News:

Long overdue maintenance happening. See post in the top forum.

Main Menu

Government Motors (GM)

Started by Gaspar, August 05, 2010, 12:45:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Conan71

Quote from: Townsend on September 19, 2012, 02:44:23 PM
You think if McCain had won he'd've done the same thing?

If McCain had continued the bail out of GM I'm quite sure my boss would have done the same thing.  He's not anti-Obama, he's a small government guy and despised Bush's fiscal liberalism.

Fact of the matter is, it would have been catastrophic to the U.S. economy had GM and Chrysler folded up, so I doubt McCain would have allowed them to fail either.  I suspect there would be a million or more added to the unemployment rolls had that happened.
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

nathanm

Quote from: Conan71 on September 19, 2012, 02:55:14 PM
If McCain had continued the bail out of GM I'm quite sure my boss would have done the same thing.  He's not anti-Obama, he's a small government guy and despised Bush's fiscal liberalism.

When? In 2007, or in 2002?
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln

Conan71

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

nathanm

Quote from: Conan71 on September 19, 2012, 03:31:05 PM
How about Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2008?

Kudos to your boss, then. If you recall there were quite a few avowed conservatives who were quite enamored with Bush for a long while.
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln

Conan71

Quote from: nathanm on September 19, 2012, 03:57:49 PM
Kudos to your boss, then. If you recall there were quite a few avowed conservatives who were quite enamored with Bush for a long while.

I think he's a great mountain biker, personally.

Most conservatives I know of viewed him as a fiscal liberal, including myself, due to the creation of Homeland Security and Medicare Part D.  Only he was a cut and spend liberal instead of a tax & spend liberal.

I honestly believe with a surplus and walking into a looming recession when he took office that the tax cuts were the right calculated move at the time.  It didn't help though that after committing to tax cuts he committed us to a couple of mis-calculated military actions which turned into long and expensive wars.  Couple that with unprecedented national disasters and a raft of "emergency spending".  Without 9/11, Katrina, and a few other major disasters, his legacy would look a whole lot better, from a fiscal standpoint.

His major mistake was thinking Iraq would be a six month milk run and Afghanistan could be dealt with in a few years.  He should have kept Saddam on a short leash or simply arranged an internal coup and kept full troop focus on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

heironymouspasparagus

Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 09:09:09 AM


My only point is that the government "sold" the bailout (or whatever you want to call it) of GM as a way to keep the auto industry going. If it now appears that the government is hindering that very thing, and they are unwilling to entertain ways to help, then what was the point of it after all?



You keep saying this thing about hindering, but when asked a direct question, show that you are only mouthing a platitude you are hearing somewhere. 

HOW is the question.  Could government ownership of GM stock (or Chrysler) hinder anything??  I can think of a way or two, but they are not happening.  Let's refine it even more, how IS ownership of GM hindering anything??



"So he brandished a gun, never shot anyone or anything right?"  --TeeDub, 17 Feb 2018.

I don't share my thoughts because I think it will change the minds of people who think differently.  I share my thoughts to show the people who already think like me that they are not alone.

erfalf

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 19, 2012, 07:15:00 PM
You keep saying this thing about hindering, but when asked a direct question, show that you are only mouthing a platitude you are hearing somewhere. 

HOW is the question.  Could government ownership of GM stock (or Chrysler) hinder anything??  I can think of a way or two, but they are not happening.  Let's refine it even more, how IS ownership of GM hindering anything??

Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 01:25:44 PM
It's not like it is a fact or anything, but marketing is generally factless. Trying to predict the future is not easy, obviously.

The reasoning being that the stigma attached to GM for being "Government Motors". Ford has been perceived to have benefitted from this over the last few years. I have no way of verifying this, and I doubt there is real evidence to show one way or the other. But the name of the game is selling cars. I'm not saying it's absolutely incontrivertably true, but the feds seem unwilling to entertain the idea and far more interested in keeping control over the firm. Does this not bother anyone else? Why did the government not show the same interest in Chrysler?

I believe we have already been over this.
"Trust but Verify." - The Gipper

Conan71

Quote from: erfalf on September 20, 2012, 08:09:14 AM
I believe we have already been over this.

Don't bother, it's a waste to your finger joints.
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan