• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

AdamT said:
There was no other option short of simply giving them the money. Securing the bailout funds with stock ownership was the best way to go. It didn't take long to get them to a point where they could do an IPO and reduce government ownership to minority status. Wagoner should have been fired YEARS before GM's fortunes came to a head. That was absolutely a necessary move.

You can bitch and moan about how it was done, but there is no question that they were goners without the bailout and they are now on the path to profitability. The consequences of failure right at the depths of the recession would have been enormous: far worse than Lehman.
Click to expand...

Ford wasn't a goner. Chrysler? Well, it's now an Italian company, but is still in business. What would have been the downside to letting GM either reorganize or go the way of Studebaker?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Ford wasn't a goner. Chrysler? Well, it's now an Italian company, but is still in business. What would have been the downside to letting GM either reorganize or go the way of Studebaker?
Click to expand...

First off, GM reorganizing without government assistance was not an option. The downside to losing GM and Chrysler would have been the loss of over a million jobs, directly and indirectly, a huge shock to the economy at the depths of the recession, and serious blowback that could very well have taken Ford down and had negative effects on all U.S. car and truck manufacturing.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Hisses the poster who thought I called Clinton a Conservative when I never did. Talk about an acute lack of self-awareness.

:roll:


Calling it a compromise may be a fair term, that still doesn't make it Liberal policy.

The policy was drafted by Conservatives. The policy was sponsored in both the House and Senate by Conservatives. The worst you can say about Clinton on this is that he approved the policy -- but the policy was still Conservative policy.

Saying otherwise would be like fallaciously calling welfare reform, 'Liberal policy,' because even though that was also drafted and sponsored by Conservatives in Congress, that policy was also signed into law by Clinton. That doesn't make it Liberal policy.
Click to expand...

The bill was drafted by Republicans, not necessarily Conservatives.

Calling all Republicans Conservative' is like calling all Democrats fiscally irresponsible and economically illiterate.

That does not mean that all Republicans are Conservative or all Democrats are incompetent to handle public monies, only that their tendencies move in those directions.
 
AdamT said:
First off, GM reorganizing without government assistance was not an option. The downside to losing GM and Chrysler would have been the loss of over a million jobs, directly and indirectly, a huge shock to the economy at the depths of the recession, and serious blowback that could very well have taken Ford down and had negative effects on all U.S. car and truck manufacturing.
Click to expand...

How would that result in the loss of a million jobs? Would people stop buying cars, or car parts?
 
Grant said:
How would that result in the loss of a million jobs? Would people stop buying cars, or car parts?
Click to expand...


It wouldn't. The likely result would have been a bankruptcy restructure that would have hurt, but in the end would have made the company more healthy, rather than government owned.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
It wouldn't. The likely result would have been a bankruptcy restructure that would have hurt, but in the end would have made the company more healthy, rather than government owned.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Exactly. And people would just start buying other cars and more jobs would be created elsewhere.

The United States survived quite well with the collapse of Packard, Studebaker, the Dusseldorf, etc. and to have bailed out these companies would have been heresy. A more fiscally sophisticated people realized then that government had no business bailing out private enterprises, that the nation will go on without them.

Government should not be involved in a marketplace that was designed to be competitive in producing the best product to the market.

That one recently elected man with no business experience whatsoever can make the decision to buy and sell a large American company and fire its leadership is the greatest precedent of crony capitalism in US history. Now that the stage has been set, and many are actually going along with this new idea, it is unlikely to stop until the house of cards collapses or new laws are passed to prevent this dangerous mix.
 
Misterveritis said:
Things change as the government sells our shares at a loss. It is not surprising.
Click to expand...


Amazing. Corzine may spend time in jail for subordinating investors funds, and should, yet, Obama does this type of ****, and is hailed.


j-mac
 
Misterveritis said:
Things change as the government sells our shares at a loss. It is not surprising.
Click to expand...

Obama supporters don't understand that it is taxpayer money that is being lost and it is billions!! Maybe those that don't have any problem with losing money are part of the 47% that don't pay any FIT?
 
Conservative said:
I could tell you but you have no interest in hearing the answers
Click to expand...

Sounds more like you acknowledge that you have no answers, nor does the Republican Party.
 
DaveFagan said:
Sounds more like you acknowledge that you have no answers, nor does the Republican Party.
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't been paying any attention nor do you really care what I or anyone else has to say. I have posted the answers on various threads throughout this forum only to be attacked which of course I can handle but the leftwing ideologues don't want to hear anything that flies in the face of their ideology. It is imperative that we reject the class warfare rhetoric and demonization of individual wealth creation. Any conservative would do that and any conservative leader wouldn't be implementing things like Obamacare and attacks on the right to work states. You won't find any conservative demonizing the private sector and individuals creating more personal wealth. You won't see any conservative bailing out private sector companies just to save unions. You won't find any conservative demonizing personal responsibility and expanding the nanny state concept. You won't find any community organizers in the WH but instead individuals with real leadership skills.

The following will give you some idea of real leadership and what any conservative will bring to the WH

Reagan v. Obama from iOwnTheWorld.com - YouTube
 
Grant said:
The bill was drafted by Republicans, not necessarily Conservatives.

Calling all Republicans Conservative' is like calling all Democrats fiscally irresponsible and economically illiterate.

That does not mean that all Republicans are Conservative or all Democrats are incompetent to handle public monies, only that their tendencies move in those directions.
Click to expand...
Your strawman aside, I never said "all Republicans are Conservative". I was only talking about Gramm, Leach, and Bliley. They are Conservative as was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act which was based on some of the main tenets of Conservatism -- smaller government and less regulation.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
How would that result in the loss of a million jobs? Would people stop buying cars, or car parts?
Click to expand...

There would be the direct loss of jobs from GM and Chrysler factories, engineering, and marketing departments. There would be further direct losses from dealerships and advertising firms. There would be large-scale job losses from parts suppliers, many of whom would certainly go under. Many of those same suppliers also supply Ford and other US manufacturers, which would entail further job losses as their supply lines were disrupted. Why do you think that Ford was lobbying for the bailouts of two of its biggest competitors? You think they were just being sentimental? It would have also been a huge psychological shock to the markets. Recall the effect of Lehman's bankruptcy and multiply that by five.
 
Grant said:
Exactly. And people would just start buying other cars and more jobs would be created elsewhere.

The United States survived quite well with the collapse of Packard, Studebaker, the Dusseldorf, etc. and to have bailed out these companies would have been heresy.
Click to expand...

You can't compare Packard and Studebaker to GM and Chrysler. They were tiny players who employed fewer than 1,000 people.
 
AdamT said:
You can't compare Packard and Studebaker to GM and Chrysler. They were tiny players who employed fewer than 1,000 people.
Click to expand...


So you believe in "Too big to fail"?


You're not going to get any 'up twinkles' for that my friend.....heh, heh....


j-mac
 
Conservative said:
You obviously haven't been paying any attention nor do you really care what I or anyone else has to say. I have posted the answers on various threads throughout this forum only to be attacked which of course I can handle but the leftwing ideologues don't want to hear anything that flies in the face of their ideology. It is imperative that we reject the class warfare rhetoric and demonization of individual wealth creation. Any conservative would do that and any conservative leader wouldn't be implementing things like Obamacare and attacks on the right to work states. You won't find any conservative demonizing the private sector and individuals creating more personal wealth. You won't see any conservative bailing out private sector companies just to save unions. You won't find any conservative demonizing personal responsibility and expanding the nanny state concept. You won't find any community organizers in the WH but instead individuals with real leadership skills.

The following will give you some idea of real leadership and what any conservative will bring to the WH

Reagan v. Obama from iOwnTheWorld.com - YouTube
Click to expand...

In our conversations it has become apparent to me that you may not understand what real leadership skills are. Let me explain a little, real leaders are willing to compromise in order to reach an agreement that best meets the needs of everyone involved I have not seen any indication from you that you are willing to compromise at all nor have I seen any indication from the Grover Norquist pledged and led conservatives that they are willing to compromise.

I could pick apart your talking points but it would not matter at all to you, some where you formed the opinion that you know it all and it appears that nothing and no one will ever convince you to look at things from a different point of view.

I will say this again it is impossible to compare the President Reagan presidency with the President Obama presidency for a number of reasons one and perhaps the most important distinctions is that President Reagan did not have to deal with an opposition party that refuses to compromise. Good leadership skills require idealogical give and take President Obama has shown that he willing to compromise and for that reason if none other he will be re-elected in 2012 and the American people will give him both houses and a opportunity to salvage the American economy
 
j-mac said:
So you believe in "Too big to fail"?


You're not going to get any 'up twinkles' for that my friend.....heh, heh....


j-mac
Click to expand...

I don't believe in too big to fail under any circumtances, no. But under the particular circumstances we faced in '09, I think it would have been a catastrophic mistake to let GM and Chrysler fail.
 
AdamT said:
There would be the direct loss of jobs from GM and Chrysler factories, engineering, and marketing departments.
Click to expand...

Right. Some companies fail and other companies pick up the slack. That's hardly unusual in any industry.

There would be further direct losses from dealerships and advertising firms. There would be large-scale job losses from parts suppliers, many of whom would certainly go under. Many of those same suppliers also supply Ford and other US manufacturers, which would entail further job losses as their supply lines were disrupted. Why do you think that Ford was lobbying for the bailouts of two of its biggest competitors? You think they were just being sentimental? It would have also been a huge psychological shock to the markets. Recall the effect of Lehman's bankruptcy and multiply that by five.
Click to expand...

Again, other companies pick up the slack and more people are working aj making up this slack. People move on.

The important thing is the market place, not who the producer of the products might be. It really doesn't matter whether Ford lobbies or not. The responsibility of the government is to the taxpayer, not GM or Ford or GE or WalMart.

And billions of tax dollars were spent because of a possible "psychological shock"?? I think these guys are big boys and can figure out whats happening for themselves, and are always prepared for market lace shocks.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
Right. Some companies fail and other companies pick up the slack. That's hardly unusual in any industry.



Again, other companies pick up the slack and more people are working aj making up this slack. People move on.

The important thing is the market place, not who the producer of the products might be. It really doesn't matter whether Ford lobbies or not. The responsibility of the government is to the taxpayer, not GM or Ford or GE or WalMart.

And billions of tax dollars were spent because of a possible "psychological shock"?? I think these guys are big boys and can figure out whats happening for themselves, and are always prepared for market lace shocks.
Click to expand...

Sure, other companies would have picked up the slack, eventually. But a lot of that slack would have been taken up by foreign brands. In the meantime, instead of peaking at an unemployment rate a little over 10%, we'd have been looking at UP of 11 - 12%. The markets would have puked, revenues would have fallen even farther, and tax expenditures would have risen to pay all those UP benefits. In other words, it was going to cost the government billions one way or the other.
Click to expand...
 
AdamT said:
I don't believe in too big to fail under any circumtances, no. But under the particular circumstances we faced in '09, I think it would have been a catastrophic mistake to let GM and Chrysler fail.
Click to expand...

What was catastrophic is the precedent it set that arge companies can go to the public purse to bail them out for their werrors.

That's why this OWS thing makes no sense. They complain about corruption on Wall Street and many of these same people feel that its okay to bail them out. Its this confusion of laws, morals, cultures, poitical leanings and philosophies, that is leading to the clashes we see in the United States today. They have lost sight of who they are, what they were, what they want to be and where they are going.

Does anyone sincerely believe anymore that the US is a free enterprise country with a strong and independent people?
 
Grant said:
What was catastrophic is the precedent it set that arge companies can go to the public purse to bail them out for their werrors.

That's why this OWS thing makes no sense. They complain about corruption on Wall Street and many of these same people feel that its okay to bail them out. Its this confusion of laws, morals, cultures, poitical leanings and philosophies, that is leading to the clashes we see in the United States today. They have lost sight of who they are, what they were, what they want to be and where they are going.

Does anyone sincerely believe anymore that the US is a free enterprise country with a strong and independent people?
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily see government assistance to industry as bad, let alone catastrophic. It has certainly been invaluable to the S. Korean industrial giants who are kicking ass and taking names.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom