Obama Tightens the Belts on Spending!

[SUPDOG]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/SPIN-METER-Saving-federal-apf-14976290.html?.v=1

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cut a latte or two out of your annual budget and you've just done as much belt-tightening as President Barack Obama asked of his Cabinet on Monday.

The thrifty measures Obama ordered for federal agencies are the equivalent of asking a family that spends $60,000 in a year to save $6.

Obama made his push for frugality the subject of his first Cabinet meeting, ensuring it would command the capital's attention. It also set off outbursts of mental math and scribbled calculations as political friend and foe tried to figure out its impact.

The bottom line: Not much.

The president gave his Cabinet 90 days to find $100 million in savings to achieve over time.


Whew, we can all sleep better tonight, eh? :eek:

You may want to bookmark this, for it will be a Nevada Ballin talking point, "look how frugam Bam Bam is..." "Office supplies in bulk!!! Yay Obama!!"


It is like a sit-com, no?

Next episode: "Cookies and tea with Hugo", where Obama will read Hugo's book titled, "how the United States raped Latin America" to a classroom full of government educated 3rd graders!!! (This way they are being educated the "proper" way.

Yay Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

Anyone regretting their vote yet? :confused:

[resnor]

Of course they're not, Sup. Have you ever hear the story "The Emperor's New Clothes?" That is what is going on here. Obama makes a mistake, and all the libs say, "No, he didn't do that!!" Which is like all the emperor's people telling him how good his clothes looked, even though he was standing there naked!!!:eek::rolleyes:

[conviction]

Is this the onion? that cannot be serious.

[SUPDOG]

Oh no, its real. I know this administration seems like a comedy, and their ideas certainly bring about a sense of disbelief, but yeah, Bammy thinks that we are on our way by buying paper clips in bulk.

Here watch Gibbs fumble and bumble thorugh AP(yes the AP) Challenging him.


LINK TO BABBLE (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/04/20/ap_tapper_confront_obama_admin_over_100_million.ht ml)

Is this guy still the press sec? Really? :eek:


Yeah, such is life in emotional celeb land.

[conviction]

Oh no, its real. I know this administration seems like a comedy, and their ideas certainly bring about a sense of disbelief, but yeah, Bammy thinks that we are on our way by buying paper clips in bulk.

Here watch Gibbs fumble and bumble thorugh AP(yes the AP) Challenging him.


LINK TO BABBLE (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/04/20/ap_tapper_confront_obama_admin_over_100_million.ht ml)

Is this guy still the press sec? Really? :eek:


Yeah, such is life in emotional celeb land.

LMAO that is one great video. A billion in earmarks in minuscule but those 100M savings add up? This makes the Obama Administration look weak and illegitimate.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Gotta laugh at the right wingers in here. All the recent complaints about spending too much money here and too much there but a small effort to start to reduce some spending somewhere happens and of course, it's just not enough. He could cut 1 billion over the next 4 years and it still wouldn't be enough. It's like the concept of "got to start somewhere" is totally lost with some people.

[conviction]

Gotta laugh at the right wingers in here. All the recent complaints about spending too much money here and too much there but a small effort to start to reduce some spending somewhere happens and of course, it's just not enough. He could cut 1 billion over the next 4 years and it still wouldn't be enough. It's like the concept of "got to start somewhere" is totally lost with some people.

now you gotta be joking right?

[TheRealist]

I donated to a charity today...I threw a buck into a can.

GOTTA START SOMEWHERE!!!!!!!!!!

This is actually pretty funny.

250 Mil each year? How does that do anything when TRILLIONS of additional money will be spent in that time period?

It doesn't matter how much you cut in one area if you plan to spend it ten-fold in another.

That's what were talkin' bout.

[Gtrght77]

Why is it a so called liberals responibility to be fiscally conservative? You had the chance the last 8 years and spent more then anyone in history. Now it's an issue? LOL


If you ask me its what you spend it on that matters.

[Gtrght77]

We can save money by not funding the US Empire. That would be a great start.

[TheRealist]

Gt,

So, what you are saying is...

There is no room for dissent in this country?

[Nevada_Ballin]

I donated to a charity today...I threw a buck into a can.

GOTTA START SOMEWHERE!!!!!!!!!!

This is actually pretty funny.

250 Mil each year? How does that do anything when TRILLIONS of additional money will be spent in that time period?

It doesn't matter how much you cut in one area if you plan to spend it ten-fold in another.

That's what were talkin' bout.


It would have been cool if you actually DID donate that dollar. Some infant somewhere may have benefited by it with some formula. Yea, even a dollar is worth something to someone. :)


Kinda funny how people say "trillions spent each year" but fail on waiting to see if those investments in ourselves from the plan create an actual ROI in its timeframe. Nah, let's not do that, let's just bytch about the spending part cuz that's easy and always popular to do.

Yo Supdog, how's that fallout shelter comin'? .

[Nevada_Ballin]

Gt,

So, what you are saying is...

There is no room for dissent in this country?

dissent all you want, but at least make some sense with it :)

.

[Gtrght77]

Gt,

So, what you are saying is...

There is no room for dissent in this country?

No room for Fake Rage.

[Nevada_Ballin]

i'm diggin' the high-speed rail project.... gonna create a lot of jobs.

[TheRealist]

It would have been cool if you actually DID donate that dollar. Some infant somewhere may have benefited by it with some formula. Yea, even a dollar is worth something to someone. :)


Kinda funny how people see say "trillions spent each year" but fail on waiting to see if those investments in ourselves from the plan create an actual ROI in its timeframe. Nah, let's not do that, let's just bytch about the spending part cuz that's easy and always popular to do.

Yo Supdog, how's that fallout shelter comin'? .

This would be cooler:

Sort of off-topic, but true...**Begin Mini-Rant on Charity**

1. If I'm going to donate, then I actually buy the stuff and give it to the person in need. I'm not giving a dollar to any entity that claims to be a charity because they regularly take around 20-90% of every dollar to cover the charity's administrative and cost expenses...:rolleyes: Considering the dollar even gets to the charity in question is a whole other matter. You have no idea how much "loose" change/dollar bills are pocketed.

2. It'd also be cool if that child had a parent that actually gave a damn and likewise we had a society based on personal responsibility as opposed to me living 100 miles away raising someone else's child...through donations, which again...will never reach them because of number 1. I realize this kind of thing doesn't just change over night though...and I'm not certainly not blaming O on that...in fact I think socially...key word here he serves as a role model on the responsibility front.

Back on....

3. A trillion dollars was printed off with zero attached growth to it and is being used to finance assets that are worthless or very nearly worthless (with limited growth upside), that is called debt. We will not be seeing this money again. It is not going into any of the numerous infrastructure development plans or other eco-friendly spending projects...it has been specifically given to the Treasury to buy worthless assets off the balance sheets of domestic and foreign banks. Those assets that "may" have worth are still left in the balance (subjected to govt. policy) and are reliant on the Treasury's TARP plan...which again if placed into the hands of government (are worthless) and if purchased by taxpayers. (are also worthless) because the asset evaluation of these things are contingent on the inflated home prices at which the mortgage paper was purchased at. So effectually, if these "toxic" assets are offered to the public, then we will be footing the bill for them and if the government buys them, they will be footing the bill...sucks that we are one in the same. Conclusion...screwed either way.

Only reason I point this out is I loved how big of a non-issue the media made the "War against Pork" out to be because they cited that pork only consisted of about 1% of GDP. That's about 130 Bil... (taken from 13 Tril). In the same context, this story saves us .000007% (or 7/1000000 (one millioneths...lol) of 1%) of GDP.

Fighting to end that would be a whole lot more productive if we're looking to cut spending...hell that would have at least offset 13% of the trillion in debt as opposed to the .001% of the trillion saved by cutting back on latte's.

I guess what I'm trying to say is...if we want to do something...let's do it and stop messing around. If I want to help a charity, I can actively help and contribute...throwing a penny into a can really doesn't amount to much in the long term, especially if I never do it again. Just like saving .000007% of GDP once a year will never amount to anything, especially if this was a one time thing.

[Nevada_Ballin]

This would be cooler:

Sort of off-topic, but true...**Begin Mini-Rant on Charity**

1. If I'm going to donate, then I actually buy the stuff and give it to the person in need. I'm not giving a dollar to any entity that claims to be a charity because they regularly take around 20-90% of every dollar to cover the charity's administrative and cost expenses...:rolleyes: Considering the dollar even gets to the charity in question is a whole other matter. You have no idea how much "loose" change/dollar bills are pocketed.

2. It'd also be cool if that child had a parent that actually gave a damn and likewise we had a society based on personal responsibility as opposed to me living 100 miles away raising someone else's child...through donations, which again...will never reach them because of number 1. I realize this kind of thing doesn't just change over night though...and I'm not certainly not blaming O on that...in fact I think socially...key word here he serves as a role model on the responsibility front.

Back on....

3. A trillion dollars was printed off with zero attached growth to it and is being used to finance assets that are worthless or very nearly worthless (with limited growth upside), that is called debt. We will not be seeing this money again. It is not going into any of the numerous infrastructure development plans or other eco-friendly spending projects...it has been specifically given to the Treasury to buy worthless assets off the balance sheets of domestic and foreign banks. Those assets that "may" have worth are still left in the balance (subjected to govt. policy) and are reliant on the Treasury's TARP plan...which again if placed into the hands of government (are worthless) and if purchased by taxpayers. (are also worthless) because the asset evaluation of these things are contingent on the inflated home prices at which the mortgage paper was purchased at. So effectually, if these "toxic" assets are offered to the public, then we will be footing the bill for them and if the government buys them, they will be footing the bill...sucks that we are one in the same. Conclusion...screwed either way.

Only reason I point this out is I loved how big of a non-issue the media made the "War against Pork" out to be because they cited that pork only consisted of about 1% of GDP. That's about 130 Bil... (taken from 13 Tril). In the same context, this story saves us .000007% (or 7/1000000 (one millioneths...lol) of 1%) of GDP.

Fighting to end that would be a whole lot more productive if we're looking to cut spending...hell that would have at least offset 13% of the trillion in debt as opposed to the .001% of the trillion saved by cutting back on latte's.

I guess what I'm trying to say is...if we want to do something...let's do it and stop messing around. If I want to help a charity, I can actively help and contribute...throwing a penny into a can really doesn't amount to much in the long term, especially if I never do it again. Just like saving .000007% of GDP once a year will never amount to anything, especially if this was a one time thing.

1. So what's stoppin' ya?

2. How do you know they wouldn't give a damn? Is it because you wouldn't if it was you?

3. No doubt directed at AIG mostly. I do agree with a lot of that and under normal circumstances I'd also say let em fail, not our problem. But AIG's collapse would have shattered the financial system as we know it. And that's not my opinion, that's the opinion of people a lot smarter than you or i on this issue. Funny that you mention saving 13% of $1 trillion ($130 bil) like it's a big deal but made it seem like the $100mil Obama is trying to shave in the next 90 days is sofa change. I'm sorry but $100mil is $100mil, it's money worth shaving wherever possible.

[resnor]

Why is it a so called liberals responibility to be fiscally conservative? You had the chance the last 8 years and spent more then anyone in history. Now it's an issue? LOL


If you ask me its what you spend it on that matters.

Wrong. Obama has spent more in 100 days than every other POTUS COMBINED. It is laughable that he shoves through trillions of dollars in spending, and then makes a big deal about this "cutback." It's a ploy to act like he's saving money. Kinda like his "tax cut" that we're seeing right now in our paychecks. It's not really a tax cut...you'll be taxed on it next year.


And that's not my opinion, that's the opinion of people a lot smarter than you or i on this issue.

Nevada, you chose to ignore the Congressional Budget Office, people alot smarter than you or me, when they said that passing the "Stimulus" would have an end result of hurting our economy more than helping.

[kevin21boston]

im so glad there is a thread on this.

I was reading this in the wall st journal and it sickened me the rest of the day. how dare he do this? how dare people defend him!

in the WSJ article it said that $100M is the equivalent to 0.0025% of the budget. if you cant internalize that, how about this- the federal government spends $100M every 13 minutes.


i voted for obama. i just didnt believe in mccain enough to offset the horrific sarah palin pick. do i regret my vote? no, not yet at least. but i get closer every day.

[TheRealist]

1. So what's stoppin' ya?


2. How do you know they wouldn't give a damn? Is it because you wouldn't if it was you?

3. No doubt directed at AIG mostly. I do agree with a lot of that and under normal circumstances I'd also say let em fail, not our problem. But AIG's collapse would have shattered the financial system as we know it. And that's not my opinion, that's the opinion of people a lot smarter than you or i on this issue. Funny that you mention saving 13% of $1 trillion ($130 bil) like it's a big deal but made it seem like the $100mil Obama is trying to shave in the next 90 days is sofa change. I'm sorry but $100mil is $100mil, it's money worth shaving wherever possible.

1. Nothing. I was just ranting about the inefficiency in charities, not giving testament to my particular charitableness.

2. This answer isn't pertinent to the topic, I'll save it for a thread that is relevant...:)

3. But don't you see that 100 Million is infinitesimal when we're talking about our current problem? Assume you are many thousands of dollars into debt, saving up something like 1/2 of a penny every 3 months. However, some months you forget to save and instead choose to spend. At this point, you not only wipe out savings for the current quarter, but you also eat into past quarters savings. This is exactly what we're talking about here. The government can keep on saving a hundred million every 3 months (which isn't going to happen) and freeze its spending (which also isn't going to happen) , but this amount is so insignificant that it is unrealistic that any benefit will actually come out of it. Im going to stop...it's like arguing that taking a drop of water from the ocean will make it run dry or that putting in a drop every 3 mos. will make it overflow.

About AIG...and the future?

I think this will be an issue that is definitely going to be in the history books. Should we have bailed out AIG?

I argue that the massive bailouts, stimuli, emergency funds, etc. have basically riddled the U.S. government with debt. Washington, in spite of these glaring problems, continues to increase spending (more debt), cut taxes (fiscal deficit), and with the imminent depreciation of the dollar coming once rates in Europe go back up, we will begin to import more (trade deficit).

The rates of our interest and principle payments will increase to a tipping point (leading to a decrease in U.S. credit rating) where China and other net lenders (country's with high surplus') will be able to pull strings with us...(higher interest depsite the economic climate leading to loss), knowing that if they do not buy our bonds and T-notes, that we will face a currency crisis and our government will be forced to default in order to fund our liabilities. As a result, the banking system in this time is more prone to collapse since all of the above will undoubtedly bring sharp declining growth rates and higher levels of unemployment.

In this time period, the U.S. will not collaspe or anything along these lines...but I assume that the standard of living will be different and U.S. policy will be harder to dictate globally since we no longer control the majority of the worlds capital.

In this time, America will undergo a political transformation that shuns free market policies by adopting principles commonly associated with the EU (maintaining under 60% debt to GDP, under 3% deficit, etc.)........

Nevermind, I'm done with writing this because I'm getting way too abysmal.

Now, what if we had NOT bailed out AIG.

Is your money now worthless? No. Would the United States undergo a deep recession...of course. AIG would have had to sell off its assets, so not all would have been lost. Especially at fire sale rates...not EVERY bank was so riddled in problems that they were prone to collapse. (How is Canada doing, eh?...not so bad)

Short term pain...long term gain. I believe that we are sacrificing long term prosperity for the alleviation of this short term pain and in doing so are setting ourselves up for collapse.

I'm sorry to sound so pessimistic, but economics is a dismal science.

[resnor]

Kevin...with as much stuff as you've posted, politically, on this site, I can't possibly see how you could vote for Obama...:eek::(

[kevin21boston]

Kevin...with as much stuff as you've posted, politically, on this site, I can't possibly see how you could vote for Obama...:eek::(

i just had zero respect or confidence in sarah palin. it sickens me that she was selected. it was such a bad decision. :( it really could have been anyone else. :(


i dont think mccain would have passed away in office (but who knows...im not a medical expert) and for her to be next in line never sat well with me.

that said if she was president right now i dont see how she could be doing a worse job than obama. and it sickens me that the media and most americans are giving obama such a huge pass. if bush or mccan did these exact same things it would have been a firestorm unlike anything the media has ever unleashed.

[resnor]

Yeah, I get you not liking Palin...but, to vote for Obama over Palin as a VP? I just don't see Obama lining up with many of the things you seem to believe, politically. Would have been better to vote for Ron Paul, or some other such candidate.

[TheRealist]

I don't know what to think about this...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_freddie_mac_official_dead

[Nevada_Ballin]

1. Nothing. I was just ranting about the inefficiency in charities, not giving testament to my particular charitableness.

2. This answer isn't pertinent to the topic, I'll save it for a thread that is relevant...:)

3. But don't you see that 100 Million is infinitesimal when we're talking about our current problem? Assume you are many thousands of dollars into debt, saving up something like 1/2 of a penny every 3 months. However, some months you forget to save and instead choose to spend. At this point, you not only wipe out savings for the current quarter, but you also eat into past quarters savings. This is exactly what we're talking about here. The government can keep on saving a hundred million every 3 months (which isn't going to happen) and freeze its spending (which also isn't going to happen) , but this amount is so insignificant that it is unrealistic that any benefit will actually come out of it. Im going to stop...it's like arguing that taking a drop of water from the ocean will make it run dry or that putting in a drop every 3 mos. will make it overflow.

About AIG...and the future?

I think this will be an issue that is definitely going to be in the history books. Should we have bailed out AIG?

I argue that the massive bailouts, stimuli, emergency funds, etc. have basically riddled the U.S. government with debt. Washington, in spite of these glaring problems, continues to increase spending (more debt), cut taxes (fiscal deficit), and with the imminent depreciation of the dollar coming once rates in Europe go back up, we will begin to import more (trade deficit).

The rates of our interest and principle payments will increase to a tipping point (leading to a decrease in U.S. credit rating) where China and other net lenders (country's with high surplus') will be able to pull strings with us...(higher interest depsite the economic climate leading to loss), knowing that if they do not buy our bonds and T-notes, that we will face a currency crisis and our government will be forced to default in order to fund our liabilities. As a result, the banking system in this time is more prone to collapse since all of the above will undoubtedly bring sharp declining growth rates and higher levels of unemployment.

In this time period, the U.S. will not collaspe or anything along these lines...but I assume that the standard of living will be different and U.S. policy will be harder to dictate globally since we no longer control the majority of the worlds capital.

In this time, America will undergo a political transformation that shuns free market policies by adopting principles commonly associated with the EU (maintaining under 60% debt to GDP, under 3% deficit, etc.)........

Nevermind, I'm done with writing this because I'm getting way too abysmal.

Now, what if we had NOT bailed out AIG.

Is your money now worthless? No. Would the United States undergo a deep recession...of course. AIG would have had to sell off its assets, so not all would have been lost. Especially at fire sale rates...not EVERY bank was so riddled in problems that they were prone to collapse. (How is Canada doing, eh?...not so bad)

Short term pain...long term gain. I believe that we are sacrificing long term prosperity for the alleviation of this short term pain and in doing so are setting ourselves up for collapse.

I'm sorry to sound so pessimistic, but economics is a dismal science.

1 & 2 - I was just wise-crackin' a little :)

3. These bailouts (AIG in particular) isn't about my money being worth more or less, it's about credit - to and from financial institutions, down to all businesses and then down to consumers. I believe something had to be done as opposed to doing nothing simply because the ramifications were global and could ahve lasted years.

Now what actually happened with the money they've already received is another story. That initial bailout back when Bush was Pres... you know, the one McCain made a big deal of when halting his campaign to go to DC .... that thing was pressed into existence with no strings or oversight involved, per Paulson's request. We could both go on and on about how wrong the application of the bailout has gone and we'd both be saying the the same things essentially.

[Nevada_Ballin]

i just had zero respect or confidence in sarah palin. it sickens me that she was selected. it was such a bad decision. :( it really could have been anyone else. :(


i dont think mccain would have passed away in office (but who knows...im not a medical expert) and for her to be next in line never sat well with me.

that said if she was president right now i dont see how she could be doing a worse job than obama. and it sickens me that the media and most americans are giving obama such a huge pass. if bush or mccan did these exact same things it would have been a firestorm unlike anything the media has ever unleashed.

Bush did do a lot of the same things and then some.... see initial bailout in September. See spending/deficit growth from Jan 20th, 2001 to Jan 20th, 2009.

[kevin21boston]

Bush did do a lot of the same things and then some.... see initial bailout in September. See spending/deficit growth from Jan 20th, 2001 to Jan 20th, 2009.

from the numbers ive seen, bush spent $5T while in office over 8 years. obama has already spent $1.2T in three months. i dont know if these numbers are completely accurate, because i think both have spent much more, but obama gets zero blame for what he's doing while bush would have been crucified.

just imagine how much sh1t bush would get if he lent $185,000,000,000 to a company worth 98% less than the value of the loan.

[Nevada_Ballin]

from the numbers ive seen, bush spent $5T while in office over 8 years. obama has already spent $1.2T in three months. i dont know if these numbers are completely accurate, because i think both have spent much more, but obama gets zero blame for what he's doing while bush would have been crucified.

just imagine how much sh1t bush would get if he lent $185,000,000,000 to a company worth 98% less than the value of the loan.

Keep in mind your Bush numbers do not include the mid-east war spending. The Bush Admin made it a point not to include that cost in those numbers.

.

[TheRealist]

I only post this because it was relevant to the past argument I made in this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hTayupE&feature=player_embedded

[dsteve]

Everytime someone says, oh you had 8 years to do something blah blah blah....I then know theyre retarded. Look, im not a republican. Bush spending was bad, bush was a horrible president but not for the reasons the liberal media and left wing nuts say. They personally attacked him instead of going after fiscal things he did. Called him a moron, a monkey and blah blah blah. Imagine if I posted a picture of a monkey next to obama much like they did with bush?

If you don't realize whats going on, then wake the **** up. Bush got us into iraq, took away civil liberities with the pat act etc all under the guise of "terror". Don't let a crisis go to waste eh?

Now obama is using terror in a different way. "If we dont spend a **** load of money, its going to get worse! all the experts agree!" First, they never all agree. The ones that agree didn't see the problem coming in the first place like gerald celente and petter schiff did. If youll notice, those two are saying a depression is coming like nothing we have seen and the obama spending is making it worse. What other fear is he using? The auto industry is 2 big to fail, lets nationalize it so we can make green cars nobody wants! GLOBAL WARMING (they cant even call it that now because its getting cooler so they switch it 2 climate change) CAP AND TRADE! Do you people realize cap and trade results in a tax on every single american? Do you realize corporate taxes are taxes on the people who buy the products not the ones physically being taxed?

Cutting a penny out of 10305894358906793 dollars worth of spending is not cutting anything. Cutting our defense budget with out getting our boys home is a dangerous risk. (see ron paul on my stance with this argument)


nevada is there anything you dont agree with obama on or are you a bobble head?

[Nevada_Ballin]

Everytime someone says, oh you had 8 years to do something blah blah blah....I then know theyre retarded. Look, im not a republican. Bush spending was bad, bush was a horrible president but not for the reasons the liberal media and left wing nuts say. They personally attacked him instead of going after fiscal things he did. Called him a moron, a monkey and blah blah blah. Imagine if I posted a picture of a monkey next to obama much like they did with bush?

If you don't realize whats going on, then wake the **** up. Bush got us into iraq, took away civil liberities with the pat act etc all under the guise of "terror". Don't let a crisis go to waste eh?

Now obama is using terror in a different way. "If we dont spend a **** load of money, its going to get worse! all the experts agree!" First, they never all agree. The ones that agree didn't see the problem coming in the first place like gerald celente and petter schiff did. If youll notice, those two are saying a depression is coming like nothing we have seen and the obama spending is making it worse. What other fear is he using? The auto industry is 2 big to fail, lets nationalize it so we can make green cars nobody wants! GLOBAL WARMING (they cant even call it that now because its getting cooler so they switch it 2 climate change) CAP AND TRADE! Do you people realize cap and trade results in a tax on every single american? Do you realize corporate taxes are taxes on the people who buy the products not the ones physically being taxed?

Cutting a penny out of 10305894358906793 dollars worth of spending is not cutting anything. Cutting our defense budget with out getting our boys home is a dangerous risk. (see ron paul on my stance with this argument)


nevada is there anything you dont agree with obama on or are you a bobble head?

"The auto industry is 2 big to fail, lets nationalize it so we can make green cars nobody wants!" = absolute misinformation, Obama has never said he wanted to nationalize the auto industry. That's why Chrysler is in bankruptcy court right now and the rest of GM is right behind them.

.

[TheRealist]

"The auto industry is 2 big to fail, lets nationalize it so we can make green cars nobody wants!" = absolute misinformation, Obama has never said he wanted to nationalize the auto industry. That's why Chrysler is in bankruptcy court right now and the rest of GM is right behind them.

.

They have given GM and Chrysler money (both Bush and Obama, hence why he was able to kick out Waggoner), but I am pretty pleased that he didn't decide to contribute billions more to them...

Kudos to that.

[dsteve]

"The auto industry is 2 big to fail, lets nationalize it so we can make green cars nobody wants!" = absolute misinformation, Obama has never said he wanted to nationalize the auto industry. That's why Chrysler is in bankruptcy court right now and the rest of GM is right behind them.

.



have you ever heard of facsim? HE FIRED A CEO FROM A PRIVATE COMPANY! HE WENT OVER THE BUDGETS OF CRYSLER AND CUT THEIR AD BUDGET! are you retarded? Do yo not know what nationalizing is? have you ever read a history book?

Youre either a very uneducated extreme liberal or youre all over obamas nuts because hes black. which is it?

[Nevada_Ballin]

have you ever heard of facsim? HE FIRED A CEO FROM A PRIVATE COMPANY! HE WENT OVER THE BUDGETS OF CRYSLER AND CUT THEIR AD BUDGET! are you retarded? Do yo not know what nationalizing is? have you ever read a history book?

Youre either a very uneducated extreme liberal or youre all over obamas nuts because hes black. which is it?

lemme know when the auto industry is "nationalized". As of right now it is not and i see no sign that it is going to be.

.

[Nevada_Ballin]

lemme know when the auto industry is "nationalized". As of right now it is not and i see no sign that it is going to be.

.

Just to keep the Chrysler situation real, Nardelli was asked to step down and agreed, not "fired" by Obama. Leveraged by goverment money? Probably. Maybe moreso by stockholders and the company's Board of Directors (who he treated like crap - not a good idea). But keep in mind Nardelli is the same person who ran Home Depot stocks into the ground as well.

If you're gonna take billions from the government and continue to ask for more without improving the company's situation, then yea, sooner or later your neck is gonna get chopped.

[dsteve]

Just to keep the Chrysler situation real, Nardelli was asked to step down and agreed, not "fired" by Obama. Leveraged by goverment money? Probably. Maybe moreso by stockholders and the company's Board of Directors (who he treated like crap - not a good idea). But keep in mind Nardelli is the same person who ran Home Depot stocks into the ground as well.

If you're gonna take billions from the government and continue to ask for more without improving the company's situation, then yea, sooner or later your neck is gonna get chopped.


you fail. the point is the government should not be giving any private sector bussiness money. Quasi goverment control of the private sector is/leads to facsim. Theyre calling it progressive these days but **** by any other word is still ****.

[Nevada_Ballin]

you fail. the point is the government should not be giving any private sector bussiness money. Quasi goverment control of the private sector is/leads to facsim. Theyre calling it progressive these days but **** by any other word is still ****.

Whether the government should or shouldn't is an entirely different discussion than the one we're having. Since the government did give these corporations money, we need to note that GM and Chrysler failed with the help they got - and they will not receive anymore help.

Now they are in (Chrysler) or going to (GM) bankruptcy court which is what a lot of people wanted them to do in the first place - but it seems like those same people don't want to acknowledge that, they just want to keep complaining. I don't see how these corporations' eventual filing for bankruptcy as a step towards facism.

[theanalogkid]

you fail. the point is the government should not be giving any private sector bussiness money. Quasi goverment control of the private sector is/leads to facsim. Theyre calling it progressive these days but **** by any other word is still ****.

I thought Obama was called extreme left wing. I guess these days he's extreme right wing.

[dsteve]

there is no such thing as left and right. extreme right and extreme left lead to the same end, depotism and complete government control.