Another resounding reason why it was an utter failure to bail out GM!

DOOMED TO FAIL!

This time, it's ALL being done with the grandkids money! Forget the fact that the prices keep on rising on every model and salaries for executives and UAW workers skyrocketed...they NEED another bailout! Perhaps the next bailout the corporation now known as Government Motors will get it right...who trusts them?


Let them use the bankruptcy laws and court system instead of leeching the American taxpayer dry!

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Did I forget to mention this huge dole out went to a South Korean company? Seems as if one would want to build a US jobs base, we would at least dole out to US owned companies who if are succsessful are more likely to reinvest in the US instead of shipping profits overseas. And this fool wants to crucify Romney for Bain???? WTF???

Abrignac wrote:

"Jobs" paid for with pretend money that never were realized?


RFenster. If Obama was your stockbroker would you defend this?

ZRX1200 wrote:

No offense, but if the goal of any investment is to increase jobs, who cares the nationality the owner(s) of the business. Sure it would be great to invest with American owners, but that is no longer anywhere near a given and has been increasingly less possible over the last few decades. Xenophobia is the fear of people unlike one's self. I'd gladly work for a Korean company if I needed a job.

Expatriation of foreign profits doesn't occur as often as people might think. Why pay taxes to a foreign government in order to bring after tax profit home (and possibly have to pay tax on the remainder again)? It just leaves less capital to work with anyway one looks at it. So, the norm is keeping the profits where they have been earned and reinvesting them over and over again, continuing to build as much equity as possible for additional investment before taxes.

And, the Bain allegations (don't know if true and don't care) are different from those here. Bain allegedly didn't use American labor because oversea labor was cheaper. Here, there was an intention to use American labor.

Until we get out of this mess we are in, we have to keep our eyes on the big picture: jobs! Jobs = greater disposable income = increased spending, which in turn requires more goods and services and a greater rate of employment so that supply will keep up with demand

rfenst wrote:

"Jobs" paid for with pretend money that never were realized?


RFenster. If Obama was your stockbroker would you defend this?

ZRX1200 wrote:

Whatever


I for one would think it is much better for OUR economy to dole to US companies rather than foreign companies. That being said, I'm not a big fan of corporate welfare to begin with.

Call it short-sighted if you will, but one of the reasons our economy is in a shambles is because lots of manufactoring jobs have moved overseas. Nothing like sending more money overseas.

Pat Buchanan was called a protectionist many years ago. Perhaps he should have been called a visionary.

Abrignac wrote:

So, lets look at it another way: American dollars go overseas. Where do you think those dollars ultimately end up getting spent? Iceland or back in the U.S.

rfenst wrote:

So, lets look at it another way: American dollars go overseas. Where do you think those dollars ultimately end up getting spent? Iceland or back in the U.S.

rfenst wrote:

Two words: Trade Deficit

HockeyDad wrote:

Pat Buchanan was called a protectionist many years ago. Perhaps he should have been called a visionary.

Abrignac wrote:

The sound of jobs leaving the US.......

ZRX1200 wrote:

Yep, but it has been sad reality for a long time now. With such cheap and technical labor available elsewhere, one would have to be out of their mind (profit-wise) not to use foreign labor whenever possible.

rfenst wrote:

Yep, but it has been sad reality for a long time now. With such cheap and technical labor available elsewhere, one would have to be out of their mind (profit-wise) not to use foreign labor whenever possible.

rfenst wrote:

Yep, but it has been sad reality for a long time now. With such cheap and technical labor available elsewhere, one would have to be out of their mind (profit-wise) not to use foreign labor whenever possible.

rfenst wrote:

Funny, weren't those jobs shipped overseas the so-called middle class jobs?

I remember a concept taught in my macroeconomics class many years ago. It was called "opportunity cost.". Moving those jobs off shore meant saving money. But, alas the opportunity cost to the economy as a whole is a net job loss for that specific transaction. Then when a new job is added, we're not a +1, we're back to even up.

Fast forward a few years. What is going to happen to what is left of the middle class if companies continue to move those jobs off shore. Using that model, there will be far fewer dollars in the household to afford those products that once were produced here.

I grew up in the '60's and 70's, a time when most middle class families were typically single earner and made do fine on a daily basis, nowadays most families are dual earner households and scrape by.

But, what do I know???

Abrignac wrote: