oldtownfolk
New member
gov. now owns 60 per cent of it. when i went to school that was over half. what's not to understand?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why do people refer to circumstances of the govt. ownership of GM as the
- Thread starter oldtownfolk
- Start date
"Obama take over of GM"? In November 2008 General Motors and Chrysler CEO's came to D.C. and he stated that GM is in danger of running out of cash in the first half of the next year. They begged the federal government for money the money was not forced on them. They agreed to some stipulations to be done by February 2009. They did not reach those goals and in February President Obama refused to give them anymore bailout money. Money was loaned to GM to help with the bankruptcy and keep as many jobs as possible. Again the money was not forced and GM could have said no. Instead of writing off the investment of our tax dollars the government ended up with majority ownership in GM.
Baling out GM was wrong but it would have also been wrong to just take the lost after it was done.
Baling out GM was wrong but it would have also been wrong to just take the lost after it was done.
Common Sense
New member
Because it clearly is. If a business is failing, let it go under. Someone else will come along and do it better, and make it successful. That is the way capitalism works, and it has "worked" just fine for many, many years!
We call it as we see it in it's reality, a government take over. We do not come up with fairy tale titles.
We call it as we see it in it's reality, a government take over. We do not come up with fairy tale titles.
Because there were a number of Obama's actions that demonstrated that he had - for all practical purposes - taken control of the company.
He replaced the CEO.
He manipulated the bankruptcy proceedings to favor his political supporters.
He interferred with internal business decisions for the company to support his political agenda.
He replaced the CEO.
He manipulated the bankruptcy proceedings to favor his political supporters.
He interferred with internal business decisions for the company to support his political agenda.
Sakata Gintoki
New member
I understand why he did it. But by doing so he opened the door to being, somewhat legitimately called a fascist and a socialist.
It would've been much better for everyone if he left the automaking to Korea, Japan and Germany.
You know, the only places that actually know how to do it well.
(Edit: Lol. Americans don't like to hear the fact that they make crappy cars.)
It would've been much better for everyone if he left the automaking to Korea, Japan and Germany.
You know, the only places that actually know how to do it well.
(Edit: Lol. Americans don't like to hear the fact that they make crappy cars.)