What do you think about the big car industry bailout back in 2008.

[beplubber24]

Some people say that this was a bad idea when we were already in so much debt. I say it's a good thing, because of they failed, Chrysler and GM, Ford would be the only American car manufacturer left, but Ford would've been left out to dry, and they, would've eventually went under. If we have no cars to trade with other countries, they won't trade with us. We can't use money because of our debt. Our economy goes under, and the world will go under. Plus, 25% of our jobs will also be lost

[huginnmuninn]

Seems a bit late for this thread... but I'm going to say that it was a bad idea to bail out these companies for two main reasons. the first is that the gov't has no business helping out private companies. secondly the businesses may have been helped a little bit but if they didnt fix the problem in the company then the money would only slow down the collapse of the companies.

i honestly dont know all of what went on so the companies may have changed the way they are doing business and stuff but thats from my knowledge now.

[beplubber24]

But the problems are fixed, and GM has well paid back their loans to the govt. and has actually offered to buy their shares back from them at about twice of what their worth.Chrysler has already about paid most of their debt back, in about 1/8 of the time they were expected to pay back in the time they did. Also, think about jobs that would've been lost if both went under. Again, Ford wouldn't've survived by themselves being the only American made in the world. They would've been bought in thirty seconds after GM and Chrysler went under. Think of the logistics, that's what most people who think think this was a bad thing don't think about. And yes, both companies have changed their business style. Anybody else wanna get owned by a 15 year old on car companies.

[jackson94]

You'd have to be awfully biased to say that it was anything but a great idea. At the time, conntroversial, sure. However, since than, each of the three major car companies that recieved the bailouts have had their most profitable quarters in over a decade, and have consistantly been adding much needed manufacturing jobs.
And the investment the government made is set to be paid off, plus interest, in another year or so. Really no downside on this one, except for maybe on an idealogical basis.

But beplubber, you're still a douche because of that last statement :D

[Steve Jobs]

I'm with that but I'd say it was one hell of a gamble, even if it was one made without many alternatives. It's really clear all three companies made it out fitter and stronger and I only hope they will continue to remain as they are.

And watch that last statement beplubber. You certainly sound like a Geely executive.

[RElk]

Go Ford- they didn't take it.

[double r]

It was risky but it turned out a bit successful

[Aves]

From what I can tell, it was a very good idea. It didn't work out entirely successful, but it helped keep jobs in America and helped us keep items to export.

[beplubber24]

But beplubber, you're still a douche because of that last statement :D

Yea, I know, not that much of a nice person when anyone disagrees with me. You have a different opinion then me, be prepared to defend it.

[Jen'ari]

Believe it was a mistake because the government has no right to involve themselves in such things.. Especially when they removed the owner or whatever he was and had him replaced for Chevy.. They then chose their own person to be in charge.. Seems a little out of their right.

[jackson94]

Believe it was a mistake because the government has no right to involve themselves in such things.. Especially when they removed the owner or whatever he was and had him replaced for Chevy.. They then chose their own person to be in charge.. Seems a little out of their right.

I'd dispute this. Sure, if you are a libertarian and believe the government shouldn't have that role, that's an ideological decision. However, the Federal Government has the right to spend tax payer money in many ways, and investing in failing companies is definately within their right.

Go Ford- they didn't take it.

Ford didn't take TARP money, but they still took out billions of dollars in Federal Loans. They just didn't want the bad publicity of being bailed out.

[Jen'ari]

[QUOTE=jackson94;1713509]I'd dispute this. Sure, if you are a libertarian and believe the government shouldn't have that role, that's an ideological decision. However, the Federal Government has the right to spend tax payer money in many ways, and investing in failing companies is definately within their right.



Lol I was talking about forcing them to fire their current CEO and put in one of their choosing in order to get the money. Also you won't change my mind so argue away but it's rather pointless.

In addition.. If they help one I believe they must help them all.. They did not.. As a result other car companies(smaller yes but still) went under.. Plus it's called business.. If you go bankrupt.. That's your problem... Survival of the Fittest..

Also to everyone saying Ford wouldn't have survived.. Really?? Cuz they kinda did.. So umm yea..

[beplubber24]

[QUOTE=jackson94;1713509]I'd dispute this. Sure, if you are a libertarian and believe the government shouldn't have that role, that's an ideological decision. However, the Federal Government has the right to spend tax payer money in many ways, and investing in failing companies is definately within their right.



Lol I was talking about forcing them to fire their current CEO and put in one of their choosing in order to get the money. Also you won't change my mind so argue away but it's rather pointless.

In addition.. If they help one I believe they must help them all.. They did not.. As a result other car companies(smaller yes but still) went under.. Plus it's called business.. If you go bankrupt.. That's your problem... Survival of the Fittest..

Also to everyone saying Ford wouldn't have survived.. Really?? Cuz they kinda did.. So umm yea..

I said Ford wouldn't've survived by themselves if GM and Chrysler went under. Geez, read what I'm saying.

[Jen'ari]

[QUOTE=Jen'ari;1713808]

I said Ford wouldn't've survived by themselves if GM and Chrysler went under. Geez, read what I'm saying.

And how do you come to that.. And I did read.. Just don't care to much.. But anyhow if GM and Chrysler had gone under it would've pushed the market to ford.. Aka they would've survived and cornered the market.. But I don't care much about the bailout itself.. It's was the conditions that I am against.. Which no one has spoken out in defense of I might add.. You should read all as well and stop attacking what you think you can win.. But seeing as you are someone who refuses to be wrong.. Its really a pointless argument..

[Korashk]

I'd dispute this. Sure, if you are a libertarian and believe the government shouldn't have that role, that's an ideological decision. However, the Federal Government has the right to spend tax payer money in many ways, and investing in failing companies is definately within their right.
They only have that right because they say they do and have guns and jails to silence those that think otherwise.

[beplubber24]

If the Feds hadn't gotten involved in this in anyway whatsoever, all 3 major and all smaller companies would've gone down. You have to think outside of the box my friend.

[Truth]

Some people say that this was a bad idea when we were already in so much debt. I say it's a good thing, because of they failed, Chrysler and GM, Ford would be the only American car manufacturer left, but Ford would've been left out to dry, and they, would've eventually went under. If we have no cars to trade with other countries, they won't trade with us. We can't use money because of our debt. Our economy goes under, and the world will go under. Plus, 25% of our jobs will also be lost I have to comment about this. Are you serious? Are you kidding me? I can't even believe you made that statement.

The USA steals billions of dollars from every country, and even more resources. If the USA's economy was destroyed it not "make the world go under".

[jackson94]

you won't change my mind so argue away but it's rather pointless.



Glad no one here is completely close-minded...


In addition.. If they help one I believe they must help them all.. They did not.. As a result other car companies(smaller yes but still) went under.. Plus it's called business.. If you go bankrupt.. That's your problem... Survival of the Fittest..



Except, that's not 'your' problem, that's OUR problem. By saving the big three auto industries, Obama has kept a couple million people employed that otherwise would not have been.


Also to everyone saying Ford wouldn't have survived.. Really?? Cuz they kinda did.. So umm yea..

Sorry to ruin the sassiness, but as I said earlier, they took out billions of dollars in Federal Loans, it just wasn't included in the TARP funds. It was still a bailout however, considering that under normal circumstances the US Fed would never give out huge loans to a company they consider days away from bankruptcy.