If you don't have $$$, should you spend $$$...really!

[plastique999]

I guess this was/is the philosophy of most Americans, buying on credit. I'm guilty of it too.

Now Obama is putting $30 mil into GM as it has now declared bankruptcy. But really, should the gov. be spending $$$ when we don't have it?

Should the consumer be spending $ when he/she doesn't have it?
The consumer savings statistics is at its highest....shouldn't That be the philosophy - haven't we learned our lesson?

[apk919]

Originally Posted by plastique999

I guess this was/is the philosophy of most Americans, buying on credit. I'm guilty of it too.

Now Obama is putting $30 mil into GM as it has now declared bankruptcy. But really, should the gov. be spending $$$ when we don't have it?

Should the consumer be spending $ when he/she doesn't have it?
The consumer savings statistics is at its highest....shouldn't That be the philosophy - haven't we learned our lesson?

If anything, I think this guarantees that GM will never make a (real) profit. Once an entity is taken over/managed by the government, normal accounting rules don't apply.

[swede]

It would have been better to just close the doors long term. Short term it is hard to do since there are so many tiers of suppliers that made the misstake to have to high % of their business with the big 3. Missmanaged all the way through I am afraid. (Well not 100% of the vendors but the majority)

[MattG]

I view this as nothing more than a jobs program...it'll keep a lot of people employed at a time when the economy is fragile. Some good might even come of it; we might even get some of our money back. Not a bad deal, but sucks to be dumping money into such a lame company like that. Still, it's better to keep jobs like that than to have to try to spend money to create new ones.

Also, it's not really fair to make this sound like Obama's doing. Keep in mind that Bush was the one who first stepped in to bail out GM and Chrysler in December; the bankruptcy is just the next step in the bailout process. This is really a bi-partisan bailout here.

[gameson]

watch 'the international' starred Clive Owen, and you will know why...

think of it this way. EVERYONE has stakes on GM and Chrysler, including the government with their 60% ownership. They mask it as to save a job but the truth is they can't just lose it. Think about if GM goes to liquidation sale, how much can the government get? Also money may not be as important anymore compare to shame and to save few faces in Obama. I like Obama but I think he is making the wrong move to save these two POS. Better for the two to go bust and have the workers absorb by Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc when the economy get better.

[dmason08]

This is about Union payback and a chance for the Obama/Democrat controlled government to make their mark in changing the car industry.

1. Anyone who know bankruptcy law, the first thing that happens is that all of the union contracts are voided and they start over. In bankruptcy, everyone sacrifices, from share holders to unions. What Obama has done is saved the Union contracts, a political move, from being voided.

2. The tree hugging Democrat wing wants to dismantal the car industry and change it to only produce cars American's DO NOT WANT, but will force it down our throat. Obama has proposed killing off the most profitable portions of GM (large cars, trucks, SUV's) in favor of the least profitable (small tin cans). This is what happens when someone who has no understanding of business makes business decisions...even the appointed Car Zar has no car industry business background!

Lastly, while not widely reports, the Car Zar has been telling both Chrysler and GM which dealerships to wack first. First on the list, non-union dealerships are far and above the highest wacked dealerships. The New Your Times (a liberal rag) has reported that despite being very profitable, non-Union dealerships are taking the brunt of the closures!

This is why having the Government run any type of business is bad. Look at the DMV, Postal service, Medicare, Social Security, etc. They are all going bankrupt because of how effecient the Government is being in running the companies (NOT).

[plastique999]

I understand the gov. is in between a rock and a hard place...there has to be some spending for the economy to survive, but what about the individual consumer?

I am the first to admit that I have bought things beyond my means, but why do most
Americans live by the "I gotta have it now" philosophy?
Are most of us that irresponsible with our $?

I guess what I'm saying is that starting to save, rather than buying on credit, sounds like a good idea.

[ItsThaMonsta]

Its different opinions on the "dont buy what you cant afford" philosophy. First off different people have different opinions on what is "affordable". This is my opinion.... although I do save money myself, I think to a certain degree people go way overboard with how much they think you should save. If you live mediocre your whole life, save for 50 years and come out about 500,000 in savings when you retire... then guess what? That just enough money to live about as mediocre as you were your whole life. You cant even get a decent house and car with that if you consider having enough money to keep living off of since your not working anymore. And you just probably wont enjoy anything like you would have when you were younger.... maybe. I think if you can comfortably afford the things you want then go after it. If your not "rich" then nothing really matters.

[deddie]

Originally Posted by dmason08

This is about Union payback and a chance for the Obama/Democrat controlled government to make their mark in changing the car industry.

1. Anyone who know bankruptcy law, the first thing that happens is that all of the union contracts are voided and they start over. In bankruptcy, everyone sacrifices, from share holders to unions. What Obama has done is saved the Union contracts, a political move, from being voided.

2. The tree hugging Democrat wing wants to dismantal the car industry and change it to only produce cars American's DO NOT WANT, but will force it down our throat. Obama has proposed killing off the most profitable portions of GM (large cars, trucks, SUV's) in favor of the least profitable (small tin cans). This is what happens when someone who has no understanding of business makes business decisions...even the appointed Car Zar has no car industry business background!

Lastly, while not widely reports, the Car Zar has been telling both Chrysler and GM which dealerships to wack first. First on the list, non-union dealerships are far and above the highest wacked dealerships. The New Your Times (a liberal rag) has reported that despite being very profitable, non-Union dealerships are taking the brunt of the closures!

This is why having the Government run any type of business is bad. Look at the DMV, Postal service, Medicare, Social Security, etc. They are all going bankrupt because of how effecient the Government is being in running the companies (NOT).

Spot on. He is bought and paid for by the unions. If (or when) the Freedom of Choice Act becomes law, it will be the end of the US Economy as we know it. This is all just the beginning.................

[jesterbot]

Originally Posted by ItsThaMonsta

Its different opinions on the "dont buy what you cant afford" philosophy. First off different people have different opinions on what is "affordable". This is my opinion.... although I do save money myself, I think to a certain degree people go way overboard with how much they think you should save. If you live mediocre your whole life, save for 50 years and come out about 500,000 in savings when you retire... then guess what? That just enough money to live about as mediocre as you were your whole life. You cant even get a decent house and car with that if you consider having enough money to keep living off of since your not working anymore. And you just probably wont enjoy anything like you would have when you were younger.... maybe. I think if you can comfortably afford the things you want then go after it. If your not "rich" then nothing really matters.

I tend to agree. While some people hold to the very strict "unless you can pay for it in cash, you can't afford it" I certainly don't. I can afford whatever I can comfortably make payments on (with room to spare). The price I pay for the convenience of enjoying my purchase NOW rather than later when I could afford it in cash is the money I lose to interest. If I acknowledge and accept that trade (immediate enjoyment vs. money lost over time), what's the problem?

The real problem is people that spiral into debt, live beyond their means, or fail to plan for the unexpected. I manage my money like a hawk. Could I make more through responsible investments rather than spending? Of course. Worst case, if I were to lose my terrific job, I would definitely have to sell my car, possibly get a more modest house, or whatever - but I'd be fine. Do I want to live modestly for the next ten years, saving to afford the nice stereos, furnishings, living arrangements, or toys? Absolutely not. Tomorrow isn't certain, today is...

Simply put, I can afford the luxury of credit/immediate purchase, so who cares if I choose to spend my money like that? It's no different than spending thousands of dollars (in cash) at the track for something else you enjoy. I'm just paying a bank instead... they have money to lend me (at a price) and I'd rather enjoy my current life rather than dreaming about a future one.

[Chris Mackey]

Consumerist - SNL Skit: Don't Buy Stuff You Can't Afford - Debt

[Scrumpot]

Originally Posted by ItsThaMonsta

Its different opinions on the "dont buy what you cant afford" philosophy. First off different people have different opinions on what is "affordable". This is my opinion.... although I do save money myself, I think to a certain degree people go way overboard with how much they think you should save. If you live mediocre your whole life, save for 50 years and come out about 500,000 in savings when you retire... then guess what? That just enough money to live about as mediocre as you were your whole life. You cant even get a decent house and car with that if you consider having enough money to keep living off of since your not working anymore. And you just probably wont enjoy anything like you would have when you were younger.... maybe. I think if you can comfortably afford the things you want then go after it. If your not "rich" then nothing really matters.

That's an interesting philosophy, and perspective. I need to noodle that one, just a little bit more to fully comprehend it, methinks. Hmmmmm.....

[apk919]

Originally Posted by ItsThaMonsta

Its different opinions on the "dont buy what you cant afford" philosophy. First off different people have different opinions on what is "affordable". This is my opinion.... although I do save money myself, I think to a certain degree people go way overboard with how much they think you should save. If you live mediocre your whole life, save for 50 years and come out about 500,000 in savings when you retire... then guess what? That just enough money to live about as mediocre as you were your whole life. You cant even get a decent house and car with that if you consider having enough money to keep living off of since your not working anymore. And you just probably wont enjoy anything like you would have when you were younger.... maybe. I think if you can comfortably afford the things you want then go after it. If your not "rich" then nothing really matters.

OK, so what happens if you lead an "exciting" life while you're young, and then when you're older you don't have the $500,000 you'll probably need to have a mediocre retirement?

Do you:

1) Live in poverty in your old age, as a trade off for living large while you're young

2) Rely on family (children, relatives, etc) to support you

3) Rely on government (SS, welfare, etc) to support you

4) Hope you die before you get old (paraphrasing The Who)

EDIT: Oh, and being "rich" doesn't exempt you from this decision... plenty of rich people lived so "large" that they're now broke... entertainers and athletes seem to top this list

[ItsThaMonsta]

Originally Posted by apk919

OK, so what happens if you lead an "exciting" life while you're young, and then when you're older you don't have the $500,000 you'll probably need to have a mediocre retirement?

Do you:

1) Live in poverty in your old age, as a trade off for living large while you're young

2) Rely on family (children, relatives, etc) to support you

3) Rely on government (SS, welfare, etc) to support you

4) Hope you die before you get old (paraphrasing The Who)

EDIT: Oh, and being "rich" doesn't exempt you from this decision... plenty of rich people lived so "large" that they're now broke... entertainers and athletes seem to top this list

That 500,000 number is just a figure. It may be different for each person. That could very well be the amount left for someone who doesnt "save" as much as others think. If someone making 150k/year saves for a long time and comes out with that much then thats not a lot. But its a lot for someone who made 40k a year. Regardless, Id rather have fun now and be left with 500k then to be cheap my whole life and come out with more. Its just too many ways for money to leave your possession. As long as im not setting myself up to be broke when I retire then Im just fine. I get approached by way too many people who just wished they had done this and that when they were younger....... But hopefully I become just flat out rich along the way lol.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by dmason08

This is about Union payback and a chance for the Obama/Democrat controlled government to make their mark in changing the car industry.

1. Anyone who know bankruptcy law, the first thing that happens is that all of the union contracts are voided and they start over. In bankruptcy, everyone sacrifices, from share holders to unions. What Obama has done is saved the Union contracts, a political move, from being voided.

2. The tree hugging Democrat wing wants to dismantal the car industry and change it to only produce cars American's DO NOT WANT, but will force it down our throat. Obama has proposed killing off the most profitable portions of GM (large cars, trucks, SUV's) in favor of the least profitable (small tin cans). This is what happens when someone who has no understanding of business makes business decisions...even the appointed Car Zar has no car industry business background!

Lastly, while not widely reports, the Car Zar has been telling both Chrysler and GM which dealerships to wack first. First on the list, non-union dealerships are far and above the highest wacked dealerships. The New Your Times (a liberal rag) has reported that despite being very profitable, non-Union dealerships are taking the brunt of the closures!

This is why having the Government run any type of business is bad. Look at the DMV, Postal service, Medicare, Social Security, etc. They are all going bankrupt because of how effecient the Government is being in running the companies (NOT).

Hey, what about Amtrak?

Oh, that's right, they hadn't made a dime in over 35 years either

[apk919]

Originally Posted by ItsThaMonsta

That 500,000 number is just a figure. It may be different for each person. That could very well be the amount left for someone who doesnt "save" as much as others think. If someone making 150k/year saves for a long time and comes out with that much then thats not a lot. But its a lot for someone who made 40k a year. Regardless, Id rather have fun now and be left with 500k then to be cheap my whole life and come out with more. Its just too many ways for money to leave your possession. As long as im not setting myself up to be broke when I retire then Im just fine. I get approached by way too many people who just wished they had done this and that when they were younger....... But hopefully I become just flat out rich along the way lol.

Well, yeah... you can put any number on it you want.

Planning to become rich: good.
Taking actual steps to become rich: better
Assuming that you'll become rich: bad

[ItsThaMonsta]

Originally Posted by apk919

Well, yeah... you can put any number on it you want.

Planning to become rich: good.
Taking actual steps to become rich: better
Assuming that you'll become rich: bad

Yeah Im actually taking steps... Cant assume anything now a days.

[dmason08]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Hey, what about Amtrak?

Oh, that's right, they hadn't made a dime in over 35 years either

I agree with you on Amtrak, this is one of those 'Government can't let it fail' type things and thus the people running Amtrak know this, so they do not have to charge full fair as to what it cost to run the business because they know Big Brother will come in and save the day.

When an industry or company knows that the Government won't let them fail and will come in and bail them out...that is just as bad as the government running it themselves.

D

[tandemracer]

Originally Posted by dmason08

When an industry or company knows that the Government won't let them fail and will come in and bail them out...that is just as bad as the government running it themselves.

D

For further illustration of this principal please refer to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by tandemracer

For further illustration of this principal please refer to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

+1

If you think Wall Street CEOs and traders walked away with obscene bonuses, while taxpayers took all the risk, they ain't got nothin' on Fannie and Freddie...