Agreed but I have to agree with the Democrats on this one point.  Who are the Republicans, to lecture the Democrats at spending?  Many of the Republicans are in the position of Do as I say not as we did.  To this I concede the point.

On the flip side I'm not going to dismiss the hypocricy of the Democrats either.  They criticized the Republicans and Bush for their spending and now are dwarfing the previous administrations spending! 

<dream>I'd love to see if the Obama n cohorts would even LET one of these companies pay back these loans.  It would be interesting to see GM give back the bail out money and kick out Gov't control.  *sigh* </dream>

This seems relatively apropos here.

Yes, and if all goes well, then maybe over 10,000 Americans can die in a heatwave like in France.  Wouldn't that just be peachy?

Glad to know somebody follows a link now and then.

A citizen of Canadia, to be sure, but lives in New Hampshire (Live Free or Die).  I can only assume he's a legal alien.

so your fine using your tax dollars to run a area that the gov has no buesness being in?  let em tank. I rather have em tank than become a money pit like they already have

You've probably seen this, kb, but so should others.  Either hysterically pathetic or pathetically hysterical - not sure which.

Assuming this isn't just his idea of an April Fool's joke, mark the date, folks - aeortar and I agree 99%*.

*Government money = taxpayer money.  For purposes of today's celebration, the redundancy's a minor quibble.

1.  The companies have no business being bailed out by us (except through bankruptcy).

2.  The government has no business running businesses.  It's the worst Board of Directors conceivable.

3.  If a business borrows, or accepts money, from the government, it can expect conditions & meddling.

4.  The government has no business, as a means of exploiting #3, forcing any business to take any unwanted government money.

Do any Obama supporters have anything to say about the Constitutionality of what Obama, Pelosi and Reid are doing?  Or does that matter to any of you?

apparently you musta missed my comment #15 in the thread of your own hystrionic post entitled something like "dictator obama forces ceo out of office" (a gross distortion of fact since obama did not send in troops to keep watch while the guy packed up his desk and then escort him off the premises or force him to do anything whatsoever; apparently you confuse "force" with "offering a conditional choice"--a distinction very clear to anyone who's actually been fired or laid off in the real world).

in any event, here's what i posted there:

where were you when our most recent president and vice-president regularly assumed to themselves all kinda power to do stuff based on yoo/gonzales assertions that anything the executive does is legal by virtue of it being done by the executive?

are you ready to repeal the taft-hartley act (which grants the president considerably more and broader power to interfere with private commerce in the interest of the nation's economy)?

for that matter, were you as outraged about nixon imposing wage and price freezes?

Im just scanning over the replies as this caught my eye, so did your reply here.  the drudge report had linked to an article which shows how the banks are being rejected when they try to pay back the TARP money, WITH interest.  The government is not allowing the banks to send the money back, which forces them to keep it...forcing them to do whatever the feds tell them to do, because 'they recieved the money.'  This isnt something the banks had a choice in.  They were forced to take it, and now that they have it, they can't give it back. 

And that's the concern I have.  While they may not be 'intending' to enslave these companies to Gov't control this can easily be shifted at the Gov'ts convenience too easily.  All in the name of 'protect the public.'