'Obama visited the Gulf Coast on Friday and chastised BP for paying ...50 million... on advertising to save its image....'

Yeah. Pikers! Barry's got a couple of unions shelling out $100 million to protect the Democrat brand this November.

As the crisis worsens, Barry shows more and more, HE AIN'T GOT A CLUE!

Psssst! K A T R I N A ! ! !

Ironic, it's a Brit corporation. That'll teach Barry to dis the queen.

I am guessing that BP doesnt have a union.

Obama doesn't even know what a stock dividend is.

Am I the only one hoping BP tells him to go eff himself? Post turtle bozo. BP's finances are... uh... BP's finances. They're telling him not to piss up taxpayers' money on dates with Zira, the first wookie.

The President of the US, which Obama most improbably and unfortunately happens to be (thanks, libs!) has a legitimate interest in BP's cleaning up the spill. That's it. How they run their company is none of his fucking business.

MORON ALERT:

Commenter refuses to read links.
==================================================

Hey, Hugh, nice lie in the headline.

You should work for Fox.

Or feel free to show where Obama warned BP to not pay big dividends.

if you can...

L M A O R O T F F ! ! !

No, not Lee. That's a given. Just listed to his Obamassiah on the boob tube. Warning BP "not to lawyer up". And this from the guy who sends his AG down to Louisiana to confer with state AG's.

This fucking idiot doesn't even realize the hypocrisy of his own statements.

From the NY Times link:
"Obama Warns BP on Paying Big Dividends Amid Oil Spill"

Guess the NYT headline writer should work for FOX , also.
Care to explain where it is any of D'OH-bama's business how large BP's dividends are? Constitutionally speaking, that is.
If you can...

Hey, Lee - how's your support for Hillary Clinton going?
Or do you support the "Pathological Liar" now?

The current president is poison. I still believe it will be easier to recover from the Deepwater Horizon disaster than from what this idiot hs done so far.

Moron Alert:

Commenter has no knowledge of subject and has not read previous posts on subject.
===============================================

Congratulations on an average rate of more than one thing provably wrong per sentence, for three sentences in a row!

Where was this lecturing on corporate responsibility when President Obama stuck the tax payers with the irresponsible and indefensible decisions made by General Motors and Chrysler that ultimately cost taxpayers over $60 billion dollars? (1)

1. You mean the loan that saved a major sector of the US economy, that's already being paid back with interest? Your acting like it's cost. It's an investment.

President Obama had a moral and legal obligation to protect U S taxpayers from harm in the GM and Chrysler bailouts (2).

2. Which he did. You're acting like he didn't.

He ignored them and transferred billions of tax payer dollars (3)

No he did not. I guess you're referring to a tax break on health care? If so, that's not giving them taxpayer dollars. That's making it so unions pay less in. You don't call it giving away taxpayer money when corporations get a tax cut - why do you apply different standards to Unions?

to the very unions that broke these auto companies. (4)

The Unions did not "break" GM. What broke GM was making cars that people didn't want to buy. The Unions had nothing to do with that, that was all management.

Wow.

And now you're complaining, because President Obama dared suggest BP should make sure it fairly compensates the lives it's destroying with its carelessness, while it's also compensating its shareholders.

What in that is so wrong that you actually disagree with it?

If you thought Lee Ward was a bullshit meister. jim x has him beat in spades.

jim x

"1. You mean the loan that saved a major sector of the US economy, that's already being paid back with interest? Your acting like it's cost. It's an investment."

That loan, and the massive multi billion dollar loan discharged in the BK, was never paid back. You should really stick to Kos talking points and not try BK law and corporate finance here, jim x

Obama didn't protect tax payers in the Chrysler/GM BK. This blog has many posts that detail that matter. Read up.

Your other points are not worthy of response, other than to say that Toyota domestic Cost Of Production is substantially less than GM/Chrysler.

The unions [lower case] did not "break" GM.

Yes, they did. Unions are un-American. All unions are infested with thugs, Reds, and losers, to varying extents. No exceptions. We should ban all of them, starting with public sector unions, the most un-American of all. Americans are winners, and winners don't need unions - only losers do.

Finance Pretender Alert:

Commenter does not understand FASB Sources and Uses standards.
===============================================

Hugh S., you should read a little closer. I said:

that's already being paid back with interest?

Notice the present tense. I said that, because it hasn't paid back it's loans yet - it has started paying them back.

So, you should stick to facts and not Fox/Limbaugh talking points, or wherever you get your wrong information from. Just saying. Although I certainly don't mind taking them on if you want to post them.

Obama didn't protect tax payers in the Chrysler/GM BK.

Since Obama protected GM, autoworkers and all of the many people who work in industries that depend on GM too, that means taxpayers were protected. Ordinary people who aren't shareholders are taxpayers too, aren't they? Yes or no?

Toyota domestic Cost Of Production is substantially less than GM/Chrysler.

Yes, it is. And one of the reasons for that? Autoworkers in Japan have what is called "socialized medicine" (scary noise!). So they don't need benefits in order to survive and stay healthy, like workers do here.

That makes up the difference between the costs of Japanese workers and US autoworkers. AND - once again - it doesn't explain why Japanese cars outsell US cars at the same basic prices.

So any other BS points you want to post for why GM management isn't responsible for GM's failure, please feel free.

Yes, they did. Unions are un-American. All unions are infested with thugs, Reds, and losers, to varying extents. No exceptions. We should ban all of them, starting with public sector unions, the most un-American of all. Americans are winners, and winners don't need unions - only losers do.

You left out being responsible for aging and contintental drift.

Serious logic fail here, Jay G. - if unions are infested with losers, then how did they win? Wouldn't that actually mean they're winners, by definition?

By the way, still waiting for an answer to this question:

And now you're complaining, because President Obama dared suggest BP should make sure it fairly compensates the lives it's destroying with its carelessness, while it's also compensating its shareholders.

What in that is so wrong that you actually disagree with it?

Gotta chuckle when jim x talks about logic. He of the herculean leaps of illogical fallacy, intermittently casting fourth assumptions, and innuendo; then plunges earthward, trailing glittering generalities like a spent skyrocket, only to land on his face.

Pro bono jim x tutorial:
--------------------------------------------------------------------

jim x says

"Notice the present tense. I said that, because it hasn't paid back it's loans yet - it has started paying them back.

So, you should stick to facts and not Fox/Limbaugh talking points, or wherever you get your wrong information from. Just saying. Although I certainly don't mind taking them on if you want to post them."
==============================================
Here's your free tutorial jim x:

1)Identify the source of operating profits that were used to pay back the loans. If there were no operating profits available to pay back said loans, where did the funds for repayment come from?
2)Identify which loans (pre petition BK and post petition BK) that were paid back. Identify the source of funds for said repayment.
3) The shareholders in GM and Chrysler had no standing or claim in the BK. ( Do you have even a clue why?) So what is your point? BK is a court for creditor claims.
4)The extraordinary claim in the GM/Chyrsler BK was focused on union claims,not the broad interest of U S taxpayers that footed the bill, hence the controversy.

As for the Toyota COP advantage and your healthcare strawman, you are talking out your ass. Get a clue about this and come back later....with some facts.

Friday news dump:

Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, told Obama in late April that the blowout would likely lead to an unprecedented environmental disaster, a senior White House aide told The Daily Beast. Browner warned that capping a well at such depths had never been done before, and that they ought to expect an oil spill that would continue until a relief well was drilled in August, the aide said. (Browner's office did not immediately reply to a request for comment).

So instead of an all-out assault on the problem, it was 'oh well, not much we can do but milk it for all it's worth'.

Now that's LEADERSHIP you can believe in!

Here, try this Hugh S:

1. You misquoted me. I corrected you. Admit it. It's good for the soul.

Once you do that, I'll be happy to proceed on to your new points.

2 - 4. See # 1

Bonus:

No, I am speaking with exact correctness. Get a clue and research it yourself, so you can see I'm right. Then you can come back with a clue AND some facts...hopefully soon.

Here's some starter links for you:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_auto_workers_really_make_more_than.html

Short answer: when real costs are figured in, US auto workers make about $9/hr more than those in Japan. Also, wages run less than 10% of a car's production cost.

So, once again, blaming GM's collapse on anything but poor management is ludicrous. Go ahead if you want to, just know that it's fact-free.

Oh, GarandFan. You're so cute when you make assertions without facts.

But I say *you* have Herculean leaps of illogical fallacy, intermittently casting fourth assumptions, and innuendo; and then you plunge earthward, trailing glittering generalities like a spent skyrocket, only to land on your face.

But you do tend to leave a nice crater.

Oh, and still waiting for someone to tell me what was wrong with Obama's statement.

"1. You misquoted me. I corrected you. Admit it. It's good for the soul."

Where?

Did you read # 14?

You said:

That loan, and the massive multi billion dollar loan discharged in the BK, was never paid back.

But I never said it was paid back, as in completed. I said it was *being* paid back, you see.

Woo.

Serious logic fail here, Jay G. - if unions are infested with losers, then how did they win? Wouldn't that actually mean they're winners, by definition?

So Pinochet, Franco, and Salazar were winners in your book? Good to know.

Union members are losers because their labor isn't worth enough individually to get their way. They have to resort to thuggery. Just like Al Capone.

And someone who mugs you - doubtless another Democrat - is a winner?

After all, he got what he wanted. What's the difference how he got it?

Oh, and still waiting for someone to tell me what was wrong with Obama's statement.

I've just decided that jim x should pay twice as much income tax, assuming he pays any at all.

Oh, and have his balls cut off, assuming...well, you know.

For the economically illiterate, which includes most of our resident leftists, the government bailout was NOT necessary to save GM and Chrysler. Normal bankruptcy procedures would have done as well or better in the restructuring, and at a far lower overall cost.

The biggest difference in the Obama plan was to protect the unions from having to share in the pain of bankruptcy. This is what the billions of taxpayer money was "invested" to do, and the lost productivity and future problems the intervention guaranteed (as opposed to the goal of viability which would have been the main concern of the bankruptcy court) are costs which cannot be recovered to the economy.

For the economically blind, which includes most of you resident rightists, people in unions are:

a) taxpaying members of society
b) millions of people

Which makes this very statement a contradiction:

Normal bankruptcy procedures would have done as well or better in the restructuring, and at a far lower overall cost.

The biggest difference in the Obama plan was to protect the unions from having to share in the pain of bankruptcy.

The bailout of GM Chrysler was not done only to save them. It was done to save the American economy.

Because, for the 10,000th time, an ordinary bankruptcy procedure would have not only put all of GM and Chrysler out of work, it would have put all the industries that **Depend** on them for work - supply shops, repair shops, shipping, and on and on.

This is what billions of taxpayer money was invested to do - keep the economy rolling, and not completely knock out the working class while the entire country is reeling from the financial meltdown.

To call this losing productivity is an interesting definition, to say the least. Losing productivity means, you know, not producing things. Keeping plants open and people working is not losing productivity. Any more than keeping someone alive is losing breathing.

So when GM pays these loans back - which they eventually will - the costs will be recovered to the economy in every meaningful way.

By which time, who knows? Maybe Palin will have become President and Satan will swallow the Earth. But at least we'll have tried.

To be clear, the contradiction in that statement is "Normal bankruptcy procedures would have done as well or better in the restructuring...the Obama plan was to protect the unions from having to share in the pain of bankruptcy."

Driving the unions into bankruptcy AND putting a huge chunk of America's workforce out of work would NOT POSSIBLY have been "as well or better in the restructuring" as saving the Unions and the companies, and with them the American economy.

So Pinochet, Franco, and Salazar were winners in your book? Good to know.

Hey it's your book. I'm just pointing out how it doesn't make sense.

Union members are losers because their labor isn't worth enough individually to get their way. They have to resort to thuggery. Just like Al Capone.

Interesting perspective.

So, when people get together in companies and try to set wages, that's good. When people get together in unions and try to set wages, that's thuggery.

Then when corporations try to force people in unions to do what they want, that's good. But when people in unions try to force corporations to do what they want, that's thuggery.

In American's very bloody labor history, when corporations hired thugs to attack unions and their civilian families with bats, bricks and guns, was that thuggery? Just curious.

I've just decided that everyone one of my supporters on Wizbang should have what they want: a magical world where roads are paved, there's a military and a police and fire departments, but corporations regulate themselves, the stock market always goes up and there are no taxes!

Oh and you get a pony too.

They way you get this is by taking whole pretzel and lodging it in your windpipe, until your eyesight goes blurry at the edges and you see all kinds of happy things. I've tried it, it's awesome. Some of my Family Research Council friends like to try it while having their baggage handled.

And just going to say, once again, that no one here can actually find anything wrong with Obama's statement. Which you would think is easy, since he's so evil and all.

jim x
"In American's very bloody labor history, when corporations hired thugs to attack unions and their civilian families with bats, bricks and guns, was that thuggery? Just curious."

It is my understanding that corporations do not use these tactics in this day and age. Unions are clearly still allowed some discretion in this regard. It's nice to be able to mine the past for situations that you feel support your stance but it is really a diversion from discussing what is relevant today.

jim x - "Notice the present tense. I said that, because it hasn't paid back it's loans yet - it has started paying them back."

Yeah GM paid back $6.7 billion in loans from the U.S. government and $1.4 billion in loans to the Canadian government the question is how?

It damn sure wasn't from selling any cars, it was a money shuffle from one TARP account to another.

Neil Barofsky, (Special Inspector General for TARP) told the Senate Finance Committee that GM used bailout money out of an TARP escrow account in order to pay back government loans.

It's a scam you idiot. And it looks like P.T. Barnum was referring to you when he exclaimed "There's a sucker born every minute"

Did you read # 14?

You said:

That loan, and the massive multi billion dollar loan discharged in the BK, was never paid back.

But I never said it was paid back, as in completed. I said it was *being* paid back, you see.

Woo.

24. Posted by jim x | June 5, 2010 12:25 AM | Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
===============================================

jim x

You obviously understand nothing about bankruptcy, pre petition debts and post petition debts. I'll make it simple for you:

Before GM filed for bankruptcy, the U S government loaned the company over $40 billion. GM ultimately had that debt discharged in the bankruptcy, which by definition means the debt was never paid back, is not being paid back and will never be paid back.

Get a clue about bankruptcy before making more of an idiot of yourself here.

That BS mantra about 'too big to fail' is just that. Was TWA 'to big to fail'? Pan American ?
How about American Motors?

Perhaps we need more 'failures'. They have a way of punishing the incompetents.

The "JANITOR IN CHIEF" Can whine and bitch all day and He does! At the end of it however, Im still here! Keep your hands out of everyone elses pockets You stinking THUG!!

I'll make it simple for you:

Here, HughS., let me make the rest of your argument simpler for you:

"...Rather than admit that your original statement was technically correct, as you've requested, I'll continue debating another series of points which don't match your original statement."

It is my understanding that corporations do not use these tactics in this day and age. Unions are clearly still allowed some discretion in this regard. It's nice to be able to mine the past for situations that you feel support your stance but it is really a diversion from discussing what is relevant today.

In that case, Jay G's references to Pinochet, Franco, Salazar and Capone as examples of Union thuggery would also be a diversion from the relevant, wouldn't they?

"And now you're complaining, because President Obama dared suggest BP should make sure it fairly compensates the lives it's destroying with its carelessness, while it's also compensating its shareholders.
What in that is so wrong that you actually disagree with it?"

How do you compensate for a destroyed life? Pull them out of the incerator or grave and say Im sorry? So sorry for ending your life before it began, you were born in the wrong place at the wrong time? Fuck all this! Its like trying to force feed 14 pounds of baraks baloney to a bunch of brain dead recipients!

Oh wait!! That was 2010!!

Before GM filed for bankruptcy, the U S government loaned the company over $40 billion. GM ultimately had that debt discharged in the bankruptcy, which by definition means the debt was never paid back, is not being paid back and will never be paid back.

And which part of my statements tells you that is the loan I'm talking about?

Please identify which of my statements shows that is the one and only loan to GM that I'm referring to. Use a quote. Should be easy if I'm so wrong, right? Right here on this page.

Neil Barofsky, (Special Inspector General for TARP) told the Senate Finance Committee that GM used bailout money out of an TARP escrow account in order to pay back government loans.

Which means they still owe money due to their TARP loans, right?

Which means a) they still have a loan, and b) they're still paying it back. Look for another big payment on the loan to be made when GM makes a stock offering in the last quarter of this year.

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/autobeat/archives/2010/05/gms_loan_paymant_sparks_criticism_but_boosts_the_companys_image.html

It's a scam you idiot.

No, it's not a scam so you're an idiot. Go read that article and hopefully you may understand what's actually going on here. The money GM was advanced so it wouldn't go under and take out a huge sector of the US economy is being paid pack. I guess a plan actually being successful makes you that angry? What a shame.

This loan from comment #10:

"1. You mean the loan that saved a major sector of the US economy, that's already being paid back with interest? Your acting like it's cost. It's an investment."

The loan that saved GM from Ch 7 liquidation was the pre petition loan that will never be paid back,never had a payment made and is forever lost.

Put the shovel down.

Heinz 57, whatever point you're trying to make, it's time for you to ketchup with the rest of us.

Ha ha, You know who I am jim x

Ive been on here for nearly 8 years now. I just change my moniker every few years. Good one! Ha ha

"The money GM was advanced so it wouldn't go under and take out a huge sector of the US economy is being paid back."

Like the 'recent taxpayer payback' using other TARP (taxpayer borrowed) funds?

I like your math jim. Let me borrow $100. I'll pay you back $50. I'll borrow that back and pay you back another $50. SEE? We're even now.

Driving the unions into bankruptcy AND putting a huge chunk of America's workforce out of work would NOT POSSIBLY have been "as well or better in the restructuring" as saving the Unions and the companies, and with them the American economy.

Jesus, you're an idiot. The unions weren't contemplating bankruptcy: it was their host organisms on which these parasites had been feeding who were. And as indicated above, bankruptcy wouldn't have put the workforce out of work.

Good Lord, what daycare center did you drop out of?

jim x: Mommy wants to use her computer. Please log off AOL.

Jesus, you're an idiot.

I know you are, but what am I?

The unions weren't contemplating bankruptcy: it was their host organisms on which these parasites had been feeding who were.

So let's say that's an apt description.

That means that if the "hosts" went bankrupt, then the unions would have gone bankrupt too, right?

So thank you for proving me actually right, with your own argument, in the same post in which you called me an idiot.

Well done.

Good Lord, what daycare center did you drop out of?

One you apparently need to go to.

I like your math jim. [completely inaccurate description of what I'm talking about]

I really don't understand what you guys aren't getting here.

This must be the 3rd or 4th time, I've lost count, in this very thread where I've said "paying back" the loan, as in present tense, as in it hasn't been completed yet - and not "paid back", as in the past, as in it's completed.

Do you understand this difference now?

Now if I'm saying that GM is paying back the loan, and they are paying back the loan, that means my statement is accurate. As of right now, they are paying back the loan.

To be even more clear, if they don't pay back more of their loan later, at that point I will be wrong, because they will no longer be paying back the loan. But as of right now, they are.

Is there anything about that which isn't clear, and which you need explained at a further level of detail?

jim x: Mommy wants to use her computer. Please log off AOL.

Nope. Too busy shredding ridiculous arguments to stop right now.

Hugh S., in re: #44, I suggest you put your shovel down and see my comment in # 42:

Please identify which of my statements shows that is the one and only loan to GM that I'm referring to. Use a quote. Should be easy if I'm so wrong, right? Right here on this page.

Having never managed so much as a night-shift at a 7-Eleven nor a day-shift in a country-town taxi-cab nor run anything other than his TelePrompTered mouth, the coked-up, moronic, marijuana-mumbling, Mussolini-modeled, modified-Marxist, murtadd-Muslim, multiple-mothers' milquetoast presently pretending to what passes as a "presidency" probably sees no more detachment from reality in his presuming to lecture one of the world's most successful, ever, businesses on how to conduct its affairs, than would, say, have Michael Jackson, had he ever written a book on how to keep your sons safe from predatory sexual deviates.

Which reminds us of the chilling reality that, to America, 0zero is about what that other psychopath, Johan van der Sloop, is to the safety of silly little girls on Spring Break!