Check out some similar questions!

jlisenbe · Dec 16, 2018, 01:19 PM

Not quite the rosy pic you try to portray.

"The main purpose of the bailout was to save jobs at GM. But GM had to slash its employment and production anyway. Toyota and Honda continued to increase their U.S. factories, providing jobs for American auto workers.
If there had been no bailout, Ford, Toyota, and Honda would have picked up even more market share. Since they had U.S. plants, they would have increased jobs for Americans once the recession was over. The loss of GM would be like the loss of Pan Am, TWA, and other companies that had a strong American heritage but lost their competitiveness. It would have perhaps tugged at the heartstrings of America but not really hurt the economy. As a result, the auto industry bailout was not critical to the U.S. economy, like the rescue of AIG or the banking system."

https://www.thebalance.com/auto-indu...rysler-3305670

talaniman · Dec 16, 2018, 02:23 PM

The Big Three automakers asked Congress for help similar to the bank bailout. They warned that General Motors Company and Chrysler LLC faced bankruptcy and the loss of 1 million jobs.

The federal government took over GM and Chrysler in March 2009. It fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner and required Chrysler to merge with Italy's Fiat S.p.A. The Obama administration used the take-over to set new auto efficiency standards. That improved air quality and forced U.S. automakers to be more competitive against Japanese and German firms.

On December 18, 2014, the Treasury Department ended the bailout. That's when it sold its last remaining shares of Ally Financial, formerly known as General Motors Acceptance Corporation. It had bought them for $17.2 billion to infuse cash into the failing GM subsidiary. The Treasury Department sold the shares for $19.6 billion, making a $2.4 billion profit for taxpayers.

On December 19, 2008, President Bush agreed to a $24.9 billion bailout using TARP: $13.4 billion for GM, $5.5 billion for Chrysler, and $5 billionfor GMAC.

Hey I thought this was Obamas idea? He inherited a doozy didn't he with a financial crisis and two off the books deficit funded wars to greet him.

No the picture wasn't rosy, but it wasn't the disaster it could have been. As you see from the outcome of Obama's (With Bushes idea) recovery. Hey millions of folks is millions of folks, and you sure didn't want them on welfare all at once did you? Can't you appreciate the good of a controlled wind down as opposed to a huge CRASH.

Despite the rights critique I still hold it was done fairly well considering the banks and financial sectors caused the collapse of global economies and safeguards were developed to prevent it with repubs and supply siders of course trying to get rid of them.

Fact is the dufus said he would stop American companies from moving to other countries and of course he LIED. Just wanted to point that out.

One reason for the rise of health care I believe can be found by repubs and their dufus fiddling around with the ACA trying to get rid of it without a plan for replacement. Sound logical to me given the facts.

jlisenbe · Dec 16, 2018, 02:43 PM

Working out really well for all those GM employees. In the meantime, Toyota is now operating 14 plants in the U.S. They have received no federal funding. It is just the fruit of a well run company.

talaniman · Dec 16, 2018, 03:47 PM

Ever been to a town where a long time plant has been closed? The towns literally die. Wonder why GM cannot build a new plant in those towns?

jlisenbe · Dec 16, 2018, 04:12 PM

Ever been to a town where a long time plant has been closed? The towns literally die. Wonder why GM cannot build a new plant in those towns?

Why would they need a new plant?

paraclete · Dec 16, 2018, 04:48 PM

If you haven't worked it out yet, plant closures are about labour relations, new plants, new negotiations and contracts, reopening in old towns, where are the people? Skilled people move on

talaniman · Dec 16, 2018, 04:57 PM

Bear with me as I'm still following this development,

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/bu...ar/2310253002/,

AND

https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/22/new...ico/index.html

paraclete · Dec 16, 2018, 05:48 PM

The development of a new dinosaur?

talaniman · Dec 17, 2018, 05:17 AM

More the perpetration of an old one. Profits over people. The business model is old as human knowledge. Older than most religions, and as powerful as any of them.

jlisenbe · Dec 17, 2018, 05:32 AM

Profits over people.

You know what they call a company that ignores the need for profits? Bankrupt.

paraclete · Dec 17, 2018, 05:43 AM

No they call it a non profit organisation

talaniman · Dec 17, 2018, 05:52 AM

So the need for profit trumps the needs of people?

jlisenbe · Dec 17, 2018, 05:52 AM

No they call it a non profit organisation

Even a non-profit must still balance the books.

talaniman · Dec 17, 2018, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by paraclete

No they call it a non profit organisation

Took the words right out of my mouth.

jlisenbe · Dec 17, 2018, 05:55 AM

So list the non-profits you know of that are engaged in the business of manufacturing and providing jobs for hundreds or thousands of people. I find that the only people who like to talk about the need for putting people ahead of profits are people who are not running a business.

talaniman · Dec 17, 2018, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Even a non-profit must still balance the books.

That's a totally different thing than profits over people.

talaniman · Dec 17, 2018, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So list the non-profits you know of that are engaged in the business of manufacturing and providing jobs for hundreds or thousands of people. I find that the only people who like to talk about the need for putting people ahead of profits are people who are not running a business.

So let people die that need treatment for a life threatening condition if it doesn't make a profit?

jlisenbe · Dec 17, 2018, 06:07 AM

Why don't you pay for it? If affordability is not important, then why can't Tal simply pay for it? Amazing how easy it is to decide how other people should spend their money.

talaniman · Dec 17, 2018, 07:59 AM

Goods and services are VOLUNTARY, not so with treatments for illnesses. That requires INSURANCE unless you are that rich you can afford almost anything. Affordability is important and I have not indicated otherwise. Just don't lump health insurance into the same category as a new truck. Hey if you want to die of cancer go ahead, but don't tell me someone that wants to be cared for but cannot afford insurance, should die.

What does that have to do with YOUR money any way? We have already talked about taxes, and funding the social safety net, so if you are not happy with that then you change it. So far your efforts have not led to the repeal of the law that allows government to tax for the general welfare of it's citizens.

Comes down to you not caring if people can't afford INSURANCE right?

jlisenbe · Dec 17, 2018, 09:47 AM

Goods and services are VOLUNTARY, not so with treatments for illnesses.

I would actually rank food, clothing, and shelter ahead of health care.

That requires INSURANCE unless you are that rich you can afford almost anything. Affordability is important and I have not indicated otherwise. Just don't lump health insurance into the same category as a new truck.

I'm all for insurance. The great majority of health care procedures do not require rich people type money. As for trucks, you were the one who said you would buy a truck rather than use that money to pay for your own health care.

What does that have to do with YOUR money any way? We have already talked about taxes, and funding the social safety net, so if you are not happy with that then you change it. So far your efforts have not led to the repeal of the law that allows government to tax for the general welfare of it's citizens.

Taxes have a lot to do with my money. As I have stated many times before, I get tired of liberals who want to claim some kind of moral high ground because they are willing to force other people to take care of the poor. So far as I can tell, most liberal dems don't care one whit for the poor if it comes down to them having to spend their own money.

We could try an interesting experiment. We could allow people to designate a voluntary tax that would be used ONLY for helping the poor. All other welfare programs would cease and no borrowed money could be used. If I had to guess, I'd say that most of the money given would come from conservatives. I'd even be willing to go one step farther and put a tax surcharge (2% of income??) that EVERYONE would have to pay that would be used for poor people. Only that money could be used. At least then we would all be aware of what is going to help poor people. But as for this garbage that I hear frequently to the effect that we need to go after the wealthy because, after all, liberals are big-hearted people, I just find it to be a nauseating idea and I have made it one of my missions in life to never let a lib get away with it.

But all of that aside, if we do not slow down the growth of health care costs, we are heading to a place where we will have the best health care that no one can afford.