Car sales without crutches (Government Motors sales plunge 45%!)

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=274788

I wonder what GM thinks about so many people calling it Government
Motors? Or, Obama Motors Corporation?
cuhulin

> wrote in message
...
> http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=274788
>
> I wonder what GM thinks about so many people calling it Government
> Motors? Or, Obama Motors Corporation?
> cuhulin


News yesterday said that most of the apparent increase in the economy
during the past several weeks was due to the Clunkers program... This
means there was essentially no real growth or recovery...just this "one
time"
(we hope) infusion of taxpayer money into the auto industry.

"hls" > wrote in
:

>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=274788
>>
>> I wonder what GM thinks about so many people calling it Government
>> Motors? Or, Obama Motors Corporation?
>> cuhulin
>
As opposed to defunct? Which they certainly would be otherwise.

>
> News yesterday said that most of the apparent increase in the economy
> during the past several weeks was due to the Clunkers program... This
> means there was essentially no real growth or recovery...just this "one
> time"
> (we hope) infusion of taxpayer money into the auto industry.
>
So the banks and everywhere else in the economy the government *didn't* do
anything about aren't doing ****. Just shows *why* that what Obama came up
with *is* the only thing that *is* working. Should never have given the
banks a cent, just protected savings. but I guess Scrub made that impossible.
If the banks went under, The "illegal" loans could have been negated and no
one would lose their house. Just about as fair as anyone could work it IMHO.

"fred" > wrote in message
...
> "hls" > wrote in

> So the banks and everywhere else in the economy the government *didn't* do
> anything about aren't doing ****. Just shows *why* that what Obama came up
> with *is* the only thing that *is* working. Should never have given the
> banks a cent, just protected savings. but I guess Scrub made that
> impossible.
> If the banks went under, The "illegal" loans could have been negated and
> no
> one would lose their house. Just about as fair as anyone could work it
> IMHO.


Blamed on Bush, the deregulation was the product of William Jefferson
Clinton.
Give the boy a cigar (a dry one).

"hls" > wrote in
:

>
> "fred" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "hls" > wrote in
>
>> So the banks and everywhere else in the economy the government *didn't*
>> do anything about aren't doing ****. Just shows *why* that what Obama
>> came up with *is* the only thing that *is* working. Should never have
>> given the banks a cent, just protected savings. but I guess Scrub made
>> that impossible.
>> If the banks went under, The "illegal" loans could have been negated
>> and no
>> one would lose their house. Just about as fair as anyone could work it
>> IMHO.
>
>
> Blamed on Bush, the deregulation was the product of William Jefferson
> Clinton.
> Give the boy a cigar (a dry one).
>
If you want to believe that fine. I'm not one to ruin your "party"
further. I seriously doubt I could do as good a job as scrub did no
matter how hard I tried anyways.

"fred" > wrote in message
>> Blamed on Bush, the deregulation was the product of William Jefferson
>> Clinton.
>> Give the boy a cigar (a dry one).
>>
> If you want to believe that fine. I'm not one to ruin your "party"
> further. I seriously doubt I could do as good a job as scrub did no
> matter how hard I tried anyways.
>

That is because it is true, Fred.

Bush has his cross to bear, but he was not the total evil that America has
experienced over the last 50 decades or so. He was bad enough, and we
lost more personal freedoms under his administration that I can recall under
any other in my lifetime.

hls > wrote:
>"fred" > wrote in message
>>> Blamed on Bush, the deregulation was the product of William Jefferson
>>> Clinton.
>>> Give the boy a cigar (a dry one).
>>>
>> If you want to believe that fine. I'm not one to ruin your "party"
>> further. I seriously doubt I could do as good a job as scrub did no
>> matter how hard I tried anyways.
>>
>
>That is because it is true, Fred.
>
>Bush has his cross to bear, but he was not the total evil that America has
>experienced over the last 50 decades or so. He was bad enough, and we
>lost more personal freedoms under his administration that I can recall under
>any other in my lifetime.

Actually, the bank deregulation started with Reagan, whose obsession with
reducing the size of government resulted in an incredible ballooning in
the size of the government. But it did continue on through both Bush
administrations as well as the Clinton administration as well. Really,
nobody is without blame.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 5 Oct 2009 20:36:10 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>
>Actually, the bank deregulation started with Reagan, whose obsession with
>reducing the size of government resulted in an incredible ballooning in
>the size of the government. But it did continue on through both Bush
>administrations as well as the Clinton administration as well. Really,
>nobody is without blame.
>--scott

I had nothing to do with it.

--Vic

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
:

> hls > wrote:
>>"fred" > wrote in message
>>>> Blamed on Bush, the deregulation was the product of William Jefferson
>>>> Clinton.
>>>> Give the boy a cigar (a dry one).
>>>>
>>> If you want to believe that fine. I'm not one to ruin your "party"
>>> further. I seriously doubt I could do as good a job as scrub did no
>>> matter how hard I tried anyways.
>>>
>>
>>That is because it is true, Fred.
>>
>>Bush has his cross to bear, but he was not the total evil that America
>>has experienced over the last 50 decades or so. He was bad enough, and
>>we lost more personal freedoms under his administration that I can
>>recall under any other in my lifetime.
>
> Actually, the bank deregulation started with Reagan, whose obsession
> with reducing the size of government resulted in an incredible
> ballooning in the size of the government. But it did continue on
> through both Bush administrations as well as the Clinton administration
> as well. Really, nobody is without blame.

I think you may be confusing the party in the White House with congress.
One only can do what it wants if it matches the other.

"hls" > wrote in
:

>
> "fred" > wrote in message
>>> Blamed on Bush, the deregulation was the product of William Jefferson
>>> Clinton.
>>> Give the boy a cigar (a dry one).
>>>
>> If you want to believe that fine. I'm not one to ruin your "party"
>> further. I seriously doubt I could do as good a job as scrub did no
>> matter how hard I tried anyways.
>>
>
> That is because it is true, Fred.
>
> Bush has his cross to bear, but he was not the total evil that America
> has experienced over the last 50 decades or so.

What evil is that? Muslims? Libia was handled without any trouble in the
70's and 80's. Provocation by US intervention in other countries may have
cause Sept. 11th, 2001 in combination of the wealth of one of the richest
families in Saudi Arabia - Who still need to be called to task for it and
were the only people who were allowed to fly out of the country that day
BTW.

That evil had any effect on it supposes that one believes that there is a
difference between evil and stupidity or in evil in an inanimate form.

> He was bad enough, and
> we lost more personal freedoms under his administration that I can
> recall under any other in my lifetime.
>
In any case I don't think this will all be fixed until Bush does time for
his actions - along with Cheney. I'd ignore Wolfie - he got his penalty.

Anyways, this has drifted seriously OT and Top gear is on with Ron Wood. So
see ya.