<Right, it is irrelevant because you are a Republican and therefore pro-management and anti-union. >
It's irrelevant to what the Obama admin is doing. That's the point of my post. If I was discussing the merits of what Chrysler's management did, then your point would be relevant. Which I'm not. They're two seperate things. If you want to change the subject for some odd reason, then go on and discuss Chrysler's management. It's like if I said Hitler was very dangerous after he invaded Poland during WWII and you responded "Oh yeah, well Chamberlain should not have made a treaty with him" while ridiculing me for saying Hitler was dangerous. Yeesh.
<Baloney. He isn't breaking any law.>
He's breaking the INTENT of the law, using at a minimum unethical tactics, which seems to be a kind of blackmail.
I don't support what Paulson did there. It doesn't seem to rise to the level of what the Obama admin is doing with Chrysler however. While they both seem to be trying to get around the law, I don't know what Paulson's motive could have been other than trying to prevent a credit collapse. Obama's motive is to give money to the UAW that belongs to creditors for purely political reasons. He's also adding in some demagogic rhetoric, unfairly attacking the creditors - maybe that's a big yawn to you. That's the essence of how banana republic economies function. And he may well get away with it.
There's plenty of other huge differences between the last and current admin. There was no equivalent of the bizarre "stimulus" bill or the huge new health care program that Obama is readying. There probably would have been some kind of stimulus if Bush was still in office but not on that scale and not with so much intended to be permanent, which is a lot of it. And a lot of it would have been tax cuts.
If you want to look beyond the narrow "last 6 months" of Bush, compared to Obama's 100 days, Bush would not have been in favor of his tax cuts expiring next year. Or the economy destroying cap and trade ("cap and tax") that Obama plans to introduce to combat the nonexistent anthropogenic global warming. Or the anti-democratic union card check legislation. In the national security/foreign policy area, if Obama continues on the current trajectory, anyone who thinks they are the same is on some kind of drug.
Those are just a few off the top of my head. Maybe you don't care about any of those things or maybe you actually prefer Obama's approach on them. But don't say they're the same.
re: Obama's motive is to give money to the UAW that belongs to creditors for purely political reasons.
Obama is giving a huge chuck of Chrysler to the UAW because Chrysler vastly underfunded their pension and healthcare liability. Wouldn't you agree that corporations are obligated to pay WAGES before bondholders?