Personal effort to improve one's station in life goes a long way...... hangouts do not. I totally agree with you. There were many opportunities for the Republicans to compromise with the Democrats when the Dems had their backs against the wall, but the proposals "did not go far enough" as some Repubs put it. I'm in the "take what you can at the time" camp and continue to push for results as they come. Unfortunately none of our economic problems will be solved with a single piece of legislation. It will take more then one or two election cycles to fix the problems.
And this is what proper legislation is all about . . . compromise. When you have a country that is fairly evenly split between two major parties, compromise to achieve the best results for the country is essential. What we have now are two parties so polarized and so extreme that they believe their own propaganda and insist that with a small majority they can try to install their entire ideological agenda. The politicians work for their parties first, the lobbyists second, getting campaign contributions third, leaving the welfare of the country and the will of their constituents to fight for fourth and fifth. We need a moderate third party badly in this country, but the electoral college is rigged to prevent third parties from emerging.
i dont think i have heard a single word limbaugh has said in 10 years. for all i knew he was off the air. it is natural for businesses to collapse, it is how the economy evolves. again, these corporations have fooled you into believing you depend on them. dont believe them.
very good article here. http://thebrainetrust.com/2012/05/16/and-never-fails-to-say-get-a-job-the-silhouettes/ the "stimulus" just kicked the can down the road. bailing out the automobile industry only saved union jobs, the reason they were bailed out to begin with, and ensured taxpayer money would be used, by the unions, to fund obamas next election. in the real world the companies woud have been restructured so they could actually start turning more profits and be more competitive. but everyone has their own opinions and political philosophies. mine happens to be "Union workers, Under worked, Over paid and taking the global competitiveness AWAY from the USA".
bailouts do in fact "kick the can down the road". they also encourage risky behavior and stifle innovative competition that could replace older companies. also they keep companies from evolving and doing new things and firing old management and such. and of course they cost millions. we cant blame the market for failing if we never let the market regulate itself.
It's not what I believe, it's about what the nation requires. It is natural for businesses to advance, decline, evolve, and sometimes close in a healthy economy. If vital national industries collapse, it leads to economic collapse for the nation. I realize that concern for the common good goes against your self-serving ego-centric philosophy, but you cannot dismiss this.
i don't beieve GM would've collapsed. I believe they would have had to restructured and become more efficient. then came back more competitive and stronger. GM and the other auto companies have a lot of baggage that has been piled on over the years because of unions.
Every industrialized nation on the planet protected their auto industries during the global economic crisis. Obama would have been irresponsible not to. A Republican would have done the same, just like they bailed out Wall Street. Republicans LOVE big profitable corporations. Dude, GM went into bankruptcy and emerged from a government backed Chapter 11 reorganization in 2009. In 2010, GM made an initial public offering that was one of the world's top 5 largest IPOs to date. The shareholding in GM by the U.S. Treasury was reduced from about 61% to about 33%. The disposal of the shares gave the Treasury department about US $13.6 billion in proceeds. GM has reported significant profits, posting a record annual profit of $7.6 billion in 2011. Obama did exactly what you have advocated. GM was restructured and made profitable and the Treasury is being repaid.
bros, it just isnt the governments job to invest in one company or another. perhaps GM woulda have failed. and maye all those unemployed engineers would have started a newer and better car company. and maybe the new company could have bought manufacturing equipment and hired old GM guys, and made a leaner and better company, making more innovative cars and not running themselves bankrupt. we will never know, because we intervened in the market.
That's news to me. Taxpayers are in to gm shares at over 50 bucks per share and is currently trading at 21 and change, well below its ipo price. But you're right that every politician would have done it. Too much short term pain even though long term, letting them die would have been better
