By on April 10, 2009

I had a long conversation with Marcy Wheeler, the woman behind the JPMorgan Chase boycott. As I reported yesterday, the action’s designed to force the bailout-fed bank to take a ChryCo debt cramdown to “keep 300,000 workers employed” and “protect America’s industrial base.” Unlike the organization supporting her cause, Ms. Wheeler really knows her onions, from Cerberus’ perfidy to the importance of the FIAT deal to gas prices and the argument for a “soft landing.” Wheeler made as good a case for federal intervention in the US auto industry as I’ve ever heard (even though she insisted that shit-canning GM’s CEO didn’t constitute federal intervention in the US auto industry). CNN reveals that the majority of Americans aren’t buying ANY of it (assuming of course someone’s selling it). “Three out of four Americans would rather see General Motors and Chrysler face bankruptcy than watch the government pour yet another round of bailout cash into the big U.S. automakers.” Uh-oh.

A seventy-six percent majority against more Motown bailout bucks is what you call a conclusive result. It remains to be seen if the taxpayer protecting zealots at the Presidential Task Force on Automobiles consider themselves smarter than the people who pay their salaries. I’m thinking . . . yes. We’re providing debtor-in-possession financing. Not a bailout. What? Those $22.8 billion loans that disappeared? Soft landing, mate. Well worth it.

As far as bankruptcy’s effect on sales, CNN decided to play silly buggers with their methodology—and still managed to winkle-out some interesting results. They asked half of the sample group if they’d buy a car from a [non-specified] bankrupt automaker.

“Almost half of those asked—47%—said they were ‘not likely at all’ to do so, and only 12% said they were ‘very likely’ to buy from a bankrupt company.” Wow! It’s not mentioned, but I make that 41 percent of those surveyed would buy from a bankrupt automaker. And that’s absent any mention of GM and ChryCo’s old friend: fire sale prices.

Or Uncle Sam’s new warranty! When CNN’s pollsters (Salaam Bombay!) threw that one at the other half of the group—demonstrating the effectiveness of President Obama’s press conference on the subject—the number took a turn for the better. “Among those respondents, the ‘very likely’ to buy response rate doubled, to 24%, while the ‘not likely at all’ response declined to 27%.”

Again, no mention of the sudden majority (51 percent) who said sure, WTF, why not? Or price considerations.

Anyway, it seems that Chrysler and GM’s window of opportunity for selling cars in bankruptcy has not yet closed. But the portal for public support for more bailout bucks has. I wonder what Mary makes of that. [thanks to Happy_Endings for the link]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

47 Comments on “Bailout Watch 491: 76% of Americans Say No to More Motown Bailouts...”


  • avatar
    zdriver

    I don’t have a comment about the subject matter. I just had to say that, when I was in college, I had a Dodge just like the one in the picture, except that mine was red & white instead of green & white. It had the push button automatic which was a hoot.

  • avatar
    Runfromcheney

    I wish that Obama would just do it the natural way and Chapter 11 these companies already. This would bring Darwinism into play. The company that can get its shit together the fastest gets to emerge and survive, and the company that just drags its heels and tries to keep everything the same (*cough*GM*cough*) gets to go down and get liquidated.

    Ready, set, go!

  • avatar
    GS650G

    I’m glad Marcy Wheeler understands the issues. Doesn’t make it right for the rest of us to bail out an automaker. The workers saw this coming years ago and should have preparing for this day.

    I guess it depends on revitalizing Michigan one way or another way. Spending billions of tax dollars to prop up Michigan’s economy would be fine if the state government was a bit more responsible. But looking at the legislature, governor, and local actions these past years shows it’s a black hole of taxes, spending and entitlements.

    What they want is a freight car of cash without strings, a return to glory days of high profits, great paying jobs for life with awesome benefits and retirement plans.

    Don’t we all though.

  • avatar
    roar

    We would rather bailout the financial and insurance companies that produce nothing, keep most of the money in very few hands and have robbed the public of their retirement and savings. Makes all the sense in the world to me!! Let’s not support companies that have helped create the middle class of this country over the last 100 years, supports millions of Americans with jobs, pensions, healthcare, has donated millions of dollars to worthwhile causes, etc. Americans are stupid and shortsighted. Companies that have been in the country the longest, have paid taxes the longest get the least amount of support. Sad.

  • avatar
    Happy_Endings

    We would rather bailout the financial and insurance companies that produce nothing, keep most of the money in very few hands and have robbed the public of their retirement and savings.

    I didn’t realize there was widespread support for bailing out the financial institutions. I thought most Americans were against those as well.

    Companies that have been in the country the longest, have paid taxes the longest get the least amount of support.

    GM was founded in 1908. Bank of America goes back to 1874, JP Morgan 1799, Wells Fargo 1852, Goldman Sachs 1869, Bank of New York 1784, US Bancorp 1890.

  • avatar
    Runfromcheney

    roar:

    Lest we forget, the financial institutions form the pillars of our economy. If they all went down, our entire economy would collapse. If GM goes down, it would just be a drop in the bucket. Eastern Michigan would be completely ruined, but it wouldn’t have that big of an effect on the rest of the nation.

  • avatar
    jpcavanaugh

    I WANT that 59 Dodge!

  • avatar
    superbadd75

    Banruptcy is not a problem if the company has a direction and plan to get out of it. Any GM bankruptcy would have to start with shitcanning the entire top end of the company and getting some people in there that have a clue. I don’t see how any amount of money, no matter how great, is going to allow GM to get out of this alive while still doing business the way they currently are. There’s too much unused production capacity, too many dealers, and too much cost wrapped up in people that don’t even work for GM any more. That’s not even mentioning all of the costs associated with making different headlights and fenders to have 5 models of the same damn car.

    For C11 to work, GM’s going to have to change their way of thinking. They’re going to have to seriously examine what consumers want, and what’s successful for other companies, and they’re damn sure going to have to pare down their offerings to 2 or maybe 3 brands all with unique products.

  • avatar
    rmwill

    Seems TTAC hero Sen Corker is seeking a bailout of HIS GM plant. Integrity gets brushed aside when the cash is local:

    http://www.freep.com/article/20090410/BUSINESS01/904100306/Look+who+s+fighting+for+GM+plant

  • avatar
    Pch101

    We would rather bailout the financial and insurance companies that produce nothing

    Banks are, for all intents and purposes, an extension of the monetary system. Without them, the entire thing collapses.

    So no, your point is wrong. We have no choice but to fix the banks. We can argue about which ones to fix and exactly how to fix them, but the idea that they can simply all fail without any negative effects has been proven wrong, time and time again.

    We would all be living in the Greater Depression right now if the banks had been allowed to fail. If you think that car sales suck now, what do you think that they’d be like then?

  • avatar
    Gardiner Westbound

    Why would consumers buy Detroit-3 vehicles when superior products are available at competitive prices?

  • avatar
    iNeon

    Because, on occasion, the lowest hanging fruit is the sweetest. Why else?

  • avatar
    buzzliteyear

    I think Americans, even those who believed that bailouts are necessary, are sick and tired of the blatant political manipulation and double-standards that have characterized the bailout efforts so far.

    I recently saw a televised panel discussion (C-SPAN, I believe) with Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz (among others).

    Stiglitz pointed out that $700 billion could have been used to charter a new “Bank of the United States”. With a relatively conservative 10:1 leverage ratio, said bank would have had $7 trillion in lending capacity.

    Imagine how many mortgages, car loans, small business loans, etc. such a bank could have provided. Easily enough to meet Main Street’s needs.

    Hopefully, once we stop the immediate bleeding, we’ll get to the work of cutting away the gangrenous parts ruining our economy.

  • avatar
    bluecon

    The CAW sees the problem.
    Who is going to pay the pensions?

    Area CAW leaders will hold an emergency meeting Thursday morning in response to Premier Dalton McGuinty’s warning that Ontario’s pension guarantee fund is insufficient to protect autoworkers in the event of Detroit Three bankruptcies.

    “Our retirees are very scared, there’s no question about it,” said CAW Local 444 president Rick Laporte after a meeting with retirees Wednesday.
    http://www.windsorstar.com/Business/fund+cover+auto+pensions/1479290/story.html

  • avatar
    roar

    Many people forget that GM almost ceased to exist in the 80’s and 90’s when the corp tried to rein in the union’s pay and benefits, the union went on strike. The choice was to go out of business or settle. These strikes caused GM to have one of the highest cost of building a car in the world!!! Americans have short memories and if the issues do not affect them at the moment then it is not an issue. When a economy is based on banking/trading institutions it puts all the money in very few hands, we need a country that makes stuff and puts money in more peoples pockets not less.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    “It remains to be seen if the taxpayer protecting zealots at the Presidential Task Force on Automobiles consider themselves smarter than the people who pay their salaries. I’m thinking . . . yes.”

    Well Put!

    rmwill,

    Nice try on the old spin and smear, but you are stretching the truth to get the result that reinforces your ideology. Perhaps that’s because your ideology isn’t supported by the facts? Nothing in that story supports your accusation. Corker is trying to defend his constituents from what many percieve will be a directing of funds to blue states rather than red ones. The worst sort of politics.

  • avatar
    metric_tool

    GM’s biggest problem is that they have been working on their bad reputation for 30 years. They have lost an entire generation of buyers because of their callous attitude towards consumers in the 70’s.

    Does anybody remember the headliners that would come unglued and hang down around your head? There were even repair shops that advertised their ability to fix them!

    Those who try to defend GM for their current lineup of “some of the best and most competitive products on the market today” forget that once you burn someone on the second most expensive purchase he makes in his lifetime, you have lost that customer probably forever.

    Not to mention the fact that many people, when asked if they would buy from a bankrupt automaker, probably have a pretty harsh opinion of how that automaker got in such bad shape in the first place – poorly made, uncompetitive products.

    I hope GM comes out the other side of this as a viable automaker. Unfortunately, with their current engineering and business competency, I can only see them being successful (profitable) if they are given an exemption from the CAFE standards so that they can just make W-bodies, Epsilons, and trucks and SUV’s. If they have to continue to compete with the Civic and the Corolla, there’s almost no real reason for them to exist. Why do we need a fourth or fifth choice of efficient, compact sedan, especially one that’s three generations behind the competition?

    Sorry to be so negative, but I am afraid they are toast.

  • avatar
    rmwill

    Ideology is your specialty…

    Coker sells himself as being for free markets. The Spring Hill plant is making vehicles that nobody wants. Close it.

    Be consistent. I am.

  • avatar
    Bunter1

    hey RF-Is anyone monitoring how the sales are going for the Welfare 2 this month.

    I have been wondering if the very public deadlines have affected sales more than the massive tax dollars on the hood.

    Bunter

  • avatar
    KixStart

    bluecon notes, “Area CAW leaders will hold an emergency meeting Thursday morning in response to Premier Dalton McGuinty’s warning that Ontario’s pension guarantee fund is insufficient to protect autoworkers in the event of Detroit Three bankruptcies.

    “Our retirees are very scared, there’s no question about it,” said CAW Local 444 president Rick Laporte after a meeting with retirees Wednesday.”

    The answer will be to unretire and go back to work. Not the answer they wanted, no doubt, but them’s the breaks. All of our pensions are at risk… retiring at 50 after 30 years with a single company and then collecting bennies until the age of 80 was never a viable economic plan.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    rmwill,
    Everyone has an ideology, except the person so foolish as to lie to himself.

    Corker is for free markets, his position on this matter, as reflected in the story YOU linked to, is that the matter SHOULD be determined by business needs, NOT politics.

    Consistency in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing. Corker is being consistent with his principles here, and if you are also, that is a sad, sad thing.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Corker is trying to defend his constituents from what many percieve will be a directing of funds to blue states rather than red ones.

    The perception is hypocritical and wholly unjustified. The Chevy is a flop. The plant is operating at a quarter of its capacity, which suggests that sales are a fraction of what was projected. Three other versions of the same vehicle are being built somewhere else, in a place that has been building them longer (so obviously we hope that they’ve worked the bugs out) and that is also cutting shifts and reducing production.

    Only one plant is needed, obviously. It makes no sense to move the production of three vehicles to Tennessee, when they can move the production of one to Michigan, away from a plant that is barely being utilized. Unless there are mitigating facts of which I am not aware, I would do the same.

  • avatar
    Hippo

    They fly whatever flag they think might work. GM, Detroit, work? HA HA, retirees, etc.

    Bottom line they want money for nothing.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    PCH101,

    You may be correct, but that’s not the point. He is not viloating his principles or asking for his plant to get bailed out. rmwill made a specific case for hypocrisy, and I refuted it. If you want to accuse him of being wrong about the business case, that’s quite reasonable. It is also reasonable to accuse him of “implying wolf” on the red state, blue state thing.

    He is correct to support his constituents and make their best argument for keeping their plant. I am not a fan of blaming the opposition of doing things they really are not (in this case protecting blue state workers), just because it looks like they could be. However, I won’t disarm our side unilaterally.

    Shall we agree to throw out all the guilty ones on both sides?

  • avatar
    jpcavanaugh

    I’m sure everyone here has heard the definition of insanity being to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. GM in a nutshell.

    Those of us 50 and over remember the first Chrysler bailout. Loan guarantees came only after new management that understood the problems and came up with a plan. The same thing happened on a less visible scale at Ford in those days.
    Today, Ford is doing better now because they did the same thing again when stagnation had set in. Bill Ford should get a lot of credit for recognizing that his company needed another skillset, and getting someone for that need. New management, new plan. Chrysler has new management, but I suspect that no matter who is running it, there is not enough of a company left to save. If Nardelli had taken over the Chrysler of 1998 istead of the current one, who knows.

    But GM? Clueless since the 70s. Still clueless. They whine that customers will not give them the benefit of the doubt. People forget that GM maintained that benefit of a doubt (the “Toyota Aura”) into the mid 80s, about 10-15 years after Ford and Chrysler lost it because of bad quality. All they had to do was build decent cars. Not great cars, mind you. Just cars that were decent. Now, the same people and those who learned from them have no idea how to get those customers back. None.

    I am convinced that IF GMs top management was replaced with a team with some real turnaround experience, and IF that team pitched a real plan to the government and to the public (probably including bankruptcy, at this point), the carbuying public would respond so long as the product was decent, as it seems to be now for the most part. The government guarantee on warranties should help. But without a new team in place, the “Good GM” that will emerge from a bankruptcy will be in bad shape within 5 years.
    I hope I’m wrong. But I don’t think so.

  • avatar
    Higheriq

    My objection to the bailout mess is the obvious double-standard. Obama requested that Rick Waggoner step down, but none of the bank CEOs have been asked the same question. I for one would like to see some of the banks fail.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    He is correct to support his constituents and make their best argument for keeping their plant.

    Then why don’t you defend Levin when he does the same exact sycophantic dance for his constituents in Michigan? We know why — because Levin is a Democrat, whereas Corker plays for the home team.

    I don’t fault Corker for being a good politician. But he’s still a hypocrite. Unlike Levin, Corker allegedly wants the businesses to succeed or fail on their own merits, with the plants and workforce that serve profit objectives. Since Corker wants to claim to have free enterprise cred, this makes him a hypocrite in ways that even Levin is not.

  • avatar
    TTACtruebeliever

    I forced my wife to sit through a demo of the Chevy Traverse (she’s an transplant or nothing girl). Truth be told, she got into a argument with the Chevy’s sales guy when she coolly mentioned that she does not want to give any more money to GM beyond her taxes. My wife is totally uninvolved with the car biz, if she is not going take it anymore its over for them.

  • avatar
    davey49

    I’d say 76% of Americans don’t know what they are answering.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    @davey49:

    It’s not too hard to know that if you’re getting pick pocketed, you’d like it to stop. I’m pretty sure 76% of Americans know at least that.

    Re: Corker, of course he’s a hypocrite – he’s a politician. There are few pols that are not this way. Since he was one of the more vocal critics of the bailout, he OWES it to his constituents to be consistent – and when I say constituents, I mean everybody in his district, not just auto workers.

  • avatar
    Ryan

    I am surprised with the (in my mind) low 76 percentage. My guess is Michigan residents skewed the results. The United States will be better off without Government Motors and the disgrace to the automotive world known as Crapsler.

  • avatar
    davey49

    “The Chevy is a flop.”

    If the Traverse had been introduced in 2001 through 2006 it would have sold 300K units per year easily.
    It sold 6500 units last month in a no credit, people afraid to buy anything economy. 2nd best selling 7 passenger CUV on the market. Just behind the Honda Pilot by about 200 units.
    Combined sales of the Lambdas (15687) are 2nd only to Chrysler minivans (20111) for 7 passenger vehicles.
    Do you really think this lack of demand is going to stick around for years and years?

  • avatar
    davey49

    jkross- I’d rather pay taxes to “bail out” the auto industry and help them restructure to the new economy then see them fail and have no American auto industry at all. I don’t feel they should go C7 because some people feel they should be punished for the past. I’m OK with C11 but they will still need money to advertise and incentivize cars. It will need to be a few billion dollar ad blitz to convince people to buy their cars. (Plus a way to get the VOLT down to $25K with free maintenance)

  • avatar
    Pch101

    If the Traverse had been introduced in 2001 through 2006 it would have sold 300K units per year easily.

    During 2006, GM didn’t have a single SUV in its lineup that sold 300,000 units. Not one.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if there was an internal memorandum at GM that forecasted 300,000 units in sales. I would bet that the suppliers were told to take skinny deals on the per-unit price because they would be ordering enough to build 300,000 units per year. They may have even convinced Spring Hill to give them the property tax breaks that they got based upon a promise that they would hire enough workers to build 300,000 units.

    But that wouldn’t have been realistic, obviously. No, it’s a flop; they built too much plant capacity, and now, they don’t need it. What a shocker.

  • avatar
    davey49

    best selling vehicle in its class but its a flop.
    Your obviously a Toyota fanboy so you wouldn’t see that.

    Spring Hill could be “sold”/”given” to whoever buys Saturn

    “I wouldn’t be surprised if there was an internal memorandum at GM that forecasted 300,000 units in sales.”
    They had the right thought, economy fell out from under them.
    Traverse should have come out first though.

  • avatar
    RNader

    “Our retirees are very scared, there’s no question about it,” said CAW Local 444 president Rick Laporte after a meeting with retirees Wednesday.”

    So, like… now the CAW is scared?

    How many in the UAW realize healthcare going down the toilet with an under-funded and UAW mis-managed VEBA fund. Not to mention fifty cents on the dollar from the PBGC?

    http://www.pbgc.gov/workers-retirees/auto-sector.html

  • avatar
    Pch101

    best selling vehicle in its class but its a flop.

    Missing sales targets by a factor of three or four times makes it a flop.

    GM spent $690 million to retool Spring Hill to build the Traverse.

    As of March 2009, GM had sold 27,597 Traverses.

    That means that so far they’ve spent $25,000 per unit just for the factory being used to build this thing. And now, they’re ready to shut it down, just months after it opened.

    Of course, that $25,000 figure doesn’t include the cost of parts or labor.

    It also doesn’t include the cannibalized sales lost by other GM units that are selling near-identical vehicles.

    That’s a loser, by any stretch of the imagination. If you were wondering why General Motors can’t turn a profit, now you know. For these geniuses, mistakes like this are par for the course.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    I have NEVER heard Levin say anything worth defending. Also, I can’t figure out what principles even has.

    I also cantvfigure out how Corker is a hypocrite here. Your post isn’t clear at all.

  • avatar
    GS650G

    roar :
    April 10th, 2009 at 8:31 am

    We would rather bailout the financial and insurance companies that produce nothing, keep most of the money in very few hands and have robbed the public of their retirement and savings. Makes all the sense in the world to me!! Let’s not support companies that have helped create the middle class of this country over the last 100 years, supports millions of Americans with jobs, pensions, healthcare, has donated millions of dollars to worthwhile causes, etc. Americans are stupid and shortsighted. Companies that have been in the country the longest, have paid taxes the longest get the least amount of support. Sad.

    You realize of course that banks and their employees pay taxes too, right? And banks make it possible for us to buy and build lots of things by providing capital on time.

    There is still no excuse available for the way the Detroit automakers have run their operations. Unlike the banks, they have a long history of decline starting back in the 50’s.

    The banks made mistakes too, and many were punished by being bought, closed and liquidated. A fate that awaits 2 out of the 3 automakers.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    I have NEVER heard Levin say anything worth defending.

    Yet you defend Corker when he makes statements that are just as whiny and unsubstantiated as are Levin’s. My momma raised me to call that a “double standard.”

    For one, Corker has provided no evidence whatsoever to support his allegation. In contrast, the business case for shutting down the facility is clear.

    For another, he previously whined about Wagoner’s removal because he doesn’t like the idea of government interfering with GM’s decision making. Just a couple of weeks later, Corker wants to interfere with GM’s decision making.

    The same guy who allegedly wants these companies to live or die based upon free market principles is now groveling for jobs as would any Michigan representative. Given that his actions contradict his alleged beliefs, that’s the dictionary definition of “hypocrisy.”

    In retrospect, everyone who has lost a GM plant should have claimed political conspiracy. For example, had they attended the Corker School of Management, Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold should have cried foul when they announced the shut down the Janesville, Wisconsin SUV plant last year.

    That evidence is even more compelling than is Corker’s plea for justice. Not only does the auto industry funnel 3/4th’s of its lobbying dollars to Republicans, but both of Wisconsin’s senators so happen to be Jews. They could have dragged Hitler into it, made a few gratuitous comparisons between Detroit and al Qaeda, and made everyone happy. Just peachy.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    I HAVE heard Corker say some really good stuff. Thus, I will defend him against a completely irrational accusation of hypocrisy.

    If you want to rehash points that I have already conceded, you may, but to what end? If it’s to try to leverage your way to an untrue, and invalid conclusion, you are wasting your breath. I could teach logic at any school in this country, so debate tricks won’t fly with me.

    His statement was not hypocritical in the least, it was quite in line with his espoused principles. The idea that he can’t say anything about business, even to say that he hopes that a large decision affecting his constituents is unaffected by politics, is typical liberal garbage, and beneath your intelligence. I am sure you would love to shut up anyone on the other side who can make a good case, but it ain’t gonna happen. Should he make such an implication without backing it up? No. Would that keep him from being the top man of integrity in Congress? Sorry to say it, but no.

    If Michigan voters want to elect job grovelers, let them continue. However, when they come groveling at the public trough, I won’t be swayed. You go ahead and defend Levin and company if you wish, or are able. Good Luck. All the situational ethics and demagoguery does none of them any good, as currently being witnessed.

    I don’t know exactly what you are trying to say about Jews here, or why it is at all pertinent. That is likely in your favor, because there is a line you better not cross. Our family gatherings, and family, include many Jewish people, including one in particular who is no longer with us. I remember her showing me her tattoo. Let me tell you something, that won’t happen here in this country while I live, and I know PRECISELY which side of the aisle will tear down those things that keep it from happening if we let them.

    No government that protects individual liberty and property could allow such things. You can’t have either without both.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    His statement was not hypocritical in the least, it was quite in line with his espoused principles.

    If you can explain with a straight face how operating a redundant underutilized factory in a declining market is in line with his “espoused principles”, then I’d like to hear it.

    The business case for shutting down the plant is clear. (The business case should have been clear to not build Traverses there in the first place, but this is GM that we’re talking about here.)

    Corker made his statement to appease pissed off Republicans in his state who liked the competitive business rhetoric until it threatened to impact their lives, instead of those of others out of state. He certainly doesn’t want to pay the price for his “principles” by losing his own job.

    It’s partisan rhetoric, and he can’t support his statement with any facts. Not that he should have to, he’s just another politician, behaving like a politician.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    None of what you have said is pertinent at all.
    It does not show hypocrisy. You are acting the role of a prosecutor trying to get a murder conviction based on the fact that he doesn’t think the accused should be allowed to have freedom.

    He is certainly guilty of partisan rhetoric, and likely wrong about the merits of keeping open the plant. I conceded that days ago, but you are still ranting. You even apparently tried to play the race card. Stop frothing at the mouth, it’s not hypocrisy OR racism.

    The accusation that he is trying to use the power of his office or the legislature to force GM to keep that plant open in spite of his espoused belief in keeping the government out of these sorts of business decisions is Bullshit.

    He is merely trying to keep his opponents from using precisely that tactic to move all the money and jobs to their own supporters to increase their own power. Accusing him of hypocrisy is just as laughable as most of the accusations coming out of Venezuaela and Iran. In fact, it’s right out of their playbooks.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    It does not show hypocrisy.

    When a guy who claims that he wants businesses to run on free enterprise principles then argues to keep a facility open that is clearly dead weight, then you’ve found yourself a hypocrite.

    When a guy who purports to dislike government involvement in business now wants to bully GM into keeping a losing facility open just because it’s in his district, then you’ve found yourself a hypocrite.

    You’re only supporting Corker because he’s a Republican and because Tennessee is a “right to work” state. There’s no legitimate business reason to do so.

    I asked you to provide a business case in favor of keeping this facility operating, and you obviously can’t do it. That’s something that both you and Corker have in common.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    Well, at least you are now sticking a little closer to the point. Unfortunately, you see dust, cry smoke, and then leap to the conclusion of fire. And you are doing it because you are blinded by your beliefs.

    “When a guy who claims that he wants businesses to run on free enterprise principles then argues to keep a facility open that is clearly dead weight, then you’ve found yourself a hypocrite.”

    This does NOT meet the standards of hypocrisy. First, “clearly dead weight” is not agreed upon. For this to be hypocrisy, HE has to believe it’s dead weight. Otherwise, anytime one spoke something in error, hypocrisy would be triggered, and the word would have a different definition. I am sure there are PLENTY of people inside GM making a case for the TN plant. If it was all so obvious, why are we only NOW getting around to closing the place? Has it even been decided already? This is just a straw man. He may be wrong, but that’s not what he is being accused of.

    “When a guy who purports to dislike government involvement in business now wants to bully GM into keeping a losing facility open just because it’s in his district, then you’ve found yourself a hypocrite.”

    This would be hypocrisy, had he done that. “Bully” is far from what is being done hear. He hasn’t made any threats to GM whatsoever. If he has, please bring them forth. OTOH, it is normal operating procedure for the left to threaten businesses who are behaving both legally and ethically in order to get what they want (often something illegal or unethical or at least unfair). So you want to allow that, but whenever the opposition wants to point out that they shouldn’t do that, you want to cry hypocrisy?

    “You’re only supporting Corker because he’s a Republican and because Tennessee is a “right to work” state. There’s no legitimate business reason to do so.”

    My reasons for taking up the cause have no bearing on my correctness. That’s a typical straw man attack. I don’t get the legitimate business reason line being connected in this paragraph. I don’t need a business reason to defend Corker. Also, TN being a right to work state is a perfect business reason to keep that plant over one in MI.

    “I asked you to provide a business case in favor of keeping this facility operating, and you obviously can’t do it. That’s something that both you and Corker have in common.”

    Yet another straw man. I could ask you to jump over a building, but it would prove nothing whether or not you did. Furthermore, anything placed in evidence would either be refuted by you, or simply dismissed as not being enough to overcome YOUR argument that the plant should OBVIOUSLY be closed. Why bother?

    The burden of proof is on you. You are doing precisely what you have accused Corker of doing. You are making an accusation without evidence. Where is your evidence that he is “bullying” GM?

  • avatar
    Pch101

    The burden of proof is on you.

    The burden of proof for Corker’s assertions falls onto Corker. Since you’ve opted to defend him, this also falls upon you. That’s how logical argument is supposed to work — you say it, you prove it.

    He has provided no proof whatsoever. His statement is obviously motivated by his political career, not any facts, as he has failed to provide any facts.

    I realize that you are committed to your cause, and are eager to find reasons to attack a left-wing bogeyman at every turn. But since you and Corker want to allege a political conspiracy, it is your job to prove what you claim. This is your allegation, so the weight of it is on you to support it.

    Instead, you’ve punted. That’s a sign of weakness and surrender. Since you have no substantive argument, you want to create a distraction and talk around your inability to offer supportive data or facts, pretending that you have no responsibility to support your points, even though it was your camp that was the first to point fingers.

    Supporting your position would entail you showing that the business case calls for keeping Spring Hill operating. Anyone who knows about the plant would question that assertion.

    Corker specifically claims that the Spring Hill plant is a superior choice for business reasons, so it is up to him to support that business case. If he can’t — and obviously, he can’t — then his point is unfounded.

    The only reason to defend such hollow cliches is if you’re too partisan to discern fact from fiction. If the situation were identical, but for the fact that he was on the opposing team, you’d give him no quarter.

    Again, in retrospect, the Wisconsin Jewish Democrats in the Senate should have followed your example, crying oppression when it was obvious that GM’s reason for shutting the plant was also for business reasons. Since their party receives a fraction of the auto industry’s lobbying dollars, that argument would have been more compelling than Corker’s. Fortunately, they had good sense not to claim discrimination where none was present. It’s a shame Corker isn’t so sensible.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    No, sorry, I am not trying to prove Corker’s point, I am merely defending him from the charge of hypocrisy. Your statements as to why what he said is hypocritical have failed. You said, you can’t prove it. DONE

    “I realize that you are committed to your cause, and are eager to find reasons to attack a left-wing bogeyman at every turn. But since you and Corker want to allege a political conspiracy, it is your job to prove what you claim. This is your allegation, so the weight of it is on you to support it. ”

    That’s laughable. It would be like the pot calling the kettle black, but this kettle isn’t black and the proof is on this very page (see above where I wrote: “If you want to accuse him of being wrong about the business case, that’s quite reasonable. It is also reasonable to accuse him of “implying wolf” on the red state, blue state thing.”)

    I have been quite reasonable, but you keep pushing for hypocrisy which isn’t there. I have made no claim of conspiracy and even said it is not wrong of you to call Corker out on implying it without proof. But nooooo, you can’t accept that I was right, you have to pretend I am unreasonable. Perhaps it’s to justify your demagoguery?

    “Supporting your position would entail you showing that the business case calls for keeping Spring Hill operating. Anyone who knows about the plant would question that assertion.”

    I defeated this argument, you now ignore my points, and simply repeat your own assertion. Repeating a straw man won’t improve it’s relevance.

    “Corker specifically claims that the Spring Hill plant is a superior choice for business reasons, so it is up to him to support that business case. If he can’t — and obviously, he can’t — then his point is unfounded.”

    This is still a straw man. It has no relevance. And also, if it’s so obvious a decision, why wasn’t it made before now?

    “The only reason to defend such hollow cliches is if you’re too partisan to discern fact from fiction. If the situation were identical, but for the fact that he was on the opposing team, you’d give him no quarter.”

    That’s just insulting. You are now accusing ME of hypocrisy. Your stock is falling. I would be happy to point out when even Schumer is being wrongfully accused of hypocrisy, and I think that guy does more to hurt this country on a daily basis than most of our international antagonists. You should apologize for the implication. Were I in your shoes, I would agree Corker’s statement wasn’t really hypocritical, but it was certainly wrong, partisan, and unfairly accused something for which he has no proof. However, I am more reasonable than you, apparently.

    Lastly, I have no idea what the Wisconsin tie in is about, but I am sure that it is irrelevant. Certainly, the religion of their Senators is irrelevant, yet you keep bringing it up. If you want to claim someone is an anti-semite, or is part of a zionist conspiracy, then come out and say it.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • eng_alvarado90: I stand corrected on that one.
  • Lou_BC: I wanted a smaller truck so I can go more places in the backcountry. In town I get around just fine in my 20...
  • Dave M.: Congrats on the ‘vert, Mikey. Once the sun goes down here in TX a convertible is hella fun.
  • Dave M.: Texas BBQ in CO? You’re living the best life. Happy 4th.
  • Varezhka: Hardly a shock. I’m surprised this didn’t happen earlier. Titan’s fate was sealed when...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber