FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
Welcome to my thread.
WE got told that millions of jobs would have been lost if there was no bailout. But is that true? What happens when a company declares bankruptcy?
Well, the banks who loaned GM the money have to write off their debt and that's fair. They made a poor choice of who and how much to lend. The investors love their investment. Again, fair enough as they choose poorly where they would invest their wealth. Both groups of people are not what we would consider "poor."
And the assets of the company are sold off to the highest bidder as opposed to secretly given in a back room deal with like-minded "socialist." So what would the new owner of all of those factories and machines have done with them? Let them gather dust? Of course not. They would have hired employees to run them. Hopefully more efficiently than GM. There may have been some job losses in that restructuring, but it certainly would not have been the calamity for millions of poor workers as you were told. It would have been a loss for those people who could afford it. Banks and investors. Instead $50 billion was stolen from the US people.
So what is the sum total of all of this?
[video=youtube;8ZSiNvD6_bI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZSiNvD6_bI&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
1. Government ownership over the means of production is a tenant of communism, and Obama has told us he wants to do that to all American industry.
2. The bailout succeeded in transferring billions of dollars to China from US tax payers, and
3. Obama explains to his supporters that he considers the GM bailout a great success.
Are there any other twists in this story to show how Obama, and his company, GM, support the ideology of Communism?
WE got told that millions of jobs would have been lost if there was no bailout. But is that true? What happens when a company declares bankruptcy?
Well, the banks who loaned GM the money have to write off their debt and that's fair. They made a poor choice of who and how much to lend. The investors love their investment. Again, fair enough as they choose poorly where they would invest their wealth. Both groups of people are not what we would consider "poor."
And the assets of the company are sold off to the highest bidder as opposed to secretly given in a back room deal with like-minded "socialist." So what would the new owner of all of those factories and machines have done with them? Let them gather dust? Of course not. They would have hired employees to run them. Hopefully more efficiently than GM. There may have been some job losses in that restructuring, but it certainly would not have been the calamity for millions of poor workers as you were told. It would have been a loss for those people who could afford it. Banks and investors. Instead $50 billion was stolen from the US people.
So what is the sum total of all of this?
[video=youtube;8ZSiNvD6_bI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZSiNvD6_bI&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
1. Government ownership over the means of production is a tenant of communism, and Obama has told us he wants to do that to all American industry.
2. The bailout succeeded in transferring billions of dollars to China from US tax payers, and
3. Obama explains to his supporters that he considers the GM bailout a great success.
Are there any other twists in this story to show how Obama, and his company, GM, support the ideology of Communism?