SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rich evans who wrote (406208)1/23/2011 5:22:39 PM
From: Katelew  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 794327
 
Thanks, Rich. In your opinion, should the government have intervened in the first place? And did it get the best deal it could on behalf of the taxpayer?

Your point about the Pension Guaranty laws is a good one. The govt. was stuck either way, I guess.



To: rich evans who wrote (406208)1/23/2011 6:51:20 PM
From: steve harris3 Recommendations  Respond to of 794327
 
The fascist tactics used are well known.

So the "paperwork" looks good.

Obama's threats worked, he should be in jail.



To: rich evans who wrote (406208)1/23/2011 11:05:36 PM
From: gamesmistress  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 794327
 
Your detailed explanations were really valuable. But now I'm wondering - OK, Chrysler has been bailed out twice, GM once. Just how many times will the government "have" to do this? Yes, I get that it would be a huge economic disruption for 1,300,000 jobs to be lost, but do these companies need so many employees to build cars, and do enough people want to buy the cars they build? Or doesn't that matter - hey, the gov't will bail them out.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News