Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Mr. Etch-a-Sketch

JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 11:08:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nope, not Romney. It's Obama.

"Just a few years ago, the auto industry wasn't just struggling - it was flatlining," Mr. Obama said. "GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse. Suppliers and distributors were at risk of going under. More than a million jobs across the country were on the line - and not just auto jobs, but the jobs of teachers, small business owners, and everyone in communities that depend on this great American industry."

His administration, he argues, "refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity, and three years later, that bet is paying off in a big way."

http://www.cbsnews.com...

I have news for you Mr. President. GM and Chrysler both did go bankrupt. Thanks to you and Bush, GM alone took some $75 billion in taxpayer dollars that will never be repaid.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 11:19:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 11:08:38 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Nope, not Romney. It's Obama.

"Just a few years ago, the auto industry wasn't just struggling - it was flatlining," Mr. Obama said. "GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse. Suppliers and distributors were at risk of going under. More than a million jobs across the country were on the line - and not just auto jobs, but the jobs of teachers, small business owners, and everyone in communities that depend on this great American industry."

His administration, he argues, "refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity, and three years later, that bet is paying off in a big way."

http://www.cbsnews.com...

I have news for you Mr. President. GM and Chrysler both did go bankrupt. Thanks to you and Bush, GM alone took some $75 billion in taxpayer dollars that will never be repaid.

If I am not mistaken, didn't Romney advocate the same practice (managed bankruptcy), but with private banks instead of the federal government managing it?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 11:25:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 11:19:51 AM, Contra wrote:
At 10/13/2012 11:08:38 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Nope, not Romney. It's Obama.

"Just a few years ago, the auto industry wasn't just struggling - it was flatlining," Mr. Obama said. "GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse. Suppliers and distributors were at risk of going under. More than a million jobs across the country were on the line - and not just auto jobs, but the jobs of teachers, small business owners, and everyone in communities that depend on this great American industry."

His administration, he argues, "refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity, and three years later, that bet is paying off in a big way."

http://www.cbsnews.com...

I have news for you Mr. President. GM and Chrysler both did go bankrupt. Thanks to you and Bush, GM alone took some $75 billion in taxpayer dollars that will never be repaid.

If I am not mistaken, didn't Romney advocate the same practice (managed bankruptcy), but with private banks instead of the federal government managing it?

Romney advocated immediate bankruptcy, instead of throwing money at failing businesses.

He also said he didn't have a problem with the government covering any shortfalls in the bankruptcy or after, but that the companies needed restructuring, not bailout funds. Obama and Biden act like they never went bankrupt.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 8:42:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 11:08:38 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Nope, not Romney. It's Obama.

"Just a few years ago, the auto industry wasn't just struggling - it was flatlining," Mr. Obama said. "GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse. Suppliers and distributors were at risk of going under. More than a million jobs across the country were on the line - and not just auto jobs, but the jobs of teachers, small business owners, and everyone in communities that depend on this great American industry."

His administration, he argues, "refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity, and three years later, that bet is paying off in a big way."

http://www.cbsnews.com...

I have news for you Mr. President. GM and Chrysler both did go bankrupt. Thanks to you and Bush, GM alone took some $75 billion in taxpayer dollars that will never be repaid.

I am sure that money they were given did make things less desperate for them than it could have been.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 8:45:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 8:42:21 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 10/13/2012 11:08:38 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Nope, not Romney. It's Obama.

"Just a few years ago, the auto industry wasn't just struggling - it was flatlining," Mr. Obama said. "GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse. Suppliers and distributors were at risk of going under. More than a million jobs across the country were on the line - and not just auto jobs, but the jobs of teachers, small business owners, and everyone in communities that depend on this great American industry."

His administration, he argues, "refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity, and three years later, that bet is paying off in a big way."

http://www.cbsnews.com...

I have news for you Mr. President. GM and Chrysler both did go bankrupt. Thanks to you and Bush, GM alone took some $75 billion in taxpayer dollars that will never be repaid.

I am sure that money they were given did make things less desperate for them than it could have been.

They were given money which went into a failing business model. They would have been better off if they just went through bankruptcy instead of taking billions of dollars.

Also, giving GM a sweetheart tax-deal is ridiculous. They are forgiven on their previous debts, but still get the tax-breaks for them. $45 Billion worth of taxes that they don't have to pay. The left hails GM as a shining example of governmental success, while it gets millions back in tax refunds every year. Simultaneously, they criticize GE, which pays 20% taxes, for being an evil, rich corporation that doesn't pay its fair share.

I'm sorry, throwing money down the drain doesn't help, but the point is Obama and Biden continue to act like GM/Chrysler didn't file bankruptcy.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 9:24:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 8:45:24 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/13/2012 8:42:21 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 10/13/2012 11:08:38 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Nope, not Romney. It's Obama.

"Just a few years ago, the auto industry wasn't just struggling - it was flatlining," Mr. Obama said. "GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse. Suppliers and distributors were at risk of going under. More than a million jobs across the country were on the line - and not just auto jobs, but the jobs of teachers, small business owners, and everyone in communities that depend on this great American industry."

His administration, he argues, "refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity, and three years later, that bet is paying off in a big way."

http://www.cbsnews.com...

I have news for you Mr. President. GM and Chrysler both did go bankrupt. Thanks to you and Bush, GM alone took some $75 billion in taxpayer dollars that will never be repaid.

I am sure that money they were given did make things less desperate for them than it could have been.

They were given money which went into a failing business model. They would have been better off if they just went through bankruptcy instead of taking billions of dollars.

Also, giving GM a sweetheart tax-deal is ridiculous. They are forgiven on their previous debts, but still get the tax-breaks for them. $45 Billion worth of taxes that they don't have to pay. The left hails GM as a shining example of governmental success, while it gets millions back in tax refunds every year. Simultaneously, they criticize GE, which pays 20% taxes, for being an evil, rich corporation that doesn't pay its fair share.

I'm sorry, throwing money down the drain doesn't help, but the point is Obama and Biden continue to act like GM/Chrysler didn't file bankruptcy.

The reason they were given this money was because this country was spiraling toward recession and if hundreds of thousands more auto industry workers were laid off, this would have reduced demand for the products of other businesses making things even worse.

Obama did exaggerate things, but the facts are that he did greatly help the industry and he is partly responsible for their recent resurgence.

Bankrupcy is bad for business and should be avoided. If a company does go bankrupt, if it is given extra money beforehand, then it can get a better deal because it is not as badly off than if it didn't receive that money at all.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 9:31:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 9:24:35 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 10/13/2012 8:45:24 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/13/2012 8:42:21 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 10/13/2012 11:08:38 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Nope, not Romney. It's Obama.

"Just a few years ago, the auto industry wasn't just struggling - it was flatlining," Mr. Obama said. "GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse. Suppliers and distributors were at risk of going under. More than a million jobs across the country were on the line - and not just auto jobs, but the jobs of teachers, small business owners, and everyone in communities that depend on this great American industry."

His administration, he argues, "refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity, and three years later, that bet is paying off in a big way."

http://www.cbsnews.com...

I have news for you Mr. President. GM and Chrysler both did go bankrupt. Thanks to you and Bush, GM alone took some $75 billion in taxpayer dollars that will never be repaid.

I am sure that money they were given did make things less desperate for them than it could have been.

They were given money which went into a failing business model. They would have been better off if they just went through bankruptcy instead of taking billions of dollars.

Also, giving GM a sweetheart tax-deal is ridiculous. They are forgiven on their previous debts, but still get the tax-breaks for them. $45 Billion worth of taxes that they don't have to pay. The left hails GM as a shining example of governmental success, while it gets millions back in tax refunds every year. Simultaneously, they criticize GE, which pays 20% taxes, for being an evil, rich corporation that doesn't pay its fair share.

I'm sorry, throwing money down the drain doesn't help, but the point is Obama and Biden continue to act like GM/Chrysler didn't file bankruptcy.

The reason they were given this money was because this country was spiraling toward recession and if hundreds of thousands more auto industry workers were laid off, this would have reduced demand for the products of other businesses making things even worse.

Obama did exaggerate things, but the facts are that he did greatly help the industry and he is partly responsible for their recent resurgence.

Bankrupcy is bad for business and should be avoided. If a company does go bankrupt, if it is given extra money beforehand, then it can get a better deal because it is not as badly off than if it didn't receive that money at all.

That same amount of money would work better in a bankruptcy, than going to a business that is just going to lose it.

Besides, if you want to give credit for the bailout funds, that credit would go to Bush, as he is the one who authorized them.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 3:37:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 9:24:35 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 10/13/2012 8:45:24 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/13/2012 8:42:21 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 10/13/2012 11:08:38 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Nope, not Romney. It's Obama.

"Just a few years ago, the auto industry wasn't just struggling - it was flatlining," Mr. Obama said. "GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse. Suppliers and distributors were at risk of going under. More than a million jobs across the country were on the line - and not just auto jobs, but the jobs of teachers, small business owners, and everyone in communities that depend on this great American industry."

His administration, he argues, "refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity, and three years later, that bet is paying off in a big way."

http://www.cbsnews.com...

I have news for you Mr. President. GM and Chrysler both did go bankrupt. Thanks to you and Bush, GM alone took some $75 billion in taxpayer dollars that will never be repaid.

I am sure that money they were given did make things less desperate for them than it could have been.

They were given money which went into a failing business model. They would have been better off if they just went through bankruptcy instead of taking billions of dollars.

Also, giving GM a sweetheart tax-deal is ridiculous. They are forgiven on their previous debts, but still get the tax-breaks for them. $45 Billion worth of taxes that they don't have to pay. The left hails GM as a shining example of governmental success, while it gets millions back in tax refunds every year. Simultaneously, they criticize GE, which pays 20% taxes, for being an evil, rich corporation that doesn't pay its fair share.

I'm sorry, throwing money down the drain doesn't help, but the point is Obama and Biden continue to act like GM/Chrysler didn't file bankruptcy.

The reason they were given this money was because this country was spiraling toward recession and if hundreds of thousands more auto industry workers were laid off, this would have reduced demand for the products of other businesses making things even worse.

You are assuming that the demand for GM cars wouldn't have been met by another company. In other words, if GM was selling 1,000 cars/day, and GM went under and closed its doors forever, why is it unfeasable that Kia or Ford or any other car company couldn't sell an additional 1,000 cars/day, to meet the demand? Those workers would be out of a job, but some (possibly all) would be hired at the expanding competitor's company.

Obama did exaggerate things, but the facts are that he did greatly help the industry and he is partly responsible for their recent resurgence.

Bankrupcy is bad for business and should be avoided. If a company does go bankrupt, if it is given extra money beforehand, then it can get a better deal because it is not as badly off than if it didn't receive that money at all.
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 3:41:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 11:25:49 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/13/2012 11:19:51 AM, Contra wrote:
At 10/13/2012 11:08:38 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Nope, not Romney. It's Obama.

"Just a few years ago, the auto industry wasn't just struggling - it was flatlining," Mr. Obama said. "GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse. Suppliers and distributors were at risk of going under. More than a million jobs across the country were on the line - and not just auto jobs, but the jobs of teachers, small business owners, and everyone in communities that depend on this great American industry."

His administration, he argues, "refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity, and three years later, that bet is paying off in a big way."

http://www.cbsnews.com...

I have news for you Mr. President. GM and Chrysler both did go bankrupt. Thanks to you and Bush, GM alone took some $75 billion in taxpayer dollars that will never be repaid.

If I am not mistaken, didn't Romney advocate the same practice (managed bankruptcy), but with private banks instead of the federal government managing it?

Romney advocated immediate bankruptcy, instead of throwing money at failing businesses.

He also said he didn't have a problem with the government covering any shortfalls in the bankruptcy or after, but that the companies needed restructuring, not bailout funds. Obama and Biden act like they never went bankrupt.

Critics of Romney also say that he is taking credit for the success of GM, saying that Obama did exactly what Romney would suggested (re: bankruptcy). However, since Obama glosses over the GM bankruptcy, Romney is subsequently painted as a liar (as he said Detroit should fail), and a credit hog.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 7:30:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 11:08:38 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Nope, not Romney. It's Obama.

"Just a few years ago, the auto industry wasn't just struggling - it was flatlining," Mr. Obama said. "GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse. Suppliers and distributors were at risk of going under. More than a million jobs across the country were on the line - and not just auto jobs, but the jobs of teachers, small business owners, and everyone in communities that depend on this great American industry."

His administration, he argues, "refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity, and three years later, that bet is paying off in a big way."

http://www.cbsnews.com...

I have news for you Mr. President. GM and Chrysler both did go bankrupt. Thanks to you and Bush, GM alone took some $75 billion in taxpayer dollars that will never be repaid.

GM and Chrysler were turned around, and one major reason was the bailout money they got. If these big companies failed, it would damage the economy. More businesses would fail, which would cause more Businesses to fail. It was important to insure that these companies succeed. Government intervention was needed.

Letting the "free market" take care of it would be too risky. Perhaps things may have worked out, or perhaps not. It is not worth taking the risk of doing nothing, with the economy on the line.

Also, automobile companies are cyclical companies that tend to do well when the economy is doing well, and do bad when the economy is bad. So, a lot of the failure of the company had to do with market conditions, not just poor management. So it was not like the government was investing in an completely awful company.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 8:00:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Critics of Romney also say that he is taking credit for the success of GM, saying that Obama did exactly what Romney would suggested (re: bankruptcy). However, since Obama glosses over the GM bankruptcy, Romney is subsequently painted as a liar (as he said Detroit should fail), and a credit hog.

Romney himself took credit for the success of GM. You can't take credit after the fact for something someone else did, even if their plans were the same. Yet, it seems their plans were different, which makes taking credit a even more outrageous thing to do.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 12:40:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 7:30:58 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
GM and Chrysler were turned around, and one major reason was the bailout money they got. If these big companies failed, it would damage the economy. More businesses would fail, which would cause more Businesses to fail. It was important to insure that these companies succeed. Government intervention was needed.

No, the bailout money was not a major reason. GM and Chrysler couldn't pay their bills... they were a failing business. We gave them money to try and keep them alive, so they could turn things around, and avoid bankruptcy. Instead, we gave them money and they continued to operate at a loss. It wasn't the bailout funds that turned things around for them.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 12:41:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 8:00:27 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Critics of Romney also say that he is taking credit for the success of GM, saying that Obama did exactly what Romney would suggested (re: bankruptcy). However, since Obama glosses over the GM bankruptcy, Romney is subsequently painted as a liar (as he said Detroit should fail), and a credit hog.

Romney himself took credit for the success of GM. You can't take credit after the fact for something someone else did, even if their plans were the same. Yet, it seems their plans were different, which makes taking credit a even more outrageous thing to do.

I would love to see you admit that Obama and Biden are being dishonest by continuing to act like they saved GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 4:25:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 7:30:58 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 10/13/2012 11:08:38 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Nope, not Romney. It's Obama.

"Just a few years ago, the auto industry wasn't just struggling - it was flatlining," Mr. Obama said. "GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse. Suppliers and distributors were at risk of going under. More than a million jobs across the country were on the line - and not just auto jobs, but the jobs of teachers, small business owners, and everyone in communities that depend on this great American industry."

His administration, he argues, "refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity, and three years later, that bet is paying off in a big way."

http://www.cbsnews.com...

I have news for you Mr. President. GM and Chrysler both did go bankrupt. Thanks to you and Bush, GM alone took some $75 billion in taxpayer dollars that will never be repaid.

GM and Chrysler were turned around, and one major reason was the bailout money they got. If these big companies failed, it would damage the economy. More businesses would fail, which would cause more Businesses to fail. It was important to insure that these companies succeed. Government intervention was needed.

Letting the "free market" take care of it would be too risky. Perhaps things may have worked out, or perhaps not. It is not worth taking the risk of doing nothing, with the economy on the line.

Also, automobile companies are cyclical companies that tend to do well when the economy is doing well, and do bad when the economy is bad. So, a lot of the failure of the company had to do with market conditions, not just poor management. So it was not like the government was investing in an completely awful company.

So, if automobile companies depend on the economy, and the economy is doing poorly, isn't throwing money at the automobile industry a temporary fix at best? If the company is doing badly because the economy went south, fixing the economy would be the best way to help the car companies, as it will provide long-term affects and not a quick-fix.

You did not comment on my other post, regarding other companies filling in the demand. If that happened, where is the loss to the economy?
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 4:36:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 4:25:48 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 10/14/2012 7:30:58 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 10/13/2012 11:08:38 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Nope, not Romney. It's Obama.

"Just a few years ago, the auto industry wasn't just struggling - it was flatlining," Mr. Obama said. "GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse. Suppliers and distributors were at risk of going under. More than a million jobs across the country were on the line - and not just auto jobs, but the jobs of teachers, small business owners, and everyone in communities that depend on this great American industry."

His administration, he argues, "refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity, and three years later, that bet is paying off in a big way."

http://www.cbsnews.com...

I have news for you Mr. President. GM and Chrysler both did go bankrupt. Thanks to you and Bush, GM alone took some $75 billion in taxpayer dollars that will never be repaid.

GM and Chrysler were turned around, and one major reason was the bailout money they got. If these big companies failed, it would damage the economy. More businesses would fail, which would cause more Businesses to fail. It was important to insure that these companies succeed. Government intervention was needed.

Letting the "free market" take care of it would be too risky. Perhaps things may have worked out, or perhaps not. It is not worth taking the risk of doing nothing, with the economy on the line.

Also, automobile companies are cyclical companies that tend to do well when the economy is doing well, and do bad when the economy is bad. So, a lot of the failure of the company had to do with market conditions, not just poor management. So it was not like the government was investing in an completely awful company.

So, if automobile companies depend on the economy, and the economy is doing poorly, isn't throwing money at the automobile industry a temporary fix at best? If the company is doing badly because the economy went south, fixing the economy would be the best way to help the car companies, as it will provide long-term affects and not a quick-fix.

You did not comment on my other post, regarding other companies filling in the demand. If that happened, where is the loss to the economy?

Well see, he is saying that there isn't demand, so there would be no demand to fill in.

But the government saved the auto industry by paying people to do work that wasn't in demand(for just a few months, apparently that fixed everything).
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:32:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 12:40:39 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/14/2012 7:30:58 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
GM and Chrysler were turned around, and one major reason was the bailout money they got. If these big companies failed, it would damage the economy. More businesses would fail, which would cause more Businesses to fail. It was important to insure that these companies succeed. Government intervention was needed.

No, the bailout money was not a major reason. GM and Chrysler couldn't pay their bills... they were a failing business. We gave them money to try and keep them alive, so they could turn things around, and avoid bankruptcy. Instead, we gave them money and they continued to operate at a loss. It wasn't the bailout funds that turned things around for them.

Without the government money they would have had to close down even more plants and jobs then they did. Would the companies have been able to survive without the bailout? Maybe, but maybe not. No one else would lend money to them. The bailout money helped GM and Chrysler survive. It would have been a lot worse without the bailout.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:33:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 12:41:35 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/14/2012 8:00:27 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Critics of Romney also say that he is taking credit for the success of GM, saying that Obama did exactly what Romney would suggested (re: bankruptcy). However, since Obama glosses over the GM bankruptcy, Romney is subsequently painted as a liar (as he said Detroit should fail), and a credit hog.

Romney himself took credit for the success of GM. You can't take credit after the fact for something someone else did, even if their plans were the same. Yet, it seems their plans were different, which makes taking credit a even more outrageous thing to do.

I would love to see you admit that Obama and Biden are being dishonest by continuing to act like they saved GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy.

Obama helped save the auto industry from failing with the bailout.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:37:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 10:32:11 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 10/14/2012 12:40:39 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/14/2012 7:30:58 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
GM and Chrysler were turned around, and one major reason was the bailout money they got. If these big companies failed, it would damage the economy. More businesses would fail, which would cause more Businesses to fail. It was important to insure that these companies succeed. Government intervention was needed.

No, the bailout money was not a major reason. GM and Chrysler couldn't pay their bills... they were a failing business. We gave them money to try and keep them alive, so they could turn things around, and avoid bankruptcy. Instead, we gave them money and they continued to operate at a loss. It wasn't the bailout funds that turned things around for them.

Without the government money they would have had to close down even more plants and jobs then they did. Would the companies have been able to survive without the bailout? Maybe, but maybe not. No one else would lend money to them. The bailout money helped GM and Chrysler survive. It would have been a lot worse without the bailout.

Or... they could have filed bankruptcy earlier, lost less money, and became profitable sooner. The bailout DID NOT SAVE those companies.

Again, this isn't even about the handling of the auto industry, it's about Obama and Biden trying to rewrite history, and say that these companies were saved from bankruptcy.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:43:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

So, if automobile companies depend on the economy, and the economy is doing poorly, isn't throwing money at the automobile industry a temporary fix at best? If the company is doing badly because the economy went south, fixing the economy would be the best way to help the car companies, as it will provide long-term affects and not a quick-fix.

Yes, it is a temporary fix. Clearly, the govt can't always be giving money to auto companies. But, it is a good thing to do to stabilize the economy in a recession. The economy depends on the auto industry, as the auto industry depends on the economy. So, if nothing was done, in the long run things will eventually work themselves out, but who knows how far the economy would sink in the near future . The bailout helped the economy/auto industry recover quicker.

You did not comment on my other post, regarding other companies filling in the demand. If that happened, where is the loss to the economy?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:47:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

You are assuming that the demand for GM cars wouldn't have been met by another company. In other words, if GM was selling 1,000 cars/day, and GM went under and closed its doors forever, why is it unfeasable that Kia or Ford or any other car company couldn't sell an additional 1,000 cars/day, to meet the demand? Those workers would be out of a job, but some (possibly all) would be hired at the expanding competitor's company.

Yeah, but the demand would more likely be filled by a foreign company. Keeping American companies alive helps the USA's auto industry stay competitive.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:50:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 10:43:41 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

So, if automobile companies depend on the economy, and the economy is doing poorly, isn't throwing money at the automobile industry a temporary fix at best? If the company is doing badly because the economy went south, fixing the economy would be the best way to help the car companies, as it will provide long-term affects and not a quick-fix.

Yes, it is a temporary fix.

A temporary fix, that didn't work. We gave them money. They lost it.

Clearly, the govt can't always be giving money to auto companies. But, it is a good thing to do to stabilize the economy in a recession. The economy depends on the auto industry, as the auto industry depends on the economy. So, if nothing was done, in the long run things will eventually work themselves out, but who knows how far the economy would sink in the near future . The bailout helped the economy/auto industry recover quicker.

How did the bailout help? They went bankrupt.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:51:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 10:37:48 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/14/2012 10:32:11 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 10/14/2012 12:40:39 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/14/2012 7:30:58 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
GM and Chrysler were turned around, and one major reason was the bailout money they got. If these big companies failed, it would damage the economy. More businesses would fail, which would cause more Businesses to fail. It was important to insure that these companies succeed. Government intervention was needed.

No, the bailout money was not a major reason. GM and Chrysler couldn't pay their bills... they were a failing business. We gave them money to try and keep them alive, so they could turn things around, and avoid bankruptcy. Instead, we gave them money and they continued to operate at a loss. It wasn't the bailout funds that turned things around for them.

Without the government money they would have had to close down even more plants and jobs then they did. Would the companies have been able to survive without the bailout? Maybe, but maybe not. No one else would lend money to them. The bailout money helped GM and Chrysler survive. It would have been a lot worse without the bailout.

Or... they could have filed bankruptcy earlier, lost less money, and became profitable sooner. The bailout DID NOT SAVE those companies.

Again, this isn't even about the handling of the auto industry, it's about Obama and Biden trying to rewrite history, and say that these companies were saved from bankruptcy.

If they did not get the money, they would have had to liquidate more assets and fire more employees. They went to bankruptcy but they did not fail. Without the bailout they may have shut down completely.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:52:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 10:33:20 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 10/14/2012 12:41:35 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/14/2012 8:00:27 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Critics of Romney also say that he is taking credit for the success of GM, saying that Obama did exactly what Romney would suggested (re: bankruptcy). However, since Obama glosses over the GM bankruptcy, Romney is subsequently painted as a liar (as he said Detroit should fail), and a credit hog.

Romney himself took credit for the success of GM. You can't take credit after the fact for something someone else did, even if their plans were the same. Yet, it seems their plans were different, which makes taking credit a even more outrageous thing to do.

I would love to see you admit that Obama and Biden are being dishonest by continuing to act like they saved GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy.

Obama helped save the auto industry from failing with the bailout.

You don't seem to be paying attention.

P1 - Obama claims he saved the companies from bankruptcy.
P2 - The companies filed bankruptcy.
C - ?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:53:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

How did the bailout help? They went bankrupt.

They were in less debt. So, they only had to liquidate 25% of their assets instead of all of them. And they got R & D money to make fuel efficient cars.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:55:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 10:51:29 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
If they did not get the money, they would have had to liquidate more assets and fire more employees. They went to bankruptcy but they did not fail. Without the bailout they may have shut down completely.

Ok, let's look at this.

GM has $100B in debt(let's say). They are failing. So, we give them $2 billion and say 'You really need to turn things around'. Over the next 4 months, GM loses that $2 billion to operating losses, and files bankruptcy. Their debts and assets before being given the money are the same as after.

So, how did getting money, then losing it, help them?

You're still pushing this false dilemma. Either shut down, or take taxpayer dollars to operate at a loss until they file bankruptcy. The third option is to immediately file bankruptcy, instead of operating at a loss.

You must really love Obama to be defending a clear lie like you are.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:55:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 10:52:00 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/14/2012 10:33:20 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 10/14/2012 12:41:35 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/14/2012 8:00:27 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Critics of Romney also say that he is taking credit for the success of GM, saying that Obama did exactly what Romney would suggested (re: bankruptcy). However, since Obama glosses over the GM bankruptcy, Romney is subsequently painted as a liar (as he said Detroit should fail), and a credit hog.

Romney himself took credit for the success of GM. You can't take credit after the fact for something someone else did, even if their plans were the same. Yet, it seems their plans were different, which makes taking credit a even more outrageous thing to do.

I would love to see you admit that Obama and Biden are being dishonest by continuing to act like they saved GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy.

Obama helped save the auto industry from failing with the bailout.

You don't seem to be paying attention.

P1 - Obama claims he saved the companies from bankruptcy.
P2 - The companies filed bankruptcy.
C - ?

The company survived bankruptcy because of Obama.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:56:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 4:36:05 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/14/2012 4:25:48 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 10/14/2012 7:30:58 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 10/13/2012 11:08:38 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Nope, not Romney. It's Obama.

"Just a few years ago, the auto industry wasn't just struggling - it was flatlining," Mr. Obama said. "GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse. Suppliers and distributors were at risk of going under. More than a million jobs across the country were on the line - and not just auto jobs, but the jobs of teachers, small business owners, and everyone in communities that depend on this great American industry."

His administration, he argues, "refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity, and three years later, that bet is paying off in a big way."

http://www.cbsnews.com...

I have news for you Mr. President. GM and Chrysler both did go bankrupt. Thanks to you and Bush, GM alone took some $75 billion in taxpayer dollars that will never be repaid.

GM and Chrysler were turned around, and one major reason was the bailout money they got. If these big companies failed, it would damage the economy. More businesses would fail, which would cause more Businesses to fail. It was important to insure that these companies succeed. Government intervention was needed.

Letting the "free market" take care of it would be too risky. Perhaps things may have worked out, or perhaps not. It is not worth taking the risk of doing nothing, with the economy on the line.

Also, automobile companies are cyclical companies that tend to do well when the economy is doing well, and do bad when the economy is bad. So, a lot of the failure of the company had to do with market conditions, not just poor management. So it was not like the government was investing in an completely awful company.

So, if automobile companies depend on the economy, and the economy is doing poorly, isn't throwing money at the automobile industry a temporary fix at best? If the company is doing badly because the economy went south, fixing the economy would be the best way to help the car companies, as it will provide long-term affects and not a quick-fix.

You did not comment on my other post, regarding other companies filling in the demand. If that happened, where is the loss to the economy?

Well see, he is saying that there isn't demand, so there would be no demand to fill in.

But the government saved the auto industry by paying people to do work that wasn't in demand(for just a few months, apparently that fixed everything).

The government also helped create demand with programs like the cash for clunkers program.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:57:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 10:55:12 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 10/14/2012 10:52:00 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/14/2012 10:33:20 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 10/14/2012 12:41:35 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/14/2012 8:00:27 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
Critics of Romney also say that he is taking credit for the success of GM, saying that Obama did exactly what Romney would suggested (re: bankruptcy). However, since Obama glosses over the GM bankruptcy, Romney is subsequently painted as a liar (as he said Detroit should fail), and a credit hog.

Romney himself took credit for the success of GM. You can't take credit after the fact for something someone else did, even if their plans were the same. Yet, it seems their plans were different, which makes taking credit a even more outrageous thing to do.

I would love to see you admit that Obama and Biden are being dishonest by continuing to act like they saved GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy.

Obama helped save the auto industry from failing with the bailout.

You don't seem to be paying attention.

P1 - Obama claims he saved the companies from bankruptcy.
P2 - The companies filed bankruptcy.
C - ?

The company survived bankruptcy because of Obama.

So, you admit that they went through bankruptcy?

Did Obama lie then?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 11:01:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 10:55:12 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
The company survived bankruptcy because of Obama.

How? GM was losing almost $3 billion per month. The longer they operated, the more debt they had.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 11:03:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 10:56:09 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
The government also helped create demand with programs like the cash for clunkers program.

All that did(besides some other short term and long term problems) was pull demand from one year into a condensed time-frame. The increase in sales was offset by having less sales after the program ended.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13