Posted by Guest (Post 387350)

OK... if we follow your logic, how do you explain the TARP funds for the financial institutions? Did you agree with that bailout?

Posted by Guest (Post 387404)

Richie, I can see your viewpoint from your side as a former union worker. You have told me your union and pension survived because the workers were willing to give back some benefits. The UAW workers had a handsome contract and did want to do any givebacks. That would upset me if I had ever been a union worker.

However, in my opinion, it would have been worse to flood the unemployment rolls so much at one time. The US economy would have taken a much larger it and dropped it to a depression most likely. The Bush administration did the right thing at the right time.

Posted by Guest (Post 387373)

I don't exactly know how I feel about that. I guess it would depend on whether it was a national security issue, or an undeniable case where the U.S. dollar was substantially weakened by government inaction, and thus more costly to the taxpayer than the bailout.

But, all I know is that the bailout of a private business with the hard earned dollars forcibly extricated from the pockets of Americans is kind of loathsome.

This country was built on private enterprise, not on government interference. Government interference has only been a bane on the economy and on the natural order of economic growth.

Posted by Guest (Post 387348)

I don't know why you keep bringing up Pres. Bush. I don't care who you say is ultimately responsible, it was and still is a bad idea and precedent. I don't blindly follow leaders into the abyss as liberals are doing in record numbers.

GM was failing because of bad business decisions. It was not the place of the Federal Government to unilaterally give GM the "people's money" to bail them out. Like I said before, if GM did go out of business all the other car companies would have scrambled to pick up the slack and a vibrant surge would have occurred which would have added to the workforce of those companies.

The bums who destroyed GM may have had trouble getting these new jobs, but it's not the American People's job to bail out the GM fat cats who squandered the money and reputation of GM with bad decisions and products people wouldn't buy. It also was not our job to bail out the lucratively compensated union employees of GM who couldn't see the handwriting on the wall and compromise to give their employer relief until it was too late.

There might have been a rumble in the workplace, but as the newer arrivals to our shores geared up to "fill the need", jobs would be created; support companies to service this expansion would have new growth; and the existing infrastructure of these automobile manufacturer support companies would have to retool, creating more growth, or lose to new more vibrant companies, which would be creating new jobs.

There are and were plenty of very large companies that have or will fail. Why haven't we bailed them out?

Posted by Guest (Post 387431)

:agree:

Posted by Guest (Post 387442)

:agree: All the bailout did was to allow greed to continue. Too big to fail is a false and dangerous premise. How long can the taxpayers afford to pay for the greedy mistakes of corporate leaders. Failure and hence neccessity are the mother of invention. Steven Jobs failed repeatedly causing Apple's value to drop but look at what he brought us and he didn't need a bail out and Apple remains strong. So I for one am not drinking the "Too big to fail" kool-aide

Posted by Guest (Post 387486)

I agree. Obama does nothing without motive. Most of the time the motive is re-election. The union vote has been a democrat thing for a long time. Figure it out.

Posted by Guest (Post 387504)

So I take it that the bailout of the auto companies was wrong but the bailout of the banks was ok? You don't mind sending money to bailout foreign banks.

Just how did the bailout of Wall Street and the Banks help the average American?

Posted by Guest (Post 387514)

Do not know the motive of sending money to foreign banks. I plead ignorance because I never investigated it.

I never said it was wrong to bail out the auto industry but since you asked I will say that I do think it was wrong. The government has no business using my tax money to purchase democrat voters. I basically agree with Richie, that the void would have been filled had they declared bankruptcy.

Posted by Guest (Post 387529)

So how do you feel about the 1.7 trillon dollar secret loans to US banks?

Read the link it talks about it.....

Posted by Guest (Post 387373)

I don't exactly know how I feel about that. I guess it would depend on whether it was a national security issue, or an undeniable case where the U.S. dollar was substantially weakened by government inaction, and thus more costly to the taxpayer than the bailout.

But, all I know is that the bailout of a private business with the hard earned dollars forcibly extricated from the pockets of Americans is kind of loathsome.

This country was built on private enterprise, not on government interference. Government interference has only been a bane on the economy and on the natural order of economic growth.