How do you feel about the General Motors and Chrysler bailout?

[Anonymous]

Government motors, not just for china anymore

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looked at two GM cars yesterday. One was a Cadillac made in Mexico - 47% domestic content. Another was a Chevrolet Sonic made in Michigan with about 48% domestic content. So thank you Obama for bailing out a company that is shipping jobs and dollars out of the US as fast as they can and sticking us with the bill.

I don't get it. I thought that these companies were overrun with fat, expensive union labor. If that's not true, then what were you wingnuts whining about last year????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We saved an industry. Money well spent. GM had 2011 revenues of $150 billion and a profit of $7.6 billion. Do you have a cheaper way to fill that hole? Any idea of how many jobs are involved in making $150 billion?

We put $85 billion into AIG -- not to build anything, just to prevent catastrophe. We gave hundreds of billions in tax cuts which provided zero stimulus.

Lastly, let's call the criticism what it is: politics. We spent $18.6 billion to bail out the airline industry under Bush. You don't hear a bunch of armchair quarterbacks second guessing that. The auto bailout is only criticized because a Democrat did it.

Many of those jobs are overseas. Less that 1/2 of GM's jobs are in the US. Other than Canada, who else helped bail them out. GM also received billions in tax breaks because the bankruptcy laws were skirted in their case. That money should also be seen as part of the bailout.

It didn't make bad decisions for 35 years, it was decimated by higher gas prices under bush. Their main investments were in gas guzzling SUVs, then panic set in and all those lies about us running out of oil put a nail in that coffin, or did we suddenly forget???

I don't know what tax break you are talking about. Bankrupt companies generally don't end up paying taxes unless they are brought out of bankruptcy.

And sure they have employees all over the world. But they also have dealerships, parts suppliers, and more who depend upon the company for the living. Those jobs were on the chopping block, too.

Then what is the point of capitalism if GM and the UAW made bad decisions for 35 years and the government has to bail them out. Should we also bail out Sears? Should we have bailed out Woolworth or Studebaker. GM is now a smaller version of the same dysfunctional culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We saved an industry. Money well spent. GM had 2011 revenues of $150 billion and a profit of $7.6 billion. Do you have a cheaper way to fill that hole? Any idea of how many jobs are involved in making $150 billion?

We put $85 billion into AIG -- not to build anything, just to prevent catastrophe. We gave hundreds of billions in tax cuts which provided zero stimulus.

Lastly, let's call the criticism what it is: politics. We spent $18.6 billion to bail out the airline industry under Bush. You don't hear a bunch of armchair quarterbacks second guessing that. The auto bailout is only criticized because a Democrat did it.

Many of those jobs are overseas. Less that 1/2 of GM's jobs are in the US. Other than Canada, who else helped bail them out. GM also received billions in tax breaks because the bankruptcy laws were skirted in their case. That money should also be seen as part of the bailout.

It didn't make bad decisions for 35 years, it was decimated by higher gas prices under bush. Their main investments were in gas guzzling SUVs, then panic set in and all those lies about us running out of oil put a nail in that coffin, or did we suddenly forget???

I don't know what tax break you are talking about. Bankrupt companies generally don't end up paying taxes unless they are brought out of bankruptcy.

And sure they have employees all over the world. But they also have dealerships, parts suppliers, and more who depend upon the company for the living. Those jobs were on the chopping block, too.

Then what is the point of capitalism if GM and the UAW made bad decisions for 35 years and the government has to bail them out. Should we also bail out Sears? Should we have bailed out Woolworth or Studebaker. GM is now a smaller version of the same dysfunctional culture.

It didn't make bad decisions for 35 years, it was decimated by higher gas prices under bush. Their main investments were in gas guzzling SUVs, then panic set in and all those lies about us running out of oil put a nail in that coffin, or did we suddenly forget??? 

[Anonymous]

The government must do what it can to save manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Manufacturing is where value is added and jobs are created in any nation.

At one time U.S. industries manufactured the majority of our consumer goods and the opposite is true today. Those manufacturing/factory jobs are gone and they are never coming back.

The present unemployment rate is 8.1%, and this is the new normal rate. The old normal unemployment rate of 5% is gone for good.

It seems we have survived the loss of our consumer goods industries, all be it with higher unemployment rates, but we have survived. We could not survive as a nation if we were to lose our automotive and defense industries which are fundamental to our existence as sovereign state. Like it or not these are industries that must be supported by the government and this is especially so during lean years.

[Anonymous]

Woolworths is not gone, they just got rid of their snack bar and changed their name to Footlocker.

[Anonymous]

I think any country without manufacturing jobs are doomed for total failure. Manufacturing and not wall street is the bones of a country. If that was not true, countries like China, Vietnam, Germany and Japan would not help subsidize their manufacturing industries.

I wish our country would have saved the furniture industry. But, we lost that to China as well. I remember as a child riding to North Carolina and then driving to North Carolina as an adult to purchase good solid well made furniture. You would walk from store to store in High Point until you found the right pieces. You placed your order and then it was made to order and trucked to your destination of choice. People all over the country would drive to NC for furniture. You can still do this, but when you place your order you need to know that your order is then sent to China. The furniture is made in China and shipped to NC and then trucked to your destination.

[Anonymous]

It's name stamped Made in China instead of Made in the U.S.A. Very little price difference for the consumer, but another job shipped over seas for the Boyhills, et all CEOs to get an additional twenty-million dollar bonus.

[Anonymous]

I am a conservative, and I have always been against car and bank bailouts. Running any business always includes risk management. I don't think we should reward businesses when they take risks they cannot afford to loose on. There are car makers and plenty of banks who ran their businesses more wisely - making products people will buy, no crazy risks, etc. They're not getting government dole because their businesses were doing okay.

I believe the government should have let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt. There would be some unemployment and economic pain in the short-term, but a capitalist system adjusts itself. The market would have been more open for responsible car makers, and they could have hired many of the former GM/Chrysler workers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: The present unemployment rate is 8.1%, and this is the new normal rate. The old normal unemployment rate of 5% is gone for good.

Do you really believe this? I'm really sad for you if you accept this. Just because Obama could not lower it (even though he gave us his word it would stay below 8% if stimulus was passed), does not mean it can't be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a conservative, and I have always been against car and bank bailouts. Running any business always includes risk management. I don't think we should reward businesses when they take risks they cannot afford to loose on. There are car makers and plenty of banks who ran their businesses more wisely - making products people will buy, no crazy risks, etc. They're not getting government dole because their businesses were doing okay.

I believe the government should have let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt. There would be some unemployment and economic pain in the short-term, but a capitalist system adjusts itself. The market would have been more open for responsible car makers, and they could have hired many of the former GM/Chrysler workers.

the economy was about to bust, that would have been stupid to let GM go belly up...i've been a tool and die maker for thirty years and had 15 different jobs, guess what? Everyone of those jobs made parts for allisons and GM, there would have been an avalanche of businesses going belly up if they went bankrupt at the worst time since the depression, parroted conservative talking points doesn't get you credit. GM has its hands in 100s of businesses, large and small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The present unemployment rate is 8.1%, and this is the new normal rate. The old normal unemployment rate of 5% is gone for good.

Do you really believe this? I'm really sad for you if you accept this. Just because Obama could not lower it (even though he gave us his word it would stay below 8% if stimulus was passed), does not mean it can't be done.

His aides wrote a projection that it would peak at 8%. (See Kessler: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romneys-claim-that-obama-said-stimulus-would-keep-unemployment-below-8-percent/2012/02/17/gIQA9A8MKR_blog.html). How does a projection by his aides become "he gave us his word"? Can you provide a quote where he turned that projection into a promise?

Do you think Romney passes the Constanza test on this campaign lie?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The present unemployment rate is 8.1%, and this is the new normal rate. The old normal unemployment rate of 5% is gone for good.

Do you really believe this? I'm really sad for you if you accept this. Just because Obama could not lower it (even though he gave us his word it would stay below 8% if stimulus was passed), does not mean it can't be done.

His aides wrote a projection that it would peak at 8%. (See Kessler: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romneys-claim-that-obama-said-stimulus-would-keep-unemployment-below-8-percent/2012/02/17/gIQA9A8MKR_blog.html). How does a projection by his aides become "he gave us his word"? Can you provide a quote where he turned that projection into a promise?

Do you think Romney passes the Constanza test on this campaign lie?

Costanza is voting for Obama. So, no.