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.
You forgot the tens of billions flushed down the toilet in lost investors equity in GM alone since obama has been elected.
Which is about 1/4 the amount lost under the last year of Bush -
and 1/12 the amount lost during the Bush years.
GM 8 years ago: 53:70
GM 1 year ago: 17.6
GM when Obama elected: 5.24
GM now: 1.09
When did most of the loss occur again?
What's your point?
Trying to blame Obama again for something that was ALREADY a mess?
You need to get a new gig.
That one is getting pretty darned old - and has ALWAYS been lame.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 05-15-2009 at 02:47 PM..
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).
I've asked you for an example, you have yet to provide one. And what you said was opposition to socialism, not the bailout.
Loan <> socialism
buying equity = socialism
You get that yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
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.
Your one of those Democrats who like to make up stuff, and then argue about what you've made up.. Example right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
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.
If your not talking about this thread, then why arent you posting on that other thread your talking about?
Which is about 1/4 the amount lost under the last year of Bush -
and 1/13 the amount lost during the Bush years.
GM 8 years ago: 53:70
GM 1 year ago: 17.6
GM when Obama elected: 5.24
GM now: 1.09
When did most of the loss occur again?
What's your point?
Trying to blame Obama again for something that was ALREADY a mess?
You need to get a new gig.
That one is getting pretty darned old - and has ALWAYS been lame.
Ken
Stock market under Republican Congress up 372%
Stock market under Democratic Congress down 42.05%
It takes pretty little pictures nowadays to dispute an argument from Democrats.
p.s. Gm is down 80% since Obama has taken over, are you trying to say thats good?
Stock market under Democratic Congress down 42.05%
It takes pretty little pictures nowadays to dispute an argument from Democrats.
p.s. Gm is down 80% since Obama has taken over, are you trying to say thats good?
Obama is doing an excellent job on the economy if the goal is to remove America as the world's preeminent economic power. And that IS the goal of all socialists. They hate capitalism; they want to tear it down. GM is a great start. Then banking. Then health care.
I've asked you for an example, you have yet to provide one. And what you said was opposition to socialism, not the bailout.
Loan <> socialism
buying equity = socialism
You get that yet?
Your one of those Democrats who like to make up stuff, and then argue about what you've made up.. Example right here
If your not talking about this thread, then why arent you posting on that other thread your talking about?
I never argued otherwise, so I wonder why you keep asking me if I get it yet. Again, I would appreciate it if you would quit twisting my words, and putting words in my mouth.
You are dense if you think I am going to start listing names of posters who behave the way I described. To be honest with you I get a feeling you are one of them, since you you seem to suggest that all Bush's bailouts were loans and none of Obama's were. Am I wrong? It seems obvious enough that you hate Obama, so I think that is a fair assumption. I'll break it to you: Bush nationalized (yes, socialism) many companies, and I get a feeling you supported him all the way.
I am not a Democrat. Sorry if you were confused.
I am not discussing "spending" vs "lending" on this thread because it is not the topic of the thread. It is something you pulled into this thread after you got offended by my comments.
No reason for you to get offended and get overly defensive and dishonest about your assumptions. And there is no reason for you to repeat your argument three times, especially when you were proven wrong after the first time.
Stock market under Democratic Congress down 42.05%
It takes pretty little pictures nowadays to dispute an argument from Democrats.
p.s. Gm is down 80% since Obama has taken over, are you trying to say thats good?
Of course not, but in actual dollar value lost it went down 10 TIMES as much under Bush.
You got that?
10 TIMES AS MUCH!
The loss under Obama is puny compared to that.
Every $53 invested in GM when Bush took office was worth a mere $5.24 when Obama was elected and worth a mere $3.50 when "junior" was finally out of office - that's a $50/share loss. Compare that with a $2.50/share loss under Obama.
The percentage is pretty similar to that lost under Bush (a 90% loss) - but because the dollar values were ALREADY degraded before Obama came in, the actually monetary value lost is NOT EVEN CLOSE to that lost under Bush.
You make a habit of continually blaming Obama for something that's been going on for YEARS.
Obama INHERITED this problem - no matter how much you may try and twist the facts and add your usual load of bullsh*t.
Ken
PS - and virtually ALL of the growth under the GOP Congress was under CLINTON (with NONE - in fact a massive loss) under Bush.
I never argued otherwise, so I wonder why you keep asking me if I get it yet.
Your whole argument here actually did argue otherwise..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
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.
you now claim to understand the difference, but you argue that they are the same..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
You are dense if you think I am going to start listing names of posters who behave the way I described. To be honest with you I get a feeling you are one of them, since you you seem to suggest that all Bush's bailouts were loans and none of Obama's were.
You said said that you knew the difference, and then you post that I "suggest" they are different, leaving the only alternative to = the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
I'll break it to you: Bush nationalized (yes, socialism) many companies, and I get a feeling you supported him all the way.
You just said you understood the difference, and then you come back and make a comment that Bush did socialism, proving you dont have a clue..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
I am not discussing "spending" vs "lending" on this thread because it is not the topic of the thread. It is something you pulled into this thread after you got offended by my comments.
So you dont want to discuss your original statement which involved people supporting Bush, while opposing Obama, offended, not the least, you have the right to be wrong and pretend that the Obama and Bush plans are even close to one another even though they arent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
And there is no reason for you to repeat your argument three times, especially when you were proven wrong after the first time.
Where in the world did you prove me wrong? All you've done is proclaim that people who oppose the Obama plan and supported Bushs plan are hypocrits, and ignore the fact that they arent even similar. I supported neither, but to proclaim that they were even close to one another is just ignoring the facts.
Of course not, but in actual dollar value lost it went down 10 TIMES as much under Bush.
You got that?
10 TIMES AS MUCH!
The loss under Obama is puny compared to that.
Every $53 invested in GM when Bush took office was worth a mere $5.24 when Obama was elected and worth a mere $3.50 when "junior" was finally out of office - that's a $50/share loss. Compare that with a $2.50/share loss under Obama.
The percentage is pretty similar to that lost under Bush (a 90% loss) - but because the dollar values were ALREADY degraded before Obama came in, the actually monetary value lost is NOT EVEN CLOSE to that lost under Bush.
You make a habit of continually blaming Obama for something that's been going on for YEARS.
Obama INHERITED this problem - no matter how much you may try and twist the facts and add your usual load of bullsh*t.
Ken
PS - and virtually ALL of the growth under the GOP Congress was under CLINTON (with NONE - in fact a massive loss) under Bush.
I hate to break it to you, investors are interested in the percentages made or lost, not actual dollar amounts.
Obama inherited an accounts receivable against GM and Chrysler, he turned that accounts receivable into a national catastrophy by trying to take over industries that he has no knowledge how to run and had not right to take over.. Ignoring that fact is whats bullsh.t.. Ignoring that the stock market rose 372% under a Republican Congress and then ignoring the 40+% drop under a Democratic one is whats bullsh.t..
Hey, you can partake in bullsh.t.. I choose to post facts and as an investor, I live off of percentages.. Its the ONLY thing that matters when determining ROI on investments.
p.s. GM is now starting to be called a penny stock by investors, estimates estimate a $.02 value due to a proposed change by Obama to transfer equity into ownership role and then do a 100/1 reverse stock split. Lets talk about "value" on the proposed value of the stock due to the current plans taking place..
Your whole argument here actually did argue otherwise..
you now claim to understand the difference, but you argue that they are the same..
Nope, I never argued what you claim I argued. The whole thing was invented by you, and then you claimed that I had made an argument about it. But it's a lie. Pretty dishonest of you, if you asked me....
I get bored of having to repeat myself, so I'll let yo go now. Good luck with your trolling.
Quote:
You just said you understood the difference, and then you come back and make a comment that Bush did socialism, proving you dont have a clue..
Yes, you need to google 'bank nationalizations', and Bush nationalizations. He actually had the government take ownership of a whole slew of private companies. And look into what happend to AIG and how much of it is now government property. And fannie and freddie of course.
Nope, I never argued what you claim I argued. The whole thing was invented by you, and then you claimed that I had made an argument about it. But it's a lie. Pretty dishonest of you, if you asked me....
This must have been another Finn_jarber posting here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
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.
Must have been someone else..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Yes, you need to google 'bank nationalizations', and Bush nationalizations. He actually had the government take ownership of a whole slew of private companies. And look into what happend to AIG and how much of it is now government property. And fannie and freddie of course.
What banks were owned by the US Government under Bush.. EVER? Everytime you post you claim that you know the difference between a loan, and ownership and then you go and respond with proof that you dont.
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.
. 
You said said that you knew the difference, and then you post that I "suggest" they are different, leaving the only alternative to = the same.
