I will only say this once more and then I am done discussing this subject with you. In 2008 we were facing the possibility of the entire auto industry getting "nuked," as you call it. If you don't believe that then you were not paying close enough attention in 2008 when everything was going down. Furthermore, part of the bailout was a managed bankruptcy that forced UAW workers to take pay cuts and cuts to their pensions in order to keep the companies manageable moving forward. Further, the "bailout" was structured as a loan and not as a handout and to date half of those funds have been repaid....with interest. I realize that it is a popular conservative talking point to bash the auto "bailout," but the fact is that it worked and conservatives hate the fact that it worked. You can pontificate now all you want about how things "should" have been done but the facts are the facts and the bailout was successful.
If the government took a few billion dollars to a casino, put it all on 24 at the roulette table, and hit it - that would have "worked" too. Wouldn't make it smart or sound economic policy. Many companies have gone bankrupt in the 100+ years of listed corporations. Only recently have we accepted "saving private companies with public money" as an acceptable role of government.
What in the hell do you think was happening in 2008? The auto industry was on the verge of getting "nuked." Further, there was a managed bankruptcy for both Chrysler and GM. The term bailout gets thrown around but in all actuality this was a loan that was due to be repaid by 2037 with interest. To date over half of the funds loaned have been repaid with interest. This was no normal situation where traditional bankruptcy would have been applicable. these were extreme times that required extreme measures to veer our economy off the cliff. As I have stated over and over, bankruptcy would have been the common sense choice if it had been during any other time in history, but it wasn't. It was never a political grab for power. That is a conservative talking point and a lie.
Ford and Dodge were fine. Furthermore, what evidence do you have that GM could not of had ANY other solution? How is it a success to pick and choose what businesses fail and which ones get a get out of jail FREE card?
A failed auto industry would have been bad in the short term, but something would have taken its place. Either foreign manufactures would have swooped in or a new domestic industry would have been born. To say 3-5 million jobs would have been lost is a lie. That would mean all three Detroit shops closed down, all their dealerships closed down, all their suppliers closed down, and a hefty portion of the indirect support firms (like the Dearborn Mcdonalds) also closed down. Nobody legitimately believes that. At least no one that isn't a left wing hack.
the failure of some of the auto companies would have meant more business and jobs for the others. GM sucks anways, ford is badass. who the fuck wants to drive a malibu? the focus is cheap and it kicks ass.
What all of you are missing is the condition of the economy at the time that the bailout was given. I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that the bailout was ideal. It was necessary. Our economy was teetering on the brink of complete failure. I am not being an alarmist when I say so because economists from two different administrations, Republican and Democrat, and from a variance of educational and political backgrounds agreed. If this were any other typical recession then what you are saying would be true and a bailout or government loan would be a ludicrous idea. That said, we were not in a typical recession. SupaFan is correct that the effect of Detroit failing would have been short term. Problem is that our economy could not have handled the failure of those three even for a short period of time. I agree that any other time a bankruptcy and the ensuing fallout would have been appropriate. This was different and any reasonable person who assessed the situation objectively would find the same thing to be true. I know this because the best and brightest minds from both parties agreed that this was the best solution at the time. to say 3-5 million jobs could have been lost is not a lie, it was a real possibility. why do you think that such drastic action was taken? You guys act like this was a power grab for Obama but Obama didn't even start the auto bailout. In fact, the Obama administration are the ones who added some teeth so that the American people got paid back. The auto bailout wasn't political no matter how hard you try to make it so. The auto bailout was necessary, it worked and our auto industry has made a great turnaround because of it. SupaFan, I am sure from your right wing perspective that even the centrists look like left wing hacks but it doesn't make it so. Right wingers are not the baseline for objectivity unless you are a Tea Partier.
Tiger in NC, bad economic times have a way of flushing poorly-managed companies down the drain. Ford made a commercial recently pointing out that it never needed to take a bailout, until they were bullied into yanking it. What was GM doing in 2006, during an economic boom that would see housing and stocks reach all-time highs? It was losing a staggering $3.2 billion in a single quarter. http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs...06/07/28/general-motors-two-degree-turnaround GM was already a shitty company that was pointing towards a major restructuring. The end result would have been: GM getting lean by divesting some brands, being taken private, breaking up into smaller companies, merging with another automaker, etc. GM has valuable brands, factories and design centers that would all have been put to use in the event of a normal bankruptcy. The financial crisis didn't ruin GM, years and years of horrible management, lack of innovation, and ridiculous pension liabilities did. Likely due in no small part to management's (correct) attitude that Uncle Sam won't let it fail.
No dude you got it all wrong. You are so far to the left you can't even see that the government taking control of the auto industry is a dangerous and unprecedented overstep of government power.
What control? GM is not the auto industry. What power has the government exercised over General Motors anyway? The government is not on the board, is not an executive, and makes no corporate decisions for GM.
