Users who Dugg This
Jan in Colorado
7723 Followers
Cecil Helton
12880 Followers
I Dont Even Know Who IM NEmore
348 Followers
John Boitnott
15810 Followers
badqatAug 7, 2010
As part of the "bailout" packages, both companies should have been forbidden from lobbying.
kaelyiestaAug 7, 2010
Then no politician would care to give them a bailout. The two are inseparable.
denizen42Aug 7, 2010
But instead, the stupidity fair went overdrive.
rmxzAug 8, 2010
If these companies were forbidden from lobbying they'd fail for sure.
They've pretty much proven that they can't make cars people want.
Without government lobbying for bailouts, their factories would have been sold in bankruptcy sales to more innovative companies like Tesla and about a dozen other electric car and motorcycle companies in the US; at prices those new companies could afford.
But no..... thanks to lobbying, they're safe from competition domestic and abroad and might be saved (no matter how bad they are at making cars).
linageeAug 9, 2010
Your hard earned tax dollars at work, taking away democracy one bribe dollar at a time. You pay money in, money gets handed to GM, Chrysler, money goes back into politician's pocket.
GreenBizAug 7, 2010
I find it hard to be surprised by this. It was just business as usual for GM and Chrysler. However, what is amazing and surprising (and a bit vulgar) to me every time is when I see the dollar amounts spent on lobbying. Not just GM and Chrysler, but any industry with big money at stake, perhaps most notable are the drug companies.
stavrogin2Aug 7, 2010
I'm always surprised at how little money they have to spend lobbying for the major benefits they receive. Spend a few thousand buying up a senator, give him a vacation, get billions of dollars in profits.
kaelyiestaAug 7, 2010
Well, remember that it costs the senator or congressmen in question nothing, or at least very little(perhaps some voter anger). The return on investment comparison of lobbying vs bailout money is the wrong way to look at it because the actors involved aren't the ones funding the bailout. We are.
subliminalurgeAug 7, 2010
"However, what is amazing and surprising (and a bit vulgar) to me every time is when I see the dollar amounts spent on lobbying."
This should be neither amazing nor surprising. I agree that there is certainly an aspect of vulgarity to it.
But take care to direct your anger in the right direction. The corporations that spend this money on lobbying are simply doing their job. Lobbying offers a MASSIVE return on investment, something that the leaders of a corporation have a legal obligation to pursue for their shareholders.
The real problem here, is that IT WORKS! And the blame for that falls squarely on the shoulders of the corrupt f**ks that we have in office, and the gullible idiots that voted them in.
ssomu007Aug 7, 2010
Federal bailout helped lot of big Cs but any thing really benefited to the public.
waste of funds. long term solution needed
absurdistAug 7, 2010
Coherent much?
3242130193Aug 7, 2010
!surprise - lobbying has always been and will always be bribery. It's a lie to call it anything else. Essentially corporate purchase of public offices.
inactiveuserAug 7, 2010
Democracy? But I elected him not GM.....
subliminalurgeAug 7, 2010
Keep thinking that.
7king7kingAug 7, 2010
Is this anything new?
satirenineAug 7, 2010
I think we should just let these giant corporations do whatever they want... But then every year, the country should vote to completely destroy one of them and split its money and resources between the remaining companies.
Closed AccountAug 7, 2010
Lobbying should be illegal.
pcghostAug 7, 2010
The entire concept of corporate "personhood" should be illegal, and that would solve corporate lobbying.
Closed AccountAug 7, 2010
Write your congressman and demand action. And get all your friends to, too. No wait...that's lobbying.
mnocketAug 7, 2010
I too disapprove of the corporate/union/special interest group influence in Washington. My problem is finding an appropriate solution. Do we want to exclude groups of individuals from a 1st amendment right to free speech? Think about what this would mean - even protest marches could be banned. Maybe we should just ban groups of individuals from having representatives (i.e. lobbyists) talk to politicians. But do we really want government writing laws without input from those who are affected by the laws? If you are a member of a group (company, organization, union, etc.) should your ability to represent your interests to your government officials be restricted? You need to really think about this. The best solution I can come up with is to forbid groups of individuals from making donations or expenditures in support of any politician, political organization, or organization that donates to politicians or political organizations.
peppermintpigAug 7, 2010
Separation of economy and state.
minimumeffortAug 7, 2010
The government would never allow it.
kaelyiestaAug 7, 2010
Damn straight. If people understand the reason for the notion behind the idea of the separation of church and state, they'd realize that businesses are no different(and in recent times worse, since the church has lost most of its power whereas industry is now more dominant).
omahawildcatAug 7, 2010
Obama said he would. But obviously he is no different then al the rest. Looking after all of his buddies interests
subliminalurgeAug 7, 2010
And this comes as a surprise to who?
omahawildcatAug 8, 2010
Obviosly enough to gain burys
subliminalurgeAug 8, 2010
Seriously, dude. Your profile says you're 34 years old. You can't possibly be naive enough at that age to be surprised when a politician makes a promise and doesn't follow through.
Can you?
boodiddlyoonAug 7, 2010
lobbying, obama pushing the chevy volt... these car companies make me sick... if I was to support american, I would go with Ford
corneljeAug 7, 2010
Honda and Toyota got bailouts too FYI, and both lobby.
boodiddlyoonAug 7, 2010
Thanks for the info, I didn't state anywhere in my post about foreign vehicles. But thanks anyways
marx2kAug 7, 2010
Ziad S. Ojakli, Group Vice President of Government and Community Relations (lobbyist) for Ford, is a Bush Pioneer having raised at least $100,000 for Bush in the 2004 presidential election.
Ford's website said of Ojakli, "He leads a team that helps shape policy and legislation that promote the company's core business objectives including areas of tax, litigation and regulatory relief for business, energy reform, automotive safety, international trade, and improvements in the nation's health care and pension systems."
As part of the government-industry revolving door, before working at Ford, Ojakli was Deputy Assistant to George W. Bush for Legislative Affairs, the President’s chief liaison to the U.S. Senate. Before joining the White House staff, Ojakli was the Senate liaison for the Bush-Cheney Transition Team.
Ford's political action committee (PAC) gave $316,900 to federal candidates in the 05/06 election cycle - 23% to Democrats and 77% to Republicans.
The company spent $9,100,000 for lobbying in 2006. Of this total, $1,235,000 went to eight lobbying firms, including Ernst & Young, Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock, Alpine Group, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Bryan Cave Strategies, and Hogan & Hartson.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ford
Ford also sought at least $14bn in loans from the government within the past few years.
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB122823078705672467.html
hiropendragonAug 7, 2010
Until we outright ban / regulate lobbying, there's really little reason to single out companies. We need to put in across-the-board regulations in place, and just fix the issue.
inactiveuserAug 7, 2010
But then you would have a capitalist free market, corps would be on their own to do or die on their merits.
waiting2awakeAug 7, 2010
In a true capitalist system corporations wouldn't exist.
spectecjrAug 7, 2010
Question is... how do we do this when they're running the game?
hiropendragonAug 7, 2010
Indeed. *clicks thumbs up on your comment*
subliminalurgeAug 7, 2010
"Question is... how do we do this when they're running the game?"
Sadly, the only real answer to that is "armed revolt".
And, despite some idealistic fantasies I might have had in my youth, that's just not going to happen.
And, saddest of all, it's not the might of the US military that will prevent it from happening, it's the fact that the VAST majority of US citizens are now spoiled little weenies who don't have the balls to stand up for themselves. Hell, most younger kids these days are not only willing to give up their right to bear arms, they actively encourage our government to take it away.
Sad times we live in......
ruddy4Aug 7, 2010
Bribery isn't illegal, only unregulated bribery from little people is illegal. Harmful drugs aren't illegal either, they just have to be approved by the State. Murder is actually legal, you just have to work for the military. Not paying taxes is OK too, you just have to be secretary of treasury.
inactiveuserAug 7, 2010
Lobbying is legal, handing over money is not in every other nation on this planet except America.
mrnaturalAug 7, 2010
Congress would have never given them the money if they thought they wouldn't be getting a nice chunk back. Congress will never do anything that interrupts the flow of payola.
This is why ELECT NO INCUMBENTS. We have to restore the power to the voters instead of the professional politicians. I'd like to see some congressmen in the ranks of the 99ers!
subliminalurgeAug 7, 2010
"We have to restore the power to the voters instead of the professional politicians."
How does this help? Yes, the career politicians are corrupt assh**es, I'll grant you that. But the voters are mostly morons, I have no faith that they'll make good decisions, either.
As evidence, I submit the fact that all of the corrupt, assh**e career politicians that we're stuck with today were ALL elected into office by the moronic voting public that you want to fix the problem for us.
News flash. The voters don't need to have the power restored to them, they've always had it. They're just too stupid to wield it properly.....
mrnaturalAug 8, 2010
OK, I'm trying to come up with solutions, you're just calling names.
But essentially I agree, we need to have a bigger independent voice than all the shallow minds that are handcuffed to to the ideology of democrat or republican.
We need to quit calling one another names and take the fight to the assh**es that need fighting. They should fear us not us fear them.
subliminalurgeAug 8, 2010
"We need to quit calling one another names and take the fight to the assh**es that need fighting. They should fear us not us fear them."
Impossible at this point. Maybe I'm just too old, and too jaded, but I've been watching the way the world works for a good, long time now, and the one thing that I've figured out is that the "assh**es that need fighting" are the very same people that need to be putting up the fight.
Namely, the voters.
Our system of government in this nation is perfectly valid, and quite possibly the best that has ever been conceived in the history of civilized society. The problem is not that it failed, the problem is that it worked too well. American voters don't feel any pressure anymore. They don't see anything in the "long term". We just vote for whichever candidate happens to be spewing our type of rhetoric on TV, completely comfortable with the fact that it doesn't matter which one actually wins, the government is still controlled by the exact same corporate lobbyists, and nothing is going to change either way...
I'm sorry if you take offense at my calling names. But I do think that taking offense at that is pretty thin skinned of you when the real solution to this country's problems requires average citizens to take up arms.
But that's never going to happen in a world where people think that calling someone a "moron" is a major offense, now is it?
for3manAug 7, 2010
The fault of the auto makers, or our shady ass government working for pay?
peestandingupAug 7, 2010
Typical. GM was one of the main players in destroying our public transportation infrastructure.
How'd that turn out again??
mrnaturalAug 7, 2010
Who framed Roger Rabbit. Go watch it again.
heresy_fnordAug 7, 2010
[citation needed]
thirdwizardAug 7, 2010
Companies lobby Washington. News at 11.
This is a stupid thing to be upset over if you aren't upset over lobbying in general. And if you are upset about lobbying in general, this is nothing surprising, and there are far worse offenders than auto makers in this space. Telcos, who are subsidized by the government directly, lobbying Congress while offering cushy jobs for FCC members after they retire, putting out bogus reports, all while jumping in bed with the RIAA, for example.
The sad fact of the matter is that elected officials need money to be elected, and its the people's fault for that. Few citizens care about fact checking, for example. Get a big commercial, say what you want, and 90% of people will believe it because it's on TV. If money didn't matter, in other words if citizens actually paid attention to politics beyond what is repeated in their faces time and time again, then politicians wouldn't be in bed with all these businesses because they'd have to run on their own *gasp* merit. Instead, because the American people are too stupid to pay attention to the lies their politicians are telling them, money gets them into office, and the corrupt have more money than the non-corrupt. So, we get mostly corporate cronies repeating lines that their corporate masters told them to and sponsoring bills written by corporate lawyers.
The whole thing is FUBAR. Don't know if it can ever be fixed.
mrnaturalAug 7, 2010
The congress must be decentralized and destabilized. If officials know they will only be there for 1 term maybe we will find some that aren't only interested in feathering their own nests, creating family dynasties, and securing lifetime jobs where they aren't accountable--and they give themselves raises. ELECT NO INCUMBENTS is the only solution I can come up with...
orangetideAug 7, 2010
yes yes everyone is a stupid sheep and you're an unappreciated genius.
captobliviousAug 7, 2010
Funny none of you are bitching about the BANKERS lobbying using their bailout money.
Funny how that works, the bankers f**k everything up and somehow manage to deflect the blame onto everyone else.
orangetideAug 7, 2010
GM: why don't you spend millions of dollars for better batteries on the Volt? 40 mile range? Give me a break!
Closed AccountAug 12, 2010
They really cannot use the batteries that are "better" because of safety, weight, and cost reasons respectively. No one would buy the car if it cost 150k, caught fire sometimes after recharging, or couldn't travel at reasonable speeds because it was too heavy to use an efficient motor. Also, the "better" batteries do not last very many recharge cycles and can be damaged by improper use that would be difficult to explain to the consumer.
therealmisterdAug 9, 2010
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, lobby.