2020...

messy said:
How so, stupid? Bush loaned the money. Loans are usually in contract form. You think Obama just exercised rights that the federal government doesn't have over a business? Connect the dots, dummy.
I don't even know, but I have the power of deductive reasoning to recognize that Obama must have been acting under the authority granted to the Feds in the Bush bailout loan.
What is with you people? You and Iz and Multi are so incredibly unsophisticated...I should hold a seminar, fer crissake.
Click to expand...

The dots have been connected for you, you pinhead. Your deductive reasoning is flawed and the authority you speak of did not exist until Obama his pen and his phone decided it should exist.
The fact that you say "I don't even know" says volumes about you...LOOK IT UP!
I have no problem with bailing out GM. The government take over ordered by BHO is right out of the politburo. Research politburo.
Come back when you want to converse, but do some research so you don't seem so fuckin stupid.
Look up extraordinary, look up how many times the US government has taken over a private company. Do some research on Obama & the UAW.


"In an extraordinary move, the administration forced the departure of Rick Wagoner as CEO of General Motors over the weekend, and implicit in Obama's remarks was that the government holds the ability to pull the plug on that company or Chrysler."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...bama-administration-took-taxpayers-for-a-ride
 
Last edited:
Lion Eyes said:
The dots have been connected for you, you pinhead. Your deductive reasoning is flawed and the authority you speak of did not exist until Obama his pen and his phone decided it should exist.
The fact that you say "I don't even know" says volumes about you...LOOK IT UP!
I have no problem with bailing out GM. The government take over ordered by BHO is right out of the politburo. Research politburo.
Come back when you want to converse, but do some research so you don't seem so fuckin stupid.
Look up extraordinary, look up how many times the US government has taken over a private company. Do some research on Obama & the UAW.


"In an extraordinary move, the administration forced the departure of Rick Wagoner as CEO of General Motors over the weekend, and implicit in Obama's remarks was that the government holds the ability to pull the plug on that company or Chrysler."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...bama-administration-took-taxpayers-for-a-ride
Click to expand...
It's not possible to be this stupid. Do you think the government can come into my business and fire me and take over? Are you that dumb? Do you not think they got that right from somewhere? Any idea from where that right derived? Are you ignoring these questions on purpose, or are you really that stupid? Can I break it down for you, idiot? When did they get a lot of money? Who gave it to them? What did the agreement say when GM took the money that Bush gave them? I don't know, but it seems obvious...if you have any level of sophistication, that is. You clearly do not.
 
messy said:
How so, stupid? Bush loaned the money. Loans are usually in contract form. You think Obama just exercised rights that the federal government doesn't have over a business? Connect the dots, dummy.
I don't even know, but I have the power of deductive reasoning to recognize that Obama must have been acting under the authority granted to the Feds in the Bush bailout loan.
What is with you people? You and Iz and Multi are so incredibly unsophisticated...I should hold a seminar, fer crissake.
Click to expand...
Now back to contracts? Lol!
 
messy said:
It's not possible to be this stupid. Do you think the government can come into my business and fire me and take over? Are you that dumb? Do you not think they got that right from somewhere? Any idea from where that right derived? Are you ignoring these questions on purpose, or are you really that stupid? Can I break it down for you, idiot? When did they get a lot of money? Who gave it to them? What did the agreement say when GM took the money that Bush gave them? I don't know, but it seems obvious...if you have any level of sophistication, that is. You clearly do not.
Click to expand...
Poser
 
Lion Eyes said:
The dots have been connected for you, you pinhead. Your deductive reasoning is flawed and the authority you speak of did not exist until Obama his pen and his phone decided it should exist.
The fact that you say "I don't even know" says volumes about you...LOOK IT UP!
I have no problem with bailing out GM. The government take over ordered by BHO is right out of the politburo. Research politburo.
Come back when you want to converse, but do some research so you don't seem so fuckin stupid.
Look up extraordinary, look up how many times the US government has taken over a private company. Do some research on Obama & the UAW.


"In an extraordinary move, the administration forced the departure of Rick Wagoner as CEO of General Motors over the weekend, and implicit in Obama's remarks was that the government holds the ability to pull the plug on that company or Chrysler."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...bama-administration-took-taxpayers-for-a-ride
Click to expand...

Hey look here, Lion! I see there were conditions to Bush's loan which seemed to give the government some say over GM's business. Golly, what a surprise! The government gets to determine the "viability" of the company and make the company comply with "restructuring targets." I wonder what the loan docs said about firing the execs who failed to comply with the loan conditions? Do you halfway understand yet? Or do you still think Obama came in and took over ? How did he do that? A military occupation?

On the Republican side, the real dividing point between the administration and bailout critics in Congress has had more to do with the conditions imposed on the loans — not the aid itself.

These differences came to a head in the Senate over the question of how to treat the United Auto Workers, and what pressure should be put on the union to bring down wage levels to match those paid to non-UAW workers at US plants operated by Honda or Toyota for example.

Senate Republican conservatives insisted that the UAW agree to specific wage adjustments by a date certain in 2009. When the union rejected this demand as political, Republicans killed the bill.

The White House agreed that wage concessions would be needed but thought the better test should be the viability of the companies — not some fixed formula imposed on management and the union. There was real discomfort in the administration with what many saw as a regional, anti-union slant as Republicans from the South — where non-UAW, foreign owned plants are more common — demanded concessions that jeopardized aid to an industry so vital to much of the Midwest.

Thus the loan agreements drafted by Treasury take a more flexible approach. There are “Restructuring Targets” to be met in the companies’ recovery plans, including moving to a more competitive wage structure by the end of 2009. But there is also some leeway if alternative savings can be found. The restructuring report due March 31 “shall identify any deviations from the Restructuring Targets and explain the rationale for these deviations, including an explanation of why such deviations do not jeopardize the Borrower’s long-term viability.”

In explaining his decision Friday, Bush said holding back "would leave the next president to confront the demise of a major American industry in his first days of office.
 
messy said:
How so, stupid? Bush loaned the money. Loans are usually in contract form. You think Obama just exercised rights that the federal government doesn't have over a business? Connect the dots, dummy.
I don't even know, but I have the power of deductive reasoning to recognize that Obama must have been acting under the authority granted to the Feds in the Bush bailout loan.
What is with you people? You and Iz and Multi are so incredibly unsophisticated...I should hold a seminar, fer crissake.
Click to expand...
Don't waste your time.
 
messy said:
Hey look here, Lion! I see there were conditions to Bush's loan which seemed to give the government some say over GM's business. Golly, what a surprise! The government gets to determine the "viability" of the company and make the company comply with "restructuring targets." I wonder what the loan docs said about firing the execs who failed to comply with the loan conditions? Do you halfway understand yet? Or do you still think Obama came in and took over ? How did he do that? A military occupation?

On the Republican side, the real dividing point between the administration and bailout critics in Congress has had more to do with the conditions imposed on the loans — not the aid itself.

These differences came to a head in the Senate over the question of how to treat the United Auto Workers, and what pressure should be put on the union to bring down wage levels to match those paid to non-UAW workers at US plants operated by Honda or Toyota for example.

Senate Republican conservatives insisted that the UAW agree to specific wage adjustments by a date certain in 2009. When the union rejected this demand as political, Republicans killed the bill.

The White House agreed that wage concessions would be needed but thought the better test should be the viability of the companies — not some fixed formula imposed on management and the union. There was real discomfort in the administration with what many saw as a regional, anti-union slant as Republicans from the South — where non-UAW, foreign owned plants are more common — demanded concessions that jeopardized aid to an industry so vital to much of the Midwest.

Thus the loan agreements drafted by Treasury take a more flexible approach. There are “Restructuring Targets” to be met in the companies’ recovery plans, including moving to a more competitive wage structure by the end of 2009. But there is also some leeway if alternative savings can be found. The restructuring report due March 31 “shall identify any deviations from the Restructuring Targets and explain the rationale for these deviations, including an explanation of why such deviations do not jeopardize the Borrower’s long-term viability.”

In explaining his decision Friday, Bush said holding back "would leave the next president to confront the demise of a major American industry in his first days of office.
Click to expand...
Sucker
 
messy said:
It's not possible to be this stupid. Do you think the government can come into my business and fire me and take over? Are you that dumb? Do you not think they got that right from somewhere? Any idea from where that right derived? Are you ignoring these questions on purpose, or are you really that stupid? Can I break it down for you, idiot? When did they get a lot of money? Who gave it to them? What did the agreement say when GM took the money that Bush gave them? I don't know, but it seems obvious...if you have any level of sophistication, that is. You clearly do not.
Click to expand...
Your posts prove it's "possible to be this stupid"...
WASHINGTON — President George W. Bush announced Friday that he would extend up to $17.4 billion in emergency loans to prevent the collapse of General Motors and Chrysler, but he left it up to the next administration to determine how much sacrifice to demand from the hobbled automakers and their workers as part of the government's effort to nurse Detroit back to health.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/business/worldbusiness/19iht-auto.4.18831532.html
 
Lion Eyes said:
Your posts prove it's "possible to be this stupid"...
WASHINGTON — President George W. Bush announced Friday that he would extend up to $17.4 billion in emergency loans to prevent the collapse of General Motors and Chrysler, but he left it up to the next administration to determine how much sacrifice to demand from the hobbled automakers and their workers as part of the government's effort to nurse Detroit back to health.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/business/worldbusiness/19iht-auto.4.18831532.html
Click to expand...
You aren’t smart enough to ask yourself how he could “leave it up to the next administration...?” What rights does an administration have over a company in the first place? Zero...but wait, did GW Bush take rights when he gave them a loan? Like a piece of the company maybe and controls over the business? You still haven’t figured out where it started? You may not like the way Obama exercised those rights, but they arose initially from Bush’s loan. Not from Congress either...
 
Lion Eyes said:
Your posts prove it's "possible to be this stupid"...
WASHINGTON — President George W. Bush announced Friday that he would extend up to $17.4 billion in emergency loans to prevent the collapse of General Motors and Chrysler, but he left it up to the next administration to determine how much sacrifice to demand from the hobbled automakers and their workers as part of the government's effort to nurse Detroit back to health.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/business/worldbusiness/19iht-auto.4.18831532.html
Click to expand...
Bankruptcy would have done the same job. Only better.
 
messy said:
You aren’t smart enough to ask yourself how he could “leave it up to the next administration...?” What rights does an administration have over a company in the first place? Zero...but wait, did GW Bush take rights when he gave them a loan? Like a piece of the company maybe and controls over the business? You still haven’t figured out where it started? You may not like the way Obama exercised those rights, but they arose initially from Bush’s loan. Not from Congress either...
Click to expand...
In other words bankruptcy.
 
Unprecedented....


GM, Chrysler Get Ultimatum From Obama on Turnaround


President Obama asserted unprecedented government control over the auto industry Monday, rejecting turnaround plans from General Motors and Chrysler and raising the prospect of controlled bankruptcy for either ailing auto giant.

Eager to reassure consumers, Obama also announced the federal government would immediately begin backing the warranties that new car buyers receive _ a step designed to signal that it is safe to purchase U.S.-made autos and trucks despite the distress of the industry.


In a statement read at the White House, Obama said he was "absolutely committed" to the survival of a domestic auto industry that can compete internationally. And yet, "our auto industry is not moving in the right direction fast enough," he added.

With his words, Obama underscored the extent to which the government is now dictating terms to two of the country's iconic corporations, much as it has already taken an ownership stake in banks, the insurance giant AIG and housing titans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac .

In an extraordinary move, the administration forced the departure of Rick Wagoner as CEO of General Motors over the weekend, and implicit in Obama's remarks was that the government holds the ability to pull the plug on that company or Chrysler.

The Bush administration late last year approved $17 billion in federal funds to help GM and Chrysler survive. It also demanded both companies submit restructuring plans that the Obama administration would review.

Even as he pronounced their effort unsatisfactory, the president said the administration will offer General Motors "adequate working capital" over the next 60 days to produce a reorganization plan acceptable to the administration.

He said Chrysler's situation is more perilous, and the government will give the company 30 days to overcome hurdles to a merger with Fiat, the Italian automaker. If they are successful "we will consider lending up to $6 billion to help their plan succeed," Obama said.

He also announced several steps to reassure consumers, and improve the chances that U.S. automakers will be able to sell their cars and trucks. The president said the government will now stand behind warranties issued by the carmakers, a sweeping new guarantee that some in Congress had sought.

https://www.cnbc.com/id/29956752
 
Lion Eyes said:
Unprecedented....


GM, Chrysler Get Ultimatum From Obama on Turnaround


President Obama asserted unprecedented government control over the auto industry Monday, rejecting turnaround plans from General Motors and Chrysler and raising the prospect of controlled bankruptcy for either ailing auto giant.

Eager to reassure consumers, Obama also announced the federal government would immediately begin backing the warranties that new car buyers receive _ a step designed to signal that it is safe to purchase U.S.-made autos and trucks despite the distress of the industry.


In a statement read at the White House, Obama said he was "absolutely committed" to the survival of a domestic auto industry that can compete internationally. And yet, "our auto industry is not moving in the right direction fast enough," he added.

With his words, Obama underscored the extent to which the government is now dictating terms to two of the country's iconic corporations, much as it has already taken an ownership stake in banks, the insurance giant AIG and housing titans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac .

In an extraordinary move, the administration forced the departure of Rick Wagoner as CEO of General Motors over the weekend, and implicit in Obama's remarks was that the government holds the ability to pull the plug on that company or Chrysler.

The Bush administration late last year approved $17 billion in federal funds to help GM and Chrysler survive. It also demanded both companies submit restructuring plans that the Obama administration would review.

Even as he pronounced their effort unsatisfactory, the president said the administration will offer General Motors "adequate working capital" over the next 60 days to produce a reorganization plan acceptable to the administration.

He said Chrysler's situation is more perilous, and the government will give the company 30 days to overcome hurdles to a merger with Fiat, the Italian automaker. If they are successful "we will consider lending up to $6 billion to help their plan succeed," Obama said.

He also announced several steps to reassure consumers, and improve the chances that U.S. automakers will be able to sell their cars and trucks. The president said the government will now stand behind warranties issued by the carmakers, a sweeping new guarantee that some in Congress had sought.

https://www.cnbc.com/id/29956752
Click to expand...

Maybe if you make the font bigger people will stop mocking you.
 
messy said:
What does bankruptcy have to do with a bailout? Now you know.
You people are simpletons. You’re the worst of all of them because you act like you know anything.
Click to expand...
Bankruptcy = Bailout was your last understanding. You should just admit that you didn’t know what you were talking about. Neither did Bush and ‘Bama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top