Interesting but it doesn't say anywhere there that the auto companies had anything to do with it. The guy that prosecuted him, for securities fraud, was a liberal Democrat. From the account it sounds like he was probably innocent. Unless you have some other source that shows the link between the prosecution and big auto, it just sounds like a typical case of overzealous prosecution, i.e. government run amok. Of course if big auto cos. were behind it, it was still government run amok, but with a corruption angle.
Here's a developing example of corporatism that fits your definition:
It's a classic example of corporations being in favor of big expensive regulations. And they're in bed with the Democrats on this, as they often are. There's many other big companies supporting cap and trade, like GE. They're heavily investing in so called "green energy" and also are heavily involved with nuclear.
Maybe the key question on cap and trade should be:
Is there sufficient evidence of man-made climate change, and how much will it (cap and trade) cost the economy compared to whatever affect it would have on climate?
instead of which companies stand to benefit or get hurt by cap and trade, which is how liberals seem to want to define everything. Since libs don't like oil and coal companies, they like cap and trade. Anyone who says it's a bad idea must be "working for the oil companies" or something. One of the key Democrat argument in the health care debate in support of the monstrosities under consideration in Congress essentially boils down to that it hurts insurance companies. It may even be THE key Democrat argument.
"Those two clowns expanded government spending and showered money on pro-Republican corporations like Halliburton.
Halliburton used to be Brown and Root which infamously spread huge money around to LBJ, a Democrat"
Halliburton purchased Brown and Root. It was a division of Halliburton. That's a minor point. The claim that Bush "showered money on pro-Republican corporations like Halliburton" is standard leftist boilerplate implying they received contracts they weren't entitled to or something. For starters if the Bush admin intervened in some inappropriate way it would have been all over the media I would think. Or maybe venturing off into Michael Moore type psycho-land the wars were fought just to get them contracts.
You're right about Bush expanding government. Your complaint that tax cuts combined with spending hurt the dollar is strange given that you seem to defend the Obama admin's much larger deficits, which virtually everyone, maybe except Paul Krugman, says is going to torpedo the dollar long term and eventually cause it to lose it's reserve currency role. Nobody was saying that during the Bush years.
As for the tax cuts they could not have hurt the dollar because they didn't produce any significant revenue shortfall.