I don't think there SHOULD have been a government bailout. I knew back then that it was less about saving the auto companies than it was about the government taking control of another industry. The entire PURPOSE of the bailout was to get a hammerlock around the operation of a private industry. Same as with the banks.
Heck, I was against that famous government Chrysler loan back in the old days. "But it'll be paid back," I was told. "Not the point," I said. "It's still using taxpayer money to screw with what should be a market process."
GM will continue to fail, particularly as the government begins to run it like governments run things. Another tax rathole. You think after Obama has for all intents and purposes put his "car czars" in charge, the company will be allowed to go down the toilet?
Think "AmCar."
Current Events » in reply to And the difference should be no strings attached when it's a government bailout?
re: And the difference
The whole thread (30 posts)
- Obama forces GM CEO out of job
- He signs the paychecks, doesn't he?
- Often happens after poor performance. Look at last elections. (n/t)
- Details of the Obama plan
- Damn Good Idea. The USA should get rid of the incompetents who caused the problem
- A bit after the Northridge quake in...