We're the big three, we don't need to compete

[radarwhiz]

In my original post, in place of this text, was a picture depicting the common lack of quality of American automobiles. Unfortunately, as clever as the image was, it seems that it's language may have been potentially offending. So it's been removed and this explaination inserted in it's place.

[Sean486]

Have I gone back in time.

[radarwhiz]

Originally Posted by Sean486

Have I gone back in time.

I know, I know it's old. Just an interesting viewpoint of that whole fiasco.

[92snowmachine]

all of the others got bailed out but didn't get publicity because they didn't have to ask congress. they went straight to fed.
http://jalopnik.com/#!5704575/ford-b...vernment-money
there is a longer list out there somewhere that has vw and some others

[NikFu S.]

Hey, at least we got the Taurus SHO out of the deal, right?

Think they would have brought that horse to market if they weren't feeling the squeeze on their public image? I don't.

In the words of my personal savior, "Just let them fail."

[Manarius]

Ignoring the fact that the picture above subverts the bad language rules of the SVXWN (a pointable offense on NASIOC), the law involved (TARP) was signed into law by the "fiscally responsible" Republican president George W. Bush on October 3rd, 2008. A fact I'm sure the OP seemed to forget in the process of posting.

[92 SVX]

Originally Posted by Manarius

Ignoring the fact that the picture above subverts the bad language rules of the SVXWN (a pointable offense on NASIOC), the law involved (TARP) was signed into law by the "fiscally responsible" Republican president George W. Bush on October 3rd, 2008. A fact I'm sure the OP seemed to forget in the process of posting.

Normally I would not comment, however Bush was not fiscally conservative in any way shape or form, however was he better then al gore, most assuredly, that is the only reason he was elected.

[K_Dub]

Originally Posted by 92 SVX

Normally I would not comment, however Bush was not fiscally conservative in any way shape or form, however was he better then al gore, most assuredly, that is the only reason he was elected.

When was he elected over Gore? I don't remember that.

I'm enjoying your threads. If I ever get a moment I'll jump into the fray as well.

[radarwhiz]

It's interesting to see everyone's opinions and points of view. I like posting things like this to stir things up a bit.

[92 SVX]

I didnt like voting for bush in 2000, but I sure was not going to vote for al gore, I could not imagine what crap we would have right now if we had the carbon tax bs and global warming to deal with.

[K_Dub]

Originally Posted by radarwhiz

It's interesting to see everyone's opinions and points of view. I like posting things like this to stir things up a bit.

This site has a really diverse group of folks. It makes for an interesting cross section of our society. At first I was very reserved when it came to the Political Forums section, but I quickly found that it is the best way for me to see outside of my bubble and hear from those around the country.

A cross country dialogue with members representing every point in the political spectrum where everyone is treated with respect and listened to? Sounds like progress to me.

Back to work...

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Manarius

Ignoring the fact that the picture above subverts the bad language rules of the SVXWN (a pointable offense on NASIOC), the law involved (TARP) was signed into law by the "fiscally responsible" Republican president George W. Bush on October 3rd, 2008. A fact I'm sure the OP seemed to forget in the process of posting.

You are correct in that Bush signed it into law, but you should remember that the Democrats controlled both houses AND that nearly ALL Republicans voted against it. You might also check and see that 20 Congressman that voted for TARP were subsequently defeated in elections.

Lee

[LetItSnow]

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

"Just let them fail."

This is why that attitude is totally ridiculous:
"...the total number of Big Three employees, parts-supplier employees and car-dealer employees comes to 1.59 million."

1.59 million out of work, requiring some sort of survival finances, probably purchasing next to nothing.

"Add the multiplier effect of other jobs dependent on these jobs for their own existence -- in construction, retail, restaurants, and so on -- and you've easily exceeded 3 million jobs, perhaps 4 million."

How does that affect your standard of living, between inevitably increased taxes and loss of income to your employer, possibly costing you your pay, or even your job?

If you'd let 'em sink, you'd get sucked down the whirlpool, too.

[Lookin4SVX]

I think I see a flaw in your logic LetItSnow.
You seem to think that a company going under means everyone is out of work and everything is liquidated. This is not the case.

When a company goes under it creates a place in the market for a better product.
Someone else would buy up the plants, keep the workers at a lower rate, and put out a lower priced car.

You have companies like Fiat that want to buy the plants to make cars here and they are denied so the government can bail them out instead...

[LetItSnow]

Originally Posted by Lookin4SVX

Someone else would buy up the plants, keep the workers at a lower rate, and put out a lower priced car.

We're talking about the same Big Three, right? That's an awful lot of space to buy and retool, and that's just the desirable plants. Undoubtably, it's cheaper to pick up new space with a new facility than to clean up the wastes in and under a lot of facilities.

I sure don't see anyone picking up any of the plants around here. General Electric, Fisher Guide, and (in April) New Process Gear (former producer of over 70% of domestic transfer cases, as well as heaps of transaxles) will be three ghost towns with no swooping buyers.

I'll give you that your scenario of flowback would likely offer some relief, but it would be delayed and still outrageously costly, permanently destroying a domestic industry and eliminating substantial GDP.