I'm back on the Michael Eric Dyson Show this afternoon, discussing the economy this afternoon at 1:45. We'll be talking about the Obama administration's work on a "Cardholders' Bill of Rights" for credit card consumers, the fact that men are suffering more from job losses in the current recession than women and the troubles in the auto industry. Check the Dyson web site to see where the show airs in your city.
In the meantime, tomorrow marks 100 days in office for President Obama, so tomorrow's post will be about how he's done on the economy so far. How would you grade the president on his efforts on housing, the Wall Street bailouts, the economic stimulus package and other initiatives to turn the economy back around? Leave your grade in the comments section.
Showing posts with label auto industry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label auto industry. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
If the auto industry fails, would it kill the black middle class?
I'm supposed to be on vacation, but I had to make one post.
The Obama administration has told the auto industry that it doesn't think their plans to stay afloat will work. They have a few weeks to get their act together if they want more help from the government.
I used to be against giving any tax dollars to the automakers, until I was on a radio show where the point was brought up that the auto industry, more than any other single business, was responsible for moving blue-collar African-Americans into the middle class. Of course, a lot of those manufacturing jobs are now gone, but many people, especially in the Midwest and some southern states, still depend on those jobs.
So what's your take? Should the government make sure GM and Chrysler stay afloat like they've done for banks? Should people who still depend on the car industry for jobs hang on or start looking for modern opportunities?
The Obama administration has told the auto industry that it doesn't think their plans to stay afloat will work. They have a few weeks to get their act together if they want more help from the government.
I used to be against giving any tax dollars to the automakers, until I was on a radio show where the point was brought up that the auto industry, more than any other single business, was responsible for moving blue-collar African-Americans into the middle class. Of course, a lot of those manufacturing jobs are now gone, but many people, especially in the Midwest and some southern states, still depend on those jobs.
So what's your take? Should the government make sure GM and Chrysler stay afloat like they've done for banks? Should people who still depend on the car industry for jobs hang on or start looking for modern opportunities?
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Does Detroit Deserve a Bailout?
No, I'm not talking about the Detroit that just suffered through the embarrassing tenure, resignation and felony conviction of its mayor. That Detroit needs therapy along with a check for its legal bills.
I'm talking about the Detroit's Big Three automakers, GM, Chrysler and Ford, whose top executives went to Capitol Hill yesterday begging for a $25 billion rescue package to keep them out of bankruptcy. That money, of course, would be added to the $700 billion that Congress already gave to Wall Street -- half of which has been spent but can't be accounted for.
If you ask me, that's reason enough to stay away from any more big company bailouts. Remember welfare reform in the 90s? The argument was that if you kept giving people "free money" from the government without oversight and limits, they'd never get off the taxpayers' proverbial tit. Why doesn't that now hold true for mismanaged, big industries?
The problem, though, is that if the Big Three are allowed to go bankrupt, many people will lose their jobs at precisely the worst time for that to happen. Some people, like former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, think that's a worthwhile risk if on the other side of Chapter 11, the automakers come out leaner and stronger. The automakers argue that transformation is impossible if they don't get help now.
I think both sides have valid points, though I'd really not like to see any more tax money go to corporate welfare. But hey, my opinion doesn't count here, yours does! If you were in Congress, would you vote to help the auto industry save jobs now with a bailout, or to force it to get its act together by risking job losses and potential bankruptcy?
I'm talking about the Detroit's Big Three automakers, GM, Chrysler and Ford, whose top executives went to Capitol Hill yesterday begging for a $25 billion rescue package to keep them out of bankruptcy. That money, of course, would be added to the $700 billion that Congress already gave to Wall Street -- half of which has been spent but can't be accounted for.
If you ask me, that's reason enough to stay away from any more big company bailouts. Remember welfare reform in the 90s? The argument was that if you kept giving people "free money" from the government without oversight and limits, they'd never get off the taxpayers' proverbial tit. Why doesn't that now hold true for mismanaged, big industries?
The problem, though, is that if the Big Three are allowed to go bankrupt, many people will lose their jobs at precisely the worst time for that to happen. Some people, like former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, think that's a worthwhile risk if on the other side of Chapter 11, the automakers come out leaner and stronger. The automakers argue that transformation is impossible if they don't get help now.
I think both sides have valid points, though I'd really not like to see any more tax money go to corporate welfare. But hey, my opinion doesn't count here, yours does! If you were in Congress, would you vote to help the auto industry save jobs now with a bailout, or to force it to get its act together by risking job losses and potential bankruptcy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)