President Barack Obama is using GM's recent loan repayment and Chrysler's operating profit as proof that his "unpopular" auto bailout decision was the right thing to do.
"I knew this wasn't a popular decision. But it was the right one," Obama said. Without the bailout, the American economic outcome could have been much more disturbing.
"General Motors and Chrysler...were on the brink of collapse. The rapid dissolution of these companies -- followed by the certain failure of many auto parts makers, car dealers and other smaller businesses -- would have dealt a crippling blow to our already suffering economy."
Obama went on to justify the risky bailout by explaining that, even though the companies were to blame for their own downfall and it could have been viewed as "throwing good money after bad", the bigger issue was keeping families' income on the table. If anything were to happen to the companies, upwards of a million jobs could have been lost.
The Detroit News explains one way in which the White House hopes to cover taxpayers' losses: "collecting a fee from the nation's 50 largest banks to pay for the taxpayer losses from financial and auto bailout."
As expected, the GOP is putting up tripwires, wondering why the banks should be responsible for covering taxpayers' losses. Maybe it's because the banks were responsible for initially losing taxpayers' money.
Obviously that's an oversimplification, but social responsibility isn't a one-way street, guys.
By Phil Alex
Via: Detnews
16 Comments:
GM robs Peter to pay Paul and Obama calls it repaid? Didn't Obama attend Harvard? All that was saved were pensions at taxpayers expense, and one sector of the US workforce that is no longer competitive. Not only that, companies like Ford were really overlooked for their going it on their own. Does anyone really believe that GM will not substantially reduce it workforce after this farce? Chrysler is no longer an American company. God, or someone with real clout, help us if Obama hangs a banner stating "Mission Accomplished."
I'm still gladly avoiding GM or Chrysler at all cost.
I can't be apart of this mess. They should have went down.
"and one sector of the US workforce that is no longer competitive."
As a foreigner, it's disapointing to see you value your own manufacturing capacity so poorly.
"As a foriegner, it's disapointing to see you value your own manufacturing capacity so poorly"
-If you close your eyes and walk you will trip.. you'll fall... and hurt your self badly.
and i do not think you are a foreigner!
"As a foreigner, it's disapointing to see you value your own manufacturing capacity so poorly."
As another foreigner, I can see the reality of the situation and the pointlessness of propping up an industry or corporation that is dying . Isn't that what capitalism is all about? Supply and demand etc? I don't ever recall being asked, as a taxpayer, if I agreed to having MY money used to bail out large corporate entities.
I for one belive it was the right thing. Yes, GM has had its problems but so has Ford and Chysler. From what I read last year was that Ford wa within month of needing a bailout themselves and were quite possiblt saved by ther sale of Jaguar and Rover. Poo-poo GM all you want, and I'm guessing you've done that all along anyway, but I do believe they are making much better quality cars. If they can turn the ship around to be more competitive then I say bully!
ok let's analyze this...$85 billion of the taxpayers money spent to save roughly 300,000 jobs between GM and Chrysler while a total of 15 million Americans remain unemployed.
looks to me like that money was used to help the wrong group of people.
"and i do not think you are a foreigner!"
Think it all you like, but you are still wrong.
"From what i read last year was that Ford was within a month of needing a bailout themselves amd were quite possibly saved by their sale of Jaguar and Rover"
That means Tata motors quite possibly saved them of embarrassment.
God Bless America! Kudos to your new president. Good ridden's to Bush. The world loves Obama!!!
All the foreign companies are some sort of government motors, Hyundai was bailed out, VW majority stockholder was Saxony, the French government bailed out Nissan/Renault, the Japanese have MITI, currency manipulation, national healthcare and Confederate states that get more money from DC than more productive other American states, throwing subsidies to foreign companies.
...well, now that the world loves obama everything is fine... finally no hunger or future economic crises or divorced parents or deformed children.... the middle east???? yesterday's news
1. if you wanna give your money away to the government for them to give it to other people and companies, you give it and leave the rest us to keep our own.
2. of course ford was saved by its sales of jaguar, land rover, aston martin, mazda, and now volvo. it's called accruing assets. It's what companies do. Even if ford did this at a loss by selling for less than it acquired these companies for. Either way GM preferred to close down Pontiac, not sell Saturn, retract on Opel's sale. What it's tried to sell was in such an unwanted state that it was difficult to make much money of it: saab, hummer. even though it got rid of isuzu and most if not all its stake in suzuki.
3. true some suppliers would have closed down leaving people unemployed. but likely this void would be filled by other companies and suppliers. if people are no longer able to buy GM cars because they don't exist, they're gonna have to buy some other brand's... who will need suppliers... and workers... and salespeople... i think this kind of thing has now been happening for well over a century.
4. Govt run companies suck; they all fail! anyone with any brains knows this. They all work at a loss and are inefficient. if they exist is because they are propped up by tax payers' money. again those who want to give their money away to the govt, should do so, and hurry ... Re: obamamotors... BMC anyone?
5. Lastly thanks to Phil Alex for that outstanding political commentary with more than a hint of socialism to it. Again, if history has shown us anything it is that socialism does not work. It sounds good, looks good, it can even be made to sound fair, take from the evil rich and give to the virtuous poor and all that. Are you kidding me? Robin Hood? What are we 5? As full of defects as it is, capitalism is a natural system and it works. Socialism must be imposed from the top down. Even Lenin understood this and actively acted to impose it. Look where that led...
PS Sorry for the rant...
--JORGE
From what I have been reading...this is like paying off a 'home equity' type of loan.
Yeah GM and Chrysler were saved how about the millions of Americans that need a "bail out"? just wondering.
"Yeah GM and Chrysler were saved how about the millions of Americans that need a "bail out"? just wondering."
Reduced to as few words as possible; enough that you might take away more from this then what you've tried to put in:
"Living within your means".
Most people don't love bahoma, I mean obama. Completely idiocy to give the bailout to the banks and the auto industry. Anyone with a brain can see that is didn't help the many unemployed workers that need jobs or a bailout. But wait, we the unemployed get to pay taxes on that bailout. Wait I can't pay taxes because I can't afford to. If I would have been given a bailout then I could pay my property taxes. Then teachers wouldn't be getting laid off or hours cut. Over-sized classrooms and programs cut. Someone needs to get a clue, grabs some kohones and do something about this country before obama drops it down the crapper. It is a domino affect and bailing out the auto industry does a fat lot of good for those of us that can buy a car in the first place.
Reg:'Jorge'/"capitalism is a natural system" Additionally, it seems that you have a limited understanding of the terms 'Capitalism' & 'Socialism'... And probably Communism and other 'isms'.
Don't confuse 'Capitalism' with 'Free Enterprise'.
Capitalism, especially as expressed in trans-national capitalism, is hardly a natural system.
Corporatocracy is a contrived system and an anathema to free enterprise.
'Capitalism is a deliberate system of mixed economics developed incrementally from the 16th century in Europe'.
We currently have type of State Capitalism, corporate owned government, hardly a natural system.
When a government tells you, you can't make a living using your skills and tools, you have Fascist Capitalism... It is hardly a natural system when Jesus couldn't earn a living being a carpenter. Or Frank Lloyd Wright couldn't call himself an architect. Or Buckminster Fuller couldn't call himself an engineer. Such is American capitalistic government today.
Phil nailed it with "social responsibility isn't a one-way street"
Corporations that own the game(Government)are hardly, in most cases,
'Socially responsible'. To whit..'BP' and GM(Just ask 'former' GM bondholders and line/office workers who were devastated by GM's bankruptcy.
In addition;
"Murray Rothbard, a laissez-faire capitalist thinker, uses the term interchangeably with the term state monopoly capitalism, and uses it to describe a partnership of government and big business where the state is intervening on behalf of large capitalists against the interests of consumers.[27][28] He distinguishes this from laissez-faire capitalism where big business is not protected from market forces. This usage dates from the 1960s, when Harry Elmer Barnes described the post-New Deal economy in the United States as "state capitalism." More recently, Andrei Illarionov, former economic advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin, resigned in December 2005, protesting Russia's "embracement of state capitalism."[29]
The term is not used by the classical liberals to describe the public ownership of the means of production. The economist Ludwig von Mises explains the reason: "The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state. Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic problem of Socialism—until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name. The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism." It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy, and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism."[30]" Wiki/
With regards Jorge....3Deuce27
Post a Comment