Debate discussion
The Government
>
Auto Bailout
i 10. i dont know these things. but good topic!
I say screw the auto companies. Theyre the ones who got us into the crisis! They ca deal with their own problems. Our tax money should NOT go to bailing out those jerks
I think that if they should bail out anyone, it should be the middle class. Start from the bottom, then we'll start buying the things we want, LIKE CARS!!!!!!!!!. Then they don't have to worry about bailing out the big businesses.
Yes, but if the car companies fail, do you realize what will happen to our economy? Something like 1 in ten people work in the auto industry.The current unemployment rate is about 4.6 percent (according to CIA world factbook).
Now, add on that ten percent that would lose their jobs and... Oh, look, almost a 15% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE! That doesn't seem like a large percent, but that would more than triple what it is now!
And I don't think that counts any of the auto suppliers. Oh, look, see all those other pretty jobs? They just grew wings and flew out the window.
Guess what else? Those people ARE the middle class! And guess what? If we help the auto industry, we help them! We help them by letting them continue to have a source of income!
And, FYI, the auto companies did NOT get us into this mess. What have they been doing besides making cars? The BANKS are the ones screwing us over. They were the ones that gave out the ridiculous loans that nobody could pay back!
Also, I forget which one it is, either Chrysler or GM makes all of those emergency vehicles, like cop cars.
Also, if they go out, how will people possibly service their cars when they, you know, have worn out breaks or a flat tire or a transition that suddenly stops shifting? Who will supply the parts to fix it? NOBODY! Because the makers won't be around to provide the things to fix it!
And don't you DARE come back at me with the 'well, if they just made green cars' argument. they ARE making green cars! GM has the plans, has even put some of those plans in motion to produce the cars that CONGRESS is claiming that they need to make plans for.
And you guys are only thinking the way that you are because of the stupid media. The media is only giving the side of congress! They aren't even really SHOWING the view of the auto companies at all! I mean, if you watch the hearings in congress (which my mom did, and she told me a bit about) then you would have heard everything that the auto companies have said. They have done all they could have done, and they have said a whole lot more than they should have had to say. They released their plans (which they did not want to do, and should not have had to do) to the press, for god's sake! What more can they do?
If the members of congress don't stop acting idiotic and give them a bailout of some sort, then this country WILL go into a depression, and it WILL affect the rest of the world.
But really i think that if we bail out the middle class first the car companies will be okay (as Riley said) And i dont even have a television...what media?
:P
newspapers, magazines (but mostly news), even the radio. It's njot just tv. But I don't know, maybe you haven't been bombarded with media. Either way, i stand by my views.
OKAY LETS BAIL THEM OUT BUT UNDER STRICT REGULATION!!
Okay, I'm really wondering something. Who is the deleted member? I haven't deleted anyone but Mario.Roni, I'm sorry. I didn't know both sides of the story. Thank you for your point of view. Like Chandani said, under strict regulation let's bail them out. But the CEOs flew to that meeting in their private jets. If they wanted to bail their companies out, they would've already.
yeah! I dont know who the deleted member was but apparently i agreed with them....
You think you know. Thus I am going to try and shake that belief or confidence that you do know by implying that you do, in fact, don't know. But that sentence meant to shake your confidence carried a double-negative which is incorrect. Just like the thought that you know. So, do you know? DO you REALLY know? Do ya?How's that for random, people?
Well, I think the bailout is a bad idea. Just like trying to save the Giant Panda. The Giant Panda was going extinct long before the industrial age. It is not adapted to live in our world anymore. Neither are the Big 3 car companies. If we prop them up with taxpayer money all we are doing is prolonging the inevitable. They must innovate or die. They have pursued a business model that is not sound and we shouldn't have to suffer for it. Look at other companies. Toyota is agile, innovative and doing pretty well (not great). BMW developed an all electric Mini-Cooper and will be testing it later this year in the market and they went from start to finish in 10 months. You can't tell me that GM can't stop making big SUV's and develop something for the current market without my tax dollars. If (oh, yeah, Kenny stop scaring people *reprimands Kenny sharply*) the companies go bankrupt someone else will fill the void. Sure it will be tough on a lot of people, but with transportation making up around 20% of our GNP it's not as if we can stop making, buying, selling and repairing cars, it just won't be GM, Ford or Chrysler doing it unless they can come up with a better business model and implement it....NOW.
BUT PANDAS ARE CUTE! Sorry, totally off topic, but anyways, except for that I agree!
Pandas are really cute until they grow up, become uncontrollable and the claws come out. I'm just saying that trying to save them when they were going extinct before our modern industrialized society further endagered them is a losing battle. Saving the Big 3 from their own mistakes and failures is also a losing battle. *hands baby panda to Riley and Chandani*
AAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!! IT'S SO CUTE!
I KNOW!! *Panda snaps at her* OH CRAP IT BITES!
Careful Pandas are not pets! *wrestles panda into submission with one of those big stick things from animal cops* Shoulda warned ya *stares at floor sheepishly*
Maybe we could save more Pandas or whatever else if we didn't spend so much money bailing out Big Auto.
Good point!(Chandani, do you have a feeling we're being hypnotized by the cuteness of pandas to agree with everything Mitchell says?)
I agree with a few other people on this page. Go ahead and bail them out but regulate them strictly.What I personally find criminal is the fact that there are CEO's out there who own two or three private jets and fancy cars and two or more expensive houses. Share the weath my friends. I mean honestly, what do you need three private jets for? Just have one. Maybe two cars, like the average American family. One house. No vacations to Badden Badden of Monte Carlo. Go to Hawaii or something instead. Or better yet, no vacations at all. Trust me your great-great-great-great grand son will be just fine with a billion dollars. he doesn't need three. Give the rest back to the people. I promise if you donate a couple of hundred thousand doller sums to aschool, you won't just have a forum hall named after you, you'll have the entire bloody schol named after you. Huzzah for you. Serriously, share the weath. Give back to teh people who helped make you rich.
Petrina I kinda agree with you in principle. There are excesses that are absolutely obscene. But trying to redistribute the wealth is tricky at best. I have no problem with people owning 2 or 3 jets and 10 of the best cars, but I am against it when there are people who are starving. If everyone has their needs taken care of I have no problem if people with talent and skill making lots and lots of money. I just feel like it is usually done by exploiting the lower class.But my issue is with the auto-bailout. They are not successful. Why should we bail them out? If they want to make a profit do it the same way Toyota and Honda have. Build good cars that people can afford and want to buy.
But what about all the workers in the car companies?
True Mitchell. If we didn't bail out these car companies, all the workers would lose their jobs, raising the unemployment rate.
And causing our economy to drop even lower. With less people being able to even buy the cars, and the fired workers not being able to buy anything else.
But don't you think it doesn't make any sense for Obama to be spending so much money on businesses that probably should die natural deaths? Hes just prolonging their lives and making it so that they struggle longer. A lot of economists agree that sometimes the economy will work itself out without the help of stimulus packages or bailouts.
Petrina wrote: " I agree with a few other people on this page. Go ahead and bail them out but regulate them strictly.What I personally find criminal is the fact that there are CEO's out there who own two or thr..."
So you think CEOs shouldn't be entitled to their luxuries? They've earned the money fair and square haven't they? They've worked hard and made sacrifices and made good descisions. It isn't just luck that they've made that money, they are intelligent, take advantage of education and oppportunity, and got very good results. These wealthy Americans are motivated and ambitious. They aren't typically slackers. Yes, sure it would be lovely if some of these people gave some of this money to Greg Mortenson or Sudan refugee camps, but its their money and they can do what they like with it. If you think about it, a lot of these influential and affluent CEOs and high ranking business men DO give back to the world. Like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Besides, how many CEOs have three private jets? It costs millions for just one.
Was that 1st post arguing with me Liz? Or were you just arguing in general?
Not arguing, debating. And that was in general. But as you are on the opposing side, it could be against you.
Well, I base my response of whom the debate is towards.
Personally, like every other person that I ever talk to in real life, I am entirely for it. Of course, the only reason that everybody around where I live is for it is because I live in Michigan. So, I haven't heard much variety on the opinion of this issue.
For that reason, what is YOUR opinion? And what kinds of opinions do the people in your area generally have? Or is it split evenly?
As far as my views (and the views of other Michiganders (or Michiganians, if you prefer. My question is why do we have TWO names?)) I believe that this article (which was the front page of the paper) really says it all: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs...
The best part of this article is that they sent it to every member of congress. :D