Obama DID NOT save GM, the bankruptcy judge did.

[Papageorgio]

If it was the government bailout and not the bankruptcy that saved GM, then the credit should go to Bush as he was the one that started the bailout. Shouldn't it?
I personally believe that the government made things worse and that GM wouldv'e recoverd sooner if they had stayed out of it.

I couldn't agree more, they would have come out of bankruptcy, stronger and better, it was an option and it would have worked, just like it has in the past with other countries, complete BS that the bailout money would need to go into it.

 

[Cuyo]

There is nothing to refute. It is the interpretation of the person that posted that to their website. Information uploaded to that website is not fact checked and I'm not going to waste my time doing so.

Sooooo....in your original post you state:

Anyone who believes otherwise is easily fooled in my opinion.

Had the bailout that both Bush and Obama were for worked, the company wouldn't have gone bankrupt anyway. All Obama ultimately did was steal wealth from the bond holders and line the pockets of the unions with it. The company itself remained in the red until the bankruptcy judge allowed certain debts to be dumped and restructured the remaining debts.

Bankruptcy saved GM. Obama saved union votes and wasted our tax dollars.

.....yet you openly admit that you 1) do not know any facts, and 2) are simply too lazy to go and find out the facts? Really?

Obama gave the unions the money GM didn't have to fund their benefits. That is where our money went. Why is that so hard to grasp? My money (and yours) is paying for some line workers health and retirement package. It's that simple and its that wrong.

My taxes are supposed to fund our govt not line the pockets of a voting block.

I'm lost on what you're trying to claim.

Money is fungible. GM didn't have enough of it to meet their obligations. But once it goes into the coffers, it all looks and spends the same. So, what exactly are you suggesting? That they earmarked the capital from the USG's stock purchase specifically for Union benefits?

Surely you realize that's not their only expense, right?

 

[Cuyo]

And the rich do not create jobs the consumers buying stuff does.

Kind of a 'chicken or the egg' thing.

But yes, right now we have a consumption issue, far outweighing any perceived production issue.

 

[uscitizen]

And the rich do not create jobs the consumers buying stuff does.

A reasonable point.

So when does the bag lady open that mom and pop whatever?

Now, do not push it to the absurd.