Benghazi over-reaction?

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

Technology transfer and profit are not the same thing. Chrysler's advances technologically are largely carry over from the Mercedes days.

can you list some of those technolgic advances from the MB days?
as i understand, MB were very protective of their technology and did not want chrysler to get its hands on it, on the contrary, they actually made a point of cutting quality at chrysler so they could sell them cheaper or sell more of them

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by DieselDiner

Chrysler is doing better than sucking, which was its previous state. All I'm doing is giving you some perspective about what a truly well performing car company looks like, if you can pause from genuflecting for a moment.

What's so hard to understand about that?

because that same statement applies to all the other car companies that are making less profit than ford
which is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion

point is, briefly, chysler was doing badly, fiat bought them, now they are doing better
simple enough for you?

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by smohr33

Sure. Let's do it apples to apples. Had the government not stepped in, the private company would file bankruptcy, restructure, and probably lay off a good number of employees, like any other private company. Say Chrysler fired 10,000 of their 50,000 employees. I think that's a high estimate, but lets walk with it...

For it to be more expensive to the taxpayer than the bailout, each unemployed person would have to cost taxpayers over $130,000.

There are currently 12,000,000 people in the US unemployed. That would mean Chrsylers share of unemployment would be .00083%. Less than one thousandth of a percent.

you contrary to what you may believe, firing people doesn't fix all the worlds problems
if you fire half your staff, and your car suck
you will still not make money

not agreeing with your numbers for many reasons
let's say they fired 10,000 employees, to follow your example
those 10,000 emplyees are now getting unemployment from the government
those 10,000 are spending much less than they were when they had a job, obviously
so all the super markets, stores, or any buisness they did buisness with is now making less, thereby, maybe, firing some of their staff
it's a snowball effect
it's not as simple as firing people and suddely everything looks rosy
it's not just fire 10,000 and it ends there

[mspeasl]

Originally Posted by kmarei

it's not just fire 10,000 and it ends there

I agree it doesn't end just with Chrysler layoffs. Chrysler suppliers will in turns be laying off employees also and then their suppliers will do so too. And on and on. It's painful but sometimes necessary.

[rgrovr]

Originally Posted by mspeasl

I agree it doesn't end just with Chrysler layoffs. Chrysler suppliers will in turns be laying off employees also and then their suppliers will do so too. And on and on. It's painful but sometimes necessary.

That's key point regarding a failing company. Sometimes it is painful and NECESSARY for companies to fail (or restructure) in order for the economy and capitalism to work effectively.

There is no such thing as everyone is guaranteed a job.. it is not in the Constitution nor in the Government's responsibilities to ensure jobs for every American. Just equal protection under the laws, ensuring for our defense, running a patent office, and regulation of interstate commerce, so that the playing field is level, are the core functions of government. It is up to the individual (or a group of them forming a corporation) to make it or break it on their own merits. That includes car companies.

It seems like this basic premise is being lost.

Somewhere Studabaker is PISSED off his company went under. To even think he started the electric car craze in 1902. NINETEEN-O-TOO! Is the car industry worse off or better off that Studabaker didn't make it?? Considering for the fact the he had the largest car factory in the world at the time.

[Fox128i]

So it's the government's responsibility to bail out a failing company because thousands of jobs are on the line? And we the tax payers will eat the loss?

If this is true then there is zero reason for any major corporation to ever turn a profit. All they have to do is go to Washington, put on their best Oliver Twist impersonation and ask, "Please sir, may I have some more?"

Nope, not buying it. Corporate welfare just does not work. Sometimes a company has to fail. I might have a D on my voter registration card, but even I recognize the futility of such endeavors.

I will quote comedian Robing Williams, I think it appropriate here: "Economic Freebasing." Maybe there's a support group for people like this?

[MiddleAgedAl]

Even if you do believe it is the role of government to equalize outcomes (not just equalize opportunity), and you think they need to step in and prop up failures, then why is it OK to do so for car companies, but not other companies?

That's also a big part of the problem that many folks have with these bailouts. It's not just the fact there are taxpayer-funded bailouts to begin with, but the fact that Uncle Sam is picking and choosing who gets to succeed and who doesnt. There are MILLIONS who lost their job, because their employer got no bailout, even tho often their companies business model was just as good, if not better than GM or Chrysler. Instead of being rewarded for that, they were punished because they were not too big to fail.

Can you imagine if you and your neighbor, with similar houses, are financially struggling, and gov steps in to help your neighbor because he chose to run up way more credit card debt than you, but it doesnt help you. After all, more local stores & restaurants will suffer if he goes under, due to his non-stop extravagant spending. So, he ends up keeping his house, and you lose yours. Would you feel that is fair? The only right thing is to either bail out everyone, or bail out nobody.

[DieselDiner]

Originally Posted by kmarei

point is, briefly, chysler was doing badly, fiat bought them, now they are doing better

Point is, how much did Fiat "pay" when they "bought" Chrysler?

And Chrysler's improvement has zero to do with Fiat ownership. Fiat hasn't had enough time to screw up Chrysler the way it has screwed up its own business.

Simple enough for you?

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by DieselDiner

Point is, how much did Fiat "pay" when they "bought" Chrysler?

And Chrysler's improvement has zero to do with Fiat ownership. Fiat hasn't had enough time to screw up Chrysler the way it has screwed up its own business.

Simple enough for you?

those are only your views
because i haven't read a single article that doesn't give credit to fiat for chryslers improving situation

can you backup your claims with any links to articles or documents that verify your viewpoint?

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by Fox128i

So it's the government's responsibility to bail out a failing company because thousands of jobs are on the line? And we the tax payers will eat the loss?

no but republicans were not up in arms when Bush bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or AIG, or Goldman Sachs, or Bank of America, or Citibank, or when bush gave 25 billion in loands to the automakers

but when Obama does it, all hell breaks loose
double standards as i see it

[Fox128i]

Originally Posted by kmarei

no but republicans were not up in arms when Bush bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or AIG, or Goldman Sachs, or Bank of America, or Citibank, or when bush gave 25 billion in loands to the automakers

but when Obama does it, all hell breaks loose
double standards as i see it

I am not a Republican, so your argument doesn't apply to me. For what it's worth, I did not approve of any of those bail outs either. Dems are just as guilty of the ole double standard quandary as are their Republican counterparts btw. I don't approve, but both sides use it and do it. Doesn't make it right though.

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by Fox128i

I am not a Republican, so your argument doesn't apply to me. For what it's worth, I did not approve of any of those bail outs either. Dems are just as guilty of the ole double standard quandary as are their Republican counterparts btw. I don't approve, but both sides use it and do it. Doesn't make it right though.

as a general rule, i don't like it when the government gets involved in picking which companies suceed or fail.
but i do realize that there are certain companies that really are, too big to fail
imagine for a moment, if GM fails
imagine how many people work for GM
all the suppliers, the suppliers of the suppliers
you're talking a huge hit for the economy.

in that case which is the better option?
i am not sure
but since one option means hardship for millions of people
i can't really say i would not have done the same if i were the president.

maybe a better way to safegaurd against this is to have some kind of monitoring of companies that approach the "too big to fail" size
i mean if we have to bail them out, we should have a say in how they are run

i know this is a difficult situation, and i get pissed off when the republicans make it sound like the end of the world, when their president did the same exact thing, but that was ok because he was a republican.
i don't understand how they can say these things with a straight face

[fokus45]

Stop getting pissed off. Thinking on an emotional high is like thinking with the wrong head. That is exactly what people in politics want you to do. Not good sister.

[alms211]

Originally Posted by kmarei

as a general rule, i don't like it when the government gets involved in picking which companies suceed or fail.
but i do realize that there are certain companies that really are, too big to fail
imagine for a moment, if GM fails
imagine how many people work for GM
all the suppliers, the suppliers of the suppliers
you're talking a huge hit for the economy.

in that case which is the better option?
i am not sure
but since one option means hardship for millions of people
i can't really say i would not have done the same if i were the president.

maybe a better way to safegaurd against this is to have some kind of monitoring of companies that approach the "too big to fail" size
i mean if we have to bail them out, we should have a say in how they are run

i know this is a difficult situation, and i get pissed off when the republicans make it sound like the end of the world, when their president did the same exact thing, but that was ok because he was a republican.
i don't understand how they can say these things with a straight face

Bush was for the organized traditional BKO of GM. He was in no way shape or form in favor the horsesh1t that Obama ended up doing and that was wiping out the bond holders.

Obama overrode the legal system, ordered the bankruptcy court to wipe out the bondholders and nonunion pension debt — an unconstitutional seizure of property. Union pension benefits were secured with equity in GM and Chrysler.

When the dust settled, union pensions and taxpayers owned both companies. This clearly violated U.S. bankruptcy law.

Huge difference in how two different Presidents view this.