Well, here's an example of something that has actually played out differently under Obama than it would have under Bush. You know that $50M private jet that Citigroup was going to buy, the same Citigroup whom we just gave $45B in bailout funds? Yeah, Obama didn't take kindly to that [B]and actually did something about it[/B]. The long and short of it is that Citigroup ain't getting its plane.

[QUOTE]The high-flying execs at Citigroup caved under pressure from President Obama and decided today to abandon plans for a luxurious new $50 million corporate jet from France...

ABC News has learned that Monday officials of the Obama administration called Citigroup about the company's new $50 million corporate jet and told execs to "fix it." [/QUOTE]

[url]http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Politics/story?id=6740011&page=1[/url]

Re: Obama v Bush

lol @ "fix it" :)

Re: Obama v Bush

[QUOTE=Steve Graham;702981]lol @ "fix it" :)[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/ANATHEMAxBANE/WinstonWolf.png[/IMG]

Re: Obama v Bush

good...that is only to Obama's credit. Those fools who manage Citigroup should all be fired.

Re: Obama v Bush

good work obama!

Re: Obama v Bush

i was driving a while ago and i stumbled upon Rush Limbaugh on the radio, and they were complaining about this plane issue and about that dude with the million dollar office and bathroom, saying that were becoming a socialist country since now you cant even build a bathroom or buy a plane without government telling you what to do.

man, rush is running out of topics to bitch about.

Re: Obama v Bush

....

Re: Obama v Bush

....

Re: Obama v Bush

Good for Obama. Bush would ask to ride in the new plane and compare it to Air Force One.

Re: Obama v Bush

I don't care if these guys wasted their money in the past and hurt their shareholders; their shareholders and board of directors should then fire them and replace them with managers who will improve their equity value.

What I do care about are two things: (1) a company allowed to become so huge that it is "too big to fail" and requires the public to bail it out when it gets stuck. "Too big to fail" should be "too big to exist".

And (2) managers who waste money hand over fist AFTER they get a massive public bailout. Once you got my money, it's [I]not your company anymore[/I] as far as I'm concerned. The way it should have worked is: you screw up and require the taxpayers to save you from your own incompetence, your ass is on the street [I]and[/I] we get significant short-term control over your company.

I've said it before, I'll say it again...equity stakes and mandated top-level corporate layoffs should have been part of the package for these bailouts. Then at very least wouldn't have these idiots who take our money and turn around and buy corporate jets with it.

Re: Obama v Bush

miro: true

Re: Obama v Bush

[quote=Cj Tari;703112]i was driving a while ago and i stumbled upon Rush Limbaugh on the radio, and they were complaining about this plane issue and about that dude with the million dollar office and bathroom, saying that were becoming a socialist country since now you cant even build a bathroom or buy a plane without government telling you what to do.

man, rush is running out of topics to bitch about.[/quote]

Rush needs to pull a Heath Ledger and take a deadly mix of his prescription meds already.

btw, stuff like this coming from Obama is why I've been supporting him since I first heard him speak in 2004. You rock, Barack! :RockOn:

Re: Obama v Bush

[quote=MJDub;703184][B]Rush needs to pull a Heath Ledger and take a deadly mix of his prescription meds already.[/B]

btw, stuff like this coming from Obama is why I've been supporting him since I first heard him speak in 2004. You rock, Barack! :RockOn:[/quote]

I'm all for freedom of speech, but this asshole takes it to a whole new level of shite spewed from someones mouth when give a platform, lol

Re: Obama v Bush

[quote=Miroslav;703126]I don't care if these guys wasted their money in the past and hurt their shareholders; their shareholders and board of directors should then fire them and replace them with managers who will improve their equity value.

What I do care about are two things: (1) a company allowed to become so huge that it is "too big to fail" and requires the public to bail it out when it gets stuck. "Too big to fail" should be "too big to exist".

And (2) managers who waste money hand over fist AFTER they get a massive public bailout. Once you got my money, it's [I]not your company anymore[/I] as far as I'm concerned. The way it should have worked is: you screw up and require the taxpayers to save you from your own incompetence, your ass is on the street [I]and[/I] we get significant short-term control over your company.

I've said it before, I'll say it again...equity stakes and mandated top-level corporate layoffs should have been part of the package for these bailouts. Then at very least wouldn't have these idiots who take our money and turn around and buy corporate jets with it.[/quote]

Well said.

Re: Obama v Bush

why the fuck is the citibank 400 million dollar deal with the mets for the naming rights to thier stadium still up???

wonder where thier donations went during election time.

Re: Obama v Bush

[QUOTE=MJDub;703184]Rush needs to pull a Heath Ledger and take a deadly mix of his prescription meds already. :RockOn:[/QUOTE]

:arrow::!: