Adding Reply Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic $700 billion to bail out corporations? Why? Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post archfiend Posted at 6:22 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Since John McCain went ape shit during the campaign over free economy and government keeping out of the way, under what terms can the government use tax payer dollars to give a filth load of money to corporations like General Motors to produce more of their shitty cars that nobody wants to buy? In what way is that free market? In what way is that fair, when millions of working class people are struggling to pay for medical expenses? So the GM plants don't close down and people don't lose their jobs? FUCK THAT. Its about the principle of it all. I am 200% opposed to the bailout of these disgusting, outdated corporations stealing my money.

Replies Hoop Jargon Posted at 4:54 pm on Nov. 24, 2008 Even though people like archfiend are fucking retards, in this case he is right. General Motors isn't doing well because they are being buried by Toyota, Mitsubishi and all of the other CHEAPER Asian manufacturers. $700 billion worth of bail out money would have gone so much better into other projects and those who are out of work could be given new jobs, in new projects, that are bene-fucking-ficial. reev Posted at 1:14 pm on Nov. 24, 2008 Quote: from archfiend at 8:29 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 What happened the last time we gave a $700 billion dollar bailout? The executives had a party and spent $186,000 on a weekend vacation. Nice one. if you knew anything about this bailout you would know that if the government gave the bailout money to the car manufacturers it would mean that in accepting that money they would have to replace their top executives. learn your shit. reev Posted at 1:13 pm on Nov. 24, 2008 Quote: from Style Out at 8:28 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Sure, that's what they're gonna do with the bailout money umm.. seeing as the contingency of us giving them the bailout money would mean the government would have say in what the companies manufacture, yes, that is what they would do with the money. jakelong Posted at 10:36 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 It's funny but I agree with the OP. I mean it really sucks that US workers have to suffer but the big 3 have been in the dumps for years anyway. Most of their cars haven't really kept up with the demand and what ppl want. it's been like that since the 70s and 80s even so its not like its a new thing. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/general_motors_corporation/index.html Their newer cars are getting better but its like too little too late, archfiend Posted at 6:46 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Quote: from Blank black at 6:40 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Paff. You're both spouting about vague generic roles, promises, nothing. You can't even specify what you'd have them doing. If you can't figure something like that then it's pointless you holding the intellectual high ground. Semiskilled workers are trained for their specific roles. None transferable. www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/26/business/Glob27.php There's plenty of manual labor that can be more efficiently utilized. To claim there's none and continue to fund a failed corporation is utterly European on your part.. I don't know how else to say it. Khadgar Posted at 6:43 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Quote: from Blank black at 6:40 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Paff. You're both spouting about vague generic roles, promises, nothing. You can't even specify what you'd have them doing. Wow you're dense. Did you not get that this is irrelevant? I could list a hundred things, but that's completely besides the point of what was being talked about. And who is "youd", me? I'm no the one who'd be coming up with this shit anyway. For starters... are you aware of what the government did during the great depression? Style Out Posted at 6:41 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Quote: from Blank black at 6:40 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Paff. You're both spouting about vague generic roles, promises, nothing. You can't even specify what you'd have them doing. If you can't figure something like that then it's pointless you holding the intellectual high ground. Semiskilled workers are trained for their specific roles. None transferable. They can pick my cotton and shine my shoes Bagheera Posted at 6:40 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Paff. You're both spouting about vague generic roles, promises, nothing. You can't even specify what you'd have them doing. If you can't figure something like that then it's pointless you holding the intellectual high ground. Semiskilled workers are trained for their specific roles. None transferable. jamesish Posted at 6:39 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Quote: from Blank black at 9:24 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Paff. So lets encourage a recession by putting people out of work too!! Better of two evils? Khadgar Posted at 6:37 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Quote: from Blank black at 6:32 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Sometimes it's better to have them doing something pointless than nothing at all. Do I even need to dignify this with a response? You are advocating that we, and I mean taypayers, spend a large chunk of money to employ people in working a system that doesn't work. That kinda defeats the whole purpose of currency in a market system if it's not proportionate to the value of your work. You work a job. They pay you what the work is worth (well, you always feel like you're worth more ). If the work is worthless, you don't get paid. archfiend Posted at 6:36 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Quote: from Blank black at 6:32 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Sometimes it's better to have them doing something pointless than nothing at all. You're an idiot if you honestly believe this. There's plenty of useful things blue collar workers could be doing. Its been done throughout the history of my country. Move your anti-free market antics to Europe where it belongs. archfiend Posted at 6:33 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Quote: from Blank black at 6:28 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 How improve your infrastructure. Failed corporations are at least providing jobs, thus pouring money into the economy, enabling people to buy cars, helping the failed corporations. Cycle. This is free market economy dude. If a corporation fails to out compete its much superior foreign car manufacturers, then you either dramatically improve your business model or eat shit and die. GM is a horrible inefficient corporation. I wouldn't give a shit if a million blue color jobs were lost. And yes, invest that $700 billion into building a stronger infrastructure. There's plenty of other ways to create jobs and stimulate the economy without throwing money at the problem, although I suspect you're just being an asshole here. Bagheera Posted at 6:32 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Quote: from Khadgar at 2:30 am on Nov. 24, 2008 Quote: from Blank black at 6:28 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Failed corporations are at least providing jobs, thus pouring money into the economy, enabling people to buy cars, helping the failed corporations. Cycle.  Except people aren't buying things, hence the problem. That's a pretty bad solution. If the government is going to essentially pay for their jobs, why not have them do something useful, instead of producing useless cars that aren't selling well enough to keep the companies which make them afloat? GEDDIT? Because there is no security. Have them doing something useful, like what? All very well saying we'll get them to do something useful but it's fuck all use if we don't know what. Sometimes it's better to have them doing something pointless than nothing at all. Khadgar Posted at 6:30 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Quote: from Blank black at 6:28 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Failed corporations are at least providing jobs, thus pouring money into the economy, enabling people to buy cars, helping the failed corporations. Cycle. Except people aren't buying things, hence the problem. That's a pretty bad solution. If the government is going to essentially pay for their jobs, why not have them do something useful, instead of producing useless cars that aren't selling well enough to keep the companies which make them afloat? GEDDIT? archfiend Posted at 6:29 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 Quote: from reev at 6:26 pm on Nov. 23, 2008 if they get the bailout money, the government will have a say in a lot of what the companies do, meaning Obama is in the perfect position to have them start manufacturing cars that are much more fuel efficient so we can lessen our dependency on oil. What happened the last time we gave a $700 billion dollar bailout? The executives had a party and spent $186,000 on a weekend vacation. Nice one. Most recent 15 of 28 previous replies displayed.