Sen. Jeff Sessions on 'True Cost' of Big Three Bailout

[WillowTree]

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: To Capitol Hill and the Big Three bailout. Forget $14 billion — try $50 billion.

Republican Senator Jeff Sessions joins right now.

So, despite the fact that this $14 billion almost seems paltry, Senator, you're arguing it's a head-fake. Why?

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS, R-ALA.: Well, because the way it was proposed by the Democrats a few days ago, even yesterday, it really amounted to about $49 billion, the way it was written

FOXNews.com - Sen. Jeff Sessions on 'True Cost' of Big Three Bailout - Neil Cavuto | Your World



aren't those lying little Dems clever??? say 14 billion and mean 49? And they want to call Bush a liar...

 

[Paulie]

Willow, just out of curiosity, do you ever leave your house?

 

[WillowTree]

Willow, just out of curiosity, do you ever leave your house?

why do you ask,, nosey?

 

[WillowTree]

how often do you bathe Paulytick?

 

[WillowTree]

Just out of couriosity Paulatick to you wipe front to back or back to front?

 

[Paulie]

Oh come on, that didn't really bother you that much, did it?

 

[WillowTree]

Oh come on, that didn't really bother you that much, did it?

you meant it as an insult didn't you? You would be disappointed to have missed yer cheap shot now wouldn't you?

 

[Paulie]

I'm just in an exceptionally good mood today and I'm poking a little fun.

 

[Paulie]

Oh and I wipe front to back, like my mama taught me. Congress wipes back to front regularly, and they're about to again with this bailout, as Sessions is pointing out.

 

[Orange_Juice]

Sessions? He's so busy taking money from international foreign corporations I doubt he really knows what's going on

 

[editec]

FOXNews.com - Sen. Jeff Sessions on 'True Cost' of Big Three Bailout - Neil Cavuto | Your World



aren't those lying little Dems clever??? say 14 billion and mean 49? And they want to call Bush a liar...

Are you aware that BUSH II is planning on giving the Big 3 billions of dollars even though the Senate quashed their bailout?

Apparently those clever Dems and in cahoots with your boy Bush.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

FOXNews.com - Sen. Jeff Sessions on 'True Cost' of Big Three Bailout - Neil Cavuto | Your World



aren't those lying little Dems clever??? say 14 billion and mean 49? And they want to call Bush a liar...

Any cost is much larger than the superficial figures.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Are you aware that BUSH II is planning on giving the Big 3 billions of dollars even though the Senate quashed their bailout?

Apparently those clever Dems and in cahoots with your boy Bush.

You don't give a fuck about what is happening. You just care about where your finger is pointing.

 

[indago]

CNN — LOU DOBBS TONIGHT — Aired December 29, 2008 - 19:00 ET

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The federal government tonight is on the brink of giving General Motors and Chrysler billions of dollars in emergency loans. But the government is not requiring carmakers to buy American auto parts. Now supporters of a "Buy American" provision say tax dollars could actually subsidize foreign companies. Bill Tucker has our report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When the American automakers went hat in hand to Washington to ask for a bailout they ran into a lot of resistance and skepticism, if not hostility. Congressman Don Manzullo at one point put the head of Ford on the hot seat over the issue of outsourcing.

VOICE OF REP. DONALD MANZULLO (R), ILLINOIS: Are you going to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to resource or to source more tool and dye equipment and fasteners from overseas facilities for American manufacturers?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. No.

TUCKER: That reassurance from Ford, which is not receiving any bailout money, apparently was enough. Congress did not include any buy-American requirement in the loans to GM and Chrysler requiring them to buy parts from suppliers here in the U.S. And according to data from the United States Business and Industry Council, parts made overseas are rapidly increasing in market share, threatening America made parts and in turn American factories and jobs.

In the decade from 1997 to 2006, imports for auto lighting equipment more than doubled. Imported engines and engine parts rose by a third and imported power train and brakes dramatically increased. Supporters of a buy-American provision say the requirement would bailout the automakers while giving a boost to the broader manufacturing sector. They say not doing so could have negative consequences.

ALAN TONELSON, U.S. BUSINESS AND IND. COUNCIL: If these companies are not at some point very soon, held to much higher U.S. content requirements, these precious taxpayer dollars are going to wind up subsidizing foreign auto making and foreign auto parts making and foreign economic growth, rather than growth and revival in the U.S. economy.

TUCKER: As for trusting the automakers?

REP. BRAD SHERMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: Careful reading of the written pronouncements of the automobile companies indicates that they themselves are not going to adhere to the kind of tough conditions that the American people expect and that the auto industry needs.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: Now, those opposed to a buy-American provision say that such a provision is unworkable given the complex nature of global supply chains and they argue that a buy-American provision is likely, not legal, under the rules of the World Trade Organization, which may seem incredible, Kitty, but there you have it.

PILGRIM: You know the buy-American has great logical appeal, though, when you actually describe it.

TUCKER: What happens is our trade agreements set us up for a conflict of national interest versus international interest and it's going to be a difficult one for Congress to have to resolve because everybody likes to play this aren't we good guys in the international world and they've been hesitant to put our own national interests in front, which is arguably what they need to be doing right now.

PILGRIM: Thanks very much. Bill Tucker.

 

[indago]

From the transcript: VOICE OF REP. DONALD MANZULLO (R), ILLINOIS: Are you going to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to resource or to source more tool and dye equipment and fasteners from overseas facilities for American manufacturers?

What a hypocrite! He voted for the free trade agreements that exacerbated and facilitated all this in the first place. And, as Correspondent Bill Tucker pointed out: "Now, those opposed to a buy-American provision say that such a provision is unworkable given the complex nature of global supply chains and they argue that a buy-American provision is likely, not legal, under the rules of the World Trade Organization, which may seem incredible, Kitty, but there you have it. What happens is our trade agreements set us up for a conflict of national interest versus international interest and it's going to be a difficult one for Congress to have to resolve because everybody likes to play this aren't we good guys in the international world and they've been hesitant to put our own national interests in front, which is arguably what they need to be doing right now."

 

[editec]

You don't give a fuck about what is happening. You just care about where your finger is pointing.

What a clever retort.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

What a clever retort.

The best retorts are profoundly true.

 

[xsited1]

I expect a big discount on the next American car I buy!

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Congress wipes back to front regularly, and they're about to again with this bailout, as Sessions is pointing out.

Congress wipes with only the finest in 222 year old paper.

 

[mash107]

Congress wipes with only the finest in 222 year old paper.

I chuckled.

From the transcript: VOICE OF REP. DONALD MANZULLO (R), ILLINOIS: Are you going to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to resource or to source more tool and dye equipment and fasteners from overseas facilities for American manufacturers?

What a hypocrite! He voted for the free trade agreements that exacerbated and facilitated all this in the first place. And, as Correspondent Bill Tucker pointed out: "Now, those opposed to a buy-American provision say that such a provision is unworkable given the complex nature of global supply chains and they argue that a buy-American provision is likely, not legal, under the rules of the World Trade Organization, which may seem incredible, Kitty, but there you have it. What happens is our trade agreements set us up for a conflict of national interest versus international interest and it's going to be a difficult one for Congress to have to resolve because everybody likes to play this aren't we good guys in the international world and they've been hesitant to put our own national interests in front, which is arguably what they need to be doing right now."

Free trade helps consumers immensely; and what's good for the consumer, is good for the economy. It sounds like a farce when someone tells you, "The U.S. consumer will be happier if we limit their choices." You should blame our punishing corporate tax rate (2nd highest in the West) for pushing jobs overseas.