BF2S Forums Do some Change will ya?

You guys are saying he hasn't done anything? Did you see the way he killed that fly? And pwnt Kanye?

Srsly though...he saved thousands of jobs when he stopped whatever motor company (chrysler) from going under, how can you say that's not something?

he didn't stop chrysler from going under, he is just making it cost more in the long run by propping up a loser with a failed business model.

They will go under anyways.

ATG wrote:

he didn't stop chrysler from going under, he is just making it cost more in the long run by propping up a loser with a failed business model.

They will go under anyways.

Not really...   I didn't exactly agree with the auto bailouts either, but the cost is probably going to be lower to the economy because of them.

Think of it like this.  If we had simply let the market clear, you'd suddenly have a very large group of people end up on welfare in the middle of an already bad recession.  The cost to maintain these people on welfare would collectively cost more than what we've spent on Chrysler through tax money.

Granted, I would agree that it was a bad idea not because of cost, but because it's a quick fix to an endemic problem.

Had we let the market clear, it would cost a lot in the short run in terms of welfare, but it would set a very needed precedent among the unions.  If the auto unions see that the government wouldn't bail them out, they'd act differently.  When the fear of true total collapse is looming, then people are more negotiable.  The unions didn't compromise nearly as much as they normally would have, because there's a history of bailing them out.  We did some of that in the 80s.

The same applies to the Wall Street bailouts, which cost us a lot more than the auto bailouts.  The difference there is that unions aren't the problem, but instead, shortsighted risk taking is.

Of course, any politician willing to let the banking sector or the auto sector collapse is pretty much guaranteed not to get re-elected, which is why bailouts continue regardless of the party in power.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-01-21 17:20:39)

Phrozenbot wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Of course, any politician willing to let the banking sector or the auto sector collapse is pretty much guaranteed not to get re-elected, which is why bailouts continue regardless of the party in power.

I don't know about that. The bank bailouts were unpopular at proposal and continue to be unpopular amongst the people. The auto bailouts are becoming more unpopular as well. What's guaranteed is that the party of change is going to quickly get booted out for lining the pockets of wall street, while leaving the rest of us the tab.

If the Republicans don't make the same mistake as the Dems did in 2004, then yes, there will be another shift of power.  They played their cards right with Scott Brown, but he has a moderate image.

In short, if the GOP intends to get control of the majority again, they need to stay the fuck away from people like Sarah Palin.

Fiscal conservatism is becoming popular again, but social conservatism should be very sparingly focused on with the upcoming elections.  In the areas where Republicans already dominate, social conservatism is popular, but it's fiscal conservatism that will bring in more moderates in the contested areas of the country.