Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Sure it is. They had problems and most of the companies fixed those problems and stayed in business. We wouldn't have GM today w/o the bailout. Overall, the gov. got back more than they lent out.
You can't be for one and not the other.
|
Nope. Carrier wasn't faced with bankruptcy. They were faced with a reality that they could generate higher profits for their owners, by producing in Mexico.
The auto companies were circling the drain (thanks to liberal policies and unions). That's why not all auto companies needed bailouts.
Apples and oranges.
"You can't be for one and not the other"
Creating a pro-business environment that applies equally to everyone, is not giving bailouts to anyone. We aren't there yet. But that would be different.
But you have a point, I can't disagree. But the incentives given to Carrier were not for the purposes of keeping them solvent. It was done to keep jobs here.
Threaded Mode