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 I am 200% opposed to the bailout of these disgusting, outdated corporations stealing my money.
$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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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?
They can pick my cotton and shine my shoes
Paff. So lets encourage a recession by putting people out of work too!!
Better of two evils?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
529 users online 
225171 members 1519 active today Advertise Here
529 users online 225171 members 1519 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
