No. And it's a dumb question, and you know it.
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..
But that's nothing compared to you saying that, "it matters not whether Obama was right and Romney was wrong." You keep dodging the issue. Purposefully. That's why you would rather talk about selling a joint then whether it was better to cut those jobs and save the the company than not. I get it.
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?
What is the mechanism for saving those 750 jobs? Your excerpt seemed to make clear that the company wasn't salvageable. So what should have been done? Just like there wasn't a path that would allow those 21,000 jobs to be saved at GM, there wasn't a path to to save those 750. There have been a lot of job losses in the steel industry since the 70's. In fact, the US steel industry is in good shape now, in spite of government help. I'll link this for you, not that it will matter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/worldbusiness/23iht-steel.1.18064775.html?pagewanted=alland? 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..
