soo lets talk about ford for a second
Read it, understand it. In short, what I said was, they just need to shut down period. When a company needs to be bailed out by the government with our tax money, they shouldn't be allowed to exist.
You boyz should try reading what I wrote.
You boyz should try reading what I wrote.
Your two statements are not the same. There's a fundamental difference between "for making such chitty product for so long." and "needs to be bailed out by the government with our tax money, they shouldn't be allowed to exist."
It has nothing to do with making "chitty product". There are plenty of "chitty product" that are produced all the time. The issue lies in that nothing has been done to address long standing problems within the automobile industry. These companies have been in trouble and limping along since the 80s and have failed to do anything to fix the problems.
And that is why I am fundamentally opposed to the bailout plans. I fully understand the economic ramifications that will ensue when/if one or more of the Big 3 go out of business, however, I feel that it's a necessity. I understand that there will be many, many people put in dire straights in the event that a collapse occurs. I have family that works at GM.
However, business owners need to realize that they can not fail to maintain their business in a reasonable manner, let it flounder into an unrecoverable state, suffer irreparable financial damages, and expect that the government will be there, handing out OUR tax dollars to save them from the own idiocy, apathy, and complacence.
The financial industry was the start of what I presumed would be a very bad trend, and it seems as though I was right. It started with bailing them out for making poor decisions regarding a borrowers strength, securing loans against other loans, and the whole thing crumbled. Now, the Big 3 think that they should get some money because THEY made decisions. Tesla Motors is the most recent to ask for a bailout.
That's not the way things work.
I can't ask the government for a bailout because I can't afford the 80" LCD TV that I bought from Best Buy and therefore didn't make any payments, and expect to keep it. I understand that this is an almost near infinitely smaller scale analogy.
If there are no repercussions for unacceptable behavior, then there is no incentive to alter that behavior.
Last edited by sdbarker; Dec 13, 2008 at 01:00 AM.
Trending Topics
I did read it. I quoted it. In fact, I'll do it again.
You should try writing what you mean.
Your two statements are not the same. There's a fundamental difference between "for making such chitty product for so long." and "needs to be bailed out by the government with our tax money, they shouldn't be allowed to exist."
It has nothing to do with making "chitty product". There are plenty of "chitty product" that are produced all the time. The issue lies in that nothing has been done to address long standing problems within the automobile industry. These companies have been in trouble and limping along since the 80s and have failed to do anything to fix the problems.
And that is why I am fundamentally opposed to the bailout plans. I fully understand the economic ramifications that will ensue when/if one or more of the Big 3 go out of business, however, I feel that it's a necessity. I understand that there will be many, many people put in dire straights in the event that a collapse occurs. I have family that works at GM.
However, business owners need to realize that they can not fail to maintain their business in a reasonable manner, let it flounder into an unrecoverable state, suffer irreparable financial damages, and expect that the government will be there, handing out OUR tax dollars to save them from the own idiocy, apathy, and complacence.
The financial industry was the start of what I presumed would be a very bad trend, and it seems as though I was right. It started with bailing them out for making poor decisions regarding a borrowers strength, securing loans against other loans, and the whole thing crumbled. Now, the Big 3 think that they should get some money because THEY made decisions. Tesla Motors is the most recent to ask for a bailout.
That's not the way things work.
I can't ask the government for a bailout because I can't afford the 80" LCD TV that I bought from Best Buy and therefore didn't make any payments, and expect to keep it. I understand that this is an almost near infinitely smaller scale analogy.
If there are no repercussions for unacceptable behavior, then there is no incentive to alter that behavior.
You should try writing what you mean.
Your two statements are not the same. There's a fundamental difference between "for making such chitty product for so long." and "needs to be bailed out by the government with our tax money, they shouldn't be allowed to exist."
It has nothing to do with making "chitty product". There are plenty of "chitty product" that are produced all the time. The issue lies in that nothing has been done to address long standing problems within the automobile industry. These companies have been in trouble and limping along since the 80s and have failed to do anything to fix the problems.
And that is why I am fundamentally opposed to the bailout plans. I fully understand the economic ramifications that will ensue when/if one or more of the Big 3 go out of business, however, I feel that it's a necessity. I understand that there will be many, many people put in dire straights in the event that a collapse occurs. I have family that works at GM.
However, business owners need to realize that they can not fail to maintain their business in a reasonable manner, let it flounder into an unrecoverable state, suffer irreparable financial damages, and expect that the government will be there, handing out OUR tax dollars to save them from the own idiocy, apathy, and complacence.
The financial industry was the start of what I presumed would be a very bad trend, and it seems as though I was right. It started with bailing them out for making poor decisions regarding a borrowers strength, securing loans against other loans, and the whole thing crumbled. Now, the Big 3 think that they should get some money because THEY made decisions. Tesla Motors is the most recent to ask for a bailout.
That's not the way things work.
I can't ask the government for a bailout because I can't afford the 80" LCD TV that I bought from Best Buy and therefore didn't make any payments, and expect to keep it. I understand that this is an almost near infinitely smaller scale analogy.
If there are no repercussions for unacceptable behavior, then there is no incentive to alter that behavior.
For personal reasons I do want to stay out of forum politics, but from an economic and political science standpoint I'd have to say this is very well put.
Last edited by AlvinHuyN; Dec 13, 2008 at 01:02 AM.
I did read it. I quoted it. In fact, I'll do it again.
You should try writing what you mean.
Your two statements are not the same. There's a fundamental difference between "for making such chitty product for so long." and "needs to be bailed out by the government with our tax money, they shouldn't be allowed to exist."
It has nothing to do with making "chitty product". There are plenty of "chitty product" that are produced all the time. The issue lies in that nothing has been done to address long standing problems within the automobile industry. These companies have been in trouble and limping along since the 80s and have failed to do anything to fix the problems.
And that is why I am fundamentally opposed to the bailout plans. I fully understand the economic ramifications that will ensue when/if one or more of the Big 3 go out of business, however, I feel that it's a necessity. I understand that there will be many, many people put in dire straights in the event that a collapse occurs. I have family that works at GM.
However, business owners need to realize that they can not fail to maintain their business in a reasonable manner, let it flounder into an unrecoverable state, suffer irreparable financial damages, and expect that the government will be there, handing out OUR tax dollars to save them from the own idiocy, apathy, and complacence.
The financial industry was the start of what I presumed would be a very bad trend, and it seems as though I was right. It started with bailing them out for making poor decisions regarding a borrowers strength, securing loans against other loans, and the whole thing crumbled. Now, the Big 3 think that they should get some money because THEY made decisions. Tesla Motors is the most recent to ask for a bailout.
That's not the way things work.
I can't ask the government for a bailout because I can't afford the 80" LCD TV that I bought from Best Buy and therefore didn't make any payments, and expect to keep it. I understand that this is an almost near infinitely smaller scale analogy.
If there are no repercussions for unacceptable behavior, then there is no incentive to alter that behavior.
You should try writing what you mean.
Your two statements are not the same. There's a fundamental difference between "for making such chitty product for so long." and "needs to be bailed out by the government with our tax money, they shouldn't be allowed to exist."
It has nothing to do with making "chitty product". There are plenty of "chitty product" that are produced all the time. The issue lies in that nothing has been done to address long standing problems within the automobile industry. These companies have been in trouble and limping along since the 80s and have failed to do anything to fix the problems.
And that is why I am fundamentally opposed to the bailout plans. I fully understand the economic ramifications that will ensue when/if one or more of the Big 3 go out of business, however, I feel that it's a necessity. I understand that there will be many, many people put in dire straights in the event that a collapse occurs. I have family that works at GM.
However, business owners need to realize that they can not fail to maintain their business in a reasonable manner, let it flounder into an unrecoverable state, suffer irreparable financial damages, and expect that the government will be there, handing out OUR tax dollars to save them from the own idiocy, apathy, and complacence.
The financial industry was the start of what I presumed would be a very bad trend, and it seems as though I was right. It started with bailing them out for making poor decisions regarding a borrowers strength, securing loans against other loans, and the whole thing crumbled. Now, the Big 3 think that they should get some money because THEY made decisions. Tesla Motors is the most recent to ask for a bailout.
That's not the way things work.
I can't ask the government for a bailout because I can't afford the 80" LCD TV that I bought from Best Buy and therefore didn't make any payments, and expect to keep it. I understand that this is an almost near infinitely smaller scale analogy.
If there are no repercussions for unacceptable behavior, then there is no incentive to alter that behavior.

I see you put alot of thought into this. A**wipe.
And I did put a lot of thought in to it. It's a decision that will very dramatically affect the state of our country. To me, that's important and worth a lot of thought.
Well I haven't gone into this with much detail, and I don't care to jump into the drama in the previous posts. All I got to say is, someone has to do something about the unions with some of these companies... US Auto, Boeing (sorry if anyone works at boeing), Airline companies, etc. I find they make it a lot more difficult to manage a company. Not saying that US auto companies didn't bring this upon themselves, but the unions didn't help. My 2 cents.
" In 2000, the average CEO salary reached an unbelievable 531 times that of the average hourly worker."
http://management.about.com/cs/gener...OsOverpaid.htm
The 3 ignorant posts about union workers warrants a long winded and informed tongue lashing (or finger lashing in this case), however, since I'm at work and don't have the time to lash appropriately, I shall recuse myself from enlightining you all with my opine and business acumen.
Edit.....This is why I don't surf the political forums.....I should just stick to mod discussions!!
I also thought SDBarkers post (#7) was a good one.
Thanks
Edit.....This is why I don't surf the political forums.....I should just stick to mod discussions!!
I also thought SDBarkers post (#7) was a good one.
Thanks
Last edited by Netacoma2003; Dec 14, 2008 at 12:53 PM.
The 3 ignorant posts about union workers warrants a long winded and informed tongue lashing (or finger lashing in this case), however, since I'm at work and don't have the time to lash appropriately, I shall recuse myself from enlightining you all with my opine and business acumen.
Edit.....This is why I don't surf the political forums.....I should just stick to mod discussions!!
I also thought SDBarkers post (#7) was a good one.
Thanks
Edit.....This is why I don't surf the political forums.....I should just stick to mod discussions!!
I also thought SDBarkers post (#7) was a good one.
Thanks
And, thanks.
How is that contradicting myself? They both say the same thing (pretty much) except I added a sentence about the bail out.








