Corporate America stepping up! - Page 2

Super Bleeder!! · 10-29-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

Chrysler and GM both should have went through structured bankruptcies without government intervention, you would have had the same results without dumping all that money down the drain. But you see Tom, that would have the unions without power, and can't have that now can we?

Yeaaaa, because that would have been really great for the THOUSANDS of 3rd party suppliers that would have likely gone bankrupt during those bankruptcies. Those companies are huge trees and their roots go many places. Its not as simple as you'd like to think.

**JET** · 10-29-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Super Bleeder!!

Obama did exactly that a few months ago, during a televised speech. I'm not sure which one it was, but he called out congress for blocking his attempts to compromise with them time and time again.

Yeah I saw that one, he didn't make it a major deal tough. It needs to be a major event and a news conference about only that. The problem is the president isn't going to break party lines and call out the people in their own party that are doing it too, since both sides do it.

tpunx99GSX · 10-29-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

Chrysler and GM both should have went through structured bankruptcies without government intervention, you would have had the same results without dumping all that money down the drain. But you see Tom, that would have the unions without power, and can't have that now can we?

This has been refuted many times for the simple fact that NO PRIVATE CAPITAL WOULD FRONT A STRUCTURED BANKRUPTCY OF THAT PROPORTION! There had to be government money otherwise there would be no auto industry, and like super bleeder said, it would kill a number of other companies. Again heres where historical fact comes into play. The banks were all figuring out their own problem of how to unfreeze the system, the auto companies were the least of their concern. The government stepped in so that the auto industry would not implode causing millions more unemployed. This is why i laugh when Romney says "the president did the same thing i suggested" Sorry but no he didn't, your way wouldn't work, and every economist with any knowledge agrees.

tpunx99GSX · 10-29-2012

The whole point vicious as you have decided to steer this another way, is that both sides need to give. Not one or the other, spending cuts as well as tax revenues need to happen. Cut military spending, or allow for competition for the best price instead of jacked up $400 toilet seats, Add revenues to the people that can afford to chip in a bit more, and everyone gets to benefit from a better economy and the jobs will come.

**JET** · 10-29-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Super Bleeder!!

Yeaaaa, because that would have been really great for the THOUSANDS of 3rd party suppliers that would have likely gone bankrupt during those bankruptcies. Those companies are huge trees and their roots go many places. Its not as simple as you'd like to think.

His point was that is still happening. Those jobs are still going to go overseas, so it just postponed it. Now, the economy is in a bit better shape now and it can probably absorb those job losses better than it could have at the time of the bailout. Was it worth the billions we spent? We'll never know that one way or the other probably.

**JET** · 10-29-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX

The whole point vicious as you have decided to steer this another way, is that both sides need to give. Not one or the other, spending cuts as well as tax revenues need to happen. Cut military spending, or allow for competition for the best price instead of jacked up $400 toilet seats, Add revenues to the people that can afford to chip in a bit more, and everyone gets to benefit from a better economy and the jobs will come.

OMG, I agree with one of Tom's posts!! Did you copy and paste one of mine or Peter's??

**Kracka** · 10-29-2012

Too bad Government Motors didn't source their Volt batteries from the US battery company funded by its taxpayers.

tpunx99GSX · 10-29-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kracka

Too bad Government Motors didn't source their Volt batteries from the US battery company funded by its taxpayers.

Can you name a US battery company that has all of its manufacturing in the US?

tpunx99GSX · 10-29-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by JET

OMG, I agree with one of Tom's posts!! Did you copy and paste one of mine or Peter's??

Quote:

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX

I Totally agree with this.
The problem though, is that congress really is the one that needs to give up on their no taxes pledge. If you remember obama gave in a lot, and really did try to negotiate with the tax terrorists and came to the 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 spending cuts vs revenue increase.
Both sides need to come to the table, give up on their basic principals of just spending vs just revenue, and realize that you need both, no just one or the other.

You must have missed my first post in this thread. because it said the same basic principal.

**Kracka** · 10-29-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX

Can you name a US battery company that has all of its manufacturing in the US?

I was referring to A123, but I'm sure you didn't follow that story at all.

**JET** · 10-29-2012

Yeah, there was money thrown at a few companies for lithium production facilities, most of which are bankrupt now. They recalled the Fisker batteries they were producting, so I don't blame a major for going with them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/bu...ankruptcy.html

**Halon** · 10-29-2012

And here I thought there was going to be some good discussions about moving forward and reducing the debt in this thread, but nope same ol bitch session, pointing fingers about the past. Silly me...

Super Bleeder!! · 10-30-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by JET

His point was that is still happening. Those jobs are still going to go overseas, so it just postponed it. Now, the economy is in a bit better shape now and it can probably absorb those job losses better than it could have at the time of the bailout. Was it worth the billions we spent? We'll never know that one way or the other probably.

Saying that is getting a bit head of ourselves, i think. We'll just have to wait and see where the holy job creators take us!

tpunx99GSX · 10-31-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Super Bleeder!!

Saying that is getting a bit head of ourselves, i think. We'll just have to wait and see where the holy job creators take us!

regardless of who wins the election i really do hope people realize that NO PRESIDENT, no matter what they say on the trail, can turn around an economy in one day (as someone seems to think they can) one week, one month or even one term. The massive shit hole we were in, everyone should be much happier that we are on the upswing now. 2008 was very stressful for a lot of people, unemployment is down, manufacturing is now on the upswing, employment numbers are moving up even more, etc.
If the members of congress stop playing filibuster everything and put their differences aside, they should be able to get something done sooner rather than later.
I know this may sound like an obama nut swinger, but i dont think a change in presidents is what we need, we dont need someone to come in and "shake things up", we need someone to give constant and steady results and finish what he started.

tpunx99GSX · 11-02-2012

FYI, Chrysler is coming out saying the GOP is full of shit on this whole "Chrysler is shipping jobs overseas." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...ef=mostpopular
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2046038.html

They have also come out with commercials stating the same fact.