What about that awesome cash for clunkers debachle.

Bush is right on this one, you do NOT let those companies go down, the auto bailout was NOTHING compared to the bank bailout. That's what makes me laugh about people that have such a fit about this one, I bet if everyone that has a home mortgage checked where it was actually held, a VERY large percentage of them are held by banks that took TARP money.

The US auto makers are coming back, Ford to their credit mortgaged the entire farm right before this hit or they would be right in with GM and Chrysler. I still cant believe that there are some that think not saving these companies was the right thing, Bush had it right, all these firms were collapsing, they NEEDED to step in and do something.

walleye101 Said:
Bush is right on this one, you do NOT let those companies go down, the auto bailout was NOTHING compared to the bank bailout. That's what makes me laugh about people that have such a fit about this one, I bet if everyone that has a home mortgage checked where it was actually held, a VERY large percentage of them are held by banks that took TARP money.

The US auto makers are coming back, Ford to their credit mortgaged the entire farm right before this hit or they would be right in with GM and Chrysler. I still cant believe that there are some that think not saving these companies was the right thing, Bush had it right, all these firms were collapsing, they NEEDED to step in and do something.

bankruptcy would have been better then they could restructure the debt dropped union demands and sold off the non profit lines  and then gotten operating money

walleye101 Said:
Bush is right on this one, you do NOT let those companies go down, the auto bailout was NOTHING compared to the bank bailout. That's what makes me laugh about people that have such a fit about this one, I bet if everyone that has a home mortgage checked where it was actually held, a VERY large percentage of them are held by banks that took TARP money.

The US auto makers are coming back, Ford to their credit mortgaged the entire farm right before this hit or they would be right in with GM and Chrysler. I still cant believe that there are some that think not saving these companies was the right thing, Bush had it right, all these firms were collapsing, they NEEDED to step in and do something.

I can't believe there's anybody that believes its governments job to save business's.  And it wouldn't make a rats ass bit of difference whether or not those banks held peoples mortgages.  the bankruptcy trustee will take their money just as well as the failing banks would have.  My mortgage was held by Lehman Bros. when they went tits up.  You would never know it even happened.  I keep mailing my checks to the same place using the same statements, etc.  When these companies think they're too big to fail they start making stupid decisions.  Let them bite the bullet.  That'll smarten them up.

Its pointing our hypocrisy eyexer, people on here sit and bash the auto bailout, yeah I dont like it either but at the time, when the economy was on the brink, something needed to be done. You would be by far the worst leader if you had sat back and let it all unravel like it damn near could have in 2008.

I agree bankruptcy restructure is good but at the time of the financial markets grinding to  a near halt, would you do nothing to keep the financial system liquid?? I shutter to think of what would have happened had nothing been done. Sometimes you take the lesser of two evils. 

walleye101 Said:
Its pointing our hypocrisy eyexer, people on here sit and bash the auto bailout, yeah I dont like it either but at the time, when the economy was on the brink, something needed to be done. You would be by far the worst leader if you had sat back and let it all unravel like it damn near could have in 2008.

I agree bankruptcy restructure is good but at the time of the financial markets grinding to  a near halt, would you do nothing to keep the financial system liquid?? I shutter to think of what would have happened had nothing been done. Sometimes you take the lesser of two evils. 

bankrupty would have saved the taxpayers at least 100 billion  but the bad thing is the almighty one would have given it to some other worthless company that contributed to him

We bail out the farmers every single year for one crop or another or to just help them out some.  Too much rain, not enough rain.  Too cool of weather, too hot of weather.  Too many bugs.  Poor land to begin with.  You name it.  Then we have one of the biggest economic meltdowns of our time and we try to save the last few industries we have left and people bitch because it's not in the spirit of true capitalism.  Bring out the violins!!!  With most of the worlds economies being run by governments that are totally taking advantage of our system and open markets do you really think selling out our last few industries to them was in our country's best interest?  I think not.  I'd much rather have these people working and creating a product with our tax dollars than have them sitting at home with no chance of a job and collecting unemployment and other gov't benefits. 

marksman Said:

walleye101 Said:
Its pointing our hypocrisy eyexer, people on here sit and bash the auto bailout, yeah I dont like it either but at the time, when the economy was on the brink, something needed to be done. You would be by far the worst leader if you had sat back and let it all unravel like it damn near could have in 2008.

I agree bankruptcy restructure is good but at the time of the financial markets grinding to  a near halt, would you do nothing to keep the financial system liquid?? I shutter to think of what would have happened had nothing been done. Sometimes you take the lesser of two evils. 

bankrupty would have saved the taxpayers at least 100 billion  but the bad thing is the almighty one would have given it to some other worthless company that contributed to him

The taxpayers are not losing all of that, the companies have to pay back a very large percentage of the funds, just as the banks that took TARP money have to. The effect of letting those go down at the time of the financial collapse would have been MUCH worse than the effect to us with the bailout. Btw, did you not read George W's take on this?? This one isn't strictly on Obama. As I said, you were be a pretty bad leader to just have let all of this unravel back in 2008, things were grinding to a halt.

walleye101 Said:

marksman Said:

walleye101 Said:
Its pointing our hypocrisy eyexer, people on here sit and bash the auto bailout, yeah I dont like it either but at the time, when the economy was on the brink, something needed to be done. You would be by far the worst leader if you had sat back and let it all unravel like it damn near could have in 2008.

I agree bankruptcy restructure is good but at the time of the financial markets grinding to  a near halt, would you do nothing to keep the financial system liquid?? I shutter to think of what would have happened had nothing been done. Sometimes you take the lesser of two evils. 

bankrupty would have saved the taxpayers at least 100 billion  but the bad thing is the almighty one would have given it to some other worthless company that contributed to him

The taxpayers are not losing all of that, the companies have to pay back a very large percentage of the funds, just as the banks that took TARP money have to. The effect of letting those go down at the time of the financial collapse would have been MUCH worse than the effect to us with the bailout. Btw, did you not read George W's take on this?? This one isn't strictly on Obama. As I said, you were be a pretty bad leader to just have let all of this unravel back in 2008, things were grinding to a halt.

same rules should apply to individuals that are getting "bailed out" and they can repay the handouts that they received or at least a large pecentage.

What many don't realize is that it would have been much easier to just lend them the money.  But the problem was that WOULD NOT WORK under the circumstances.  What happened was that these businesses were going about doing what they do.  However, there was a total devaluation of property world wide.  So on "paper" most all of our country's large businesses were broke.  The banks had loans out to people backed by real estate and etc..  They typically hold a 10-20% equity stake.  In other words, if the asset (house) was worth $100,000, they would lend out $80,000 to $90,000.  Now if you have the entire market decrease in value 30%, on paper you're broke. 

To then give them a "loan" wouldn't increase their asset value.  That's why the government "gave" them the money.  By getting that money not as a true loan, their balance sheet put them in the black again.  The problem is getting the taxpayer money back now since it wasn't always necessarily a "loan".  In the auto industry, the gov't took stock that it hoped to later sell to recoup their money.  And in part that's working.  And unlike many posts here, these companies did go through bankruptcy as well.  The government was just more involved in helping them and setting the terms.

But there's a huge difference between the different industries and businesses as to how it was given.  Personally, I believe it should be paid back with an increase in taxes.  Everyone says this is just transferring wealth from the rich to the poor.  I think the greatest transfer of wealth was when the government took $4 trillion dollars of taxpayer money and transferred it to these companies that are owned by the richest in our country.  Our government, who's bought and paid for by industry, charged that amount to each and every single American.  That was the huge transfer of wealth.  Of course, Fox News or Rush won't put it that way....