Your View On Todays Obama's "If We Hadn't Bailed Out GM & Chrysler" VS 9.1% Jobs ?

[iamwhatiseem]

Just the facts for NYCarbineer (who doesn't know how to read them)
Capitalism without bankruptcy is like religion without hell...it doesn't work.

1) At the height of the economic bubble (2005) GM lost $10,000,000,000. When a company loses money when the industry they are in is enjoying HISTORIC "good times"...the company, by definition, is an absolute failure.
2) GM received nearly $50,000,000,000 of taxpayer money. Over half of GM's inventory is made overseas in non-union shops, by workers making a small fraction what the American factories make.
3) Chrysler received over $10,000,000,000 in taxpayer money. About a 1/4th of that money went to a portion of the company that was in bankruptcy AT THE TIME - and will never be repaid. Chrysler today is now primarily a foreign company since it is principally owned by Fiat.
4) Even the White House states that taxpayers will most likely lose at least $14,000,000,000.
5) Right now - today - Americans would only lose $10 billion if they totally cashed out their shares. Showing, by the White Houses own account - the longer they stay in with the auto companies - the more taxpayers will lose.
6) According to the auto makers own data - production is staffed enough to create 90 million cars. They will sell less than 70 million. Showing EVEN AFTER ALL OF THE LAYOFFS - they are STILL woefully overstaffed.


What say you NYC?

You put up a lot of numbers, buy you made no case why this country would be better off. Car manufacturers are the foundation for many other industries, everything from car rental, taxis, restaurants, housing, materials from steel to rubber to electronics and the list goes on and on. Losing all these jobs would have cost the country way more than a few billion. Is it so difficult to understand?

Understand what exactly?
That your argument is tired and...well...stupid?
Yes, this I understand.
Ever heard of capitalism? It is where you have lived your whole life.
Ever hear of socialism? It is where the poorest people on earth live their whole lives.

 

[daveman]

Here's another question for you nay sayers to wrestle with:

For those of you who are still insisting that the GM/Chrysler 'bailouts' were a failure,

how much better would GM and Chrysler have to be doing at this point in time, all things considered, for you to acknowledge that the action was NOT a failure?

Eh?

Or can we safely assume that you extremist laissez-faire capitalist idealogues would never acknowledge success, no matter what the outcome?

I'm going with the latter.

You call giving billions to a company with no hope of ever getting it back a success?


Really?

I would.

Failure would mean they no longer make cars.

And who says that would have happened?

The bankruptcy laws are there for a reason. The automakers would have come out fine if they'd used the recourse available, and they would have continued making cars. This is inarguable.

Only statist fools insist otherwise.

 

[daveman]

What you buffoons fail to realize is that the reason companies are moving jobs offshore is because the government is becoming increasingly hostile to business.

You keep whipping a dog, don't be surprised when he runs away.

Or be surprise if the dog comes back and bites the shit outta you.

The problem with leftists is they simply don't understand human nature. That's why they fail. Every single time.

 

[daveman]

No they aint.

They are moving because it is more profitable to do so.

Make that reality end..and they'll come back.

And why is it more profitable to do so?

Answer honestly.

 

[daveman]

Go on now. Name one successfully started and run business that happened without government involvement.

Very simple.

Just one.

Some involvement is necessary. The level the left advocates is destructive.

Look at the companies fleeing California. Look at the European economies.

So you were wrong.

Yet again.

No, I wasn't. The simple reality is that some government control over business is necessary to protect the environment and to prevent unfair business practices.

However, government is strangling business -- beating the dog, in essence.

Your solution? Beat harder.

It fails. Every time.

 

[Mustang]

I don't think anyone here is seeing the big picture, so take a look at Big Global GM, that was built off the backs of the American Auto Union Workers. All the while GM was getting it's free hand out in exchange for Obama campaign contributions, they were in the process of building more global auto plants that hire NO American workers & use NO American parts, and pay NO American taxes. IN OTHERWORDS, if they really wanted to keep the American plants opened, or avoid a self-inflicted bankruptcy,.......they could have sold off auto plants in foreign countries. Or like Walmart, shifted capital out of some foreign countries doing well, back into the Michigan plants. This isn't rocket science!!

Why would they move any jobs back to the US? They probably would have shipped the rest of the jobs overseas and left America an empty shell.

Corporations have no allegiance to this country. They only care about the "buck". That's why the right wing wanting to turn over the country to corporations is insane.

What you buffoons fail to realize is that the reason companies are moving jobs offshore is because the government is becoming increasingly hostile to business.

You keep whipping a dog, don't be surprised when he runs away.

Nonsense! Businesses move off shore to pursue cheap labor. Other gov't are MORE than happy to get the jobs for their people. And to that end, their workers have few rights, and their environment suffers as a result of few pollution controls.

Hey, if YOU want to compete with foreign workers, why don't you ask your representatives to pass legisilation lowering the minimum wage to 50 cents an hour?

 

[daveman]

Bankruptcy protection? Isn't that essentially just a legal way to avoid paying your legitimate debts and then stay in business anyway to continue making money? How is that not socialism? It SURE as hell isn't pure capitalism because it rewards failure, doesn't it?

If you oppose rewarding failure, why do you support the bailouts?

 

[Sallow]

No they aint.

They are moving because it is more profitable to do so.

Make that reality end..and they'll come back.

And why is it more profitable to do so?

Answer honestly.

Because if the government of the United States ceased doing all business with them, then a major source of revenue would be gone.

A very major source.

 

[Sallow]

Some involvement is necessary. The level the left advocates is destructive.

Look at the companies fleeing California. Look at the European economies.

So you were wrong.

Yet again.

No, I wasn't. The simple reality is that some government control over business is necessary to protect the environment and to prevent unfair business practices.

However, government is strangling business -- beating the dog, in essence.

Your solution? Beat harder.

It fails. Every time.

Yeah you were wrong.

As usual.

And fail to see just how wrong you were.

As usual.

 

[daveman]

Nonsense! Businesses move off shore to pursue cheap labor. Other gov't are MORE than happy to get the jobs for their people. And to that end, their workers have few rights, and their environment suffers as a result of few pollution controls.

Hey, if YOU want to compete with foreign workers, why don't you ask your representatives to pass legisilation lowering the minimum wage to 50 cents an hour?

Your solution: Beat harder.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

 

[daveman]

No they aint.

They are moving because it is more profitable to do so.

Make that reality end..and they'll come back.

And why is it more profitable to do so?

Answer honestly.

Because if the government of the United States ceased doing all business with them, then a major source of revenue would be gone.

A very major source.

Is that what's happening in California?

No?

Well, then, your answer is dishonest. Typical.

 

[daveman]

So you were wrong.

Yet again.

No, I wasn't. The simple reality is that some government control over business is necessary to protect the environment and to prevent unfair business practices.

However, government is strangling business -- beating the dog, in essence.

Your solution? Beat harder.

It fails. Every time.

Yeah you were wrong.

As usual.

And fail to see just how wrong you were.

As usual.

Coming from someone as willfully blind as you, your condemnation is utterly meaningless.

 

[Mustang]

Some involvement is necessary. The level the left advocates is destructive.

Look at the companies fleeing California. Look at the European economies.

So you were wrong.

Yet again.

No, I wasn't. The simple reality is that some government control over business is necessary to protect the environment and to prevent unfair business practices.

However, government is strangling business -- beating the dog, in essence.

Your solution? Beat harder.

It fails. Every time.

Make up your mind. On the one hand, gov't is SAVING businesses (like GM and Chrysler) which shouldn't be saved. Or gov't is strangling business.

 

[Sallow]

You call giving billions to a company with no hope of ever getting it back a success?


Really?

I would.

Failure would mean they no longer make cars.

And who says that would have happened?

The bankruptcy laws are there for a reason. The automakers would have come out fine if they'd used the recourse available, and they would have continued making cars. This is inarguable.

Only statist fools insist otherwise.

That's what would have happened.

Check out Lehman Brothers. Oh you can't.

That's because they failed.

 

[Sallow]

No, I wasn't. The simple reality is that some government control over business is necessary to protect the environment and to prevent unfair business practices.

However, government is strangling business -- beating the dog, in essence.

Your solution? Beat harder.

It fails. Every time.

Yeah you were wrong.

As usual.

And fail to see just how wrong you were.

As usual.

Coming from someone as willfully blind as you, your condemnation is utterly meaningless.

Meaningless in terms of what?


Right or wrong doesn't amount to a hill of beans except at the ballot box.

And guess what?

You guys keep electing the wrong people, who do the wrong things that usually wind up putting everyone in a pickle that the people you constantly vote against have to fix.

 

[Sallow]

And why is it more profitable to do so?

Answer honestly.

Because if the government of the United States ceased doing all business with them, then a major source of revenue would be gone.

A very major source.

Is that what's happening in California?

No?

Well, then, your answer is dishonest. Typical.

WTF are you talking about?

It has never even been tried.

Can you think of a company that's ever been banned from getting government grants, loans or contracts?

Something like, Oh..Hewlett Packard..you fired 30K people and moved your operations overseas..welp..that's that..come take your servers out of the Department of Motor Vehicles..we are canceling the SLA.

Naw..never happened. IN FACT..you guys went on to make a politician of the CEO who did that. Carly Fiorna.

Thanks.

 

[sparky]

Here's another question for you nay sayers to wrestle with:

For those of you who are still insisting that the GM/Chrysler 'bailouts' were a failure,

how much better would GM and Chrysler have to be doing at this point in time, all things considered, for you to acknowledge that the action was NOT a failure?

Eh?

Or can we safely assume that you extremist laissez-faire capitalist idealogues would never acknowledge success, no matter what the outcome?

I'm going with the latter.

But it wasn't a failure for the big 3, or wall street NYC.

It was a failure of our legislators to give them a hand up without insisting on serious overhauls

so it simply became a hand out to engage in more of the very same casino capitalism that gained them their situation to begin with

bailing out another's boat, then letting them float off with a hull full of holes again isn't the best policy imho....

 

[Immanuel]

Forgive me Toronado, I probably sound a little miffed in that reply... guess what I am. Probably a bit selfish too, but I'm getting tired of sending resumes out and getting no response what so ever.

Don't ask me to thank Obama... ain't gonna happen.

Immie

I see no reason for you to thank Obama either. It is not his job to find you a job. As to getting a job, sounds like you are looking in all the wrong places, and might catch on after the 5th or 6th rejection.

Look at people's characterisitics of who is getting jobs. Global Economy: 1. Willing to travel the globe. 2. Willing to work for slighty less to get in the door. 3. Maynot have anti-work baggage, like a wife or kids or home, & can travel now, not later. 4. Have people skills, can speak several languages, understand the culture & customs of the country in question.

There are plenty of good jobs in the US, you just have be willing to relocate. I see your statement above. Either train to be a CPA, or look for other categories of work where you can use accounting. I would be looking in the ME at all the construction companies in payroll or materials.

Here are hundreds of accounting positions in & out of America. Search for Jobs with overseasjobs.escapeartist.com

1) I am willing to travel. I am even ready willing and able to relocate.

2) I have cut my salary requirements to next to nothing.

3) Sorry, can't do anything about the wife and my kids are basically grown.

4) Unfortunately, I do not know any foreign languages. I took 3.5 years of Spanish in High School, but the phrase "Use it or lose it" applies to languages.

Why shouldn't he find me a job? This whole frigging discussion is about the President protecting the jobs of a very small segment of society. However, I don't want him to find me a job. But, I sure as hell am willing to give him some of the blame for fucking up the economy.

Edit: And regarding getting the CPA in case you didn't know it, that is not your basic math test. First, in Florida I would need to go on and get my Master's degree, something I would very much like to do after I go back to work. But, the CPA tests for certain areas of proficiency that I have not worked in or studied for 25 years. As much as I regret not having taken the exam when I was young, I don't believe I could even come close to passing that exam today.

Immie

 

[daveman]

So you were wrong.

Yet again.

No, I wasn't. The simple reality is that some government control over business is necessary to protect the environment and to prevent unfair business practices.

However, government is strangling business -- beating the dog, in essence.

Your solution? Beat harder.

It fails. Every time.

Make up your mind. On the one hand, gov't is SAVING businesses (like GM and Chrysler) which shouldn't be saved. Or gov't is strangling business.

If GM owes billions it can never repay, has it really been saved?

Hint: No.

 

[The T]

No, I wasn't. The simple reality is that some government control over business is necessary to protect the environment and to prevent unfair business practices.

However, government is strangling business -- beating the dog, in essence.

Your solution? Beat harder.

It fails. Every time.

Make up your mind. On the one hand, gov't is SAVING businesses (like GM and Chrysler) which shouldn't be saved. Or gov't is strangling business.

If GM owes billions it can never repay, has it really been saved?

Hint: No.

Indeed. They remain in debt to the taxpayer.