Interesting question

It doesn't matter if he eats babies for breakfast and farts cyanide, he no longer has any political power to speak of and if your life sucks it's Obama's job to fix it, so GET OVER BUSH.

Reply to
J. Clarke
Loading thread data ...

Personally, I would like to thank you for that.

All the whining, teary eyed children that are still in therapy over the Bush years would do us all a favor by jumping off the nearest bridge into freeway traffic.

Robert

Reply to
nailshooter41

Decent points except:

The percentage of GM stock stolen by Obama and redistributed to Big Brother and the Unions is 100%. Any common stockholder that owned GM common stock lost 100% of it to the government and the unions.

Also, a question you missed: If George W. Bush had mentioned, in public,

formatting link
that he had visited all 57 states, except Alaska and Hawaii, would you have called him dumb?

Also begging the question is: If George W. Bush had attended David Dukes sermons every week for years where Dukes blamed blacks for everything plaguing us from Aids to Zebra breath, would you consider Bush a racist?

Jack

Reply to
Jack Stein

I must have my history confused. Didn't GM go to the government asking for bailouts? In a private jet, no less? During the Bush administration?

If the government had refused that bailout, how much of the GM common stock would be lost? 100%.

Creditors end up owning the company after a bankruptcy. Both the union and the government were major creditors. Nothing was stolen.

I suspect it is going to be a lousy investment for the taxpayers, but that is a different subject.

-- Doug

Reply to
Douglas Johnson

Was there a full moon last night?

Reply to
Larry Blanchard

Then you aren't paying attention.

Reply to
keithw86

Seems to me that Obama fired the CEO of GM, exactly what any socialist dictator should have done, then redistributed the company to the government and the unions.

Who knows. Perhaps the court could have done what they do when a company goes into bankruptcy? Perhaps GM could have come back, or, gone out of business, or, been sold. I may have lost all my stock anyway, but thats far better than having a socialist dictator steal it from me and pretend the "taxpayers" own it. Give me a break.

In my opinion, the government stole it. The executive branch should not be firing anyone in a company I own. The government, in a capitalist economic system should not own ANY company.

Same subject. In a capitalist society, which we were at one time, private citizens owned companies, not the government, and if the business failed, it failed. Government buy outs is simply wrong.

Reply to
Jack Stein

He did. But let's abstract it for a minute. Consider the president of a bank, who inherits a $15 billion investment from his predecessor. The investment is going sour, with a $30.9 billion dollar loss and an auditor's statement that the company continuing survival is "in substantial doubt".

What does he do? Firing the CEO, demanding a plan for continued viability, and taking the company into bankruptcy when the plan fails would be smart capitalism and protecting his investors.

I'm not happy with government bail outs, either. But remember, it was Bush that did it, not Obama. Obama was just cleaning up the mess the same way any investor of that magnitude could have and should have.

-- Doug

Reply to
Douglas Johnson

Actually, as I understand it, the Bush administration provided more of a 'bridge loan' than a bail-out. And the loan had no mandates for management reorganization or much of anything else. The talk was to 'kick the can down the road' in the sense of not obligating or limiting the new administration.

Reply to
HeyBub

I saw it as just another Bush-to-the-rich give-away. First, make it possible to steal as much as they can and then throw some more their way after it's discovered that they overreached the bounds of their greed. All the right-wingers are quick to claim that Obama's bailout has done nothing for the economy but they never mention anything about the billions that Henry Paulsen handed out to his Wall Street buddies.

Dave in Houston

Reply to
Dave in Houston

Please get your facts straight. GM and Chrysler were granted $17.4 Billion in loans on December 19, 2008 by the Bush administration. See:

formatting link
can also see a more complete list of Bush bailouts at:

formatting link
Doug

Reply to
Douglas Johnson

You wouldn't expect him to hand money to his ENEMIES, would you?

As for Paulson having "Wall Street buddies," would you rather a farmer or airline pilot be Treasury Secretary? Don't forget that his three predecessors at Goldman-Sachs ( Jon Corzine, Stephen Friedman, and Robert Rubin) also went on to serve in the government (Rubin as Treasury Secretary under Clinton).

And, since it's the rich that pay the bulk of the taxes anyway, I look at it more as a "tax rebate" than anything nefarious.

There seem to be four possibilities on dispensing largesse:

  • Tax the poor and give to the rich (bad)
  • Tax the rich and give to the poor (bad)
  • Tax the rich and give to the rich (good)
  • Tax the poor and give to the poor (good)

and a fifth, way-out, possibility:

  • Tax nobody and give to nobody
Reply to
HeyBub

I dunno. I kinda like: "Today we rescue a world from mysticism and tyranny and usher in a future brighter than anything we can imagine."

But it's a little long for a bumper sticker.

Reply to
HeyBub

The last GOP slogan I could get behind was Bush the Elder's:

"A Thousand Pints Of Lite."

Regards,

Tom Watson

formatting link

Reply to
Tom Watson

Bud Lite or Coors Lite?

Ugggh

Reply to
FrozenNorth

The answer is, obviously, Bush Lite.

Regards,

Tom Watson

formatting link

Reply to
Tom Watson

AKA: Urine from a disgruntled horse.

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

Forgive me, I am Canadian, we don't get that beer here, not that I have gone looking for it. ;-)

Reply to
FrozenNorth

For openers....it is not beer.....

Reply to
Robatoy

That explains why I haven't gone looking for it. ;-)

Reply to
FrozenNorth

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.