More Fiscally Responsible Republicans Opposing Auto Bailout

[KingCondanomation]

In what fucked up world are tax breaks granted to corporations to build a plant in state or city X not subsidies?

A subsidy is government giving you taxpayer money. A tax break is gov saying you don't have to pay as much tax to them.
And again they are temporary.

And I guess Bush and the 32 House Republicans that aren't batshit crazy are just playing politics, too?
Please.

Bush is weak and has a hard time showing any balls when it comes to stopping spending - we've all seen that. He's not playing politics, he doesn't have the balls to do that.

 

[Onceler]

"I think as soon as one goes, the others will get healthier"

Economist Dano strikes again.

I haven't seen anyone on a national scale who agrees with this assessment. Ford is in relatively good shape, and they are pushing hard for GM not to fail because of the effect it will have on all 3 companies.

Once again, you keep showing how little understanding you have on this issue.

 

[Bonestorm]

A subsidy is government giving you taxpayer money. A tax break is gov saying you don't have to pay as much tax to them.
And again they are temporary.


Bush is weak and has a hard time showing any balls when it comes to stopping spending - we've all seen that. He's not playing politics, he doesn't have the balls to do that.

1) You claim they are temporary. That doesn't make it so. And when the government gives company A a tax break that company B does not receive it is a subsidy. The government is driving down the cost of doing business for company A.

2) OK, so Bush isn't playing politics in favoring the bailout but the Democrats are? That makes no sense. And it doesn't make sense because it is the Senate Republicans playing politics as you implicitly concede.

 

[uscitizen]

My wife's cousin and her husband worked at one of those parts manufacturing/supplier places (supplied parts for GM) in Kentucky and were laid off months ago. Fortunately they have since acquired other jobs through a temp agency and now have made them more permanent. There is truth to what uscitizen says here. We don't know exactly how bad of an effect there will be when 2 of the big 3 go bankrupt.......but we know it will be bad.

Yep and most of the suppliers to GM have already taken the hit. It is not like they will get hit too much worse.

 

[Onceler]

Yep and most of the suppliers to GM have already taken the hit. It is not like they will get hit too much worse.

Wanna bet?

 

[Bonestorm]

Yep and most of the suppliers to GM have already taken the hit. It is not like they will get hit too much worse.

According to the NY Times, GM's suppliers are currently owed $10 billion for parts already delivered. It can get much much worse.

 

[uscitizen]

Wanna bet?

In my opinion we are about halfway there as far as job losses in suppliers to GM.
Several of them around here and I know lots of people that work and used to work for them.


Do you ?

 

[Damocles]

No, I don't think so. This is a very temporary measure. Once obama gets in, they're going to need more. That is when the restructuring is going to take place. He has said he envisions a revitalized, GREEN, US auto industry as one of the foundations of his new economy. I believe him.

I believe that if you hand these guys gold they'll find a way to turn it into pewter within days, then they'll exchange that for manure so they can fertilize the halls of Washington D.C.

Let's get somebody in there who understands that the goal of the company is to make money, not to race towards the largest debt ratio.

 

[uscitizen]

Green will be hard sell in a recession with oil relatively cheap again.

A bad thing but true.

Cheaper to be wasteful. The american way will continue...

 

[KingCondanomation]

1) You claim they are temporary. That doesn't make it so.

A lot of those tax breaks are to offset the cost of them setting up shot, as that is a one-time thing, they cannot be anything but temporary.

And when the government gives company A a tax break that company B does not receive it is a subsidy. The government is driving down the cost of doing business for company A.[/QUOTE]
No it isn't. It certainly isn't fair, but it is not a subsidy. Again, to subsidize implies GIVING someone money. A break means not TAKING as much money.
But about it being fair or not, given that currently foreign automakers are profitable and domestic ones are not, there is no question that DESPITE the break the foreign automakers are getting harmed more by government.

2) OK, so Bush isn't playing politics in favoring the bailout but the Democrats are? That makes no sense. And it doesn't make sense because it is the Senate Republicans playing politics as you implicitly concede.

Dems are looking to subsidize Detroit only because they are unionized. Bush is looking to possibly subsidize because he is a weak leader who has a hard time saying 'No'. Does Bush care about helping unionized automakers in Detroit? Of course not, he is just weak.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I think as soon as one goes, the others will get healthier - by a pickup in demand and by investors capital as they know the domestic automarket share is still healthy enough to support 2 domestic automakers. I predict only one of the big 3 will fail - you heard it here first.
Hopefully they can come out better after this.

Actually, both GM and Chrysler will go down. They don't have the cash to pay their bills. Ford would survive.

That said, if auto sales are down and expected to stay down, what in the hell makes you think that Ford and the foreign auto companies would be hiring right now? Those workers would have to look to other types of jobs, which means retraining and hoping other sectors recover enough to start hiring again.

 

[Bonestorm]

A lot of those tax breaks are to offset the cost of them setting up shot, as that is a one-time thing, they cannot be anything but temporary.

And when the government gives company A a tax break that company B does not receive it is a subsidy. The government is driving down the cost of doing business for company A.
No it isn't. It certainly isn't fair, but it is not a subsidy. Again, to subsidize implies GIVING someone money. A break means not TAKING as much money.
But about it being fair or not, given that currently foreign automakers are profitable and domestic ones are not, there is no question that DESPITE the break the foreign automakers are getting harmed more by government.


Dems are looking to subsidize Detroit only because they are unionized. Bush is looking to possibly subsidize because he is a weak leader who has a hard time saying 'No'. Does Bush care about helping unionized automakers in Detroit? Of course not, he is just weak.

I'm not even going to bother with this nonsense.

 

[uscitizen]

Actually, both GM and Chrysler will go down. They don't have the cash to pay their bills. Ford would survive.

That said, if auto sales are down and expected to stay down, what in the hell makes you think that Ford and the foreign auto companies would be hiring right now? Those workers would have to look to other types of jobs, which means retraining and hoping other sectors recover enough to start hiring again.

Darn this is hard to get out.... I agree and why I say to take care of the displaced workers it is a better investment in the long run.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Actually, both GM and Chrysler will go down. They don't have the cash to pay their bills. Ford would survive.

That's true under existing conditions. But as soon as one folded, there is no question that in the future the other 2 would do better. So investor financing would be dumb not to try and rescue one of them, even if they lost money in the short term.

That said, if auto sales are down and expected to stay down, what in the hell makes you think that Ford and the foreign auto companies would be hiring right now? Those workers would have to look to other types of jobs, which means retraining and hoping other sectors recover enough to start hiring again.

Because I searched their database and see jobs that they are looking to fill.
http://www.ohio.honda.com/jobs/professional.cfm


This subsidy won't be temporary Super, you know how Liberals work and they are the ones in power now, look at this car czar bullshit, once this all passes they will look to tighten their control on the industry because their interests are more intertwined.
Worse other industries will see the results and come begging for their share (ie: airline industry) and would we be in a position to say no?

"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." – Milton Friedman

 

[Onceler]

"That's true under existing conditions. But as soon as one folded, there is no question that in the future the other 2 would do better"

I love how Dano just says stuff, and thinks it's true.

 

[KingCondanomation]

"That's true under existing conditions. But as soon as one folded, there is no question that in the future the other 2 would do better"

I love how Dano just says stuff, and thinks it's true.

Why do people buy GM vehicles?
They do so more based on wanting to buy domestic or affordability. I mean I drive a van from Chrysler, I'd love to have a Japanese one but it's way more expensive. If Chrysler folded, then I would buy GM, not because I want to but that is what I can afford.

 

[uscitizen]

I have only for 18 years and will only in the future buy late model used vehicles. A much better bargain. So I will not be bailing any of them out excapt thru involuntary tax dollars.

That is for me, now my business is another matter.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's true under existing conditions. But as soon as one folded, there is no question that in the future the other 2 would do better. So investor financing would be dumb not to try and rescue one of them, even if they lost money in the short term.


Because I searched their database and see jobs that they are looking to fill.
http://www.ohio.honda.com/jobs/professional.cfm


This subsidy won't be temporary Super, you know how Liberals work and they are the ones in power now, look at this car czar bullshit, once this all passes they will look to tighten their control on the industry because their interests are more intertwined.
Worse other industries will see the results and come begging for their share (ie: airline industry) and would we be in a position to say no?

"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." – Milton Friedman

again... If they do not get money now, BOTH GM AND CHRYSLER will go down. So quit saying that 'if one goes down the other two will be better'. Because TWO will go down, not one.

IF those two go down, they will take down a good portion of the supplier chain. GM alone owes $10 billion to its suppliers. You think that is getting paid if they go bankrupt? That $10 billion will cripple the small suppliers who would in turn shut their doors as most do not have the capital to attempt to restructure.

If the suppliers start having problems then Ford is screwed too as they use many of the same suppliers as GM and Chrysler. As do the foreign autoproducers (to a lesser extent).

Then add in all of the car dealers throughout the country and think of all those jobs that will disappear.

In THIS economy where we are in a net job loss environment, putting another 1-2 million people on unemployment means even less cash consumers would have to spend, which means retail sales continue to decline which puts downward pressures on prices, which leads us further into a deflationary environment and causes layoffs within the retail and service sectors.

All that.... or $15 billion? This was a no brainer and the GOP Senators just screwed the pooch.

 

[uscitizen]

again... If they do not get money now, BOTH GM AND CHRYSLER will go down. So quit saying that 'if one goes down the other two will be better'. Because TWO will go down, not one.

IF those two go down, they will take down a good portion of the supplier chain. GM alone owes $10 billion to its suppliers. You think that is getting paid if they go bankrupt? That $10 billion will cripple the small suppliers who would in turn shut their doors as most do not have the capital to attempt to restructure.

If the suppliers start having problems then Ford is screwed too as they use many of the same suppliers as GM and Chrysler. As do the foreign autoproducers (to a lesser extent).

Then add in all of the car dealers throughout the country and think of all those jobs that will disappear.

In THIS economy where we are in a net job loss environment, putting another 1-2 million people on unemployment means even less cash consumers would have to spend, which means retail sales continue to decline which puts downward pressures on prices, which leads us further into a deflationary environment and causes layoffs within the retail and service sectors.

All that.... or $15 billion? This was a no brainer and the GOP Senators just screwed the pooch.

will 10 billion of that 15 go to pay the suppliers ?

 

[Blackflag]

so Dano, it is better for the White House to give them free money than it is for congress to give them a loan with oversight?

idealistic hacks is what I think of you people.