What if Obama really forged his birth Birth Certificate?

Post Reply New Topic

I would have let GM fall on it's ass just as a terrifying warning to other big companies to be careful. Painful is it would be in terms of lost jobs, the alternative that was exercised sends the wrong message.

While I'm no big fan of labor unions, I have been laid off, unemployed, and homeless. I can easily imagine trying to find gainful employment in a town where nearly half of the population is looking for work.

Yeah, "send a message" to the greedy fat-cats if you will; but kicking ordinary workers to the curb while the greedy fat-cats fall back on their savings and investments might not be the message that you really want to send.

And I thought that that whole concept of Natural Born means that someone is born to parents who are American citizens natural born or not, and who was born in American territory, conceived as born in the territory any of 50 states of USA (i don't know how many States United States had )

Speaking of which in Poland term urodzony naturalnie = natural born, means someone born by means of nature, that is without Cesarean Section, and every year we had more and more "non natural born" citizens, so it's good that our Polish Constitution is more liberal in terms of eligibility for presidency in Poland Even trough i'm Natural Born in biological sens

believing in unrestrained capitalism doesn't make a person american.

There is no painless alternative to that situation. It's about getting f****d one way or the other, sooner or later. Even as a hate filled greedy conservative capitalist, I hate corporate welfare. They either stand on their own two feet or fall and be forgotten. This is from someone who is currently employed by a company that is failing due to it's own lack of direction, structure, and general wastefulness and stupidity so it's not like I'm preaching from my high horse.

Not a legal expert but my understanding is that there are a host of legal reasons why Obama has been the valid president of the US since first sworn in. Among them are that the electoral college met after both his elections and he won the votes that they held, counted by congress, which is technically how presidents are elected. Certainly, in the absence of any proof of him not being born in the US at those times, he was not formally disqualified by any court or legal authority.

Beyond that, there are certainly no shortages of lawsuits involving Obama in his capacity as president where the courts would have at least implicitly acknowledged that Obama is, in fact, president through their rulings on the suits, rather than ruling as if the office of President were vacant.

If at this point in time it were proven that Obama was not born in the United States, that would of course be grounds for removal from office / impeachment by the process the Constitution outlines (i.e. a vote of the house to impeach, the house prosecutes Obama in the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding, and the Senate voting to convict / remove from office, or not). If they voted to remove Obama from office, Joe Biden would become president. But as far as I am aware the office of presidency would not be retroactively vacated in a legal sense for the entirety of Obama's term up until that point. Everything Obama did as President he did as the legally recognized holder of the office, even if he was not in fact qualified to hold the office, and so would be binding.

Obama was born in an Hawaiian hospital--on US soil. Hawaii was a state by that time.

He was a product of a romance between an American citizen student and a Kenyan student studying in America. Pretty shocking for 1960-1961; but they didn't think so. They were both studying for their doctorates.

Yeah, but it's still fun to f**k with the Obama supporters with the "birther" thing just for kicks.

Always remember: to be "impeached" means you are indicted for offenses, not convicted of offenses.

The only two Presidents who were impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Both were acquitted.

Nixon was very close to being impeached when he resigned in 1974. He was never even impeached.

The problem about a company the size of GM going bust is exactly as stated before, and the decision to "save" it is tactically speaking problematic, but strategically speaking a necessity.

If we decided to let huge corporations like this go bankrupt, global economy would have collapsed in the wake of 2008, and that would mean famine and war in any place that's not self-sustainable. And the doomsday preppers would win.

Not that I'm defending this all, but the decision to save system relevant giant corporations is, in this world order, inevitable.
We need GM, and we need wallstreet to function. We have built our modern world on these guys for 30 years.
A drastic, sudden restructuring would bring a century of chaos.

Also, @OP: I'm an austrian painter in germany. I currently have no plans to become chancellor, though. After all, art school accepted me; unlike the other famous austeian painter....

Two points to make about this.

1: When GM got bailed out we had recently experimented with letting an important business entity fall on it's ass in hopes that it would serve as a lesson to others. That was Lehman Brothers.

The federal government made a point of not bailing it out. They thought it would scare some responsibility into others.

That experiment failed miserably. It precipitated the collapse of a large number of houses of cards.

2: We turned a profit on bailing out GM. Every dollar was paid back in full with interest.

Frankly, allowing GM to continue to manufacture and sell the Chevy Cruze is far more upsetting than their bailout. 0/10 would not drive again. What a miserable car.

If you want to b***h about a bailout, go look at AIG. When our own banks were getting 25 cents on the dollar through their insurance, AIG convinced our government to help them pay the foreign banks they insured - including Societe General and Credit Suisse, and others, at a full 100 cents on the dollar. And to my knowledge we didn't get that money back.

We shouldn't of bailed out any of these corporations, of course GM would feel entitled to a bail out given the one just given to the financial industry. I feel more sorry for GM assembly worker than I do some suit on Wall Street. Simply speaking, the rich people who own and run these companies deserved to fail and be cast out. The fortunes they amassed should be forfeited, why is it only those of us on main street that feel the pain of the consequences of own bad decisions? There shouldn't be people getting rich in a bankrupt company but there are, how much did these executives get in their golden parachutes again? Perhaps we shouldn't let other countries take advantage of us like Japan and Korea who we allow into our markets but don't allow us into there's, they assemble the cars mostly over here anyways altho increasingly to Mexico. We have a fake economy, smoke and mirrors, let the malinvestment correct itself instead of perpetuating it. If these companies are too big to fail and we think they're such good investments then perhaps instead of bailing out we should nationalize, at least then we get something tangible and failure doesn't get rewarded.

Actually no one is even close to being completely right about GM bail-out/restructuring.

Old GM's problems were:

1)GM was bound to legacy costs, same as Ford and Chrysler, which was now mounting in the billions each year.

2)GM's leadership was unable to change itself due to the strong management culture, which prevented any meaningful change (this normal for most companies).

3) Shareholders preventing GM's management from doing anything meaningful

4)GM's management was literally getting huge pay and benefits at the expense of everyone else

5)Their pension plan was horribly underfunded by almost a hundred billion, which would would have fallen on the U.S. Government by Federal law if GM went under.

6) GM makes a large portion of military stuff for the U.S. and it's allies.

7) Foreign automakers are subsidized by their home country
- Japanese automakers get subsidized steel from their government, which is used in nearly all of Toyota's parts and cars.
- The majority of the Japanese auto companies workers are Japanese, meaning they don't have to pay benefits and pensions, which are covered by universal benefits and pensions in Japan (this includes healthcare).
- This allows Japanese automakers to compete at a much cheaper costs than most of the non Japanese automakers.

- Korean automakers have something similar to Japan

-VW, Daimler AG (includes Mercedes), Porch, Audi etc... All are subsidized by the German government.
- France subsidizes it's automakers.
- Other foreign auto makers are subsidized too

[color=red]It's really hard to compete on price, when your foreign competition has their governments footing the bill on many costs.[/color=red]

If Toyota and VW saw their subsidizes end, they'd be struggling to compete on costs with GM, FCA and Ford.

Though many if not most foreign companies are subsidized in every industry.


GM, Ford, and then Chrysler employ directly 10% of the U.S. workforce (includes dealerships and licensed mechanics).
Another 20%-30% is indirectly kept in business due to those employed by the American 3.

If GM went under, then it would literally create a domino effect leading to every automaker in that operates in the U.S.
It would have put every part supplier and distributer out of business, which would have in turn put Ford and Chrysler out of business too.
Toyota, VW, Honda, Daimler, etc... would have been left with no suppliers (they use the same ones as the U.S. 3) and practically no distributors.
It would have killed their North American operations, leading to huge layoffs as they revert to importing all their vehicles into the U.S. for sales.

In the end you would have wound up between 25% unemployment to as high as 40%+ national unemployment with a very bitter electorate blaming the president and congress for putting them on the streets.

The U.S. and state governments would have had to spend a huge amount of money repairing the economy and taking care of the unemployed.

The U.S. and Canada would have literally tipped into a second great depression, pulling the world down with them.
The Eurozone and EU were in a recession, China was/is slowing, India is still stalled, Japan was still in a recession, etc...
The world didn't need this to happen, because no country could offset the U.S. economically and still can't.

The saying goes "When the U.S. sneezes, the world catches pneumonia!"
What happens when the U.S. catches pneumonia, while the rest of the world is in a precarious state?

Also the U.S. Military is not allowed to buy from non American companies.
There is only 3 auto companies that can produce what they need in the world.



As of December 2015:

VW is the #1 automaker globally based on production
GM is neck and neck with Toyota for the #2 spot in global production.
GM is neck and neck with Toyota for the #1 spot in global sales!

[b]GM is has been the most profitable automaker in the world for the past 2 years[/b} by a wide margin.

GM paid back the U.S. and Canada with good interest, leading to both making a profit on the loans.
GM's stock is back to near record high.
GM pays a big dividend again
GM paid their auto workers two record breaking profit-sharing amounts based on record profits.

Though the only downside is the U.S. Treasury had to sell their majority stake in GM at a loss, but that was due to the government shutdowns forcing the Treasury to get money where ever possible.

In the end everyone won but Wall Street and bond holders of OLD GM.


Essentially it was a strategic and military necessity for the U.S. and Canada to bail out/restructure GM, to prevent a second great depression.

Obama's second term is almost up, for crying out loud! Is anyone even beating this dead horse anymore?

What all those bailouts did was postpone the second Great Depression and assure it will be worse when it does happen then it would have been had it been allowed to happen in 2009. The economy is in worse fundemenal shape now then in the 2000's. We are more dependent on too big to fail then we were. The middle class the backbone of American dominance of the 20th century is shrinking. The permenent underclass is bigger. People are more stressed out and we are even more divided politically and socially.