Yes! and so is your comparison.. and you know it as well, why won't you simply admit it and move on.
Obama (or me), is not the same as Mitt (or Escobar).. duh! So why are you trying to put a shiney-gloss on Mitt by making Obama's actions equal to his own? Just own it already..
staying on topic and not letting you change the conversation because you're uncomfortable is not dodging.. In some cases it is better to cut some to save the whole, I will never say differently.. but not in all cases... and you can't say that that was Mitt's goal each and every time, that would be bullshit.. his goal, his only goal was to make money. to get the investment back in triplicate, if cutting a few jobs to save the whole would do that, that's what he did.. if killing them all and selling the pieces was more profitable, well he did that as well... do you deny any of that?
none of which is comparable to what Obama did. Had he done it to 100's of corporations then you could make your comparison.. But he didn't, he did it once and to a single company that asked for the Gov't help... and for that help, they had to do what the legal minds of the gov't said to do.. and that was lose 21,000 jobs.. which in the end created thousands more and put GM back in the number one spot... and speaking of dodging, you were the one who was anti- this bailout, you would have let the auto industry die taking millions of jobs with it... do you care to admit your brilliant assessment was wrong?
and? I'm not doubting you or going after Romney for what he did.. Not right now, not in this thread.. and my issue would be the bail out and broken promises, not necessarily the lost jobs.. steel work is rough, and many mills closed... I'm not micro-focused on those jobs the way you are.. It was just a point that answered your incredibly naive statement of "and I'd like to know if Romney got anywhere near firing 21,000 workers".. it was an example out of his 10,000... if you would like to talk about the steel industry throughout the 70' until the present, have at it in a new thread... my only reason for bring it up to counter that ridiculous statement of yours
re:that article.. it turned out wrong didn't it... all that doom and gloom didn't pan out the way it said.. the bailout worked out the way the 'partisans' said it did..
OK I guess the Socratic method doesn't work. I totally
misunderestimated the ideological blinders you choose to wear.
Basically you seem to think that the primary and most important difference is motive. Mitt was trying to make money, Obama was trying to insure a continued flow of union money. Mitt was trying to gain personally, Obama was trying to gain for his party.
OK got it.
As to your comment about my opposition to the bailout, you're damn right I was opposed to it and I am still opposed to it. For reasons that I've already enumerated multiple times (although all of those reasons have mind have most likely vanished into the ether now). The bail out/ Obama reorganization plan didn't work any better than allowing Chapter 11 to continue. Based on your previous comments, you thought that Chapter 11 would lead to a liquidation of GM; it would just vanish as a company, and I've never been able, despite all evidence, to convince you otherwise. My "brilliant assessment" was correct, and I doubt I'll have reason to change my mind, at least until the stock price gets to the break even point (about 52; it was at 25 on Friday). So far, it's still a loser for the tax payer and I still doubt it was reorganized enough to be on a firm footing. That was the purpose of the Chapter 11.
