Embar wrote:GM probably going to be fucking nationalized. This is madness! It has the direct result of easing the loss of the bondholders when GM enters BK. Taxpayer money to help off-set the risk of people and companies with skin in the game. If this was a Republican administration, Partha and Lurker would be HOWLING about the Great Corporate Welfare Program.
I'm having a hard time pinning down what action you are for and what action you are against. The Government taking an equity stake in GM so it can better control the bankrupcty proceedings is the exact right move to make here. It's almost exactly like what the Government does when it allows a bank to fail, which you wholeheartedly support. It's almost exactly like what we did for Chrysler back in the 70's and the taxpayers didn't lose a dime.
Embar wrote:I think very few on these boards actually realize what kind of longterm debt the administration is saddling future generation with. It take at LEAST a couple of generations and some very robust economic growth to pay for all this.
True, but it's a better option than doing nothing. Not acting would result in a decades long depression with all the day to day suffering that entails, and the revenue lost through stagnant economic growth would increase our longterm debt by the same amount. And we'd have no progress to show at the end of it. Hooverism was tried already. It doesn't work.
So now you're backpedaling to no one "ever complained about, ever" on a topic that was never even discussed...
Well, not really, given that the VERY FIRST THING I SAID ABOUT IT ON THIS THREAD WAS THAT EMBAR NEVER WENT WEEPY ABOUT THE RTC.....but I guess it's too much for you to read words with more than one syl-la-ble.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
Or you can be laughed at for getting so upset that I never took part in a discussion that never existed, and therefore never related the non-existant position in the non-existant discussion to the current topic. How dare I be so sneaky as to set you up like this. The nerve of me to make you argue with a position that never existed!
Up your meds Partha.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
I'd still like you to answer the question. What's different between the two?
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
I thought I told you I'm not familiar enough with the S&L crisis to compare and contrast. You're the one making the comparison, so why don't you do it.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Already did. But thanks for pointing up that you can't be bothered to actually do any 'research' (I put that in quotes because you're not that much younger than me) and can't be bothered to offer an opinion - in this cowardly fashion.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
