Comments | dalonzo9: Plea or Flee

dalonzo9

Plea or Flee

Jan 13, 2009 21:22

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28635328

Mr. President-elect, please "revise elements of the original bailout program that have drawn widespread criticism" and "do a better job of accounting for how the money was disbursed" and "make sure none of it [pays] for stockholder dividends... ( Read more... )

Comments 15

ericcheung January 14 2009, 04:01:19 UTC

I agree. The auto industry is the most galling. Did you know that the 2010 Priuses are incorporating solar panels? http://priuschat.com/forums/prius-hybrid-news/57334-toyota-reveals-all-new-prius.html

Take that Detroit!

dalonzo9 January 14 2009, 04:11:56 UTC

Yes, I find it appalling that US automakers continue to sweep fuel economy under the rug. It is so frustrating to see US industries rush to make the same old mistakes in order to cash in... for what will be the last time as the rest of the first world moves on to more efficient, better and brighter technologies.

Speaking of things Prius, here's an interesting news bite: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=a6KIi6T4ajHA&refer=japan

sleepysmurfette January 14 2009, 13:02:08 UTC

unfortunately priuses (prii?) are totally gay looking as are most hybrids. Gay looking cars? now thats unamerican.
Plus - when they make big ol suvs, people buy em. Just supply and demand, consumers are the ones who should change market direction.

Its an odd setup with CAFE standards with american companies too, for example Ford makes a lot of high efficiency vehicles - but theyre diesel and for some retarded reason they cant sell them in the US, so they are unable to count them in their CAFE standards which screws them in manufacturing other cars.. big mess. Yet another government imposed way of measuring shit that is based on idiocy.

dalonzo9 January 14 2009, 19:45:10 UTC

Yeah, Prii (haha) are ugly. I never understood what the big draw of SUVs was. I mean, it's a really big car that isn't quite a truck. Even when gas prices were better, they were still gas guzzlers.

And, yeah, the average American consumer is pretty ridiculous.

theturbochrist January 14 2009, 04:09:11 UTC

Its a piss poor state of affiars friend, always has been and no one is itchin to change it now.

dalonzo9 January 14 2009, 04:12:55 UTC

Nothing short of armed revolution... but nobody thinks it's quite that bad.

Ah well.

larivee22 January 14 2009, 04:33:10 UTC

We've gotten scary close before -- Conservatives should thank FDR for saving capitalism, as his New Deal measures propped the whole thing up long enough for the war and sane regulations and new technology to preserve it.

Should he have bothered? That I don't know.

dalonzo9 January 14 2009, 04:37:19 UTC

So I guess we should expect World War III....

Thread 6

sleepysmurfette January 14 2009, 12:58:41 UTC

the real problem is you cant buy your way out of debt by printing more money. mailing people checks makes them feel better sure, but thats about as far as it goes. All these stupid stimulus and bailout things just delay the ineveitable. Market needs to self correct and the longer we try and fight the bottoming out, the longer shit sucks for.

Problem with bailouts in my view is that its yet another move by the government to (like always) prevent consequences for bad decisions. End up with a bunch of industries that function like a rich kid badass who always gets bailed out by daddy so he never faces the music - where is the incentive for him to behave? Look at Madoff - asshole steals 50 billion and violates probation, and they still keep him in his penthouse. What about that situation is a consequence?

dalonzo9 January 14 2009, 19:47:38 UTC

I too wish we would just get the truly hard part over and done with. I was completely against the first bailout. Just let things, as you said, self correct. Putting off the inevitable is just drawing out the pain. Not worth it!

However, as long as they're handing out free money to assholes, I would like some too.

sleepysmurfette January 15 2009, 13:50:31 UTC

agreed lol. Ill take my asshole check willingly as well.

frugee January 14 2009, 17:00:42 UTC

You know, when Capitol Hill turned its back on the automakers, I started to ponder why they were so hastily championing the banks. The longer I thought about it, the more I realized that the FDIC backs almost all investments up to at least $100,000, now $250,000, correct? The federal government probably didn't have enough money to back all of the failing banks should they close and considered this a quick solution. Less than forthcoming....I could be wrong, but think about the fact that other than the unemployment factor, the feds don't provide direct "insurance" to the auto industry.

Although I supported an original bailout and actually think that some sort of package should be afforded to the auto industry, I am so very cautious of bailing out an industry that has ignored new trends and standards while milking the SUV cash cow for decades. Also, when did we start rhyming our government positions--Car Czar? HAH, farewell, Bush.

dalonzo9 January 14 2009, 19:54:45 UTC

I honestly cannot buy (haha!) that "too big to fail" rhetoric. Even if they were too big to fail, hey should have been left to fail. What have we saved by bailing them out, anyway? Hundreds--if not, thousands--of people, even entire families, STILL lost big. Entire pensions disappeared and stocks continue to plummet. What have we saved, again? Thus far, all the bailout saved was the irresponsible spending of the banks. Now, they're buying each other out. Now, if it gets really bad again, they'll be even MORE "too big to fail." Rhetoric works the second time when there's supposedly more at stake.

People with small, podunk banks (like me) really had nothing to worry about (or even lose). This whole propping up Wall Street to somehow "protect" Main Street is total BS. When big structures fall, small ones erect in their place. Even if that isn't necessarily true, I'd rather see irresponsibility garner real consequences.