Ryan Wrong on Bailout
Paul Ryan jumps out on the wrong side of a bailout... again.
U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Wednesday he would favor assisting the ailing American automakers immediately, using the $25 billion Congress set aside previously for development of more fuel-efficient vehicles.
[...]
Ryan said he would use the already-allocated energy efficiency money now, and deal with the issue of if or how to replace it later.
Beyond the fact that a bailout for the Big 3 is a bad idea, it’s this kind of “spend now and figure out how to pay for it later” thinking that has resulted in massive spending and waste. I think that Sensenbrenner might need to give Ryan a call and remind him that he’s a conservative.
Hat tip Dad29.
Owen, you know what’s happening here and it’s not a lapse of ideology on Paul’s part.
He’s thinking with his heart, not with his head. He was a Janesville native long before he was conservative, a Republican, or a Congressman.
Posted by Kevin Binversie on November 21, 2008 at 0910 hrs
REAL conservatives don’t have hearts
Posted by Owen on November 21, 2008 at 1024 hrs
Thanks for the ‘heads up’ Owen. I just called Mr. Sensenbrenner’s office. I mentioned that it was probably the Janesville connection.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2008 at 1028 hrs
He’s thinking with his heart, not with his head. He was a Janesville native long before he was conservative, a Republican, or a Congressman.
No… he’s thinking with his head. Vote against a bailout for GM and they’d run him out of Janesville on a skewer.
Politics over principle in this situation I think… Though the closing of the Janesville plant would seem to me to cut him free from having to marry himself to a pro GM position.
Its a shame… I like Paul Ryan. I’d expect better from him. I guess Scott Walker remains one of the few conservatives in this state who doesn’t compromise himself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2008 at 1101 hrs
This is where the rubber meets the road for conservatives. It’s one thing to be all about not giving handouts to “them” (Reagan’s welfare queens and big black bulls), but when they have to be tough with themselves and their buddies, it just doesn’t happen.
Same as the “conservative” farmers taking ag subsidies. Same as the “conservative” listeners sitting home on SSI and calling into Rush Limbaugh’s show. Same as the “conservative” business people who take economic development zone cash.
I’ve met very few actual fiscal conservatives in my life. Most of them could more accurately be called selfish.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2008 at 1230 hrs
“Same as the “conservative” listeners sitting home on SSI”
Excuse me, but I paid *into* SSI for 45 years. Why should I not get paid out from it now?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2008 at 1303 hrs
You raise a good point Dan.
I’m against social security, I think it should be abolished, but bet your ass I’m gonna get what I can from it when the time comes.
I’m against unemployment, but bet your ass, though I’ve never been unemployed, I sure as hell would apply for it if I ever was. I pay enough in taxes.
I don’t see any moral gap between wanting to get as much money as you can from a system that takes so much from you AS LONG AS you are committed to changing that system to stop taking the money in the first place.
Their in lies the problem with social spending… Where does it end. We should end all entitlements and social spending AND the portion of taxes that fund them and at that point no one will be able to “use” the system.
I remember wanting to punch Tim Russert through my television when he took Ron Paul to task for putting earmarks in his bills and then voting against them. Timmy boy just couldn’t understand the concept of wanting to get money back that was taken WHILE still wanting to change the entire system.
Its like if someone is stealing from you, you don’t just want them to stop stealing from you. You want your money back and THEN you want them to stop stealing from you in the future.
When the government stops stealing from people THEN no one will have any moral ground to demand entitlements from the government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2008 at 1313 hrs
I think Jason was referring to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) which is not to be confused with regular Social Security. SSI is income-based - it brings participant’s income up to a minimum threshold, regardless of their income history - the criteria to receive it is based on being low-income, disabled, and/or aged. In fact, children can qualify for it. Some states also supplement the SSI to make for a higher cash payment. I’m not sure about all states, but I’m 99% certain that in Wisconsin, SSI recipients automatically qualify for Title 19 Medical Assistance benefits.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2008 at 1329 hrs
I think we’ve all made a mistake here initially. The current Big 3 Bailout being talked about, is actually the second Big 3 Bailout.
Many of you might not have been aware of this, but Congress - thanks to some manuveuring by Detroit Democrat John Dingell - already agreed to give $25 billion in loans to the Big 3. It was stuck in the final language of the continuing resolution which passed this September. Ryan seems to be urging Congress speed up the payment of those loans, not the additional $25 billion now being asked for. It’s money that’s already been agreed upon.
If Cong. Ryan comes out for the second $25 billion, then I’ll join the pitch fork and torch crowd.
Posted by Kevin Binversie on November 21, 2008 at 1343 hrs
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the Feds make money off of the big loan to Daimler-Chrysler back in the early 90’s? I would support this loan much more than I did the Wall Street bailout (which I didn’t support AT ALL).
Posted by Brandon on November 21, 2008 at 1409 hrs
I would support loan or loan guarantees as long as the “Big 3” file for bankruptcy protection for restructuring.
They are currently set up to fail, giving them a check only delays the inevitable. Especially when the UAW President basically has given the middle finger to the taxpayers by coming out on records stating that the UAW won’t and shouldn’t have to budge on anything.
In addition to probably a 20% axe in the salaried ranks, the wages of the workers need to be brought in line with the market. Seriously folks, do you REALLY think a (probably) high school grad on an assembly line doing unskilled labor should make $30 an hour? Seriously? These are $15/hour for unskilled and $25/hour for skilled trades jobs and have been for 20 years. It finally caught up with them. And sorry, we are already paying for Medicare - the retirees can go on that instead of the private insurance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2008 at 1623 hrs
I’m not going to dog anybody for taking out after they put in, but it’s kind of like the culver’s blue spoon in the most recent post. Principles are abandoned in favor of self-interest. I’d like to think that if I was someone who bitched about paying taxes I wouldn’t then take the handout when it was my turn. Same thing for being educated in public schools then complaining about paying for them. I know, it’s all about efficiency, keeping spending down, not letting those unionized bastards rob you blind, etc. Just seems hypocritical to me. I guess that’s why I’m not the person I could hypothetically be.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2008 at 1649 hrs
I already tossed Ryan on the RINO heap with the first bailout. Quite a disappointment. I’m done voting for Rinos. He won’t get my vote ever again. And I’m already actively campaining against him. The months before his reelection, I’m going to pepper the blogosphere and op/ed pages with reminders of these two votes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2008 at 1658 hrs
That’s the other thing that bugs me about the whole idea of “conservative” politicians. One after another they reveal themselves to be RINOs (Ryan), or “not real conservatives” (Bush). Seems like a shell game. Keep arguing in favor of an unrealisitic, unattainable ideal, then feign suprise when it doesn’t hold up in practice. It’s an ideology that is above reproach, because anytime it doesn’t work you can just claim that it wasn’t reeaaallly conservativism, you just got hoodwinked. That or the liberal media just lied. Or the critic hates Bush too much to be taken seriously.
Sorry to make an semi-inflammatory comment and then bounce, but the librarian is giving me the stink eye and i think she wants to head home for the day. I’m not some angry culture warrior trying to poke holes in your ideology, this is just another thing about the liberal/conseravtive dichotomy that seems artificial and false to me (and there’s plenty of those on the liberal side too - hateful bigotry towards xtians for example).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2008 at 1744 hrs
Paul Ryan represents a district that has large numbers of autoworkers and retired auto workers.
It is his duty, plain and simple, to represent those people’s views in Washington.
You may not like it. It may not be ideologically “pure”, but it is the system that our founders created.
Its his job.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2008 at 1819 hrs
Paul Ryan represents a district that has large numbers of taxpayers and retired taxpayers.
It is his duty, plain and simple, to represent those people’s views in Washington.
You may not like it. It may not be ideologically “pure”, but it is the system that our founders created.
Its his job.
Posted by Owen on November 21, 2008 at 1828 hrs
“spend now and figure out how to pay for it later”
I think this has been the title of the fiscal policy plank of the GOP platform since 1980.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2008 at 2052 hrs
Paul Ryan was elected to represent the citizens (not just taxpayers) of his district. The voters have entrusted him to represent and speak on their behalf. If they don’t feel that he has spoken on their behalf they can let their feelings be known or they can vote him out of office if there is a better candidate in the voter;s mind.
It is no different than Charlene Hardin, Gwen Moore, Scott Walker, et al. Owen, you may not like it but you certainly don’t get it, and you never have. That is the system our founders created. You are trying to make it into something it is not. The will of the people is the will of the majority of voters. Not what you think it should be.
I don’t like his position on this. I didn’t vote for him. The majority in his district did. Deal with it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2008 at 2137 hrs
I’m not jumping up and down on an auto bailout. But that being said, the Midwestern State economies will collapse if the Big Three go under.
That’s fine if everyone wants to move the Mississippi to live, but I don’t.
If we can invest $25b in CitiBank, we can invest $25b in some revamped post-bankruptcy Big three. Someone needs to be getting in there right now to set up the pre-packaged bankruptcy where the Feds come in then with financing and a guarantee of the warranties for a limited period.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2008 at 2335 hrs
“Paul Ryan represents a district that has large numbers of taxpayers and retired taxpayers.” He helped steer and voted for the $750 billion Wall Street Bush/Paulson bail-out, afterwards, the large numbers of taxpayers and retired taxpayers gave their approval by giving him 65% of the vote on Election Tuesday. They said “spend our money!!”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2008 at 2334 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 103
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 02:50 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).