Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Where do you get the idea there are no pre-conditions? That isn't what the article said.We reward bad business in this country and it's absolutely sickening to me. I was all for some kind of structured bankruptcy, but doing this?? Giving them loans without pre-conditions?
White House to Give Auto Industry Low-Interest Loans - FOXNews.com Transition Tracker
Uh,Giving a low interest loan is better than a bailout.. but not by a lot... no preconditions would make that worse though
And still... what benefit is the taxpayer getting out of this? None....
With a bailout (and the reason a bailout is preferable to liberals and neo-conservatives) there comes increased power in government. A "car czar", input into the business dealings, influence thanks to the money cloud over the heads of the car companies, etc.... this is not what is needed at all...
Have a solution where there IS true benefit to the taxpayer and where the public shows the car companies where their purchase interests are... instead of money directly to the companies for basically nothing... give the opportunity for EVERY tax paying family in the US to write off a new US car purchase on their next year's taxes (2009).... the tax payer gets a direct benefit (hell, ones with foreign cars would benefit from trading in their Accords and Camrys and getting a new US car) of a new car and a tax writeoff.. .the companies get their influx of capital... the dealerships sell and clear inventory... the banks process loans.. state taxes will get a bump from the sales... AND it will probably cost the fed less in the long run....
The problem is that this takes power out of the government.. and the DEMs want to have the power (hell, a lot of the big government REPs are the same way)... it's not about what is best or what actually gives a benefit to the taxpayers that are fronting these actions...
Uh,
Dave? The so-called bailout by Congress was actually short term loans with oversight. Not any different that what Bush is effectively doing.
It was loans. I think it is a good move. The big three could clearly come back after the economy picks up. Worth the chance. If they fail, oh well....retrofit the factories and start building windmills.Was not entirely loans though.... but I do know it was not just 100% monetary give away for 'nothing'
But still... no benefit to the taxpayer... still about power and not an actual solution
It was loans. I think it is a good move. The big three could clearly come back after the economy picks up. Worth the chance. If they fail, oh well....retrofit the factories and start building windmills.
The benefit is jobs and a stable economy.Again.. where is the benefit to the taxpayer? How does this really help the business or the string of businesses involved and effected by the auto 'crisis'?
Answer to the first q is none.. Answer to the second is that it doesn't
And as for your statement about retrofitting if there is a failure... at who's expense? Sounds like a government hand again.... more taxpayer money... more of a grab for power as the government controls the process and grabs influence....
The benefit is jobs and a stable economy.
We reward bad business in this country and it's absolutely sickening to me. I was all for some kind of structured bankruptcy, but doing this?? Giving them loans without pre-conditions?
White House to Give Auto Industry Low-Interest Loans - FOXNews.com Transition Tracker
I don't think so. I don't believe in bailouts or loans as a matter of course. But in this case I think it is merited. I've no interest in seeing thousands more, even millions more, unemployed people not spending money to keep the economy going.No... there is nothing in this that leads to a more stable economy than allowing the taxpayers to benefit from purchases into the business...
No... jobs are STILL not guaranteed or truly helped with this... when production, sales, and the efforts in associated industries increases, THEN jobs are more likely to be 'helped' added or 'saved'...
Your thinking behind any supposed benefit of a bailout or loan is inherently flawed
Again.. where is the benefit to the taxpayer?
How does this really help the business or the string of businesses involved and effected by the auto 'crisis'?
Answer to the first q is none.. Answer to the second is that it doesn't
And as for your statement about retrofitting if there is a failure... at who's expense? Sounds like a government hand again.... more taxpayer money... more of a grab for power as the government controls the process and grabs influence....
Diverting a depression, perhaps?
By giving them a bridge loan?
Guess we don't entirely agree on this issue, eh?
Yeah, it could be that, too.
It really depends on the structure of the loans.
I don't think so. I don't believe in bailouts or loans as a matter of course. But in this case I think it is merited. I've no interest in seeing thousands more, even millions more, unemployed people not spending money to keep the economy going.
I'm sorry you are incapable of reading. Pretty good at assuming, though.so you are willing to bail them out indefinitely? What about the other people who have lost their jobs? Gonna send them some bailout?
I'm sorry you are incapable of reading. Pretty good at assuming, though.
Could be close the bank, we seem to be a few trillion short.
1) nothing in a 'bailout' or 'loan' truly does anything to avert a depression.... and it is inherently less beneficial in the big picture than having the taxpayer benefit more directly and stimulate every layer of the business and associated businesses with incentives to purchase and stimulate the business with actual business
2) And every other answer you come up with involves more and more government involvement, influence, control, and chance for subjective corruption.... not really a good thing... government is not the answer, it is a huge part of the problem....
