too big to fail is simply a myth created by supporters of Keynesian economics. Modern Keynesian economics calls for increased government contribution to stimulate the economy, however they disregard the aspect of "for a short period of time" and "on a limited basis". There is only so much a stimulus can do. Eventually, if not reorganized, the companies that received a stimulus will need to fail, declare bankruptcy, and be forced to reorganize or be disbanded and purchased by companies that are successful. If a company does not produce profit, it will fail. (Economics 101). To continue to throw government money to keep a failing business alive will cause a thing called 'hyperinflation', which in turn will lower profit margins, increase unemployment and create a vicious cycle. Letting a business fail will hurt in the short term, but in the long term will create a more stable economy.

 

Do you understand what it means to be a secured creditor? Your reply suggests you do not.

Essentially, the government took away the creditors security, kept some for the government and gave the rest to the their friends and donors (the unions), while pretending they were saving the country. I guess that's OK with you, but it pisses me off as it has a cooling effect on investment, which costs jobs.

Glad you acknowledge it might have been a mistake for bureacrats in DC to close down thousands of family owned businesses (a golf clap for you). Funny that you trust the same government to do right in just about every other instance, even though they took away family's livelihood and prohibited them from talking about it.

As for Facism being a right leaning term where companies have the power, where do you come up with this stuff? I know lots of the teachers on this board think they are allowed to just make stuff up, but you really need to stop redefining terms just because you think it helps your arguement.

As for Democrats wanting to limit corporate contributions? Really? They sure seem to accept plenty of them. Oh, and if true, did it cross your mind that reduced corporate contributions just might increase the power of the unions in politics, as they would not be subject to limits on corporate contributions?

The unions you see as a 'check and balance' on employers are killing jobs in this country. Government employees unions are being paid un-sustainable levels of benefits. If by check and balance, you actually mean millstone, I guess we can agree

 

Frank, again you are naive if you believe that Ford was innocent in this mess. I'm not saying anything against Ford, but all three were at the brink of failure. They got lucky. They also had some good products in the mix and future which is a cudos to them. But, there isn't a major company in either of these industries that didn't/doesn't have issues, most of which are not know to the public.

 

Your post is a contradiction. On one hand, you say I am naive, then on the other you say that Ford "got lucky". Designing, engineering, and then ultimately assembling a quality product has absolutely no "luck" involved. You are comparing throwing dice to the automotive industry. It would be wise for you to reacquaint yourself with the proper definitions of "luck" and "issues".

All auto manufacturers have had to adjust to lower sales in the recession. The cold hard truth is that GM, Chrysler (controlled by Fiat), could not adapt due to lack of proper management. (Both companies were at or near the bottom of quality rankings for not just years, but decades).

There is no company that is "too big to fail."

 

Frank,

However you cut it Ford may have gotten lucky. They had secured additional financing before the credit markets dried up. Was it strategy? If so then it was shrewd foresight otherwise luck.

Yes many of Ford's vehicles were better than the competition but US manufacturers still were banking on huge trucks instead os Prius'.

 

Thanks Kmac. For voting for Obama and supporting Unions.

Now I officially pay 1/3rd of my check into the manditory union and the Obama nation! WOOOO! HOOO!

I love paying for Laqueesha to have 14 kids and a big screen tv with HD cable! Im glad I could better her life!

 

Thank you, Kmac.

 

Are you serious?

Obama just got done with a month long campaign across America on tax payers dime to raise money for Dems, He spent millions of tax dollars on his campaigns, and who do you think is doing the donating? It isnt the magic fairy in the air making magic money. Its big corporations, and you money that goes to taxes.

Lets hear why you support socialized health care too. And why you support more and more and more government control. We'll be a communist country in no time with your views.

Oh the government can help here, Oh yea they should take control, Oh yea we should pay for this and this, Oh wait you cant make that much money in one year!, we'll be taking that from you.

This is basically what you are saying and how do you not see that the government already has to much control?

The government should only do a few things. Run the supreme court, Military power, Making money and the Federal reserve. And the Federal law enforcment and the civil services like that, FBI, ATF, etc. etc...

They SHOULD NOT! Have power of who receives health care, if you want health care YOU pay for it, They shouldnt have control over how much money you make and they shouldnt get their cut if you make to much in their opinions. They should not be able to step in and take you business from you if its doing bad,

but you support all of that. And thats not what made America the free democracy, Your views are the views of communism, Making everyone equal and by making everyone equal it eliminates all problems, SURRE. Take a look at China for the effects of your views. They are doing good huh? 2 bucks a day work wage. And everyone is miserable

 

Relax fellows here a lil humor so ya'll can relax a lil bit.

[IMG][/IMG]

 

However you cut it Ford may have gotten lucky. They had secured additional financing before the credit markets dried up. Was it strategy? If so then it was shrewd foresight otherwise luck.

Exaclty. Apparently you have not spent much time in Executive Board Rooms. There is much more to the story than product, lower sales and the recession. Yes, I believe Ford got lucky with respect to certain financial situations. It could have easily gone the other way.

My opinion has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with 20 years of experience sitting in a board room.

 

Whether Ford has a good line of credit or not, the precedent has been set. If and when the Executive Branch wants to take over Ford (or any other company) to 'save' it and to 'protect' the nation, they will. The media and the unions will back the administration 100%, too.

I'm guessing the Ford suits will need to keep this in mind next time they are negotiating with the union. Fortunately for them, the Executive Branch does not have the political capital they did a year ago, so Ford is safe for the time being. If we go into a depression, all bets are off.

 

A few simple questions:

Why would you want to hide the fact you are advertising a position on a political issue? The Democrats voted to make people who post such ads to have to identify the funding source. What is so crazy about that idea and why would the Republicans want to block that?

You sound surprised that the government has the right to come into a business that is poorly run and take it over. Banking regulators do it all the time. Do you want to put your money in a non-FDIC insured bank? I don't. I hope to keep what I have.

Drick, I am not saying there are not people that abuse welfare. However, to make it sound like a racial slur is not necessary. People everyday make attempts to cheat the system. People taking extra long breaks at work, cheating on their taxes and many other things they shouldn't do. I am not for just supporting people on welfare for generations. The cycle has to be broken but that comes with education and opportunity.

As far as health care...most of the laws regarding are about protecting people from insurance company rules. Lifetime limits of coverage and pre-existing condition clauses harm many people. Will rates go up because of this...probably but chronic illnesses can wipe out many policy's limits quickly. People become stuck in jobs because of pre-existing condition clauses. Good luck finding insurance if you are diabetic or a cancer survivor.

I will be the first to admit, I am disappointed that Obama hasn't done more to enact change. Part of it is the blame of party politics and part of it has been him not reaching the masses like when he campaigned.

My biggest question is that most of time when Bush was in office, he had a Republican congress and his efforts to cut taxes and all didn't prevent us from falling into the worst recession since the Great Depression...how can the Republicans have a different outcome this time if they get control? The economy was shaky most of the time he was in office and was built on a house of cards.

Dave...also if you look up the meaning of Fascism, it is anti liberal/anti communist and is considered to be the far right of the traditional left/right political structure. This is how Wikipedia defines Fascism...I know it is not a scholarly accepted source but acceptable for our purposes here...

Fascism (pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.[5][6] Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but it gravitated to the political right in the early 1920s.[7][8] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum.[9][10][11][12][13][14]

 

Corporatist and Captialist are nowhere near the same Government direction of its preferred privately owned companies was a hallmark of Facism under Mussolini, who invented the term. As to Facism being far to the right in today's left/right spectrum, that is a load of BS, spouted by the same 'scholars' who claim Hitler was far to the right. This is little more than an attempt to smear today's right wing, which have far less in common with Hitler and Mussolini than today's left wing do.

 

If you would study history, instead of believing everything you read on Wiki k-mac, you would see that fascists have been, for the most part, left-wingers. The inherent belief that the state can/will provide is the cornerstone of that worldview.

 

Where did you get that definition from?

Fascism is the exact opposite of right. The real political spectrum goes from more power to less power. (Left to Right)

Dictatorship -> Oligarchy -> Democracy -> Republic -> Anarchy

To have communism/socialism, you must have a dictatorship or a source of power to enforce the distribution of wealth and capital. The two can not exist without each other.

Everyone refers to Hitler as a fascist (what is 'said' to be far right), you do know that he was the head of and the creator of the Nationalist Socialist Party, correct?

Mao, Stalin, and Mussolini were all fascists. Guess what their governments were? Socialist. As you know, socialist is far left.

Get your facts straight and come back to me.