Originally Posted By andyll Unlike Bush Obama took a real hard line with the automakers. He forced them to really restructure and not just give lip service about cost cutting. He forced the Unions to give big concessions. He forced the debt holders to give concessions. When not all of chryslers debt holders came through he allowed them to go into bankrupcy. This is all stuff I kept hearing from cons that needed to be done. Will they now give Obama credit for this or will they nitpick the deals?
Originally Posted By charming husband I think that you are counting your chickens before they hatch. US car makers are far from being out of the woods yet.
Originally Posted By donnyaz "Unlike Bush Obama took a real hard line with the automakers" What GMC just filed for bankruptcy and is still closing american plants and keeping GMC foreign plants.I think fans of Obama need to stop drinking the coolaide and see this is a failure dont worry its only been 100+ days. PS camp X ray is still in operation.HAHA
Originally Posted By donnyaz "Does post 4 make any sense?"Im sorry I will make is simple.Obama is a good guy and will probbly do good things but andyll wants to look at the auto bailout as a success when in fact the 15.4 billion dollars that was suppose to help GM avoid bankrupcy because that would cause investors to flee didnt work,GM is filing for bankrupcy and the stock is in the tank.If you cant see that pretend Bush is still president and ask if this was a success ????
Originally Posted By andyll <andyll wants to look at the auto bailout as a success> I absolutely did not say the auto bailout was a success or even if Obama's strategy is correct. What I said is that Obama did what most Cons wanted to be done... quit just giving money to the auto makers without strings. Before lending any more money he is forcing them to make major reorganizations and strategy changes; which in chyrslers case meant bankruptcy. I've been waiting for the roar of approval from the Cons on this change of how to deal with the failing companies.
Originally Posted By donnyaz andy said "Will they now give Obama credit for this " I think you only give credit for things people do right" Also when you give a 5 billion dollar company 15 billion dollars and they waste that money and that person continues to give them money well I dont know if you have ever seen the show intervention but they call those people enablers.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I think the economy has forced more of this than Obama has but there is no doubt that Obama is having an impact. The only question left unanswered is what, exactly, that impact is and if it will ultimately be positive or negative.
Originally Posted By donnyaz wahooskipper I was not a fan of the Bush bailout either,it was stupid and a waste of our taxes.We should have allowed the banks to fail,allwoed home owners who could not afford the homes they bought to fail, and encouraged the responsible to grow.But we didnt.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm not ready to write off the efforts of Bush or Obama in regards to the economy. I think Obama has been pretty clear that some of the Bush initiatives actually helped. But, I just don't know what the long term consequences of all of this are. Have we set a precedent that government intervention will not be expected for ANY industry? What is the long term cost to our children and grandchildren?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***But, I just don't know what the long term consequences of all of this are.*** Depends on what is done in the intermediate term (the next 2-4 years), I'd say. If they don't deal with it head-on, as soon as the crisis has sufficiently abated...the long term consequences are dire. ***Have we set a precedent that government intervention will not be expected for ANY industry?*** I don't think so. Didn't the government bail out the airlines at one point? And also the old S&L scandal (so quaint nowadays, ain't it? )? I think bailouts should be few and far between, with ample regulations put in place (and not REVERSED like the Republicans always try to do) to prevent future reoccurrence.
Originally Posted By donnyaz I know MR. X has said he wont respond to any of my posts but I will respond to his.911 was an un-forseen disaster that the airlines had nothing to do with.The false economy was a totaly forseeable crisis that the banks,automakers,homebuyers,state and local governments should have seen coming.Even Bush went to the Senate and said in a speech that the winds of our great economy is beginning to blow the other way.In other words our economy blows
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Saying it is a problem and DOING somethign about the problem are two different things. All of the politicicans KNOW that Social Security is a disaster in the making. None of them are DOING anything about it.
Originally Posted By andyll <<Also when you give a 5 billion dollar company 15 billion dollars >> Bush is the one that gave the automakers the bailout. Are the republicans so much in denial that they are now attributing every bailout to Obama? And what do you mean '5 billion dollar company"? GM was a 200 Billion dollar company before the crisis.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I'm certainly no economist, but I think the bailouts had to occur in the way that they did because to just let the markets and things run their course would have been catastrophic. It would have been too many foreclosures, too many banks failing, too many companies going out all at once. As a country, we likely would have suffered more decimation that any terrorist attack could have done.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I agree that bailouts were a necessity and needed to happen, but not "in the way that they did". The lack of oversight and transparency led to million dollar bonuses, and other millions simply disappearing. I also don't appreciate the uppity attitude from the executives of these bailed out institutions. More executives should should have been terminated - instead they have this inflated sense of entitlement. They're being protected from actual accountability for their own actions. I'm in sales, and you sink or swim based upon your posted numbers. It's hard-knock, but it's reality. I think these bank executives could do with a good swift dose of reality too. Like for insteance, unemployment as an option instead of unjustified bonuses. Let them default on THEIR mortgage for a change.
Originally Posted By Mr X They wouldn't though. Those guys have their golden parachutes and all kinds of other legally binding options to insure that they NEVER go broke and will be fine.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 And that's the problem with a lot of the executives, the government can't legally do anything about them, which sucks. There can be changes made to do something about it in the future, but now, unfortunately, it's too late, and I think a lot of the executives know that...
