Reply With Quote
how ty a deal for taxpayers would it have been to let Chrysler and GM go bankrupt, taking down 100s if not 1000s of dealers, suppliers and their jobs?
I'm not holding my breath. Most posters are too proud to own their errors.
how ty a deal for taxpayers would it have been to let Chrysler and GM go bankrupt, taking down 100s if not 1000s of dealers, suppliers and their jobs?
Doesn't matter. In a capitalistic system insolvent firms are permitted to fail.
Do you believe in socialism for megacorporations, boutons?
Chrysler is a perfect example that it didn't have to work that way. They are doing fine being owned by Fiat and all those jobs are still there.
We bought GM, ed the bondholders, and gave it to the UAW. That one won't end so well.
No tier than when a bunch of people in the housing, construction, retail and financial sectors lost their jobs. But, the workers in those industries didn't have the appropriate political connections, so 'em.
What if they gave you a $40,000 tax credit? Would you buy one?
Interesting question. If it was a carry forward credit and the effective cost was zero, probably.
Well, boutons?
yeah, I'm for it. it's the 99%
10s of 1000s of the 99%
Well then you have little room to disparage the corporatocracy, since the government, in your view, is obliged to backstop the very largest corporations.
Indeed, publicly backstopping the failure of any firm whose failure would adversely affect "10s of 1000s" of the 99%, is the very definition of corporatocracy.
By this reasoning, you should be for the TARP, the secret Fed loans, bailing out Fannie and Freddie Mac etc., etc..
Boom goes the logic bomb.
what? corporatocracy is the UCA buying govt to protect/enrich itself.
the head of GM and others mgrs lost their jobs, unlike the wall st bailout.
bailing out GM was a stimulus, like giving money to states and municipalities to preserver public service jobs. the GM money went right to salaries of the 99% GM employees and employees of GM's supply chain.
The only thing GM's bailout stimulated was the UAW's retirement and benefits fund.
BTW, less than half of GM's workforce is American. 37% to be exact. But I'm sure the outsourced GM employees are eternally grateful to the American taxpayer for saving their jobs.....
Not to argue your point, but in the spirit of full disclosure, Canada also bailed out GM.
nm
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-17-2011 at 03:44 AM.
Profits are private, dire losses, public.
(For the ginormously well-connected, of course.)
Boo hoo.the head of GM and others mgrs lost their jobs, unlike the wall st bailout.
Leaving to one side the absurdity of reckoning GM as being primarily by and for the little guy, thank you for making explicit your own version of corporatism: favoring the largest over all others.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-17-2011 at 03:53 AM.
True. Canadian taxpayers are also going to lose money on GM.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...xt|FRONTPAGE|sThe U.S. Treasury Department boosted its estimate of government losses in the $85 billion auto bailout by $170 million.
In the government's latest report to Congress this month, the Treasury upped its estimate to $23.77 billion, up from $23.6 billion.
I bet most people think the loss is $85 billion.
gm.
the first thing they did with their bailout money was run an advertisement campaign. "let the best car win" they said.
it is 1984 double-talk. the best cars did already win, that's why your company failed.
They way this administration has repeatedly said they were paid back, I'll bet most liberals think the loss was almost nothing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
