Democrats will still be morons

[Plugged]

The Dems in congress will still be morons and pass a bailout plan for the auto industry - not for the sake of the companies but to keep the unions happy.

 

After spending million upon million in this election the unions figure they bought themselves protection and Pelosi, Reid and Obama plan to offer it to them in the way of a bailout.

 

these companies are failing - not because of the economic crisis but because of longer term flawed business models and union contracts. These three will push this with out ANY SIGNIFICANT strings attached that will force the to evolve.

 

Bookmark this you libs and if I am wrong I will be happy to apologize to each of you.

[Robert Williams]

Last I checked they were against this.... until they found out Barak Obama was for it, anyway. Is this some sort of identity crisis or something?

 

My position is: I don't know whether we should or not and I'm not going to rail against it nor rail for it. The ramifications of doing it or not doing aren't as clear as the partisan politics would indicate, in my opinion.

 

I don't think Union pressure has much, if anything, to do with the decision, by the way. I'm sure the Unions are lobbying hard for a bailout but that's not going to be a driving force behind the decision and the bailout if it happens at all.

 

The financial issues are big enough that we should put partisan politics aside, in my opinion, and give folks a free pass on discussing this as honestly as possible. The financial crisis could do more damage to the US than the 9/11 attacks did and I think whether we sail through this gracefully or weather it badly, there's going to be something we can and should learn. Partisan blinders won't make the learning easy, though.

[mvn]

Didnt all 3 get 25 billion a month or 2 ago? How much more do they need?

[Plugged]

a bailout and remaining status quo is one thing - a bailout and forcing major reforms so that these companies can be viable suppliers and employers for the next 50-100 years is important - floating them along with more and more money and no major strings does nothing but put the tax payers money at risk.

[Robert Williams]

What sort of reform wouldn't interfere with the conservative philosophy of free markets without government intervention. Granted, we could say that a loan to keep them afloat would be intervention, but should that also come with some form of additional regulation that would take us farther into governmental manipulation of the markets?

 

Not that there's a right or wrong answer - just a question and just one more thing we have to think about if we're going to be the imaginary decision makers in this drama.

[mvn]

Are any of the financial companies being forced to reform in anyway? I wasnt aware of any. I know a few ceased to be investment banks on their own.

Personally I think the companies should be allowed to fail, even though it may cause harm to our economy. I just dont see the sense in giving taxpayer money to companies that made bad business decisions.

That may seem like an overly simplistic view of it. Im def not an expert of these matters. But thats just how I see it.

[Robert Williams]

I think there's a lot of confusion about whether the government is planning on loaning the money for the bailout or giving it away with no strings attached. I think that needs to be established and kept straight throughout any discussions we may have on this. If it's really a loan but we call it a handout, then it's easier to say "hell no, it's BAD", while it's not so clear if it's really a loan with solid plans for repayment. AIG is going to be sold and we just have to wait for the economy to straighten up enough to sell it. Then that money comes back to the US Treasury. At least that's how I understand it.

[Plugged]

What sort of reform wouldn't interfere with the conservative philosophy of free markets without government intervention. Granted, we could say that a loan to keep them afloat would be intervention, but should that also come with some form of additional regulation that would take us farther into governmental manipulation of the markets?

 

Not that there's a right or wrong answer - just a question and just one more thing we have to think about if we're going to be the imaginary decision makers in this drama.

 

Personally I would prefer to not bail out the auto industry but the down side is the number jobs it impacts - the real danger is with the dems pushing for the bailout to go beyond the financial sector - this will lead us down a slippery slope of giving money to any company regardless of how its managed. Would we be willing to bailout the auto companies if we werent in this economic crisis - would we be willing to hand over billions of taxpayer money to these companies?

 

But with the auto industry - they have to build cars that can be effectively sold in the US and abroad and meet the efficiency requirements set by the govt and they have to restructure the union contracts associated with the UAW - but I doubt that will happen.

[Plugged]

AIG is going to be sold and we just have to wait for the economy to straighten up enough to sell it. Then that money comes back to the US Treasury. At least that's how I understand it.

 

If this works out - which I hope it does - I wonder what the treasury will do with the money

[Roadrunner]

The Gov't can throw all the money they wish at the 'Big Three', and it will all be for naught if the American public cannot be convinced to purchase 'Big Three' vehicles. Perhaps Gov't kickbacks, er, I mean, subsidies/'rebates' will be in order.

 

I smell a bailout linked to massive Gov't implemented production requirements for hybrids & plug-in electric vehicles.

[Robert Williams]

If this works out - which I hope it does - I wonder what the treasury will do with the money

 

Well, that's always the problem, isn't it? It doesn't matter what the source of funding is, the fact that the government manages to keep the treasury working in the red is one thing we seem to be unable to change. Any new money is "found money" and they can't wait to spend it.

 

It's like borrowing 100.00 on your credit card for a new reel, deciding you don't like it and selling it for what you paid. And then going out and blowing the $100.00 because it was "found money".

 

I fully agree that we need to tighten our belts and start paying down the national debt - or at least eliminating deficit spending. But I don't agree with the democrats that the solution is more taxes. The solution is less spending. That's where the belts need to be tightened and we're just going to have to live with it.... That doesn't look like it's going to happen, though.

[Skate Bait]

And President Bush true to form said he'd consider it IF the fair trade agreement with Colombia was passed.

Leave it up to the Republican Idiot to put Colombia before the American workers.

[Robert Williams]

And President Bush true to form said he'd consider it IF the fair trade agreement with Colombia was passed.

Leave it up to the Republican Idiot to put Colombia before the American workers.

 

You really don't know how things get done in Washington, do you?

[tiedtight]

With all the money they are handing out I'm wondering when my check is coming. I want a check with at least 5 digits, I'm worth it. Call it a refund for all my hard work and prompt payment of taxes through employer mandated withholdings.

 

All this stuff is starting a wave of illness... called GREED. I'm feeling a little ill and need some monetary medicine too!

[Plugged]

And President Bush true to form said he'd consider it IF the fair trade agreement with Colombia was passed.

Leave it up to the Republican Idiot to put Colombia before the American workers.

 

Please check up on the news before posting next time - just google it, its simple