Bail Out Plan

Do you guys think we should bail out Ford, GM, and Chevy, or let them go bankrupt?

I say let them go bankrupt, although some things would have to take place in order to insure a safe bankruptcy... I'll explain my opinions should anyone challenge me.

I agree that it is there fault that they are bankrupt, so they SHOULD have to solve there own problem without the governments support, yet the on the otherhand, if they do go bankrupt there are going to be a lot of folks without jobs, so I'm kind of undecided on the subject.

NO, we should bail them out. If we they go out of buisness, we'll lose a lot of jobs here in the Us and more people will go on welfare which equals higher taxes here, besides i'd rather get a US made car than a foriegn car

Well, even if those people should lose their jobs there are many other places they can work. The common excuse for this is that there are many people in the world who cannot find work. This is a gigantic misnomer! There are two categories of unemployed: 1. The person cannot find THE job of their choice, and 2. They find their welfare checks very nice and just do not work. This means that most anyone can get a job, but maybe they'll be stuck flipping hamburgers for the next few months, and yes, maybe even a year, but there are many opportunities for anyone working at McDonalds. You can eventually become a manager if you're willing to work hard.

If you're worried about taxes going up as a result of people on welfare, consider this. In order to bail out the companies that are failing, the government has prescribed nearly 3 billion dollars to stuff into their peeping mouths. [Assuming] if there are about 300 million PEOPLE (NOT taxpayers) in the US, how much will that cost each person?

It adds up to about $100,000 per person. Think--most people do not make that in a year. But the federal government is tossing $3,000,000,000 at these banks and other companies without a single idea as to how they are going to fund them. Now where does the government's money come from?--The people; the taxpayers.

The politicians have talked about taxing big oil companies in order to pay for this--not an option either. Assuming there are ten companies, the government would have to take away $30 Billion from each company to pay for it. What does that mean--more companies cutting back, more jobs lost, the whole shpeel.

The short answer? The reason the bailouts cannot work, nor should be attempted, is because there simply IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY.

There is more. Most of these large companies went bankrupt in the first place due to the practice of what is simply bad business. There were bucket loads of money going to the CEOs in the form of bonuses for selling sub-prime loans to people and essentially ripping them off. Sooner or later the money was going to catch up to the companies and bite them in the butt, so essentially they got what they asked for. On top of that, these things don't happen overnight--to go so badly into debt that you have to go bankrupt takes time. I'm certain that the major people involved in the entire money system of Fannie May, Freddie Mac, Goldman-Sachs, AIG and eventually Ford were all aware they were losing money, and that they had little or no means of making the money back. So, instead of doing what MUST be done in such financial situations and simply cutting back the company, they plunged through the mess as if nothing was wrong. It was overall irresponsible, stupid and self-destructive to do exactly what they did.

And now that more and more people are being bailed out, more and more people are asking for bailouts. This will only compound the problem that was started, and lead to MORE taxpayer money going out the window, down the toilet, ANYWHERE it can just leak out of the people's wallets, and soon it will be less expensive to put people on welfare.

On another note, welfare would not be an issue if it weren't for the fact that there was no time limit on the checks. Welfare was meant for people who lost their jobs and were in between jobs so that they would not starve to death before they could support themselves. However, since checks do not stop coming until you have a job, many people choose to live off the checks--not that they have much worth in the first place. I believe that the only way for America to have escaped this financial mess in an organized and beneficial manner would have been to deny the bailouts right from the start and to impose a one-year limit on Welfare checks.

Many things would have been cleaned up by this simple step. Firstly, even if the large companies did fall, it only leaves room for small companies to make themselves big. Yes, people would lose their jobs, but they could instantly get a job at a smaller, growing company, where they could make a steady career in a growing company. Taxes would NOT go up in any way, shape or form since people will be getting jobs in other places and not living off their welfare checks.

And what's wrong with foreign cars? Yes, the money is going overseas, but buying imported goods encourages trade, which is an important part of our economy. I can understand if you don't want to fund the PEOPLE over there; that you would rather see your money go to our great nation; but should Ford go under I would have no doubts that someone will immediately come up to the plate to manufacture the next American cars. History has shown that as soon as an opportunity presents itself people answer the call with ingenuity, quality and even speed.

That will do for now. I hope you enjoyed my sermon.

Whoa, very nice argument Lord V. At first i was kinda on the fence about the whole thing, but after reading that, I'd have to agree with you

Maybe that's why there have been no responses.

Lol I know. This forum is really starting to die. I should really think up some new debate topics...