On 5/13/2012 8:51 PM, Steve Rothstein wrote:
> On 5/13/2012 8:25 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>> On 5/13/2012 8:13 PM, Al wrote:
>>> In article<
pdydnYsDf9DV1S3S...@giganews.com>,
>>> Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2012 6:22 PM, Al wrote:
>>>>> In article<PVWrr.4236$4P3....@newsfe08.iad>,
>>>>> "Sanders Kaufman"<[
bu...@kaufman.net]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jeff M" wrote in message
>>>>>> news:F_ydnZ1G5ZfgYzLS...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep. And why not? He got the job done after Bush said he'd lost
>>>>>>> interest
>>>>>>> in getting him. I think "Osama dead and GM alive" makes a catchy
>>>>>>> campaign
>>>>>>> slogan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, a campaign slogan centered on death is a real winner.
>>>>
>>>> Only half centered on death.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, the death half.
>>>
>>> I think it's great, they really should go with it, it's only
>>> half-stupid.
>>>
>>>> The other half is all about saving
>>>> American industry and jobs.
>>>
>>>
>>> Saved the Union jobs, government jobs. Obama is a Union President.
>>
>> You say that like it's a bad thing.
>>
>> You'd have preferred that GM go down then? You wanted to see probably
>> hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs, local and regional
>> economies and tax bases devastated, our national economic recovery
>> jeopardized, and all those workers added to the unemployment and welfare
>> rolls? How deep and self destructive is your hatred?
>
> Yes, GM should have gone under, as should Chrysler. Any business that
> cannot be run at a profit should be allowed to go out of business. Yes,
> that means some citizens end up unemployed and needing help. Our economy
> was strong enough to help them. We could have used the same money we
> gave to GM to help the employees instead.
>
> And the important part is that the companies are still not sound and the
> employees were still harmed. Chrysler has been bailed out before and was
> still unable to make a profit. Why would any reasonable person think
> they will learn from this bailout when they did not learn from the
> previous ones? Why would we think GM management would learn from it
> instead of learning to expect another bailout?
>
> When will GM be stable and profitable again? When will the employees get
> the same salaries, benefits, and jobs they all had before? Who will make
> up the retirement pensions the stockholders lost when the government
> confiscated their shares? Actually, I am not too worried about the
> stockholders because they would have lost anyway, but the government
> should not have been able to take it from them to give to others.
>
> And before you argue that the jobs and products were needed, I will
> point out that in our economy if a company is not profitable and goes
> under, other companies will emerge to fill the need and the hole in the
> marketplace.
>
>>
>>> As long as he can print or borrow money and hand it out, he'll be deeply
>>> loved.
>>
>> What would you know or understand about such things? Your comments shows
>> that it must be very little.
>
> Actually, his comment shows to me that he understands the system much
> more than you seem to. By printing money, he is using popular shorthand
> for running up the debt. By giving money out, he is referring to welfare
> programs, both for individuals and corporations.
>
> And yes, many of the citizens will vote for their personal interests
> instead of what is really best for the country. It is much harder to
> understand what is best for the country than what is best for me and
> requires real sacrifice at time.
>
> Steve Rothstein
I wonder how many Chevy Volt automobiles Jeff M. owns? ^_^
TDD