Posted on 11/18/2008 9:08:55 PM PST by MittFan08
That was Romney's proposal, though he would extend the support researchers in university and industry sponsored labs as well.
Some research is best conducted in an entrepreneurial setting, while other research is better done in a formal lab setting. It all depends. Cellular technology, after all, was developed at Bell labs.
2) lower taxes for anyone who uses American workers, so as to bring off shore companies back, and to help jump start #1.
Protectionist nonsense.
FACT: Toyota builds cars in America and is not looking for a bailout, is it?
Which is why I oppose a bailout, and so does Romney.
Good posts regarding this issue, keep it up. I’m dumbfounded that conservatives are seemingly apathetic about the demise of an American manufacturing industry, which WILL happen if bankruptcy is the route. Detroit was called the “Arsenal of Democracy” during World War II because its plants were transformed to build the tanks and planes that won the war. It’s not an industry that we can or should turn our backs on. Surely, the UAW is the single biggest cause of their current failures. But, like you noted, most of the required restructuring is already underway and will take effect in 2010. This loan allows the companies to stay afloat until then.
I personally don’t appreciate your post because you obviously did not read mine fully - my family has been with GM and my father has worked for GM for over 30 YEARS!
The airline companies filed Chapt. 11 and people are investing in those stocks and are still flying.
I think you should understand what Chapt. 11 is before you post and actually understand that the clause itself deal with reorganization to make the company profitable again.
Chapt. 7 is what you don’t want to file...
I also worked in the defense manufacturing industry so again you should not go about making assumptions about the backgrounds of people and their professions and knowledge.
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/bankrupt.htm
BTW w/ any ailing company that is floundering there is a possibility of liquidation or failure - but if done correctly and rehabilitated esp. w/ known brand names the companies can still sell their stocks and bonds at much lower rates until the P/E ratios go back up.
The bailout idea does not mean that the companies won’t tank either - they have FUNDAMENTAL problems at the American Auto Industries - throwing money at them is not going to fix it and where is the money going to come from?? What magical seed is going to grow this money?? Will the Fed just print more out so we can end up in hyperinflation or will everyone just continue to get taxed for bad management we had nothing to do w/? Just curious. Chapt. 11 is the smartest thing for these companies to do. The govt. can prevent the companies from being bought by international ones if need be during the process.
You don’t think that having a faltering economy causes national security issues?? What happens when the debt is so astronomically high that everyone ends up pulling out investments - we hit a depression, high unemployment and hyperinflation - you think that’s not risky? - well if you don’t then keep on throwing money at everything - the paper money eventually means nothing if it even does at this moment.
I see the RINO is masquerading as a conservative again...
Savage’s fave GOP pick Romney totally disagrees with him on how to deal with the Auto manufacturers.
How much can I buy a block of real estate for in Detroit these days? About $15K?
I would also like to add that economically speaking:
The government currently owns more than 50% of the economy - this puts everyone in a precarious situation because the more govt. intervention the closer we could come to an actual depression/crash. A joint economic committee study took the years 1947 - 1998 and ran a regression analysis on govt. size versus economic growth and transfer payments (bailouts would be a transfer payment) affect the economy the most - the larger govt. gets the more the economy stagnates and begins to decline. Other studies were also conducted and found that the optimum level for govt. ownership in the economy is about 20-22% and the rest private sector - esp. for developed nations (not so for nations needing more intervention that are just starting their economies).
My concern is the more govt. intervention we have and the more we throw money at things the worse the situation is going to get and before the Auto companies even have a chance to try and turn themselves around by 2010 it will be too late - everything would tank. I may be a bit pessimistic but I’m very wary of anything that the govt. does at this point - I have no trust for any decisions that have or will be made in the near future esp. when Obama owes the unions A LOT of money - I’m skeptical of everything at this point in time.
Wow, you enjoy living in your alternative universe?
An article which says exactly what we conservative think about the bailout, 2 weeks after we got pasted in an election, and you still think the most important thing is to post 100+ line screeds attacking the man who wrote the article we all agree with.
Which is a perfect symbol explaining why we couldn’t select a conservative this election and got stuck with McCain — who you apparently think was electable, and apparently would have been happy with.
You don't give enough credit to our bankruptcy system. Many creative devices can be used to keep customer confidence in a company undergoing Chapter 11. It's very common to create an escrow account so that warranties will be honored. Debtor-in-possession financing can be arranged to make sure that a companey continue making profitable investments while in bankruptcy.
There is a reason why very few big, public companies are ever liquidated: Chapter 11 works, and no one has made a convincing argument as to why it would not work for Detroit.
An excellent post! Too bad all these posters are not as educated, well informed, and smart as we are.
The empirical evidence indicates otherwise. You're just repeating the self-serving claims of GM management desperately trying to save their jobs.
Nonsense. Chapter 11, a proven method of getting troubled companies back on track, is the only way to save American manufacturing.
A bunch of commentators now are glibly suggesting that the auto companies toss off their pension obligations. There are two things that bother me about this:
1. These companies did make a promise to hundreds of thousands of workers, many of whom spent their entire working lives with the understanding that they would get these pensions. I realize that many around here view these people as greedy, evil union members who shouldn't have been such suckers and who deserve what they get.
2. Even if the auto companies get out from under these pension obligations, undoubtedly the taxpayers will have to assume them via the PBGC.
I don’t think they can get out of pensions that have already vested, but they might cut down on benefit packages for retirees. The only thing annoying about pensioners is those who retired at 55.
What Chapter 11 would allow them to do is to repudiate labor contracts, get wages more in line with the prevailing wages for other manufacturing, and get rid of things like “job banks,” where people are paid not to work.
Site the evidence.
In other words, let the free market do its thing, but only to a point.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2134536/posts
All corporate liabilities have default risk. Pensions are no exception, and the people who accepted them as a form of payment should have realized that.
2. Even if the auto companies get out from under these pension obligations, undoubtedly the taxpayers will have to assume them via the PBGC.
While I oppose that too, it would be far better use of taxpayer money than throwing it away in a bailout of a fundamentally unsound business enterprise in dire need for restructuring.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.