Comments on: Bailouts hurt our standard of living

By: Yow Chuan

Yow Chuan — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 04:03:58 +0000

How about giving that $34 billion to rising small companies that really deserve it?

It has been mentioned in the economic classics that nothing good comes out of interfering with the free market.

By: ارايش

ارايش — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:40:07 +0000

excellent ,Thanks for the post

By: Dawn

Dawn — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:15:57 +0000

I think the majority of Americans, except those who live in the rust belt, oppose the automakers’ bailout.

Why throw more good money at badly run companies? They had their chance in the 70s and as you may remember, Chrysler was already bailed out once before.

In a free enterprise system, it’s sink or swim. Govt has no business spending taxpayer dollars on private companies with overpaid executives.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:40:53 +0000

@Kevin:

These companies have not been doing well for a very long time. Their troubles have certainly been exacerbated by recent events in the financial industry but are by no means simply a function of them.

By: عکس

عکس — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:51:21 +0000

You are the best commenter on the planet! I should just give up and take lessons from you.

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:32:44 +0000

I don’t feel bad for the automakers, and feel that no bailout should be awarded. I don’t think many in congress are viewing it as ‘despite you not giving the market what it wants, we’re going to give your company another chance,’ I think it’s more along the lines of ‘we don’t want any more fear over the economy among the American public, nor a large number of people hitting the unemployment lines.’

By: game-girl

game-girl — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:15:15 +0000

Everything develops wavingly. We know it for sure . For some years we saved money,bought cars, furs and jewelry,widen business structures. Now we do quite oppositr things. This is the way created not by us.

By: SimplyForties

SimplyForties — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:53:53 +0000

I’m not getting behind the bailout but “we” don’t “all win” in the absence of a bailout. If the Big Three go belly up, hundreds of thousands of people stand to lose their jobs. They are “us” too and I don’t imagine they’ll feel much like winners.

By: Eden

Eden — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:23:31 +0000

Bankruptcy and reorganization is the answer in my book.

The sad part is, these liars at the head of these companies are trying to say they need a bailout to save jobs. However, we all know there will be massive layoffs once they get the money- they simply don’t have the cashflow to continue current operations. Better to let the jobs be lost while we still have the $34 billion.

By: Funny about Money

Funny about Money — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:21:56 +0000

Hm. A friend of mine who sells Toyotas said their huge dealership sold three cars all month…and one of them was used. I don’t see anyone rushing to “bail out” Toyota.

So…here in the Age of Globalization, why should we bail out auto manufacturers that wilfully design and produce inefficient, unsafe vehicles? Just because they and their ancillary industries employ 1% of the U.S. population? Possibly that 1% could find better ways to make a living. Maybe flipping burgers, if there’s anyone left who can afford to buy at McDonald’s or Burger King.

It’s a very slippery proposition, no matter how you look at it.