• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

Why The Bailouts Were A Bad Idea...

StanScratch

My Penis Is Dancing!
I get the feeling you're another one of those who love to shuffle the deck and play the Race Card. However, take a break from your idiotic, junior high school level polls that you post and read the following. You Might just learn a few things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jolson
[/B]



I was going to make a well thought out argument, but since you took Ike's well thought out argument and only focused on one little comment that pointed out the fact that you are a racist little cunt, I will simply concur that you are a racist little cunt.
 

Ike Stain

Approved Content Owner
Approved Content Owner
I get the feeling you're another one of those who love to shuffle the deck and play the Race Card.

No, I'm just one of those who likes to cut though the bullshit. I am aware it's Jolsen, and I know you love music from the 1930's, and while I support your right to choose any Avatar, and your inclination to buck the PC (which I also share,) it doesn't make it less offensive in the context you are using it.

 

Ike Stain

Approved Content Owner
Approved Content Owner
Take a break from your idiotic, junior high school level polls that you post.
Take a break from your re-posting of right-wing propaganda and I'll consider it. ;)
 

bahodeme

Closed Account
One of the ironies is Al's family lived in the S.E. section of Washington D.C. after imigrating from Europe.
 
Take a break from your re-posting of right-wing propaganda and I'll consider it. ;)

I second that. Sam, you posted articles from Big Government and National Review for christ sakes. Until you find a more reputable source, I'm not going to take you seriously. Oh and MoonBattery isn't a reputable source either.
 

DR. B

Closed Account
Dr. B, get back on topic. I don't want to have to get medieval on your ass, as Marcellus Wallace so beautifully puts it.

All I'm asking is if anyone seen 24788 so I can have his clarification on the subject, because I don't believe the bailouts were a bad idea. Jesus Christ man, get the sand out of your vagina, as Eric Cartman so arrogantly puts it.
 
I second that. Sam, you posted articles from Big Government and National Review for christ sakes. Until you find a more reputable source, I'm not going to take you seriously. Oh and MoonBattery isn't a reputable source either.
Tell me which "reputable source" I should use? Or better yet, which source you use.
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue

Attachments

  • GM-General-Motors-Long-Term-Chart-One-Year-Chart-2009.png
    GM-General-Motors-Long-Term-Chart-One-Year-Chart-2009.png
    60.5 KB · Views: 86
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Energy-Matters/Auto-Bailout-Agree-Disagree.aspx
Do You Want to Pay Billions to Keep Car Companies Alive?
3/18/2009 1:14:35 PM
By John Rockhold
Tags: bailout, General Motors, Chrysler, auto bailout

According to a new poll from the Pew Research Center, 63 percent of Americans disapprove of the government giving billions of dollars in loans to Chrysler and General Motors in order to keep the struggling automakers afloat.

Currently, officials from the Obama administration are reviewing the automakers plans for restructuring (aka downsizing and going green). So you can expect a lot more about the auto bailout to be in the news in the coming weeks.

As much as I think the domestic automakers are largely responsible for their dramatic decline, I worry about the everyday Joes and Janes who will be affected if any or all of the domestic automakers go under. It’s also ironic that as AIG hands out $100 billion in bonuses (paid for from the bailout funded by our taxes), it seems there’s a tough road ahead for the automakers to get any more than the $20-some billion bailout. In the end, I think the Big Three (Chrysler, Ford or General Motors) are going to become two, maybe even one, in order to survive.

Does anybody really know the difference anymore between $100 billion and $200 billion?

What do you think? Should our tax dollars keep Chrysler and General Motors alive? Are they victims of the times? Or have they dug their own graves through bad management, focusing on SUVs despite all the writing on the wall about higher gas prices, etc.? Will you ever again buy a car from Chrysler, Ford or General Motors?

Share your thoughts by posting a comment below.

Update, 3/27/2009

This just in from The New York Times:

The Obama administration is likely to extend more short-term aid to General Motors and Chrysler on Monday, but impose a strict deadline for bondholders and union workers to make concessions that would help the ailing automakers become viable businesses and avert bankruptcy.

For more information, read U.S. Expected to Give More Aid to Automakers.

Update, 3/30/2009

From The New York Times:

The White House on Sunday pushed out the chairman of General Motors and instructed Chrysler to form a partnership with the Italian automaker Fiat within 30 days as conditions for receiving another much-needed round of government aid.

The decision to ask GM's chairman and chief executive, Rick Wagoner, to resign caught Detroit and Washington by surprise, and it underscored the Obama administration's determination to take a hands-on role in the companies it is bailing out — a level of government involvement in business not seen since the Great Depression.

President Obama is scheduled to announce details of the auto package at the White House on Monday, but two senior officials, offering a preview on condition of anonymity, made clear that some form of bankruptcy — a quick, court-supervised restructuring, as they described it — could still be an option for one or both companies.
 
Ralph.. read and take heed.

issues.jpg
 

Facetious

Moderated
An aside: The biggest scam in the making is "too big to fail"... Seriously, you mean there's no accountability whatsoever? None? Any crooked bastard (Mark Fuld type See: Lehman Bros. -and- Nardelli: former CEO Home Depot) can become the head chair at one of the government selected "too big to fail" entities and purposefully sabotage the operation and walk away with... say... a $97 million dollar golden parachute? Really? :ak47:
...and then, if that's not bad enough, the government will come in for the rescue and raise taxes and inflate the currency.... anything to get the sabotaged, too big to fail entity back on it's feet again.
Is that kosher with you guys?

"Financial Reform'' our government calls this.... could it possibly be any easier to defraud?
 

Facetious

Moderated
I second that. Sam, you posted articles from Big Government and National Review for christ sakes. Until you find a more reputable source, I'm not going to take you seriously. Oh and MoonBattery isn't a reputable source either.

huffington post is basically a blog for left wing wannabe editorialists.. watch it there buddy! :1orglaugh
 

Facetious

Moderated
From the democratic party perspective.....Bailouts are unacceptable when a republican happens to be president...
... the minute a democratic successor potus takes the reigns, bailouts are celebrated.

A changing of the tide :1orglaugh

I f-ing loath politics/politicians.
My whore is better than your whore over and over and over ad nauseam is basically all it amounts to.
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Ralph.. read and take heed.

issues.jpg

Sam....this is purely subjective and I have already shot plenty of holes in this if you recall so I'd respectfully ask for you to stop using it as some sort of unimpeachable and definitive comparison because it isn't.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Energy-Matters/Auto-Bailout-Agree-Disagree.aspx
Do You Want to Pay Billions to Keep Car Companies Alive?
3/18/2009 1:14:35 PM
By John Rockhold
Tags: bailout, General Motors, Chrysler, auto bailout

These are dated references from 2009 that have no current pertinence, Sam. Dredging up old opinions are irrelevant in the present context. Chrysler paid back their loan and GM is on schedule to pay theirs back.

However....that being said and, since you seem to be focused on the past as a point of reference....I'll be honest....I was pissed as hell that we were forced to float these loans when they occurred. I truly thought that the American taxpayer was being held at political gunpoint to pony up and keep the automakers going. I was also predisposed to think that the loans would have little effect in the long run and that both GM and Chrysler were likely to go under or ultimately be bought out by foreign auto-makers at pennies on the dollar. I thought it was money wasted and that we'd never see a penny in return. I feared that it would be a tragic and inevitable end to the dominance of the United States as the world leader in the auto industry and probably in industry in general. Most of all....I just feared. Those were dark and scary times and I thought things were likely to just get worse.

I was wrong....and boy am I glad I was!

I'd be interested to know what alternative course would you have taken had you been in a position to do so when both GM and Chrysler were facing bankruptcy. Would you have let them go under? If so, do you realize what the permanent ramifications would have been on the American economy and, perhaps just as importantly, America's position in the world as an industrial power? You're so quick to castigate your hated liberal opposition without ever presenting any alternative strategy that possibly present a better solution. I'm certain must have a better strategy in mind to address the problem, right?

So....what is your proposal to deal with this issue that would have yielded better than the results we have gotten so far with the loans to the automakers? I'd really like to know and I am certain that others would as well. If you can legitimately offer a better alternative course, I will be the first one to get on board. So, let's hear it! As Ross Perot would say...."I'm all ears!!" :D
 
Top