Federal support is federal support, as you admit, it all comes from the taxpayers and Obama's administration was integral in getting these funds for Ford. Clearly Ford did attain loans before the credit markets dried up, and we can agree that getting the credit markets going again was/and still is a primary goal for the good of the economy. You mentioned socialism and communism, neither term applies here. Many Republicans opposed the TARP -- an initiative of a Republican administration -- because they felt it was too much government intrusion into the private enterprise system. This is the one area where you could even begin to make a case that the government was taking ownership, but as a percentage of the full U.S. economy, it was relatively small and temporary. So add them up, and it amounts to flimsy evidence to even begin to argue that the Obama is on a path toward socialism. "Socialism means public ownership of the means of production. Obama does not believe this. Therefore he is not a socialist," conservative economist Bruce Bartlett told PolitiFact in an e-mail. "Although it is true that the federal government did come to own some private businesses as a consequence of bailout policies initiated by the George W. Bush administration such as TARP, the Obama administration sold many of them -- such as its shares in GM -- as quickly as feasible. A true socialist would have held on to them."
Bush is the socialist by you definition paniro.... also the GOP wants america to be ran under a theocracy not a democracy. go listen to your party's rhetoric
Surprise! The big bad bailout is paying off http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/08/surprise-the-big-bad-bailout-is-paying-off/
same ole same ole ..the founding fathers were pure and clean as the snow. black belt patriotism...LOL [YOUTUBE]JC7zZF4awE8[/YOUTUBE]
There is such a thing as "too big to fail" when you allow firms to achieve monopoly power and command such a share of employment and GDP that a disruption to their operations can disrupt the functioning of the entire economy. Another free market fallacy is that you can simultaneously have an economy driven by market principles "let supply meet demand" and have that organizing principle not affect the broader society. The person whose firm is able to meet demand gains more capital, which he can use to demand more political power and access. The minute you let market principles define society, corruption is not only inevitable, but justified given the articulated principles and resulting circumstances.
One might also add that in theory when you let a company fail there's another company right behind it to take its place but when you allow certain entities to control a massive amount of the market share how is that possible.
P187,you are one misguided person since the GOP has gone hog wild on messing things up in the ecomomy and passing social issues that had nothing to do with jobs. Oh yes they cather to plutocrats of the USA.
Sam is from an older, more abused generation. They had more reason to vote for BO than anyone else. This country today is of stark contrast to the one in the 60s BO was a reprieve
Dude that speech the lawyer gave at the end was chilling. Even I gasped when he said imagine if she were white. Fucking crazy.