Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If one disagrees with bailouts, they disagree with bailouts.. What point are you trying to make, that people who disagree with socialism would point out the bailouts for what it is?
I am talking about the hypocrites who agree with bailouts when they done by Bush and disagree with them when they are done by Obama. And now they seem to be complaining that Obama didn't bail them out. They need to make up their minds as opposed to always blindly attacking someone just because they represent the other party.
I am talking about the hypocrites who agree with bailouts when they done by Bush and disagree with them when they are done by Obama. And now they seem to be complaining that Obama didn't bail them out. They need to make up their minds as opposed to always blindly attacking someone just because they represent the other party.
I dont know ANYONE who agreed with Bush and his bailouts and now disagree with Obama, but even if one existed, there is a HUGE difference between the government giving a company a loan, and the government buying equity.. HUGE.. Its not my fault if you dont understand why a loan is not socialism and buying equity is..
You dont understand the difference between Obama / president allowing private enterprise to take place which would close down some dealerships that cant afford to make it on their own, and Obama, directly telling dealerships that they have to close, even though the dealerships might have money to substain themself through the recession?
Stop, think about it..
1 people MAY close down on their own..
2 People HAVE to close down due to Obama
OPPOSITE
Which is it? Because it seems to depend on who you ask.
Which is it? Because it seems to depend on who you ask.
Which is what? Private owners of dealerships are the ones to ask. If they are making money then whats the problem with leaving them open and providing jobs? Your chart does nothing to dispute that the government should not be operating or telling privately owned businesses to shut down. Just because they sell less it doesnt mean they arent profitable, and if they are profitable, wtf are we telling them to close their doors.
You plead ignorant but you thought my statement was wrong, and considering I'm holding insurance for 300,000 shares of GM at the moment, I do follow whats going on very, very closely. I cant afford not to..
And my answer than, is the same as it is now.. NO.. but all of your postings completely ignore the difference between a loan, which is what Bush gave them, (again, which I opposed to) and Obama buying equity.. HUGE difference, the minute Obama buys equity and obtained ownership of the company through shareholder proxy, he and he alone now holds the blame because he and he alone, controls (or will control) 80% of the voting rights to the company.
I've attempted on numerous times to discuss the issue, you choose to ignore it and bring up their "watches"..
The government OWNS 80% of them, the minute they bought out ownership THEY become responsible for the failures.. PERIOD. The owner of a company can not pass the buck for closing down their sales avenues, especially if that choice was their and theirs alone.
Show me where I PLEAD Ignorant? I read the papers and listen to the news. Right or wrong this adminstration focus was to derail the collapse of these two FAILING automakers. Considering taxpayers have bailed them out more than once, please point me to HOW this administration caused GM or Chrysler to fail?
My postings have been consistent that these companies recieved my tax dollars, be it a loan or buy-into the company. You apparently can't tell the difference between the comparison i gave on the watch and the uproar about these people showing up to beg for money with a private Jet.
These companies were failures BEFORE the Government interceeded. No matter what type of spin you place on your original statement concerning their stock going down since Obama was elected. Continue to spin with same condoscending tone instead of entering into a discussion. The fact of the matter is, YOU ARE WRONG the election nor this President or Bush or anyone in Congress had anything to do with the failure of GM or Chrysler, they just prolonged what was eventially going to occur.
I dont know ANYONE who agreed with Bush and his bailouts and now disagree with Obama, but even if one existed, there is a HUGE difference between the government giving a company a loan, and the government buying equity.. HUGE.. Its not my fault if you dont understand why a loan is not socialism and buying equity is..
I know a whole bunch of such people. I am surprised if you don't considering you have posted here 11 000 times.
I have been preaching the difference between lending and spending for some time now, so I think I do understand the difference between the two.
Which is what? Private owners of dealerships are the ones to ask. If they are making money then whats the problem with leaving them open and providing jobs? Your chart does nothing to dispute that the government should not be operating or telling privately owned businesses to shut down. Just because they sell less it doesnt mean they arent profitable, and if they are profitable, wtf are we telling them to close their doors.
We? At least in Chrysler's case the bankcrupsy court would be the one calling the shot.
Are they profitable? I doubt this would be happening if they were.
And a lot of the closures are made simply because some lines are discontinued. Saturn, Hummer, Saab and Pontiac for example.
As i do not have the inside track of the meetings between this administration and or congress, i can't deny or agree.
Funny that everyone in the world knows whats going on through these meetings, hell, they get discussed here constantly, but you claim to not know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackandproud
I read the papers and listen to the news. Right or wrong this adminstration focus was to derail the collapse of these two FAILING automakers. Considering taxpayers have bailed them out more than once, please point me to HOW this administration caused GM or Chrysler to fail?
First the topic is dealerships, and the administration ALONE is organizing the closing of these dealerships. If you've been watching the news as you claim, you'd know this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackandproud
My postings have been consistent that these companies recieved my tax dollars,
Dealerships have not received your tax dollars
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackandproud
be it a loan or buy-into the company.
And the minute they "BOUGHT" into the company, they become responsible for its actions. Thats what buying out a company means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackandproud
These companies were failures BEFORE the Government interceeded. No matter what type of spin you place on your original statement concerning their stock going down since Obama was elected. Continue to spin with same condoscending tone instead of entering into a discussion. The fact of the matter is, YOU ARE WRONG the election nor this President or Bush or anyone in Congress had anything to do with the failure of GM or Chrysler, they just prolonged what was eventially going to occur.
The fact that they were having financial hardship does not excuse the failures since the buyout has taken place. NO one buys out a company without taking a complete look at the books. If Obama bought without looking at this books, this just goes to show his incompetence, if he did see the books, than this goes to show that he is not to be given a free pass because he knew what he was getting into.
In one faction you want to criticize people for wearing a rolex (if thats even true) because they are to blame because they are in control, and then the very next sentence you want to claim that Obama, who is in control, holds no fault.
You cant have it both ways without looking like a hypocrite
I have been preaching the difference between lending and spending for some time now, so I think I do understand the difference between the two.
No you've been preaching that supporting who supports Bushs bailout and opposes Obamas buying of equity makes them a hypocrite against "socialism".. Your argument is completely backwards because a loan is not socialism, and if your going to respond and sound educated, please lookup the definition of the word "socialism", which is advocating government OWNERSHIP or control. A loan does neither, a buying of equity does both..
No you've been preaching that supporting who supports Bushs bailout and opposes Obamas buying of equity makes them a hypocrite against "socialism".. Your argument is completely backwards because a loan is not socialism, and if your going to respond and sound educated, please lookup the definition of the word "socialism", which is advocating government OWNERSHIP or control. A loan does neither, a buying of equity does both..
Quit twisting my words. I never said what you accuse me of saying. I said quite clearly that people supported Bush bail-outs (all of them, loan or no loan), and now the very same people oppose all Obama bailouts (loan or no loan). You seem to suffer from some serious comprehension problems, or you have a habit or twisting peoples words. It is starting to dawn to me that you were probably one of those people supporting Bush no matter what he did and now opposing Obama no matter what he does. It would explain why you got so defensive at the mention of such people. LOL. Sorry if I hit the nerve too hard.
I think I know what I have been preaching in the past, so I don't need you to tell me what I have, or have not said. I am not talking about this thread.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 05-15-2009 at 02:35 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
