Home » Politics

How The Auto Bailout Is Being Driven By An Environmentalist Agenda

10 December 2008 4 Comments

I have made my position clear on the auto bailout.  It is something that should not happen at all.  These companies should fail and go under so that new, healthy and competitive companies can replace them.  We need auto manufacturing but we don’t need GM, Chrysler or Ford.  By bailing them out, we continue the slow decline of these companies.

What is interesting is how tied together the environmentalist agenda is with the auto bailout.  There was an amazingly revealing segment on CNBC last night where Gwen Moore, a Democrat Representative from Minnesota was being quizzed on her position on the bailout.  Charlie Gasparino of CNBC kept asking her whether the government will be mandating the Big Three to build cars that will sell so that they can become healthy companies or whether they will be mandating the companies to build “greener” cars to protect the environment.

Moore kept trying to say both, but when it came down to it, she got frustrated and said, “Our planet IS in peril.”  This completely revealed her priority in this matter, that by bailing out these companies, the government will not be able to control them, and thus mandate more environmentally friendly cars, no matter what the cost or the desire of the consumer to buy them.

This is what you get when you have politically motivated individuals making business decisions.  Basically, the Big Three will be going in a direction determined by political interests not based on what consumers want to buy.  What does this mean?  These companies will lose more and more money and the government will continue to spend tax dollars keeping them afloat.

You can watch the segment here.  Pay attention to the individuals in the debate.  Who would you say knows the least about economics and business?  Then, who in the panel actually has the power to vote on this legislation?  Yikes.

I leave you with an interesting quote from Neal Boortz: Make no mistake, folks. The environmental movement is not about trees, birds and Polar Bears. It is about destroying capitalism. Pay attention.


  • torbjorn rive said:

    Oh F*%#, N. Boortz?!

    Anyhoo, remember that you’re watching this on CNBC. This is a conversation between people (and possibly written by people) who would be most likely to create some huge economic mess themselves.

    It’s hard to tell what your stance is on this, or whether you’re a libertarian. As a sideline environmentalist defending greener cars; who gives a ‘darn’ about what the people think they want. MAKE THEM USE GREENER CARS, fine. If you give ‘the people’ the choice of what cars to buy, then allow other companies’ fierce marketing of those products they will continue to buy Ford, GM, and Chryslers replacements. When that is capitalism, let it be destroyed. You seem to have thoughts along those lines.

    I would put out there that there are several forms of capitalism, and any smart environmentalist with an agenda should know which ones can and can’t be attacked. Or won’t.

    It’s a good point to bring up, so what is your stance on mandating % sales of enviro.friendly(er) cars?

  • kevin duffey said:

    My point is that we should call it what it is. If the government wants to take over the automakers because they want to mandate green cars, fine, but call it what it is.

    My question for you is are you for electric cars? Do you realize electric cars are basically coal cars? What do you think powers the electric grid?

    I have no problem with pro-environmental policies, but I do have a problem with government running entire industries based on political interests, not economic sense. It won’t be long until the auto industry looks like the education department in our country: expensive and incompetent.

  • torbjorn rive said:

    I actually don’t have a strong opinion of any sort on electric cars. Is that what they’re pursuing? Also, I’m not for socialization of the auto industry either. Coal, yes you make a good point. I fail to recognize where most American power comes from. I believe that Canada’s largely hydro, some thing that also, in its own special way, put strain on the enviro. In which case:

    …if anything, I’m against when cars become overkill. It’s not only the industry that has to change, but peoples habits and choices. The industry (and country) has pushed ‘choice’ on the people, and we’ve got a destructive lifestyle that’s about to go down the drain.

    As for the politics, anything the govt’ does will be a facade of some sort. The best thing for the enviro is that people will naturally make the choices to buy less cars.

  • kevin duffey said:

    Good points… I’m pro-environment, but I’m not a full believer in global warming. There are many things flawed in the global warming theories… for one, I’ve read in many places that the earth has been cooling for the last ten years. But, again, I figure “green” actions won’t hurt so why not do it when possible.