Posted on 06/11/2012 9:46:53 PM PDT by what's up
As much as I would agree with you there are many companies which cannot, cannot be sold off.
Cannot be.
We’ve already started selling off our critical stake.
It is time for that to stop. Long time past time, in fact.
It is time to start getting them back.
Does anyone here know if there are any lawsuits pending against the government by GM bondholders who were screwed out of their property by the illegal actions of Zero and his henchmen?
Well, that certainly is the MAIN reason we have a federal government. But there are a few other powers enumerated in the Constitution: a common currency, the post office (ironically enough), regulate interstate commerce--which has been badly abused but which can serve a legitimate purpose (e.g., I don't mind that the FDA makes sure preescription drugs sold nationally are safe).
But the point here of course is that there should be no "Government Motors." Romney is right on this.
1) In the chart, Government Motors papers over (hides) the fact the original GM bondholders were robbed when their ownership was forcibly taken from them and handed to the UAW by Obama. Their only crime was investing their own savings in the company. The UAW was primarily responsible for causing GM to fail. Calling the UAW an “institutional investor” is a joke. They were given ownership by Obama.
2) Now the UAW is getting huge bonuses while the taxpayers are taking it up the *ss.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/02/uaw-profit-sharing-bonuses-enough-to-buy-two-tatas/
The UAW is sure to funnel the ill-gotten money back into the Obama campaign so they can continue the criminal enterprise.
To me, this is the real story that no one is reporting on.
Amen to every bit of that. What Obama did with GM is a classic Marxist action. He is destroying the free market. Taking advantage of the finanical difficulty to stick it to the true investors. Paying off his cronies, and using class warfare and redistribution all in one sickening act.
A Pox on the man and all who hold and push his anti-American and destructive views.
God grant that we can remove him in Novemebr...and not just in a close vote (though I will take any win) but hopefully in a Mondal type route that associates his name forever with failure, anti-Americanism, and destructive policies...so that in the political world, “Obama” becomes a pariah.
As in, “...be careful, or you will pull an, “Obama.” Or, “your policies are laying another “Obama,” on this nation,” or, “what are you thinking? you friggin “Onama.”
That’s the legacy and epitath this incidividual deserves at the least.
If the truth were ever really known, he should spend a good 20-30 in the Federal Grey Rock Hotel.
The Man who Despises America
http://www.jeffhead.com/obama-time.htm
Obama’s Disasterous “Firsts” as President
http://www.jeffhead.com/obama1sts.htm
Who really is BArack Hussein Obama?
http://www.jeffhead.com/whoisobama.htm
No argument.
But I was responding to a question whether the Chrysler bail-out had cost the taxpayeres any money.
The answer is: none at all.
Should be named La Dee Da
There are certain products which cannot be exported for national security reasons. Companies could be designated the same.
The problem is not the laws so much as it is dishonest and unpatriotic people. Bill Clinton sold an entire airplane manufacturing plant, a property of the defunct McDonnald Douglas Co., to China for $5 million. The plant was easily worth several hundred million. It also had critcal airframe bending and shaping equipmrnt necessary for airplane manufacturing. That itself was worth much more than the $5 mil.
Jimmy Carter gave away the Panama Canal and allowed China to control both ends of it. Jimmy Carter also cut our Navy in half. Later Clinton halved it again and recently Obama has again cut it to less than 300 ships total. This is at a time when China is rapidly expanding their navy.
As I said, honesty and patriotism are the keys and we have consistently elected the opposite.
Regardless of whether you guarantee a loan or make a loan, you are loaning money and paying interest on it. Same for the taxpayers.
If, at the time, we were talking about the balance sheet at GM or AT&T, I'd agree with you. The guarantee would've constrained corporate finances...just a little bit.
But we're talking about the federal government's balance sheet here. If the procedure cost any individual taxpayer as much as a penny, I'd be shocked.
Understanding that neither of us can prove it, one way or the other.
Mr. Henrickson -- I thank you for the response and at the risk of thread drift, that part of Article I (Section 8, Clause 7) has been a thorny issue for about the last 20 years when private enterprise (notably FedEx) and electronic communications have made a government-run postal system an anachronism.
The so-called "Postal Clause" is subject to interpretation and, I think, its original intent was lost over the years giving us the travesty now known as the USPS. I personally favor a very strict construction of what Clause 7 means which would allow the government to remove itself entirely from anything involving the delivery of mail. The USPS is a money-losing proposition and is in the firm hands of union thugs. In an ideal world, I'd like to see it eliminated entirely. But would that view that I favor be fully in harmony with the Constitution (without taking the leftist view of a "living, breathing" document)?
It’s more than the immediate overhang of Chrysler debt; it’s the preception by the markets that the government was changing it’s behavour.
There is also the burden on Ford and to a lesser extent of all other business borrowers as a result of the way that the administration shafted GM and Chrysler’s senior creditors.
There is also the burden on Ford and to a lesser extent of all other business borrowers as a result of the way that the administration shafted GM and Chrysler’s senior creditors.
I'm afraid we're not communicating.
I was responding to a question about the 1979 loan guarantee issued to Chrysler when Iaccoca was the CEO.
You appear to be addressing the Obama administration's bankruptcy shenanigans of a more recent vintage.
You are correct, I was digressing. More to the point, when the Government guarantees the debt of a private company, it benefits that company, its owners, employees, suppliers and creditors. But, it is like eating salted peanuts, or rolling over credit card debt: it’s bad for you and leads to the danger of becoming a habit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.