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.
The withdrawal from Iraq was already determined under the Bush
administration. I'm sure intelligence going back to the Bush administration
also contributed to the kill of Bin Laden.
The government spent $79.3 billion assisting General Motors and Chrysler, and the first aid was approved by the
Bush administration as part of TARP. Obama only continued it.
Sure, it saved companies and some jobs in the process.
You have some facts to back up your claim of Bush's involvement in the ending of the Iraq war?
As for the bailout of the American auto industry You righties have been trashing and bashing Obama for years about that bailout and now that it seems like it was a brilliant move to save millions of jobs you are now giving Bush the credit? absurd!
You have some facts to back up your claim of Bush's involvement in the ending of the Iraq war?
As for the bailout of the American auto industry You righties have been trashing and bashing Obama for years about that bailout and now that it seems like it was a brilliant move to save millions of jobs you are now giving Bush the credit? absurd!
Fair is fair. Bush is not that evil - Cheney IS
On December 14, 2008, U.S. President George W. Bush signed the security pact with Iraq.
"all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011."
Money was given to the car companies by both administrations.
I would have just let them all go to bankruptcy court.
With that said, IF I was going to bail out anyone
it would be the auto industry. Long Live Detroit
But they should have listened to Henry Ford about that Union thing
I agree that the debt has to be addressed - and that NEITHER party has been addressing it. However, that doesn't mean it can't be done - after all, Clinton worked it down, and I disagree with the Libertarians that it can ONLY be done by CUTTING. A deficit can addressed by either cutting costs, increasing income (ie taxes) or a combination of both (which in my opinion is the best solution). As long as the government as the ability to raise taxes there's nothing "doom and gloom" about the deficit. It CAN be dealt with. IF they DO raise taxes - which WILL happen at some point - it should ONLY be done for the purpose of the reducing the deficit however - NOT to create new spending (and I think that's what WILL eventially happen).
Money was given to the car companies by both administrations.
I'm neither Dem nor Repub but I would have just let them all go to
bankruptcy court. With that said, IF I was going to bail out anyone
it would be the auto industry. Long Live Detroit
But they should have listened to Henry Ford about that Union thing
See, there's where you logic falls apart because of lack of knowledge. Bankruptcy court wasn't an opinion. There would have been NO SUCH THING as a managed bankruptcy for either GM or Chrysler. Managed bankruptcies - where certain assets are sold off and the remain company reorganized into a smaller more effecient firm REQUIRES the infusion of fresh capitital to keep the company running - that's WHY parts of it are sold off. The problem was, with the credit market locked up NO ONE could get the funds to BUY any sold off assets - and if no one buys the assets then the ENTIRE COMPANY is simply shut down. There is no restructuring, the plants are simply shutttered and EVERYONE LOSES EVERYTHING. Now, maybe you argue that a failed company SHOULD be completely shut down. The problem is, if GM & Chrysler had shut down - their supplies would have been unable to continue in business either (because it was too large a part of those companies' business) and if that happened then Ford wouldn't have been able to get it's parts either - because they use the SAME SUPPLIERS - and Ford would have been shut down too - so nearly the entire US auto industry would have collapsed - not because of mismanagement on their part but because of the lockup in the credit market. That was too high a price to pay in the depths of what was ALREADY the worst recession in nearly a century. THAT'S why even BUSH knew the bailout was the ONLY rational option. Anything else would have been a FAR WORSE disaster than what we faced.
It's wasn't JUST that GM & Chrysler were badly managed. The credit lockdown made it into a NATIONAL crisis.
I agree that the debt has to be addressed - and I disagree with the Libertarians that it can ONLY be done by CUTTING. A deficit can addressed by either cutting costs, increasing income (ie taxes) or a combination of both (which in my opinion is the best solution). As long as the government as the ability to raise taxes there's nothing "doom and gloom" about the deficit. It CAN be dealt with. IF they DO raise taxes - which WILL happen at some point - it should ONLY be done for the purpose of the reducing the deficit however - NOT to create new spending (and I think that's what WILL eventially happen).
Ken
There lies the rub. I don't want to pay for
a government who woke up from a drunkin stupor after going on
a blind spending spree, expecting me to pay more.
The government has the ability to raise taxes,
but taxation without representation is not the kind of government
I want. I'm for getting rid of the 16th Amendment as well, so as
to prevent Congress from doing any more harm.
I'd like to take away their pens and paper too, but I guess
they do have the right to express themselves, just not tax
me to death
Money was given to the car companies by both administrations.
I would have just let them all go to bankruptcy court.
With that said, IF I was going to bail out anyone
it would be the auto industry. Long Live Detroit
The righties in general now seem to want it both ways, lets bash Obama for 3 years for giving the auto makers a bailout loan and now that the loan is about paid back and the American auto industry is looking good Obama gets no credit and it all falls back to Bush as the savior of GM.The way i remember it, Bush and the Republicans may have been kicking around the idea of bailing out the auto industry before he left office but there was a lot of question about whether it should be done as most republicans were against it, Obama came in and did it.
And while the The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (Good Link)Was a step in the right direction it was more political posturing, the whole agreement was not taken seriously by most participants and to many wasnt a binding agreement,even with this agreement the war could have been extended indefinitely if a President cared to do so.
See, there's where you logic falls apart because of lack of knowledge. Bankruptcy court wasn't an opinion. There would have been NO SUCH THING as a managed bankruptcy for either GM or Chrysler. Managed bankruptcies - where certain assets are sold off and the remain company reorganized into a smaller more effecient firm REQUIRES the infusion of fresh capitital to keep the company running - that's WHY parts of it are sold off. The problem was, with the credit market locked up NO ONE could get the funds to BUY any sold off assets - and if no one buys the assets then the ENTIRE COMPANY is simply shut down. There is no restructuring, the plants are simply shutttered and EVERYONE LOSES EVERYTHING. Now, maybe you argue that a failed company SHOULD be completely shut down. The problem is, if GM & Chrysler had shut down - their supplies would have been unable to continue in business either (because it was too large a part of those companies' business) and if that happened then Ford wouldn't have been able to get it's parts either - because they use the SAME SUPPLIERS - and Ford would have been shut down too - so nearly the entire US auto industry would have collapsed - not because of mismanagement on their part but because of the lockup in the credit market. That was too high a price to pay in the depths of what was ALREADY the worst recession in nearly a century. THAT'S why even BUSH knew the bailout was the ONLY rational option. Anything else would have been a FAR WORSE disaster than what we faced.
It's wasn't JUST that GM & Chrysler were badly managed. The credit lockdown made it into a NATIONAL crisis.
Ken
How about GM goes to bankrupty court and sees what assests they have and dont have, how about we see where the money was and where it went. How about if a company is asking for money they declare why they are bankrupt and the company FIRE PEOPLE! Bankrupty court reviews contracts, labor contracts and what people would be interested in investment. You know not all investment comes from credit!!
One failures in the market place are caused by the FED and our government they should be exposed and if anything they shouldn't be allowed to continue this nosense! That is why companies MUST fail and when it is over the market would have moved to FORD! Which didnt need a bailout! Also this nonsense that GM is doing fine is nonsense!
They didn't save anything they just prolonged the death of the less then princpled union and less the princpled managment of GM.
See, there's where you logic falls apart because of lack of knowledge. Bankruptcy court wasn't an opinion. There would have been NO SUCH THING as a managed bankruptcy for either GM or Chrysler.
It's wasn't JUST that GM & Chrysler were badly managed. The credit lockdown made it into a NATIONAL crisis.
Nice recap I understand why they did it. I just don't believe they
should have. The auto companies could have absolutely gone through
a bankruptcy chapter. What the results would have been, you are
absolutely right.
But America has to decide - do we want a government bailing out
private industry or not. Do we want nationalized industries. I don't.
It's really that simple for me.
Nice recap I understand why they did it. I just don't believe they
should have. The auto companies could have absolutely gone through
a bankruptcy chapter. What the results would have been, you are
absolutely right.
But America has to decide - do we want a government bailing out
private industry or not. Do we want nationalized industries. I don't.
It's really that simple for me.
NO ONE wanted to do it - including Bush and Obama. The problem was if it wasn't done, it was going to be an economic disaster far far worse than the one we ended up having - and so it was done - and it WAS the right choice. Economic theory is fine - but reality is something else entirely, and the reality was the price of not doing it was just too much. Even from a purely national debt standpoint, the debt would have been increased FAR MORE by not doing it than by doing it because the impact to long-term tax revenues would have be catastrophic.
Ken
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.
absurd!
Seriously, it must be a nice feeling.
, but someone
crossing all generations.
...