OH NO! a restaurant chain files for bankruptcy

[SMTA]

thank you for arguing ‘word choice’ again and ignoring the point. Let me try this. It was made clear that our investment in GM or the banks was temporary and we didn’t “make the day to day decisions” (contrary to the lying republican narrative concerning the volt). Why mentioned Countries that are greatly involved in business or operate entire industries and mentions Areva in France (a good example would be that Mexico owns and operate Pemex) These are not “one time/temporary” things like our investments in GM and the banks. So read this slowly (or have your 10 y/o explain it to you) so I’m comparing the investments in GM to Pemex or Areva or any company in China.

Remember the same guys ‘warning’ you about “rampant socialism” and “nationalizing industries” are the same liars that told you:
President Obama was born in Kenya
His BC was fake
9-11 could have happened to anybody
if we didn’t immediately cut spending in 2009 we would have hyper inflation, collapse of the dollar and a market going to zero
President Obama wanted to kill old people

Oh and they also like to argue ‘word choice’ to quickly deflect from the facts.

Oh my God!

Where is my tinfoil hat!?

 

[CRUE CAB]

Never heard of them.

 

[SMTA]

Never heard of them.

That's because they are badasses.

 

[CRUE CAB]

That's because they are badasses.

Unlike you.

 

[WhyNotWhyNot]

That is nonsense and directly contradicted by the Preamble of the Constitution

Our basic principles are: form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. They must be translated into a body of law if they are to be effectively implemented. That body of law must be continuously revised as our circumstances evolve. A good example today is the question, “How do we secure the blessings of liberty in our ‘internet environment’?

Insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare” are implemented by stimulating idea creation for the purpose of advancing prosperity – space program, etc.

The preamble to the constitution is a strategic statement that does not stand independent of its tactical support documents.

 

[WhyNotWhyNot]

My concern was you weren't willingly to allow the tax payers to recoup the money. For instance, the government recovered a portion of taxpayer money and it went back toward regular expenditures rather than back toward profits for the private industry.

I am not sure how you read that into my post. I strongly believe that in such instances the government is behaving as an investor or lender. It should sell its stock or receive loan payments including principal and interest. If the investment was wise (which in it was the case of the automobile industry "bailouts") it will return a profit on the investment or loan. The hard question that thus far has not been before the nation is "Are we willing to proceed with an investment when we anticipate a limited loss on the investment but a significant national prosperity gain?"

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

The hard question that thus far has not been before the nation is "Are we willing to proceed with an investment when we anticipate a limited loss on the investment but a significant national prosperity gain?"

I don't understand what this means.

 

[sangha]

Our basic principles are: form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. They must be translated into a body of law if they are to be effectively implemented. That body of law must be continuously revised as our circumstances evolve. A good example today is the question, “How do we secure the blessings of liberty in our ‘internet environment’?

No, they are not "principles". They are the goals that establish the role of government.

Insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare” are implemented by stimulating idea creation for the purpose of advancing prosperity – space program, etc.

No, those roles (along with others) are achieved through various means and are not limited to "stimulating idea creation". I have never seen anything that even remotely suggests that the role of govt is limited to stimulating new ideas.

The preamble to the constitution is a strategic statement that does not stand independent of its tactical support documents.

It is more than a strategic statement but you are right to say that it is not independent of the rest of the constitution. My point is that the Preamble, along with the rest of the document, clearly contradicts your claim about the limited role of govt.

ie.

Government then has two roles. The first is to codify our basic principles into laws that must evolve constantly as individuals pursuing new ideas also create undesirable byproducts. The second is to take actions to stimulate idea creation upon which future generations will advance our prosperity.

 

[WhyNotWhyNot]

I don't understand what this means.

Thus far we have made a loan to Chrysler in the Iacocca era and then more recently purchased GM stock. In both instances the gov't was convinced that the companies had viable business plans and the ability to execute them so that loan plus interest would be paid and the stock was likely to sell for more than the purchase price. In other words, in both instances the gov't was filling the role of investment banker and it expected the transactions to be financially beneficial. The question is what will happen when we are presented with a crisis industry someday that is "too big to fail" and the business plan is that gov't will lose money. Will we judge that the social benefit has value commensurate with the estimated loss?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

The question is what will happen when we are presented with a crisis industry someday that is "too big to fail" and the business plan is that gov't will lose money. Will we judge that the social benefit has value commensurate with the estimated loss?

Of course we wouldn't and with crony capitalism on the rise, I wouldn't doubt that this could be a possibility but you used the word "despotism" by default. It sounded like some kind of government take over thing.

 

[WhyNotWhyNot]

It is more than a strategic statement but you are right to say that it is not independent of the rest of the constitution. My point is that the Preamble, along with the rest of the document, clearly contradicts your claim about the limited role of govt.

ie.

Nor is the Constitution independent of the thousands upon thousands of statutes that have been enacted end enforced under the umbrella of the constitution. Which was my first point that you took issue with when you implied that the preamble of the Constitution was sufficient law of the land.

 

[sangha]

Nor is the Constitution independent of the thousands upon thousands of statutes that have been enacted end enforced under the umbrella of the constitution. Which was my first point that you took issue with when you implied that the preamble of the Constitution was sufficient law of the land.

I have to wonder about your miscomprehension of what I wrote.

The point I took issue with you over was your claim that the govt had only two roles, which is clearly untrue.

And I never said anything about the preamble being "sufficient law of the land" (whatever that means)

 

[274ina]

funny, then how about people like you fail too.....................

Tracking the $700 Billion Bailout - The New York Times

the losses on AIG are massive compared to GM. And saving GM, saved making any auto's in USA at all and millions of jobs.
(and dont bother with the propoganda in the media about "profits" form AIG bailout.......its all lies- You cant repay $70B when you only make 1-2B a year. )

 

[shrubnose]

“Fox & Hound Restaurant Group filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to sell its assets through a court process, as weakening profit and cash shortage hurt the sports bar and pub operator, a court filing showed”

Sports bar operator Fox & Hound files for bankruptcy - Yahoo Finance

Oh no, Fox and Hounds files for bankruptcy protection. Oh no, the chain will cease to exist. Wait, they may have DIP financing to fund their bankruptcy.

“F&H also sought court approval for a Debtor-In-Possession (DIP) facility, which will provide it with a revolving credit facility of about $3.5 million on an interim basis and about $9.6 million on a final basis.”

Whew! good thing for them they only needed 10 million to make it through bankruptcy. They are so lucky they didn’t need 50 billion in the worst recession since the depression from someone willing to fight with the govt over who gets paid back first because the govt gave them a 20 billion ‘bridge’ loan. Double whew!

They weren't 'too big to fail', eh?

That's really sad.