Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.
If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.
It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.
We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Go on tax us some more........
People refuse to think for themselves. And there is one reason that Obama was re-elected.
The unions bought the lies that he saved the auto industry. That's why Chrysler is now owned by Italians....
Had the auto companies gone through a normal bankruptcy, without government interference the chances are that the outcome wouldn't be a lot different than it is today. And what Obama did was put them through a bankruptcy where the Unions got everything they wanted and the Salaried people were screwed over. Especially in their pensions.
If the auto companies went through normal bankruptcy, they wouldn't be here today. 2009 was not normal times. Going through a normal bankruptcy proceeding while the financial sector was collapsing would have meant liquidation. There was nobody willing to put money into the auto companies in 2009...we tried
Until the government came in and saved them
We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Go on tax us some more........
People refuse to think for themselves. And there is one reason that Obama was re-elected.
The unions bought the lies that he saved the auto industry. That's why Chrysler is now owned by Italians....
Had the auto companies gone through a normal bankruptcy, without government interference the chances are that the outcome wouldn't be a lot different than it is today. And what Obama did was put them through a bankruptcy where the Unions got everything they wanted and the Salaried people were screwed over. Especially in their pensions.
If the auto companies went through normal bankruptcy, they wouldn't be here today. 2009 was not normal times. Going through a normal bankruptcy proceeding while the financial sector was collapsing would have meant liquidation. There was nobody willing to put money into the auto companies in 2009...we tried
Until the government came in and saved them
Why would it have meant liquidation? Most bankrupt large companies aren't liquidated. What makes you think the auto companies would be any different?
If the auto companies went through normal bankruptcy, they wouldn't be here today. 2009 was not normal times. Going through a normal bankruptcy proceeding while the financial sector was collapsing would have meant liquidation. There was nobody willing to put money into the auto companies in 2009...we tried
Until the government came in and saved them
Why would it have meant liquidation? Most bankrupt large companies aren't liquidated. What makes you think the auto companies would be any different?
What revenue was available to keep them open? The banks were failing. There was no money to be had. Investors were leaving in droves
2009 was not a typical bankruptcy.
If by having the taxes of the wealthy raised to get the country out of debt, then yes.Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.
If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.
It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.
Why would it have meant liquidation? Most bankrupt large companies aren't liquidated. What makes you think the auto companies would be any different?
What revenue was available to keep them open? The banks were failing. There was no money to be had. Investors were leaving in droves
2009 was not a typical bankruptcy.
The autos were making lots of revenues. They just had an unsustainable cost structure. DIP financing was tight but not nonexistent.
What revenue was available to keep them open? The banks were failing. There was no money to be had. Investors were leaving in droves
2009 was not a typical bankruptcy.
The autos were making lots of revenues. They just had an unsustainable cost structure. DIP financing was tight but not nonexistent.
Prior to the bailouts the government tried to get the auto companies to restructure, to get someone else to buy in, to arrange private financing
The US Government was the only entity available to stand behind the auto companies
We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Go on tax us some more........
People refuse to think for themselves. And there is one reason that Obama was re-elected.
The unions bought the lies that he saved the auto industry. That's why Chrysler is now owned by Italians....
Had the auto companies gone through a normal bankruptcy, without government interference the chances are that the outcome wouldn't be a lot different than it is today. And what Obama did was put them through a bankruptcy where the Unions got everything they wanted and the Salaried people were screwed over. Especially in their pensions.
If the auto companies went through normal bankruptcy, they wouldn't be here today. 2009 was not normal times. Going through a normal bankruptcy proceeding while the financial sector was collapsing would have meant liquidation. There was nobody willing to put money into the auto companies in 2009...we tried
Until the government came in and saved them
If by having the taxes of the wealthy raised to get the country out of debt, then yes.Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.
If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.
It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.
We have the EXTREMELY PROSPEROUS Clinton years as our example.
Bush came in, started slashing taxes like a mad bat out of hell and the economy tanked.
That's what they don't want! It's the rich that paid less from the tax so they want to get that reinstated but refuse to let the other tax hikes to take effect. Nobody else benefited from those tax cuts that they don't want to raise now.If by having the taxes of the wealthy raised to get the country out of debt, then yes.Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.
If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.
It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.
We have the EXTREMELY PROSPEROUS Clinton years as our example.
Bush came in, started slashing taxes like a mad bat out of hell and the economy tanked.
Then let EVERYONE pay the tax rates of the Clinton years. Do you see any reason not to let the cuts expire for EVERYONE?
Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.
If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.
It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.
There was no insult in my post.
So do you care to answer the question, or is that an admission that you cannot?
The autos were making lots of revenues. They just had an unsustainable cost structure. DIP financing was tight but not nonexistent.
Prior to the bailouts the government tried to get the auto companies to restructure, to get someone else to buy in, to arrange private financing
The US Government was the only entity available to stand behind the auto companies
That doesn't mean the companies would be liquidated. It's false to assume that causality. Liquidation is a process that takes months or years. It has little to do with bankruptcy financing. Providing DIP financing may have saved some jobs and stop the company from grinding to a halt, but there was little reason to think the company would be liquidated. Many companies filed during that time, big ones like Harrahs and TXU, and few were liquidated. Most were restructured and ownership changed hands.
However, Obama did subvert contract law to put the unions at the top of the claims list ahead of bond holders, a purely political move that paid off for him big time.
Prior to the bailouts the government tried to get the auto companies to restructure, to get someone else to buy in, to arrange private financing
The US Government was the only entity available to stand behind the auto companies
That doesn't mean the companies would be liquidated. It's false to assume that causality. Liquidation is a process that takes months or years. It has little to do with bankruptcy financing. Providing DIP financing may have saved some jobs and stop the company from grinding to a halt, but there was little reason to think the company would be liquidated. Many companies filed during that time, big ones like Harrahs and TXU, and few were liquidated. Most were restructured and ownership changed hands.
However, Obama did subvert contract law to put the unions at the top of the claims list ahead of bond holders, a purely political move that paid off for him big time.
So, at at time when we were losing 770,000 jobs a month, Obama chose to protect the workers over the financial sector who caused the collapse in the first place
Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.
If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.
It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.
That doesn't mean the companies would be liquidated. It's false to assume that causality. Liquidation is a process that takes months or years. It has little to do with bankruptcy financing. Providing DIP financing may have saved some jobs and stop the company from grinding to a halt, but there was little reason to think the company would be liquidated. Many companies filed during that time, big ones like Harrahs and TXU, and few were liquidated. Most were restructured and ownership changed hands.
However, Obama did subvert contract law to put the unions at the top of the claims list ahead of bond holders, a purely political move that paid off for him big time.
So, at at time when we were losing 770,000 jobs a month, Obama chose to protect the workers over the financial sector who caused the collapse in the first place
Which was the political angle, wasn't it? That, and all the dough the unions had shoveled into his campaign.
Obama over-rode contract law to bail out the auto companies, something that never happened with the financial bailout. With the financial bailout, the government was guaranteeing part of the capital stack. In the auto bailout, the government changed the rights within the capital structure. I knew liberal lawyers who were incensed at this.
And FTR, both the Bush and Obama administrations made it abundantly clear that the financial bailout - as odious as we may have thought it was - was not about protecting jobs in the financial sector. It was about protecting jobs in the whole economy.
