I wish they would have let them and the highly likely chainreaction of bankruptcies which followed so we wouldn't have to hear the whining of reptards about it now. Sadly some people in charge felt too much responsibility for the country to let that happen, oh well.
In all more seriousness, I have no major objection to letting failed companies fail, but we need answers on how to handle that in the midst of a recession? Just let them fail and go into bankruptcy by themselves? Step in and try and negotiate a controlled bankruptcy, like the current administration is doing? And how would, particularly in the former case, the system handle a huge influx of new numbers to the ranks of the unemployed? Does the U.S. just concede the auto market to foreign companies?
These are the questions that serious people should answer before throwing stones?
They should have gone into bankruptcy and almost the same thing happening right now would happen without all the billion Bush and Obama wasted.
As for auto market - if you look at the numbers foreign companies saw the identical drop in sales as american companies. I think I already gave this link once: http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html (as illustration that americans could care less about small cars)
As for your PS you heared more complains about auto industry because the original bailout was promised to be given only to financial sector. If it was more broadly defined there would be less noise about it.
PS you heared more complains about auto industry because the original bailout was promised to be given only to financial sector. If it was more broadly defined there would be less noise about it.
I'm barely sure I understand what you're saying, and it seems to miss the point regardless.
Yes, we had two bailouts... one for the financial sector, and one for one or two select auto companies. The former was nearly a trillion dollars, the latter was a mere, tiny fraction of that. The former was pretty much no-strings attached and no accountability, the latter had numerous strings and compromises attached. And the former was met with little to no vocal outrage from conservatives, the latter was/is met with constant screaming. I am asking for an honest explanation of the disparity there in terms of the reactions. I still haven't gotten it.
If you remember originally the bailout money were promised only to financial companies. And people were like oook fine, whatever, give them some money. But then Bush turned around and gave the same "financial companies bailout" money to car companies so people went wait a second we haven't agreed to that! It's just the mind set people had at the moment.
PPS-- A history of bailouts. What do they have in common? With one (tiny) exception, they all occurred under Republican presidents. Why do Republicans have against the free market? Do these socialist nannies really hate capitalism? :-(
PS-- Next time, before you freak out over a few billions thrown at the auto companies... read thisthis and watch this. Then let's have a discussion about 'nanny states'.
Comments 29
Reply
Reply
In all more seriousness, I have no major objection to letting failed companies fail, but we need answers on how to handle that in the midst of a recession? Just let them fail and go into bankruptcy by themselves? Step in and try and negotiate a controlled bankruptcy, like the current administration is doing? And how would, particularly in the former case, the system handle a huge influx of new numbers to the ranks of the unemployed? Does the U.S. just concede the auto market to foreign companies?
These are the questions that serious people should answer before throwing stones?
[PS-- This certainly applies again here as well.]
Reply
As for auto market - if you look at the numbers foreign companies saw the identical drop in sales as american companies. I think I already gave this link once: http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html (as illustration that americans could care less about small cars)
As for your PS you heared more complains about auto industry because the original bailout was promised to be given only to financial sector. If it was more broadly defined there would be less noise about it.
Reply
I'm barely sure I understand what you're saying, and it seems to miss the point regardless.
Yes, we had two bailouts... one for the financial sector, and one for one or two select auto companies. The former was nearly a trillion dollars, the latter was a mere, tiny fraction of that. The former was pretty much no-strings attached and no accountability, the latter had numerous strings and compromises attached. And the former was met with little to no vocal outrage from conservatives, the latter was/is met with constant screaming. I am asking for an honest explanation of the disparity there in terms of the reactions. I still haven't gotten it.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
But you didn't miss the UAW! Such teat-suckers.
Are you reality-hammer's sock puppet?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment