The New Yorker columnist James Surowiecki makes an excellent point:
having the government dictate the wages of employees—which is literally what the G.O.P. was insisting on doing—is precisely the kind of government meddling in the marketplace that Republicans normally abhor. There is no reason to think that G.O.P. senators have a greater insight into labor dynamics, the appropriate wage for Ford workers,and how labor-management relations affect productivity than the Big Three’s executives do. Yet the senators were insisting that their judgment on these matters should trump all other considerations. I recognize the logic of saying that if we’re going to offer the automakers a loan, we should have conditions attached. But those conditions should be similar to the ones any lender would attach. They shouldn’t be an attempt to have the government dictate wage levels. What’s next? Price controls?
hanky panky potential
Alot of the GOP who went against this (and to be consistent we need to check their voting records and if they voted for the financial $850 B and not for this that's suspect) anyway, a lot of the foreign auto plants are in their states.
They pay shit, not unionized. So it's in their interest to stop the United States companies because obviously the foreign auto manufacturers will then dominate completely the market sector.
Already done
by Lefty Coaster on DailyKos in
this comment
.
list of GOP who voted against auto, for financial bail out
Bennett, Robert F. (R-UT)
Bunning, Jim (R-KY)
Burr, Richard (R-NC)
Coburn, Tom (R-OK)
Crapo, Mike (R-ID)
DeMint, Jim (R-SC)
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)
Gregg, Judd (R-NH)
Isakson, Johnny (R-GA)
McCain, John (R-AZ)
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)
Shelby, Richard C. (R-AL)
Thune, John (R-SD)
Vitter, David (R-LA)
Bold type indicates hypocrites who voted FOR the Wall Street Bailout, and then turned around and voted AGAINST the Big Three Rescue Bill.
I lifted LC's comment and reposted. I'm very surprised that Chuck Grassley is in this list. Very. He is fairly Populist and has taken on issues that assuredly no corporate lobbyist wants him to, so it might also be his constituents.
On EP, I have not allowed a host of comments that are anonymous, which claim it's all of the unions fault and the US should break the UAW and that's the entire problem. I think FAUX news and some corporate idiot must be hammering on unions as the problem.
What's wrong with these people, don't they get that they are raging against their own economic interests?
Exactly right....
...and further if the Big 3 go down that will have catastrophic effect on secondary and tertiary parts suppliers who...
....supply Toyota, Volkswagen et. al.
Over 250 years of history proves that their is nothing dumber than a Southron overseer.
'When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck to crush him.'
Um...
at this point...can we call these folks "Toyota Republicans"? Just an idea.
No animus toward Toyota
on my part, and I would not like to stoop to the nativist tactics of the wrong-wingers.
Besides, we might very well be needing the Japanese rather badly to bail our asses out. Just like they helped save what remains of the U.S. steel industry in the late 1980s.
How about "false flag Republicans" instead?
navist?
watch out for the rhetoric on the left on that score. There is some idea out there that promoting our economic interests or economy is somehow racist and that spin is not in economic reality of how the world works.
A FCDC, such as Toyota helps Japans economy much more than if it was a US domestic corporation. Hey, great for Japan, but we're in the U.S. and we're losing in the global economic stage....badly.
Even Nativist
Would be better than racist- after all, there are now plenty of "Native Americans" of all races out there (and the further back the archeologists and sociologists go, the more it appears to be "same as it ever was", with Viking genes showing up in Iroquois populations and Asian genes showing up in West Coast tribes).
I still don't understand what is wrong with protectionism of one's own economically- seems to be yet another religious dogma among some economists who don't understand or discount tribal culture and evolved economics.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
If it comes to having Japan bailing our asses
then it's over. I'm sorry, but to to end up having the Japanese or the Europeans or the Chinese (or take your pick) having to own our industrial assets just to keep our economy going, well frankly we cease being a true nation on an economic sense. Call me a "nativist" if you will, I like to think I'm a Progressive-Nationalist at this point who is looking to see that our national interest is OUR national interest!
One other thing, nativists, at least in the way it has been bandied about, is in reference to folks like the Minute Men or some other anti-immigration movements. I'm not against immigration, I'm against us returning to our roots as being a set of colonies.