Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are being hypocritical, it is clear for all to see.
I take it then, again, that you're incapable of an educated response on this matter as well. We can debate all day long about the need for bailout (will be right along the Chrysler bail out supported by Reagan for most part), but supporting bonus payout or not must be based on situation, not on whether you supported something or not.
Hint: I won't be averse to GM CEOs getting bonuses, just as I'm not to the workers getting it. There's a reason, but I might as well talk to the dining table... wait, that is exactly I might do. Have a good one!
The GM bailout saved perhaps a million jobs throughout the country at a time when we were in the worst part of the financial crisis. If GM had liquidated, the recession would almost certainly have been an order of magnitude worse than it was.
There is nothing to prevent the auto companies from finding themselves in the exact same place they were pre bailout. Wall street on the other hand has regulations out the wahzoo.
I take it then, again, that you're incapable of an educated response on this matter as well.
I can't make the difference any clearer. If the response is so dim it should be easy to debunk. Plus you still haven't "dug up" anything or explained your hypocrisy. You have some work to do.
Do you have the same opinion about the million dollar bonuses bankers and Wall street execs are paying themselves after the bailout?
Still waiting for someone to answer this question.
Meanwhile, i'll answer it: Of course they don't care about the Wall Street guys getting bonuses after getting bailed out. In fact, they were hoping and praying for the day that those guys would be back in the saddle again!
I can't make the difference any clearer. If the response is so dim it should be easy to debunk. Plus you still haven't "dug up" anything or explained your hypocrisy. You have some work to do.
I know! Its beyond your capacity.
Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath for that to change.
There is nothing to prevent the auto companies from finding themselves in the exact same place they were pre bailout. Wall street on the other hand has regulations out the wahzoo.
Neither of those things change what I wrote.
Perhaps GM should have failed out of the marketplace due to its bloated union contracts, poor models, outdated dealership structure and other reasons. But if that happened in late '08/early '09, that would have created a whole different dimension of damage to the US economy. Perhaps a million people would have lost their jobs. Who knows how far it would have spread afterwards?
As for moral hazard; as pointed out previously in this thread, the shareholders were wiped out. I don't think shareholders in New GM are thinking "Take those risks, beacuse if they fail, we'll just get bailed out again!" They certainly won't be encouraging their directors to take risks or repeat their prior practices.
Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath for that to change.
LOL, OK to recap. You have no answer to the refute my tutorial for you on the difference between TARP and the auto bailout, you were digging something up, we're still waiting. And you still haven't explained your hypocrisy. And something is beyond me? None of us are holding our breath waiting for you to catch up.
Last edited by shorebaby; 02-14-2011 at 04:05 PM..
Perhaps GM should have failed out of the marketplace due to its bloated union contracts, poor models, outdated dealership structure and other reasons. But if that happened in late '08/early '09, that would have created a whole different dimension of damage to the US economy. Perhaps a million people would have lost their jobs. Who knows how far it would have spread afterwards?
As for moral hazard; as pointed out previously in this thread, the shareholders were wiped out. I don't think shareholders in New GM are thinking "Take those risks, beacuse if they fail, we'll just get bailed out again!" They certainly won't be encouraging their directors to take risks or repeat their prior practices.
It does change it in that although millions (although probably less) would have lost jobs. They would have found employment in the ashes of what was left behind. So now the country is close to losing its triple A status due to huge debt, which this deal contributed. So we are looking at a quick death or a potential slow death. Admitedly the auto workers bailout looks much better now. I am still concerned with the future.
Yeah, the moral hazard was on the part of the UAW, the group that contributed greatly with tanking the company and rewarded with an ownwership interest.There is nothing preventing stupid management GM and union) decisions, as at least some, see this move.
They can't. That's up to the government to sell their stock and realize the profit (yes... profit) we've made off the bailout.
The US Government spent $67.2 Billion worth of tax payer money bailing out GM & stole even more from bond holders that they gave to their cronies. Show me where this money has been paid back with interest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The US Government spent $67.2 Billion worth of tax payer money bailing out GM & stole even more from bond holders that they gave to their cronies. Show me where this money has been paid back with interest. 
