Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You gotta luv the work IF. As in; if frogs had wings.......
But guess what. Obama did save the auto industry. No if, ands or buts about it.
And Mitt said let them fail.
Tough position to defend that asshole (Mitt) that wanted even more UE in the country.
But that sure doesn't stop you Rethugs from trying. Again and again and again.
No. Mitt said let them go through bankruptcy like any business that has poorly managed it's company. We have bankruptcy laws for a reason.
Which private capital firm was going to finance that bankruptcy? You'll notice Bain, for instance, made no offer to do so.
No. Mitt said let them go through bankruptcy like any business that has poorly managed it's company. We have bankruptcy laws for a reason.
Which private capital firm was going to finance that bankruptcy? You'll notice Bain, for instance, made no offer to do so.
as pointed out above the government could have helped GM in bankruptcy without losing a dime.......
however Obama wanted to pay off his constituent....the Union.....and the hell to the taxpayers.....
If I have to hear left-wingers touting the success of the auto bailout one more time, I might as well toss a chair through my window. Its patently false to say that the auto bailout was a success. Furthermore, it was more of an United Auto Workers UNION BAILOUT than it was for the auto industry. As Amy Payne of Heritage wrote back in June:
If I have to hear left-wingers touting the success of the auto bailout one more time, I might as well toss a chair through my window. Its patently false to say that the auto bailout was a success. Furthermore, it was more of an United Auto Workers UNION BAILOUT than it was for the auto industry. As Amy Payne of Heritage wrote back in June:
if whining pigeon thinks he should stop anything, i say he should double down.
whiner...
Private investors with a stake in GM? Why should someone with equity in a company get paid when that company collapses?
Why should the union?
Nice attempt at diversion, but you didn't answer my question.
Why should the union?
Nice attempt at diversion, but you didn't answer my question.
How can he? He'd have to admit that the investors get priority, because...well...they're investors and not union shlubs.
Which private capital firm was going to finance that bankruptcy? You'll notice Bain, for instance, made no offer to do so.
as pointed out above the government could have helped GM in bankruptcy without losing a dime.......
however Obama wanted to pay off his constituent....the Union.....and the hell to the taxpayers.....
So you believe Obama was right to bailout GM, you just disagree with the terms?
OK then.
Nice attempt at diversion, but you didn't answer my question.
How can he? He'd have to admit that the investors get priority, because...well...they're investors and not union shlubs.
For the life of me I can never understand why people think equity investors are entitled to a single solitary penny in the settlement of a bankrupt company.
In the same breath they'll tell you we need to give preferential tax treatment to capital gains because people are taking a risk.
Ask yourself this question, "Is the UAW better off now than it was 4 years ago?"
How can he? He'd have to admit that the investors get priority, because...well...they're investors and not union shlubs.
For the life of me I can never understand why people think equity investors are entitled to a single solitary penny in the settlement of a bankrupt company.
In the same breath they'll tell you we need to give preferential tax treatment to capital gains because people are taking a risk.
it's how capital is attracted........capital that is used to build the company.... to pay the bills.... and the union workers....
If I have to hear left-wingers touting the success of the auto bailout one more time, I might as well toss a chair through my window. Its patently false to say that the auto bailout was a success. Furthermore, it was more of an United Auto Workers UNION BAILOUT than it was for the auto industry. As Amy Payne of Heritage wrote back in June:
The Treasury Department estimates that taxpayers will lose $23 billion on the auto bailout. Sherk and co-author Todd Zywicki [both are economists for Heritage] find that none of these losses came from saving jobs, but instead went to prop up the compensation of some of the most highly paid workers in America. They write:
We estimate that the Administration redistributed $26.5 billion more to the UAW than it would have received had it been treated as it usually would in bankruptcy proceedings.
Taxpayers lost between $20 billion and $23 billion on the auto programs. Thus, the entire loss to the taxpayers from the auto bailout comes from the funds diverted to the UAW.
The Obama campaign is touting the bailout in Michigan this week, crowing about saved-or-created jobs. What the bailout actually saved was the UAWs heavily padded compensation packages; what it created was a massive taxpayer loss.
However, lets focus on the China element for a second. Obama claims that Mitt Romney and the Republicans are complicit in the evil dynamics of OUTSOURCING. I dont think liberals read Forbes much, but Paul Roderick Gregory wrote back in August 12 that:
To be exact: GMs December 31, 2011 annual report shows General Motors of North America accounting for 98,000 of the 207,000 GM jobs worldwide. But 12,000 of these jobs are in Canada and 11,500 are in Mexico. Accordingly, GM has 74,500 jobs in the United States and 122,500 abroad, even after Obamas touted surge in Detroit jobs. Almost TWO THIRDS of GMs jobs are in other countries.
GMs outsourcing is not a slip. GM clearly states that foreign investment and OUTSOURCING OF JOBS are an integral parts of its growth strategy.
Concerning claims that millions would have lost their jobs through the bankruptcy process, Sherk and Zywicki aptly conclude that General Motors and Chrysler would have had no difficulty filling entry-level positions even though they paid less than transplant automakers, even under the threat of a strike, which wasnt in the works in 2009. Its all nonsense. Barack Obama and the Democrats needed to keep their parasitic allies in big labor happy at the expense of the American taxpayer. I know this is old history, but until the media and folks on our side have the gumption to say that the bailout was a horrible episode of government intervention we should keep on hammering away at this. After all, it will probably be brought up in the debates.
Mr. President, stop saying I am GM, hear me roar! The facts just dont support your narrative.
Obama Needs to Stop Saying I Am GM, Hear Me Roar « The Greenroom
Still pouting about Obama saving the auto companies while Romney said "Let them fail"?
Still pouting about Obama saving the auto companies while Romney said "Let them fail"?
Romney was right. Obama was not.
Still pouting about Obama saving the auto companies while Romney said "Let them fail"?
Romney was right. Obama was not.
How can he? He'd have to admit that the investors get priority, because...well...they're investors and not union shlubs.
For the life of me I can never understand why people think equity investors are entitled to a single solitary penny in the settlement of a bankrupt company.
In the same breath they'll tell you we need to give preferential tax treatment to capital gains because people are taking a risk.
it's how capital is attracted........capital that is used to build the company.... to pay the bills.... and the union workers....
Still pouting about Obama saving the auto companies while Romney said "Let them fail"?
Romney was right. Obama was not.
By what standard?
Still pouting about Obama saving the auto companies while Romney said "Let them fail"?
Romney was right. Obama was not.
you mean socialize the risk like when Obama paid off the GM union and stuck the taxpayers with the bill....?For the life of me I can never understand why people think equity investors are entitled to a single solitary penny in the settlement of a bankrupt company.
In the same breath they'll tell you we need to give preferential tax treatment to capital gains because people are taking a risk.
it's how capital is attracted........capital that is used to build the company.... to pay the bills.... and the union workers....
Wow! So you think it's ok to socialize the risk of investment?
Most conservatarians probably think as much, but they keep it to themselves.
For the life of me I can never understand why people think equity investors are entitled to a single solitary penny in the settlement of a bankrupt company.
In the same breath they'll tell you we need to give preferential tax treatment to capital gains because people are taking a risk.
it's how capital is attracted........capital that is used to build the company.... to pay the bills.... and the union workers....
no. capital did not build this country.
infrastructure was built by government.
and capital assets come from consumers.
like everything else you say, whining pigeon, you have it butt backwards.
