Bailout Watch 17: Motown to Party Like a Barack Star

bailout watch 17 motown to party like a barack star

The Detroit News reports that democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has launched a TV campaign in Michigan "accusing" his republican competitor of not supporting federal bailout bucks for Motown's hometown heroes. Damn straight. Oh wait.. "The McCain campaign said the ad was misleading, pointing to the fact that McCain now supports a loan-guarantee proposal. McCain questioned the need for the guarantees during a Michigan campaign stop this month, but later announced he supports them." And if that's not craven enough (and it is for me), here's how The Detroit News described the "re-tooling" program: "The loan guarantees would make it easier for the cash-strapped domestic auto industry to borrow money as they go through the expensive process of transforming their factories to produce more fuel efficient cars." If it looks like a done deal, and sounds like a done deal… mark my words: it's a done deal.

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 43 comments
  • Z31 Z31 on Sep 01, 2008
    carlos.negros : A windfall profits tax on companies that take public resources is not socialist. We are not nationalizing the oil companies. It is a tax levied because the companies did not pay their fair share for using public resources. If the government starts telling private industries how much profit they are allowed, you might as well nationalize them. Just because Obama wants to solve the health care mess, that does not make him a socialist. When he wants to tax everyone to make it happen, it sure as hell is socalism! Healthcare is not a right.

  • Carlos.negros Carlos.negros on Sep 01, 2008

    Today's NYTimes CBS Poll asks: "Is it more important to provide health care coverage to all Americans or hold down taxes?" Result: All votors: Provide health care: 67 percent; Hold down taxes: 27 percent. Bottom line is that if we the people want to spend our taxes on health care rather than on funding evangelical colleges, no-bid contracts to Halliburton, unnecessary wars, pork, and all the other wasted things that government spends money on; it is up to the voter. Call it socialism, buddism, aboriginalism, nudism or whatever. It is our right. All governments regulate profits by taxation. That is far different than nationalization. If you do you understand the difference between these two things, I feel sorry for you.

  • Qusus Qusus on Sep 01, 2008

    The misconceptions about Obama's economic policy are startling. Some of the things stated here are half true but the conclusions extrapolated from them are simplistic, untrue, and occasionally outlandish. z31 - do you really think Obama's economic policy is to "tax everyone?" "...he is proposing tax cuts for most families that are significantly larger than those McCain is offering, along with major tax increases for families making more than $250,000 a year." "The Tax Policy Center, a research group run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, has done the most detailed analysis of the Obama and McCain tax plans, and it has published a series of fascinating tables. For the bottom 80 percent of the population — those households making $118,000 or less — McCain’s various tax cuts would mean a net savings of about $200 a year on average. Obama’s proposals would bring $900 a year in savings. So for most people, Obama is the tax cutter in this campaign." "If there is a theme to the Obama tax philosophy, it’s that the tax code is not quite as progressive as you think it is. Most of the public discussion about taxes tends to focus on the income tax, which taxes the affluent at a considerably higher rate than anyone else. These quotes are taken out of an excellent article written by David Leonhardt (great writer, one of my favorites). I won't link the article but if you want to read it in its entirety (it's a bit long but is also very concise and covers quite a bit) just google the author's name. Although Obama apparently shuns the term, there's no doubt in my mind that he clearly ascribes to contemporary Rawlsian-redistribution philosophies. But by no means does he want to "tax everyone," that's simply the opposite of the truth. He would be a tax cutter for the vast majority of Americans. If you don't like that, or whatever other reason you don't like Obama (his youth, the church he attended, his big ears, etc etc) that's fine. After all, that is your prerogative in a democracy. But please don't hate him for things that simply aren't true.

  • Geeber Geeber on Sep 02, 2008
    carlos.negros: Today’s NYTimes CBS Poll asks: “Is it more important to provide health care coverage to all Americans or hold down taxes?” Result: All votors: Provide health care: 67 percent; Hold down taxes: 27 percent. And I'll bet if you asked voters if they wanted the government to provide new BMW convertibles to everyone, or hold down taxes, they'd go with the new convertible, too. It's amazing what people want when they think someone else is footing the bill. carlos.negros: Bottom line is that if we the people want to spend our taxes on health care rather than on funding evangelical colleges, no-bid contracts to Halliburton, unnecessary wars, pork, and all the other wasted things that government spends money on; it is up to the voter. ALL private colleges - not just evangelical ones - receive federal funds of some sort. If you want to ban federal funds for ALL private colleges, that is fine (although good luck with that one), but to suggest that only evangelical colleges and universities are sucking at the federal teat is uninformed, at best. If you don't like evangelical colleges and universities - then don't go to one. If you don't want to support them with your tax dollars because you don't believe in their mission or message, then I'm sure that you will extend a similar courtesy to those who don't approve of what is taught in the public school system, or those who don't like their tax dollars going to all-women's colleges. Otherwise, no dice. Qusus: For the bottom 80 percent of the population — those households making $118,000 or less — McCain’s various tax cuts would mean a net savings of about $200 a year on average. Obama’s proposals would bring $900 a year in savings. So for most people, Obama is the tax cutter in this campaign.” Considering that the bottom 50 percent of the population pay NO federal income taxes, I wonder exactly how Senator Obama is going to reduce the taxes of people who already don't pay any. Oh, wait, we get to this: Qusus: If there is a theme to the Obama tax philosophy, it’s that the tax code is not quite as progressive as you think it is. Most of the public discussion about taxes tends to focus on the income tax, which taxes the affluent at a considerably higher rate than anyone else. Considering that those other taxes support programs that are more likely to be used by those who pay those taxes, they SHOULD pay them. Sorry, but I'm not going to support a program or an economic platform that allows people to further vote themselves benefits and more government programs while sticking the bill to someone else, whether that someone else is the "rich" or "corporations." Qusus: If you don’t like that, or whatever other reason you don’t like Obama (his youth, the church he attended, his big ears, etc etc) that’s fine. After all, that is your prerogative in a democracy. Actually, it's his supporters who have trouble distinguishing between criticisms of his economic proposals and criticisms of the man himself. I'm amused that, on other sites (not this one, to be sure), criticizing his proposal to tax oil companies or his stance on gun control somehow makes one a racist or a "hater." Qusus: But please don’t hate him for things that simply aren’t true. Who said anything about hating him? I think that his personal story is compelling. He is a good speaker, appears to be a decent husband and father, and is apparently liked by his constituents. In fact, since his constituents like him so much, I'd like to help them by keeping him right where he is...

Next