Originally Posted by kmarei
as a general rule, i don't like it when the government gets involved in picking which companies suceed or fail.
but i do realize that there are certain companies that really are, too big to fail
imagine for a moment, if GM fails
imagine how many people work for GM
all the suppliers, the suppliers of the suppliers
you're talking a huge hit for the economy.
in that case which is the better option?
i am not sure
but since one option means hardship for millions of people
i can't really say i would not have done the same if i were the president.
maybe a better way to safegaurd against this is to have some kind of monitoring of companies that approach the "too big to fail" size
i mean if we have to bail them out, we should have a say in how they are run
i know this is a difficult situation, and i get pissed off when the republicans make it sound like the end of the world, when their president did the same exact thing, but that was ok because he was a republican.
i don't understand how they can say these things with a straight face
Bush was for the organized traditional BKO of GM. He was in no way shape or form in favor the horsesh1t that Obama ended up doing and that was wiping out the bond holders.
Obama overrode the legal system, ordered the bankruptcy court to wipe out the bondholders and nonunion pension debt — an unconstitutional seizure of property. Union pension benefits were secured with equity in GM and Chrysler.
When the dust settled, union pensions and taxpayers owned both companies. This clearly violated U.S. bankruptcy law.
Huge difference in how two different Presidents view this.