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?

 

[Annie]

How much of the stimulus was tax cuts for businesses?

I dunno, how much? Does that include the banks and auto companies?

Don't feel bad, you're not the only rightwing nut around here who has no clue what was really in the stimulus bill.

Yet oh wise one, you failed to answer your own question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

I'd say you're expending a lot of effort to avoid addressing the question.

 

[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?

I'd say you're expending a lot of effort to avoid addressing the question.

See what I mean folks...it's like debating with a court jester.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

I'd say you're expending a lot of effort to avoid addressing the question.

See what I mean folks...it's like debating with a court jester.

The question was, how would the US be better off if GM and Chrysler disappeared? You can cite government/taxpayer costs for the 'bailout' as one set of negatives,

but to answer the question you have to show that the net negatives of GM and Chrysler going under would have been SMALLER.

That would demonstrate that we would be better off had the government let them fail.

You haven't done that.

 

[Jack Fate]

I'd say you're expending a lot of effort to avoid addressing the question.

See what I mean folks...it's like debating with a court jester.

The question was, how would the US be better off if GM and Chrysler disappeared? You can cite government/taxpayer costs for the 'bailout' as a net negative,

but to answer the question you have to show that the net negatives of GM and Chrysler going under would have been SMALLER.

That would demonstrate that we would be better off had the government let them fail.

You haven't done that.

The American people are not better off. Did we get our money's worth? That's the question.

 

[The T]

See what I mean folks...it's like debating with a court jester.

The question was, how would the US be better off if GM and Chrysler disappeared? You can cite government/taxpayer costs for the 'bailout' as a net negative,

but to answer the question you have to show that the net negatives of GM and Chrysler going under would have been SMALLER.

That would demonstrate that we would be better off had the government let them fail.

You haven't done that.

The American people are not better off. Did we get our money's worth? That's the question.

Nope. And they demand more money to perpetuate thier failure.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I'd say you're expending a lot of effort to avoid addressing the question.

See what I mean folks...it's like debating with a court jester.

The question was, how would the US be better off if GM and Chrysler disappeared? You can cite government/taxpayer costs for the 'bailout' as one set of negatives,

but to answer the question you have to show that the net negatives of GM and Chrysler going under would have been SMALLER.

That would demonstrate that we would be better off had the government let them fail.

You haven't done that.

The question was answered perfectly. You just simply ignore your own capacity of thought, preferring instead to maintain an idea.

I will try and spell it out...again.

In GM - we bailed out an inarguably failed company. That ALONE answers the question. A company that lost $billions during the best industry times in history - is a total failure - even you have to admit this.
Bailing out a business that is a decades-proven failure is not smart business - which is exactly why no financial institutions would loan them more money. And again - MOST of GM's manufacturing is overseas....Hellloooooooo.
A fifth grader, if he/she took a couple days to study GM - would conclude that they will either have to receive another bailout - or they will implode violently. This is inarguable. The math is very simple, either God himself will have to step in and preform a miracle or GM will again need a transfusion to survive.

In Chrysler - a 3 time failed company.
Even one of the smartest CEO's of all time, Lee Iacocca, couldn't save it.
Chrysler is quite simply a business that shouldn't be in business. They would not be in business without the repeated bankruptcies and bailouts. And today - they are now a foreign owned entity.

If this doesn't answer the question, is America better off after the bailouts, then I don't know what else to tell you. Failed businesses must be allowed to fail, the alternative is Russia.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'd say you're expending a lot of effort to avoid addressing the question.

See what I mean folks...it's like debating with a court jester.

The question was, how would the US be better off if GM and Chrysler disappeared? You can cite government/taxpayer costs for the 'bailout' as one set of negatives,

but to answer the question you have to show that the net negatives of GM and Chrysler going under would have been SMALLER.

That would demonstrate that we would be better off had the government let them fail.

You haven't done that.

We'd have been much better off not rewarding bad behavior. All we did was give an irresponsible drug addict money.

GM has never addressed it's billions of unfunded pension liabilities... this will replay in a few short years, and union apologists will be screaming "too big to fail!"

As for Chrysler, Chrysler sucks... who buys Chrysler?

Bullshit, let them fail.

 

[sparky]

I'd say you're expending a lot of effort to avoid addressing the question.

See what I mean folks...it's like debating with a court jester.

The question was, how would the US be better off if GM and Chrysler disappeared? You can cite government/taxpayer costs for the 'bailout' as one set of negatives,

but to answer the question you have to show that the net negatives of GM and Chrysler going under would have been SMALLER.

That would demonstrate that we would be better off had the government let them fail.

You haven't done that.

short run/long run considerations NYC

one might conclude short run gains, but in the long run we've set a precidence here that goes against the very grain of capitalism

for instance, you've probably heard the auto parts industry was right on the heels of the auto manufacturing industry before Congress with hat in hand

as a taxpayer, i'm not big on socializing corporate clowns who have no alliegance to America forever and a day forward here, especially if they continue to outsource and or insource (HB-i) our jobs into oblivion

good tax $$$ thrown out for bad policies still not corrected imho

as a sm biz man, i ask for no favors from the gov, nor do i see any real help for us on their agenda, in fact i'm rather convinced they're out to legislate us bettween a rock/hard spot at the bequest of these very same fortune 500's who cry to Congress as they do


socialism for the corporate elites, and capitalism for the rest of us who do biz in America doesn't work for me wearing either hat

~S~

 

[NYcarbineer]

See what I mean folks...it's like debating with a court jester.

The question was, how would the US be better off if GM and Chrysler disappeared? You can cite government/taxpayer costs for the 'bailout' as one set of negatives,

but to answer the question you have to show that the net negatives of GM and Chrysler going under would have been SMALLER.

That would demonstrate that we would be better off had the government let them fail.

You haven't done that.

The question was answered perfectly. You just simply ignore your own capacity of thought, preferring instead to maintain an idea.

I will try and spell it out...again.

In GM - we bailed out an inarguably failed company. That ALONE answers the question. A company that lost $billions during the best industry times in history - is a total failure - even you have to admit this.
Bailing out a business that is a decades-proven failure is not smart business - which is exactly why no financial institutions would loan them more money. And again - MOST of GM's manufacturing is overseas....Hellloooooooo.
A fifth grader, if he/she took a couple days to study GM - would conclude that they will either have to receive another bailout - or they will implode violently. This is inarguable. The math is very simple, either God himself will have to step in and preform a miracle or GM will again need a transfusion to survive.

In Chrysler - a 3 time failed company.
Even one of the smartest CEO's of all time, Lee Iacocca, couldn't save it.
Chrysler is quite simply a business that shouldn't be in business. They would not be in business without the repeated bankruptcies and bailouts. And today - they are now a foreign owned entity.

If this doesn't answer the question, is America better off after the bailouts, then I don't know what else to tell you. Failed businesses must be allowed to fail, the alternative is Russia.

You're the one stubbornly maintaining an 'idea', that being an idealogical hostility for the government being in any way involved in the economy, i.e., an extremist idealogical devotion to laissez-faire capitalism.

Because you are an extremist, a purist, in this regard, you are forbidden intellectually to acknowledge that government involvement in the fate and fortunes of private businesses, for the greater good,

might actually work.

And no, you aren't answering the question. What YOUR answer to the question has been, essentially, is that adhering to the idealogical purity of the concept of letting businesses sink or swim with no involvement by the government is more important than the wellbeing of the economy.

Your the equivalent of a Christian Scientist...

...with appendicitis,

to borrow an old Tom Lehrer line.

 

[NYcarbineer]

See what I mean folks...it's like debating with a court jester.

The question was, how would the US be better off if GM and Chrysler disappeared? You can cite government/taxpayer costs for the 'bailout' as one set of negatives,

but to answer the question you have to show that the net negatives of GM and Chrysler going under would have been SMALLER.

That would demonstrate that we would be better off had the government let them fail.

You haven't done that.

short run/long run considerations NYC

one might conclude short run gains, but in the long run we've set a precidence here that goes against the very grain of capitalism
for instance, you've probably heard the auto parts industry was right on the heels of the auto manufacturing industry before Congress with hat in hand

as a taxpayer, i'm not big on socializing corporate clowns who have no alliegance to America forever and a day forward here, especially if they continue to outsource and or insource (HB-i) our jobs into oblivion

good tax $$$ thrown out for bad policies still not corrected imho

as a sm biz man, i ask for no favors from the gov, nor do i see any real help for us on their agenda, in fact i'm rather convinced they're out to legislate us bettween a rock/hard spot at the bequest of these very same fortune 500's who cry to Congress as they do


socialism for the corporate elites, and capitalism for the rest of us who do biz in America doesn't work for me wearing either hat

~S~

Maybe if you view 'capitalism' as a Religion, and consider yourself a fundamentalist follower of that religion, would that be true.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can you show that it kept the sky from falling?

It sure as hell did in northwest Ohio and southeast Michigan. Ask anyone who lives here.

Robbery is always good for the robbers. The question here is whether it was good for the nation.

Then answer the question. How would the country be better off if GM and Chrysler had gone under?
How would the country be that much more better off with 2 less auto manufacturers, with that many less manufacturing jobs, with that much less tax revenue and private sector revenue those jobs create?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

 

[boedicca]

If GM and Chrysler had been allowed to go through normal bankruptcy proceedings, they would have either reorganized to fix their cost structure problems or the assets would have been sold to groups that would better manage them.

Instead, we spent $Bs and $Bs of taxpayer dollars we will never recover. GM was given to the unions; Chrysler was given to the Italians.

How Hopey Changey is That?

 

[Liberty]

Can you prove him wrong?

Can you show that letting GM and Chrysler go under would have made America a better place?

Can you show that without the 300 billion in tax cuts and the 450 billion in spending in the stimulus that overall, America would be in better shape right now?

If GM and Chrysler went under it would have made America better because the vacuum left by these companies going belly up would be filled by more modern, innovative, and better companies. Come on, it's capitalism 101: if you don't keep up with the times you are supposed to fizzle out. That's freedom. I know you hate it.

And as far as the stimulus, if instead of bailing out banks, and giving more money to rich people the government wrote a check for $2000 for every American man, woman, and child, don't you think that would have helped more than rich bankers hording the tax money?

Come on, I know you hate liberty, but seriously...

 

[Mustang]

See what I mean folks...it's like debating with a court jester.

The question was, how would the US be better off if GM and Chrysler disappeared? You can cite government/taxpayer costs for the 'bailout' as one set of negatives,

but to answer the question you have to show that the net negatives of GM and Chrysler going under would have been SMALLER.

That would demonstrate that we would be better off had the government let them fail.

You haven't done that.

short run/long run considerations NYC

one might conclude short run gains, but in the long run we've set a precidence here that goes against the very grain of capitalism

for instance, you've probably heard the auto parts industry was right on the heels of the auto manufacturing industry before Congress with hat in hand

as a taxpayer, i'm not big on socializing corporate clowns who have no alliegance to America forever and a day forward here, especially if they continue to outsource and or insource (HB-i) our jobs into oblivion

good tax $$$ thrown out for bad policies still not corrected imho

as a sm biz man, i ask for no favors from the gov, nor do i see any real help for us on their agenda, in fact i'm rather convinced they're out to legislate us bettween a rock/hard spot at the bequest of these very same fortune 500's who cry to Congress as they do


socialism for the corporate elites, and capitalism for the rest of us who do biz in America doesn't work for me wearing either hat

~S~

Wah, WAH, WAH!

Get a clue! Gov't at ALL levels helps businesses and people through tax policy and spending. It's been going on forever.

Farm subsides help to keep food inexpensive. This was originally concieved as a way of freeing up personal income for spending on things other than absolute necessities.

How about mortgage interest rate deductions for home owners? How many people who own homes would be okay with the gov't taking away that benefit?

Our how about something as simple as free parking on main street for shoppers instead of having to feed parking meters?

And let's not forget that when land is developed, gov't spending pays for infrastructure like water and sewer lines, not to mention running power lines for electricity. Let's see how small business owners would like it if gov't handed them the bills for infrastructure construction.

And don't small businesses use the roads that are built running to and from their businesses which just so happen to give them access to all their customers and suppliers? Did the gov't hand you a bill for that?

 

[Liberty]

^Holy FUCK you are stupid.

 

[boedicca]

The question was, how would the US be better off if GM and Chrysler disappeared? You can cite government/taxpayer costs for the 'bailout' as one set of negatives,

but to answer the question you have to show that the net negatives of GM and Chrysler going under would have been SMALLER.

That would demonstrate that we would be better off had the government let them fail.

You haven't done that.

short run/long run considerations NYC

one might conclude short run gains, but in the long run we've set a precidence here that goes against the very grain of capitalism

for instance, you've probably heard the auto parts industry was right on the heels of the auto manufacturing industry before Congress with hat in hand

as a taxpayer, i'm not big on socializing corporate clowns who have no alliegance to America forever and a day forward here, especially if they continue to outsource and or insource (HB-i) our jobs into oblivion

good tax $$$ thrown out for bad policies still not corrected imho

as a sm biz man, i ask for no favors from the gov, nor do i see any real help for us on their agenda, in fact i'm rather convinced they're out to legislate us bettween a rock/hard spot at the bequest of these very same fortune 500's who cry to Congress as they do


socialism for the corporate elites, and capitalism for the rest of us who do biz in America doesn't work for me wearing either hat

~S~

Wah, WAH, WAH!

Get a clue! Gov't at ALL levels helps businesses and people through tax policy and spending. It's been going on forever.

Farm subsides help to keep food inexpensive. This was originally concieved as a way of freeing up personal income for spending on things other than absolute necessities.

How about mortgage interest rate deductions for home owners? How many people who own homes would be okay with the gov't taking away that benefit?

Our how about something as simple as free parking on main street for shoppers instead of having to feed parking meters?

And let's not forget that when land is developed, gov't spending pays for infrastructure like water and sewer lines, not to mention running power lines for electricity. Let's see how small business owners would like it if gov't handed them the bills for infrastructure construction.

And don't small businesses use the roads that are built running to and from their businesses which just so happen to give them access to all their customers and suppliers? Did the gov't hand you a bill for that?

^^^ The heartbreak of economic illiteracy on parade.

 

[Liberty]

short run/long run considerations NYC

one might conclude short run gains, but in the long run we've set a precidence here that goes against the very grain of capitalism

for instance, you've probably heard the auto parts industry was right on the heels of the auto manufacturing industry before Congress with hat in hand

as a taxpayer, i'm not big on socializing corporate clowns who have no alliegance to America forever and a day forward here, especially if they continue to outsource and or insource (HB-i) our jobs into oblivion

good tax $$$ thrown out for bad policies still not corrected imho

as a sm biz man, i ask for no favors from the gov, nor do i see any real help for us on their agenda, in fact i'm rather convinced they're out to legislate us bettween a rock/hard spot at the bequest of these very same fortune 500's who cry to Congress as they do


socialism for the corporate elites, and capitalism for the rest of us who do biz in America doesn't work for me wearing either hat

~S~

Wah, WAH, WAH!

Get a clue! Gov't at ALL levels helps businesses and people through tax policy and spending. It's been going on forever.

Farm subsides help to keep food inexpensive. This was originally concieved as a way of freeing up personal income for spending on things other than absolute necessities.

How about mortgage interest rate deductions for home owners? How many people who own homes would be okay with the gov't taking away that benefit?

Our how about something as simple as free parking on main street for shoppers instead of having to feed parking meters?

And let's not forget that when land is developed, gov't spending pays for infrastructure like water and sewer lines, not to mention running power lines for electricity. Let's see how small business owners would like it if gov't handed them the bills for infrastructure construction.

And don't small businesses use the roads that are built running to and from their businesses which just so happen to give them access to all their customers and suppliers? Did the gov't hand you a bill for that?

^^^ The heartbreak of economic illiteracy on parade.

Seriously. It's sad that basic economics is too hard for these dopes.