Even if you actually believed this is a loan with all these conditions, riddle me this:

 

C'mon, you're better than that. :mis2

Even if you actually believed this is a loan with all these conditions, riddle me this:

 

C'mon, you're better than that. :mis2

I think I'm better than lots of things, but I also think it's a valid question:

 

Even if you had the perfect deal that loaned money to keep the auto companies in business and demanded them to take actions that would make their companies viable, what do we do IF they violate the terms or fail to pay back the loan?

I'm torn. I think they should fail, but I don't think I am okay with letting them fail right now because it may be a downward spiral we won't be able to get out of for a very long time. Wish they had gone bankrupt in the 90s.

You know when the economy is falling when they put google ads as posts.

You know when the economy is falling when they put google ads as posts.

:lol The sad thing is there seem to be no way out of this.

Many believe passing the debt down among future generations is the answer. :banghead

Going bankrupt does not equate to failing, it is far more likely that the proposed bailout will lead to actual failure. No matter what one may think about GM or Ford, the brands themselves are worth more than the current market value of their US operation. As such the companies have the assets to survive bankruptcy protection and emerge from the experience in much stronger shape.

Going bankrupt does not equate to failing, it is far more likely that the proposed bailout will lead to actual failure. No matter what one may think about GM or Ford, the brands themselves are worth more than the current market value of their US operation. As such the companies have the assets to survive bankruptcy protection and emerge from the experience in much stronger shape.

Exactly, the point of Bankruptcy and Chapter 11 Bankruptcy is for a company that can liquidate and reorganize to fix themselves. They should be reorganizing and not receiving more money to last them for a little until they blow through it. They need to fix the problem and not exacerbate it.

I love how the Big Three went from asking for $25 billion last week, to $34 billion this week. What kind of negotiation is that???

I love how the Big Three went from asking for $25 billion last week, to $34 billion this week. What kind of negotiation is that???

Apparently the kind that works on the Democratic leadership in the Congress. Or hadn't you heard?

 

That is some serious Change.

I don't disagree with the Congress that we need to loan them some money now. It is looking like GM could fail within the month, or at least before Obama actually takes office.

 

However, Congress is close to giving them $15 billion, which is not nearly as much as they wanted. It's still a small amount of money compared to the literally trillions that the government has been forced to take responsibility over thanks to the Bush administration's 8 years of codling business and giving them virtually everything they wanted on the regulatory side.

 

Regardless, this entire thing is a mess, whether it is the auto companies' problems, or the overall financial crisis.

I don't disagree with the Congress that we need to loan them some money now. It is looking like GM could fail within the month, or at least before Obama actually takes office.

#1 - So why did you mock them in your preceding post?

#2 - I'm fine with the idea of poorly managed businesses "failing". It would happen if I started a business and managed it poorly resulting in failure and I fundamentally disagree with the popular argument that these businesses are somehow more important.

 

However, Congress is close to giving them $15 billion, which is not nearly as much as they wanted. It's still a small amount of money compared to the literally trillions that the government has been forced to take responsibility over thanks to the Bush administration's 8 years of codling business and giving them virtually everything they wanted on the regulatory side.

Giving them even $1 would be inexcusable. I don't really care what they wanted, $15 billion is an insane amount to "invest" in companies which are admittedly on the verge of bankruptcy. Of course it's easy to decide on making such an investment when you do it with someone else's money.

And considering most of the people you're talking to here have nothing nice to say about Bush, why bring him up? It would be worth comparing (I suppose) if were Republicans who support him, but if you argument is simply "it's not as bad as what someone else did" and that's not a very compelling argument. Just because killing one person is not as bad as killing fifty doesn't make it ok.

I wish you would understand then how your argument demonstrates the problem with giving government power to regulate businesses unless you honestly believe that it is at all realistic if even possible to achieve and maintain a powerful government that has no corruption or incompetence.

 

Regardless, this entire thing is a mess, whether it is the auto companies' problems, or the overall financial crisis.

It is a mess, and it is the Auto-companies' problems, not the problems of the rest of us. They literally pay people full-time salaries to sit around and do nothing for up to four years after their worksite is closed. It is insane. And it is immoral to take money away from the rest of us and away from successful and productive viable businesses to prop up these mismanaged behemoths.

 

So has anyone here made a convincing case yet as to why they shouldn't be allowed to fail?

No.

I would like to hear what specific de-regulations in recent history (say 10 years) have been detrimental to the economic sector. Also, please explain their direct relevance and how they directly resulted in a weaker economy.

That's easy. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 directly led to Enron creating California's rolling blackouts in the summer of 2000, along with the eventual downfall of that company. Thanks a lot, Phil Gramm.