Detroit was a collossal failure and GM should have gone the way of the dodo. But Washington played the masses like a fiddle and to save all the jobs, we bailed out a bad buisness. Then they bitch when the same shitty buisnesses give out million dollar bonuses to the same executives that made the piss poor business decsions that led to the failure in the first place.
Do you really think that would have been a good idea to just "let them fail" with the economy on the brink back then? It's not just allowing GM to go under, but all the thousands of parts suppliers etc. Hundreds of thousands of industries/workers would be effected, not just one company. I do not advocate socializing losses, but I am fine with the government stepping in to stop our country from going down the toilet.
It's easy to label everyone in the same category as downtrodden. That's a shitty thing to do, to kick someone while they're down. But what you refuse to do, is say you know what, you made the choices that got you in this situation.
Again, YOU DON'T KNOW THIS. You're making a judgement call on a group of people, simply because of their economic situation. It's like me assuming all wealthy people are trust fund babies and didn't work for their money. It's an argument based on an assumption, and you constantly apply it to those Americans further down the ladder.
If you believe that the milllionares who run companies into the ground because of bad decisions shouldn't be bailed out, why do you support blanketly providing aide to the "downtrodden" without holding them accountable for their piss poor choices.
Apple meet orange. I don't necessarily agree with bailing out anybody. When Lehman brothers came for help, the Bush administration basically said "Fuck 'em" and Wall Street (and our 401ks) burned as a result. THAT'S why bailouts make sense: As much as we hate them, our economy, and our retirement were tied to the success or failure of these firms.
Poor people on the other hand, who are getting crumbs (in terms of raw dollars when compared to corporate welfare and bailout money) for basic necessities is hardly the same thing. Again, you assume that not only am I going to accept your analysis of why they are poor, but also apply it to this example. Not going to happen.
I know you have children and I'm sure you didn't grant their every desire growing up for the latest clothes or toys. If they screwed up, you taught them accountability. If they spent all their allowance and then couldn't buy the candy bar/toy, I assume you didn't buy it for them every time. You didn't come into your present situation in life by blaming others and refusing to work and take risks.
Of course not, and you're correct I did everything I could to teach them accountability. However that does not mean somebody who is poor ever had that opportunity (two parents, or one good one) to teach them those life lessons. If you have no foundation from which to grow, your chances in life would be piss poor, would they not?
I don't have the number in front of me that show how much of our budget is spent on the so called downtrodden. And as I said, I'm not totally against helping people. But I'm not going to succumb to the notion that just because it has an emotional edge to it, I'll turn a blind eye and make an exception based on income level. Corporate America doesn't need its bailouts, the military needs to be cut dramatically, and those living on public assistance for an extended period need a good kick in the ass.
I'd imagine it's rather miniscule. At the end of the day, my point remains the same: That the Tea Party is a group of hypocrites who don't understand tax code, don't even know that taxes have been lowered, don't want "their" tax money going to help others, yet are perfectly fine being on the dole later down the road.
