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>

according to the liar/current ceo of bank of america, his lil fiefdom is about to start buying itself back from us...um i mean paying back some of the money they received.  betcha if they're late we won't be able to kick the rate up to 30% and add on a buncha charges but... 

This seems relatively apropos here.

Interesting Beeman.  I'm curious if they ever get to the point where they pay it completely off.  Time will tell.

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?

it's only recently (during your dialogue with cikomyr, to be exact), i've realized you and i share even one more common sentiment: we both seem equally entrhalled by the pithy observations of our great nation by citizens of our neighbor to the north (by which i mean neither nevada nor oregon)>

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.

seeing as how cikomyr's remained at home while steyn doesn't seem to be in any rush to switch citizenship, i'm inclined to allow cik more cred. 

dunno if you do any cable slumming but i recently caught an spisode of bio's "parole board"--clearly it's been in reruns for years--which sorta contradicted that whole life free or die thing if you happen to be bipolar and former state atty general with kleptomanic tendencies and a vindictive soon-to-be-ex wife, a former escort service entrepreneur or a former military sergeant who claims to have been tryin to scare kids away by flashin them.  

the hooker and the former atty general were granted parole but a happy ending was marred by an epilogue note informing us the klepto had his revoked before release when they caught him stealing a prison computer.  fortunately the flasher appeared to be goin nowhere for at least a few more years.

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

Now THAT's entertainment.

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

Maybe he feels, like most people, that he shouldn't just write a blank cheque to the motor industry so that the hopeless chief execs of that company can go and throw the money away and then come back for more? The most alarming thing I find about your post is the presumption that the car makers deserve this money - "Obama has made the CEO of GM leave by threatening to withhold federal money, so basically Obama is manipulating companies to bend to his demands." - this isn't the car makers money, this is the government's money, taxpayers money, our money. Companies should have no right to it, and if they do get offered some, the government should feel free to set whatever terms it wants to go with that money. If the company doesn't like those terms, it can go find it's money somewhere else.

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.

the problem is I dont want gov running any knod of comany. For petes sake they cant even run themselves right and now your going to have em run banks and now the auto industry??!

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?

They've not been bailed out (yet), so they'd probably do a better job. Also I'd have them not bail the companies out at all, and just let them fail. However if they were to bail the companies out, I'd have them at the very least force out the people at those companies who got it into such a bad situation as opposed to just handing the money over.

More concerning to me is the clear failure being demonstrated by the traditional capitalist framework of the separation of ownership and control - why have shareholders not forced out their failing chief execs themselves without needing prompting from the government? Government control may not be perfect, but clearly neither is your typical corporation.

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?

I sure as hell was.  Others may be TFY to remember.

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. 

Kingbee, I saw it, I just wondered why you can't defend Obama's actions using the US Constitution.  

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.'