Romney gave millions to charity. Biden gave $369

The bailout of the auto industry was a band-aid on a big problem. The auto industry in the US has the same fundamental flaws and will collapse again, I promise you. That's why Republicans wanted to allow bankruptcy to happen, so that they could restructure contracts and be more competitive for the future.

There are no problem with regulations, I actually support some of the Wall Street checks we have in place now. But the problem with Democrats is that they are stifling to American business. They have a heavy corporate tax rate which doesn't allow business to re-invest in their business or hire new employees. So we just keep sitting around wondering why jobs aren't coming back. Lower the corporate tax rate and I promise you hiring will begin to come back.

And no Romney isn't trying to preserve upper income tax cuts, he wants tax cuts for all. Imagine that...everyone getting a tax break. Unlike Obama who wants to keep taxing lower and middle income people at high rates and then charge upper income people even more. Good plan...take more money from people when they need it most!

 

What bank was going to 're-structure' a bailout of GM and Chryser in 2010?? Capital was frozen. There was no one willing or able to lend GM the money it needed to get them out of debt except the federal government.

Conservatives have this revisionist history that the capital markets were flush with cash in 2010.

If the Feds and BHO hadn't saved GM and Chrysler, they wouldn't exist today.

 

Great points. Balancing the budget is the most difficult thing to do especially on decisions of which programs to cut. I would say:

health research- KEEP
NASA- CUT
transportation- CUT
homeland security- KEEP
education- REDUCTION
food inspection- REDUCTION
housing and heating subsidies for the poor- KEEP
food aid for pregnant women- KEEP
the FBI- REDUCTION
grants to local governments- CUT
national parks- CUT
veterans' health care-KEEP

 

Agreed. Also, if I recall correctly, Mitt Romney had a stance that was against the bailout of those automobile companies. Without intervention from Obama, Michigan's economy would be in an even worse condition than it is now.

 

No, they were arguing to let them go into bankruptcy so that they could re-structure their assets and create a more stable foundation for them to build on. Instead, the government bailed them out and just gave them money to keep working off the same crappy contracts. GM and Chrysler have the same problems they did before. Like I said, it was a band-aid. Businesses who have major flaws will fail regardless of how much cash you throw at it in the short term.

 

Michigan's economy was and still is in the gutter. The bailout did absolutely nothing!! Romney and every business person in the world knew it was better to just let them go bankrupt and re-structure the assets. Throwing $30 billion to GM and Chrysler made them no more competitive in the auto industry. Foreign automakers are still killing them and always will because Obama sprayed Febreze over a pile of shit. When the Febreze wears off...it's still shit underneath. But Democrats apparently never attended an economics class in college.

 

Sounds like a plan. I could imagine there would be organizations not happy with funding for education/food inspection being reduced and transportation being cut.

And more on to education now, I received this message recently about educational funding being cut:

 

Yeah it's tough figuring out which programs to cut/reduce/keep. I actually support two Democratic pieces of legislation regarding education. I support Obama & Romney's beliefs to extend the current low rates on Stafford loans. And I support the Student Loan Forgiveness Act. This would allow people to re-structure their student loans and make lower payments over a 10 year period. This would allow people to increase their discretionary spending and hopefully avoid negative credit marks by missing their high student loan payments.

 

Even Jon Lovitz went off on Obama today

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...tive-laced-tirade-against-obama-tax-policies/

 

The great political scientist/economist John Lovitz? Wow hush my mouth

 

The auto industry is the LAST major domestic industry left in this country, something that we still build here and sell abroad.

Would it really be better for the economy if we played russian roulette with the auto industry and assume they could have pulled out of a structured bankruptcy??

Are you comfortable ceding the U.S. auto industry to Japan and Germany??

We may not be number one in the world, but the auto industry is still globally competitive.

It's very unlikely, starting with the bailout paid by George W. Bush to GM and Chrysler in 2008, that the private sector had the financial backstop to guide the auto industry through a structured bailout relatively in tact.

IMO this reminds me of the arguments that the Feds should have let ALL the major Wall Street banks fail when mortgage derivative stocks imploded.

You're gambling with your economy, the consequences of actually being wrong no one is prepared to deal with.

 

Haha boy u crazy

 

I just love how dude posted his opinion like Lovitz was well respected or some shit

 

Just pointing out that Dems and Republicans alike are against Obama's tax policies

 

It's not a question of whether I'm comfortable ceding the US auto industry to Germany or Japan. This has already happened. If everyone doesn't realize this, you are blind. Japan was quicker to make hybrid and energy efficient vehicles and Germany produces better luxury vehicles. Our auto is not competitive globally...in fact, almost all of our export businesses are not competitive. We have incredibly high wages for manufacturing workers which drives our prices up. That's why I say these contracts need to be re-structured.

The banking industry bailout is a separate issue from the auto industry. The reason a banking industry bailout was necessary is because you cannot have a modern economy without a central banking system. We would have had massive "run on a bank" situations which would have put our economy in an even worse position.

 

Thank you for sharing your views. In a world where making a livelihood without participating in the market economy has been rendered impossible because of the modern mode of industrial production, corporate profit-seeking does in fact destabilize society. They are allowed to do whatever they find convenient in the pursuit of profits, regardless of its impact on workers, the environment and the broader society. Worker-owned cooperatives have proven successful in many different industries and have played a part in rescuing numerous companies, in economic basket cases largely created by the vagaries of finance capital (parts of Western Europe, Argentina, etc) without subordinating everyone involved to the interests of shareholders. Massive infusions of venture capital are not the only proven way of helping a company reorganize. Often, reorganizing production and investing for the long-term rather than in search of quarterly profits can get the job done as well, with less job loss.

As for the selective vilification argument, I try to remain consistent in my criticisms. I object to collective/group arrangements that do not seek the preservation of human dignity no less than I do to private ones. As for the Sea World argument, the continued existence of any enterprise following job losses, asset-stripping or reorganization does not disprove my initial hypothesis that there are other solutions that can and have worked successfully. With regard to the broader rights of capital vs. rights of workers, discussion, we will just have to agree to disagree on this topic, but thank you for the lively discussion.

 

I work for a living and actually pay my taxes.

These scrubs dont have jobs and are all about getting free handouts which is something I'm totally against.

I'm NOTHING like them.

 

I appreciate the discussion as well. I like sharing and debating differing viewpoints. I think my general feeling is that when a CEO is running a for-profit business, it is his responsibility to the company and shareholders to drive revenue and increase profits. Part of that might include laying people off when times are tough. This is the reality of small business owners and large corporations.

As far as employee owned companies, I agree that those can be very valuable. I don't think it makes sense for all companies, but I applaud the ones who have been successful with that model. WinCo Foods is a great example of that. My only concern with employee owned companies is that it can increase the employees' financial risk if the company does poorly. Many workers are not aware that they need to diversify their stock ownership to protect themselves. Employee stock ownership plans are great when the company does well. But if it goes bankrupt, so do they...

I'm all for the rights of workers. They are entitled to a fair wage, reasonable working hours, safety, etc. Many corporations offer benefits plans which include medical, dental, time off, etc. These are bonuses and not required for any employee. I think workers today think they are entitled to much more than they actually are. Everybody can always be fired from their job.

 

GM is number one over Toyota look it up. The US is also number one in clean energy look up.

 

Who would have financed this 're-structuring' of GM and Chrysler in 2009, other than the federal government??