|
|
Post by capttankona on Apr 28, 2009 16:17:26 GMT -5
That is not what you said. You said, "Obama keeps throwing money at the car companies because 1) Bush set it up that way and 2) they are an integral part of the American landscape and provide many Americans with jobs. Their failure would undoubtedly make our current economic crisis worse in the short term but I think we would be better off in the long term."
Notice, you blamed Bush first, as usual.
You also said that the failure of these companies would make us better off in the long term. I agree, but for entirely different reasons then you. But, you did say that their failure would not harm us nor was it necessary for them to not go into bankruptcy.
The reason I was opposed to the bailout is simple. Labor got them into the mess to begin with. They bloated the price of the product and should suffer the consequences. Declaring bankruptcy would have provided a clear direction for everyone to procede from. Now, with the bail out and the despot Obama determining who should run the companies, firing the CEO's himself, we have no clear direction.
In other words, there is zero transparency. There is zero leadership. There is zero direction. These companies are floundering about, wreaking havoc on our financial sector with the uncertainty that surrounds their future. All thanks to a single despot named Obama.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Apr 28, 2009 16:34:08 GMT -5
Of course I did, he began the series of bailouts by handing over $13.4 billion. See here to refresh your memory: www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html?hpWhere did I say this? Not entirely true. American ingenuity could have (and should have) overcome the labor expense problem. Labor expense put American car companies at a $1,000 to $2,000 per vehicle disadvantage. But rather than making cars better for less, American car companies shoved high-profit margin blimps on wheels down our throats throughout the 90's and had nothing in mind for the future nor a backup plan to deal with reduced demand due to high gas prices. If anything, labor played a minor role and poor management played a major role in their demise. Yes, bankruptcy from the beginning would have been the right thing to do. However, as I illustrated above, Bush set us on the path to bailing them out. I fully support Obama's decision to fire the CEO, he was the one who showed incompetence to begin with. It's not unlike the American people firing the conservatives in the last election. |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Apr 28, 2009 16:49:57 GMT -5
Unlike you, I don't need my memory refreshed. I opposed the Bush auto bailout and said so here. I also opposed the Obama support of those bailouts and the Obama auto bailouts. Obama did not oppose them and supported them fully, he did not inherit anything in that area that he did not support of would have done himself. So you are being disingenuous.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Apr 28, 2009 16:53:26 GMT -5
Okay, then amazingly we can agree that both Bush and Obama did the wrong thing by bailing out the failing auto companies.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Apr 28, 2009 17:05:38 GMT -5
In what way is he handing control to the auto worker's union? They have taken severe pay cuts and just as many concessions as the company execs.
You didn't read my other post, did you? If you had, you would know that the autoworkers union trust fund was holding $10 billion of GM's outstanding bond debt, which will be exchanged for 40% of GMs common stock. The rest of the bond holders, who held $27 billion in bond debt, will get 10% of the common stock. Does that sound fair to you? The remaining 50% is owned by us, the taxpayers (I'm assuming you have a negative tax liability here). Chew on that. While you are chewing, perhaps you could document your claim that the autoworkers have taken severe pay cuts. |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Apr 28, 2009 17:21:36 GMT -5
2) they are an integral part of the American landscape and provide many Americans with jobs. Their failure would undoubtedly make our current economic crisis worse in the short term but I think we would be better off in the long term." In the quote above. |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Apr 28, 2009 17:30:06 GMT -5
Not entirely true. American ingenuity could have (and should have) overcome the labor expense problem. Labor expense put American car companies at a $1,000 to $2,000 per vehicle disadvantage. But rather than making cars better for less, American car companies shoved high-profit margin blimps on wheels down our throats throughout the 90's and had nothing in mind for the future nor a backup plan to deal with reduced demand due to high gas prices. If anything, labor played a minor role and poor management played a major role in their demise. Wow, you really are filled with hate for system. I am going to start calling you Walter Duranty, look that name up. While you are at it, look up Malcolm Muggeridge as well. One is a liar and the other is not. The liar was exalted and the truth teller fired, because of the liar, for telling the truth. As I see it, the auto industry provided what sold. They had no way of knowing that the Democrats would fail to implement a national energy policy when they regained the house. Nor could they have known that the market for fuel would be maniuplated in 2008 for what ever reasons it was manipulated. But, I suppose if you do not understand economics it is much easier for your simple mind to blame Auto makers for all of the problems. Now, because of labors foot dragging and unwillingness to take their share of the medicine, 23,000 of them will be losing jobs with General Motors. They got exactly what they asked for. |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Apr 28, 2009 17:35:14 GMT -5
Yes, bankruptcy from the beginning would have been the right thing to do. However, as I illustrated above, Bush set us on the path to bailing them out. I fully support Obama's decision to fire the CEO, he was the one who showed incompetence to begin with. It's not unlike the American people firing the conservatives in the last election. Bankruptcy would have been better for all concerned. But the Democrat controlled Congress and the White House decided differently. You, of course, wish to blame Bush for the actions of all of Congress. I can understand exactly why Mr. Walter Duranty. So, Congress set us on the path to bailout, not Bush. In fact, I bet I could easily go out and find plenty of articles to support that conclusion. And yes, I am sure you support Obama's firing of a CEO of GM and AIG. You support socialism and totalitarianism, clearly. However, the election was a democratic process, the firing of these CEO's was not rooted in any Democracy at all, in fact, it is rooted in fascism of the Benito Mussolini flavor. But, you support that. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Apr 28, 2009 18:58:18 GMT -5
Wrong. This was something Congress did at Bush's urging. Bush could have whipped out his veto pen and shot down any attempt at a bailout. Your feeble attempts to pin this on Democrats is pathetic.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 29, 2009 0:19:15 GMT -5
wow! so it's all bush's fault again. maybe when obama and the democratic congress pass that universal healthscare thing santurelle will be able to get a shot to cure his BDS. so now, by santurelle logic if bush lit a candle in the dining room of the white house obama would be obligated to burn down the white house in order to fix it, right?  if bush increased the size of gov't then obama would have to quadruple it and increase spending like never before. oh, he actually did that. IMHO the bush "bailout" of GM and Chrysler (Ford hasn't taken a dime much to their credit) it was simply a stop-gap measure designed to save his legacy. what president in their right mind would want one of the big 3 automakers to go under on his way out the door? i think in his conservative mind he knew it would be better in the long run to let a private enterprise such as GM work it out on their own but that it would be a stain on his record as inevitably, moonbats with little understanding of the real world would forever blame him (BDS?) |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Apr 29, 2009 0:27:14 GMT -5
Unbelievable. So your President who you've claimed is a "man of conviction," "goes with his gut," and "sticks to his guns" is only looking to protect his legacy rather than do what he knows is best for the country? That says a lot about the sort of people conservatives elect to office.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 29, 2009 0:35:44 GMT -5
oh pulheeeeeeze. like democrats are all about conviction of character. blah, blah, blah.
i believe that under pressure from a lot of people around him he decided that it couldn't hurt to loan GM 25B.
i don't think he realized that by doing that it would FORCE the incoming president to up the ante exponentially.
you see i have the capability to criticize my elected officials regardless of their party affiliation. i call 'em as i see 'em. i only wish you could do the same.
|
|
