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

[daveman]

I would.

Failure would mean they no longer make cars.

And who says that would have happened?

The bankruptcy laws are there for a reason. The automakers would have come out fine if they'd used the recourse available, and they would have continued making cars. This is inarguable.

Only statist fools insist otherwise.

That's what would have happened.

Check out Lehman Brothers. Oh you can't.

That's because they failed.

...because of the fraud they committed. Are you saying GM has committed fraud?

 

[daveman]

Yeah you were wrong.

As usual.

And fail to see just how wrong you were.

As usual.

Coming from someone as willfully blind as you, your condemnation is utterly meaningless.

Meaningless in terms of what?


Right or wrong doesn't amount to a hill of beans except at the ballot box.

And guess what?

You guys keep electing the wrong people, who do the wrong things that usually wind up putting everyone in a pickle that the people you constantly vote against have to fix.

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.

 

[daveman]

Because if the government of the United States ceased doing all business with them, then a major source of revenue would be gone.

A very major source.

Is that what's happening in California?

No?

Well, then, your answer is dishonest. Typical.

WTF are you talking about?

It has never even been tried.

Can you think of a company that's ever been banned from getting government grants, loans or contracts?

Something like, Oh..Hewlett Packard..you fired 30K people and moved your operations overseas..welp..that's that..come take your servers out of the Department of Motor Vehicles..we are canceling the SLA.

Naw..never happened. IN FACT..you guys went on to make a politician of the CEO who did that. Carly Fiorna.

Thanks.

Your dog ran away?

Beat him harder.

Good strategy.

 

[The T]

Coming from someone as willfully blind as you, your condemnation is utterly meaningless.

Meaningless in terms of what?


Right or wrong doesn't amount to a hill of beans except at the ballot box.

And guess what?

You guys keep electing the wrong people, who do the wrong things that usually wind up putting everyone in a pickle that the people you constantly vote against have to fix.

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?

 

[daveman]

Make up your mind. On the one hand, gov't is SAVING businesses (like GM and Chrysler) which shouldn't be saved. Or gov't is strangling business.

If GM owes billions it can never repay, has it really been saved?

Hint: No.

Indeed. They remain in debt to the taxpayer.

And will for all time, unless a Democrat waves his magic wand and makes it disappear.

 

[daveman]

Meaningless in terms of what?


Right or wrong doesn't amount to a hill of beans except at the ballot box.

And guess what?

You guys keep electing the wrong people, who do the wrong things that usually wind up putting everyone in a pickle that the people you constantly vote against have to fix.

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.

 

[The T]

If GM owes billions it can never repay, has it really been saved?

Hint: No.

Indeed. They remain in debt to the taxpayer.

And will for all time, unless a Democrat waves his magic wand and makes it disappear.

Meaning 'Cook the books'?

 

[The T]

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.

...And be proud of their stupidity.

 

[rdean]

I don't think anyone here is seeing the big picture, so take a look at Big Global GM, that was built off the backs of the American Auto Union Workers. All the while GM was getting it's free hand out in exchange for Obama campaign contributions, they were in the process of building more global auto plants that hire NO American workers & use NO American parts, and pay NO American taxes. IN OTHERWORDS, if they really wanted to keep the American plants opened, or avoid a self-inflicted bankruptcy,.......they could have sold off auto plants in foreign countries. Or like Walmart, shifted capital out of some foreign countries doing well, back into the Michigan plants. This isn't rocket science!!

Why would they move any jobs back to the US? They probably would have shipped the rest of the jobs overseas and left America an empty shell.

Corporations have no allegiance to this country. They only care about the "buck". That's why the right wing wanting to turn over the country to corporations is insane.

What you buffoons fail to realize is that the reason companies are moving jobs offshore is because the government is becoming increasingly hostile to business.

You keep whipping a dog, don't be surprised when he runs away.

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.

 

[daveman]

Indeed. They remain in debt to the taxpayer.

And will for all time, unless a Democrat waves his magic wand and makes it disappear.

Meaning 'Cook the books'?

They've done it before. See Clinton's "surplus".

 

[daveman]

Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

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

...And be proud of their stupidity.

Indeed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because you are an extremist, a purist, in this regard, you are forbidden intellectually to acknowledge that government involvement in the fate and fortunes of private businesses, for the greater good,

might actually work.

It hasn't yet. Anywhere. Any time.

That's an ironic post in this thread.

 

[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.

 

[daveman]

Because you are an extremist, a purist, in this regard, you are forbidden intellectually to acknowledge that government involvement in the fate and fortunes of private businesses, for the greater good,

might actually work.

It hasn't yet. Anywhere. Any time.

That's an ironic post in this thread.

Sure, if you're making up your own definition to the word "ironic".

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's another question for you nay sayers to wrestle with:

For those of you who are still insisting that the GM/Chrysler 'bailouts' were a failure,

how much better would GM and Chrysler have to be doing at this point in time, all things considered, for you to acknowledge that the action was NOT a failure?

Eh?

Or can we safely assume that you extremist laissez-faire capitalist idealogues would never acknowledge success, no matter what the outcome?

I'm going with the latter.

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.

 

[daveman]

Here's another question for you nay sayers to wrestle with:

For those of you who are still insisting that the GM/Chrysler 'bailouts' were a failure,

how much better would GM and Chrysler have to be doing at this point in time, all things considered, for you to acknowledge that the action was NOT a failure?

Eh?

Or can we safely assume that you extremist laissez-faire capitalist idealogues would never acknowledge success, no matter what the outcome?

I'm going with the latter.

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!

 

[boedicca]

Here's another question for you nay sayers to wrestle with:

For those of you who are still insisting that the GM/Chrysler 'bailouts' were a failure,

how much better would GM and Chrysler have to be doing at this point in time, all things considered, for you to acknowledge that the action was NOT a failure?

Eh?

Or can we safely assume that you extremist laissez-faire capitalist idealogues would never acknowledge success, no matter what the outcome?

I'm going with the latter.

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.

 

[daveman]

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.

Gasp! Sacrilege! You dare criticize The One?! You shall burn forever in the carbon-neutral Lake of Sustainable Fire!


Right, Carby?

 

[frazzledgear]

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!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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.