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

[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.

Repeat after me... U N I O N P A Y O F F.

Chapter 11 allowed automakers to get out of many of the crippling labor agreements that they had stupidly allowed themselves to get into over a number of years.

 

[candycorn]

what it boils down to is that Obama has no explanation for the 9.1% rate! Ohio is still stagnant! No plan to reduce the price of gas back to a fair $2.00 - $2.50 a gallon. Ever since O'Hiltler took office we have been GOING BACKWARDS! Oh by the way,,Obama never mentioned to the small crowd in Toledo that the interest on the debt is 3 Billion a day of which our kids are paying and will pay for.

Like I said, when al lyou have is "it's bad, but it would have been so much worse", you got nothing.

Then the GOP should have no problem beating him then...right?

 

[tigerbob]

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?

That's a weak argument, which is exactly why Obama uses it too. That's like me going outside and cutting a tree down and a month later saying "Well, if I hadn't cut it down it would have fell down anyways", there is no way to prove it one way or the other, but for Obama it's a good excuse to spend a shit load of money and devalue the dollar. We cant have our currency being the standard in the new world order now can we?

How does a company survive when it has no cash and can't borrow to finance day to day operations?

 

[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?

Well, for those of us in Toledo, saving GM and Chrysler has kept this town afloat. And not only did they save existing jobs, Chrysler is hiring new employees again. Had all those jobs been lost, Toledo and most of northwest Ohio would have become one of the most depressed areas in the country.

Saving these companies made sense and it was the right thing to do. Why don't you spend your time bitching about things that Obama really screwed up, like extending the Bush tax cuts?

I'm glad you have a job, but it's not governments position to cover for piss poor businessman with piss poor decisions that made the company fail. GM and chrysler should have been left to fail, ford would have gladly bought them and you would still have a job and the government would not own GM right now. It's called the free market, and if you make bad decisions that cost you your company then tough shit, that's how it works, someone else will step in and fill the void, always have.

Interesting observations. Not sure I agree with all of it (even if Ford had even wanted to "step in", it would be highly unusual for there not to have been a massive level of attrition - Ford did have some cash available but with the share price tanking, and lending non-existent, it's perhaps unlikely that they would risk their own liquidity to take ownership of two competitors in a market where there was already huge model overlap), but it's at least a reasonable hypothesis, which is a lot more than most posters manage.

 

[tigerbob]

Can you show that it kept the sky from falling?

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

And your partisan opinion statement means nothing... much like the term thrown around by this administration of "jobs saved"... There is nothing whatsoever that supports that Obama's policies on this did one lick of good

His statement may be partizan, but it's also correct. There are very few people in those two areas that would debate whether getting bailed out saved GM and Chrysler.

 

[tigerbob]

Can you show that it kept the sky from falling?

Is your failure to answer the question a 'No'?

Is yours?

Anyone ever get the sense that half the posts one reads are just fucking childish?

 

[daveman]

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.

Bankruptcies aren't funded by the taxpayers, you dolt.

 

[daveman]

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.

Let's say you loan me ten thousand dollars. I never pay it back. Would you consider that a success?

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.

That's because you don't know how to think.

 

[tigerbob]

what it boils down to is that Obama has no explanation for the 9.1% rate! Ohio is still stagnant! No plan to reduce the price of gas back to a fair $2.00 - $2.50 a gallon. Ever since O'Hiltler took office we have been GOING BACKWARDS! Oh by the way,,Obama never mentioned to the small crowd in Toledo that the interest on the debt is 3 Billion a day of which our kids are paying and will pay for.

Let's see, on one side of a righty's mouth they claim the government doesn't create jobs (when some asks what the GOP House has done to create jobs) and then the other side of a righty's mouth slams Obama because of the crappy job environment.
Well boys and girls,,,what is it?

The fact of the matter is that Corporate America is sitting on trillions of dollars of capital and has enjoyed record profits. BUT they aren't investing in America, the are investing in their foreign operations that are paying their employees Third World wages.
Now some of you and even Corporate America have said the reason that Corporate America isn't investing in America is because of the uncertainty of the economy or blame Obama for his policies. The economy is uncertain because no one is hiring! The economy is slowing down because the consumer class has no to little expendable income because of flat wages or no jobs. And who's not hiring the US worker and who controls their wages?
Corporate America's excuse may be they want lower taxes. The US has one of the highest tax rates on businesses in the world BUT after all the loopholes the US gives businesses, their tax rate is one of the lowest in the developed world. And that's evident to the fact that most US corporations don't pay any taxes!

Now back to the question, who exactly create jobs? Government or businesses?

Neither. Money creates jobs.

Both. Money can come from either businesses or government.

 

[The T]

Companies are the most profitable they have ever been. The top 12 get billions back from the government.

So, don't help companies in crisis, but for the companies doing well, "GIVE" them free money? Republican business sense, doesn't make sense.

Beat the dog harder, dean.

Oooh, I know! Why don't you just pass a law making it illegal for companies to move offshore, and then make a law mandating they turn over all profits to the government?

Yes. That'll make the nation prosper. Comrade.


Or, here's an idea that will actually work:

Keep government out of business except for the absolute minimum. Don't reward failure, and don't strangle the successful.

But I may as well be speaking a foreign language to you.

Since Government is opining that few are hiring? Why not MANDATE they either HIRE or businesses must disband? I mean after all? Aren't businesses in business just to create jobs, and people are owed a living, aren't they?

 

[daveman]

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.

Statists aren't very bright. That's why they clamor for the government to take care of them.

 

[daveman]

Companies are the most profitable they have ever been. The top 12 get billions back from the government.

So, don't help companies in crisis, but for the companies doing well, "GIVE" them free money? Republican business sense, doesn't make sense.

Beat the dog harder, dean.

Oooh, I know! Why don't you just pass a law making it illegal for companies to move offshore, and then make a law mandating they turn over all profits to the government?

Yes. That'll make the nation prosper. Comrade.


Or, here's an idea that will actually work:

Keep government out of business except for the absolute minimum. Don't reward failure, and don't strangle the successful.

But I may as well be speaking a foreign language to you.

Since Government is opining that few are hiring? Why not MANDATE they either HIRE or businesses must disband? I mean after all? Aren't businesses in business just to create jobs, and people are owed a living, aren't they?

Don't give dean any ideas. After all, he's not capable of coming up with any on his own.

 

[The T]

Beat the dog harder, dean.

Oooh, I know! Why don't you just pass a law making it illegal for companies to move offshore, and then make a law mandating they turn over all profits to the government?

Yes. That'll make the nation prosper. Comrade.


Or, here's an idea that will actually work:

Keep government out of business except for the absolute minimum. Don't reward failure, and don't strangle the successful.

But I may as well be speaking a foreign language to you.

Since Government is opining that few are hiring? Why not MANDATE they either HIRE or businesses must disband? I mean after all? Aren't businesses in business just to create jobs, and people are owed a living, aren't they?

Don't give dean any ideas. After all, he's not capable of coming up with any on his own.

That's the point. Statists hold this belief...even Obama himself...and it all comes from Gubmint. Not a shred of an idea of how the free market and economic liberty work...so they must destroy it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Let's say you loan me ten thousand dollars. I never pay it back. Would you consider that a success?

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.

That's because you don't know how to think.

Can you prove that there is money that will never be recouped in the auto 'bailout'? Can you prove that taking into account increased tax revenues from saved or created jobs and corporate profits that may occur thanks to the bailout?

Can you prove that Iraq will eventually pay us back all the money we spend there?

 

[The T]

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

...a government success story.

Let's say you loan me ten thousand dollars. I never pay it back. Would you consider that a success?

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.

That's because you don't know how to think.

Can you prove that there is money that will never be recouped in the auto 'bailout'? Can you prove that taking into account increased tax revenues from saved or created jobs and corporate profits that may occur thanks to the bailout?

Can you prove that Iraq will eventually pay us back all the money we spend there?

They should have filed for bankruptcy instead of the taxpayers footing the bill...It would have forced the unions to renegotiate...instead they keep what they have at the expense of the US Taxpayer.

 

[Toronado3800]

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.

What issues do you want to manipulate the public on? Using coal to heat their homes being a bad idea? Making them pay more for unleaded gas? Letting blacks eat in the same McDonalds?

 

[The T]

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.

What issues do you want to manipulate the public on? Using coal to heat their homes being a bad idea? Making them pay more for unleaded gas? Letting blacks eat in the same McDonalds?

Someone else that doesn't get it. Ever heard of liberty? Sure you have.

*Carry on*.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama Campaign Message for 2012: Is the UAW better off now than it was 4 years ago?

 

[Toronado3800]

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

What issues do you want to manipulate the public on? Using coal to heat their homes being a bad idea? Making them pay more for unleaded gas? Letting blacks eat in the same McDonalds?

Someone else that doesn't get it. Ever heard of liberty? Sure you have.

*Carry on*.

Use your words and express your position better. Are you saying the issues I brought up were bad examples of social engineering or unnecessary?

Are you saying my liberty to keep black folks from voting has beem removed? Or the police chief's liberty to have me arrested for having a kind of sex his church is intollerant of has been removed when sodomy laws are brought down?

 

[daveman]

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

...a government success story.

Let's say you loan me ten thousand dollars. I never pay it back. Would you consider that a success?

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.

That's because you don't know how to think.

Can you prove that there is money that will never be recouped in the auto 'bailout'?

Yes.

Given such realities, Bloomberg’s survey of 21 auto analysts put the average projected price for GM at $42.85 per share a year from now. This means that, outside of miracle, taxpayers will lose anywhere from $13 to $19 billion on their principal and another $15 billion on taxes for a grand total of up to $28 to $34 billion* in losses. And that’s just for GM. Chrysler is whole different—and equally sordid—story. Even Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner acknowledged last month: “We’re going to lose money in the auto industry.”​

Can you disprove it? Please note that Obama press releases will not be accepted.

Can you prove that taking into account increased tax revenues from saved or created jobs and corporate profits that may occur thanks to the bailout?

If they had filed bankruptcy as the law allows, none of these would be in question.

Can you prove that Iraq will eventually pay us back all the money we spend there?

No, and I have no obligation to, because I never claimed they would.


You really have to start questioning Obama. But that would require a degree of critical thinking skill that, frankly, I doubt you possess.