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.
I've been thinking, like many people, that this "bailout" plan will ultimately fail, because consumers lack confidence in the abilities of the Big 3 to turn things around, and remain operational. However, it really would be a quagmire if they were to cease operations. The costs associated with failure wouldn't just be Michigan's problem. At the very least, the fed(i.e.:you and i), would have to come up with money to pay the unemployment compensation for these workers, as Michigan sure as hell won't be able to cover the costs without help.
I'd prefer not to see any taxpayer subsidy, but that doesn't appear to be feasible at this juncture. So, with that being said, wouldn't it be a better idea to apply the "bailout" money to the consumer end, rather than to the manufacturers? Give us a federal tax credit if we purchase a vehicle that is assembled in the U.S., and sold by GM, Chrysler, or Ford. You could think of it as being a tariff of sorts, to disuade people from purchasing a vehicle from a foreign owned entity.
WOULD YOU PREFER A FEDERAL TAX CREDIT, IN LIEU OF "BAILOUT LOANS", TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF A U.S. ASSEMBLED VEHICLE, FROM THE BIG 3?
Last edited by Stratford, Ct. Resident; 12-12-2008 at 05:12 PM..
Reason: INCOMPLETE POLL QUESTION
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,833,234 times
Reputation: 6438
I thnk a failing company should be allowed to fail. After watching the UAW theatrics yesterday, I think they're freakin' rotten to the core. Bunch of selfish, short sighted greedy bastards.
I've been thinking, like many people, that this "bailout" plan will ultimately fail, because consumers lack confidence in the abilities of the Big 3 to turn things around, and remain operational. However, it really would be a quagmire if they were to cease operations. The costs associated with failure wouldn't just be Michigan's problem. At the very least, the fed(i.e.:you and i), would have to come up with money to pay the unemployment compensation for these workers, as Michigan sure as hell won't be able to cover the costs without help.
I'd prefer not to see any taxpayer subsidy, but that doesn't appear to be feasible at this juncture. So, with that being said, wouldn't it be a better idea to apply the "bailout" money to the consumer end, rather than to the manufacturers? Give us a federal tax credit if we purchase a vehicle that is assembled in the U.S., and sold by GM, Chrysler, or Ford. You could think of it as being a tariff of sorts, to disuade people from purchasing a vehicle from a foreign owned entity.
WOULD YOU PREFER A FEDERAL TAX CREDIT, IN LIEU OF "BAILOUT LOANS", TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF A U.S. ASSEMBLED VEHICLE, FROM THE BIG 3?
Hi Stratford, Ct. Resident,
Compared to a bailout this is exactly what I have said. Why not have them make cars and give money for people to purchase them? This would put an army of asset allocation on the streets, as usual. Do I know what you need?
However recall that tariffs added to the destruction of the last depression. Lets not do that again. All we need to do is replace the amount of lost commercial credit as tax credits. Done in proportion the only wealth transfer would be away from the usurers into the hands of their victims. Then M2, the money supply, would be stable. If people did the "bad" thing and paid down debt, then keep doing it until we can destroy the cursed interest bearing commercial credit. Should we go so far as to allow someone to sell their organs to be the buyer? That is what we have done. People will buy things when they are not in perpetual debt.
We should have a national debt of more 500% of GDP and no commercial credit instigated expansion of the money supply. No demand deposits ever again. No more having it and lending out at the same time. We should then end the debt facade and call them treasury notes. The only real debt will be to China and Japan.
This will not be done because the power to print money will be wrested from big fiance. Our leaders work for big finance.
Interesting idea, but it wouldn't generate even close to the amount of revenue that these carmakers claim they need.
There are too many people like myself and my SO who are disgusted with the so-called quality and poor excuse for customer service/relations provided by American carmakers. We wouldn't buy an American-made car again no matter how much of a tax credit was offered.
Last edited by totallyfrazzled; 12-12-2008 at 06:42 PM..
So you are advocating that people go into more debt to save a company for the sake of saving it ?
Not sure which post you responded to, but in case it was mine: I think it's an "interesting" idea but neither a viable or a desirable one. First, because it won't generate the revenue needed. Second, because of exactly your point: The last thing most Americans need right now is another carrot encouraging them to spend money they don't have (via a car loan) on something they can't really afford (because if they truly COULD afford it, they could safely pay cash without negatively impacting their financial situation). In other words, going into debt.
Sorry but IMO the only "good" debt is when you can borrow money at a significantly lower interest rate than you will get via investing that money into something else. Going into debt to buy a car that will lose 30% of its resale value the instant you drive it off the lot doesn't fall into that category.
So you are advocating that people go into more debt to save a company for the sake of saving it ?
Hi HappyTexan,
One thing to keep in mind when creating money is capacity. Creating money at utilization rates in the 90 percentile is a disaster just like over eating is a bad idea. However at low utilization rates creating money does not cost unless we are talking about opportunity costs in reallocation. I don't think we just want the same cars. It needs retooling but there is certainly a reason to create money to keep us from under utilization which is loss in real terms.
I've been thinking, like many people, that this "bailout" plan will ultimately fail, because consumers lack confidence in the abilities of the Big 3 to turn things around, and remain operational. However, it really would be a quagmire if they were to cease operations. The costs associated with failure wouldn't just be Michigan's problem. At the very least, the fed(i.e.:you and i), would have to come up with money to pay the unemployment compensation for these workers, as Michigan sure as hell won't be able to cover the costs without help.
I'd prefer not to see any taxpayer subsidy, but that doesn't appear to be feasible at this juncture. So, with that being said, wouldn't it be a better idea to apply the "bailout" money to the consumer end, rather than to the manufacturers? Give us a federal tax credit if we purchase a vehicle that is assembled in the U.S., and sold by GM, Chrysler, or Ford. You could think of it as being a tariff of sorts, to disuade people from purchasing a vehicle from a foreign owned entity.
WOULD YOU PREFER A FEDERAL TAX CREDIT, IN LIEU OF "BAILOUT LOANS", TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF A U.S. ASSEMBLED VEHICLE, FROM THE BIG 3?
We are dragging out the inevitable. Legacy Costs that these companies payout are the destruction of them unfortunately. The only way they can compete long term is if they shut off the spigot to retiree benefits and the UAW make major wage cuts. So if these items to cut are not on the table, then its gg US automaker...
I believe I heard a statment last week that GM and Honda sold the exact same amount of cars last yr but Honda made a nice profit and GM lost a ton of money.....why is that? And how do you fix that??
Anything else (from dealing w/those 2 issues) is just delaying the inevitable.
Then every company will want a tax credit on their product besides which I think the other countries will take this to court on trade practices; besides retaliate on our exported products.
Why the big 3? I can buy a Toyota designed and assembled in the US that has a higher domestic content than a car from the big 3.
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.
