Boeing can, just not as cheap. Meaning they lose some competitiveness. Boeing was also part of a group that opposed killing the Im-Ex Bank.
The pathway for the Solandra losses matter. Those loans were made by Obama to his fund raiser bundlers on fraudulent statements.
The IM-Ex bank has make something on the order of $7 billion that gets returned to the treasury over the last 20 years. And in the process helped American jobs. They don’t finance unproven technologies like Solandra. They finance export deals where there is an established product and a clear buyer and seller.
> “The IM-Ex bank has make something on the order of $7 billion that gets returned to the treasury over the last 20 years. And in the process helped American jobs. They don’t finance unproven technologies like Solandra. They finance export deals where there is an established product and a clear buyer and seller.”
I tend to look at these issues from the standpoint of a scientist.
For sake of viewpoint, say you, Danny TN, come to me with a gut bacteria that has made you sick and you are slowly dying from it. I have the cure (Ex-Im Bank) but there are side effects (crony capitalism and corruption). Let’s say my cure for your sickness has the side effect of damaging your liver and can kill you if it causes your liver to fail.
Is ‘my cure’ worth the risk or should you seek other remedies?
What harmful side effects do you see from the operation of the Ex-Im Bank as it is presently set up? Do you see that it should be reformed? Or should other private banks be induced to fill the vacuum if the Ex-Im Bank is shutdown permanently?