Problem is, when you vote for a $700 billion give away for one sector of the economy and then you won't vote for a $15 billion loan to another sectore of the economy you're not standing on idealism.  You're standing on... something else.

Let me just say that we should never dispose of conservative principles for political expediency, otherwise we might as well just draw straws to determine what party we belong to.  

This bill is wrong on so many levels.  That anyone thinks it is necessary at all is a testament to the invasive government we have in place, the shortsightedness of the Big 3's management, and the belligerent greediness of our friends at the UAW.  

Being a non-government worker, a non-union worker, and non-Big 3 worker, I suppose I should feel honored that I will be asked to ante up to save others from their own stupidity. From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed, or something.  

Somewhere, the founding Fathers are spinning in their graves.  Oh, and somewhere else, Ron Gettelfinger is chuckling loudly while licking his chops.

Okay, so you want to take TARP money already allocated and no new money is being taken that wasn't already going to be spent.  Fine.  Explain it that way.  I have been paying attention, and there's been ambiguity over that exact concept.  More time has been spent attacking "REPUBLICANS" in general guilting them into voting for it.

But voting for the original bailout was wrong.  And certainly two wrongs don't make a right.  Candice, your mom certainly taught you that.  Candice, your mother once told you "if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?".  

Just because some Republicans did the wrong thing once doesn't justify doing it again - and again - and again.  Where would you stop?  What industry that comes begging next would you say "NO"?  By golly, those Republicans like Candice Miller voted Yes for THEIR industry, why won't they vote yes for textiles or buggy whips or the telephone operators?  Will we vote "Yes" to bailout the city and states who also seek a bailout?

I'm so glad to see that you are adhering to "conservative" Republican principles along with apparently President Bush.

Please let me know when you'll officially change your party affiliation to Democrat.

Why there is only action with Madoff after the bailout?

Also the rhetoric of Republicans in the Senate was not against the bailout, it was against the UAW.  Corker and company would have voted for the bailout if they could stick it to the UAW (the workers/voters) at the same time.  Like it or not, these are people we need to get in order to win elections in this state.  And we need to remember they are PEOPLE with families, mortgages and responsibilities. If they are all thrown out on the street our deep recession becomes a deep depression.  They feel abandoned by this party and are taking out their ire on everyone.

Below is a letter that was published in today's Macomb Daily which sums up a widespread feeling.  If you are a slave to ideology and cannot use common sense at various times you are doomed to failure.

First of all, do the readers of this blog support a strong military?  The Big 3 serve as the bullwark of the arsenal of democracy.  The Army's Tank and automotive command (TACOM) is based in Warren because they tap into the engineering and manufacturing expertise of the Big 3 to assist in building the armaments that defend our nation.  If that capability is lost we will be dependent on foreign powers to defend our nation.  I believe that no nation can be great or free if it can't build its own bullets to defend itself.

First of all, this simply isn't true.  It's based on fearmongering, and I'm ashamed that you would even consider trying to ply it on us.  Again.  Jamie, I know you work for Candice and I'm sorry you feel you need to defend her policies.

The fact is, if any of the Big Three "go bankrupt" doesn't automatically mean our defense is going to be handled by foreign countries.  That's a huge leap of logic with zero facts to back it up.

You may not want to hear the truth, but it is the truth.  The industry is so inter-connected that a failure of one will prompt other failures.  Talk to someone who actually runs a supplier and ask them how a GM failure will impact that company.

Sorry if this does not fit the world view of some but it is the truth.  

Our state will also obviously be servely impacted.  Our leaders have a duty to step and do the right thing.

And Candice was against the original Wall Street bailout because she was concerned that it wouldn't work.  That was the right vote because it has not worked.  The intent was to free up credit and it has not.  So do we continue to send that money to a failed purpose or do we attempt to use it to defend this vital industry?

We depend more on Northrup Grumman, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics for national defense than Chrysler, Ford or General Motors.

Chrysler will fail immediately after.  Suppliers across the nation will fail quickly.  That will severely impact the transplants also.  Manufacturing in this country will die off.  You call it fear mongering, I call it a FACT!

Funny, I was talking about your fearmongering about outsourcing our national defense.  Now you're talking about a different topic - the collapse of manufacturing.

There is no fact here.  There is nothing you can point to that Chrysler will collapse if GM does.  It doesn't even make sense logically.  At least share with us your insider knowledge that you base these "FACTS" off of.

You may not want to hear the truth, but it is the truth.  The industry is so inter-connected that a failure of one will prompt other failures.  Talk to someone who actually runs a supplier and ask them how a GM failure will impact that company.

Suppliers will fail.  MANY already have.  Delphi has been selling off pieces of its business since 2005... but nobody called for a Supplier bailout.  Perhaps it's because not all of the suppliers are union shops - and Candice doesn't need to pander to them.

I have worked with several GM suppliers.  If they built their business on a single customer, yes they'll go out of business.  So sad that people who make bad business decisions have to suffer the consequences.

Sorry if this does not fit the world view of some but it is the truth.

Sorry if pandering and fearmongering doesn't convince me any more than the lame attempts by Gettlefinger and the Democrats.

Sorry that Candice feels the only way she can advance politically is by selling out any semblence of principles and criticizing those who hang onto them.

Our state will also obviously be servely impacted.  Our leaders have a duty to step and do the right thing.

And sometimes the right thing is for the responsible parents to tell the children "no."

And Candice was against the original Wall Street bailout because she was concerned that it wouldn't work.  That was the right vote because it has not worked.  The intent was to free up credit and it has not.  So do we continue to send that money to a failed purpose or do we attempt to use it to defend this vital industry?

Good spin.  But I don't buy it.  "It was bad, so we're going to make it good".  The bailout was BAD because it used taxpayers dollars to fund risky investments.  Hell, the same Democrats who swore in 2005 how bad investing federal dollars in the stock market would be for Social Security.  When people had a choice to do it.  Now they sign on to make worse investments in banks.

And you want to divert an already-bad system to another boondoggle.  Investing in companies that are too insolvent to get a loan.  And you want to give them money that isn't enough to keep them solvent.

It's just a series of bad decisions.  Candice made the right one once... and is pandering now by following an equally bad legislation.  But let's make matters worse by chastising and hammering those who stick to principles.  Let's attack those who oppose this instead of finding real, legitimate and credible ways to convince them.

And we must have nine Republicans from Michigan in the House who pander to the UAW because each and every one (except for Walberg who was absent, but signed the letter to the President in favor of loans to the industry) of them voted for the House bill.  You should watch Congressman McCotter's speech on the House floor during the debate.  It is very instructive to what this is all about.

You tell me to "talk to a Big 3 Supplier".  So I called up a friend of mine at an old workplace that supplies GM.

They have competitors that bid on parts they make.  If they go under, they'll get bought out by someone else.  And even if they don't - someone else will bid on the parts to be made.

Screws, bolts and plastic all are made the same way.  Government specifications are meant to be pretty universal.

And if nobody is around to make a particular screw - guess what?  BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY.  It's not going to take long for a company to bid that part and start making it.

• All manufacturing will cease
  
• If GM goes, Chrysler will automatically close
  
• There isn't competition between suppliers
  
• TACOM is the only defense facility in the country, and it's located in Warren only because of the engineering talent (many of whom have been laid off from the Big 3)

Cerberus won't even come forward and bail out its own company, and GM will need a lot more money to stay afloat very far into the new year.  This money, when it comes (and it will come) will be just in time for a new, more restrictive energy policy, Card Check legislation, more punitive UN emissions standards, and an empowered labor movement with their beloved Dems (and kowtowing RINOs) in charge.  Oh, this will be money very well spent!

Government is not interested in the changes necessary to make the companies viable, labor isn't interested in making the necessary concessions, and Chrysler ownership won't even take its own dog to the vet.  Call me skeptical.

No doubt that GM, Ford and Chrysler would still be in as bad of shape, but would our state be suffering to the degree that it is?  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUklAYif_vc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMOmLknUnxU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8sY9San8kw&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6vIjTezdtk&feature=related

Thanks to Rep. Miller for representing Michigan's interests. I am originally from her district and I think she is doing a fine job.

Also:
"And finally, I keep seeing this admonition of "those Senators who voted YES for TARP, but No for the Auto industry".  I want to see an exact list of those Republicans who voted Yes for one and NO for the other.  Otherwise, quit with the admonitions."

Candice Miller or her staff wrote this for RightMichigan, it's not a recycled diatribe where it would take up any additional time to cite the senators she admonishes.

And even if it wasn't focused to RightMichigan, cutting and pasting the same article doesn't take any additional work including the senators names once they're in the story.

Is that the bulk of your argument?  That the Humvee goes away if GM goes away?

Again, you provide no proof or evidence of your claim that a foreign manufacturer would produce these (and I have countered that a better use of Congress's time is to make a law preventing the sale of assets to foreign companies, if this is REALLY a concern).

The humvee is a standard product that would EASILY be made and manufactured by General Dynamics or any other ground transport manufacturer.

This comment has been deleted by Nick

Nothing {expletives to be deleted by Nick} me off more than to see this political Punch & Judy show (a.k.a. Macomb County Board of Commissioners) and so-called "Republicans" (read: Candice Miller) who need a dire refresher course in US History regarding what their job entails.