This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Why you should vote for Obama if you care at all about internet openness.

#401KillerTrufflePosted 11/7/2012 10:45:30 AM
From: SilentHawk29 | #399
So you would rather have a loss of over one million jobs and the potential crash of the American automotive industry? Note that Ford also uses most of the same suppliers that Chrysler and GM use so Ford would potentially be crippled as well.

I imagine if he didn't bailout the companies and they did collapse, you'd have another argument up your sleeves about how Obama let the market crash and caused the loss of more jobs.

Nope. I have disagreed with the bailout strategy from the beginning. Here's the thing a lot of people don't seem to get - large companies folding every now and then HAPPENS. It is part of a healthy capitalist economy, where properly managed companies that are contributing well succeed, and poorly managed ones collapse. As I said before, those lost jobs would not have been gone as long as we've been dealing with now.

The most likely scenario without the bailout would have involved the loss of quite a few jobs, yes. However, it would also have likely involved a declaration of bankruptcy rather than complete collapse. This would have led to a drastic restructuring of the company, almost certainly new leadership, and a new direction. Management problems would have been corrected, and once the company had its feet under it again, jobs would have come back. Even if the company DID collapse, others would have ended up moving in to fill the void.

Thing is, the economy is not always good. There's nothing you can do about that. It goes up and down, with good periods and bad. Natural selection ensures that companies that are run properly succeed, and those that don't fail. The bailouts disrupted that process significantly, and propped up the economy with toothpicks. I don't think we're anywhere close to out of the woods yet, because those same lousy companies are doing those same lousy things that got them in trouble in the first place. It will eventually get to a point where the government can't even afford to hold them up, and then where are we at?

Did Obama cause it all? Nope. Did he help anything? Nope. Did he notably contribute to the problem? Yep.
---
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
#402GoldninjaPosted 11/7/2012 10:57:06 AM
KillerTruffle posted...
From: SilentHawk29 | #399
So you would rather have a loss of over one million jobs and the potential crash of the American automotive industry? Note that Ford also uses most of the same suppliers that Chrysler and GM use so Ford would potentially be crippled as well.

I imagine if he didn't bailout the companies and they did collapse, you'd have another argument up your sleeves about how Obama let the market crash and caused the loss of more jobs.

Nope. I have disagreed with the bailout strategy from the beginning. Here's the thing a lot of people don't seem to get - large companies folding every now and then HAPPENS. It is part of a healthy capitalist economy, where properly managed companies that are contributing well succeed, and poorly managed ones collapse. As I said before, those lost jobs would not have been gone as long as we've been dealing with now.

The most likely scenario without the bailout would have involved the loss of quite a few jobs, yes. However, it would also have likely involved a declaration of bankruptcy rather than complete collapse. This would have led to a drastic restructuring of the company, almost certainly new leadership, and a new direction. Management problems would have been corrected, and once the company had its feet under it again, jobs would have come back. Even if the company DID collapse, others would have ended up moving in to fill the void.

Thing is, the economy is not always good. There's nothing you can do about that. It goes up and down, with good periods and bad. Natural selection ensures that companies that are run properly succeed, and those that don't fail. The bailouts disrupted that process significantly, and propped up the economy with toothpicks. I don't think we're anywhere close to out of the woods yet, because those same lousy companies are doing those same lousy things that got them in trouble in the first place. It will eventually get to a point where the government can't even afford to hold them up, and then where are we at?

Did Obama cause it all? Nope. Did he help anything? Nope. Did he notably contribute to the problem? Yep.


Nail on the head
---
You guys just took a dump on my soul - mastahjebus
#403SilentHawk29Posted 11/7/2012 11:12:34 AM
From: KillerTruffle | #401
Nope. I have disagreed with the bailout strategy from the beginning. Here's the thing a lot of people don't seem to get - large companies folding every now and then HAPPENS. It is part of a healthy capitalist economy, where properly managed companies that are contributing well succeed, and poorly managed ones collapse. As I said before, those lost jobs would not have been gone as long as we've been dealing with now.

There are only three American car companies. Two were about to collapse and the third relied on the other two for suppliers. There aren't other non-domestic companies to pick up the slack here. This means the loss of over a million jobs, jobs of which most of them can't recover due to the nature of the unions and must rely on the industry getting back on its feet which more than likely would take a lot longer than four years.

The most likely scenario without the bailout would have involved the loss of quite a few jobs, yes. However, it would also have likely involved a declaration of bankruptcy rather than complete collapse. This would have led to a drastic restructuring of the company, almost certainly new leadership, and a new direction. Management problems would have been corrected, and once the company had its feet under it again, jobs would have come back. Even if the company DID collapse, others would have ended up moving in to fill the void.

They would still cut out at least two-thirds of the work force which is still over a million. The company "getting on its feet again," would not be an overnight ordeal. Also, other companies moving in when we already have a poor economy? Not likely. And even if so, it would more than likely take a lot longer for the companies to "move in" compared to the auto industry "getting back on its feet."

Thing is, the economy is not always good. There's nothing you can do about that. It goes up and down, with good periods and bad. Natural selection ensures that companies that are run properly succeed, and those that don't fail. The bailouts disrupted that process significantly, and propped up the economy with toothpicks. I don't think we're anywhere close to out of the woods yet, because those same lousy companies are doing those same lousy things that got them in trouble in the first place. It will eventually get to a point where the government can't even afford to hold them up, and then where are we at?

Oh, I don't know. Them filing bankruptcy and "getting back on their feet?" I agree that some companies are ran more poorly than others (since we're talking about the automotive industry, we could say Ford vs. Chrysler and GM), but when our country relies heavily on the automotive industry, you can see why the government would want to keep them afloat. With the automotive industry crippled, we lose domestics and exports. When we lose those, we begin to rely on imports. When we begin to rely on imports, we spend more money. It's a chain reaction. You can't just single out a couple companies, let them fall without having consequences, especially when the companies are as big as the automotive companies.
---
PSN - Srikar || WKC2 - Jinto
My car: http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/239/71newwheels06.jpg
#404KillerTrufflePosted 11/7/2012 11:51:18 AM
Yes, the US does export autos, but in terms of the larger picture and overall budget, it's not all that much. Prior to the economic collapse, we were exporting around $50 billion in domestic cars. A significant number to be sure, but not a crippling one by any means, particularly when you compare it with the $1 trillion deficit. And it *would* recover.

I can't find the actual numbers right now, but there still is not a tremendous demand for domestic cars. People have been realizing that they are wasteful designs, and that cars built more with fuel economy and repair cost in mind are smarter choices. Domestic auto makers have continued to foolishly focus on flash and power over economic and environmental feasibility, and that's a big part of what's hurt them I think. I haven't been able to find the actual numbers, but from what I've seen, the US is actually doing MUCH more export of foreign cars produced on US soil than it is actual domestic cars. Nissan, Mercedes, Toyota, Hyundai, and more. Toyota has actually announced that they will be increasing US-based production to increase its exports. Yes, those companies are foreign, but they COULD and WOULD have moved in to fill any gaps left by a collapse. Toyota's expansion in the US will increase US jobs in new plants. And there is always the possibility of new startups positioning to pick up the slack once the economy stabilized some - and it would have, continuing to follow the natural up and down cycle.

Yes, the economy is complex, with lots of factors affecting lots of other things. However, I absolutely do not see the bailout as a positive step toward fixing the problem. Especially after the high-profile waste of so much of that bailout money, with executives using it to buy themselves yachts, pay themselves holiday bonuses, take "company retreats" to high-class vacation spots, etc., that money was effectively thrown away. It was pretty obviously a mistake when Bush did it, and rather than learn from it, Obama did it again - and worse.
---
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
#405OreoBoy206Posted 11/7/2012 12:43:05 PM(edited)
From: KillerTruffle | #2004
People have been realizing that they are wasteful designs, and that cars built more with fuel economy and repair cost in mind are smarter choices. Domestic auto makers have continued to foolishly focus on flash and power over economic and environmental feasibility



I know this is not the main point of your post but American cars are actually some of the most fuel efficient vehicles nowadays specifically from Ford.. For example the 2013 Fusion hybrid and Ford C-Max spank the competitors when it comes to fuel economy, interior quality, and handling. Hell some of the seats in the Fusion are made of soy bean and recycled jeans and people are praising how comfortable and supportive they are.. Domestic cars have come a long way from the 90' and are actually very competitive in terms of reliability, fuel economy, and quality while beating some imports in all three categories

The problem is that people still have the mindset of domestic cars being the same unreliable gas suckers they were a decade ago but in reality they're far from that today. I mean it's normal for people to feel this way given their track record but the good news is that a lot of people are starting to understand that these new domestic cars don't have the same traits as their older counterparts..
#406KillerTrufflePosted 11/7/2012 12:46:00 PM
From: OreoBoy206 | #405
From: KillerTruffle | #2004
People have been realizing that they are wasteful designs, and that cars built more with fuel economy and repair cost in mind are smarter choices. Domestic auto makers have continued to foolishly focus on flash and power over economic and environmental feasibility



American cars are actually some of the most fuel efficient vehicles nowadays specifically from Ford.. For example the 2013 Fusion hybrid and Ford C-Max spank the competitors when it comes to Fuel economy, interior quality, and handling. Hell some of the seats in the Fusion are made soy bean and recycled jeans and people are praising how comfortable and supportive they are..

I didn't say US automakers are entirely ignoring fuel economy, but it isn't their focus. One or two efficient cars here or there doesn't change the fact that you still see an emphasis on big power and stuff - more than foreign companies. Hell, my plain old 2008 Corolla has hit 42 mpg on the highway - that's near the performance of the C-Max and better than the Fusion Hybrid.

But all this is beside the point. Obama has done nothing helpful for the economy, has hurt it in my opinion, and he has taken some actions that have unconstitutionally stripped some of our freedoms away. Can't say Romney would have done any better, but I still personally would have liked to see what a wild card would do rather than someone I *know* is screwing up the country.
---
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
#407EternalFlame66Posted 11/7/2012 12:51:28 PM
at least you have a better healthcare now
---
Such is your fate.
#408SilentHawk29Posted 11/7/2012 12:53:55 PM
You mean the wild card of spending even more in the billions as well as giving tax breaks left and right without actually discussing the magical plan on how more spending will decrease the deficit?
---
PSN - Srikar || WKC2 - Jinto
My car: http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/239/71newwheels06.jpg
#409OreoBoy206Posted 11/7/2012 1:59:03 PM(edited)
From: KillerTruffle | #2006
I didn't say US automakers are entirely ignoring fuel economy, but it isn't their focus. One or two efficient cars here or there doesn't change the fact that you still see an emphasis on big power and stuff - more than foreign companies. Hell, my plain old 2008 Corolla has hit 42 mpg on the highway - that's near the performance of the C-Max and better than the Fusion Hybrid.



The Fusion hybrid is rated at 47 mpg highway and its way bigger than a Corolla so that's very impressive. I also disagree with you on fuel economy not being their focus.. Domestic cars are already using smaller 4 cylinder turbo charged engines to replace V6 engines and turbo charged V6 engines to replace V8 engines so they can get a boost in fuel economy while Imports are still relying on V6 and V8 options in their competing automobiles. Nowadays domestic brands are very focused on fuel economy because of how high gas prices are and because Obama passed those strict CAFE Fuel Economy Standards.

Check out the sources below..


http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/21/business/la-fi-autos-ford-small-20120420
Source^^^

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/24/157252558/fords-little-engine-that-could-challenge-hybrids
Source^^^

http://green.autoblog.com/2008/11/03/mulally-remains-committed-to-ford-small-car-strategy-despite-low/
(From 2008)Source^^^
#410daviddPosted 11/7/2012 1:55:24 PM
My new Cruze Eco (automatic) gets 39mpg on the highway, it's nice. Manual gets 42mpg.
---
-davidd