Not a fair bailout for all?

[JimJ 5,000+ posts]

So what is your opinion of the accountablity of the white collar worker vs. the blue collar worker in this massive economic bailout?

The whole class-warfare thing bothers me. Both were horrible ideas, IMO...trying to make it about who does what simply avoids the underlying issues of why all this extra money was needed in the first place...typical American thinking, though.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

I don't think this money was needed at all, all we are doing is prolonging the time before the fall. We can't run bloated forever, at some point the markets, housing prices, wages, people's materialistic tendancies, etc will all have to fall down to a sustainable level.

 

[Lugnutz 10+ year member]

I don't understand why people think this "bailout" for the auto companies is really any different then chapter 11.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

I don't understand why people think this "bailout" for the auto companies is really any different then chapter 11.

If its not really any different than chapter 11....why didn't they just let them go the chapter 11 route....if its the same? Why create more process if there is already a process that covers the situation?

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

Isn't there a youtube video about Obama you should be watching?

no I got tired of you tube after i seen you in a midget pron video on there

 

[Lugnutz 10+ year member]

If its not really any different than chapter 11....why didn't they just let them go the chapter 11 route....if its the same? Why create more process if there is already a process that covers the situation?

Filing chapter 11 would be a much bigger PR hit then a bridge loan. This isn't really different. The government is appointing an auto czar to oversee the money and reorganize the companies. In a nutshell that's chapter 11.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

I don't understand why people think this "bailout" for the auto companies is really any different then chapter 11.

if this were chapter 11 they should just get it over with and save us the retarded political theater:laugh: The dems will eventually have to fess up about this whole mess to begin with..which will be a total a complete comedy routine in itself.....

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

Filing chapter 11 would be a much bigger PR hit then a bridge loan. This isn't really different. The government is appointing an auto czar to oversee the money and reorganize the companies. In a nutshell that's chapter 11.

Having to ask the govt for billions of bailout money is already a PR hit //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

Creating a new gov't position to put their hands in where chapter 11 already covers is dumb in my mind. It would be devastating but chapter 11 is what should happen, drastic times call for drastic measures.

Once again, if its in a nutshell chapter 11, why not let that natural course take place instead of trying to gum it up with more gov't involvement? Will this auto czar force their debt owners to negotiate for pennies on the dollar?

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

I don't think this money was needed at all, all we are doing is prolonging the time before the fall. We can't run bloated forever, at some point the markets, housing prices, wages, people's materialistic tendancies, etc will all have to fall down to a sustainable level.

A very simple economic planning question: do you want sustained growth, or do you prefer unlimited growth? I think those who support the bailout believe in near-unlimited growth; they believe that we can soften the blow from the current recession, then continue seeking the most growth possible. It is this attitude that I believe leads to boom-bust cycles. This sort of "injection of liquidity" did not work for Japan during their "lost decade", and I'm not confident that it will work here.

The best answer to unmanaged growth is an unmanaged recession. Let the economy fall fast and hard, then ensure that growth is seen from production and investment based on assets.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

The whole class-warfare thing bothers me. Both were horrible ideas, IMO...trying to make it about who does what simply avoids the underlying issues of why all this extra money was needed in the first place...typical American thinking, though.

The problem itself is not one of class wars; that is only the political aspect speaking. I think the only place that holds relevance is in the understanding of what is necessary or what the problem is: the majority of Senate and House representatives could not even explain dividends, but they can easily explain why they bought a Corolla instead of a Malibu, for example. In this sense, a "white collar" worker might be more likely to be able to pull the wool over their eyes, simply because the assets they work with aren't as tangible.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

A very simple economic planning question: do you want sustained growth, or do you prefer unlimited growth? I think those who support the bailout believe in near-unlimited growth; they believe that we can soften the blow from the current recession, then continue seeking the most growth possible. It is this attitude that I believe leads to boom-bust cycles. This sort of "injection of liquidity" did not work for Japan during their "lost decade", and I'm not confident that it will work here.
The best answer to unmanaged growth is an unmanaged recession. Let the economy fall fast and hard, then ensure that growth is seen from production and investment based on assets.

I see a conflict in what you just said here...

I don't see how wanting to soften the blow to the current economic woes promotes the attitude of a boom-bust cycle. Wishing to soften to blow would seem like wanting to promote a sustained growth plan.

The issue is, people want it both ways. They want the unlimited growth a free market has to offer, but none of the drawbacks, such as the associated (and necessary) economic downturns.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

A very simple economic planning question: do you want sustained growth, or do you prefer unlimited growth? I think those who support the bailout believe in near-unlimited growth; they believe that we can soften the blow from the current recession, then continue seeking the most growth possible. It is this attitude that I believe leads to boom-bust cycles. This sort of "injection of liquidity" did not work for Japan during their "lost decade", and I'm not confident that it will work here.
The best answer to unmanaged growth is an unmanaged recession. Let the economy fall fast and hard, then ensure that growth is seen from production and investment based on assets.

Alot of people don't like hearing **** news, but we have to face reality. I'm a pessimist, I don't see the US being competitive with the global market until our factory workers make 5 bucks a day, our tech workers make 5 bucks an hour, etc. Its a global market now and unless our wages match what the global work force is making, and our regulations match polluting countries regs we will not be able to compete. Unless we move to a protectionist approach we have a long way to fall before things stablize long term.

My only hope is that other countries start demanding better wages and impliment stronger regulations...if not the future is bleak. Alot of us have become accustomed to a standard of living that is not realistic in todays world.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

The problem itself is not one of class wars; that is only the political aspect speaking. I think the only place that holds relevance is in the understanding of what is necessary or what the problem is: the majority of Senate and House representatives could not even explain dividends, but they can easily explain why they bought a Corolla instead of a Malibu, for example. In this sense, a "white collar" worker might be more likely to be able to pull the wool over their eyes, simply because the assets they work with aren't as tangible.

Of course. Plus, there was (IMO) a greater sense of urgency with the FI bailout than the automakers...probably attributed to much "smarter" people advocating the FI bailout. Even I supported it, because I know what could possible happen. Now that I have more data, I am thinking it wasn't necessary. The government had other mechanisms to promote and protect consumer confidence in the banking system. I have no issue if 99% of the banks fail. I do have an issue in that the FDIC is unable (in its current state) to protect the deposits of those 99%.

 

[Lugnutz 10+ year member]

Alot of people don't like hearing **** news, but we have to face reality. I'm a pessimist, I don't see the US being competitive with the global market until our factory workers make 5 bucks a day, our tech workers make 5 bucks an hour, etc. Its a global market now and unless our wages match what the global work force is making, and our regulations match polluting countries regs we will not be able to compete. Unless we move to a protectionist approach we have a long way to fall before things stablize long term.
My only hope is that other countries start demanding better wages and impliment stronger regulations...if not the future is bleak. Alot of us have become accustomed to a standard of living that is not realistic in todays world.

Great so the only way for us to be better is to become China or Mexico.

 

[phantom240 5,000+ posts]

Flip, let me ask you something... Why do you hang out on CA.com? Your thought process and reasoning abilities seem to be much more advanced than most of the people here.