Obama Doubles Down on Detroit Bailouts, and "Nothing's Off the Table"

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago
obama doubles down on detroit bailouts and nothings off the table

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says that the federal government should double the amount of money allocated to the Department of Energy’s Detroit-friendly low-interest “retooling” loans. For those of you keeping track of our federal deficit, that would be $50b. But that’s not all! “Barack Obama’s top economic adviser said Monday an Obama administration would consider steps to rescue a failing domestic carmaker,” The Detroit News reports (without a single huzzah). “‘We should keep all options on the table’ to help the battered industry, Obama aide Jason Furman said. When asked twice if that meant Obama would prevent Ford, GM or Chrysler from going under, Furman would not commit to a specific strategy, repeating that ‘nothing would be off the table.'” Now how much would you pay? But wait! There’s more!

“Among the emergency measures Obama outlined on Monday was a call for the Treasury Department to buy troubled securities backed by auto loans, as well as the mortgage-backed securities that have gotten most of the attention during the crisis, an idea McCain also would consider.” As Neil Cavuto asked Reverend Jesse Jackson, “whatever happened to the idea of personal responsibility?” Or, as I want to know, why should responsible borrowers/taxpayers have to foot the bill for the people who aren’t? Oh right; so Barack Obama or John McCain can get elected. Right. Carry on then.

Join the conversation
4 of 30 comments
  • Indi500fan Indi500fan on Oct 14, 2008

    @landcrusher W is not a lawyer. You can slander him with many labels, but not that one. He's a fellow Harvard MBA grad with Rick.

  • Canucknucklehead Canucknucklehead on Oct 14, 2008

    "Second follow-up question; do you suppose the Bush administration has total control over a DEMOCRAT run congress?" This is a common excuse I hear. But the fact is both houses were controlled but the GOP from 1996-2006. It is also correct that most of what the US federal government spends is not defense. However, cutting Social Security in order to buy a new aircraft carrier, when your enemies are throwing rock at you is not always the best spending decision. But perhaps it is. It is up to American voters what they want to cut, if anything. The present system of printing and borrowing isn't going to work forever. "If we cut defense spending, who will defend Canada?" Again, heard that one many times. Defend from China? You are joking, right? But if America wants to spend upwards of $750bn a year to play self appointed world policeman, then the taxpayers had better pony up and pay. The present system of printing and borrowing money has contributed a major part in the financial meltdown your country is experiencing.

  • Bozoer Rebbe Bozoer Rebbe on Oct 14, 2008
    Canucknucklehead: There is only one obvious place to cut spending in America. Defense. It has more than doubled under Bush. Defense spending is about 4% of GDP, half the level it was during the Kennedy administration.

  • Landcrusher Landcrusher on Oct 15, 2008

    indie, He didn't get a JD? I could have sworn he did. Oh well, MBA's are just as warped. Thanks for the correction. Cannuck, It sounds silly doesn't it? China invading Canada for their resources. Pish-posh. Of course, the reason it sounds silly is because millions of men like me from both our countries, but mostly from mine, gave part of their lives, or even all of them, so that the very idea of invading North America was just a silly idea. It took a lot of dollars from tax payers as well. I have lived in Alberta, so I know that there are plenty of men who would answer your country's call. Unfortunately, the overwhelming liberalism in your country has everyone convinced that the better idea is to spend money on social welfare rather than defense. It works quite well, but don't forget for one second that it only works because of the US military. So when you talk about what the US ought to do, don't be so stupid as to suggest killing the goose that's laying your golden egg. Liberalism only works when someone else is able to pay the bill. If we go socialist, the next generation will likely wish they were part of the WWII generation. They will think those folks had it easy. One lousy drunk invaded your country a few years ago, and your border guards had to call US because he had a gun and your border agents had liberal idealism. Rant over.