I'm not talking about the results.
It is the getting there. The same area that screwed up the count (remember
the hanging chad?) screwed up again. The results still haven't been counted
Now to the results. Wait until you read up on our new supposed governor.
Took the 5th 75 times during a medicad fraud trial. Largest fine ever for
fraud. This is the new gov.
Suddenly, without warning, Roy exclaimed (11/5/2010 12:53 PM):
Problem is, Mike and I don't believe that what Obama is trying to do
will help the economy. IMHO, the gov't needs to get the hell out of the
market and let the free market work as intended. And yes, I think the
mess started with Bush.
I could go on, but will resist.
By the above one can surmise you folks would have rather allowed the auto
industry to go belly up. Knowing that every 10th job is tied to the auto
industry. The additional unemployment adding to the existing unemployment
and housing market collapse is also fine with you guy's as well. Further you
would have also been fine with wall street going belly up as well.
I gotta say imho your a tad short sighted.
Suddenly, without warning, Roy exclaimed (11/6/2010 8:48 AM):
Actually, yes. They would have gone bankrupt, reorganized, and come
back much stronger than they ever will now. There's this assumption
that they would have just gone out of business, but that's not true.
We are becoming a culture that rewards failure. I do not like that.
Now big business has this idea that they can just screw their customers,
and if that means they get near bankruptcy because they lost all their
customers, they can just cry to the gov't to bail them out.
If they'd been allowed to fail, they would have had no choice but to do
what Ford did: Actually LISTEN to their customers, build vehicles
people actually want to buy, and that way get back into the black.
Ford did not take the bailout. They listened to their customers,
improved their vehicles. Despite the really horrid reputation they had
for a long time (I didn't even look at Ford when I researched pickups in
2001), they have now repaired that reputation, and are making a profit.
I love my Dakota, but if it died right now, I'd probably buy an F150 to
replace it, rather than a Ram 1500 (since 2011 is the last year for the
So yes, I think paying the car companies and the banks for failing was
and is a very, very bad idea. Gives them nothing to work for. They
don't have to listen to their customers, they don't have to improve
their products, just screw everyone trying to make a product and when
the free market causes them to fail for doing it, they get rewarded for
their failure by getting gov't bailouts. Then they keep screwing the
customers and making bad products, because there's no reason for them to
So all the employees and vendor's employee's and every other employee in a
related industry are on unemployeement. Then they loose their homes and the
hole becomes deeper.
I suppose if one is not personally adveresly impacted then it's okay. Is
that what your saying?.
Sounds like "I've got mine, screw those people"
You miss Jodi's point altogether. The car companies, banks etc. wouldn't
have just disappeared taking their employees down the tubes with them. They
would have been forced to reorganize and operate their businesses on a more
sustainable model. Yes, there would have been "some" loss of employment for
a few but it would have resulted in a healthier company in the long run.
Stop and think. Our economic system provided unparalled prosperity for
millions for several hundred years before the gummint became involved.
There were hiccups of course, with the attendant suffering of a few, but by
and large we built the most successful nation and an economy envied by the
world without Uncle Sam getting involved in every decision. We can return
to that prosperity if the gummint will just stay the hell out of the way.
I recommend a book, Basic Economics by Dr. Thomas Sowell. Read it, please
and you will discover how Federal intervention has actually hurt us in oh so
I'd respectfully recommend a real hard look around at the exisiting vacant
homes and unemployeement figures, although jobs have been added recently.
Your caual "some loss" would be a million easily if GM and Chrysler were to
fail. A rapid reorganization didn't appear to be a option imo. I'm sure your
aware the linkage of jobs related to the auto industry and the effect of a
shut down would have on those smaller companies downstream and the subsquent
job loss. Kind of a caviler position if one's job isn't in jeoprady.
The govt. stayed out of the banking industry and what happened? Is it your
position that it should have been allowed to continue? Resulting in even
more bank failures, more unemployement and more home forclosures?
I'm getting the idea that those that are waving the too big govt. pom poms
are really sorta cherry picking what they want govt. involved in and out of.
Can't really have it both way's imo.
I'm curious how the "new" leaders in congress are going to redo SS and
Medicare. I'm sure that will be painless for those who recieve SS benifits.
They are going nut's around here as there was no cola this year.
Agreed, if they would fail and never come back, but that wasn't about to
A rapid reorganization didn't appear to be a option imo. I'm sure your
Not really. I was downsized out of my job as a result of the corporate
resturcture and it has not been without pain, but I am surviving.
I think most will agree that the current recession was caused by the housing
bubble that burst. The prime cause of the housing bubble WAS the goverment
dictating to the banks that they MUST be more lenient in granting loans to
whose whose were marginal buyers to begin with and also agreeing to
guarantee marginal loans. Had government not made that diktat and had they
not guaranteed the loans, we would not be where we are now.
No you can't and unless and until the general populace figures out that
government involement in their lives is not a good thing, it will continue.
It appears however that folks are beginning to wake up and see socialism for
what it is and how it is eroding our freedoms and our prosperity.
SS and Medicare will be toughies, no doubt. In their present form, they are
unsustainable no matter what accounting tricks the pols try to pull. Sooner
or later (the sooner the better, IMHO) we will be forced to address this and
it ain't gonna be pretty. But, if we take our medicine now it will be less
painful than at some future time. We can't leave our kids and grandkids the
mess we allowed Washington to create.
IIrc you are employed in the auto supply industry. If the big 3 or 2 failed
would your job be there? Questionable at best.
I see let's get govt. out of the whole deal, is that where you would take
us? Do away with the FRA FAA ICC FCC FBI CIA DoT (I'm out of initials) the
folks that inspect our food, park service, Coast Guard, hell, let's do away
with the DOD then we won't need the VA. Where does it end, your quest to end
Suddenly, without warning, Roy exclaimed (11/6/2010 5:12 PM):
Please don't put words in my mouth. Reducing gov't is not getting rid
of it altogether, and the last thing I want to do is strip the portions
of the government that protect us and provide necessary infrastructure.
I'm not sure how you connect these organizations with the whole "big
government" thing. FBI, CIA, Coast Guard (and the rest of the military
and Intelligence organizations) protect us at home and abroad. Some
form of these existed when our government was formed. (I'll not get
into *how* some of these agencies are currently used, but they do have
good and noble purposes)
I'm not a pure Libertarian, I don't think it is advisable to kill all
the current Federal agencies, but think it is highly desirable to shrink
it as much as possible. A careful benefit/cost analysis should be done
of each agency to determine if they're worth the amount of money it
takes to run them; the ones that are worthwhile most likely can still be
reduced in size and scope.
Here's two lists of government agencies; I don't know if they are
complete, but holy crap there are a lot (fwiw, I could NOT find an
actual "# of federal agencies")!
I'm betting over half of these could be abolished, with very little
negative impact to average working Americans. I'd also abolish
everything on the list of "Government Enterprises" which includes
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Oh, and Sallie Mae, who tried to steal my
money when I paid off my student loan early - had to fight to get them
to accept my proof that it was paid off.
and Karresh sp? will end up in the history books as the first
American patiots of the second revolution. You can only tax people
but so much. I'm guessing that state income tax was a big
consideration of Roys moving to FLA.
Suddenly, without warning, Roy exclaimed (11/6/2010 4:13 PM):
I'd respectfully submit you're actually supporting my argument. DESPITE
the bailouts, there's rampant unemployment, which is really much higher
than the official figures, because the truly productive people are
under-employed rather than unemployed, as they were smart enough to take
any job they could get, just to be employed.
I'm not totally convinced unemployment would have been that much worse
if those two car companies had failed. You make it sound like GM and
Chrysler are the only two car companies in the US that hire Americans...
last I looked that was not true. I'm fairly certain that the other
companies have already snatched up the best of the people left
unemployed by GM and Chrysler being stupid.
In a general sense (nothing is 100%), the best employees, the hardest
working, the ones that are willing to learn new skills, and the ones
willing to take a pay cut just to have a decent job, already are working
again, and probably moving back up the chain to enjoy the paycheck they
got before. FWIW, my brother is on this list - he lost his job, he was
only unemployed a couple of months because he is hardworking, willing to
try something new, and he did take a cut in pay to be employed. He's
doing well now.
My attitude was the same when I was unemployed, actually. I took part
time work just to have something of a paycheck. I barely ate for quite
a while because I refused to take government handouts, and was only
making enough money to pay the bills, with about $5 per week leftover
for food. I did eventually get on food stamps because it is hard to put
in a hard day's work on an empty stomach, plus that $5 got rather eaten
into when winter came.
I don't cherry pick. I am eligible for SS, but I'm not counting on it.
I started saving for retirement early, and am putting a rather large
chunk of my income into savings. Yes, that means I do without a lot of
luxuries and/or new "stuff" (note my truck is still a 2001 Dakota), but
it also means that if I live to be 100, if I'm not extravagant, I can
live comfortably all that time, even without SS, as long as progressives
don't steal my savings.
I believe in helping those who have fallen on bad times, btw, I have no
problem with unemployment. Not, however, perpetual unemployment, or
As for the banks, they got away with what they did because too many were
asleep at the wheel, including the banks' own boards. Going public
allowed them to use shareholders' money in increasingly risky
undertakings, and the government made some bad moves allowing them to
increase their debt. The writing was on the wall, they allowed
themselves to overreach in order to gain short-term profit, and they
should have been allowed to crash as well, instead of being rewarded for
their greed and failure by getting gov't handouts.
Here's some light reading:
This one's about President Hoover:
This one explains the role of government in the boom-bust cycle (note
that this is from Australia, which is socialistic:
In short, the government created the bust, which eventually has to
crash, then the gov't interceding in the crash extends recession and can
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.