|
|
| Post Number: 71
|
MADDOG 
Group: Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Jun. 01 2009,5:32 pm |
|
   |
Hey, I've been against this from day one. And it directly affects my income.
Does it really matter? Perhaps you can glance at the Constitution. Read Article I Section 9 Clause 7.
Oh never mind. I forgot, we're ch-ch-changing the Constitution into a living one as it suits the administration.
--------------
Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 72
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 01 2009,6:10 pm |
|
 |
Strange you didn't complain about the financial bailouts when Bush started throwing money around. 
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 73
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 01 2009,6:10 pm |
|
|
QUOTE Does the GOP have a better plan, or is this just more of the republicans shouting from the sidelines because they've been put out to pasture? Yes. It's called BANKRUPTCY. It's the same plan most of the airlines took--and all of THEM emerged from bankruptcy. Why not the car companies?
QUOTE bank·rupt (bāngk'rŭpt', -rəpt)
n.
Law A debtor that, upon voluntary petition or one invoked by the debtor's creditors, is judged legally insolvent. The debtor's remaining property is then administered for the creditors or is distributed among them.
QUOTE Definition
When a troubled business is unable to service its debt or pay its creditors, the business or its creditors can file with a federal bankruptcy court for protection under either chapter 7 or chapter 11. In chapter 7, the business ceases operations and a trustee sells all of its assets and distributes the proceeds to its creditors. A chapter 11 filing is usually an attempt to stay in business while a bankruptcy court supervises the "reorganization" of the company's contractual and debt obligations. In most instances the debtor remains in control of its business operations as a "debtor in possession", and is subject to the oversight and jurisdiction of the court. The court can grant complete or partial relief from most of the company's debts and its contracts, so that the company can make a fresh start. Sometimes, if the business's debts exceed its assets, then at the completion of bankruptcy the company's owners all end up without anything; all their rights and interests are ended and the company's creditors are left with ownership of the newly reorganized company.
QUOTE Investopedia Commentary
If the bankrupt entity is a firm, the ownership of the firm's assets is transferred from the stockholders to the bondholders. Shareholders are the last people to get paid if a company goes bankrupt. Secure creditors always get first grabs at the proceeds from liquidation.
It is the LEGAL way to extract a company from financial problems. Of course, the Obamunists don't like the fact that all contracts are cancelled, INCLUDING the labor contracts. Can you imagine the hue and cry from the unions that supported the Donks if they allowed those contracts to be abrogated? 
Instead, the Obamunists just DECIDED who should get the assets. MADDOG--this goes beyond Socialism--this is Fascism. Fascism is where private business is allowed--but under control of the government.
That sounds like Government Motors to me!
Do you know who ELSE was a Fascist?
Attached Image
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 74
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 01 2009,6:11 pm |
|
|
Once again I didn't hear you complaining when a fellow republican was throwing money at the banks.
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 75
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 01 2009,7:05 pm |
|
|
QUOTE Once again I didn't hear you complaining when a fellow republican was throwing money at the banks.
Let's not forget that the initial TARP bill was authored by a Donk, proposed in the Donk-controlled House by a Donk, and that most Repubs voted AGAINST it when it was initially defeated. The Senate voted FOR an amended version 75-24--nearly all Donks voting for it--and the vote was 263 to 171 in the House on the amended bill--the majority of Donks voting FOR it.
Yet because it was a Bush appointee that was Sec. of Treasury--it now becomes a REPUB bill? 
As for my own opposition to the bailout bill--At the beginning of this very thread.
QUOTE Recall that MOST Repubs (and EVERY conservative) voted AGAINST the TARP money.
Conservatives thought the auto companies SHOULD declare bankruptcy. The Obamunists favored the bailout--it not only increases their stranglehold, but if the car companies declared bankruptcy, the fat union contracts would be voided.
The government let nearly every AIRLINE declare bankruptcy, and they all went through it--reorganized, and are still flying. Why NOT the car companies--except for the reasons cited?
Ford didn't take TARP money, and is profitable. Toyota, Saturn, and Honda are profitable. The thing that all of the profitable companies have in common? No huge union costs. The thing that all Detroit automakers have in common? BIG union contracts.
Sorry--but no amount of government meddling will ever make these companies profitable as long as they stay in Detroit and have these contracts.
Obama thinks he can run a car company? The guy that has never run ANYTHING? Maybe he should try getting Amtrak, the Post Office, and other government agencies on track first.
Libbies like to talk about "Our jobs and our money going overseas"--then they put up with a forced sale to Fiat--the Italian econo-box manufacturer.
WHERE in the Constitution does it say that the President can dictate who can and can't work for a company, and what the company can PRODUCE, how it is DISTRIBUTED, and how it is PRICED?
GM now stands for "Government Motors"--they and Chrysler should simply be like Ford and say "no thanks--we don't want the money under your terms!" If they have to take bankruptcy, it is preferable to the Fascist push of the Obamunists.
State (Federal) control NEVER works, whether it is the Stalinist "Five Year Plan", the Russian plans to make tractors, tanks, or planting of potatoes, or the Chinese Communist "Great Leap Forward."
QUOTE Forget the Illinois politics--preachers--"pay for play"--this is the closest to Al Capone yet!
OR THIS ONE
[QUOTE]To paraphrase:
1. Banks get TARP money--and are beholden to the government.
2. Chrysler gets bailout money.
3. The Administration wants to force a sale of Chrysler.
4. The Administration tells the banks that got money from the government to call Chrysler's note.
5. The major lender to Chrysler DIDN'T take bailout money. They refuse to settle for the pennies on the dollar that the Administration was offering. They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to get the best deal they can.
6. The government will take a big stake in Chrysler, and the United Auto Workers will also take a big stake. The people that LOANED money to Chrysler and INVESTED in the company get small potatoes.
7. The Administration tries to strongarm the bank--threatening to "use the White House Press Corp to ruin them." Who knew that the White House Press Corp was an arm of the White House--they've dropped any pretense of impartiality. (Does this sound like Nazi Germany, or what?) Maybe it's more like Al Capone's guys--"You'se got a good reputation here. Would be a shame if somethin' was to happen to it!"
8. The bank's lawyer goes public with the information.
9. The information is corroborated by Chrysler execs.
Since WHEN is it the government's business to "arrange" buyouts?
Since WHEN is the government empowered to take money from the people that invested it, and give it to those who didn't--the UAW?
Is it any WONDER that the banks are trying to give back the TARP money?
Speaking of giving back the TARP money--banks are fighting HARD to give it back rather than have the government run their business. As a result, it is estimated that the TARP program will cost only HALF of the initial estimate.
No--I've been against the bailout from the beginning--you're a computer guy--find an instance where I was FOR it.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 76
|
Botto 82
Group: Members
Posts: 6293
Joined: Jan. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 01 2009,7:20 pm |
|
|
(jimhanson @ Jun. 01 2009,7:05 pm)
QUOTE Let's not forget that the initial TARP bill was authored by a Donk, proposed in the Donk-controlled House by a Donk, and that most Repubs voted AGAINST it when it was initially defeated. The Senate voted FOR an amended version 75-24--nearly all Donks voting for it--and the vote was 263 to 171 in the House on the amended bill--the majority of Donks voting FOR it.
Selective Democrat Memory Syndrome.
A bunch of us from work (including the guy I nicknamed 'Libbie') called Tim Walz' office when the first bailout was proposed, all of us encouraging him to vote AGAINST the bill, which he did.
Forget who was in the White House when this all began, Pelosi and Frank were leading the charge, then as now.
Some people don't want to defile Pelosi, et al, though. I guess it's still Bush's fault, to some.
--------------
Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies. We were rolling drunk on petroleum.
- Kurt Vonnegut
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 77
|
MADDOG
Group: Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 02 2009,12:42 pm |
|
|
(Liberal @ Jun. 01 2009,6:10 pm)
QUOTE Strange you didn't complain about the financial bailouts when Bush started throwing money around.
Perhaps you chose not to research your reply.
From September 29: QUOTE The bail out is immoral and unconstitutional. Show me where in the constitution that it gives congress the right to steal from the American taxpayers to serve foolish mistakes by special interests?
November 22: QUOTE If $25 or $50 billion is what it will take to keep the American automobile industry from total collapse, I can think of no one better to rescue them than oil.
Of course the Big Three isn't going to ask them. They are asking the taxpayer or more specifically the special interest group who are supposedly the taxpayer to fund their aid package. Asking the oil corporate giants would only open up a new can of worms.
March 31: QUOTE Seems like the decision has been made already to keep them afloat. Isn't this already part two? This is the second time...so far.
Who's saying the GOP wants to force them into bankrupcy? If that's what does happen, so be it. The companies need to think this out for themselves, not be parented by the government. You don't think I don't have a stake in this and am still against any bailout? Seems to me that if this is round two, we all know which President gave them round one. (this is where any good liberal would use a  , isn't it?) 
--------------
Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 78
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 02 2009,4:15 pm |
|
|
Like that other dog Snoopy, MADDOG shoots liberal down in flames! 
Attached Image
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 79
|
The Boognish
Group: Members
Posts: 162
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 02 2009,6:07 pm |
|
|
Both parties are idiots! It is sad that too many of you have bought into the same party-line arguments time and time again! While you are all blaming each other, the same s**t goes down time and time again.
There is only one party in this country, and that is the "business party". As John Dewey once said, "Government is the shadow that big business casts upon society".
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 80
|
|
|
|
|
|
