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.
That really still doesn't answer the question at all.
Why were conservatives (mostly) okay with bailing out the same companies that sank the global economy-- which you seem to agree they were okay with (promising $$$ 'only to financial companies' = good?) to the tune of over $700 billion (when there were no strings or accountability to that)... but then suddenly got mad and hysterically so ('wait a second we haven't agreed to that!') when a comparatively minor $17.4 billion was offered to help one or two auto companies. What I'm looking for an explanation or defense of that "mind set" that conservatives have.
It's all goes back to the 'capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich' approach to economics that conservatives seem to have.
Because as you probably remember we had to give those money to financial companies OR ELSE!!! That's the only reason people were kind of ok with it - do it if you say we must to. Just the mind set of giving money for one thing and it being used for another (maybe as important but we are not talking about one person weighting up the level of importance but a mob). Also there's also a back thought about the slippery slope - we gave him money for only one thing now he's spending it on another what's next news paper industry?
So, again, you are conceding that conservatives were okay with the $700 billion taxpayer bailout of the financial companies who destroyed the economy, because President Bush's fearmongering about that (once again) successfully persuaded them... but then they got upset when he directed 0.025% (I did the math!) of that amount to help out auto companies that use union labor?
Yes, that's what I thought and, again, it speaks volumes about the mindset of conservatives regarding economic policy in general.
And they wonder how they've lost Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Indiana, etc...
That's exactly why GOP lost those states because conservative got tired of GOP bs. I think in earlier posts I showed graphs of voters movements between the parties. Remember them?
That's exactly why GOP lost those states because conservative got tired of GOP bs.
Yes, the GOP has showed that they care more about millionaires than the economic state of the other 95% of the country, and the majority of Americans-- who've seen their wages and general quality of life deteriorate considerably in the last 30 years-- have gotten tired of that BS. Glad we can agree on that much.
To quote Mary Matalin's hubby, it's the economy, stupid.
But they are tired of Dems almost as much - you look at the latest polls GOP and Dems have about 33% of population each. Both parties experienced significant drop over the years.
Correct. I never said the country was in love with Democrats. It's in comparison to Republicans that Democrats have succeeded in elections.
The GOP, and conservatives in general, need to realize the reason that they have given the Democrats such continuingly larger majorities all across the country is because the GOP comes off not completely unconcerned with the issues Americans worry about (jobs and outsourcing, wage disparity, health-care, etc), but also come off completely insane (Fox News rants, tea parties, etc). Unless the GOP changes those two things, they will continue to lose election after election, regardless of how popular Democrats are or are not.
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
Why were conservatives (mostly) okay with bailing out the same companies that sank the global economy-- which you seem to agree they were okay with (promising $$$ 'only to financial companies' = good?) to the tune of over $700 billion (when there were no strings or accountability to that)... but then suddenly got mad and hysterically so ('wait a second we haven't agreed to that!') when a comparatively minor $17.4 billion was offered to help one or two auto companies. What I'm looking for an explanation or defense of that "mind set" that conservatives have.
It's all goes back to the 'capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich' approach to economics that conservatives seem to have.
Reply
Reply
Yes, that's what I thought and, again, it speaks volumes about the mindset of conservatives regarding economic policy in general.
And they wonder how they've lost Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Indiana, etc...
Reply
Reply
Yes, the GOP has showed that they care more about millionaires than the economic state of the other 95% of the country, and the majority of Americans-- who've seen their wages and general quality of life deteriorate considerably in the last 30 years-- have gotten tired of that BS. Glad we can agree on that much.
To quote Mary Matalin's hubby, it's the economy, stupid.
Reply
Reply
The GOP, and conservatives in general, need to realize the reason that they have given the Democrats such continuingly larger majorities all across the country is because the GOP comes off not completely unconcerned with the issues Americans worry about (jobs and outsourcing, wage disparity, health-care, etc), but also come off completely insane (Fox News rants, tea parties, etc). Unless the GOP changes those two things, they will continue to lose election after election, regardless of how popular Democrats are or are not.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment