Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Buffalo, NY
Thanked 9,591 Times in 4,317 Posts
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 754 Post(s)
So, let me see if I got this straight,......
On a smaller scale, the bail-out would be equivalent to:
A small business in a small community, that employs many of that community's residents and supplies most of that community with a product,....
starts to struggle and accumulate debt, to the point that they will go out of business (costing the communuty both jobs and a product).
So, the community comes together and pitches in to loan that company enough money to get back on it's feet (because they don't want to lose the jobs or the product).
Then, said company turns around and outsources the manufacturing of it's product, so it can turn a profit, in order to both stay on it's feet and repay the loan.
I think I would be sorry that I helped them in the first place, if I loaned someone money to stay in business and they turned around and sent the work to Mexico (instead of keeping it local) and then charged me the same or more for a product that's barely on par with it's competition. At the very least, the product should also be sold in the country where it's being made and I should be considered a shareholder and/or get the product at close to cost.
So, basically, borrow everyone's money, fire everyone, pay someone in another town, half as much to keep making my product, then bring it back to town and try selling it to all the people I just borrowed money from, who, most of which, no longer have the money to even buy it.
Did I over-simplify it, or is that about what happened?
Obama says he saved umpteen thousand/million/whatever jobs by lending them money.
What jobs? The ones in Mexico?
What I would like to know is, once most of the American population is working at McDonalds and Walmart, who's going to buy all these $30, 40, 50K trucks that the big 3 are making in other countries and trying to sell here?