The President Has Lost His Mind

Then why did you bring it up? I guess just to be an asshole. You succeeded. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

because you brought it up first

does that make you the asshole or Olivia for agreeing with your fascist comment

It is written history now. Bush signed the legislation that bailed out the auto industry at the request of Obama. Bush called in the president elect and ask him what he wanted to do. This was the Obama plan. Of course Bush was given the plan by Timothy Geitner (also witten history) who is Obama's Treasury Secretary. Obama is the person who did the mechanics of the bailout including cheating the stock holders in violation of the law, transferring majority ownership to the auto union, and forcing the closure of hundreds of successful auto dealerships because of a secret formula. Today, GM's profits have fallen 41% once the government money has run out and they are still on the hook for lavish retirement plans. Obama didn't save GM, he kicked the can down the road to another president who will have to deal with a bankrupt auto industry. Of course this is probably the plan just like the sunset plan on student loans. It was put together by the democrats to expire just before an election and Romney is going to have to deal with GM and the democrats will criticize ANYTHING he does.

Don't worry Olivia, CJ is like a little kid who just learned a new dirty word. He wants use it all the time. CJ wouldn't know fascism if he voted for it which he probably did.

You just can't tell the whole truth can you JD. Here is, as they say, the rest of the story.

That 41% loss all came from their Europe operations, NOT their North America operations. GM is a much stronger company than it was before bankruptcy, where it shed billions of debt, closed factories and cut its work force to slash costs. GM has a strong balance sheet. It’s sitting on $38.5 billion in cash and credit lines. And the company still expects industry-wide U.S. auto sales to total 14 million to 14.5 million this year, far above the 10 million level needed for GM to break even.

And this from the Washington Post on the bail out and Bush.

Republicans continue to blast President Obama for that auto bailout three years ago. Mitt Romney says he would have -- as he argued back in 2008 when the issue was being debated -- let the automakers go through a structured bankruptcy: sell off some stuff, downsize and so forth.

But former President George W. Bush, most annoyingly, keeps coming to Obama’s defense, saying the bailout was essential to stave off complete disaster.

He defended the move in his memoir and he popped up again last week at the Las Vegas convention of the National Automobile Dealers Association, saying he would “do it again.”

“I didn’t want there to be 21 percent unemployment,” Bush told the 22,000 attendees. “Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy.”

“I said, ‘No depression.’”

In his memoir he said the move was “the only option” to avert immediate bankruptcy of Chrysler and GM and the loss of a million jobs and $150 billion in tax revenues.

GM is a much stronger company than it was before bankruptcy, where it shed billions of debt, closed factories and cut its work force to slash costs. GM has a strong balance sheet. It’s sitting on $38.5 billion in cash and credit lines. And the company still expects industry-wide U.S. auto sales to total 14 million to 14.5 million this year, far above the 10 million level needed for GM to break even. Originally Posted by BigLouie

This could have been accomplished through the normal bankruptcy process. Obama just bypassed that so he could pick the people that lost money and pay off his union buddies.

As for Bush he probably would have done the same thing again since he has the class to acknowledge that a new administration was going to have to deal with this and he did what was necessary to allow them to deal with it the way they wanted. Considering he bailed out the banks and AIG he might have done the same thing with GM and Chrysler but we will never know.

So, in order to not be a fascist, we have to ignore laws that have been enacted. We have the best immigration system in the world if we would follow it. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No what Angry Elf is talking about is neo-fascism; he just doesn't know it. And, no, I've never been accused of that either. Not that fascism in any of its iterations has one iota to do with this thread. Neither was illegal immigration either for that matter.

You are truly reaching, moron. Truly. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Really, really reaching. Which I have to give him credit for. He's really an over achiever as both an angry elf and a Forest Gump poster child.

No one is trying to eradicate any foreign influence. We are trying to manage and defend our borders. What a fucking idiot. Worse, he thinks he's smart. Good lord. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

He doesn't get it obviously. This country was founded by immigrants and wave after wave of immigrants has taken us to greater and greater heights. The problem now is that the mainstay of the nation has stopped having children as much as we used to, and the inundation of Mexican and Central American immigrant flow is upsetting the apple cart. Immigrants used to leave their mark, but in the end they assimilated; this wave of immigration so far is not assimilating. In and of itself I have no problem with that. I could care less what language they speak as long as they are educated in English so they have a hope of fitting into the upper echelons of the workforce. The problem is I don't have any desire to take a step back in time. Hispanic, and trust me I know, society is very patriarchal and steeped in religion. We are just now shedding the yoke of both, and going backwards, if we are to keep our edge in a growing and changing world, is not an option.

CJ, you said something stupid in another thread that I'm going to address, but I have to cut you off. You've ranged beyond your capabilities. It's unfair for me to keep picking on your particularly since you don't even know it.

The taxpayers own GM stock that is utterly worthless if they wanted to sell...........about $30 billion in stock,,,,but we won't see any of that money.......add in the interest on the borrowed money to bail GM out and the financial hole gets deeper for taxpayers.

GM stock price = $24.50, about $30 below the price US Taxpayers need to make us whole ! GM stock will never see $55/share prices...........

Bush should have never signed off on the Obama/Geitner bailout of GM unions !

Here is the Bloomberg analysis of the ass fucking taxpayers got = http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ha-dalmia.html

The taxpayers own GM stock that is utterly worthless if they wanted to sell...........about $30 billion in stock,,,,but we won't see any of that money.......add in the interest on the borrowed money to bail GM out and the financial hole gets deeper for taxpayers.

GM stock price = $24.50, about $30 below the price US Taxpayers need to make us whole ! GM stock will never see $55/share prices...........

Bush should have never signed off on the Obama/Geitner bailout of GM unions !

Here is the Bloomberg analysis of the ass fucking taxpayers got = http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ha-dalmia.html Originally Posted by Whirlaway

GM is a zombie company. Without the government propping it up, it would collapse.

GM, now stands for government motors....buy a Ford!!

Obama has almost killed several American industries with his rhetoric and wealth envy statements.

GM is a zombie company. Without the government propping it up, it would collapse.

Originally Posted by joe bloe

yet another reminder of the Bush legacy

artent you boys ever going to let Bush wither and die on the vine?

If GM is so healthy, why don't they pay us back? Why is their stock price so dismal, that if we sold it now, we'd take a loss?

That really doesn't sound healthy to me. Maybe if Obama forced more agencies to buy Volts, it would help.

If GM is so healthy, why don't they pay us back? Why is their stock price so dismal, that if we sold it now, we'd take a loss?

That really doesn't sound healthy to me. Maybe if Obama forced more agencies to buy Volts, it would help. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

technically they paid back the loan by shapeshifting money

borrowed from peter to pay paul scenario


http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/21/auto...ment/index.htm

Your own fucking article says GM has not paid us back and that the taxpayers are likely to continue to lose money on the stocks that we own.........and Bloomberg substantiates that the stock will never sell at a price that makes the US Taxpayer whole.....

Stop with the liberal lies.

Your own fucking article says GM has not paid us back and that the taxpayers are likely to continue to lose money on the stocks that we own.........and Bloomberg substantiates that the stock will never sell at a price that makes the US Taxpayer whole.....

Stop with the liberal lies. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I'm pretty sure CJ doesn't actually read most of what he posts, maybe just the headline and the first sentence or two. Leftist newspapers and magazines usually bury the most important information deep in the story, where many people will never see it. Another favorite trick is to print a bogus propaganda story on page one, and then do a retraction, several days later, on page 23.

Your own fucking article says GM has not paid us back and that the taxpayers are likely to continue to lose money on the stocks that we own.........and Bloomberg substantiates that the stock will never sell at a price that makes the US Taxpayer whole.....

Stop with the liberal lies. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

read exactly what I said before I posted the link ... do you understand "shapeshifting"

then find Olivia and expalin it to her

I'm pretty sure CJ doesn't actually read most of what he posts, maybe just the headline and the first sentence or two. Leftist newspapers and magazines usually bury the most important information deep in the story, where many people will never see it. Another favorite trick is to print a bogus propaganda story on page one, and then do a retraction, several days later, on page 23. Originally Posted by joe bloe

like you paid attention when you posted the 7% lead Obie had over Willard was bogus?