I know you didn’t start this thread in GD, but why poison the well like that? Here’s the headlines in the NYT today:
So, unless Obama is trying make things more difficult for himself…
Can someone explain what the concept behind bailing out the Big 3 is? How will giving them money, or loaning them money, help? Their problem is that nobody will buy their cars. How does giving them money change that situation? Say we give them a billion dollars. What are they going to do with it? It doesn’t even make sense for them to build more cars with it, because their dealer lots are already full of cars they can’t sell.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to give a billion dollars to the middle class, who will use it to buy new cars? Handing them money just seems to be postponing the inevitable. It doesn’t address the problem.
That, and (according to them) an inability of consumers to get loans. I think they are hoping to keep operations running long enough for the credit markets to ease.
If we are to give money out, I would prefer giving it to us rather than Detroit. Even better, how about not taking that money from us in the first place? That would be cheaper. Sure, we may need to help people who are truly hurting, but if you pay taxes, it’s much better (and more efficient) to get a tax cut than a rebate.
Oh brother. He doesn’t want to bail out the big three and he’s against middle class blue collar workers.
He supports the bailout and he’s trying to screw Obama.
Sounds like he’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t
Actually, I didn’t make it clear enough, obviously. Put it down to my lack of skill as a debater. I mostly had in mind Bush’s last ditch efforts to mess with every regulation that he can, especially as regards relaxation of rules regarding business practices. And, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, Bush and his minions are doing everything possible to shove those changes in the rules through so that Obama will not be able to rescind them but will have to challenge them in court? Or to seek congressional changes in the rules themselves? (I’m not only not a debater, I have a very poor memory.)
As he should be.
Can you cite some of these regulations he is tossing out so we could see them in context to determine if he’s a bonehead or evil…or maybe something else? I find it kind of ironic that watching the news last night I saw a statement from the Obama camp that they are working closely with Bush on this and are fairly united in what they are doing right now…
-XT
Se Post #12.
Not only is the Administration mucking up the future, it’s also lying about the past as well.
I saw post 12 but seemed kind of vague…was looking for specifics.
-XT
Did you read the linked articles to lead you further? 
I skimmed the links you provided, yes. I didn’t see anything specific in there, but I freely admit that I’m doing like 4 things at once, so I may have and probably DID miss it. I’ll check them out as soon as I get this damn NAS up and running and while I’m waiting for my flight home at the air port.
-XT
Mole hill. When come back, bring mountain.
It seems as if your thesis is that Bush’s (ample) shortcomings relieve you of the responsibility to be rational and consistent when criticizing him.
Oh, I posted more in a GQ than GD manner. There’s so much ignorance and skewed views floating around about the bailout that I wanted to post (what I think are) the facts – if I’m wrong somewhere, I’d also like to be corrected.
For instance, Time has a short, easy to read FAQ on the Citi bailout. Every time I see/hear someone criticizing it as a “handout” or “giving money away”, I cringe. It’s not. Whether or not it’s a good idea, or whether or not it’s the best use of government money is debatable, but it bothers me enough to read discussions where the facts aren’t correct that I figured I might do my own small bit to remedy the situation.
None of those items were initially proposed after the election and one goes as far back as March 2007, so it’s not exactly a case of “We lost, screw the new guy!”
You are correct. They indicate a systemic disregard for America that was years in the making, with many of these items taking on added importance and speed during the last year of the Bush Administration. However, once it was clear that Obama would win the election, it appears the efforts to push through regulations greatly increased. With the known 60-day deadline approaching, time was of the essence so as to prevent the new Administration from stopping implementation of the new regs.
I’ve said I’m not a skilled debater; let’s be honest and say that I am not a debater at all. When the thread was moved, I said that I would probably have to abandon my position to someone more skilled than me. That was exactly why I opened this thread IMHO and I wish it had stayed there. If it had, I could indeed criticize his every move and every breath he takes because those criticisms would be my opinions and no others. Rational, consistent or what have you. Please see my post #19.
Thing of it is, even if these regulations are comparatively trivial (since pencils have erasers…), they make a statement wholly consistent with his nature: the people have spoken, rather clearly. A decent respect for the mechanisms of democracy would suggest that he should comply and cooperate, but instead he obstructs. He has no mandate for his actions, he has no legitimate support, save the technicality of his Presidency. He is Aesops dog in the manger, he can’t eat the hay, but won’t let the cows have it.
Evil? No, but small, mean and petty. When one is powerless, that merely makes one a dick. But when one’s actions affect the lives of thousands, nay, millions…it takes on a whole order of magnitude.
This I agree with. I’m no fan of W, I just don’t believe he’s doing this “just to make things more difficult for Obama to succeed?”, as proposed in the OP.