http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/01/news/companies/cit_group/index.htm?postversion=2009110116

Obama should of saved?

11/1/2009 6:57:34 PM

There's already a thread on this: message_topic.aspx?topic=580300

[Edited on November 1, 2009 at 7:05 PM. Reason : .]

11/1/2009 7:04:35 PM

Quote :

"should of "

11/1/2009 7:27:50 PM

roddy, there is a limit to everything in life, and you passed your limit a long time ago.

I have been telling you about this "should of" business for at least 7 or 8 years now... several times each year. Yet, you continue to repeat it. Do you not understand simple instructions?

It is SHOULD HAVE.

NOT should of.

11/1/2009 10:08:39 PM

no its 'should a'

dont listen to him roddy

11/2/2009 12:43:27 AM

It's actually "had should".

omg impressive us economy ftw

11/2/2009 1:30:23 AM

^ Yes, because CIT clearly = U.S. economy. Douche.

And the economy would be significantly better without the Democrats' massive government spending piled on existing debt. Don't worry, though, the wake-up call is coming next week in Virginia and probably New Jersey, in 2010, and probably in 2012.

11/2/2009 3:48:29 AM

no, it's really "had of should"

don't listen to these trolls

11/2/2009 6:52:10 AM

So is it actually going to be able to go bankrupt, or can we expect a bailout of some sort?

11/2/2009 11:24:33 AM

Quote :

"And the economy would be significantly better without the Democrats' massive government spending piled on existing debt. Don't worry, though, the wake-up call is coming next week in Virginia and probably New Jersey, in 2010, and probably in 2012."

haha, because things fared so much better under the republicans right?

government spending and the economy are mostly separate issues.

^ just because there's a bailout, doesn't mean they won't be bankruptcy.

And i don't think there'll be a bailout because they apparently filed for bankruptcy as part of a reorganization plan. They seem to have their ducks in a row more than the auto companies did (or other banks).

[Edited on November 2, 2009 at 12:40 PM. Reason : ]

11/2/2009 12:38:38 PM

Quote :

"because things fared so much better under the republicans right?"

No one said it did. But a huge part of the democratic platform last year was fixing the damage done to the economy by the previous administrations out of control spending. So, I guess the democrats fixed it by increasing the amount of out of control spending?

Quote :

"government spending and the economy are mostly separate issues. "

Until it starts destabilizing the currency...

11/2/2009 1:44:23 PM

^ i see your point, but I think it's very arguable (and both sides have been arguing it) that the bailouts/stimulus were an emergency thing.

So far though, beyond those items, "the democrats" haven't put forth any massive new spending programs that are going to add to the debt in a significant way.

And when a person says that the economy will be better without the democrats and people will have a "wake up" call that pretty clearly implies the person things the other side will do things differently.

11/2/2009 2:05:10 PM

sure, that's usually true.


me... I believe that we're fucked regardless of which party is in power.

11/2/2009 2:11:43 PM

No, the American People are a clever bunch and will find ways to lessen the damage inflicted upon them by their betters in Congress.

11/2/2009 2:35:51 PM

From the article:

Quote :

"In the bankruptcy filing, CIT said it had $71 billion in assets and $64.9 billion in liabilities."

I don't get it... that means they have $6.1 billion to work with, right? How is that bankrupt?

11/2/2009 4:37:51 PM

Quote :

"So far though, beyond those items, "the democrats" haven't put forth any massive new spending programs that are going to add to the debt in a significant way."

Healthcare? what? Only a fool would think it won't add to the deficit. And, yes, the CBO is a bunch of fools.
Cap and Trade? I guess you aren't talking about the trade deficit, cause that must not be important.
The fucking stimulus bull? Nah, adding a trillion aint adding debt in a significant way...

Besides, dems can still claim the boondoggles of SS and Medicare far past any republican fuckup when it comes to adding to the national debt.

11/2/2009 7:07:04 PM

Quote :

"I don't get it... that means they have $6.1 billion to work with, right? How is that bankrupt?"

Dude, you can't do SHIT with $6.1 billion. I've got like $10 billion in the bank and I'm still broke as hell.

11/2/2009 7:17:25 PM

Quote :

"Healthcare? what? Only a fool would think it won't add to the deficit."

Come on, bro. It's going to pay for itself, just like Social Security and Medicare.

11/2/2009 7:36:11 PM

Our impressive national debt is the only government project successfully created, modified, and improved upon by both political parties. To argue who did 1 billion more on 10 trillion is really splitting hairs.

I mean what, you think star wars and 5200 ICBM's were free?

11/3/2009 12:47:04 PM

this is true, but let's not say that "Obama isn't increasing the national debt in any significant way."

11/3/2009 8:05:30 PM

^^ You must recognize that there has been a change of scale, right? The projected deficit for 2010 is more than twice bush's worst. As such, in Obama's first two years we will have borrowed more than Bush did in eight years.

11/4/2009 10:49:08 AM