House Democrats defy Obama on tax cut bill (CNN)

PostmodernProphet said:
actually I don't consider that a key point of my argument......17%, 20%, 33%.....does it make a bit of difference?....it's the only way you can argue the point, by bringing up the trivial....the point remains it was an unwarranted gift from the taxpayers to the unions.....and the fact remains that GM "repaid" it's loan by borrowing more money from us......in most financial circles that's referred to as a refinance, not a repayment.....
Click to expand...

The banks and finance companies received help. Why not the unions?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
actually I don't consider that a key point of my argument......17%, 20%, 33%.....does it make a bit of difference?....it's the only way you can argue the point, by bringing up the trivial....the point remains it was an unwarranted gift from the taxpayers to the unions.....and the fact remains that GM "repaid" it's loan by borrowing more money from us......in most financial circles that's referred to as a refinance, not a repayment.....
Click to expand...


How is saddling a union with tens of billions of dollars of financial obligations in exchange for stock of questionable value a "gift" to the unions?
 
NigelTufnel said:
How is saddling a union with tens of billions of dollars of financial obligations in exchange for stock of questionable value a "gift" to the unions?
Click to expand...

so you're of the opinion that GM's financial obligations made the stock worthless?....I will admit, I agree.....but then, why did we give them $52 billion dollars?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so you're of the opinion that GM's financial obligations made the stock worthless?....I will admit, I agree.....but then, why did we give them $52 billion dollars?.....
Click to expand...


GM's stock was worthless without the government bailout. With the government bailout it's value higher, but from a long term perspective it was by no means a sure thing to cover the costs of the obligations that the unions took on.
 
NigelTufnel said:
GM's stock was worthless without the government bailout. With the government bailout it's value higher, but from a long term perspective it was by no means a sure thing to cover the costs of the obligations that the unions took on.
Click to expand...

the unions didn't take on any obligations....it's a corporation......limited liability is one of the characteristics of a corporation.....
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yeah, it's a shuffle...but NOT as one sided as either side would have us believe. Observe:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...nt-loans-full/

The gov't STILL has a hefty share of GM...an probably will for some time. The alternative is/was bankruptcy.

Now, can you produce proof of your UAW "33%" ownership of GM to counter my previous link?
Click to expand...



PostmodernProphet said:
actually I don't consider that a key point of my argument......17%, 20%, 33%.....does it make a bit of difference?....it's the only way you can argue the point, by bringing up the trivial....the point remains it was an unwarranted gift from the taxpayers to the unions.....and the fact remains that GM "repaid" it's loan by borrowing more money from us......in most financial circles that's referred to as a refinance, not a repayment.....
Click to expand...

:palm: And there you have it folks.....the Post Modern Fool makes a statement that was a complete exaggeration....and when he could NOT produce facts to back up his assertion, but presented with FACTS that contradict his assertion...he suddenly squawks the time honored neocon copout "it doesn't matter".

That's right folks, Post Modern Prophet pulls numbers out of his ass as if it's fact....until PROVEN he's wrong....then what he previously says "doesn't matter, is trival, or is not the point (even though PMP MADE IT A POINT THAT HE HIMSELF EMPHASIZED). And like all neocon bullhorn's, PMP just repeats his blatherings as if nothing else has transpired.

In short, ladies and gentleman, I just (yet again) exposed PMP as just another worthless, intellectually dishonest neocon bullhorn.


Oh, and from the article I sourced;

In an interview with PolitiFact, Lawrence J. White, economist at New York University's Stern School of Business, warned not to make too much of the source of the funding.

"To me, money is fungible," he said. ''At the end of the day, it shows that GM found itself with enough of a surplus to pay back this piece of government support. The escrow was not a new government loan to pay back the old loan.

"It's a genuine paying back," White said. "It does reduce the federal government's involvement."

Still, he said, "it sure doesn't wipe clean the slate" with the U.S. government. Whitacre's claim may be "technically accurate," White said, "but if it was meant to give the impression that that clears GM from its financial involvement with the federal government, that's not correct."

Like I said, it's typical gov't shuffle, but NOT the one sided emphasis that PMP gives.


Now, let's watch PMP do his usual insult, denial and repeat of his assertions.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: And there you have it folks.....the Post Modern Fool makes a statement that was a complete exaggeration....and when he could NOT produce facts to back up his assertion, but presented with FACTS that contradict his assertion...he suddenly squawks the time honored neocon copout "it doesn't matter".

That's right folks, Post Modern Prophet pulls numbers out of his ass as if it's fact....until PROVEN he's wrong....then what he previously says "doesn't matter, is trival, or is not the point (even though PMP MADE IT A POINT THAT HE HIMSELF EMPHASIZED). And like all neocon bullhorn's, PMP just repeats his blatherings as if nothing else has transpired.

In short, ladies and gentleman, I just (yet again) exposed PMP as just another worthless, intellectually dishonest neocon bullhorn.


Oh, and from the article I sourced;

In an interview with PolitiFact, Lawrence J. White, economist at New York University's Stern School of Business, warned not to make too much of the source of the funding.

"To me, money is fungible," he said. ''At the end of the day, it shows that GM found itself with enough of a surplus to pay back this piece of government support. The escrow was not a new government loan to pay back the old loan.

"It's a genuine paying back," White said. "It does reduce the federal government's involvement."

Still, he said, "it sure doesn't wipe clean the slate" with the U.S. government. Whitacre's claim may be "technically accurate," White said, "but if it was meant to give the impression that that clears GM from its financial involvement with the federal government, that's not correct."

Like I said, it's typical gov't shuffle, but NOT the one sided emphasis that PMP gives.


Now, let's watch PMP do his usual insult, denial and repeat of his assertions.
Click to expand...

Did you get that folks?
It's all right there folks.
What do you folks think.
Aren't any of you folks gonna chime in here?
C'mon folks, I need your help here.
 
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: And there you have it folks.....the Post Modern Fool makes a statement that was a complete exaggeration....and when he could NOT produce facts to back up his assertion, but presented with FACTS that contradict his assertion...he suddenly squawks the time honored neocon copout "it doesn't matter".

That's right folks, Post Modern Prophet pulls numbers out of his ass as if it's fact....until PROVEN he's wrong....then what he previously says "doesn't matter, is trival, or is not the point (even though PMP MADE IT A POINT THAT HE HIMSELF EMPHASIZED). And like all neocon bullhorn's, PMP just repeats his blatherings as if nothing else has transpired.

In short, ladies and gentleman, I just (yet again) exposed PMP as just another worthless, intellectually dishonest neocon bullhorn.

Oh, and from the article I sourced;

In an interview with PolitiFact, Lawrence J. White, economist at New York University's Stern School of Business, warned not to make too much of the source of the funding.

"To me, money is fungible," he said. ''At the end of the day, it shows that GM found itself with enough of a surplus to pay back this piece of government support. The escrow was not a new government loan to pay back the old loan.

"It's a genuine paying back," White said. "It does reduce the federal government's involvement."

Still, he said, "it sure doesn't wipe clean the slate" with the U.S. government. Whitacre's claim may be "technically accurate," White said, "but if it was meant to give the impression that that clears GM from its financial involvement with the federal government, that's not correct."

Like I said, it's typical gov't shuffle, but NOT the one sided emphasis that PMP gives.


Now, let's watch PMP do his usual insult, denial and repeat of his assertions.
Click to expand...

lol....so because I said 31% instead of 17% you're totally okay with taking money from taxpayers and using it to gift unions with company ownership?.......
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And there you have it folks.....the Post Modern Fool makes a statement that was a complete exaggeration....and when he could NOT produce facts to back up his assertion, but presented with FACTS that contradict his assertion...he suddenly squawks the time honored neocon copout "it doesn't matter".

That's right folks, Post Modern Prophet pulls numbers out of his ass as if it's fact....until PROVEN he's wrong....then what he previously says "doesn't matter, is trival, or is not the point (even though PMP MADE IT A POINT THAT HE HIMSELF EMPHASIZED). And like all neocon bullhorn's, PMP just repeats his blatherings as if nothing else has transpired.

In short, ladies and gentleman, I just (yet again) exposed PMP as just another worthless, intellectually dishonest neocon bullhorn.

Oh, and from the article I sourced;

In an interview with PolitiFact, Lawrence J. White, economist at New York University's Stern School of Business, warned not to make too much of the source of the funding.

"To me, money is fungible," he said. ''At the end of the day, it shows that GM found itself with enough of a surplus to pay back this piece of government support. The escrow was not a new government loan to pay back the old loan.

"It's a genuine paying back," White said. "It does reduce the federal government's involvement."

Still, he said, "it sure doesn't wipe clean the slate" with the U.S. government. Whitacre's claim may be "technically accurate," White said, "but if it was meant to give the impression that that clears GM from its financial involvement with the federal government, that's not correct."Like I said, it's typical gov't shuffle, but NOT the one sided emphasis that PMP gives.


Now, let's watch PMP do his usual insult, denial and repeat of his assertions.
Click to expand...




PostmodernProphet said:
lol....so because I said 31% instead of 17% you're totally okay with taking money from taxpayers and using it to gift unions with company ownership?.......
Click to expand...

And Post Modern Prophet performs EXACTLY as I predicted!

Thanks for the evening's entertainment, my chuckling Post Modern Fool. You may have the last, predictably worthless PMP word. Carry on!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top