Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View Timely Topic #124: Should We Have Let Detroit Die?
3 years ago  ::  Feb 25, 2012 - 9:33PM #1
Frank Burton
Posts: 445
AP) -- Mitt Romney is unpersuasively arguing to Michigan's Tuesday primary voters that Detroit's U.S.-leading explosive economic growth would have been "even stronger" by "letting Detroit go bankrupt" (a process that, had it not been supported by billions of dollars in federal loans during the depths of the bank panic in the Great-Recession, would likely have involved actual physical liquidation of GM, Chrysler, and their auto parts supplliers and dealers, and subsequent picking over of the bones of the US auto industry -- at least according to President Obama and the Democrats). Newt Gingrich, in contrast, is calling the decision to bail out Detroit's auto industry, initiated by President George W. Bush and expanded by his Democratic successor, a "partly successful" tactic, one hindered only by ensuring advantages were maintained for unionized detroit auto workers -- many of whom have picketed the poorly attended campaign rallies of Michagan's native son, Romney.

___________________

Should the American people have let Detroit die?

Would a complete bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler with no loans either from the US or the panicked (and indebted) investment/local bank system have indeed led to the dismantling of the US-owned auto industry, as claimed by Democrats and economists?

Or would Detroit hitting bottom without a parachute have rejuventated our auto-makers, putting an even greater charge into the "Volt"?

With the exception of the last American manufacturer, Ford, would an America whose remaining auto plants were all owned by non-Americans -- BMW, Fiat, Toyota, Honda, Suzuki, Kia and Volkswagen -- have still been America to its people?

Was it moral or immoral for the US to bailout its auto industry -- especially if it had just done so with its banks?

What do YOU think?
Frank Burton
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2012 - 12:49PM #2
brian griffith
Posts: 16

I wonder if there could be a sort of "Marshall Plan" to help the region as a whole recover. Something that would enable investment to a whole range of local businesses, not just to the biggest.



Of course I doubt that Romney would refuse to help the biggest companies. Doesn't he support all kinds of corporate welfare, and only oppose it for less economically important groups?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2012 - 6:55PM #3
Frank Burton
Posts: 445

Jun 7, 2012 -- 12:49PM, brian griffith wrote:

I wonder if there could be a sort of "Marshall Plan" to help the region as a whole recover. Something that would enable investment to a whole range of local businesses, not just to the biggest.



Of course I doubt that Romney would refuse to help the biggest companies. Doesn't he support all kinds of corporate welfare, and only oppose it for less economically important groups?


A Marshall Plan would represent government spending/debt, so Romney and the GOP would not go for it; but Romney would certainly entertain more tax breaks -- although Obama has already given numerous tasx breaks to help small business. To help Detroit's auto industry further recover, I suspect Romney would offer huge tax breaks to big auto companies and also agree to legislation to limit unions. Whether that would actually help the companies, or hurt consumers so much that it would harm the companies due to lost middle-class product demand, I don't know.

Frank Burton
Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook