Obama's Auto Bailout CAUSED Thousands to lose jobs

[Jack Ryan]

the significance of the list, Grassley said, "I hope it's as simple as taxpayers deserve to know what happened to their money."
He added, "We thought originally we were bailing out AIG. Then later on ... we learned that the money flowed through AIG to a few big banks, and now we know that the money went from these few big banks to dozens of financial institutions all around the world."

AIG received the bailout of $85 billion at the discretion of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which was led at the time by Timothy Geithner. He now is U.S. treasury secretary.

Braley also noted that the AIG bailout was negotiated under President George W. Bush, a Republican.

Goldman reveals where bailout cash went - USATODAY.com

 

[ATOMonkey]

the significance of the list, Grassley said, "I hope it's as simple as taxpayers deserve to know what happened to their money."
He added, "We thought originally we were bailing out AIG. Then later on ... we learned that the money flowed through AIG to a few big banks, and now we know that the money went from these few big banks to dozens of financial institutions all around the world."

AIG received the bailout of $85 billion at the discretion of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which was led at the time by Timothy Geithner. He now is U.S. treasury secretary.

Braley also noted that the AIG bailout was negotiated under President George W. Bush, a Republican. Goldman reveals where bailout cash went - USATODAY.com

So...what did they think would happen when they bailed out an insurance company??

I thought everyone knew this prior to the deal going down. Did they not?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Get off the union/anti-union wagon and realize it is way more than that. Who really knows how many jobs have been saved or lost? What we do know is that over a trillion dollars is owed to many countries for a very stagnant economy as the return. Going back to Bill Clinton and NAFTA and then followed by George W. Bush we kept hearing how many jobs were created but there was no real proof. What there has been plenty of proof of is that there has been a lot of $8-$10 an hour jobs while hundreds of thousands of higher paying jobs have been lost. We have had a continuous run of globalists regardless of the party the represent and that has been the death of our economy.

When will people realize that the party beside a persons name means nothing anymore and that leaders in both groups want to bring America down so that we are on par with the rest of the world?

For almost 8 years of the Bush administration unemployment was at 5-6%. I think that says something for whether or not jobs were being created.

Although you can make the case that the Republicans have governed poorly, in terms of spending and not contracting the federal government, I think you can make a good case that the Democrats in Congress, regardless of what individual Senators and Congressmen say at home, have moved us very far towards socialism, against our expressed wishes. I figured this out about 15 years ago, which is why I haven't voted for a Democrat in the intervening years.

 

[irishfan]

For almost 8 years of the Bush administration unemployment was at 5-6%. I think that says something for whether or not jobs were being created.

Although you can make the case that the Republicans have governed poorly, in terms of spending and not contracting the federal government, I think you can make a good case that the Democrats in Congress, regardless of what individual Senators and Congressmen say at home, have moved us very far towards socialism, against our expressed wishes. I figured this out about 15 years ago, which is why I haven't voted for a Democrat in the intervening years.

How many of the jobs created or saved were $8-$10 an hour while more $17+ were lost? Bill Clinton before Bush tried to talk about all the jobs his administration was saving or creating and it was the same B.S. of trading good jobs for low paying jobs. BTW, the unemployment rate was over 7.5% and climbing when Bush was leaving office so he was not the greatest at that either.

I feel that both sides have worked at driving our country toward socialism and burn the constitution daily. The Republicans got their butts kicked last time because they lost touch with their base and had repeatedly bad ideas. This coming election we will see the Democrats lose a lot of seats because they have went so far out with unpopular ideas just as their opposing party before them. I am glad to see that you have not voted for a Democrat in 15 years and love hearing from people who have supported great people like Richard Lugar every election. This coming election I am voting Ellsworth because I know what Coats represents but I will gladly vote against him next time IF the Republicans can give me a good conservative based candidate.

 

[Ironsights]

How many of the jobs created or saved were $8-$10 an hour while more $17+ were lost? Bill Clinton before Bush tried to talk about all the jobs his administration was saving or creating and it was the same B.S. of trading good jobs for low paying jobs. BTW, the unemployment rate was over 7.5% and climbing when Bush was leaving office so he was not the greatest at that either.

The economic concept of employment is based upon what employers can pay. I'd rather see everyone in this country working a job that employers can sustain than see unions sucking companies dry of all available profits until the company fails.
Let's be reasonable here. Not everyone is going to make 17+ dollars an hour. The wage bubble (an inflated expectation of wages for skills worth pennies) has caused companies to fail.
It doesn't matter who is in office when it happens. The office isn't the cause. We have to break things down, identify the cause, and fix the problem, instead of reacting to the problem and trying to apply more band-aids.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Jobs aren't saved or lost. It's not like their a trauma patient or something.

Labor is purchased, by an employer, as needed, to create a product or provide a service. The simple fact of life is that labor is cheaper elsewhere, because of both the high cost of living, and taxes. Most jobs only require 2 or 3 weeks of OJT in order for a laborer to be proficient at their task. This means the cost of replacing a laborer is relatively low. Since prevailing wage is the cost to replace an employee, those jobs don't garner a high wage. It's just that simple.

 

[dross]

And don't forget we get all this info from the media and we can believe "EVERYTHING" the media tells us because it is on TV so it must be true, Right?

"Media" is plural. The media isn't one entity, it's everything from CBS and the New York Times to some obscure blogger out there with a source deep in some agency. By careful reading and following a story, you can quite often begin to understand what's happening long before it's confirmed by a whistle blower on the inside.

How many people on this forum have indicated to you that they believe everthing they see on TV?

 

[irishfan]

The economic concept of employment is based upon what employers can pay. I'd rather see everyone in this country working a job that employers can sustain than see unions sucking companies dry of all available profits until the company fails.
Let's be reasonable here. Not everyone is going to make 17+ dollars an hour. The wage bubble (an inflated expectation of wages for skills worth pennies) has caused companies to fail.
It doesn't matter who is in office when it happens. The office isn't the cause. We have to break things down, identify the cause, and fix the problem, instead of reacting to the problem and trying to apply more band-aids.

IMO, the problem started when the good jobs were shipped out of the country.

 

[dross]

IMO, the problem started when the good jobs were shipped out of the country.

How could they have been kept here?

 

[eatsnopaste]

How many jobs were saved?

One here if you are actually counting.

 

[ATOMonkey]

IMO, the problem started when the good jobs were shipped out of the country.

They weren't shipped out. It's not like they boxed them up and put them into Mayflower trucks in the middle of the night.

A job is not a tangible thing. Even if it was, it only belongs to the employer.

 

[irishfan]

They weren't shipped out. It's not like they boxed them up and put them into Mayflower trucks in the middle of the night.

A job is not a tangible thing. Even if it was, it only belongs to the employer.

They were moved out of the country...yes or no?

 

[dross]

They were moved out of the country...yes or no?

No. They sold their labor at too high a price, so the folks who purchase labor bought it somewhere else.

If I buy milk at one store, and it gets too expensive, so I buy it at another store, I didn't move the milk to the other store. I just bought it somewhere else. If the first store wants me to buy milk from them, they can lower their prices.

Same for the folks who sell labor.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

IMO, the problem started when the good jobs were shipped out of the country.

Well let's lay out some "facts" that I have heard; I won't vouch for their authenticity, but they sound about right to me. Please feel free to correct me where I'm in error.

Labor costs constitute about 60% of the costs of a product in the US.

The US has the highest overall corporate income tax of the developed countries.

The purpose of a business is to make a profit.

Businesses will do what it takes to make a profit or they will close their doors.

The steel plant where my father-in-law plant worked for 30 years had to close because they couldn't compete with imported steel (see "facts" 1 & 2 above)

The Mitsubushi plant that used to be in Franklin closed because....costs to produce cars were lower in Mexico (care to guess why that was?).

Most clothing manufacturing has moved overseas, as has much of our manufacturing capacity. Why? Because it's cheaper to produce in Asia, or South America. That, my friend, is primarily because of the cost of labor.

We can debate about the wisdom of allowing the circumstances to occur which causes manufacturing to migrate to where costs are cheaper, but that's fiscal evolution in action.

Unions have served their purpose, but are now acting just as stupidly as the business owners they are trying to hold up for more wages, more benefits, more everything. If their jobs disappear, it is as much their fault as the businesses who move elsewhere to make a profit.

 

[BloodEclipse]

No. They sold their labor at too high a price, so the folks who purchase labor bought it somewhere else.

If I buy milk at one store, and it gets too expensive, so I buy it at another store, I didn't move the milk to the other store. I just bought it somewhere else. If the first store wants me to buy milk from them, they can lower their prices.

Same for the folks who sell labor.

I disagree. It is not the cost of labor that sent jobs overseas, but rather the cost of doing business in America as compared to countries that don't regulate them out of existence. Government intrusion into business is the problem, not the cost of labor.

 

[dross]

I disagree. It is not the cost of labor that sent jobs overseas, but rather the cost of doing business in America as compared to countries that don't regulate them out of existence. Government intrusion into business is the problem, not the cost of labor.

Both are a problem. I was addressing the idea of "moving jobs" as if a job is anything more than the purchase of labor.

 

[Bucko]

They weren't shipped out. It's not like they boxed them up and put them into Mayflower trucks in the middle of the night.

A job is not a tangible thing. Even if it was, it only belongs to the employer.

I suppose you've never watched a production line be disassembled and packaged for export overseas. I've had the unfortunate experience of seeing it at a good paying job, and a minimum wage paying job.

It's an ugly feeling knowing you make minimum wage and your job is being shipped overseas because you make too much money. This happened to me as I was paying my way through college.

 

[dross]

I suppose you've never watched a production line be disassembled and packaged for export overseas. I've had the unfortunate experience of seeing it at a good paying job, and a minimum wage paying job. .

You mean that production line that belongs to someone else who can move it to wherever he chooses?

It's an ugly feeling knowing you make minimum wage and your job is being shipped overseas because you make too much money. This happened to me as I was paying my way through college.

It's also an ugly feeling to watch your company become less and less competitive at the same time your workers accuse you of greed and of cheating them when they are the highest paid workers in the world at their job.

Employers don't set pay rates, and neither do workers. The market sets the rates. If the workers don't like the market rates, they try to force the owners to pay more than market.

Factories moving overseas. Mmmm, smells like freedom.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

You mean that production line that belongs to someone else who can move it to wherever he chooses?



It's also an ugly feeling to watch your company become less and less competitive at the same time your workers accuse you of greed and of cheating them when they are the highest paid workers in the world at their job.

Employers don't set pay rates, and neither do workers. The market sets the rates. If the workers don't like the market rates, they try to force the owners to pay more than market.

Factories moving overseas. Mmmm, smells like freedom.

I don't disagree with you at all, but what smells like economic freedom, may eventually lead to slavery of all sorts for us as a country if we can't develop incentives to re-industrialize ourselves.

 

[ATOMonkey]

How do you get to slavery from outsourcing?