When did he do that? Well, you didn't make any rebuttal. The link you posted agreed with me. The GDP is not "spiralling downward". "Gross domestic product. This broadest measure of the nation's economic health shows the economy has climbed out of the canyon it fell into at the depths of the recession." "The clearest thing I can say is the Obama policies probably made the recession less severe,"
it is. complex systems, like the human brain, and the climate, and the economy, these are very unpredictable and hard to manage. there are insane amounts of factors and feedback loops and you can never really tell how to manipulate them. again, it is liberal hubris that pretends to understand these things and acts to manipulate them. at best it wont work, and mostly it is counterproductive.
It did not say that!!! It said . . . "However, economists aren't sure how much impact Obama administration policies have really had on the economy. "I can't say they put the economy where it is today. The business cycle recovery may have come in any event."
does wasteful spending create jobs? what sort of spending creates jobs? seems to me like building fighter planes would be the sort of jobs that would help the economy. even if the planes were not needed. is the goal to buy things we need, or to spur the economy through spending? what sort of things did we actually need that we spent on?
Pig Poo Poo. We were never going to loose GM. Lots of large companies have done the Bankrupcy process and come out on the other side. Look at all of the airlines that have done it.
Were we going to tighten it? I might have supported some kind of bankruptcy arrangement if it was sure to save the industry. But the Chrysler bailout had worked out well and was paid back and was beter than bankruptcy.
the arrogance of extreme liberalism. people smarter than both us have polar opposite opinions on how to manage the economy. its just too complex. humans hate to accept that tere is something they dont understand or didnt cause. its a flaw of the species.
FROM MAY 4, 2009 WALL STREET JOURNAL "The biggest losers here are GM's bondholders. According the Treasury-GM debt-for-equity swap announced Monday, GM has $27.2 billion in unsecured bonds owned by the public. These are owned by mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds and retail investors who bought them directly through their brokers. Under Monday's offer, they would exchange their $27.2 billion in bonds for 10% of the stock of the restructured GM. This could amount to less than five cents on the dollar. The Treasury, which is owed $16.2 billion, would receive 50% of the stock and $8.1 billion in debt -- as much as 87 cents on the dollar. The union's retiree health-care benefit trust would receive half of the $20 billion it is owed in stock, giving it 40% ownership of GM, plus another $10 billion in cash over time. That's worth about 76 cents on the dollar, according to some estimates. In a genuine Chapter 11 bankruptcy, these three groups of creditors would all be similarly situated -- because all three are, for the most part, unsecured creditors of GM. And yet according to the formula presented Monday, those with the largest claim -- the bondholders -- get the smallest piece of the restructured company by a huge margin." I assume you mean the first Chrysler bailout, which was a lot different from this one. This time the investors (including school pension funds) got 5 cents on the dollar, the unions got 76 cents on the dollar, and the Treasury got 87 cents on the dollar. This was a perfect example of government forced redistribution of wealth. The kind of thing Obama believes in. Everybody buys the crap about GM paying back the loans – but that is just a lie. You know 10 to 15 years from now when those non union pension funds run out of money the taxpayers will eat those costs also. I got to say, Obama is really good at making things work out in the short run when he can grab enough money from one group of people and give it to the people who supported him. What a great leader.
