How long must a company be unprofitable and unable to produce a competitive product before we just let the damn place die?

See, my memory of the auto bailouts was that a big part of the reason was because it took place during the worldwide credit "freeze", meaning the options for what was going to happen were "Government bailout" and "Scavengers sell scrap metal in buildings for pennies on the dollar" because the credit freeze made the usual bankruptcy road impossible.

To my knowledge, there's no similar credit crunch right now. If they fail now, tough shit.

Apparently indefinitely, at least if there's enough perceived votes in it.

Ford was going to take the money until they had to cede shares/control/whatever to the government, then decided they could make it on their own, and did fine.

David Simon chiming in on Romney not sharing taxes for last five years after Romney's statement that he has paid at least 13% per year.
'Wire' Creator David Simon Blasts Mitt Romney Tax Comments - Speakeasy - WSJ

He even commented in the comments section.

I wasn't at all concerned about seeing Romney's taxes but now that he has flat out said he's never paid under 13% id be curious to learn if he's a flat out liar or not.

This. Again from Ford's CEO in the LA Times:

They were also able to find 23 billion in private loans. If they couldn't have gotten private financing they would have been a part of the bailout. GM and Chrysler couldn't find private financing.

I heard Assange is thinking about reopening Sportsdigs.

The 2012 budget for NASA is 17.8 billion dollars and people are bitching that GM got how much from the government? And the budget for NASA is way too low in my opinion.

Sorry, but, when the entire budget of this country is in the trillions, whatever was paid to GM is like spitting in the ocean, so not giving them money wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference budget wise. However, quite a few people got to keep their jobs, pay their bills and paid taxes, so I don't see that as a bad thing

Don't get me wrong, a for profit company runs the risk of going insolvent and unless the effects of that company going under are so severe or will cause a ripple effect into other industries that could potentially cause dire consequences, nature should be allowed to take its course.

I've always been absolutely amazed at how efficiently NASA runs - if you look at the awesome advances which have come about from there during the years on the technology front its amazing how little it costs to fund.

(I've also always wondered considering all the advances which came through the space race etc. ... how come the US government isn't making a profit from licencing patents etc. from NASA?)

The problem is that NASA grew stale. While a lot was learned from sending up a shuttle for 10 days at a time and then running experiments, I'm not sure it was the best way to get people to appreciate NASA.

We either need to go back to the moon or put a person on Mars.

NASA has come up with some things or contracted other companies to make things that were needed by NASA, that have made our lives easier and it's got a minuscule budget while doing it. Yes, it's has some failures and some internal strife, but, that happens in any company and with what NASA actually does, the amount of failures is rather low in my opinion.

I think the reason that they aren't making a profit is simply because, the US government isn't a 'for profit' enterprise. It does not give the appearance that it is set up for it. Plus, it's horribly inefficient at just about everything it does. If the US Government was a job applicant...I wouldn't hire it. Security guard, maybe.

Interestingly (and to their credit NASA is very forthright about this), many of the techs that are most associated with the agency aren't actually theirs.

While memory foam is a (now) common product that was created under a NASA contract, such iconic products as Tang, Teflon and Velcro were all private inventions that were simply aided in popularity/awareness by their use in the space program.

Spinoff Frequently Asked Questions

Can't generalize too much and the sample can't be very representative right now. Based on the below metrics, I don't think its asking too much.

Papa John’s Becomes First Business to Put a Price on Obamacare | Fox Small Business Center

After a week, I like how Ryan has been highlighted and presented. I think him and his mother on Medicare in FL was pretty effective. He's no Palin, Bachmann etc. the VP debates should be fun. Ryan will be prepared and Biden should be careful.

Ryan Enjoys First Week on Trail, and Begins to Look Ahead - NYTimes.com

Awesome keynote speech from Neil Degrasse Tyson about NASA and how important it is for the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt4h8...e_gdata_player

How about the one that doesn't say things like "victims of legitimate rape don't get pregnant".

Republican Senate Nominee: Victims Of ‘Legitimate Rape’ Don’t Get Pregnant | TPM2012

And the term "legitimate rape" enters the lexicon.

I read this article to my wife and she said some words she doesn't usually use.

This is the type of magic that helps 8 point senatorial leads disappear.

SI

I don't think anyone has compared him to one of those nutjobs. There are going to be some philosophical differences but Ryan is a very competent politician. I don't think the Dems have any plans to take this lightly.

SI

Rasmussen is giving Obama +2 and Gallup is giving Romney +2. Someone's methodology is wrong.

2012 General Election: Romney vs. Obama

Why is it we even look at a poll like this when it's not broken down by state as to project electoral votes? A poll like this is useless really.

And here is his retraction. I get mis-speaking a word and phrase here and there but his explanation I think shows he really believed it. It'll be interesting to see % of women that vote for him and their demographics.

Missouri Republican claims ‘legitimate rape’ rarely results in pregnancy – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Unless of course forcing a rape victim to give birth causes them hardship and they have to go on public assistance. Then go look elsewhere for your advocate.

That's hardly an apology. More like a subtle doubling-down.

Ron Paul was advocating "honest rape" earlier this election season.

At least he somewhat admits he doesn't have all the answers.
Ron Paul tells Piers Morgan only ‘honest rape’ merits abortion | The Raw Story

So if he misspoke, the obvious followup is, "What did you mean to say?"

He pretty clearly believes the long discredited theory that woman produce some sort of substance that kills sperm when the sex in not consensual. Therefore, any woman who claims she was impregnated by a rapist is a lying whore.

I'd love to know how he misspoke about that.

Exactly. Of course our "hard-hitting mainstream media" doesn't bother with silly things like obvious follow-up questions.

Perhaps not as competent as you might think as it turns out. Looks like he blamed the President for a GM plant closing in his home district in Wisconsin...the only problem being the plant actually closed during the previous president's term. And then got federal funds to help those who worked at the plant.

Paul Ryan Got Federal Funds To Help With Bush-Era GM Plant Closure He Blames On Obama

There's also the 2002 floor speech where he calls for bipartisan support for one of Bush's stimulus packages. He makes clear that stimulus is the right policy to help people get through the recession and get businesses hiring.

Good points. Wonder why he says the opposite now?

C'mon- that's your typical politician pandering and non-fact checking. Get back to me when he can see Russia from his back porch or can't answer which newspaper he has read or a Supreme Court decision other than Roe v Wade or... you see where I'm going here, right?

SI

Is this real? I don't know how reliable TPM is.

Yep.

Yeah -- this is a major league screw up.

He had a comfortable lead against a pretty unpopular sitting senator. I'd guess that he is going to be under some considerable pressure to step aside.

TPM is very reliable. They lean left, but they're a legit news operation.

It's also on video - he was on a TV station giving an interview at the time.

It's on the front pages of Yahoo news, the AP, CNN, and MSNBC. Strangely, not Fox News.

SI

Sorry, I hadn't been following the news. He's a member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Apparently not on medicine (amirite?)

SI

Well it is....technically speaking.

Awesome. GOP favorite as well. So stupid I just cant even get over it. Some of these people ought to be outlawed from holding office at all.

What a fucking idiot. If that doesn't disqualify him to hold public office (seriously, what the fuck is a legitimate rape?)

That actually wasn't 5 minutes before when I looked

SI

Cheap ass stunt but if anyone deserved it, it would be Akin. I don't see how he will survive this with pressure from GOP to step aside.

Piers Morgan puts up empty chair after Akin cancels appearance - CNN.com

Clock ticking for Akin as GOP urges him to withdraw after rape comment - CNN.com

A little disappointed that all that is coming out are words, but am admittedly conflicted as to how much we want to get involved. Romney is no different and not sure it will really change even after the elections.

Syria crisis: Russia warns Obama against 'violation' of international law - World News

Here we go, another republican lawmaker making crap up:

GOP lawmaker: Virtually impossible to get AIDS through heterosexual sex | The Raw Story

But, then again, to a lot of people in his party, science just gets in the way of ideology. So, I'm not surprised by this.

I heard the jury's still out on science.

Yes and with nothing but "just theories" to go off of.

Well, the Dems also believe it's impossible to succeed without lots of government aid. I'm so sick of both parties right now.

This is what's pushing me to vote for Gary Johnson. Not that I agree with everything he proposes to do (far from) - but rather to get any other voice in the mix.