http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/14/news/economy/romney_gm/index.htm?iid=GM
This is an interesting article about Romney's desire for the U.S. to sell it's GM stake now, when it is at about half of what it needs to be for taxpayers to break even. Romney also argues in the article that Detroit would have been better off without the government bailout a few years ago. What do you think about this?
Everything stated in this article is a clear defense that Romney may not really know what he's talking about. All the evidence shows that Obama seemed to have done the right thing by using the bailout. However, since the bailout DID happen it's possible that we don't actually know how much better/worse Detroit would be now if that wasn't the case.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like Romney wants to sell the GM shares on the principle that the government "has no business owning stakes in private enterprises." Whether you agree or not, the government was forced to take action and make a move to save the industry. Therefore the deed has already been done, and I think the government owes the taxpayers enough to finish the job it started rather than simply getting out when its convenient. The taxpayers would take a significant loss if they were to sell the shares now, and using the principle of that government shouldn't own private enterprises seems wrong.
ReplyDeletei agree with this and i do not think that the government should have stock in non bank private enterprises.
DeleteI agree with Paula. I doubt Romney can really say that Detroit would have been better without the bailout seeing as how it saved the auto industry in Detroit. That seems like it worked to me.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that it would have been better without the bailout. But do think the government has no really business owning stakes in private companies, especially after the problem has been somewhat fixed.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Paula. Who really knows if Detroit would have been better off without the bailout? My guess is that without the bailout more jobs would have been lost which would have hurt Detroit more than it already has suffered.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Paula. I think Obama was right in using the bailout. But how will taxes payer actually be "repaid"?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Paula. There is no telling what would have happened without the bailout, but it seemed to work. Many people are still employed. This is one of the only decisions by Obama that I would support.
ReplyDeleteYa Detroit would have been much better off with fewer jobs. I disagree with this article. The bailout saved Detroit
ReplyDeleteI agree, Lamrock. I don't think he really has any basis when he says that bailout was a bad idea.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the legitimacy of this argument is questionable, this could be a nice way to gain the favor of citizens who are disappointed of the government intervention in Detroit.
ReplyDelete