December 29, 2008
Corporations Are Only People When Barney Wants to Give Them Something
I just came across this bit of economic philosophy from Congressman Barney Frank (D - MA), on 60 Minutes, that contradicts the standard liberal construct (emphasis added):
STAHL: But there was never any doubt that Frank himself didn't want the car companies to go under. What about the idea that, in capitalism, if a company doesn't cut it, they die? It's over.FRANK: And that's what Herbert Hoover said. And Franklin Roosevelt said no.
STAHL: That's what Darwin said.
FRANK: Yes, it's true. And Darwin was a very good biologist. I don't think he was much of an economist.
STAHL: What we're now faced is with all the taxpayers having to prop up companies that made terrible decisions consistently.
FRANK: No, we're not propping up companies. That's your mistake. We're propping up individuals. The world doesn't consist of companies. The world are people, the country is people. And yes, it is possible to argue that the government should stay out of-
STAHL: But then — but then you're talking about welfare.
FRANK: Yeah, I'm for welfare. You're not? Are you for letting people starve?
One could quip that it apparently takes union membership to make the individual employee worthy of props... so to speak. Suffice to say that the likes of Frank have been all too willing to look beyond the individuals whom companies support when they've decried "corporate welfare" and demanded that corporations be taxed as if they're people.
Subprime Barney is not just a typical bleeding heart liberal, he is a sleaze.
A bailout for $75 an hour for UAW workers who refused to make any concessions has nothing to do with keeping people from starving, it's about payback to unions who funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into Democrat campaigns.
The media has also given him a free pass on the brothel that was being run out of his townhouse (does anyone really believe he had no idea this was taking place?) and the fact that while he was regulating Fannie / Freddie - and protecting them from reforms that the Bush administration was trying to put in to prevent the subprime debacle that later occurred - that Barney's live-in lover was a Fannie / Freddie executive pushing the whole subprime agenda.
During the last campaign I saw / heard a Subprime Barney ad that said that he was busy fighting to protect us from the subprime mess - when just the opposite was true, he was one of the architects of it!
Can you imagine the skewering that the media would give to a Republican under the same circumstances?
Posted by: Ragin' Rhode Islander at December 29, 2008 8:27 AMGet your facts str8, UAW workers don't make 75/hr. more like 28, about 4 more than non-union, and the only reason those guys make that much is because those companies are afraid if they don't pay a descent wage, there WILL be a union.
And, BTW, theres plenty of sleaze to go around, just reading this site makes me feel sleazy
Posted by: Rick at December 29, 2008 3:46 PMRick
I agree about the base salary, but the cost differential is in the benefits, especially pension and health care expenses. I think it would be cheaper to the taxpayers to assume the retiree's benefits and healthcare costs and then let the Big 2.25 sink or swim on their own, UAW and management alike. Why does Chrysler, owned by hedge fund specialists, get one dollar?
Further, how sleazy is it that the UAW will doublecross the taxpayers on concessions they obliged themselves to provide, right up until the bailout loans were set?
Posted by: chuckR at December 29, 2008 4:01 PMwow, I published the same quotation... two days ago. Of course, you "just came across" it.
Posted by: Pat Crowley at December 29, 2008 6:27 PMYes, I "just came across it" in your post. But since my point wasn't directly related to your topic, and since I didn't wish to feed the pathology whereby you believe that people who mention you are "obsessed," I figured I'd forgo the link.
Posted by: Justin Katz at December 29, 2008 6:33 PM