You give money to a sick business, its just gonna lose it the way it lost all the rest of its money. More money isn't gonna suddenly make it profitable.

And if the companies do go under, someone will buy out their remains and keep things going. Maybe someone more competent who knows how to manage a business.

Besides, its not like those makers are even making their cars in the united states anymore. Ford and GM are both classified as "multinational", not as american.

But the government cannot wield a scalpel, only a scythe.

For some, if they stopped and listened to themselves, they would see how childish they sound (even on the news).  For others, they never grew up anyway.

Those that had gave to charity.  Those that wanted only "me me me" gave to Obama.

They only see it as someone else's.  That is the problem with federal handouts.  They dont realize it really is their money (through taxes or inflation).

It is so obvious, that it is no longer funny - except when you get a bot talking about Fox news.  And then cant even back up their claims.

A big and improbably if.  What would happen if the government left it alone would be Chapter 11, and bye-bye to the union contracts.  That would lose a lot of votes for whoever votes against it from union members.  But they are not going to go away.  Fact is, they will outlive us all.  But not for long this way. Papering over their problems is not the way to solve the rot at the core.

WHat I have been saying all along.  Time to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Of course it does!  They are the ones paying the taxes after all! (but then that is not to be stated as it is some kind of ist that is no longer PC).

Dont worry - they will blame it on Bush.

DR your one your second lay off too? I am on my second one this year also and it stinks.

Yeah I am sure they will blame bush for it too though I am sure that people wont realize that its a total liberial idea to do something like this. Its gonna kill small buessness and its also gonna take away the 1 weeks paid vacation that normal people get after one year because now the employers are gonna have to pay sick time off.... its so stupid if you ask me

Yes they did.  Back around 2k, I was rolling in dough!  I could work 80 hours a week and get paid for it!  Why?  Y2K.  And my services were in demand.  Taht of course stopped.  SO I could have been a real snit and demanded that I keep my 6 figure salary!  Or I could accept reality and realize that my 6 figure salary was no longer justified and I had to accept less.

So I did.  Why cant the unions?  Their bed, they lie in it.

Actually that was in 03.  But I did see it coming, so it was not too bad.  I got took about a 25% cut to find another job, but was making the same in 5 years (yes, just this year).

Yes, we do!  And thank you for demonstrating my point!  I defy anyone here, or on StevenDedalus' thread to see where anyone said that Unions were never any good!

But like the buggy whip, their time has passed.

You people are still trying to breath life into that buggy whip.

Yes back then.  And in the early days of the last century.  But you have to grow up some time - except if you are a democrat or Union Chief.

Just answer this question.  Why should I (Capital) support a union thug's quarter of a million dollar a year extravagant living standard when he does nothing for anyone?  I do not begrudge you being able to support him, but why should I?

In the conservative utopia, people would have the sense to work for themselves. If your place of employment is so full of competing untrained labor, than you need to get a different job, or maybe an education.

Nope. Make sure people are able to move between towns and you abolish the problem of 'the company store' - don't like working for store vouchers then move to a different town that gives you money that's usable everywhere. Meanwhile make sure you've reduced barriers to entry and you'll likely see a business that doesn't use a voucher store system appear instead.

Similarly, don't want to work 90 hours a week? Work for someone else who allows you to work 50 hours a week. If there are so many people looking for jobs in the particular sector which is causing low wages/long hours then move to a different sector where you get more pay for less time. Alternatively if the problem is companies are paying less than they should and enjoying far higher profits as a result then assuming you have a 'utopia' barriers to entry should be as low as possible, allowing anyone else to set up their own company, hire workers (by paying a slightly higher wage than the original one meaning they get the best ones/don't have to worry about not hiring enough) and make a decent profit. The original company now struggles to get workers as they all want to go to the one paying higher wages. The end result? Companies end up paying the market/fair rate.

Such a utopia (to me at least) is where the government works with the market mechanism to ensure the best result overall - workers end up being paid a fair wage, unemployment is kept to a minimum, consumers aren't ripped off by companies, etc.; basically the government should look to address possible market failures arising from a lack of information, and where possible steer the end result back into one utilising the market.

Unions on the other hand are effectively taking from the poor to give to the rich - the workers in the union enjoy higher wages (above the market level) at the cost of the company hiring fewer of them, causing higher unemployment (i.e. severe pain to a few individuals to line the pockets of the decently well of).

Get rid of free trade? That's a brilliant way to make people in your country far worse off! If another country can produce cars relatively more efficiently than you (and similarly you can produce something else relatively more efficiently than them), then you each focus on the areas you're best at, and trade. The end result of this is that both countries can end up much better off than before. I'm also a bit confused as to what giving everyone healthcare has to do with american manufacturing.

Anyway incase you're not sure on the reasoning behind comparative+absolute advantage (and hence free trade), here's a simple analogy:

You have two people on a desert island. One of them is a brilliant hunter, one of them a brilliant builder/craftsman. Lets start with the 'free trade' principle first: The hunter spends his time catching meat, the builder spends his building sound shelters+furnishings. They then trade - the hunter gives the builder some meat, the builder gives the hunter a home.

Now lets take the 'anti-free trade' route: The hunter decides he doesn't want anything to do with the builder, he'll do it himself. So he spends some time hunting, and the rest trying to build a home. However he's a poor builder, so it ends up taking him much longer to get a home, and it's of worse quality than the builders, while he has less time to hunt so doesn't eat as much. Meanwhile the builder has a nice home, but he sucks at hunting, meaning he ends up going hungry many nights, and as a result has less time to spend on his home and it ends up of worse quality.

Why would anyone want the second of the two options? Because of some notion of 'patriotism', that somehow means the US must manufacture various goods, even if someone else can do it better and for less? Or because they're short sighted and don't see that propping up jobs in the manufacturing industry costs more jobs in the rest of the economy? Or because they have some vested interest in the particular industry which means they're quite happy to see it benefit at the expense of everyone else?