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

[rdean]

Regarding the benefits of bailing out GM&Chrysler and how it affected other small auto related businesses, How come Obama didn't bail out anyone in the service sector of whom lost half their clients? For example, construction,plumbers,any home service related industries,Restaurants,Hotels, etc. A chunk of service related jobs were lost in 2009,and the Democrats didn't even care. There was a time when you could open the help wanted ads and saw endless ads for Waiters,Bussers,Banquet Servers,Plumbers,Retail,Contract Work,Landscapers,,,etc. etc. Those service sector jobs were wiped out thanks to Obama who refused to give bail-outs to small businesses!!! And when that happened,,alot of these people lost their homes and filed for bankruptcy!! But at least we got even with O'Hitler in November 2010 for giving the finger to the Average American !!!!!

Many of the jobs you describe rely on the auto industry. Try to connect the dots moron.

 

[rdean]

I'm glad you have a job, but it's not governments position to cover for piss poor businessman with piss poor decisions that made the company fail. GM and chrysler should have been left to fail, ford would have gladly bought them and you would still have a job and the government would not own GM right now. It's called the free market, and if you make bad decisions that cost you your company then tough shit, that's how it works, someone else will step in and fill the void, always have.

Ford would not have bought them. That is wishful thinking. What would have happened is that not only would all the jobs been lost at Chrysler and GM, but it would have killed supporting businesses in the industry, cutting supplies to Ford, Toyota, Honda, and every other auto manufacturer. Ford especially would have felt a very negative impact, most likely forcing them into bankruptcy also.

The trickle down effect would have led to massive unemployment in this part of the country, which in turn would have effected other parts of the economy. The only good thing is that someone new moving to the area could have picked up a house at a 75% discount instead of the 30% discount homes are currently selling at.

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.

 

[rdean]

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

Is that somebody dead? I think it's pretty tasteless to put up a picture of someone who died violently to make a political point. Seems nasty.

His name was Capitalism RDean, he had no allegiance to America, or American's .

Yet he had a legacy of suppling a structure that worked fairly well for all included, as long as he was let to do so within certain parameters

He escaped them a few decades ago, and running amock came to a bad end.....

He is survived by his siblings socalism, feudalism, monarchism, corporatism & communism, all of who are positioned for the 2012 election, donations are being solicited in lieu of flowers by the FEC....

You don't even know what capitalism is. In fact, most on the right don't know what it is. But that's pretty typical. They also insist they are so religious and usually don't know anything about the Bible. My favorite right wing saying, "I don't have to read the Bible, my "pastor" tells me what it says".

 

[daveman]

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.

That's the goal. Progressives want America to "progress" to the condition of the Soviet Union circa 1958 -- planned economy, absolute government control over individual lives, thought control.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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~

Fantastic post. Simple and to the point.
I am also a medium size business man, and like you, while the fat cats stood in line and got $trillions in tax payer money - we got nada...and never will.
My only wish is that I could have pos-repped this post more than once.

 

[rdean]

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?

 

[daveman]

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.

It hasn't yet. Anywhere. Any time.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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.

My last post to you is going to be simple, because you are simple-minded.
You are an idealist. And therefore debating with you is simply an exercise in futility.
Facts and obvious conclusions mean nothing to someone like you.

You actually had the colossal ignorance above to place the word "success" in the same thread as Chrysler and GM.

 

[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?

 

[Sallow]

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.

It hasn't yet. Anywhere. Any time.

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

Very simple.

Just one.

 

[The T]

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?

For Big Government and BIG LABOR (unions)...yes of couse it's a roaring success.

 

[daveman]

Ford would not have bought them. That is wishful thinking. What would have happened is that not only would all the jobs been lost at Chrysler and GM, but it would have killed supporting businesses in the industry, cutting supplies to Ford, Toyota, Honda, and every other auto manufacturer. Ford especially would have felt a very negative impact, most likely forcing them into bankruptcy also.

The trickle down effect would have led to massive unemployment in this part of the country, which in turn would have effected other parts of the economy. The only good thing is that someone new moving to the area could have picked up a house at a 75% discount instead of the 30% discount homes are currently selling at.

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.

 

[Sallow]

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.

 

[The T]

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.

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

 

[daveman]

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.

It hasn't yet. Anywhere. Any time.

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.

 

[Sallow]

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.

No they aint.

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

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

 

[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?

For Big Government and BIG LABOR (unions)...yes of couse it's a roaring success.

Naturally -- because the goal isn't to help the nation, it's to help keep liberals in power. Screw the nation.

 

[Sallow]

It hasn't yet. Anywhere. Any time.

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.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Nonsense. You pose a false dilemma. The cars could easily still be made by better owners who bought the assets.

 

[Mustang]

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?

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?