Your View On Todays Obama's "If We Hadn't Bailed Out GM & Chrysler" VS 9.1% Jobs ?

[Mustang]

Look in a mirror, Skippy. If Obamacare is so wonderful, why the need for so many waivers?

Hint: It's because they had to fix it.

Yet you keep supporting the people who screwed it up, insisting they did no wrong.

Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

I keep saying it: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

Amazing. In the South, Republicans have been stirring up resentment regarding social issues for years to get poor people to vote in ways that run contrary to their economic interests. Those conservatives don't seem to learn from history, do they?

 

[Mustang]

How many of you know that not 1...not 2...not 3...not four.....but FIVE
FIVE GM subsidiaries are right now in bankruptcy.

GM is not prejudice in who it f*cks over.
The American taxpayers gave them $50,000,000,000 - and it still needs bankruptcies to stay afloat.

Ahhh...now. Did you all not know this?
You mean you didn't know that GM has filed enough bankruptcies it could fill a small town?

I didn't think so.

Gave...or loaned?

 

[WillowTree]

How many of you know that not 1...not 2...not 3...not four.....but FIVE
FIVE GM subsidiaries are right now in bankruptcy.

GM is not prejudice in who it f*cks over.
The American taxpayers gave them $50,000,000,000 - and it still needs bankruptcies to stay afloat.

Ahhh...now. Did you all not know this?
You mean you didn't know that GM has filed enough bankruptcies it could fill a small town?

I didn't think so.

Gave...or loaned?

Let us know when all the stockholders, bondholders and pension plans are paid back in full ya hear? then we'll call it a loan. until then the taxpayer is gonna be on the hook for a lot of that money also.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Well...the critters have scattered.
I don't think they did know that GM has 5 bankruptcies in court right now.

But...did they know that Ford is also in bankruptcy?
Oh yes, and like GM...more than one.
Ford owes it's bondholders almost $1 billion... since 2000.
Funny how both organizations have the money to donate generously to politicians, have 7-figure lobby firms...but don't pay their shareholders for over 10 years.

 

[daveman]

Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

I keep saying it: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

Amazing. In the South, Republicans have been stirring up resentment regarding social issues for years to get poor people to vote in ways that run contrary to their economic interests. Those conservatives don't seem to learn from history, do they?

Really? Like how?

And what makes you qualified to determine what anyone else's best interests are?

Oh, yeah -- you're a liberal.

 

[sparky]

How many of you know that not 1...not 2...not 3...not four.....but FIVE
FIVE GM subsidiaries are right now in bankruptcy.

GM is not prejudice in who it f*cks over.
The American taxpayers gave them $50,000,000,000 - and it still needs bankruptcies to stay afloat.

Ahhh...now. Did you all not know this?
You mean you didn't know that GM has filed enough bankruptcies it could fill a small town?

I didn't think so.

no, didn't know that

this is exactly what i meant throwing good tax $$$ out for bad

SHUT THEM OFF !

 

[percysunshine]

Once again, Our Modern Day Messiah finds himself in a "George Castanza-Art Vandalay" Moment! And when you think about it, Obama is our modern day George Castanza....

Never thought about it that way... Everything he does results in a complete fckup.

On the other hand, Castanza might have fckd up on purpose.

 

[daveman]

Well...the critters have scattered.
I don't think they did know that GM has 5 bankruptcies in court right now.

But...did they know that Ford is also in bankruptcy?
Oh yes, and like GM...more than one.
Ford owes it's bondholders almost $1 billion... since 2000.
Funny how both organizations have the money to donate generously to politicians, have 7-figure lobby firms...but don't pay their shareholders for over 10 years.

That's obscene. And we're rewarding these incompetents for this crap.

Inexcusable.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Total Pub Dupe Bullshytte Link?

 

[EdSchultzIsFat]

For Bambi to say that a jump in unemployment is "A Bump In The Road" is like being the victim of a motorcycle/vs/SUV accident, the driver of the motorcycle loses an arm and a leg,and it's really not big deal,,,just a flesh wound. But he will bounce back and be back on the road in 5 weeks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You call giving billions to a company with no hope of ever getting it back a success?


Really?

I haven't heard your detailed explanation of how the US would be better off, right now, had GM and Chrysler been allowed to go under.

Be the first to make that case.

You are making a false assumption that they would have "gone under".

The two likely scenarios are:

1. Reorganization under bankruptcy to reduce debt and cost structure (which would have meant renegotiating the unions deals).

2. Sale of assets to qualified buyers who could better manage them.

Either of these would have been better than the damaging Cronyism performed by the Obama Administration.

What damage was caused?

Bankruptcies are just bailouts with a different name btw.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You call giving billions to a company with no hope of ever getting it back a success?


Really?

I haven't heard your detailed explanation of how the US would be better off, right now, had GM and Chrysler been allowed to go under.

Be the first to make that case.

It's funny how you pretend you'd accept anything that doesn't kiss Obama's ass.

Okay, we'll just put you down in the "Owes billions -- it worked!!" column.

But, hey, screw the American taxpayers, right? The Union was saved!

The taxpayers aren't getting screwed. That's what has you people throwing a tantrum in this thread...

...a government success story.

The irony is, people like you will support trillions spent on a project like Iraq, but won't support a few billion in loans for a project to help a couple American companies recover.

I have a hard time making sense of how you people think.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can you prove him wrong?

Can you show that letting GM and Chrysler go under would have made America a better place?

Can you show that without the 300 billion in tax cuts and the 450 billion in spending in the stimulus that overall, America would be in better shape right now?

It is sure easy to spot people who have NO grasp of economics whatsoever -to match Obama's glaring deficit. We all benefit SO much with a President who never took even a basic economics class and never held a real job in his life, zero business experience, never had to meet a payroll, zero executive experience in either the private or public sectors, surrounded by people who also have none of these critically vital experiences either -yet suddenly pretend that getting elected made him an EXPERT on everything and could run ANY business and even entire industries better than those with a lifetime personal experience doing it! His arrogance really is unlimited and MILLIONS of people are paying dearly for it.

So let me get this straight. YOU are insisting that someone else prove to YOU that allowing a business to actually pay for its own mistakes is the better option and would actually cause LESS harm in the long run to our economy? Really? You lack the ability to think that one through yourself? Wow -not only someone else who never took even a basic economics class either but no critical thinking skills either, huh!

Come ON. You can't seriously believe that the proper way for government to handle the WORST businesses in our country -large FAILING BUSINESSES -that are failing because they are inefficiently managed, ineffectively run, parasited by greedy unions and make overpriced products no one wants to buy .............is to PUT TAXPAYERS ON THE HOOK FOR IT and make THEM pay for that? Oh sure if taxpayers foot the bill for the MISTAKES made at these companies by both management AND unions -that will sure turn things around -not just for the entire economy but also for the company means all their inefficiencies and bad business practices are all wiped out and turned to "good" ones instead -along with it meaning they are instantly making products everyone wants at the price they are being sold! Wow -who KNEW government had that kind of MAGIC by just forcing taxpayers on the hook for bad businesses! Even if it does mean taxpayers would be paying for them TWICE, right?

And if that is such a winner of a strategy that actually helps our economy, then wouldn't it stand to reason it would be even MORE of a good thing to force taxpayers to bail out any large NON-UNION company in the same circumstances? HMMM? If its "good" to bail out union companies, why wouldn't it be at least as good to bail-out non-union companies? Especially since the overwhelming vast majority of workers AND taxpayers are NOT union? The reason Obama focused on these particular companies is because they involved UNION JOBS and it is UNIONS that count for him in this all. Not saving "jobs" -but saving UNION JOBS only. And they were because unions are actually political money launderers for the Democrat party!

Bailing out the biggest FAILURES while expecting all others to pay their own bills and pay for their management/worker mistakes -would certainly send the "wonderful" economic message to other UNION companies, both management and union, to stop worrying about their bottom line too, stop worrying about making sound business decisions, stop trying to keep the company profitable and able to compete, stop trying to keep union demands reasonable in order to still run a profitable company and let it all run into the ground instead -because government will turn around and force TAXPAYERS to foot the bill for their mistakes instead! The vast majority of whom AREN'T holding a union job but should be forced to support UNION JOBS one way or another anyway.

What a GREAT IDEA! But for WHOM? Because it isn't a great thing for the economy whatsoever, it isn't a great thing for taxpayers and it isn't a great thing for consumers! It is actually a great thing for...............ONLY UNIONS!

So where is YOUR proof that forcing taxpayers on the hook in this way is SOUND ECONOMICS? That doing this in ANY way BENEFITS an economy and BENEFIT taxpayers and BENEFIT consumers is to bail out the very worst failures? Good luck in your search for that proof because it doesn't exist! In reality it drags out the pain for EVERYONE -taxpayers who get stuck paying for it TWICE if they EVER purchase any of the goods from these bailed out companies (which I refuse to do) and consumers who are being confronted with over-priced and unwanted goods rather than being offered the best goods, desirable goods being offered at the most competitive prices.

You have to wonder about those who insist it somehow BENEFITS our economy to keep around inefficiently managed giant companies being driven into the ground with greedy unions, making products no one wanted anyway even more over-priced -in order to allow them to compete with efficiently run companies offering desirable goods at the best prices. Get real. It only proves who we know really believes saving those union jobs is FAR more important than not screwing over all taxpayers, doesn't it?

Obama was interested in PAYING OFF UNIONS, he didn't want to see a loss of UNION JOBS and he was willing to force taxpayers to foot the bill to do it. UNIONS will turn around and return the favor now -but at all times, both sides will have their hands in the pockets of taxpayers to do it! Only proving once AGAIN that Democrats will always put the best interests of their political party and its supporters, its money launderers before the best interests of the nation itself.

YOU are the one who will NEVER find anything to back up that piece of STUPID, IMMORAL, ASININE, POLITICAL PAY OFF Obama did by screwing over all taxpayers and putting them on the hook for a business that should have gone through bankruptcy and emerged as a leaner, meaner company forced to figure out how to make products people actually want at a decent price! Because THAT would have actually benefited our economy far MORE, that would have benefited taxpayers MORE, that would have benefited every American consumer MORE - than rewarding the worst of the worst by foisting the bill off onto taxpayers and forcing them to subsidize BAD COMPANIES and relive them of the natural consequences of BAD business practices. Instead Obama sold us all OUT -by forcing taxpayers AND consumers alike to keep his union thug buddies happy. Sorry to be the one to break the bad news to you -but that will NEVER provide a boost to the economy and in reality only serves as another DRAG on it!

You went through typing all that whilst blithely ignoring the simple reality that GM and Chrysler are now doing very well, all things considered.

That's a pretty remarkable display of contempt for the facts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you prove him wrong?

Can you show that letting GM and Chrysler go under would have made America a better place?

Can you show that without the 300 billion in tax cuts and the 450 billion in spending in the stimulus that overall, America would be in better shape right now?

It is sure easy to spot people who have NO grasp of economics whatsoever -to match Obama's glaring deficit. We all benefit SO much with a President who never took even a basic economics class and never held a real job in his life, zero business experience, never had to meet a payroll, zero executive experience in either the private or public sectors, surrounded by people who also have none of these critically vital experiences either -yet suddenly pretend that getting elected made him an EXPERT on everything and could run ANY business and even entire industries better than those with a lifetime personal experience doing it! His arrogance really is unlimited and MILLIONS of people are paying dearly for it.

So let me get this straight. YOU are insisting that someone else prove to YOU that allowing a business to actually pay for its own mistakes is the better option and would actually cause LESS harm in the long run to our economy? Really? You lack the ability to think that one through yourself? Wow -not only someone else who never took even a basic economics class either but no critical thinking skills either, huh!

Come ON. You can't seriously believe that the proper way for government to handle the WORST businesses in our country -large FAILING BUSINESSES -that are failing because they are inefficiently managed, ineffectively run, parasited by greedy unions and make overpriced products no one wants to buy .............is to PUT TAXPAYERS ON THE HOOK FOR IT and make THEM pay for that? Oh sure if taxpayers foot the bill for the MISTAKES made at these companies by both management AND unions -that will sure turn things around -not just for the entire economy but also for the company means all their inefficiencies and bad business practices are all wiped out and turned to "good" ones instead -along with it meaning they are instantly making products everyone wants at the price they are being sold! Wow -who KNEW government had that kind of MAGIC by just forcing taxpayers on the hook for bad businesses! Even if it does mean taxpayers would be paying for them TWICE, right?

And if that is such a winner of a strategy that actually helps our economy, then wouldn't it stand to reason it would be even MORE of a good thing to force taxpayers to bail out any large NON-UNION company in the same circumstances? HMMM? If its "good" to bail out union companies, why wouldn't it be at least as good to bail-out non-union companies? Especially since the overwhelming vast majority of workers AND taxpayers are NOT union? The reason Obama focused on these particular companies is because they involved UNION JOBS and it is UNIONS that count for him in this all. Not saving "jobs" -but saving UNION JOBS only. And they were because unions are actually political money launderers for the Democrat party!

Bailing out the biggest FAILURES while expecting all others to pay their own bills and pay for their management/worker mistakes -would certainly send the "wonderful" economic message to other UNION companies, both management and union, to stop worrying about their bottom line too, stop worrying about making sound business decisions, stop trying to keep the company profitable and able to compete, stop trying to keep union demands reasonable in order to still run a profitable company and let it all run into the ground instead -because government will turn around and force TAXPAYERS to foot the bill for their mistakes instead! The vast majority of whom AREN'T holding a union job but should be forced to support UNION JOBS one way or another anyway.

What a GREAT IDEA! But for WHOM? Because it isn't a great thing for the economy whatsoever, it isn't a great thing for taxpayers and it isn't a great thing for consumers! It is actually a great thing for...............ONLY UNIONS!

So where is YOUR proof that forcing taxpayers on the hook in this way is SOUND ECONOMICS? That doing this in ANY way BENEFITS an economy and BENEFIT taxpayers and BENEFIT consumers is to bail out the very worst failures? Good luck in your search for that proof because it doesn't exist! In reality it drags out the pain for EVERYONE -taxpayers who get stuck paying for it TWICE if they EVER purchase any of the goods from these bailed out companies (which I refuse to do) and consumers who are being confronted with over-priced and unwanted goods rather than being offered the best goods, desirable goods being offered at the most competitive prices.

You have to wonder about those who insist it somehow BENEFITS our economy to keep around inefficiently managed giant companies being driven into the ground with greedy unions, making products no one wanted anyway even more over-priced -in order to allow them to compete with efficiently run companies offering desirable goods at the best prices. Get real. It only proves who we know really believes saving those union jobs is FAR more important than not screwing over all taxpayers, doesn't it?

Obama was interested in PAYING OFF UNIONS, he didn't want to see a loss of UNION JOBS and he was willing to force taxpayers to foot the bill to do it. UNIONS will turn around and return the favor now -but at all times, both sides will have their hands in the pockets of taxpayers to do it! Only proving once AGAIN that Democrats will always put the best interests of their political party and its supporters, its money launderers before the best interests of the nation itself.

YOU are the one who will NEVER find anything to back up that piece of STUPID, IMMORAL, ASININE, POLITICAL PAY OFF Obama did by screwing over all taxpayers and putting them on the hook for a business that should have gone through bankruptcy and emerged as a leaner, meaner company forced to figure out how to make products people actually want at a decent price! Because THAT would have actually benefited our economy far MORE, that would have benefited taxpayers MORE, that would have benefited every American consumer MORE - than rewarding the worst of the worst by foisting the bill off onto taxpayers and forcing them to subsidize BAD COMPANIES and relive them of the natural consequences of BAD business practices. Instead Obama sold us all OUT -by forcing taxpayers AND consumers alike to keep his union thug buddies happy. Sorry to be the one to break the bad news to you -but that will NEVER provide a boost to the economy and in reality only serves as another DRAG on it!

 

[The T]

I keep saying it: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

Amazing. In the South, Republicans have been stirring up resentment regarding social issues for years to get poor people to vote in ways that run contrary to their economic interests. Those conservatives don't seem to learn from history, do they?

Really? Like how?

And what makes you qualified to determine what anyone else's best interests are?

Oh, yeah -- you're a liberal.

Mustang unwittingly admitted that he/she/it is for manipulating the public on Social issues. Sorry Mustang. You've outted yerself as a Statist.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

I keep saying it: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

Amazing. In the South, Republicans have been stirring up resentment regarding social issues for years to get poor people to vote in ways that run contrary to their economic interests. Those conservatives don't seem to learn from history, do they?

“I'll have them ******* voting Democrat for the next two hundred years.” -- LBJ Dem Civil Rights Hero.

 

[tigerbob]

Once again, Our Modern Day Messiah finds himself in a "George Castanza-Art Vandalay" Moment! And when you think about it, Obama is our modern day George Castanza. Always having to lie about all of his past & recent scandals&screw-ups. Today he tried to explain to a small crowd in Toledo,OH. that if it wasn't for the Billions He Gave To GM&Chrysler,all those "Union Employees" would of lost their jobs and the country would of been in a much deeper recession. It's wearing out OBAMA !!! Two and a half Years of high unemployment and weak growth. What's Obama gonna tell the nation in one/two months if unemployment hits 9.3%? Will It Be George Bush's Fault?

Sorry to join this conversation so late and restate something others may already have covered, but "it's wearing out" seems to indicate that you believe GM and Chrysler employees would have kept their jobs without a bailout.

Would you care to expand on this assumed position, or tell me why that's not what you meant?

I'll read through the thread to see if this has already been covered, assuming I can get past the usual swathes of polarized finger pointing.

 

[The T]

I keep saying it: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

Amazing. In the South, Republicans have been stirring up resentment regarding social issues for years to get poor people to vote in ways that run contrary to their economic interests. Those conservatives don't seem to learn from history, do they?

“I'll have them ******* voting Democrat for the next two hundred years.” -- LBJ Dem Civil Rights Hero.

LBJ...the man that without Republicans, Civil Rights ACT would have never passed...Democrats at the time were opposed to it.

 

[tigerbob]

It sure as hell did in northwest Ohio and southeast Michigan. Ask anyone who lives here.

The rest of the country was taxed, our currency inflated and our debt increased so that people in Ohio and Michigan could keep their jobs rather than go look for new ones like any one else whose employer goes belly up from mismanagement.

The fallout from GM / Chrysler going belly up would have had an impact far outside Michigan and Ohio.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Amazing. In the South, Republicans have been stirring up resentment regarding social issues for years to get poor people to vote in ways that run contrary to their economic interests. Those conservatives don't seem to learn from history, do they?

“I'll have them ******* voting Democrat for the next two hundred years.” -- LBJ Dem Civil Rights Hero.

LBJ...the man that without Republicans, Civil Rights ACT would have never passed...Democrats at the time were opposed to it.

He held up Ike's Civil Rights Bill for 7 years. When he became President he plagiarized Ike's Bill and passed it as his own