Software·43,882 discussions

Is there a “Bailout Clause” in the U.S. Constitution???

Locked

There isn’t, but there is a Bankruptcy Clause [i](Article I, Section 8, Clause 4).[/i]

The framers of the U.S. Constitution specifically anticipated that the nation would encounter economic troubles from time to time. So they gave Congress the power to enact bankruptcy laws, as opposed to ?bailout? laws. And throughout U.S. history, the various economic ?Panics? ? which occurred every couple of decades ? always led to one direction or another in the evolution of state and federal bankruptcy laws. Hey, bankruptcy works.

At times in U.S. history, the bankruptcy laws favored the creditor class. During other times, the bankruptcy laws favored debtors. The point is that the economic hardships were eventually manifested in bankruptcy proceedings.

Just as all rivers flow to the sea, bad debt must find its way to discharge. So bankruptcy court was where judges and attorneys and other financial experts (like accountants and actuaries) could deal with each case on the merits. The problems could come to some sort of resolution. Some people came out OK. Other people lost everything. But capital flowed from weak hands to strong hands, and the economy moved along.

Why Not Bankruptcy Process?

But not today. Indeed, according to the New York Times many law firms ? including firms that focus on bankruptcy work ? are actually scaling back and laying off staff. Why is that? Why are the politicians so eager to avoid seeing companies go into bankruptcy? The government is trying to solve the problems of gargantuan levels of debt ? along with chronic insolvency and illiquidity within the economy ? without resorting to the constitutional-based legal mechanisms and tools that have served the nation well for over 200 years.

Consider the problems of derivatives. Few understand them. Many so-called derivative ?contracts? are little more than mathematical formulae based on a series of futuristic occurrences that are entirely speculative. Their initial value in the best of times was entirely somebody?s guess. So is it any surprise that it is all but impossible to place a value on such things during the throes of a recession? Yet derivatives are some of the ?troubled assets? that the Treasury is attempting to bail out. This is ridiculous!

Why is the Treasury allowing even one dollar of taxpayer money to get near a derivative? Why not use the bankruptcy process in this kind of situation? The companies that hold unsalable derivatives should have to go into a Chapter 11 proceeding and let a bankruptcy court sort it out. If the derivatives have value, let someone say so ? under oath ? in front of a federal judge. If the derivatives are worthless, let the judges do what we pay them to do ? void the instruments and allocate the losses.

Sure, bankruptcy cases take time to roll through the courts. But could Chapter 11 bankruptcy be any worse than the current drip-drip-drip, hemorrhage of funds into the black hole of the likes of AIG? And at least some bankruptcy judge might just put a stop to the AIG exploits of taking nice vacations to exotic resort locales.

Or what about the U.S. automobile industry? Now the domestic carmakers want some of that TARP money too. Or else what? They?ll have to file for Chapter 11? Yeah? And then?

Well on the day that the automakers file for bankruptcy, the automobile factories will still be there. The patents and designs aren?t going anywhere. The workers and design teams will stick around for a while ? it?s not like there are a whole lot of other jobs out there, except maybe raking leaves in leafy suburbs.

It seems to me that General Motors, Ford or Chrysler ? without the legacy costs of pensions and health care and featherbed contracts for non-working union members ? would actually be a decent investment for a Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) form of financing. Any DIP-lender worth its salt would certainly go into the management suites to take names, kick ass and get rid of the deadwood. And over the long term, if U.S. automakers actually paid more for steel than they have to pay for retiree health care, then we might actually see a revival of that industry.

At present we are losing time and once time is gone, it is gone forever. It is the same thing with the declining U.S. and world economies. The world?s central bankers and treasury ministers dither, and squander capital into bottomless pits of a deflationary recession.[i](and dare we say it? Perhaps Depression)[/i]

But the great villain in all of this is debt, pure and simple. And much debt is just a collection of bizarre debt instruments, exotic forms of speculative contracts, and obligations so massive that they will never be repaid. So why prolong the agony? Liquidate it now. Let the bankruptcy courts do what the framers intended.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

[b][i]Ah, they’re all probably saying Ol’ Sleepin’ Dawg is runing on about the U.S.Constitution again,?as if anyone gives a damn, or pays attention to that ol? thing.

In these heady days of government bailouts and money creation, bringing up the Constitution is like quoting scripture at a bacchanal, or farting in church.

Would anyone be willing to take odds that Congress and our next President will continue to pretend the Constitution doesn?t really exist?[/i]

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

Topic

Stand aside

In reply to Is there a “Bailout Clause” in the U.S. Constitution???

This is no time for clear thinking. Besides, you’ll get trampled.

I know but at least I’ll have tried. B-) ;) :(

In reply to Stand aside

.

Exactly the right question

In reply to Is there a “Bailout Clause” in the U.S. Constitution???

Right now the 24/7 news cycle is covering the bailout prospects for this group or that, how much to whom paid for from where.

The propriety of bailouts is not part of the discussion. Lip service is given to the perceived economic necessity but never to constitutionality.

I don’t see where bailouts are covered by law under regulation of interstate commerce, after all, a bailout isn’t regulation.

We need to get back to fundamentals here….

Good luck with all that

In reply to Exactly the right question

Going back to the fundamentals would surely result in someone’s pet issue getting binned. Can’t have that, now, can we?

The perspective that most Americans have of the President, Congress, and Senate is flawed. To the average man, they exist to run things. Partially true, I suppose. I think of their role somewhat differently.

From my perspective, we defined a job and identified the duties of that job. Over the last two years, we have been subjected to what I think of as a job interview. Each candidate was given the opportunity to tell all of us what his/her qualifications are so that we, the hiring manager(s) could determine who was best suited for the role. As there are a bunch of us, we each wrote down who we individually thought was the best and the votes were tallied. The successful candidate was then advised of his start date. As this is a contract job, we have set a limit of four years on the job and then we will publish the Help Wanted ad again.

In short, the President, Congress, and the Senate WORK for ME. Even better, they work for you too.

We- and they- have forgotten that their only power comes from US. Period.

I support Ford. There’s a big Ford SUV in the garage. I support GM too. There’s a small fuel efficient Saturn in the garage next to the Ford. But that is where my support of these companies should begin and end. I support my local dealerships by taking my vehicles there for service. I don’t HAVE to do this. I CHOOSE to.

So I have done my part for the Detroit Three. It should begin and end right there.

I agree with Dawg. Let these guys work through the bankruptcy system. From where I sit, they have proven that they cannot be trusted to spend money wisely. If the government wants to give them a hand, fine. The gov should breathe down their necks until they manage to clean their house. If they simply cannot do this, the gov at that time should be willing to help them restructure- by putting them in touch with a disinterested third party who is capable of making the tough decisions. But finance that? Nope.

We have, for far too long, been complaisant. Why? We as a nation seem to think that the role of government is to keep us all fat and happy. Where is that written?

We can continue to vote bread and circuses but the day will come when there are no more. Then what?

Support of the Big Three

In reply to Good luck with all that

Supply and demand… They have too many vehicles out there now and not many people are buying. It is our fault they fell victim to economics 101? If we really want to support those companies we will buy their vehicles and take them to their maintenance shops. I shouldn’t have to involuntarily support them.

You are choosing to take your vehicles to them, that’s good! I wish we had a choice in all this bailout stuff…

Same page, Pringles

In reply to Support of the Big Three

I agree completely. If Crystler or GM is going to “be forced to shut their doors” then they should get on with it. Or go through the bankruptcy process. But I have already handed over as much of my money as I care to.

I have supported American auto makers by purchasing their products and having them maintained in their shops. That is where my support should begin and end. I have a neighbor that drives a Honda. And that is HIS choice.

Having watched the back and forth on this, I have been gratified to see that they didn’t just waltz in and collect a check. It seems that they are at least being questioned about what restructuring they will do and what level of scrutiny is appropriate. I just wish that they had thought to do as much with the AiG bailout and the $700 billion mortgage/credit bailout.

Indeed we have met the enemy and it is us

In reply to Good luck with all that

We are witnessing the culmination of decades of a sense of entitlement through government indoctrination. We have been schooled and admonished the rich are a bad and we must take from them as they are undeserving of what they have earned. The poor are deserving of what they have not earned. All the while, the bar separating rich (the haves) from everyone else slides lower and lower. Further, we are reminded we have a right to a job, a house, an education and healthcare to name a few.
False.
These are personal responsibilities, which let’s face it, some people are just never going to be able to connect the dots enough to meet these responsibilities. So the few with their collective guilt engage in social engineering at the cost of those they deem have enough already. People are given educations, they know not what to do with. Given jobs they know not how to appreciate and keep. Given homes they know not how to hold onto and take care of. Worst of all, given money they know not how to save or spend responsibly.
All the while we elect the same sorry collection of individuals year after year, decade after decade.
We have been fooled into thinking self reliance is selfish and we MUST rely on others. Government. We have allowed these faux cognescenti to convince us we that taking care of ourselves so others do not have to, is some sort of affront to the social order.

Such a horror in North America

In reply to Good luck with all that

And yet these things happen on a regular basis all over the world. Car companies go belly up all teh time, they merge they buy and sell each other etc.

Some of teh best vehicles ever designed never saw pavement because of a lack of funding.

Take Germany, England, Italy etc. There are literally hundreds of vehicle manufacturer’s, besides the major players. they go belly up all the time because they can’t properly manage the budget and get their cars into mass production. Nobody runs ot bail them out, they’ll just buy up the patent and recreate it as a Ford instead.

But when you look at how most manufacturer’s are amalgamated these days and then look at a garbage manufacturer like GM, there’s no wonder they are in hot water but they sure as hell don’t deserve a bailout.

May be

In reply to Is there a “Bailout Clause” in the U.S. Constitution???

That our (good) fortune is that this thing proves to be so big it won’t matter.

Is there one in the Canadian Constitution?

In reply to Is there a “Bailout Clause” in the U.S. Constitution???

I read the Detroit mis-managers are going hat in hand to your government too, although the article didn’t mention how much they’re asking. Probably the difference between their $35 billion figure and what Uncle Sugar gives them.

Airlines go in and out of bankruptcy court like it’s got revolving doors. Planes keep flying, employees still get paid, passengers don’t panic, suppliers of things needed for daily operations still sell to them on credit. Yes, long term improvements go on hold; no new planes are ordered, new maintenance facilities are delayed, etc. But companies in industry seems to enter and emerge from bankruptcy without any problem. If it works for them, maybe the auto industry should give it a try. Begging doesn’t seem to be working.

Well…..

In reply to Is there one in the Canadian Constitution?

Given that Canada has 10% of the population of the US, and therefore is 10% of the market, maybe it should be 10% of what Congress gives….

The government is still smarting from giving GM some billions years back for investing in new plant, on the understanding it would be net new jobs, and one year later they close the old section of the plant layoff the workers and have fewer employees than before. The government feels like they were swindled, and I understand why they feel that way. Nevertheless the government will end up doing something, but they are waiting for the US package to set the precedent.

James

It’s fascist economy

In reply to Is there a “Bailout Clause” in the U.S. Constitution???

“the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise… Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social.”

(Gaetano Salvemini, Under the Axe of Fascism 1936)

http://www.questia.com/library/book/under-the-axe-of-fascism-by-gaetano-salvemini.jsp

I’ts Not About the Constitution

In reply to Is there a “Bailout Clause” in the U.S. Constitution???

The present bailout cycle which started with the big banks is not about what is Constitutional. It is about keeping the politically connected from facing the results of their errors.

Besides, since when has the Bush administration worried about what is or is not Constitutional.

Aside from who is helped out by what method of Federal bailout, the US economy has become much like the game Jenga. You have to take apart your foundation in order to make the tower taller.

The US economy no longer has a strong foundation of low level manufacturing jobs to hold up and support the rest of the economy. Without a firm foundation, any strong ill winds threaten to bring down the entire economy.

The Fed is now in the process of shoring up the areas where the structure is about to collapse. The problem is that since there is no foundation, as you shore up one area, another area weakens.

My big hope in all this is that we do not find out in a few years that there was no actual crisis, and the bailout was just another way to help out those with political connections.

Chas

It’s ALL about the Constitution

In reply to I’ts Not About the Constitution

Or at least it should be. Otherwise, people in Michigan will trample all over it in favor of their own best and selfish interest.

P.S. Michigan might be the poster boy that illustrates the failure of the collectivism mind-set.

P.P.S If you want proof as to why NOT to do something, Michigan is all you need to see.

No, it IS all about the Bush Legacy

In reply to It’s ALL about the Constitution

The bailouts for the financial and auto industries are nothing more than than diversions to keep the US economy from going into total collapse before Bush leaves office.

Not that that will stop history from placing blame on the Bush administration for both destroying the US economy, and ignoring the Constitution.

If you read my comments in the Wal-Mart thread closely, you will see that my support for any bail-out for the big 3 is limited. I would even go as far as to say that except for those citizens of Michigan who are either employed by the auto industry, dependent on auto-worker spending for their livelihood, or part of government, there is a strong opinion that the auto industry SHOULD be forced into bankruptcy rather than given a bail-out.

While there is now way to prove this, I firmly believe that GM in particular would still be in deep trouble even if their burdened labor cost was half that of Toyota.

Blaming only the UAW for the problems in the US auto industry is sort of like blaming the security enhancements for the low upgrade rate for Vista. While both are contributing factors, neither stands on it’s own as the root cause.

Chas

This IS about the UAW

In reply to No, it IS all about the Bush Legacy

If this can be laid at the feet of George Bush, then it can be laid at the feet of the current Congress.
I support neither.
The fault, or responsibility, lies at the feet of greedy union officials, as greedy corporate heads and above all a greedy rank and file.
These three forces have been at work for decades, back to the 40’s and 50’s anyway. Yes, before George Bush even came into office.
These groups: auto manufacturers, union heads and employees are having to face the reality the the little socialist model they built is broken.
I have already supported these people with the Chevrolet I bought.
The rest is up to them.
Perhaps they can learn something from the auto maufacturers who exist below the Mason-Dixon line and seem to be quietly successful.

Problems Run Deep, Good Solutions are Few

In reply to This IS about the UAW

The problems with the US automakers do run very deep.

I will not deny that the compensation and work-rules package that the union workers have contributes to the problems the big 3 have.

As posted in another thread, GM is just getting what it deserves for setting up the conditions that created the labor union movement.

The point of my post is that the present round of government bail-outs ARE all about preventing Bush from being blamed for the collapse of the US economy.

Yes, the US automakers probably should be left to fester and die on their own. However, right now the issue is not if but when the automakers fail.

If you are a Republican party strategist, you want any failures in the economy to happen after the new President is in office. This both preserves some of the legacy of GWB, and sets up an issue for the 20010 and 2012 campaigns.

All that said, I still doubt that GM could survive even if the compensation package paid to workers was less than even the Korean auto companies pay. True, lower labor costs can lower prices and increase profits. But, labor costs do not take care of the core issues of poorly designed and poorly conceived cars.

Besides, the big 3 are not loosing ground on just the low end cars and trucks. Toyota and Nissan are both taking over the top end of the car and truck markets with vehicles that have higher prices than what the big 3 offer. They are winning the market because they have better designs with more innovative features that people actually want.

As opposed to GM and Chrysler competing on how many cup holders they can design in.

Chas

You’re blinded by your disdain for President Bush

In reply to Problems Run Deep, Good Solutions are Few

A president (any president, any party) gets too much blame when things go bad, and gets too much credit when things go well.

The seeds for what grew into what’s currently going on in the financial sector were planted years ago, well before George Bush ever took office. Moreover, Economic issues and business regulation are more controlled by Congress than a presidential administration.

Your desire to blame Bush for anything and everything is naive’, and only goes to lessen your credibility.

By the way, President Bush opposes any auto bailout. It has majority support in Congress, however, so Bush will probably go along with it rather than fight a losing battle.

In addition, President Bush warned as early as 2003 that a crisis in the financial sector – particularly the mortgage industry – was imminent if Congress continued as it was. If you want to find a person – or people – to point the finger of blame, it should be pointed directly at Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

But no, not from you. Whatever it takes to [i]blame Bush[/i] is what you’ll convince yourself to believe.

I Still Contend

In reply to You’re blinded by your disdain for President Bush

Gee Max, let’s look at all the good things GWB has done for the US.

Increased the national debt significantly. And, left us over half a trillion in debt to China.

Trampled all over the Constitution at every opportunity.

Ignored the needs of working Americans in order to respond to the desires of top executives.

Let us not forget the failed initiatives that GWB attempted:
Social Security privatization
Guest workers as part of immigration reform

Based on his past history, GWB has no issue saying no to Congress. I doubt that his lame duck status actually changes that. However, the prospect of the US economy starting the spiral into a full depression while he is still President, that WOULD impact any near term chance for a positive legacy.

I still contend that history WILL rate GWB as one of the 10 worst US presidents.

Further, I believe that future historians will single out the Bush administration as the beginning of the end of the United States dominance as a world power.

In economic terms, the Bush years will be pointed to as the beginning of the end of the middle class in America and the transition of the US to a 2 class society.

While the US has been clearly heading in the wrong direction for the past 8 years, I have my doubts that anyone on the present political scene has the skills or the strength to turn things around.

Chas

Chas – Instead of more Bush-bashing, try answering my message

In reply to You’re blinded by your disdain for President Bush

A president (any president, any party) gets too much blame when things go bad, and gets too much credit when things go well.

The seeds for what grew into what’s currently going on in the financial sector were planted years ago, well before George Bush ever took office. Moreover, Economic issues and business regulation are more controlled by Congress than a presidential administration.

Your desire to blame Bush for anything and everything is naive’, and only goes to lessen your credibility.

By the way, President Bush opposes any auto bailout. It has majority support in Congress, however, so Bush will probably go along with it rather than fight a losing battle.

In addition, President Bush warned as early as 2003 that a crisis in the financial sector – particularly the mortgage industry – was imminent if Congress continued as it was. If you want to find a person – or people – to point the finger of blame, it should be pointed directly at Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

But no, not from you. Whatever it takes to blame Bush is what you’ll convince yourself to believe. Like I said, you’re blinded by your disdain for President Bush.

By the way, Chas, on one of you assertions

In reply to You’re blinded by your disdain for President Bush

Chas said, [i]?Based on his past history, GWB has no issue saying no to Congress.?[/i]

Oh really? I?ll ask you to back-up that assertion. (But, as usual, I won?t expect that you will. Instead, it?s just another instance of you spouting off with another made-up assertion.) In fact, just the opposite is true.

The means by which a president can [i]say no to Congress[/i] is through his veto power. Otherwise, Congress is a SEPARATE branch of government, over which the president has absolutely no power. For reasons one could only assume, President Bush has wielded his veto power less than practically any president in history. He vetoed nary a single bill passed by Congress during his entire first term, and his reluctance (or refusal) to veto extended well into his second. Over the past 2-1/2 years, he?s vetoed only 12 bills. You?d have to go back to Warren Harding (who died during his first term) to find a president who vetoed fewer. Go back to Chester Arthur to find a full-term president who vetoed fewer ? but he was only a 1-term president. You have to go ALL THE WAY back to Andrew Jackson, our seventh president, to find a two-term president who vetoed fewer (or the same number of) bills as GWB ? which is twelve.

It certainly doesn?t sound like President Bush has said [i]no to Congress[/i] very much. In fact, he?s pretty much given them free reign to do whatever they damn well please. And when he has vetoed a bill (only 12 times, remember,) Congress managed to override that veto a whopping 33 percent of the time ? the most vetoes overridden in almost 150 years, and the third most in history.

If president Bush deserves criticism for anything in regards to his relationship with Congress, it would be his RELUCTANCE to say no, his REFUSAL to stand-up to them, and his refusal to answer their attempts to discredit him by standing idly by letting them exercise their concerted smear campaign against him. And I SOUNDLY criticize President Bush for just that.

It?s obvious that you just make-up stuff to support your desired conclusion. Why do you think I always ask you to back-up your assertions? Why is it that you never do? (Both rhetorical questions.)

Next up: My challenge to another of your made-up assertions.

Going Back To the First Term

In reply to You’re blinded by your disdain for President Bush

Max,

It is not that I am not willing to respond to your questions and comments. But, why bother as nothing I can come up with will ever change your opinion on any subject.

It is not that I think your mind is totally closed. You just require more supporting evidence than any term paper or business case I have ever had to write. As I have nothing to gain from attempting to convince you, why waste the effort.

Back in the first GWB term, the primary reason there were no vetos is that no legislation went to the floor that had not already been vetted with the White House to assure it was acceptable. If every bill that comes across the desk meets with your approval, there is no need to use the veto pen. I have not looked it up, but I presume that the bulk of the 150 vetos you mentioned were from the past 2 years. Congress no longer has anything to fear from GWB, so they can do as they wish.

On the loan and banking crisis, did you not see the recent news story where some banks approached the Bush administration within the past 2 years and requested that the rules be tightened. But, when Countrywide found out, they demanded that the rules be left open to allow them the flexibility they needed. Thus, the final most recent rules, that the Bush administration had a chance to make stricter, kept up business as usual.

Besides, it was not the loans to high risk borrowers at the $50K to 100K end of the market that brought on the crisis. It was the people buying the $200K plus homes that were many times the size house they needed that brought about the crisis. Fueled as much by the irrational exuberance of rapidly rising home prices.

The US financial system has been running in full lemming faze for at least the last 10 years. Until people make investments by thinking rather than following the latest hot trend, the US economy will continue to surge and drop.

Yes, I believe that we the people should now, as history will in the future, hold GWB accountable for the failings of the last 8 years. While I had very low expectations when GWB took office, he and his administration were able to vastly exceed my expectations of how much a President could damage this country.

Chas

Bush OPPOSES Bailout ?

In reply to You’re blinded by your disdain for President Bush

“By the way, President Bush opposes any auto bailout. It has majority support in Congress, however, so Bush will probably go along with it rather than fight a losing battle.”

If that’s so, why is he willing to give money from the bank bailout ?

Bush has been an incredible disappointment. And no, I’m not a democrat.

jamesdtuttle@… – Bush and the bailouts

In reply to You’re blinded by your disdain for President Bush

I said, [i]”President Bush opposes any auto bailout. It has majority support in Congress, however, so Bush will probably go along with it rather than fight a losing battle.”[/i]

You asked, [i]”If that’s so, why is he willing to give money from the bank bailout?”[/i]

One is banks – the institutions upon which our ENTIRE economy is dependent, while the other is the big-3 auto companies. One is intended to benefit the entire population, while the other is a thinly veiled attempt to prop-up the UAW contracts.

Besides, since I first made that comment, President Bush has ? yet again ? violated Conservative principles and flip-flopped; he now supports giving the UAW ….. I mean the auto makers some of our tax dollars ….. make that our kid?s tax dollars.

You bought a Chevy?

In reply to This IS about the UAW

Wow, that IS charitable! Do you actually drive it too or did you just buy it and park it safely like a receipt for a charitable donation? :p

I’ve owned cars from all of the Big Three

In reply to You bought a Chevy?

As well as Nissan, Toyota, Hyundai and Mazda.

I think much depends on specific designs, as opposed to brands. The recent Chevy vans are better than the Ford Vans that have been recently discontinued, but neither of them are great.

My father has had pretty good luck as a GM guy, with larger cars and pickups. My brother used to get an F150 for work for almost 2 decades, then was so fed up with his last F150, he bought a Chevy. His next truck was an F150 again – once they made a new design.

James

Our vehicles as a whole

In reply to I’ve owned cars from all of the Big Three

Simply suck balls. Usually ugly as hell, poor engineering, cheap manufacturing, inconsistent quality materials, poor fit and finish, inefficient engines etc.

But then again, my favorite European supercars are just too expensive for me; not my taste, just my wallet.

Take my Explorer for example, its a Ford, and they are known to be superior truck makers, within the major players. I lucked out by getting a European built model with the German designed engine in it, which is more efficient while offering more horspower in a better build. But as a whole, the Explorer, top selling truck or not, is not a well built vehicle at all.
The Limited is not too bad, as it has an extra 30 man hours building it, but the standard XLS or Eddie Bauer’s are put together like jigsaw puzzle pieces that are forced into place. I hated my Eddie Bauer, the thing was so poorly built with cheap fit and finish materials (kinda like the 08’s have for their dash, 5 different, non matching textures on one piece of moulded plastic?).

Look at the NEW Explorers and you’ll run screaming. Independent rear axles (as with almost ALL SUV’s now), not eaxactly clever for a 4X4.

I do admit that its about time North American CARS started following the trends of real car builders, solid axles in a coupe? No thanks.

North American engineering is years behind European standards and efficiency, we just HAVE to be different, for some reason, instead of following the lead of the best cars in the world.

one small point

In reply to It’s ALL about the Constitution

It’s not the entire state of Michigan. People like jdclyde work for a living.

It is the fault of:

– greedy auto workers’ unions
– stupid automotive corporation executives who gave them more than they should have, and ran the corporations stupidly without product diversity and financing adequate innovation.

But, I agree with you that this whole thing (corporations in financial trouble) is something we should do NOTHING about.

As much as capitalism is an exercise in monetary gain, it is also an exercise in monetary loss.

If you run a company stupid, you lose your a$$…and if you invest stupid, you lose it too.

Welcome to America and capitalism. I say let the companies fold, and let other companies buy them up for pennies on the dollar.

I was smart enough to stay out of the stock market. I pity those who didn’t.

How to handle Michigan

In reply to It’s ALL about the Constitution

One of my favorite sports columnists (Bill Simmons) offered up his solution to the auto bailout last week. I must admit, it has some merit!! 😉

“So, here’s my plan that I hatched during an unfathomably depressing Thanksgiving game in Detroit: If the state of Michigan were a struggling athlete, we’d say, “Man, he needs a change of scenery.” Well, why can’t we give Michigan a change of scenery? What if we sold Michigan to Canada since it’s right on their border?

Think about it. Canada gets the spiritual lift of purchasing one of the 50 states, as well as musicians like Kid Rock, Bob Seger and Eminem, a second NBA and MLB team, two Big Ten schools, another NHL team, its first NFL team and, of course, more territory. Canadians would be flying high … so high they wouldn’t even mind that they were now involved in the WNBA. Meanwhile, America would escape billion-dollar buyouts for the car companies, and if we need a 50th state, we can always use Puerto Rico as long as it doesn’t put us over the luxury tax. Michigan natives get universal health care, a fresh start and a chance to feel like they’re spending more money than usual with the Canadian dollar. Everyone wins!”

Everybody? Huh Hmmm…

In reply to How to handle Michigan

First off, we’d never pay for Michigan, but with perhaps a significant dowry, like what Wall Street got, we’d take her off your hands.

Then we’d start the mass deportations….kinda like the Acadians (who became the Cajuns). You swear allegience or you get bus fare. Chicago gets a refugee community.

It would probably be helpful to give the whole northern peninsula to our native community, since we promised them that in 1812, when we got their help and captured Detroit.

But we need some of the money to build the wall and moat – anyone see “Escape from New York”?

James

I am not sure

In reply to Everybody? Huh Hmmm…

if I could ever get used to saying “aey hoser” or “good day, aey?”.

Then would be the problem of the sudden run on excessive vowels, that there would be a shortage of “U”‘s.

And of course, there would be the shock of actually winning a Stanley cup again…..

Well

In reply to I am not sure

Outside of comedians and the odd Newfie, I’ve never heard that either.

You’d have to root for Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton, Ottawa or Montreal, cause the Toronto Maple Laffs are not winning the cup any time soon.

James

Ah, but you would be gaining the Wings!

In reply to Well

B-)

Of course, being stuck with the lions, I am not sure if that can really be considered “Pro football”.

They have to watch it, or they will accidentally break their losing streak….. :0

And just in case, I will go watch some instructional videos this weekend to help me assemilate. “Strange Brew” and “Canadian Bacon”, coming up! 😀 [i]”everyone knows Toronto is the capital!”[/i] ;\

What do they do with the semi frozen squid?

In reply to Well

Toronto has an arangement now to bring in the Buffalo Bills once a season to the Skydome/Rogers Centre. This years game was Sunday. They put on a fine show, getting a whole 3 POINTS.

James

I Prefer the Leno Solution

In reply to How to handle Michigan

Interesting. However, I prefer the plan that Jay Leno presented in his monologue a few weeks back.

Instead of giving the billions to the automakers, give it to the taxpayers limited to being used to buy a new US made car.

Now, that is both a bail-out and an economic stimulus.

Chas

While they’re at it…

In reply to I Prefer the Leno Solution

…they could feel welcome to force the banks getting bailout $$$ to reduce the rates for people that were actually on time with their payments every month.

You know, more $$$ into the pockets of people that demonstrated they know how to manage $$$.

(It really burns me that the only ones that get the shaft in the whole thing are the ones that took out manageable loans and paid them…their tax $$$ going to the nimwits that got bad loans and the fools that approved them….ARGH!!)

But then…..

In reply to I Prefer the Leno Solution

You run into the Canadian built Big three product versus the US built non big three product – do both qualify? How about the “captive imports” like the Chevy Aveo? How about the joint ventures?

James

US Content

In reply to But then…..

For any funds from US taxpayers, there should be a set minimum amount of US content in the vehicle.

Sorry if that does not help the Canadians.

I also do know that some US assembled imports have higher net US content then cars from the big 3 do. That would be tough to deal with. Still, US content is US content.

Of course, by the same token, one would have to include the fringe auto manufactures like Tesla and a few other alternate fuel vehicle builders. But, not the ones who take a base car and rebuild it into a luxury class sports car.

Chas

I’m not asking you to subsidize us…

In reply to US Content

But the big three might….

My built in Japan Mazda has a Ford engine and a number of cheap Ford parts.

James

The Canadian shoe just dropped.

In reply to US Content

Now that the US seems committed to an auto bailout, our friends at Chrysler Canada have told the provincial and Federal governments in Canada that if they don’t pony up 1.6 billion in short order, Chrysler Canada will start making plans to close their 2 remaining Canadian plants and moving the jobs south.

Sound like blackmail to me. The Premier of Ontario has said, as has the Prime Minister, that there will be no blank cheques.

See if I ever buy a Chrysler again.

James

ROTFLMAO!! :^0 You’re dreaming in technicolor. Why would we…………….

In reply to How to handle Michigan

want it??? Have you seen the collection of clowns and misfits we currently have for politicians??? Don’t you think we have enough problems as it is???

The divisiveness of Stephen Harper’s style of politics may end up destroying Canadian unity; he has certainly set it back about twenty years. Wait long enough and you might see the Canadian provinces and territories applying to join the US. However, if you ever granted Canada admittance into the US what would your weather reporters be able to say? “There’s a cold wind blowing down from the USA tonight.” LOL

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

Glad I could get a laugh…

In reply to ROTFLMAO!! :^0 You’re dreaming in technicolor. Why would we…………….

…stops us all from having to cry, I figure!

🙂

[Author]

Replies