4 edits
Originally posted by uzlessThere seems to be agreement out there that if one of the auto giants goes under it will have a domino effect on the other two as well as the rest of the economy.
Anyone want to bet Chrysler declares bankruptcy within the next few months?
Does anyone think they will just close up shop completely? I'm out of the loop on this one so some insight is appreciated.
I see the issue as being Democrats wanting to pass legislation to save the auto makers but having to get passed the evil Republicans to do so. You not only have Republicans in Congress, such as Romney, to contend with you also still have "W" to contend with. I think the Dems are hoping the auto giants can last long enough for Obama to take the reigns, however, there may not be enough time. The Republicans are demanding reform with the auto gaints as a precondition for help but the Dems are just demanding $$$ and do not wish to compromise by rubbing their constituents the wrong way by demanding reform along side the Republicans.
Times a ticken!!!
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyMore bizarre untruths from someone who apparently never bothers to check the facts. The Democratic proposals all set significant conditions.
There seems to be agreement out there that if one of the auto giants goes under it will have a domino effect on the other two as well as the rest of the economy.
I see the issue as being Democrats wanting to pass legislation to save the auto makers but having to get passed the evil Republicans to do so. You not only have Republicans in Congress, such as R stituents the wrong way by demanding reform along side the Republicans.
Times a ticken!!!
Oddly, you quoted an article in another thread which says just that:
Congressional officials say Democratic leaders have decided to put off a bailout vote for the auto industry until December and will insist that the Big 3 first come up with a plan showing how the money would help transform their industry.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bipartisan-group-work-to-apf-13633769.html
You seem to have the attention span of a two year old.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderShowing a plan that shows the money would help transform their industry is far different that imposing changes that need to be made. I am sure there are a myriad of plans they throw out their can be twisted as showing it will "transfor" their industry but then used for their own selfish reasons. I say that Congress should come up with their own plan verses the auto makers manipulating Congress with their own plan. Really it comes down to the Democrats not wanting to offending their constituents within the auto indusrty.
More bizarre untruths from someone who apparently never bothers to check the facts. The Democratic proposals all set significant conditions.
Oddly, you quoted an article in another thread which says just that:
Congressional officials say Democratic leaders have decided to put off a bailout vote for the auto industry unt ...[text shortened]... pf-13633769.html
You seem to have the attention span of a two year old.
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyYou are pathetically full of it.
Showing a plan that shows the money would help transform their industry is far different that imposing changes that need to be made. I am sure there are a myriad of plans they throw out their can be twisted as showing it will "transfor" their industry but then used for their own selfish reasons. I say that Congress should come up with their own plan verses ...[text shortened]... es down to the Democrats not wanting to offending their constituents within the auto indusrty.
Your claim was that the Democrats didn't support any conditions and just wanted to throw money to the companies. That has been easily shown to be untrue by using your own cite. Actually, the Republicans are blocking reform; they want to divert $25 billion from a fund that was meant to be used to have the auto makers develop more fuel efficient vehicles.
BTW, are you a "socialist"? Do you now support the government dictating to private industry how they should run their businesses?
EDIT: Here's more info that shows your claims are bogus:
Pelosi stressed that whatever the Big Three provided to Congress, it must show they had a plan for “viability and accountability,” meaning that the were transforming theoir industry in a way that it would become competitive, and that they were clear about how the federal loan money was used.
Even if lawmakers return to vote, they are likely to insist on numerous conditions on any loans. One possibility is to seek a partial ownership of the companies. Another is to limit salaries of top executives. A third is to prohibit use of the funds for any lobbying.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27824057
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't support a bail out period. I simply think the politicians know it is unpopular so to make the average Joe feel better about it they are saying that they are making the auto makers "prove", whatever that means, that the money they are given will not be in vain. However, if Congress cannot come up with their own plan and don't know what is best for the auto makers, then how are they going to assess the plan that is presented to them by the auto makers? I say these politicians have no business in making such decisions or even coming up with their own plans because put simply, they are out of their area of expertise. In addtion, you have those who have personal interests in maintaining the status quo in terms of how these auto giants do business.
You are pathetically full of it.
Your claim was that the Democrats didn't support any conditions and just wanted to throw money to the companies. That has been easily shown to be untrue by using your own cite. Actually, the Republicans are blocking reform; they want to divert $25 billion from a fund that was meant to be used to have the ow support the government dictating to private industry how they should run their businesses?
Originally posted by whodeyCould you at least try to be consistent for 2 posts:
I don't support a bail out period. I simply think the politicians know it is unpopular so to make the average Joe feel better about it they are saying that they are making the auto makers "prove", whatever that means, that the money they are given will not be in vain. However, if Congress cannot come up with their own plan and don't know what is best for th ...[text shortened]... sonal interests in maintaining the status quo in terms of how these auto giants do business.
whodey Post 1: I say that Congress should come up with their own plan verses the auto makers manipulating Congress with their own plan.
whodey Post 2: I say these politicians have no business in making such decisions or even coming up with their own plans because put simply, they are out of their area of expertise.
I opposed the first bailout. Since that's $700 billion under the bridge, it would make sense to take some of that money and toss it to the incompetently run automakers like most of it was tossed to incompetently run banks. AIG was given over $100 billion, but now Republicans find $25 billion in loans to the car companies to be too extravagant? Pure politics.
Or let them go into bankruptcy. I personally don't care either way. But the ones playing politics with this aren't the Dems.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe first bail out was sold as saving the economy by bailing out the banks. After all, without the liquidity of banks, the economy would come to a quick hault. As for the auto makers, pfft. Life goes on.
[b]Could you at least try to be consistent for 2 posts:
whodey Post 1: I say that Congress should come up with their own plan verses the auto makers manipulating Congress with their own plan.
whodey Post 2: I say these politicians have no business in making such decisions or [b]even coming up with their own plans b ...[text shortened]... ow Republicans find $25 billion in loans to the car companies to be too extravagant? Pure politics.
Of course, I often wonder if what we were sold in terms of the original bail out was nothing more than a song and dance, however, as you say, it is water under the bridge.
As for me contradicting myself, I am simply saying that if they claim to know what needs to be done then they should dictate policy to the auto makers. After all, they are asking for a free hand out, therefore, the debtor becomes the slave of the lender as with anything else. Why should the auto makers have a say? Having said that, it is my opinion that they are just as clueless or possibly more so as the auto makers as to how to run the auto business. After all, we are talking about a bunch of jokers who have run up a 10 trillion dollar debt!! What on earth do they know about making money other than stealing it from tax payers?
Originally posted by whodeyIf you can't refute my points, just say so. I know you're a partisan shill, but your consistent and never ending untruths and spin are nauseating.
That is perhaps the funniest thing I have heard in months. 😵
Sometimes I can't tell when you are serious and when you are joking.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyTaxes as stealing again. This simple minded lie has been exposed on this board many times. But that something is an obvious lie has never stopped you from repeating it over and over and over again.
The first bail out was sold as saving the economy by bailing out the banks. After all, without the liquidity of banks, the economy would come to a quick hault. As for the auto makers, pfft. Life goes on.
Of course, I often wonder if what we were sold in terms of the original bail out was nothing more than a song and dance, however, as you say, it is wat ...[text shortened]... ar debt!! What on earth do they know about making money other than stealing it from tax payers?
Obviously you never obtained a business loan. It is perfectly common for the person or company seeking the loan to supply the bank or finance company with a detailed business plan. Nor is a debtor generally considered a "slave" of the lender; I'd say your understanding of business practices is a bit dated.
Originally posted by no1marauderI suppose it is not stealing considering it is "legal", however, what say do the tax payers have in regards to the taxes imposed upon them? Really, the only taxes I get to vote on are taxes for our childrens schools which I think is a little sick if you ask me in that the one thing that is most important we have the ability to irradicate. Everything else is imposed upon us. What usually happens is money is spent like a drunken sailor and after which they turn to the tax payers and show the urgency for money in paying it off or else!! Give me a break. It is like the recent credit crisis in that money was carelessly managed to the point the massive debt endangered the economic livelyhood of the nation. Then with a gun to the nations head we are told the tax payers need to pay everything off. Pfft.
[b]Taxes as stealing again. This simple minded lie has been exposed on this board many times. But that something is an obvious lie has never stopped you from repeating it over and over and over again.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou have obviously never been in debt and not been able to pay the loan off. They own you, unless you buy a house you can't afford in which case the government will let you live there and ask your neighbors to pay for it.
Obviously you never obtained a business loan. It is perfectly common for the person or company seeking the loan to supply the bank or finance company with a detailed business plan. Nor is a debtor generally considered a "slave" of the lender; I'd say your understanding of business practices is a bit dated.[/b]