Obama's Union Speech a 'Load of You-Know-What'

The President wants the "naysayers" to admit that bailing out a politically connected corporation with taxpayer money was the "right thing to do"? Sorry, Mr. President, but some of us still believe in the Constitution and economic freedom as a model for government. Your Machiavellian "the ends justifies the means" political ideology is not a sufficient justification for breaking the law and subverting freedom. And supposing it was the "right thing to do", you, Mr. President, didn't even do it! The Bush Administration is responsible for crafting and passing TARP, so if anyone deserves the credit for that rape of the free market, it's President Bush, not President Obama.

 

I can almost imagine the article author muttering to himself and talking to the TV screen maniacally as he watches Obama speak.

The bailout was a smart move and it primed our auto industry for a comeback and for growth. Get over it, Glenn Beck employee.

 

Obama: "I placed my bet on American workers. I know our bet was a good one because I've seen the payoff firsthand. But you don't have to take my word for it. Just ask the Chrysler workers near Kokomo, Indiana, who were brought on to make sure the newest high-tech transmissions and fuel-efficient engines are made in America.""

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBs2ktg2YUU"]Obama: We bet on the American worker - YouTube[/ame]

 

Then you should be congratulating the administration that actually crafted and signed the legislation into law.

Or maybe you could actually address the philosophical objections raised in the article, namely, that bailing out politically connected and powerful special interest groups is contrary to the spirit of our Constitution and to economic freedom, which is supposed to be the basis for capitalism.

 

Please explain what this piece of propaganda has to do with the points raised in the article or the OP? Do you mindless progressives even realize when you're trolling?

 

Firstly, Bush deserves credit. The lion's share actually.

Secondly, I understand the philosophical objection....but I subscribe more to reason than philosophy when it comes to business.

 

FACT: GM is NOW Profitable!

FACT: If they were allowed to go Bankrupt ... GM would NOT be #1 Auto Manufacture ... NOW!

FACT: If they were allowed to go Bankrupt ... GM would NOT be hiring MORE American WORKERS!

FACT: Republicans were WRONG and now they Eating their own Crap!

 

Your "reasoning" totally ignores the opportunity costs of bailing out failing business models. You cannot claim with any degree of certainty that bailing out the auto industries or the banks was the right thing to do because you have no idea what would have happened if we had pursued a market-based solution.

 

Bush can have ALL The Credit if he wants ...

FACT: GM is BACK either way you slice it.

Republicans were dead Wrong and they refuse to admit it.

But who cares ... everyone can see with their own eyes.

 

I never claimed to know what I cannot know.

What I know is that it worked out pretty well. Your position is the one that requires imagination and projection.

 

NO ONE had MONEY to Invest in GM ... just ask Mitt ... because Bain Capital wasn't going to!

FACT ... GM is BACK!

 

Lol... you post that piece of partisan drivel as an OP and then accuse others of using propaganda and being "mindless"?

 

First of all, it was a Republican President who crafted and signed the bailouts into law, so please spare us your retarded partisan drivel. It does not and never will apply to me.

Secondly, your mindless propaganda utterly fails to account for the opportunity costs associated with bailouts and government favoritism. The money we spent on the bailouts could have been put to other uses, either in government (paying down debt, financing SS and Medicare, etc.) or, more optimally, in the private economy. Not only is there an opportunity cost associated with the spending, but there is an opportunity cost associated with propping up noncompetitive business models. The market share that those companies would have lost could have been more optimally serviced by companies that actually had sustainable and desirable business models. Instead of replacing the rickety, wooden support columns with granite pillars, we've wrapped duct tape around them and celebrated the "fix" like myopic idiots...

 

Nope,... Atleast not on their American operations, the profit is from overseas...

The auction woulda been the next day, 'n GM would be several smaller, more manageable companies, Without the debt load, 'n Union problems that GM had..

GM would be history, 'n several other new companies would be hirin' more workers, Faster...

 

If you don't know what the alternative scenario would have been, then how can you claim the bailouts were a "smart move"?

Well, yes, but it's also dependent upon the indisputable economic fact that market-based economies are superior models of resource allocation, and that this superior model requires creative destruction in order to work. We've observed thousands upon thousands of instances in which companies have failed only to be replaced by better and more efficient companies. Why would it be any different for the car companies and banks? Or do you not actually believe in the self-correcting power of markets?

 

the union helped bail out GM...nobody needed to bail out the UAW....

 

Let us know when you have something of substance to say. I'm not holding my breath...

 

GM and its employees are part of the private sector

 

its a fact...its the same reason Ford (who wasnt in ruins) went to the govt for a govt backed loan. because credit had frozen up when the banks collapsed.

 

I posted an opinion piece that actually makes a case of some sort against bailing out politically connected corporations with taxpayer money.

You responded with some redundant propaganda piece of Obama pontificating about how great he is.

In other words, you're trolling the thread by refusing to actually address the topic with something of substance.

Of course, this is to be expected of someone that is pathologically incapable of critical thought. That's what happens when you swear allegiance to a political party.

 

they bailed out the industry.....not one company. the only one who didnt need a bailout....was begging them to bail out the others!

 

Same thing he talked about in the last SOTU...

Economy, not foreign policy, will be focus of State of the Union
February 10th, 2013 - President Barack Obama has spent large chunks of the last six months dealing with matters of foreign policy, from Benghazi to Afghanistan to drones.

 

They'd better damn well be doing AMAZINGLY well after that massive bailout recieving my hard-earned tax dollars. But, that is 100% irrelevant. How is the economy that handed them all that loot doing?

 

Granny says, "Dat's right, Obama gonna take credit for improving economy...

Economy to Dominate Obama's State of the Union Speech
January 25, 2014 ~ U.S. President Barack Obama is focusing his annual State of the Union address Tuesday on the nation's economy.

See also:

Improving US Economy May Help President
January 24, 2014 WASHINGTON — As President Obama prepares to give a key annual address to the nation, he faces political problems that have hurt his approval ratings. Experts say he may get some political help over the next year, as a gradually improving U.S. economy helps heal the battered housing sector and reduces unemployment.

 

That's nice

Meanwhile, I'm curious why your side sees fit to reply with three counter State-of-the-Unions: The GOP establishment response, the tea party response, and the other tea party response?