Haliburton has been handed billion's over the past 5 years without even a competitive bid against them (from what I recall).... plus all of their overbilling..... all taxpayer $.

AIG has execs that are way overpaid as well.... taxpayer $ going to their bailout.

Gov't workers - I have not heard of many "underpaid" gov't workers. Elected officials work every angle they can, employing friends, relatives, etc... They have ridiculous retirement packages..... again all tax payer $.

The big 3 automakers want their piece of the pie and they have to walk on eggshells, beg, promise to sell private jets, and they still got shot down....

So it is okay to use taxpayer $ for Gov't waste.... AIG waste, Haliburton but lets beat the piss out of the Autoworkers then reject them..?

What is the difference in these?

 

i have a few friends who are big republicans and they are all 100000% against the auto bailout but don't see anything wrong with the other scenarious....?

 

https://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=655594

 

I dont know about AIG, but i do know a few things about HAL. Actually
the company that gets the Gov bids is Brown and Root. HaL owns them.
Uaually the reason they get the bid, is they are the largest construction, logstics co in the world, so usually they can do it cheaper. Not defending
Hal, just shedding some light.

 

Well, govt bureaucracy jobs typical do pay less than equivalent private sector jobs. Of course many of them are completely useless and would never exist in the private sector either. Government creep is a different animal than outright corporate welfare.

I do see a distinction. The bailout of the financial industry occurred ostensibly because not doing so would result in a bank run and the collapse of the dollar. I believe it as much as I believed Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and had WMD. If anything, I'd favor corporate welfare to the automakers than the banks. Unlike the financial sector the automakers do actually add some value to the economy. The financial sector is a facilitator and in so much as it responsibly manages capital it does provide value. All we're doing by bailing them out is encouraging irresponsible lending practices.

I think much of what happened was people finally said enough is enough. We watched the Gov't hand out 850 billion of candy and realized it was a drop in the bucket compared to the total loss in paper wealth that is going to occur. Most people would rather see those responsible pay for their mistakes rather than their children and grand children which is what the administration wants.

 

^^^^ collapseof09.com

 

I've heard the argument that the reason the financial sector got the bailout much easier than the auto-industry was because the impact of FS going down in much more immediate than the one of AI going down.

WGAS? As far as I can tell, there is no difference. Bank CEOs gambled big time just like the millions of "Tastees" who "bought" the houses they never could afford. Both Big 3 CEOs and auto-worker's union were being greedy (while our incompetent corrupt politicians were busy counting kick-backs from the lobbies). #### 'em. Let them go under.

 

I personally think we should all just hold hands and sing kumbaya.. but wtf do I know.

 

IBTM

Democrats = inefficiency through cronyism INSIDE the bureaucracy
Republicans = inefficiency through cronyism OUTSIDE the bureaucracy

 

To make the big three competetive with the rest of the world, we need to break the UAW's grip on them and that pretty much means bankruptcy, IMO. Let them go under protection and reorganize with out the UAW and the outrageous benefits for the current and past employees. Get them on par with the rest of the workforce in america. Let the flaming begin.