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.
I guess profits are only bad if you are doing it on your own, and not due to crony capitalism and government subsidies.
Not that you needed another reason to be pissed... that instead of couple of million jobs lost associated with auto industry (so you could blame Obama for that too), it is actually working against your whims. They still have a job, and more of a struggle for you to wish for economic disaster.
Warning, warning, hyperbold histeria posting to follow!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Not that you needed another reason to be pissed... that instead of couple of million jobs lost associated with auto industry (so you could blame Obama for that too), it is actually working against your whims. They still have a job, and more of a struggle for you to wish for economic disaster.
Dont blame me if you dont understand that the purpose of the bailouts was to avoid bankruptcy, and then they filed bankruptcy anyways.
Me needing to constanlty educate you on general business definitions and things like bankruptcy = reorganization, which is what happened, is really more of a sign of your lack of education than it is about your willingness to discuss issues like an adult.
"They got back $20 billion when the Treasury sold half of its equity when GM floated its first post-bankruptcy IPO in December. But that still leaves a $30 billion shortfall (excluding the $45 billion tax break)."
Reason Magazine - Reason Articles - General Motors Will Never Repay Taxpayers (http://m.reason.com/26819/show/8c7b4c00be6d8e0c298e92c9f1895e04/ - broken link)
It is true.
The US Treasury still holds a large amount of shares in GM, which will not be sold until the price goes up.
Signed them AFTER being URGED by President-elect Obama to do so.
Obama gets the credit here .... not Bush !!!
Why would Obama need to URGE Bush to do something that Bush already intended to do ... and why would Bush do it only under the condition that Obama allow the free-trade act with Colombia???
Dont blame me if you dont understand that the purpose of the bailouts was to avoid bankruptcy, and then they filed bankruptcy anyways.
Jobs... jobs... no, the country wasn't losing "only 240K jobs" a month (as your excuses alluded to, back in Nov 2008). But then, beginning Jan 2009, you'd have been happier to see a million or more jobs disappear, instead of surviving.
You're, after all, a "real American". Me? Just a liberal/progressive.
Signed them AFTER being URGED by President-elect Obama to do so.
Obama gets the credit here .... not Bush !!!
FAIL... Bush was willing to bail them out, he just set conditions
But I love how you want to give Obama credit for doing something Bush did before he was president, but then blame Bush for the debt, after Obama was elected.
My god, you liberals cant get any funnier if you tried.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Jobs... jobs... no, the country wasn't losing "only 240K jobs" a month (as your excuses alluded to, back in Nov 2008). But then, beginning Jan 2009, you'd have been happier to see a million or more jobs disappear, instead of surviving.
You're, after all, a "real American". Me? Just a liberal/progressive.
its almost impossible to take your postings seiously aymore. Its like listening to a little child whine. Cant you ever post a response without childish little hyperbolds of hysteria?
its almost impossible to take your postings seiously aymore. Its like listening to a little child whine. Cant you ever post a response without childish little hyperbolds of hysteria?
Calling it a child's whine makes for a good excuse for you to escape the realities (and mask the idiocy in your posts). Remember, it wasn't I who was downplaying job losses in late 2008 because it was politically inconvenient... thru Jan 2009 and then it was politically expedient. It was YOU.
If a childish response can do that by posting your own post against you... well, think where YOU stand.
Calling it a child's whine makes for a good excuse for you to escape the realities (and mask the idiocy in your posts). Remember, it wasn't I who was downplaying job losses in late 2008 because it was politically inconvenient... thru Jan 2009 and then it was politically expedient. It was YOU.
If a childish response can do that by posting your own post against you... well, think where YOU stand.
Fine, backup your sense of reality by finding one post which supports your argument that I'd be happy with job losses.
Until you do, its nothing but childish idiotic bull ****
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.
