NJRVer wrote:
spoon059 wrote:
I don't doubt that the bailouts helped a lot of working families. That's great for them, but where does it end? Poorly managed companies that are spread too thin and not financially able to succeed should not cost the taxpayers. I'm great that you, and others still have jobs, medical and pensions... but i disagree with the idea that the federal govt should bed invoked in private enterprise.
Where does it start, where does it end? My father in law owned his own company. If he details on loans and can't pay, is the govt going to pay his bills? Doubtful, nor should they. There is a process in place for situations like this... its called bankruptcy. I realize you are passionate about it because it directly and positively benefits you. As someone who questions the decisions of our federal govt, i am concerned about the precedent set that bailed out a failing competitive private industry.
It's pretty simple.
When a company that size goes belly up and the resulting cascade of other businesses and individual people go belly up with it, how much tax money will the gov't collect from them......$Zero.
How much has everyone paid since they were offered the loan.....I'm sure it would now be in the billions when you figure all the employees and subcontractor suppliers.
x2. That was my point. Right or wrong or whatever on the bailout GM and FCA were too big to let go. It's not like Evergreen's bankruptcy where only a few 100 workers need to find jobs. I don't like the government bailing out banks and companies anymore than anyone else. But this time seemed like the right time, regardless of how it was done.
And didn't Ford borrow money to re-tool their small car division to be more competitive, while GM and FCA (Chrysler) needed the money just to keep the doors open?
