Republican's want the economy to fail

Way to deflect... so through your deflection we can assume you acknowledge it worked for some (GM and Chrysler workers)?

 

At an unbelievable cost per job, perhaps.

 

The only real lesson learned is that if you want to spend a nearly unlimited amount of money to keep a company in business, you can. That's not a clever observation or wise public policy.

 

Of course not - and the fact that you find it necessary to post this means that you know it too.

Don't sidetrack this debate with stupidity. We were talking about the economy.

 

I don't want the economy to fail. But it is far more lucrative to make profits off the economy's failures rather than it's successes. Especially when America keeps making the same mistakes over and over.

 

Of coarse you are entitled to your opinion,but I just bet that if you were to do some actual research on this very subject,you would in fact prove your very outlandish claims wrong!
You are right in one thing though-all the GOP representatatives that you all voted for are ---setting back on their tiddlely winks and doing" nothing"-while YOU (their constituents)are suffering-all in the name of their GREED---STELLAR
How many JOBS bills have The GOP House of Representatives passed since taking control ALMOST A YEAR AGO NOW? If you don't want to go research to find the answer to this question,to help educate yourself on the facts----I can help you out------ ZERO JOBS BILLS--- In case you didn't get it----- ZERO JOBS BILLS
If all we needed was the POTUS to make everything right in this country-why then DO WE NEED -The House of Representatives or the Senate for that matter? Are you getting my drift here---The POTUS has to honor the parlimentary procedures----He can't do it by himself----if anybody is a failure here,it is the GOP vying for the favors of the likes of Grover Linquist(the SIGN my NO TAX PLEDGE lobbiest guy)instead of putting country first.

 

We may have a disagreement as to what constitute a 'jobs bill', for starters. Congress cannot (should not) create jobs. Congress - instead - should be mandating policy in bills which eases the burdens and obstacles to doing business placed there by prior Congresses.

Anything the House concocts has to pass the Senate regardless. Remember Reid's proclamation that what comes out of the House will be "DOA"?

That's why nothing of real benefit has taken place. The Dems are blocking anything that the Republicans in the House - slim majority that they hold - can conjure.

 

No judgement made, merely countering the notion that Obama has done nothing.

Not that anyone on your side cares, but didn't GM pay off most if not all the auto loans, and Chrysler paying them off ahead of schedule?

 

(1)Obama's chances of winning re-election in 2012 are directly tied to the success or failure of the recovery of the US economy. (2)Republicans have stated that their primary goal is to prevent Obama from winning re-election in 2012. (3)Republicans do not want the economy to recover between now and the election. If you believe there is a flaw in this, please point it out so we can debate it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

No flaw here! Republicans are in an awkward position. They have to work hard to improve the National economic condition and (at the same time) make sure it doesn't happen! This may seem impossible but they have a 3-part plan: (1)Reject any legislation that provides any additional revenue whatsoever; (2)Reject any legislation that fails to reduce the Federal debt by at least $1,000,000,000,000; and (3)Increase the required target reduction as necessary to reject any legislation that might (by design or accident) improve the National economic condition.

It's a comfort to know they're looking after the interests of present-day victims of their previous rein of "conservative values". They will of course, do well as long as they continue to "preach to the choir". But in the end, all others will ask: Why should I believe the people that created the problem can fix the problem? Moreover, they will also ask: Why do they expect me to believe the National economy suddenly collapsed on January 20, 2009? For some, the answers to these questions will likely provoke a lively debate; but for all others, the answers will be declared self-evident.

 

How short is your memory? When the righties were running for election in 2010 all you saw was them saying JOS,JOBS,JOBS. That was their number one priority. Until they got elected. Then it changed to Congress Cannot(should not) create jobs ????? What happened

 

Again, Little Mikey, you being from Florida, you don't uderstand the economy up hee in the midwest. The few factories wehave left are mostly associated with the auto industry. From making fastners (screws, clips) to foundaries making castings for parts. The Auto industr is the last manufacturing industry left in this Country. At a time like this, it would have been a disaster to let the industry go belly up. They have paid back the money or are about to. It was a good investment for the jobs saved. You ned to start thinking a little rathe than just towing the pary line. As Oboma says, we need to put country first, Politics second

 

But you are missing the point here----The Senate can't pass something that doesn't EXIST-----There has been ZERO JOBS BILLS proposed by the HOR (and I would usually agree that Congress should not be the ones to create jobs)BUT---all the GOPBAGGERS candidates and Boehner RAN their campaigns on CREATING JOBS to get elected----SOOOO-are you saying that it is ok for your GOP candidates to LIE to you?
And you are taking Reids words way out of context---Mr Reid was not talking about EVERY bill, like you are making it sound.
Well lets take a look at what the HOR has concocted and sent to the Senate--Stopping Sharia law----Is it 16 or 17 (Draconian)abortion laws----THAT'S ABOUT IT---And for your FYI- the current bill ( about more safety and repairing for gas pipelines(that have been erupting all over the country)is being held up by ( 1) newly elected GOPBAGGER to the House-Kentucky RAND PAUL ( which by the way,if the bill were to pass(WOULD create JOBS)(they NEED to be fixed,people are dying when they erupt). The gas line that exploded a few days ago was in Paul's State -Kentucky- STELLAR
And then answer me this-if it is the Democrats that are holding things up-I would ask you to go check to see how many filibusters the GOP has used since OBAMA became POTUS-more than just about any other time in history--Just saying.......

 

I wouldn't argue that Obama has done nothing. He's done quite a bit. Unfortunately much of what he's done has been damaging. That's just the way he rolls.

I can't speak for Chrysler, but for GM, most of the money we gave them is locked up in ownership. So so we are no where near being square with GM. And if we sell now, we lose money. The break even point for getting the taxpayer's money back is $53.00 per share, and if you check what the stock is selling for now, it's way below that.

But you're missing the larger point. Even if GM stock price was triple what it currently is and the government cashed out and made a profit, picking firms to save and ignoring others is the very hallmark of crony capitalism. Because the decisions to bail out one company but not another is of course... a political decision. It's hard to imagine what could corrupt the body politic quicker than the policies you seem to be advocating.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4gbPNZcye8&feature=player_detailpage"]Mr. President. Ray Stevens Live! - YouTube[/ame]

 

There seems to be plenty of auto manufacturing in the South. It's not confined to the Midwest.

If there had been no bailout, GM and Chrysler would have gone bankrupt, but that doesn't mean the companies would vanish and the factories would have been boarded up to rust. The companies would have reorganized as much smaller, but viable firms. That's the purpose of Chapter 11 bankruptcy. As it is, we've worked hard to keep GM at a size that may prove nonviable. As for Chrysler, we bailed out Chrysler in the 1980's and now they're back for more slop. So in ten or 15 years if GM comes back, hat in hand for more bailout, I guess you would have to say yes to that too huh?

 

If there had been no bailout, complete liquidation was the only option I heard for the companies without the bailout... I will humor the notion that some SMALL off shoots could of been formed. The auto suppliers would of taken a real beating, causing large problems for a lot of the other auto manufacturers. But who knows can't go in the way back machine with Mr Peabody and Simon and change the past.

And if you don't believe factories get boarded up to rust you clearly have not been to Detroit. I hear you can find space in the old Packard plant for pennies per square foot.

 

GM had already filed for Chapter 11 when the administration came up with it's modified bankruptcy plan, so it doesn't seem like it was headed for liquidation. I do realize that's what journalists think bankruptcy is so if you were a causal consumer of the news, I can see why you have that impression.

 

AMAZING to me that they have not torn that place down yet.

I guess the land is not in demand...AT ALL.


I do not live in Detroit.

But I have been through it dozens - perhaps hundreds of times.

Sad place how it is decaying.

Same with Buffalo and other parts of the Great Rust Belt.

Like the Bethlehem steel, Lackawanna plant.

A GIGANTIC plant that once employed 20,000 people...now I am not sure anyone works there now (I have not seen it in some time).

 

Not entirely, in the past 20 years or so there has risen a decent downtown area anchored by 2 of the 4 major sports franchises moving downtown the Lions from a northern suburb, and the Tigers from just outside downtown, while the RedWings have been on the river front since the late 70s. All three are walking distance from one another now making for at least a little of an entertainment district.

I like Detroit, sharing city limit with a boarder to an entirely different country allows for a pop culture/media cross over that allows for a little of an international perspective (if Canada counts as international?).

But yeah outside of downtown there really are very few desirable neighborhoods, and the old factories are left vacant for far too long.

 

Tell that to the thousands of companies directly and indirectly dependant on Detroit not faltering like it was under Bush. Do you really not remember just under 3 years ago and the crumbling cliff edge this country was on just per this single entity possibly tanking and all that would go with it?

 

Chrysler was gone for sure, and GM if surviving at all would of been a small fraction of what it was. Meaning the THOUSANDS of suppliers would have had HUGE shortfalls in orders for quarters if not entire years. When those suppliers faltered and possibly failed even the auto manufacturers not effected by the bankruptcy would have been strained to keep up the same output, and severely limit production of entire models/sectors of vehicles...

It was a Domino that Obama did not wanna see pushed, much the same way as the banking/mortgage crisis leading to the failing of many large banks and insurers tied to bankings failure was not a Domino Bush wanted to see pushed.

I was more for the auto bail out than the banking bailout, but I understood the reasoning for both. I just wish this HUGE trust of a small handful of HUGE banks would be broken up by the government, so there would be no need for a bank bailout again (bring back Glass Steagall). Economies of scale and the effect on actual products make it hard to break up the auto companies as effectively as banks, but it should of been considered with GM.

 

I remember quite clearly. I remember how people's fears allowed them to be stampeded into policy choices that were senseless. Don't think GM's problems are fixed. They were just delayed, at great financial cost.

 

So when GM falters again down the road, you'll be in favor of bailing it out again I suppose?

And again and again?

 

As someone from Michigan, a net donor to the Federal Government, and tremendously reliant on the auto industry, why don't you tell me?

 

So then you have no proof. I would say Obama with all his regulations and the EPA want to destroy the economy