollar bailout will postpone bankruptcy for only about 5-6 months.....because even after the bailout check arrives they'll still be spending more then they take in. 
The UAW contracts -the 250,000 UAW auto workers cost GM, Ford and Chrysler $25 a man hour more than the competition pays. That means that the Big 3 lose $625,000 in excess labor costs for every hour this labor force works - thats FIVE MILLION DOLLARS a day!!! "

*Note that I never said wages. I said COST.*

As in THAT'S THE COST of labor for the big three. Sure, new workers are paid less in wages and bennies, but I'm talking about what the workforce COSTS the companies.---there is no way out of this for US companies except to declare chp. 11 bankruptcy because the only way for them to reduce their spending is to go into bankruptcy.

Regarding executive compensation, note that this distraction has been dragged out at every opportunity by the media and the union leadership and their buddies in congress, and that their constituency is a sucker for any argument that stirs emotions of envy. Forget your envy, its pointless. If you do the math, you'll find that two weeks of the union's excessive labor costs handily eclipse the total price of CEO compensation at the Big 3.

UAW employees can take full retirement at age 48, whereupon they draw a pension funded by the automakers and continue their health benefits (also funded by the automakers). The non-union folks work till 65, taking Social security and 401(k) distributions just like the rest of us. Their primary health care coverage is Medicare, which is paid for by a government transfer of wealth from the young to the old.

Furthermore, the Big 3 automakers have a very large pool of retirees left over from the days when they had little competition and a huge market share. That problem wouldn't be nearly as bad if the union contract made them work till 65 like the rest of society.

The current retirees, living the dream on the backs of new car buyers (and now the taxpayer) will have to face reality sooner or later. Their retirement package is unsustainable.

We already know Social Security will go broke if we allow baby boomers to retire at 65. What makes anyone think it will work for the UAW boomers to retire s early as 48? The current generation of workers are suffering for the this greed of generations past.

So, the foreign companies the "big 3" compete with will never have this kind of retiree burden. That statistic will never even out in our lifetimes unless the union contract is voided or the huge crop of youthful retirees magically die off. The Big 3 will be broke long before this could possibly play out. ( they're effectively broke now, which is why we're discussing this!)

Situations like the bankrupt auto companies are exactly what bankruptcy courts are for....there is no need for Barney Frank to get into bed with the auto company CEOs in a rushed attempt to invent an entirely new way to handle bankrupt companies.

The Libs in congress are covering their A$$es and Bush that moron uke: is helping them, and thats strange when you think about it because Bush to his credit forcasted just this situation about 6 years ago and tried to get it changed but congress shot it down.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Regarding executive compensation, note that this distraction has been dragged out at every opportunity by the media and the union leadership and their buddies in congress, and that their constituency is a sucker for any argument that stirs emotions of envy. Forget your envy, its pointless. If you do the math, you'll find that two weeks of the union's excessive labor costs handily eclipse the total price of CEO compensation at the Big 3.


I don't think that envy is at the root of people's anger of exec wages. It is that these jerks ran their companies into the ground and lined their pockets in the process and now it is taxpayers who just like in the wall street bailout will be paying their outlandish salaries and bonuses. I have no problem with an exec making a deal for 200 million if their company performs. As has been beaten to death here and in the media they have screwed up so many times on so many different things when the writing was on the wall. They figured the taxpayers would have to bail them out so they didn't care.

It is not even fair to blame the financial collapse solely on democrats. The UAW and other unions are costing everyone a lot of money and that is a huge cost but republicans have their burden to bear also. The big 3 have been in bed with the oil companies for decades, the republicans were the ones who passed legislation to open up the commodities markets to everyone. This increased a lot of input costs besides fuel. Steel, rubber, plastic, electrical, and others have skyrocketed since the repubs voted that through in 2003. The costs of these commodites paired with oil prices and the economy have put them in this mess. Bad management by the big 3 and the inability of republicans to keep their oil buddies under control have screwed everyone.

Bottom line both parties have had a stake in this mess, the question is who will be able to fix it.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Its is fair to blame the Democrats they did it thats historical fact not conjecture, my post above about that is accurate.

The republicans voted to open the commodities markets to everyone Huh?

Commodities are commodities and the market is controlled by supply and demand ( Booming economies in China India Japan Russia ect) and both the supply and demand are not controlled by anyone in this country or any other one particular country its a worldwide demand today.

Neither the Dems or the Repubs can control world oil prices.

Ask youself this simple question if the republicans had any control over oil prices why would they let the prices piss off everyone in a an election year and take it out on them??

Answer - they wouldn't and they can't.

However the Dems are without question the ones preventing domestic drilling, construction of nuclear power plants and refineries, and trying to run the coal business out of business, not the republicans, so if anything the Dems hold most fo the blame for that also.

The big three are in bed with the oil companies :lol: yeah thats right :roll: thats why they have been driven out of business by having a product line that cannot be sold while their OIL BUDDIES make huge profits, yep that liberal logic if I ever heard it, too funny.

Sorry but you are wrong on every count.

Umm scratch that I will agree with you that the republicans carry some blame because they are gutless, inept, cowards that lack the will to fight the stupid stuff that they know is going to cause bad things like the financial crisis/bailout.

Bush is a complete disappointment in this domestic area F'in RINO really.

And I/we conservatives voted for Bush why? Oh yeah, Auto bailouts voted down by the Senate only to be OK'd by Bush, A flood of illegals OK'd by Bush, Dubyai ports deal, Bigger gov't, more gov't intrusion in our lives, economic disaster & on & on & on.

It just gets harder everyday to defend this man...God knows I've tried.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Bush is a complete disappointment in this domestic area F'in RINO really.
> 
> And I/we conservatives voted for Bush why? Oh yeah, Auto bailouts voted down by the Senate only to be OK'd by Bush, A flood of illegals OK'd by Bush, Dubyai ports deal, Bigger gov't, more gov't intrusion in our lives, economic disaster & on & on & on.
> 
> It just gets harder everyday to defend this man...God knows I've tried.


No kidding. When it comes to the Mexican boarder Bush should be strung up.



> The big three are in bed with the oil companies


That's right up in there with the 200 mpg carburetor stories. Back in the 1960's this in bed with the oil companies story was popular too, along with the one about GM accidentally putting one of their 100 mpg carburetors on a Chevy Impala and then buying it back from the guy who has it for a million dollars. Some people were so sure it was true they would claim to know the guy who got the magic carburetor. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Santa isn't real and neither is the tooth fairy.

How are we ever going to get out of this mess if people keep believing things like this, and don't know who is to blame for the lending mess? :eyeroll:


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

the two major parties do not care about the working class. they vote this way or that on trivial things to appease their constituency, and no real social change ever occurs. when it comes to things like bailouts, the major stuff, they band together to ensure their monopoly over power. think about it, many people elect republicans because they're pro life. we just went through a period in history with overwhelming republican control of government. did they serve you? they thrive on the fact that many people fight over wich party is "loooking out for you". it's called divide and conquer. the following is an article from an author who shares my perspective.

Closed-door talks continued throughout the day Friday between congressional Democratic and Republican leaders and the Bush administration, with all sides pledging to reach agreement on terms of a $700 billion bailout package for the US financial system before the Asian stock markets open Monday morning-Sunday afternoon in the US.

Both parties agree on one fundamental principle: The American people will have no say whatsoever in an arrangement that will compel them to pay for the losses of bankers and speculators who created the financial disaster. That is the content of the demand on all sides that "politics" be kept out of the bailout talks.......

Neither party wants to go before the American people with its real program....

The official debate in Washington entirely excludes the most fundamental class question: Who is responsible for the crisis?

read full article at 
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep20 ... -s27.shtml

in freedom and liberty, swampbuck


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> The big three are in bed with the oil companies yeah thats right thats why they have been driven out of business by having a product line that cannot be sold while their OIL BUDDIES make huge profits, yep that liberal logic if I ever heard it, too funny.
> 
> Sorry but you are wrong on every count





> That's right up in there with the 200 mpg carburetor stories. Back in the 1960's this in bed with the oil companies story was popular too, along with the one about GM accidentally putting one of their 100 mpg carburetors on a Chevy Impala and then buying it back from the guy who has it for a million dollars. Some people were so sure it was true they would claim to know the guy who got the magic carburetor. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Santa isn't real and neither is the tooth fairy.


Tell me again which party was in control of the house, senate, and white house when the deregulation of the commodities trades happened? When this was in debate there was expert after expert who told your beloved republicans that deregulation would lead to wild fluctuation in values and uncontrollable supply/demand issues, what is happening now?

It is funny that you bring up the carbs. There is and has been technology out there for years to improve the mileage without reducing our beloved american horsepower, which I will add I am very fond of. Who owns these patents? Why where the big 3's powers that be not putting these into place before oil skyrocketed. As for what happened in the 60's with the 200 mpg carbs I believe that belongs there with santa and the fairy but I also believe a buddy of mine who is an engine builder and has worked for Robert Yates and other racing teams right north of Bobm. They could do it, they just chose not to, why? tell me this doesn't stink to the high heavens.



> Ask youself this simple question if the republicans had any control over oil prices why would they let the prices piss off everyone in a an election year and take it out on them??


Because the republicans shot themselves and everyone else in the foot by allowing stupid lax rules on speculating. Once the repubs did that the commodities, not just oil but food, steel, and others had free reign. Had they made them follow the existing rules we would not be in as deep of a hole as we are now. To say it is just global demand is ridiculous, why can you speculate on commdities with like 10 or 20 percent when you need like 40-60 percent on wall street.

If I am so wrong why are there so many lame excuses coming from the right.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> yep that liberal logic if I ever heard it, too funny.


I love it how anytime someone calls the right on their blunders they are automatically called a liberal. I don't vote along party lines I vote for whoever represents my views.

You can be a democrat or independent without being a liberal, just like you can be a conservative without being a republican. Or are all republicans conservatives? :wink:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Your response is generalized BS from left wing blogs, I know I read them.

Patents can be researched and numbers procured show us the patents 
you claim exist. AND wile you are engaged in that fruitless task figure out why GM Ford and Dodge would want to have lower MPG figures that toyota ???? Is that a selling point in your mind :lol: .

Show me the patents, they don't exist, the modern combustion engine is always being refined on the race track and workable improvements find their way to production ALWAYS.

A certain size car with a certain displacement engine and physical weight is going to get the same basic mileage period, doesn't matter who makes it. *Your engine builder friend should be fired because if your mileage can be magically :roll: improved your would be able to win races with fewers pit stops ......logic its a hard thing for some to grasp.*

Global demand for commodities driving up prices is ridiculous :lol: :lol: what can I say? You simply dont know what you are talking about, try researching that.

Oh and one more thing for you to noodle out if these evil speculators control and caused commodity prices why is oil at $40 barrel and why can't they "speculate" it back up to where they aren't losing their shirts.

Could it be the world wide financial collapse triggered by the housing issue the Democrats forced on this country and the phony "securites" Freddie and Fannie ( operated by the Demoncrats) have forced on the world have caused a world wide recession with a subsquent drop in demand with the subseqent drop in the commodities pricing?

As for me and my beloved Republicans I am one of their worst critics and cannot stand them, the problem I have is the Dems are even worse.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> As for me and my beloved Republicans I am one of their worst critics and cannot stand them, the problem I have is the Dems are even worse.


You can classify me the same TK33.



> Tell me again which party was in control of the house, senate, and white house when the deregulation of the commodities trades happened?


The only regulations they wanted out were the socialist handcuffs on a supposedly capitalist economy.
The only regulations Barney Frank wants is the kind that makes the banks loan to every looser out there with no security. That's what happened to our economy. Barney Frank and the rest of the looser loving liberals. Yes I blame liberals, and not necessarily democrat liberals, but republican liberals too. I also don't think they do it out of compassion, they do it to buy votes from those who want parasitic borrowing to occur for their advantage. Predatory lending is a liberal bs fairy tail, it's parasitic borrowing that's the problem.

You made my point for me on the magic carburetor dreams. All those are is bs made up by losers who hate and blame. I'll bet it was the republicans that bought up all those patents. :rollin: God save us because that kind of thinking is a cancer on a free society. The boogeyman doesn't exist either. :eyeroll:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Capitalism Is Worst System Except for the Rest: Caroline Baum

Email | Print | A A A

Commentary by Caroline Baum

Dec. 30 (Bloomberg) -- The year 2008 will be remembered as one that exposed the fatal flaws in free-market capitalism, sending it to an untimely death.

Or will it?

That capitalism's obituary is already being written suggests the enemies of the free market were waiting to pounce.

Last week, Arianna Huffington, co-founder of the Huffington Post, wrote that laissez-faire capitalism, "a monumental failure in practice," should be "as dead as Soviet Communism" as an ideology.

On National Public Radio, Daniel Schorr pronounced "the death of a doctrine" in his year-end review.

All I could think of was Winston Churchill's assertion about democracy. Capitalism is surely the worst economic system, except for all the others that have been tried.

With its ideology under fire and its practice falsely maligned, it is to the defense of free markets that I devote my final column of the year.

Before you can declare free markets a failure, you have to establish that they exist, says Paul Kasriel, chief economist at the Northern Trust Co. in Chicago.

"We do not have free markets in credit in the U.S. or anywhere else that I know of," he says. "The price of short- term credit is fixed by central banks. It would only be by accident that a central bank would fix the price of short-term credit" at the precise level that a free market would.

Chosen People

Fixing the price of any other commodity, including labor, has proven to be a failure, an affront to the inviolable invisible hand. Yet when it comes to setting the interest rate that will keep the economy on an even keel, we put our faith in a chosen few to get it right.

All sorts of unintended consequences flow forth from central bankers' fixing of a short-term rate. Hold the rate too low, and it leads to a misallocation of capital into, say, housing or dot- com stocks. That's what happened in the late 1990s and again in the early part of this decade.

"We are now experiencing the economic and financial market fallout from (Alan) Greenspan's interference with the free market," Kasriel says.

In a true free market, risk-takers are punished for bad bets. Not so in the current crisis, where financial institutions -- with the exception of Lehman Brothers -- are deemed too big to fail and rescued, merged or recapitalized.

Army of Regulators

One supposed nail in capitalism's coffin is the assertion that deregulation created the problems. This is curious, given that banks, which are at the root of the credit crunch, are among the most highly regulated institutions.

"There is a small army of people overseeing the banking industry," says Paul DeRosa, a partner at Mt. Lucas Management Corp. in New York. And yet "we've had a banking crisis every 15 years since 1837. The number of people devoted to regulation doesn't seem to matter."

Regulators from the Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the Controller of the Currency and New York State Banking Commission are "on the premises 365 days a year," he says.

The regulatory structure may have been antiquated and overlapping. That's no excuse for the regulators to be caught napping.

Censuring the free market is a way of deflecting blame from the true source, according to Dan Mitchell, senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington.

Compromised Overseers

"The genesis of the problem is bad government policy," Mitchell says, pointing to everything from easy money to "affordable lending schemes" to the "corrupt system of subsidies from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" to the tax code's favorable treatment of debt (the interest is deductible) versus equity.

Fannie's and Freddie's generous campaign contributions (anywhere else, these would be called bribes) encouraged Congress to look the other way as the two housing finance agencies used their implicit government guarantee to increase their leverage and buy riskier mortgages.

Those clamoring for more regulation as a solution to the current crisis are forgetting that Congress has oversight responsibility for the regulator of those agencies.

"I have no confidence regulation will solve the problem," says Allan Meltzer, professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. "Lawyers and bureaucrats make regulations. Markets figure out how to circumvent the costly ones."

Imperfect Like Us

As a case in point, Meltzer pointed to the Basel Accords, which "required banks that hold more risky assets to hold more reserves. So they held them off their balance sheet, where they went from being poorly monitored to not monitored at all."

Capitalism has spread across the globe, lifting millions out of poverty as "a direct consequence of government stepping out of the way," DeRosa says.

Yet critics of free-market capitalism are implicitly arguing for a bigger role for government.

Alas, government isn't some benevolent matriarch acting in the public interest, even if it knew what that was. It is a conglomeration of politicians acting in their own self-interest, guided by payoffs from special-interest groups. That's a poor substitute for the market's price signals, not to mention a guarantee of inefficiency and waste.

"Capitalism is the only system that produces both growth and freedom," Meltzer says. Unlike socialism and communism, "it doesn't depend on someone's ideas of perfection."

Yes, markets are guilty of excess, greed, even corruption.

"We're not perfect people," Meltzer says. "Capitalism matches mankind."

(Caroline Baum, author of "Just What I Said," is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I don't read any of the liberal bloggers, just like I don't listen to Limbaugh. I think that it was exxon or shell that messed around with the auto industry and their mileage. I know that one of them had paid off a mech engineer for his design on a carb. It was on some discovery show.



> A certain size car with a certain displacement engine and physical weight is going to get the same basic mileage period, doesn't matter who makes it. Your engine builder friend should be fired because if your mileage can be magically improved your would be able to win races with fewers pit stops ......logic its a hard thing for some to grasp.


This comment barely deserves a response, my buddy was working in a nascar engine shop before he could go to the bar. He has forgotten more about engines than you and I will ever know. He is an expert. I love how you over simplify things. There are methods to gain both, the auto makers just drug their feet on putting these into production. They said as much during the hearings in DC.



> Global demand for commodities driving up prices is ridiculous what can I say? You simply dont know what you are talking about, try researching that.
> 
> Oh and one more thing for you to noodle out if these evil speculators control and caused commodity prices why is oil at $40 barrel and why can't they "speculate" it back up to where they aren't losing their shirts.


I have researched it, in fact I did pretty well on my energy investments. The problem with the deregulation is STABILITY. I am out of the energy investing for now because it is way too wild. We would all be better off with a reasonable market. You never answered why you should be able to play the mercantile markets with little cash when you can't do the same in other markets. Global demand is a huge factor, I said that earlier but when you let inmates run the asylum you are asking for trouble. This is the same thing that Clinton did with the accounting, these people were allowed to basically self audit and set their own rules on profits, etc and look where that got us.

Republicans are as much to blame for this as the democrats. Bad policy under both adminstrations have led us to this mess, the difference is the repubs took their arrogance and greed to levels unseen and hopefully never seen before.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> He has forgotten more about engines than you and I will ever know.


That wouldn't be much of an accomplishment, I don't know much about engines.  However, I do know about science, and your friend can not defy the laws of physics. The best mechanic in the world can not bs a person who knows their science. It's not my intention to degrade anyone, but your friend doesn't know what he is talking about. I respect you for your loyalty to your friend, but he is bsing you.



> Republicans are as much to blame for this as the democrats. Bad policy under both adminstrations have led us to this mess, the difference is the repubs took their arrogance and greed to levels unseen and hopefully never seen before.


Maybe you don't read the liberal blog sites, but what you have said you will find in quotes on their sites. Perhaps just a coincidence.  Freeing the market is not nearly so destructive as forcing lending agencies to give out unsecured loans. 
Tell me TK33 would you loan me $250,000 unsecured? Why not. Would you be in the hurt bag if I just walked off after blowing it on a house I could not afford that is now worth $100,000 when you foreclose and sell it?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I am well versed in themodynamics I'm telling you there is a fixed amount of btu's/ lb of gasoline period ( a engine is nothing but a hot air pump in simple terms) and while you can play with compression ratios and intake and exhaust sytems to some degree there is not much to gain in a practical sense.

Which is why if you compare the vehicles today with ones from the 60's even with the advances in ignition systems and fuel rail fuel injection you cannot approach anything close to the gains you claim.

You do not know what you are talking about.

But hey :wink: I'm certain that the Big three are just keeping this magic carberator that gets 60 mpg quiet because they don't want to get back all the market share they've lost. I mean if the discovery channel says its true it must be :lol: :lol: :lol:

Atleast you admit global demand is the driving factor on commodity pricing, now look at who really screwed up the financial markets and you will be informed it wasn't the republicans.

Look the republicans are a disgusting bunch of stupid frauds but in this issue they are not the guilty party. The blame is squarely on the Democrats shoulders they did it and now with their accomplices in the media they are rewriting history and deflecting blame and its working with you so maybe it is a good political strategy.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Atleast you admit global demand is the driving factor on commodity pricing, now look at who really screwed up the financial markets and you will be informed it wasn't the republicans.


Commodities markets contributed to the financial market mess. Commodities is still on the backs of republicans.

You may be well versed on thermodynamics but there are very few people who know engines better than my source. You seem to get off on telling people that they don't know what they are talking about so whatever. There are already more efficient engines on the market so I guess the technology was not as hard to unlock as they said. Why are there no vehicles in the US like Europe? blocked by the Bush admin.

There is no doubt in my mind that neither of you know more about engines than my buddy. He has the training, education, and application that very few have so to say that he is bs'n me or should be fired or whatever is hillarious. The are already there they just have not been applied, but they will be now.


> Maybe you don't read the liberal blog sites, but what you have said you will find in quotes on their sites. Perhaps just a coincidence.


I guarantee that you guys read more liberal blogs than me. I get my news from FOX and CNN. Both of them are unfair and unbalanced :beer:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Why are there no vehicles in the US like Europe? blocked by the Bush admin.


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Please be specific


----------



## szm69 (Apr 28, 2006)

TK33 said:


> > Atleast you admit global demand is the driving factor on commodity pricing, now look at who really screwed up the financial markets and you will be informed it wasn't the republicans.
> 
> 
> Commodities markets contributed to the financial market mess. Commodities is still on the backs of republicans.
> ...


Stop with the my buddy can build an engine that can get 60mpg. You cannot defy the LAWS of Thermodynamics and Physics. If he could do it he would be a RICH man.

I have studied IC engines and some of the things Nascar is doing in their engines are not cost effective. period. And if it was cost effective you would see it in your road vehicle. They are using exotic ceramic coatings on their cranks etc. I think that I heard that 1 Nascar engine costs upwards of $250,000.

The best way to increase fuel millage is 1. slow down. 2. reduce wind drag 3. reduce weight 4. supplement with battery's.

I also have had the privilege of studying how Toyota does business.

If you listen to anything I say, listen to this ...........Toyota is making buckets of money and this is how - they try to give their customers what they want and they figure out how to reduce waste to make it cheaper.

If there was a way to make higher milage cars and trucks -(that people would actually buy)- TOYOTA WOULD ALREADY BE DOING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!And they are producing cars like the Prius to fill that niche.

Down with politicians!! Down with regulations!!! Down with bailouts!!! Say no to crack!!


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Stop with the my buddy can build an engine that can get 60mpg. You cannot defy the LAWS of Thermodynamics and Physics. If he could do it he would be a RICH man.


Never once did I say that he could build an engine that gets 60mpg. The last time I asked him the cup engines were about 100-125 grand, depending on the track. There have been cost effective ways to increase mileage for years and years. Little things like oil flow, air flow, etc. You get a few of these in production you could see a significant increase in mpg. The big 3 either didn't care or they were in cahoots with oil. The conspiracy theories have been there and now some of them are coming to fruition. Either these execs are complete idiots or they were keeping somebody happy. 
Believe whatever you want, tell yourself you know more than everybody else, I'll stick to the guys who build them, dyno them, and make them work.

I should mention this buddy of mine is so conservative he makes Plainsman and Bobm look like frank and dodd  
He is also a RICH man. 

As for the european cars, that was an actual question. I know that these cars get huge mileage, last forever, yada yada yada. All I really know is the Bush guys blocked them. I deal with Mercedes diesel engines at work and they are great. I know the engines are smaller and a lot of them are diesel but they supposedly would beat all EPA standards.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

you are forgetting costs. There are several methods of gaining mileage in the manufacturing of engines, but they are expensive and those costs add up.

I mey a guy that had a chevy pickup that was documented to get mid 20s in the city and over 30 hwy with 350 cubic inches in an older pickup. But between the coatings on the pistons and cylinder heads, the intensive hands on porting an polishing, and the overall nature of the build he had over $25k invested in it.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I know that these cars get huge mileage, last forever, yada yada yada. All I really know is the Bush guys blocked them. I deal with Mercedes diesel engines at work and they are great. I know the engines are smaller and a lot of them are diesel but they supposedly would beat all EPA standards.


You keep saying you know this but wont give specifics where are you getting this misinformation??

THe diesel issue is based on the fact that european standards are based on % of particulates ( I think thats it anyway I read about it a long time ago) and our epa standard is biased in a way they calculate it that makes diesels hard to build for here, not that it cannot be done. Obviously the euroweenies standard should be fine here also. But I would argue that the unreasonble EPA standards come from the left not the right politically speaking.

I want you to show me where the Bush admistration blocked European cars coming here. There are only two reasons that cars are blocked from coming here EPA standards and saftey standards both left wing nonsense.

ANd I say they are nonsense because if they meet the standards in Europe then they would be fine for here. Safety standards are fine to have but as long as motorcycles are legal to use and drive the argument that any car is unsafe is silly. People should be informed and let market forces decide what kind of cars are sold here.

I drive a VW Jetta Diesel great car 45-50 mpg safe and quick.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Commodities markets contributed to the financial market mess. Commodities is still on the backs of republicans.


I like many others deal with the commodities markets everyday, it's part of buisness. I happen to like a free market sytem that we have in this county, and would hate to see us as a socialist country. Last summer all we heard was how evil the opil companies were and how corrupt the commodities markets were. Now we here hardley a squeak that gas is down to $1.50 a gallon. The market giveth and the market taketh, some won and some lost. Many wanted to put windfall profits tax on oil compaies, and it made for good press, and thats all. If you wanted to put a windfall profits tax on someone then maybe they should on the farmers, we made the most profit ever in 2007.


----------



## szm69 (Apr 28, 2006)

TK33 said:


> As for the european cars, that was an actual question. I know that these cars get huge mileage, last forever, yada yada yada. All I really know is the Bush guys blocked them. I deal with Mercedes diesel engines at work and they are great. I know the engines are smaller and a lot of them are diesel but they supposedly would beat all EPA standards.


Now you are talking about diesels......that is a different animal. The US has a couple of "Liberal" rules that are keeping the hyper milage diesels out. Also remember that our diesel has higher sulfur content than Euros diesel.

Guess what - Bush isn't blocking them - those companies just don't see any profit in retooling and redeveloping their diesels engines to run in the Peoples Republic of Chi....i mean California.

Read this article it can explain better.

Future Standards, Big Challenges
While the current emissions standards are different for diesel vehicles compared to gasoline engines, the new federal standards, which go into effect in 2007, require diesel-powered vehicles to meet the same pollution levels as gasoline models. In some areas, such as carbon-dioxide emissions, diesels are actually more environmentally friendly than gasoline, but pollutants such as nitrogen oxide and soot are a different story altogether. On average, the new standards would mean a 77-percent cut in nitrogen-oxide emissions and an 88-percent drop in particulate emissions to put diesels on an equal playing field with gasoline cars.

The big challenge is that the emissions control systems, which filter out nitrogen oxides and particulates, don't work well with today's U.S. diesel fuel, because our diesel fuel has a much higher sulfur content than Europe's. The EPA has mandated diesel fuel to be produced with lower sulfur content, but that change won't take full effect until 2006 and even then the fuel won't be comparable to Europe's fuel.

Several alternatives are being discussed about the best way to reduce emissions to meet future standards. One possibility is a system that would require a person to use an additive akin to adding windshield washer fluid. There's a concern, however, that owners won't add it regularly because there will be no noticeable difference in the vehicle without it - it simply won't be emissions-compliant. Another option is to use a component to trap the particulate matter, but these systems need to rid themselves of the matter somehow in order to be effective. Delphi has developed a fuel reformer that may provide a solution to this problem, but further testing is necessary.

At issue with creating a diesel engine that meets the stricter emissions standards of the future is the long-term durability of the emissions control equipment. Toyota is one of several major automakers taking a conservative approach in the U.S., despite the fact that diesel-powered vehicles represent over 30 percent of its sales in Europe. "We're not there yet," said Mike Love, national regulatory affairs manager at Toyota. "We are not confident that we can meet standards for the useful life of the engine." Toyota, which is known for the longevity of its vehicles, notes that as the systems wear to 100,000 miles and beyond, they are no longer effective at meeting the emissions standards.

Wait-and-See Approach
Other automakers that currently offer diesels in other countries feel they could modify them to meet the tightened U.S. standards, but are concerned about adding too much cost to the vehicle. "We believe we can meet the new emissions standards, but it is questionable if it is feasible at a price point that makes it desirable to the customer," said GM spokesperson Nick Richards.

Ford, which is currently testing a diesel-powered Focus for the U.S. market, is undecided about whether to bring it to America within the next five years. "We want to make sure we can meet the new standards before we consider bringing it to market," Dick Baker, corporate technical specialist for Ford's Advanced Diesel Systems group, said.

Even BMW, which has succeeded in building diesel versions of nearly every model it manufactures for the European market has no plans to bring a diesel car to America. "If we could offer a 50-state clean diesel-powered car, the likelihood [of bringing it to America] would certainly be greater," BMW Product Communications Manager Dave Buchko said.

I got this from here.
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/alternati ... ticle.html


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I believe we recently mandated that the sulphur should be lowered in idesel so maybe we will start seeing the market bring some over here, I hope so.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> You keep saying you know this but wont give specifics where are you getting this misinformation??


I do some work with GE every once in a while and some of their energy techs are from Europe and I don't remember the exact mileage but I thought the said a midsize would get 40-50mpg (not kilometers per gallon). They were volkswagons, isuzus, and mercedes. As I said I don' really know that much about them I just know people who live in Europe or have lived in Europe that have talked about how their cars go forever on a tank. 
I know too well about the stupid new particulate filter that is required in the new diesel engines. The refineries have all gone to the new 1ppm, I think, diesel fuel from the 15ppm. I run one with a C13 cat, there is a light that comes on when the filter is ready for a regeneration, you push the regen button and the engine revs up to about 1600rpm for about 20 minutes and cleans the filter through what is essentially a glow plug that heats up a box and burns the particles. The process on a cummins that we also have is about 35 minutes. It is too early too tell if the engine will be more efficient than previous models but if you have to do a regen every couple of days it will get expensive. I figure my machine burns about 10 gallons every time we regen.



> Guess what - Bush isn't blocking them - those companies just don't see any profit in retooling and redeveloping their diesels engines to run in the Peoples Republic of Chi....i mean California


The republican congress with the help of the Bush administration and of course the dems from michigan and the auto industry have in fact blocked any attempt to produce higher mileage vehicles and bring in higher mileage vehicles. National Journal, author Ron Brownstein 12/12/08. When these companies talk about profits they mean this year. These people have not given a damn about what happened down the road because either they had friends in oil, they knew that DC would bail them out, or because they are just that stupid. I think that it is a combination of the first two, these people are crooks but they are not stupid.



> you are forgetting costs. There are several methods of gaining mileage in the manufacturing of engines, but they are expensive and those costs add up


There are ways to get better mileage without a drastic increase in cost. They already are putting them into production now. You are correct, getting into the cylinders, valve trains, and manifolds does get spendy. The question is why weren't they in use 10 years ago. Again these people only cared about their profits today not down the road.

[/quote] like many others deal with the commodities markets everyday, it's part of buisness. I happen to like a free market sytem that we have in this county, and would hate to see us as a socialist country

Would you not like to see a less volitile market? Do you think the market was better before the speculating rules were eased? As an investor I don't like it, on one hand yes you could make pile of cash but on the other you could lose and it seems like right now losing is the option. Honest questions, I don't claim to be an expert on commidities but there have been swings on wood, steel, etc.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> The republican congress with the help of the Bush administration and of course the dems from michigan and the auto industry have in fact blocked any attempt to produce higher mileage vehicles and bring in higher mileage vehicles. National Journal, author Ron Brownstein 12/12/08. When these companies talk about profits they mean this year. These people have not given a damn about what happened down the road because either they had friends in oil, they knew that DC would bail them out, or because they are just that stupid. I think that it is a combination of the first two, these people are crooks but they are not stupid.


I've googled and searched and searched and have found no source credible or otherwise that makes this claim

I'm calling BS on this

Prove it give us a link


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28192630

I don't know how to do the direct link. This is why you see so many edits on my posts, I suck at cut and paste. :lol:

It is irritating to see the enviromental lobby have anything to do with this because they do a piece of this crap pie.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ok good now tell me how in the world you got from that article to believeing Bush wouldn't allow the sale of fuel efficent european cars in the US.?????

99% of the cafe standards are driven by left wingers like Pelosi and 75% atleast of the opposition is from Democrat senators in unionized car producing states. BOTH ARE DEMS!

Every president has went along with the domestic auto industry on this issue from both sides of the politcal spectrum. Clinton did Bush did, Bush 1 did, Reagan certainly did.

ANd keep in mind that in this captialist society the market not some stupid politician in Washinton, who couldn't run a business if his life depended on it, should be making decisions on what type of cars to build.

Both the higher cafe standards and the higher fuel costs ( as much as can be caused by limiting domestic drilling and nuclear ) are Democrat caused and really hurting the domestic car makers, then throw in the financial issues traceabel driectly to Carter then strenghtened by Clinton then terribly mismanaged by Frand and Dodd all democrats.

This whole debacle is democrat driven.

As I've stated before the current republicans are a sorry lot of lying self interested cowardly misfits but this issue is squarely in the laps of the Democrats not the republicans.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

"President Clinton, who didn't resist very much when the Republican Congress passed legislation barring him from raising the requirements through regulation. The wall held through President Bush's first term, too. Only after soaring gasoline prices made absolute opposition politically untenable in 2007 did Congress approve and Bush sign a requirement that the automakers reach a fleet-wide average of 35 mpg by 2020. That's 5 miles per gallon less and nearly 20 years later than the 1990 bill would have mandated."

That paragraph. The repubs had the power to prevent this, while they were simutaneously planning war in the middle east, they left out the american consumer but made sure their corporate cronies were covered.


----------



## szm69 (Apr 28, 2006)

TK33 said:


> "President Clinton, who didn't resist very much when the Republican Congress passed legislation barring him from raising the requirements through regulation. The wall held through President Bush's first term, too. Only after soaring gasoline prices made absolute opposition politically untenable in 2007 did Congress approve and Bush sign a requirement that the automakers reach a fleet-wide average of 35 mpg by 2020. That's 5 miles per gallon less and nearly 20 years later than the 1990 bill would have mandated."
> 
> That paragraph. The repubs had the power to prevent this, while they were simutaneously planning war in the middle east, they left out the american consumer but made sure their corporate cronies were covered.


No party had the power to prevent this. I will argue that the government CAUSED this whole mess, how are they supposed to prevent it?? Poorly run companies are poorly run companies, you can't fix stupid.

I am pretty sure that the argument against the mandating a higher MPG average is that you are taking the right of the people to decide what they drive... the American public has been voting for more horsepower for 30 years (by buying more horsepower cars and trucks) and that is exactly what we have gotten. You aren't going to pull very much with a 100 HP 3/4 ton pickup. Just recently you have seen the push for higher MPG. That is exactly how capitalism is supposed to work. The company that can fulfill the customer demands the fastest will get the biggest reward.

Once again I believe the free market should dictate what mileage vehicles get, and you don't need the Gov to step in and tell them.

The big three should have had higher mileage vehicles, that would have helped there financial situation right now, no question about it. But that is something that there marketing analysts should have determined not Barney Frank! THAT IS CAPITALISM, GIVE YOUR CUSTOMERS WHAT THEY WANT AND THEY WILL BUY IT. The government has no business telling them what the American people want.

Let weak companies fail, NO BAILOUTS. It will result in a stronger America. If the big three have to wait for the government to tell them every change to make in their designs, they are doomed anyways.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> No party had the power to prevent this


You are right on this, I poorly worded it. The repubs were in a better position to help but didn't. They had control of congress for nearly a decade and the white house for half of that.

The gov't definetely helped cause this. The higher mpg arguement has been beaten to death, the new Ford has more hp and gets better mileage. The technology was there, the big 3 just didn't want their profits to shrink in the short term, god forbid their bonuses were 10 million for 5 years instead of 30 million this year and chapter 11 the next.

Gov't should have put in higher mpg standards before going to war, deregulating commodites and put the american people first. Both parties. I am afraid we are going to be footing the bills for these bailouts for a long time.


----------



## szm69 (Apr 28, 2006)

TK33 said:


> the new Ford has more hp and gets better mileage. The technology was there, the big 3 just didn't want their profits to shrink in the short term, god forbid their bonuses were 10 million for 5 years instead of 30 million this year and chapter 11 the next.


 Sounds like their problem, not mine, their are plenty of auto manufacturers in the world - few less won't hurt. (I know that it will hurt in the short term but not in the long term - other companies will fill the void and hire Americans back)



TK33 said:


> Gov't should have put in higher mpg standards before going to war,


 Why? I thought we both established that less government regulations was better? Like you said Ford is doing it right now without government regulations.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> TK33 wrote:
> Gov't should have put in higher mpg standards before going to war,
> Why? I thought we both established that less government regulations was better? Like you said Ford is doing it right now without government regulations.


Because they set the mileage standards and EPA standards. If they knew they were going to destabilize the market why not try to help? Going back to the original point, they are also the ones handing out the bailouts.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

They should have kept their nose out of what Detroit builds and what I buy. If the government had not told them what to do in the first place they would not owe them a bailout. When government screws up you and I pay for it. I'll bet congress would get a whole new attitude if stupidity was paid for out of their pocket. Just their stupidity that is.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

:beer:

All or none, they either have to control everything or nothing. This would almost have to include emissions controls.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Please point to the constitution and show me where they have any business investing in business in any way shape or form


----------

