Not a bad read: Obama to be success -- or failure?

[Juiceweezl]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30460145#storyContinued

Not a bad read. It talks about his first 100 days and points to the fact that the rest of his term and his last 300 days will be what ultimately judges him. I think the writer likes Obama, but does a good job at outlining what's going on. He points out the prowess that the administration is showing at working both sides of an argument. For example, it points out how he closed Gitmo but still supports detaining prisoners somewhere, etc.

Ultimately I think it points out the fact that the Obama administration is primarily doing one thing -- giving everyone in the country a chance to clearly know where they'll stand in 4 years. It's pretty obvious that he's doing some drastic things. If they work, then people will certainly shower the guy with praise and he'll find a second term easily. If not, well, you can look for the Republicans to rise back to power. As the article states, he has the opportunity to become consequential and historical -- one way or the other.

[Paladin]

It says alot about you and others who think his changing back and forth on many campaign promises and spending trillions of dollars in his first 100 days is still something that could be considered good. I remember a time when you Bush haters claimed Bush was spending too much and made government too big. I also love how when Obama lies you claim he is rethinking his position but when Bush did the same thing you screamed he was a liar.

Hypocrites!

[Mr Majestyk]

For example, it points out how he closed Gitmo but still supports detaining prisoners somewhere, etc.

Supports detaining prisoners "somewhere"? NIMBY comes to mind, much like the nuclear waste repository issue. Gitmo is perfect for detaining prisoners, so why all the hype about closing it when there is so alternative yet posed.

As the article states, he has the opportunity to become consequential and historical -- one way or the other.

One obvious "consequence" already is a "historical" federal deficit. Not all Obama's doing of course, since the Democratic Congress bears equal blame.

[black01gt]

I remember a time when you Bush haters claimed Bush was spending too much and made government too big.

Hypocrites!
So...were we wrong?

Crybaby.

<------ Still a Bush hater.

[Juiceweezl]

One obvious "consequence" already is a "historical" federal deficit. Not all Obama's doing of course, since the Democratic Congress bears equal blame.

Oh, you mean the "historical" federal deficit he inherited wasn't cosequential??? Give it a rest. Bush turned a surplus into the largest deficit ever at that current time. While I don't like all the spending, I'm going to give it a chance for now. As the article says, he's active. In four years time, there will be no doubt about whether or not he should get another term or who should be in charge. That part I like.

[Mr Majestyk]

You're going to give all the spending a chance? It's not you that will be affected by the consequences, it's one or two generations away that will bear the consequences. Your messiah's defecits are going to make those of Bush and Reagan look like child's play. Reagan at least made the U.S. a more secure and respected nation militarily through his deficit spending, unlike the result Obama will bring upon us.

[AL P]

In four years time, there will be no doubt about whether or not he should get another term or who should be in charge.

I hate to point out the obvious but this is just a pretty way of saying he has taken a lot of risks and failure will be catastrophic.

[Paladin]

So...were we wrong?

Crybaby.

<------ Still a Bush hater.

If someone claims Obama should be given time for his massive spending increases and making government so huge and still thinks Bush was bad for doing much less of both, well yes you are a hypocrite.

You have always been wrong, but I have proven that many times, haven't I?

[black01gt]

You have always been wrong, but I have proven that many times, haven't I?
If you have to ask? :lame:

Yes Notch. You are still, all powerful. And by golly..people like you.

[cannonball996]

I dont know that he has gone back on any promises, the spending was part of his plan the whole time, middle class tax cuts are there, he sent more troops to Afghanistan. pulling the troops out of Iraq is taking longer then he said it would.

[AL P]

I dont know that he has gone back on any promises, the spending was part of his plan the whole time, middle class tax cuts are there, he sent more troops to Afghanistan. pulling the troops out of Iraq is taking longer then he said it would.

I think you mean to say the he is no different than Bush when it comes to "pulling the troops out of Iraq". Big suprise.

What middle class tax cuts has he made? I hope you aren't referring to the reduced amount of federal withholding on paychecks, that has to be paid back at the end of the year.

And I don't remember him saying his spending plans would waste billions of dollars on bullshit during the campaign. I think he said he was going to try to improve the economy, not fund pork projects with money we don't even have.

[forever_frost]

Actually, I know some of his campaign promises he went back on:

No lobbyists in power. Unless of course, you agree with him and he gives you a waiver
No more pork spending. Unless of course, he agrees with the plan and wants to look like he's doing something so he can blow hundreds of billions.
Line by line auditing of spending. No one reads these bills it seems. Tell me he read that 1100 page bill he signed.
Bipartisanship. Yeah, not going to happen. He only cares about his programs and that's it. And look for that huge healthcare bill to be pushed through without Republican input today as it's his 100th day

[46Tbird]

It would be easier to outline the campaign promises he HAS kept, or at least started toward.

Here's my list-

1. Change.

[forever_frost]

And then there was that brilliant idea that vets should pay for their own healthcare.

[CoorsLightCoupe]

Actually, I know some of his campaign promises he went back on:

No lobbyists in power. Unless of course, you agree with him and he gives you a waiver
No more pork spending. Unless of course, he agrees with the plan and wants to look like he's doing something so he can blow hundreds of billions.
Line by line auditing of spending. No one reads these bills it seems. Tell me he read that 1100 page bill he signed.
Bipartisanship. Yeah, not going to happen. He only cares about his programs and that's it. And look for that huge healthcare bill to be pushed through without Republican input today as it's his 100th day


Would that be the one that he signed early on that he admitted was "Flawed" yet signed it anyway? This guy's a fucking tool.

[Sean88gt]

I read that article on RCP this morning. Chuck Todd has to wear a trojan when he is in the presence of Obama so he won't ruin his suit.

[HOOCBB]

It would be easier to outline the campaign promises he HAS kept, or at least started toward.

Here's my list-

1. Change.

Don't forget Hope.

I have a renewed sense of Hope since he's been elected. And that Hope is that he does NOT get an AWB or healthcare bill to sign. I also have Hope that he does not get a 2nd term and the TRUE conservatives regain power in Congress.

[mikeb]

100 days, 100 mistakes. He has made many, many promises that he later backslid on, and made some promises were bald faced lies in the first place (bipartisianship, lobbyists, etc.).

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04252009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/100_days__100_mistakes_166177.htm

[jw33]

the sky is falling.

[Paladin]

If you have to ask? :lame:

Yes Notch. You are still, all powerful. And by golly..people like you.

I ask becuase you seem to forget the bad times you have had on here and remember good times that don't exist. I take it as my civic e-duty to make you remember this stuff correctly.

Nice liberal Stuart Smalley quote btw. How did you ever get so smart? :smashfreakB:

[Paladin]

I dont know that he has gone back on any promises, the spending was part of his plan the whole time, middle class tax cuts are there, he sent more troops to Afghanistan. pulling the troops out of Iraq is taking longer then he said it would.

What about his tax cuts for "95% of Americans" and his promise to end the Iraq War early on in his campaign? Hell, there have been so many flip-flops on canpaign promieses I can't believe you would say there haven't really been any.

[fast83]

the answer was given months ago,"FAILURE"

[black01gt]

I ask becuase you seem to forget the bad times you have had on here and remember good times that don't exist. I take it as my civic e-duty to make you remember this stuff correctly.

:smashfreakB:
Oo..oooo. I just get chills when you speak. It must be that awesome power that you possess. Yes, perform your e-duty oh mighty one. :moon:

[Vertnut]

Oo..oooo. I just get chills when you speak. It must be that awesome power that you possess. Yes, perform your e-duty oh mighty one. :moon:

You sound like Chris Mathews did when he was giving skull to Obammy....:cool:

[Paladin]

Oo..oooo. I just get chills when you speak. It must be that awesome power that you possess. Yes, perform your e-duty oh mighty one. :moon:


The quality responses from you continue... :cool:

[GT Dan]

What middle class tax cuts has he made? I hope you aren't referring to the reduced amount of federal withholding on paychecks, that has to be paid back at the end of the year.

I'm glad you pointed that out... I dont think any of the Obama nut huggers realize what he did... he didnt give anyone a "tax break" all they did was reduce the amount they withhold every week... which means when some file their taxes next year, they wont get that "big check" they're expecting... I cant wait...

I've had this argument with several of the idiots in my office... they don't have a clue...

[Slowhand]

Oh, you mean the "historical" federal deficit he inherited wasn't cosequential??? Give it a rest. Bush turned a surplus into the largest deficit ever at that current time. While I don't like all the spending, I'm going to give it a chance for now. As the article says, he's active. In four years time, there will be no doubt about whether or not he should get another term or who should be in charge. That part I like.

So you're justifying his dwarfing of Bush's defecit by saying that it's ok because Bush did it? Some change...

[Mustangman_2000]

the sky is falling.

It is if you are a conservative and/or you care about the egregious debt our children and grandchildren will inherit as the result of this Administration. Or the erosion of our National Security as he continues to abandon or denounce all the measures that has kept us safe since 9.11.01

[jw33]

I believe most of the larger problems and issues our country is dealing with today, and have yet to deal with, have been around for a long while now. I don't think it's one single person or group that all of a sudden got us into a big mess. And I don't think one person or even group could get us out and even heading in the right direction tomorrow or next week or in a 100 days. At this point people with power are just going to delay inevitable and try to make out with as much as possible. I really don't have any expectation for the government to do much. I just wonder why it's thought that one group is so much more different from the other?

[Mr Majestyk]

Still waiting for the O.P. to explain how his statement below shows prowess on behalf of Obama, as in where is this "somewhere" and how is it better than Gitmo.

yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn

He points out the prowess that the administration is showing at working both sides of an argument. For example, it points out how he closed Gitmo but still supports detaining prisoners somewhere, etc.

[Fox466]

I'm glad you pointed that out... I dont think any of the Obama nut huggers realize what he did... he didnt give anyone a "tax break" all they did was reduce the amount they withhold every week... which means when some file their taxes next year, they wont get that "big check" they're expecting... I cant wait...



I wonder if that was done on purpose so that come next year more people can't pay their taxes. Then when they file for payment plans all those people get to pay interest on top of the taxes, thus increasing the governments take...

[Fox466]

It is if you are a conservative and/or you care about the egregious debt our children and grandchildren will inherit as the result of this Administration. Or the erosion of our National Security as he continues to abandon or denounce all the measures that has kept us safe since 9.11.01


You so don't sound like the MM2K that came to us four short years ago...

[ceyko]

promise to end the Iraq War early on in his campaign? H

I don't claim to know much, but I do understand the Republicans were REALISTIC in their campaign talks and this is what kill Kerry quicker then could be with me.

But fuck man, you tell people you'll end both wars in 2 days and dumb asses will buy it. YOU KNOW a candidate is not trust worthy when they make unrealistic military plans and basic military plans are the sort of thing anyone can understand. However it really seems that a lot of fucking US citizens find the military and our security someone else's problem and could give a damned less.

Same damned Americans that fly flags, God Bless America bumper stickers and act like they drink the kool aid - talk perfectly able bodied kids out of enlistment. Same kids that have nothing better to do with their life and end up a menace. It can't be -my- kid that gets it done. -MY- kid won't be the one to have zero college/experience and turn into a floozy. ..etc. Get 'r Done...but I can't do it.

Sorry, got on a rant.

[Vertnut]

Just based on his appointments/attempted appointments alone, he's a failure. How else do we judge him? His blatant disregard for the CIA? His ass-kissing of other world leaders? The fact that the Taliban is less than 50 miles from having nukes, and we're doing nothing? Tripled our national debt?

Jimmy Carter> Barry "muthafucka musta stole my jet" Obammy.:cool:

[Juiceweezl]

Still waiting for the O.P. to explain how his statement below shows prowess on behalf of Obama, as in where is this "somewhere" and how is it better than Gitmo.

yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Go back to picking winners since you do so well Mr. Gonzaga > UNC. Obama is trying to find solutions to many items that draw on middle ground. Gitmo was a great example. Who cares where it's at! One side wanted Gitmo closed, so it's closed. The other wanted us to keep it open to detain prisoners, interrogate, etc. The solution: close the base to make one side happy, but move operations somewhere else which still allows the other side to have what was really important -- detaining prisoners and interrogation. If you think the main issue is that Gitmo has to be open, then you're sorely mistaken once again.

Yes, more often than not he leans Democratic, but that is his elected party. His administration is trying to find middle ground on a lot of issues. That's why he is so popular. Yes he's spending money, but guess what. If McCain and Palin had won, it would be the same flipping thing -- money being spent. You guys crack me up with stuff.

Bush gave money to Detroit to help them. Obama's group gave more (continuation) for the time being and told them to come up with a better plan going ahead or lose everything. That's an improvement over just giving them money for payroll from last year. On one hand some of you claim, "We can't let US Auto go down." Then you complain when we help them or complain that we're spending money to help them. What do you want the government to do? It's either let US Auto fail or give them money. You can't save them and not give them money. At least the current administration is forcing GM to come up with a better plan to make it.

Oh, and I was sorely disappointed that you didn't post Spurs > Mavs in the sports forum somewhere. I expected nothing less from you.

[46Tbird]

If GM and Chrysler cannot figure out a way to sustain themselves, they should fail. Or more realistically, break apart and find profitable lines of business.

Same for the banks.

Sorry, that's capitalism folks.

For the government to hand out tax money to "preferred" companies is just wrong. How are Lockheed/Boeing doing since they capped F-22 production? How is Nick's detailing business doing? No one is asking them or offering them cash. It's bullshit, it's the wrong way to go about "saving" private companies, to overtake them using tax money and then dictate how the operations are run.

[Mr Majestyk]

Go back to picking winners since you do so well Mr. Gonzaga > UNC. Obama is trying to find solutions to many items that draw on middle ground. Gitmo was a great example. Who cares where it's at! One side wanted Gitmo closed, so it's closed. The other wanted us to keep it open to detain prisoners, interrogate, etc. The solution: close the base to make one side happy, but move operations somewhere else which still allows the other side to have what was really important -- detaining prisoners and interrogation. If you think the main issue is that Gitmo has to be open, then you're sorely mistaken once again.

Oh, and I was sorely disappointed that you didn't post Spurs > Mavs in the sports forum somewhere. I expected nothing less from you.

Going off topic because you cannot defend your messiah won't help you. But, since you insist on cherry picking posts that are irrelevant to this thread, I was and still am rather pleased on my winning pick of Cleveland State > Wake Forest, posted two days before the game I might add. I am amused to see you're still obsessed with that old topic, because it exemplifies the pathetic shallow-mindedness of Obama lovers such as yourself and their resultant inability to defend themselves when their cherished savior's positions are challenged.

Back on topic, I care where the Gitmo detainees are going to be held, and so do most other intelligent Americans, with you obviously not being included in that segment. Speed up the process of determining their guilt or innocence, yes, but close down the perfect place in the Western Hemisphere at which to detain them simply to curry favor with world opinion, no. That is ludicrous, just like your blind fawning over everything Obama utters from his teleprompter.

Thanks again for performing like a puppet, right on cue just like I expected.

[AL P]

I'm glad you pointed that out... I dont think any of the Obama nut huggers realize what he did... he didnt give anyone a "tax break" all they did was reduce the amount they withhold every week... which means when some file their taxes next year, they wont get that "big check" they're expecting... I cant wait...

I've had this argument with several of the idiots in my office... they don't have a clue...


I could be wrong but I don't know of any other "tax break" he gave the middle class besides that shell game that is being played with federal tax withholding. I'm going to take advantage of the credit for increasing energy efficiency of your home this year, I guess that is a little something he gave the middle class. I'm not aware of anything else really.

Really the shell game may be something engineered quite well. It means a smaller tax refund for most people for 2009. It prepares them for when the shit hits the fan a year later. The Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 and I'm certain the Dems aren't going to renew them since they are "for rich people". The Dems need the money to offset the insane spending. For most "rich" people, IE people who make over $50K a yr. that means about a 15% increase in what they pay in taxes. It is going to be quite a shock for the sheeple.

[Juiceweezl]

Going off topic because you cannot defend your messiah won't help you. But, since you insist on cherry picking posts that are irrelevant to this thread, I was and still am rather pleased on my winning pick of Cleveland State > Wake Forest, posted two days before the game I might add. I am amused to see you're still obsessed with that old topic, because it exemplifies the pathetic shallow-mindedness of Obama lovers such as yourself and their resultant inability to defend themselves when their cherished savior's positions are challenged.

Back on topic, I care where the Gitmo detainees are going to be held, and so do most other intelligent Americans, with you obviously not being included in that segment. Speed up the process of determining their guilt or innocence, yes, but close down the perfect place in the Western Hemisphere at which to detain them simply to curry favor with world opinion, no. That is ludicrous, just like your blind fawning over everything Obama utters from his teleprompter.

Thanks again for performing like a puppet, right on cue just like I expected.

Because holding a detaineed in prison in Cuba differs from holding them in prison somewhere else how? I'm not sure it matters whether the prisoners are waterboarded at Gitmo or at another base. I may be wrong though. Positioning relevant to the equator may have something to do with which way the water flows and the effectiveness of the torture -- errr, I mean interrogation. Idiot. It matters not where they're held, just that they're held, questioned, and available as needed. Go back to picking "winners" in basketball or something else you can fail at just as well as you do here.

[Mr Majestyk]

You really are a stupid moron and every post you make in this, your own thread, shows off your ignorance more and more. Why detain these prisoners here on the U.S. mainland, or "anywhere else" as you so vaguely put it, when Gitmo is already there and equipped for the task? Go back to swinging from your messiah's nutsack, or something else you're equally adept at. You're just too dimwitted in matters regarding sane national policy to do much else.

[Juiceweezl]

If GM and Chrysler cannot figure out a way to sustain themselves, they should fail. Or more realistically, break apart and find profitable lines of business.

Same for the banks.

Sorry, that's capitalism folks.

For the government to hand out tax money to "preferred" companies is just wrong. How are Lockheed/Boeing doing since they capped F-22 production? How is Nick's detailing business doing? No one is asking them or offering them cash. It's bullshit, it's the wrong way to go about "saving" private companies, to overtake them using tax money and then dictate how the operations are run.

Just to play along here, what happens to the hundreds of thousands of employees at GM alone, not to mention the other companies? What do you do with all of these unemployed people that can't pay their mortgage, can't buy consumables, etc. They have a negative impact on every other business which in turns means they start losing money, cutting employees, etc. Trying to compare Nick's business to GM is absurd. Besides, Nick is perfectly eligible to obtain small business loans and such if he wants them. If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Boeing have govt. contracts where they have guaranteed sales? I could be wrong on that one.

I don't like the fact that we handed them money at all -- at any time. The point remains though that our economy cannot afford to allow companies of such size and impact to go under. It just can't happen or we'll collapse entirely.

[46Tbird]

Because holding a detaineed in prison in Cuba differs from holding them in prison somewhere else how? I'm not sure it matters whether the prisoners are waterboarded at Gitmo or at another base. I may be wrong though. Positioning relevant to the equator may have something to do with which way the water flows and the effectiveness of the torture -- errr, I mean interrogation. Idiot. It matters not where they're held, just that they're held, questioned, and available as needed. Go back to picking "winners" in basketball or something else you can fail at just as well as you do here.Do you really think the people that have a problem with the happenings at Guatanamo Bay are upset because it's not physically located in the US?

[Juiceweezl]

You really are a stupid moron and every post you make in this, your own thread, shows off your ignorance more and more. Why detain these prisoners here on the U.S. mainland, or "anywhere else" as you so vaguely put it, when Gitmo is already there and equipped for the task? Go back to swinging from your messiah's nutsack, or something else you're equally adept at. You're just too dimwitted in matters regarding sane national policy to do much else.

Why not? Go ahead. I'm waiting. Why not detain them at another base not on the mainland? Why not detain them in multiple places where we can question them even faster? It's really great how you argue by not making any points whatsoever. I explained why to close Gitmo -- to satisfy both political parties while still maintaining detention/questioning. Your sole argument is simply, "Why should we close it?" That's very, very strong. Nice job.

[Juiceweezl]

Do you really think the people that have a problem with the happenings at Guatanamo Bay are upset because it's not physically located in the US?

No, I think that offering a compromise is the way to get something done in a lot of cases. There were people that wanted Gitmo closed -- period. Guess what? They got what they wanted. There were people that wanted it open solely for detention of prisoners/questioning. Guess what? They get what they want, just in another location. That is a compromise that still allows things to carry on almost exactly as before. What's so hard to understand about that?

You and I both know that many people screaming close Gitmo don't care beyond that. They only want to know that it's closed. Rather than drag out an investigation any further, close the base, shut them up, and move operations elsewhere. Easy fix and move on.

[Mr Majestyk]

Why not? Go ahead. I'm waiting. Why not detain them at another base not on the mainland? Why not detain them in multiple places where we can question them even faster? It's really great how you argue by not making any points whatsoever. I explained why to close Gitmo -- to satisfy both political parties while still maintaining detention/questioning. Your sole argument is simply, "Why should we close it?" That's very, very strong. Nice job.

Thank you for making my point, that being if it isn't broken why fix it. Oh, I forgot you can't come up with any place better because your messiah hasn't told you yet. Really sad argument you made there, and still you dodge the question of where is "somewhere"? Can't think for yourself?

[Bobba Fett]

I don't like the fact that we handed them money at all -- at any time. The point remains though that our economy cannot afford to allow companies of such size and impact to go under. It just can't happen or we'll collapse entirely.

That's absurd. Why can't we allow such companies to go under? Do you think they have a constitutional right to our tax dollars because of their failures? Do you think the employees have a constitutional right to healthcare and pensions? Show me where in the constitution it says this. You're whole point rests on the fact that you BELIEVE that the government should step in, yet they don't have the constitutional right to do so.

And before you reply, please don't back-peddle to Bush, or compare to the closing of GITMO. We're talking about government intervening with private companies here, nothing else. I know you libs like to do that sort of thing...

[Mr Majestyk]

That's absurd. Why can't we allow such companies to go under? Do you think they have a constitutional right to our tax dollars because of their failures? Do you think the employees have a constitutional right to healthcare and pensions? Show me where in the constitution it says this. You're whole point rests on the fact that you BELIEVE that the government should step in, yet they don't have the constitutional right to do so.

And before you reply, please don't back-peddle to Bush, or compare to the closing of GITMO. We're talking about government intervening with private companies here, nothing else. I know you libs like to do that sort of thing...

Libs like to take what is not theirs and redistribute it to those who will not help themselves. By doing so they hope to, and do, gain the adoration of the ignorant and buy themselves legitimacy.

[forever_frost]

First things first. What we did to the Gitmo detainees was pretty tame compared to what's been done historically, or what I would have done. Face slapping? Less than a minute held under water? Name calling? Nudity? It's uncomfortable, it's a mind fuck, but it's not torture. Torture is electrocution, taking a sledge to your toes, bamboo shoots under your nails, pulling hair out one by one, dripping acid on exposed skin, I can keep going.

We should never bail anyone out. Ever. There is no Constitutional right for bailouts and they should never happen. An industry too large to fail? You mean like the steel industry? Or back when the government was telling big oil to pay more taxes and cut back. The Federal Government is the enemy to free enterprise

[46Tbird]

Just to play along here, what happens to the hundreds of thousands of employees at GM alone, not to mention the other companies? What do you do with all of these unemployed people that can't pay their mortgage, can't buy consumables, etc.I don't work for GM. What exactly would you expect when I get fired? Oh, you're right, I can't pay my mortgage, can't buy consumables, etc. Why would a GM employee be any different, or expect to be held in some high esteem because taken collectively all GM employees comprise a large impact to the economy? Give me a break dude! Is it my fault (or yours or any other taxpayer's) that GM was run by bad management and greedy unions? What a bunch of garbage.

Trying to compare Nick's business to GM is absurd. Besides, Nick is perfectly eligible to obtain small business loans and such if he wants them.It's not absurd. Nick's business is a BUSINESS. If he runs it like shit, it fails and he and his employees go hungry. Please explain why GM employees are preferred, special employees. GM COULD get loans, if their credit rating wasn't in the toilet.

I don't like the fact that we handed them money at all -- at any time. The point remains though that our economy cannot afford to allow companies of such size and impact to go under. It just can't happen or we'll collapse entirely.LOL. So you're saying the money is actually saving GM? No, it's not. What it's doing is giving them a temporary shot in the arm while management does all the painful cutting that they were responsible for PRIOR to getting into deep financial shit. Unfortunately it will probably fail anyway.


FYI - "bailing out" the banks pisses me off a LOT more than GM.

[Juiceweezl]

Thank you for making my point, that being if it isn't broken why fix it. Oh, I forgot you can't come up with any place better because your messiah hasn't told you yet. Really sad argument you made there, and still you dodge the question of where is "somewhere"? Can't think for yourself?

It was broken. Illegal torture was going on. Who knows what other actions. If we can move it to another base and close operations on one - budget cut. There's a reason. You can't produce a reason not to close it. "If it ain't broke..." doesn't cut it. Gitmo has been under fire for a while now. It's gone, just like the Republicans that were in office and drove our nation off a cliff. Get over it.

[Juiceweezl]

I don't work for GM. What exactly would you expect when I get fired? Oh, you're right, I can't pay my mortgage, can't buy consumables, etc. Why would a GM employee be any different, or expect to be held in some high esteem because taken collectively all GM employees comprise a large impact to the economy? Give me a break dude! Is it my fault (or yours or any other taxpayer's) that GM was run by bad management and greedy unions? What a bunch of garbage.
I'd expect you to get unemployment for a time since you lost your job just like anyone else. Beyond that, the individual employee will be no different than anyone else. GM's management and in part their union are responsible for their actions and should "pay" for it, but companies of that size can't go under. We can't afford to have that many people out of work. The concern is not the individual employees I'm talking about, it's everyone else that would be impacted because 1 million people or more no longer have jobs.

It's not absurd. Nick's business is a BUSINESS. If he runs it like shit, it fails and he and his employees go hungry. Please explain why GM employees are preferred, special employees. GM COULD get loans, if their credit rating wasn't in the toilet.
Comparing Nick's business to GM is absurd. They operate with entirely different number of employees, costs, tax base, etc. If Nick decides to go out of business, the impact is minimal. His soap supplier won't go out of business because Nick is no longer buying soap from him. If GM goes out of business, 350K plus people don't have a job, and many, many suppliers lost a ton of business which means they cut employees, etc... Furthermore, if Nick goes out of business, there are tons of other guys that can was cars. There are only a few options making cars. It looks like there will be even less shortly. Pretty soon all of you gung ho USA guys will be forced to buy foreign cars. There is no comparison between Nick and GM.
LOL. So you're saying the money is actually saving GM? No, it's not. What it's doing is giving them a temporary shot in the arm while management does all the painful cutting that they were responsible for PRIOR to getting into deep financial shit. Unfortunately it will probably fail anyway.
The money wasn't saving GM. It was a shot in the arm to make payroll because there was no stipulation behind it when distributed last fall. When they came back for more, Obama administration told them they need a better plan, gave them a deadline, and allowed them to continue with funding until the deadline. At that time, it will be determined if they receive more money or not. They're being forced to react if they want help.

FYI - "bailing out" the banks pisses me off a LOT more than GM.
This I agree with you. The banks made the bad risks and should ultimately be held liable.

[Mr Majestyk]

It was broken. Illegal torture was going on. Who knows what other actions. If we can move it to another base and close operations on one - budget cut. There's a reason. You can't produce a reason not to close it. "If it ain't broke..." doesn't cut it. Gitmo has been under fire for a while now. It's gone, just like the Republicans that were in office and drove our nation off a cliff. Get over it.

Wrong, it's not broken, the political will to continue using is gone now that we have a leader who panders to the cries of liberals who would rather practice appeasement than leadership. Here's another very good reason not to close it - why spend more of our money on moving it, as if Obama isn't already spending enough of our money that we don't have? Closing a base won't produce any savings for at least five years, and giving away a strategic base like Gitmo is in and of itself lunacy. Get with it, drama queen.

[Juiceweezl]

Wrong, it's not broken, the political will to continue using is gone now that we have a leader who panders to the cries of liberals who would rather practice appeasement than leadership. Here's another very good reason not to close it - why spend more of our money on moving it, as if Obama isn't already spending enough of our money that we don't have? Closing a base won't produce any savings for at least five years, and giving away a strategic base like Gitmo is in and of itself lunacy. Get with it, drama queen.

Seriously? You just don't get it. Look at it this way. Not having a base on Cuba means we can now blow Castro & Co. the hell up if he gets out of line without a threat to an American base. Surely your inbred, lame ass Republican brain can understand that. As far as spending money moving it? LOL It's a drop in the hat if anything. Hell, they could walk away from most of what's there. They're already shipping supplies and stuff in anyway, so they cut that cost out right away. You're clinging to a thread of hope that will make Obama look bad, but the thread is just tearing apart.

Seems to me he's taken a stand at being a leader and not pandering. It's morons like yourself that are crying about stuff and wanting him to do something else. Well, he's taking a stand and doing something else. He's being the lead dog. Like it or not, the Dems are in control and he's up front. They're calling the shots from the front and steering the direction they want to go. If you don't like it, you can haul your ass to Mexico or Canada or somewhere else if you want in the short run or you can hope your party reorganizes with a campaign to defeat the Dems next election. I'm guessing you'll do neither and instead stay here and continue looking like a dumbass.

Oh, and here's one for you. Obama > Republicans without a spread.

[Bobba Fett]

I'd expect you to get unemployment for a time since you lost your job just like anyone else. Beyond that, the individual employee will be no different than anyone else. GM's management and in part their union are responsible for their actions and should "pay" for it, but companies of that size can't go under. We can't afford to have that many people out of work. The concern is not the individual employees I'm talking about, it's everyone else that would be impacted because 1 million people or more no longer have jobs.


Comparing Nick's business to GM is absurd. They operate with entirely different number of employees, costs, tax base, etc. If Nick decides to go out of business, the impact is minimal. His soap supplier won't go out of business because Nick is no longer buying soap from him. If GM goes out of business, 350K plus people don't have a job, and many, many suppliers lost a ton of business which means they cut employees, etc... Furthermore, if Nick goes out of business, there are tons of other guys that can was cars. There are only a few options making cars. It looks like there will be even less shortly. Pretty soon all of you gung ho USA guys will be forced to buy foreign cars. There is no comparison between Nick and GM.

The money wasn't saving GM. It was a shot in the arm to make payroll because there was no stipulation behind it when distributed last fall. When they came back for more, Obama administration told them they need a better plan, gave them a deadline, and allowed them to continue with funding until the deadline. At that time, it will be determined if they receive more money or not. They're being forced to react if they want help.


This I agree with you. The banks made the bad risks and should ultimately be held liable.

I don't understand your logic, Juice. You think GM is too big to fail, yet you approve of giving them money knowing the money would not save GM. You voted for a man who's bankrupting our children, to give to a company too big to fail, knowing it would fail. And in return, all you can come up with is, "Well, at least he forced stipulations on them, unlike that Bush fellow." Do you think your kids will understand that logic when they are paying for this with higher taxes?

Let's use your own logic for a minute. Do the banks not have employees too? It's OK to give our tax money to GM, knowing they will fail, but those pesky banks, screw them right? Screw them for taking those risky loans the government forced them to take, right? Even using your own logic doesn't make any scene.

But no, your logic is undeniable, Juice. The statist taught you that it's OK to be part way socialistic, as long as it's for the good of the people, constitutional or not.

[blownragtop]

...it's everyone else that would be impacted because 1 million people or more no longer have jobs.


...If GM goes out of business, 350K plus people don't have a job, and many, many suppliers lost a ton of business which means they cut employees, etc...



You seem to misunderstand basic economics.

There is a marketplace for X amount of cars a year. That marketplace does not diminish with the loss of a supplier. Other companies can and will supply the demand for new cars.

For example...
Honda has 4 plants in the US.
Toyota has 5 in US with one more on the way.
Mazda (Ford owns 33% of Mazda) builds Mazda 6’s alongside the Mustang.

In the unlikely scenario of both GM and Chrysler completely disappearing… the remaining carmakers will ramp up production to meet demand. Jobs lost at GM and Chrysler will be offset by new jobs at Ford, Honda Toyota… etc. Parts suppliers will retool and continue to supply parts to new and existing customers. And the lazy fucks that ran GM and Chrysler into the ground will rightly lose their jobs.

Capitalism… it works.

[Bobba Fett]

You seem to misunderstand basic economics.

There is a marketplace for X amount of cars a year. That marketplace does not diminish with the loss of a supplier. Other companies can and will supply the demand for new cars.

For example...
Honda has 4 plants in the US.
Toyota has 5 in US with one more on the way.
Mazda (Ford owns 33% of Mazda) builds Mazda 6’s alongside the Mustang.

In the unlikely scenario of both GM and Chrysler completely disappearing… the remaining carmakers will ramp up production to meet demand. Jobs lost at GM and Chrysler will be offset by new jobs at Ford, Honda Toyota… etc. Parts suppliers will retool and continue to supply parts to new and existing customers. And the lazy fucks that ran GM and Chrysler into the ground will rightly lose their jobs.

Capitalism… it works.

He doesn't care about economics, capitalism, free market, or the constitution. Those words are not in his vocabulary, like most statists. To him, we are are in a recession so huge, as big as the great depression (but not bigger than the 81-82 recession, mind you), and he won't have any of us try to talk any logic to him. If we do, he will just get angry and make a derogatory remark about the republicans, as most statists do.

[Mr Majestyk]

Seriously? You just don't get it. Look at it this way. Not having a base on Cuba means we can now blow Castro & Co. the hell up if he gets out of line without a threat to an American base. Surely your inbred, lame ass Republican brain can understand that. As far as spending money moving it? LOL It's a drop in the hat if anything. Hell, they could walk away from most of what's there. They're already shipping supplies and stuff in anyway, so they cut that cost out right away. You're clinging to a thread of hope that will make Obama look bad, but the thread is just tearing apart.

Seems to me he's taken a stand at being a leader and not pandering. It's morons like yourself that are crying about stuff and wanting him to do something else. Well, he's taking a stand and doing something else. He's being the lead dog. Like it or not, the Dems are in control and he's up front. They're calling the shots from the front and steering the direction they want to go. If you don't like it, you can haul your ass to Mexico or Canada or somewhere else if you want in the short run or you can hope your party reorganizes with a campaign to defeat the Dems next election. I'm guessing you'll do neither and instead stay here and continue looking like a dumbass.

Oh, and here's one for you. Obama > Republicans without a spread.

Name-calling now, LOL. I like seeing you or any other retard Obama worshipper on here get so upset you fall over yourself because of your own stupidity. You can be sure I'll be here bitching the next four years, just like the pansy-assed Democrats did the last eight. I don't want Obama to look bad you ignorant prick, because he is after all the POTUS, but he's looking bad quite well all on his own.

"Blow the hell up out of Castro & Co." What a stupid shit line, typical of a ignorant fool like yourself. Go back to hugging those Obama nutz, boy.

[forever_frost]

He doesn't want to blow up Castro. He wants to be friends with the Communists. Or haven't you been watching the news Juice?

[Mr Majestyk]

Watching maybe, but obviously not comprehending.

[Tx Redneck]

Oh, you mean the "historical" federal deficit he inherited wasn't cosequential??? Give it a rest. Bush turned a surplus into the largest deficit ever at that current time. While I don't like all the spending, I'm going to give it a chance for now. As the article says, he's active. In four years time, there will be no doubt about whether or not he should get another term or who should be in charge. That part I like.

He inherited it? You do the math. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090429/D97SCPI00.html)

[ceyko]

He inherited it? You do the math. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090429/D97SCPI00.html)

NOT a Obama support just my thinking...

$3.6 trillion - Total spending in Obama's proposed federal budget for 2010.
-Was that going to be budget regardless of who was POTUS?

$1.75 trillion - Total projected deficit in Obama's proposed federal budget for 2010.
-Same as above?

$787 billion - Cost of tax cuts and new spending in economic stimulus package approved by Congress.
-Booo.

$567.5 billion - Increase in the public debt, from Jan. 20 through April 28.
Does this go with the 2nd one, basically restating the stated for dramatic effect?

$235 billion - Tax dollars spent to bail out failing financial institutions, Jan. 20-April 20.
-Boooo!

2.055 million - Number of jobs lost, January-March.
-Boooo!

908,666 - Housing foreclosures, Jan. 20-April 24.
-This was not Obama, Bush or any other government entity IMO. Well, for lack of jobs...etc, that's one battle. However, we all know that this and the financial groups go hand in a hand a little and the loaners were quite irresponsible.

[Tx Redneck]

NOT a Obama support just my thinking...

$3.6 trillion - Total spending in Obama's proposed federal budget for 2010.
-Was that going to be budget regardless of who was POTUS?

$1.75 trillion - Total projected deficit in Obama's proposed federal budget for 2010.
-Same as above?

$787 billion - Cost of tax cuts and new spending in economic stimulus package approved by Congress.
-Booo.

$567.5 billion - Increase in the public debt, from Jan. 20 through April 28.
Does this go with the 2nd one, basically restating the stated for dramatic effect?

$235 billion - Tax dollars spent to bail out failing financial institutions, Jan. 20-April 20.
-Boooo!

2.055 million - Number of jobs lost, January-March.
-Boooo!

908,666 - Housing foreclosures, Jan. 20-April 24.
-This was not Obama, Bush or any other government entity IMO. Well, for lack of jobs...etc, that's one battle. However, we all know that this and the financial groups go hand in a hand a little and the loaners were quite irresponsible.

I accidentally put the wrong link it at first, reread it.

[AL P]

You and I both know that many people screaming close Gitmo don't care beyond that. They only want to know that it's closed. Rather than drag out an investigation any further, close the base, shut them up, and move operations elsewhere. Easy fix and move on.

They aren't closing the base.

[Juiceweezl]

You seem to misunderstand basic economics.

There is a marketplace for X amount of cars a year. That marketplace does not diminish with the loss of a supplier. Other companies can and will supply the demand for new cars.

For example...
Honda has 4 plants in the US.
Toyota has 5 in US with one more on the way.
Mazda (Ford owns 33% of Mazda) builds Mazda 6’s alongside the Mustang.

In the unlikely scenario of both GM and Chrysler completely disappearing… the remaining carmakers will ramp up production to meet demand. Jobs lost at GM and Chrysler will be offset by new jobs at Ford, Honda Toyota… etc. Parts suppliers will retool and continue to supply parts to new and existing customers. And the lazy fucks that ran GM and Chrysler into the ground will rightly lose their jobs.

Capitalism… it works.

You seem to misunderstand the fact that cars are a function of disposable income. When people have money, they buy new cars -- nice ones at that. When they don't have money, they don't buy cars. You are correct in that there is a market for X amount of cars per year. Unfortunately, that's directly proportionate to unemployment and the amount of disposable income. Why don't you ask the automakers (all of them) how their sales are now with a down economy and unemployment so high compared to say 3 years ago??? If there were still a high demand for new cars, then yes, other companies would supply them and in turn hire the workers that are going to be jobless. However, since there will be no demand for them, those people will be unemployed.

Maybe you haven't seen the large surplus of cars stockpiled in lots just waiting to get to distributors. Maybe you've missed the killer deals dealers are currently running trying to sell cars. Maybe you misunderstand and think that Toyota will hire the 21K people GM just let go since they have been closing doors for weeks at a time already because there is no work to be done. Yeah, bank on that. Way to post your great understanding of economics. Thanks for the knowledge, moron.

Please come back later when you truly understand how it works. Before anything can be made, it has to be sold. Before it can be sold, there has to be someone to buy it. If people don't have a job, they won't have money to buy the product.

[Juiceweezl]

Name-calling now, LOL. I like seeing you or any other retard Obama worshipper on here get so upset you fall over yourself because of your own stupidity. You can be sure I'll be here bitching the next four years, just like the pansy-assed Democrats did the last eight. I don't want Obama to look bad you ignorant prick, because he is after all the POTUS, but he's looking bad quite well all on his own.

"Blow the hell up out of Castro & Co." What a stupid shit line, typical of a ignorant fool like yourself. Go back to hugging those Obama nutz, boy.

Nice. I like how I'm upset and yet you're continuing to post in a thread I made about an article that was fairly objective. Keep it up. I really enjoy your ignorance. People like you give the Republican party no chance in hell at ever regaining power.

[AL P]

You seem to misunderstand the fact that cars are a function of disposable income. When people have money, they buy new cars -- nice ones at that. When they don't have money, they don't buy cars. You are correct in that there is a market for X amount of cars per year. Unfortunately, that's directly proportionate to unemployment and the amount of disposable income. Why don't you ask the automakers (all of them) how their sales are now with a down economy and unemployment so high compared to say 3 years ago??? If there were still a high demand for new cars, then yes, other companies would supply them and in turn hire the workers that are going to be jobless. However, since there will be no demand for them, those people will be unemployed.

Maybe you haven't seen the large surplus of cars stockpiled in lots just waiting to get to distributors. Maybe you've missed the killer deals dealers are currently running trying to sell cars. Maybe you misunderstand and think that Toyota will hire the 21K people GM just let go since they have been closing doors for weeks at a time already because there is no work to be done. Yeah, bank on that. Way to post your great understanding of economics. Thanks for the knowledge, moron.

Please come back later when you truly understand how it works. Before anything can be made, it has to be sold. Before it can be sold, there has to be someone to buy it. If people don't have a job, they won't have money to buy the product.

Since you understand how things work so well in the car business, why would new car sales be down 35% when unemployment is only up 3.5 points?

[5.0_CJ]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30460145#storyContinued

Not a bad read. It talks about his first 100 days and points to the fact that the rest of his term and his last 300 days will be what ultimately judges him. I think the writer likes Obama, but does a good job at outlining what's going on. He points out the prowess that the administration is showing at working both sides of an argument. For example, it points out how he closed Gitmo but still supports detaining prisoners somewhere, etc.

Ultimately I think it points out the fact that the Obama administration is primarily doing one thing -- giving everyone in the country a chance to clearly know where they'll stand in 4 years. It's pretty obvious that he's doing some drastic things. If they work, then people will certainly shower the guy with praise and he'll find a second term easily. If not, well, you can look for the Republicans to rise back to power. As the article states, he has the opportunity to become consequential and historical -- one way or the other.

lol @ "ignore these first 100 days" since he didn't do really anything at all. Bias.

[ceyko]

I accidentally put the wrong link it at first, reread it.

That's a lot more interesting. :)

[Fox466]

lol @ "ignore these first 100 days" since he didn't do really anything at all. Bias.

Too bad that same rule can't be applied to W.

[Mr Majestyk]

Nice. I like how I'm upset and yet you're continuing to post in a thread I made about an article that was fairly objective. Keep it up. I really enjoy your ignorance. People like you give the Republican party no chance in hell at ever regaining power.

Give up temporarily on the name-calling did you? Please go back to doing so, we all like seeing you get flustered and bitchy. I will no doubt continue to post in this thread as long as it's active, given that your lack of knowledge about the subject matter makes for such easy ridicule.

I happen like this thread now, where you in your own words post up closing Guantanamo Bay as an example of your messiah's prowess and I sucessfully called you out on it and made you the fool. You should stick to topics "somewhere" that don't make you look so stupid, but woman that you are, you will no doubt try to get in the last word about Gitmo and in the process make yourself look even more stupid than you already have.

BTW you're doing an excellent job of showing off equal ignorance about the bailout of the auto industry. Wait for your savior to speak this time before pecking on your keyboard, as he at least is not quite as dumb as you seem to be.

[Juiceweezl]

Since you understand how things work so well in the car business, why would new car sales be down 35% when unemployment is only up 3.5 points?

Al, I thought you were smarter than this. Pick your reason. People can see the writing on the wall and are trying to save money. People are still afraid gas will surge again. People have less income as a whole...Besides, are you comparing like timeframe? Have you looked at the number of people? What does 3.5 (3.6 is actually what I saw for unemployment and 43% for cars) traslate to in number of people? What does 35% translate to in number of cars? Unemployment has a huge effect on sales of items like new cars.

"Earlier this month, CSM Worldwide cut its forecast for 2009 U.S. auto sales from 10.7 million to 9.7 million, based on the assumption that unemployment will peak later this year at 9.4%. U.S. consumers have not purchased fewer than 10 million vehicles in any calendar year since 1970, according to Autodata Corp."

http://www.freep.com/article/20090328/BUSINESS01/903280381/

Even employed people affect new car sales. Take the wife and I -- both employed with good jobs. Her minivan is 4.5 years old with about 115K miles. It's in great shape and has some value for trade or sale. Obviously, we have had it paid for a long, long time. She's to the point where the kids are old enough and she can move into a small, sport SUV. We have the money to do it and could make the move. There is no way in hell though that we're going to spend that kind of money right now in this economy. We're both safe at our workplaces now from reductions, but who knows down the road.

On top of all that, even people that are still employed are making less money. Several have a portion of their income depend on consumables and other items being purchased by people with jobs. Since unemployment is up, people are spending less. Less revenues means less income for those with jobs. Again, people aren't going to buy cars amongst all of that.

It's really simple. Less disposable income means less goods purchased. Whether the less income is from unemployment or just reduced pay doesn't matter, but unemployment plays a huge factor in each of those.

[Juiceweezl]

Give up temporarily on the name-calling did you? Please go back to doing so, we all like seeing you get flustered and bitchy. I will no doubt continue to post in this thread as long as it's active, given that your lack of knowledge about the subject matter makes for such easy ridicule.

I happen like this thread now, where you in your own words post up closing Guantanamo Bay as an example of your messiah's prowess and I sucessfully called you out on it and made you the fool. You should stick to topics "somewhere" that don't make you look so stupid, but woman that you are, you will no doubt try to get in the last word about Gitmo and in the process make yourself look even more stupid than you already have.

BTW you're doing an excellent job of showing off equal ignorance about the bailout of the auto industry. Wait for your savior to speak this time before pecking on your keyboard, as he at least is not quite as dumb as you seem to be.

Great, another quality post of yours lacking all fact and showing your complete ignorance. The only thing missing here is you calling someone your "homeboys."

As if it really matters, the "somewhere" has yet to be determined 100%, but Leavenworth is proposed. Stay tuned. I'm sure you'll hear about it once it'd decided. Of course if you had actually looked for facts you would've found that.

[Juiceweezl]

They aren't closing the base.

The prison camp is the discussion here. Thanks for clarifying.

[Mr Majestyk]

Keep backing up, your get somewhere eventually. Problem for you is you're already lost, and I like seeing it.

[Juiceweezl]

Keep backing up, your get somewhere eventually. Problem for you is you're already lost, and I like seeing it.

Please explain backing up. I stand by the original post in this thread. I answered the vague question you had about "somewhere," and have yet to see you post anything logical and factual in the entire thread. I gave sound explanations for economic impact of unemployment and what happens letting Detroit go under. Care to explain yourself or are you just going to carry on with name calling and insults? Your inability to post anything correctly has been shown time and time again on this site. I thought it may be contained solely in the sports forum, but I guess that was an incorrect assumption on my part.

[Mr Majestyk]

The facts are: stop spending our taxpayer money simply to make your messiah look good in the court of world opinion and to prop up private industries that can make it. or not, on their own. Are you really so stupid that you can't grasp that simple concept?

Now go back to that name-calling, which you first started by the way, and I will gladly continue to insult you just as you requested. For that matter I'll gladly continue to insult you even if you don't go back to that name-calling, as long as you're willing to blindly serve as the unquestioning, mindless head cheerleader for your messiah.

[ceyko]

Pretty soon all of you gung ho USA guys will be forced to buy foreign cars.

Are you not a gung ho American? If not, that would explain a lot.

I have no problems buying a "foreign" car these days. Been happening since days way back any way. As far as I can tell, we mainly only assemble US cars in the US. Most parts don't seem to be US made.

I do have a problem continually bailing out companies that won't make it any way...or will continue to be poorly managed.

It's no different then that family member you have that can't make it on their own. Sooner or later you quit handing over money to them and tell them to suck it up.

In these cases I believe long term the US will be better off going through some pain first for long term health. How long would you like us to continue bailing out large companies for the short term fix of keeping employment rates up?

[Mr Majestyk]

Bailing out private industry simply for the purpose of keeping employment rates up serves to make those industries state-run concerns in a round about way and turns their employees into government workers. Can we say communism, komrades? Look at Obama's meddling with the boards of GM and Chrysler for instance....sickening to any true American devotee of free enterprise.

[Vertnut]

Bailing out private industry simply for the purpose of keeping employment rates up serves to make those industries state-run concerns in a round about way and turns their employees into government workers. Can we say communism, komrades? Look at Obama's meddling with the boards of GM and Chrysler for instance....sickening to any true American devotee of free enterprise.
The last thing we need is the "gubment" in the car business. The new models could have names like "Obammywagon". All four wheels would come off at one time, and it could run on straight bullshit...

[Mr Majestyk]

And they will come with a lifetime powertrain warranty, backed up by Monopoly money....

[ceyko]

And they will come with a lifetime powertrain warranty, backed up by Monopoly money....

Sad part is I -understand- what juice is saying. He's about as likely to change his position as I am though.

[Mr Majestyk]

Not everything Obama does is to the long-term detriment of the country. For example, the recent strike on the Somali pirates he authorized showed some real leadership in my opinion. Targeted bailouts might be palatable, although I am not in favor of any of them, including those Dubya initiated. It's the shotgun bailout approach that Obama is advocating, where the government takes care of everything because they know what's best, that is very worrisome.

[AL P]

Look at this huge drop in disposable income! This must be why cars aren't selling...

<a href="http://s22.photobucket.com/albums/b312/BroncoJohnny/?action=view&current=DispIncome.png" target="_blank"><img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b312/BroncoJohnny/DispIncome.png" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[Bobba Fett]

Al, I thought you were smarter than this. Pick your reason. People can see the writing on the wall and are trying to save money. People are still afraid gas will surge again. People have less income as a whole...Besides, are you comparing like timeframe? Have you looked at the number of people? What does 3.5 (3.6 is actually what I saw for unemployment and 43% for cars) traslate to in number of people? What does 35% translate to in number of cars? Unemployment has a huge effect on sales of items like new cars.

"Earlier this month, CSM Worldwide cut its forecast for 2009 U.S. auto sales from 10.7 million to 9.7 million, based on the assumption that unemployment will peak later this year at 9.4%. U.S. consumers have not purchased fewer than 10 million vehicles in any calendar year since 1970, according to Autodata Corp."


Even employed people affect new car sales. Take the wife and I -- both employed with good jobs. Her minivan is 4.5 years old with about 115K miles. It's in great shape and has some value for trade or sale. Obviously, we have had it paid for a long, long time. She's to the point where the kids are old enough and she can move into a small, sport SUV. We have the money to do it and could make the move. There is no way in hell though that we're going to spend that kind of money right now in this economy. We're both safe at our workplaces now from reductions, but who knows down the road.

On top of all that, even people that are still employed are making less money. Several have a portion of their income depend on consumables and other items being purchased by people with jobs. Since unemployment is up, people are spending less. Less revenues means less income for those with jobs. Again, people aren't going to buy cars amongst all of that.

It's really simple. Less disposable income means less goods purchased. Whether the less income is from unemployment or just reduced pay doesn't matter, but unemployment plays a huge factor in each of those.

LOL, this is just even more pure drone talk than I expected in this thread.

You want to compare unemployment to car sales, like unemployment is the only thing affecting sales of cars. What about CAFE standards the government has been imposing for years on US automakers? You don't think those have anything to do with bankrupting US automakers?

Do you believe that people are struggling that much?? 20 years ago only the rich had cell phones. Now even the poorest can afford a cell phone. In 1940, only the rich could afford to jet around the world. Today, people complain when their flight is delayed 10 minutes. Do you really think we are THAT bad off?

Were you around for the 80-81 recession?? No? Here, take a look:

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t12/jakester05/1980s.jpg

Keep ignoring my posts. It's obvious no one can get anywhere with a drone such as yourself.

[Hass]

Not everything Obama does is to the long-term detriment of the country. For example, the recent strike on the Somali pirates he authorized showed some real leadership in my opinion.

I heard that he did not authorize the strike. He is the one who delayed the situation with orders to have a "peaceful resolution." The SEAL team acted without the president's orders due to a loophole concerning pirates on the seas. Of course Bama takes all the glory.

[Mr Majestyk]

I heard that he did not authorize the strike. He is the one who delayed the situation with orders to have a "peaceful resolution." The SEAL team acted without the president's orders due to a loophole concerning pirates on the seas. Of course Bama takes all the glory.

Can that be verified? If true, I would go back to my original pre-strike opinion that obama sucks 100% of the time instead of just 99.99999% of the time.

[Juiceweezl]

[QUOTE=AL P;5694355]Look at this huge drop in disposable income! This must be why cars aren't selling...[QUOTE]

Don't know where that came from, but the trend is down. Here's a link.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/pinewsrelease.htm

Personal income is showing down. PDI is showing slightly down. Personal consumption had a slight up in Jan/Feb, but down in March and were down before then. The more people that become unemployed, the more PDI with go down. That's simple math.

[Juiceweezl]

LOL, this is just even more pure drone talk than I expected in this thread.

You want to compare unemployment to car sales, like unemployment is the only thing affecting sales of cars. What about CAFE standards the government has been imposing for years on US automakers? You don't think those have anything to do with bankrupting US automakers?

Do you believe that people are struggling that much?? 20 years ago only the rich had cell phones. Now even the poorest can afford a cell phone. In 1940, only the rich could afford to jet around the world. Today, people complain when their flight is delayed 10 minutes. Do you really think we are THAT bad off?

Were you around for the 80-81 recession?? No? Here, take a look:

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t12/jakester05/1980s.jpg

Keep ignoring my posts. It's obvious no one can get anywhere with a drone such as yourself.

I didn't say unemployment was the only thing affecting new car sales, but it's certainly a big factor now and will be even moreso in the near future. Currently, people aren't struggling that much, but are headed in that direction. Forecasts are for unemployment to get right up to 10% this year. Interest rates have been held down as a shot in the arm to the economy. Otherwise you'd see graphs much similar. It's not as bad as '80-'81 and I hope it doesn't get that way -- but it certainly could.

Oh, and as for standards. Are foreign automakers not held to the same standards? If they are, how can they be profitable and US Auto not? I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking.

[Juiceweezl]

The facts are: stop spending our taxpayer money simply to make your messiah look good in the court of world opinion and to prop up private industries that can make it. or not, on their own. Are you really so stupid that you can't grasp that simple concept?

Now go back to that name-calling, which you first started by the way, and I will gladly continue to insult you just as you requested. For that matter I'll gladly continue to insult you even if you don't go back to that name-calling, as long as you're willing to blindly serve as the unquestioning, mindless head cheerleader for your messiah.

LOL Stop spending tax payer money to look good in court of ....

Where was this when we were looking for WMD's in Iraq? You don't think that having a personal agenda over there, awarding military contracts and turning a surplus into the largest deficit ever qualifies as "stop spending our taxpayer money simply..." Are you really so stupid that you can't grasp that simple concept?

I don't follow anything blindly. Remember, I didn't vote for Obama. I just didn't want 4 more years of a Bush clone driving us straight off a cliff. I wanted to see something different. Whether or not it works remains to be seen. At least an effort is being made.

Just one question to all of you bashing Obama for the budget/deficit. If McCain had won, would you still fill this forum with all of your fodder bashing him for having the "largest deficit ever" and for burdening citizens for generations to come? If the Republicans had won, we'd still have the largest deficit ever...

[Miss D]

Just to play along here, what happens to the hundreds of thousands of employees at GM alone, not to mention the other companies? What do you do with all of these unemployed people that can't pay their mortgage, can't buy consumables, etc. They have a negative impact on every other business which in turns means they start losing money, cutting employees, etc. Trying to compare Nick's business to GM is absurd. Besides, Nick is perfectly eligible to obtain small business loans and such if he wants them. If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Boeing have govt. contracts where they have guaranteed sales? I could be wrong on that one.

I don't like the fact that we handed them money at all -- at any time. The point remains though that our economy cannot afford to allow companies of such size and impact to go under. It just can't happen or we'll collapse entirely.

The government shoved billions of dollars at the Auto makes and they still have to file for bankruptcy. The Chrysler Corp. will no longer own the Company, it will be owned by Fiat the Union & the Government or We the people as Obama likes to say, but I say it just a way for the Gov. to tell the automakers what kind of cars they can make and what Amount they can sell the cars for. Oh, Yes the government they are giving Chrysler 8 billion more dollars.
Chrysler should have filled for Chapter 11 in the first place and then the Government would have no say in their reorganized business!
When Bush started the first Bailout everyone was yelling NO NO We emailed so much the White House Server went down, the Bush Bailout Bill was dead in the water, Bush was a Lame Duck. In Comes Obama and tells everyone to call and suddenly the bill is passed. So who gets the first BAIL OUT BILL passed that Bamma blames Bush for, But his bail out are billions larger, now calls those“ pain relief “ Not what he really calls it but, he thinks money will relieve everything. :lame:

[AL P]

Don't know where that came from, but the trend is down. Here's a link.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/pinewsrelease.htm

Personal income is showing down. PDI is showing slightly down. Personal consumption had a slight up in Jan/Feb, but down in March and were down before then. The more people that become unemployed, the more PDI with go down. That's simple math.

You are actually going to argue that a .1 to .3% in month over month disposable income is killing car sales I guess. I had to see it to believe it.

[Mr Majestyk]

Reagan ran up huge deficits, but the manner in which he used them made this country and the world come out the better for it. The sheer magnitude of the deficits Obama is running up is one problem in and of itself, and creating nationalized industries and financial institutions with them is another bigger problem that is going to ruin America as we know it.

[AL P]

Reagan ran up huge deficits, but the manner in which he used them made this country and the world come out the better for it. The sheer magnitude of the deficits Obama is running up is one problem in and of itself, and creating nationalized industries and financial institutions with them is another bigger problem that is going to ruin America as we know it.


I spoke to one of my environmental consultants in Houston yesterday, he just got $2 million worth of contracts from the local school districts to do mold and asbestos testing on their buildings. All stimulus money. Thank God we are getting that testing done, not sure how we got by without it!

[Mr Majestyk]

Hmmmmm....AHERA was passed in '86, and I wonder who was President then, LOL

This is something else Obama can take credit for then, protecting our children from asbestos in schools!

[46Tbird]

Just one question to all of you bashing Obama for the budget/deficit. If McCain had won, would you still fill this forum with all of your fodder bashing him for having the "largest deficit ever" and for burdening citizens for generations to come? If the Republicans had won, we'd still have the largest deficit ever...
Yes. I'm sure that baffles you, but I am not a fan of ANY of the ridiculous spending I see in the federal government. The federal government was designed for specific purposes, and having 535 members of Congress dictate bloated budgets was not one of them. We will need to address this oversight in Constitution II.

In 1940, only the rich could afford to jet around the world. Not to be picky, but in 1940, you could count the people that had jetted anywhere with your fingers. :D

[Juiceweezl]

You are actually going to argue that a .1 to .3% in month over month disposable income is killing car sales I guess. I had to see it to believe it.

Did I say it was the only thing killing car sales? I said a drop in disposable income (clearly impacted by higher unemployment) means people won't buy new cars. Honestly Al, use that brain of yours. PDI numbers look better than they really are from 2k8 to now. Fuel costs are 35-40% less now than 1 year ago. That's money put back in as disposable income. Do you thing people are going to spend that money on a new car? They're terrified we'll see $4/gallon gas again. That extra money shows as disposable income. Take that out and what does it look like?

Gasoline, fuel oil, coal, etc. -- all down in costs & all meaning more money counted as disposable income. That's money that people aren't spending though, and you know it. Therefore, the number looks higher than it really is. What's hard to understand about that?

[Juiceweezl]

Yes. I'm sure that baffles you, but I am not a fan of ANY of the ridiculous spending I see in the federal government. The federal government was designed for specific purposes, and having 535 members of Congress dictate bloated budgets was not one of them. We will need to address this oversight in Constitution II.

For this, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, say thanks, and encourage you to carry on questioning/attacking whatever you see fit. I'd also ask that you convey it up the line and not just here at DFWS.

[AL P]

Did I say it was the only thing killing car sales? I said a drop in disposable income (clearly impacted by higher unemployment) means people won't buy new cars.

Except there hasn't been a drop in disposable income, you even linked data to prove that fact.

You seem to misunderstand the fact that cars are a function of disposable income.

Hilarious!

[Juiceweezl]

Except there hasn't been a drop in disposable income, you even linked data to prove that fact.



Hilarious!

There has been a drop in disposable income. It may have been relatively small percentage wise. Like I said too, fuel prices are way less now. That means money gets counted as disposable income, but it's not money that people are going to spend. Think of it as you may, but you know I'm correct. As unemployment continues to rise, disposable income will change, and people will buy less and less new cars, new furniture, etc.

If you want to make a case, post a poll on here (not that anyone would be honest about it since everyone here is a billionaire baller in the highest tax bracket). I bet you'll find people are making less than they did 1-2 years ago.

[Mr Majestyk]

One thing that is certain is that Obama's tax increases beginning in 2011 will leave many people with less disposable income.

[Bobba Fett]

Did I say it was the only thing killing car sales? I said a drop in disposable income (clearly impacted by higher unemployment) means people won't buy new cars. Honestly Al, use that brain of yours. PDI numbers look better than they really are from 2k8 to now. Fuel costs are 35-40% less now than 1 year ago. That's money put back in as disposable income. Do you thing people are going to spend that money on a new car? They're terrified we'll see $4/gallon gas again. That extra money shows as disposable income. Take that out and what does it look like?

Gasoline, fuel oil, coal, etc. -- all down in costs & all meaning more money counted as disposable income. That's money that people aren't spending though, and you know it. Therefore, the number looks higher than it really is. What's hard to understand about that?

A drop in "disposable" income? Disposable? How much income do you have that you count as "disposable?" It's obvious you made that term up to prove your point, which you know nothing about. If I called any of my income"disposable," my wife would slap me on the side of the head!

"Hey honey, let's go buy a new car, I made $20k in disposable income this year!" :p

I guess loans had nothing to do with car sales.....it's all about disposable income, says Juice.

[Bobba Fett]

I didn't say unemployment was the only thing affecting new car sales, but it's certainly a big factor now and will be even moreso in the near future. Currently, people aren't struggling that much, but are headed in that direction. Forecasts are for unemployment to get right up to 10% this year. Interest rates have been held down as a shot in the arm to the economy. Otherwise you'd see graphs much similar. It's not as bad as '80-'81 and I hope it doesn't get that way -- but it certainly could.

Oh, and as for standards. Are foreign automakers not held to the same standards? If they are, how can they be profitable and US Auto not? I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking.

As for getting bad as 80-81 recession, it will. Obama will make sure of it. As was posted in another thread, the difference will be that Obama won't be able to blame Bush after this point. Hello hyperinflation (http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Examiner-Editorial-Get-ready-for-Obamas-coming-hyperinflation-44030232.html)!

As for profits made by foreign manufacturers and not by domestic car manufacturers, blame the UAW. They have done nothing but stand in the way, make unfair demands, and then cried to Obama for help when the whole thing came crashing down. It had NOTHING to do with Toyata or Honda being better. Ford and GM make great cars. Only if you watch the media would you believe that American made cars don't stand up to foreign made ones.

[blownragtop]

Still confused I see… let’s see if I can clarify. Let’s start with the only part that you actually understand.

You are correct in that there is a market for X amount of cars per year.

In a sustainable business model - production must not exceed demand. What has existed for years amongst the domestic automakers is overcapacity – forced upon them by the UAW (and the inaction of gutless management). I’m not sure how current these numbers are but I remember reading that the Big 3 have laid off 140,000 employees. Toyota - 0. Honda has eliminated some temporary positions. It is not a coincidence that the automakers that ran grossly inefficient operations are struggling to avoid bankruptcy when demand slackens. Simple economics – well… for everyone but you, Obama and the UAW.

Now let’s take my original (simplistic) scenario and simplify it even further. In your case: the simpler - the better.

Let’s assume that the Big 3 have 50% of the market and Toyota and Honda have the other 50%. And let’s further assume that the Big 3 capitulate and completely disappear overnight. Toyota and Honda have now doubled their market share – from 50% to 100%. Because they were running lean and efficient operations there is little or no overcapacity in their system. For them to meet demand they will need new plants and new workers. Simple. They would buy up some of the now defunct factories of the domestic automakers – they would rehire some (not all – remember the overcapacity inherent in the system) of the former Big 3 employees. And the market would find equilibrium.

That’s how capitalism works.

Your assertion that the government should guarantee employment to workers irrespective of market realities is evidence of your slavish devotion to the Marxist Messiah.

Just say ‘nyet’ to that shit komrade.

[Paladin]

Still confused I see… let’s see if I can clarify. Let’s start with the only part that you actually understand.



In a sustainable business model - production must not exceed demand. What has existed for years amongst the domestic automakers is overcapacity – forced upon them by the UAW (and the inaction of gutless management). I’m not sure how current these numbers are but I remember reading that the Big 3 have laid off 140,000 employees. Toyota - 0. Honda has eliminated some temporary positions. It is not a coincidence that the automakers that ran grossly inefficient operations are struggling to avoid bankruptcy when demand slackens. Simple economics – well… for everyone but you, Obama and the UAW.

Now let’s take my original (simplistic) scenario and simplify it even further. In your case: the simpler - the better.

Let’s assume that the Big 3 have 50% of the market and Toyota and Honda have the other 50%. And let’s further assume that the Big 3 capitulate and completely disappear overnight. Toyota and Honda have now doubled their market share – from 50% to 100%. Because they were running lean and efficient operations there is little or no overcapacity in their system. For them to meet demand they will need new plants and new workers. Simple. They would buy up some of the now defunct factories of the domestic automakers – they would rehire some (not all – remember the overcapacity inherent in the system) of the former Big 3 employees. And the market would find equilibrium.

That’s how capitalism works.

Your assertion that the government should guarantee employment to workers irrespective of market realities is evidence of your slavish devotion to the Marxist Messiah.

Just say ‘nyet’ to that shit komrade.

Well done, even gpamp could understand that model, so weezl definitely should.

[Juiceweezl]

Still confused I see… let’s see if I can clarify. Let’s start with the only part that you actually understand.



In a sustainable business model - production must not exceed demand. What has existed for years amongst the domestic automakers is overcapacity – forced upon them by the UAW (and the inaction of gutless management). I’m not sure how current these numbers are but I remember reading that the Big 3 have laid off 140,000 employees. Toyota - 0. Honda has eliminated some temporary positions. It is not a coincidence that the automakers that ran grossly inefficient operations are struggling to avoid bankruptcy when demand slackens. Simple economics – well… for everyone but you, Obama and the UAW.

Now let’s take my original (simplistic) scenario and simplify it even further. In your case: the simpler - the better.

Let’s assume that the Big 3 have 50% of the market and Toyota and Honda have the other 50%. And let’s further assume that the Big 3 capitulate and completely disappear overnight. Toyota and Honda have now doubled their market share – from 50% to 100%. Because they were running lean and efficient operations there is little or no overcapacity in their system. For them to meet demand they will need new plants and new workers. Simple. They would buy up some of the now defunct factories of the domestic automakers – they would rehire some (not all – remember the overcapacity inherent in the system) of the former Big 3 employees. And the market would find equilibrium.

That’s how capitalism works.

Your assertion that the government should guarantee employment to workers irrespective of market realities is evidence of your slavish devotion to the Marxist Messiah.

Just say ‘nyet’ to that shit komrade.

So Toyota would need new workers, huh? This explains why they've been shutting down for weeks at a time now, huh? You people don't get it. If US auto goes under, there will be a huge surge in unemployment beyond just those workers. It affects the towns they're in, the suppliers, etc. It becomes a huge drain on government aid to all the unemployed people. Furthermore it removes money from the economy. Since those workers aren't drawing wages, they aren't going out to eat, buying new clothes, etc. I didn't say the government should guarantee employment, I said they should help US auto with funding. That's what they're doing -- tied to a successful business plan now (unlike the first time). GM had to do some things to show they could make it. That meant actions like cutting 21K jobs and getting rid of Pontiac. They will have to continue with actions to improve their model to receive help.

You don't get how supply/demand works. Supply does exceed demand often. What happens then is price drops and people leave the supply side or stop making product because they can't make as much money if any at it. Then, when demand exceeds supply again, price goes up. Look at what gas has done. We had a perceived "shortage" and price surged. Now there's a surplus and it's down. Meanwhile companies are cutting production. I haven't seen any cars selling for $5K nor have I seen auto manufacturers leaving the business. They're cutting production, but you don't see cars at half price like gas is now.

The reason Toyota hasn't made cuts is they've offered voluntary buyouts to employees and then shut down their manufacturing for up to 3 weeks at a time. So far they've given the workers full pay during that time, but they're not making vehicles. As for over capacity in the system, the San Antonio plan can produce like 200K trucks a year. They sold 137K last year. That's a 59K reduction from 2007. I guess there was just an oversupply because demand wouldn't change from 2007 to 2008 would it?

Okay expert, tell me this. The fact that Toyota sold 59K less Tundras in 2008 from 2007 doesn't have anything to do with gas prices being practically double and people having less money does it? People having less disposable income doesn't mean they won't go buy a $30K truck instead of keeping their 6 year old beater does it? I mean why not? According to you the market has an equilibium of supply demand -- what would change that? Since Toyota sold 59K less trucks while the demand was 196K, can you tell me which other auto maker sold 59K more trucks to maintain the equilibrium? According to you disposable income and unemployment don't matter, so someone should have gained that market share. Who was it?

Why have auto sales decreased overall? If we were "over manufacturing," then the surplus built would've been huge, but the purchase numbers would've stayed the same. Now, purchase numbers are down, so the surplus is up and going up unless manufacturing adapts. In your simple model, someone would quit the business, and no one would make cars until we sold through the surplus meanwhile prices fall. The fact is demand has changed and there's a reason for that -- people have less money to spend on items like cars/trucks, furniture, clothing, etc.

My orinigal opinion was that if we allowed US auto to go under, then it would be a devastating blow to our economy because of the spike in unemployment and the dollars removed from the economy in general. It goes way beyond just the employees at the plants. Coming up with a plan that involves workforce reduction, the end of lines like Pontiac and Hummer, etc. need to be a part of going forward. The fact remains that US auto needs help in the form of money. It just happens to be the government providing it -- this time tied to a successful plan.

[racrguy]

So Toyota would need new workers, huh? This explains why they've been shutting down for weeks at a time now, huh? You people don't get it. If US auto goes under, there will be a huge surge in unemployment beyond just those workers. It affects the towns they're in, the suppliers, etc. It becomes a huge drain on government aid to all the unemployed people. Furthermore it removes money from the economy. Since those workers aren't drawing wages, they aren't going out to eat, buying new clothes, etc. I didn't say the government should guarantee employment, I said they should help US auto with funding. That's what they're doing -- tied to a successful business plan now (unlike the first time). GM had to do some things to show they could make it. That meant actions like cutting 21K jobs and getting rid of Pontiac. They will have to continue with actions to improve their model to receive help.

You don't get how supply/demand works. Supply does exceed demand often. What happens then is price drops and people leave the supply side or stop making product because they can't make as much money if any at it. Then, when demand exceeds supply again, price goes up. Look at what gas has done. We had a perceived "shortage" and price surged. Now there's a surplus and it's down. Meanwhile companies are cutting production. I haven't seen any cars selling for $5K nor have I seen auto manufacturers leaving the business. They're cutting production, but you don't see cars at half price like gas is now.

The reason Toyota hasn't made cuts is they've offered voluntary buyouts to employees and then shut down their manufacturing for up to 3 weeks at a time. So far they've given the workers full pay during that time, but they're not making vehicles. As for over capacity in the system, the San Antonio plan can produce like 200K trucks a year. They sold 137K last year. That's a 59K reduction from 2007. I guess there was just an oversupply because demand wouldn't change from 2007 to 2008 would it?

Okay expert, tell me this. The fact that Toyota sold 59K less Tundras in 2008 from 2007 doesn't have anything to do with gas prices being practically double and people having less money does it? People having less disposable income doesn't mean they won't go buy a $30K truck instead of keeping their 6 year old beater does it? I mean why not? According to you the market has an equilibium of supply demand -- what would change that? Since Toyota sold 59K less trucks while the demand was 196K, can you tell me which other auto maker sold 59K more trucks to maintain the equilibrium? According to you disposable income and unemployment don't matter, so someone should have gained that so someone should have gained that market share. Who was it?

Why have auto sales decreased overall? If we were "over manufacturing," then the surplus built would've been huge, but the purchase numbers would've stayed the same. Now, purchase numbers are down, so the surplus is up and going up unless manufacturing adapts. In your simple model, someone would quit the business, and no one would make cars until we sold through the surplus meanwhile prices fall. The fact is demand has changed and there's a reason for that -- people have less money to spend on items like cars/trucks, furniture, clothing, etc.

My orinigal opinion was that if we allowed US auto to go under, then it would be a devastating blow to our economy because of the spike in unemployment and the dollars removed from the economy in general. It goes way beyond just the employees at the plants. Coming up with a plan that involves workforce reduction, the end of lines like Pontiac and Hummer, etc. need to be a part of going forward. The fact remains that US auto needs help in the form of money. It just happens to be the government providing it -- this time tied to a successful plan.

You do realize that "market share" isn't a number that's set in stone, right? Say the total vehicle sales in the US for the year are 1 million units, the Big 3 sold 500k, and all others accounted for the other 500k, each set has a 50% market share. OH SNAP, "RECESSIONZ!" BETTER NOT BUY A CAR NOW! BAM sales drop by half, with the Big 3 selling 250k units and all other manufacturers the other 250k. Guess what! NO CHANGE in market share, only in units sold. I know it's a bit of an abstract concept, but please, try to understand. I might be able to draw you a picture if you need further help.

[ceyko]

You people don't get it. If US auto goes under, there will be a huge surge in unemployment beyond just those workers. It affects the towns they're in, the suppliers, etc. It becomes a huge drain on government aid to all the unemployed people. Furthermore it removes money from the economy.

Well damn man, you brought up a valid point. However, you did not answer a question I asked earlier - how damned long are we supposed to support large companies?

What's the difference between GM going tits up and the hundreds/thousands of SMBs going under?

Maybe it makes more sense to pay/retrain the individual employee as opposed to supporting a poorly managed company?

MAYBE there is not enough room for poorly managed companies in the vehicle market?

Maybe it makes sense to ban all non-big 3 sales in the US? That would surely help GM right?

Just throwing out other ideas that I think are far fetched, just like you think letting GM take their knocks/go under is far fetched. I just can't agree with the principle of letting crap companies get more assistance to continue to be crap.

I own 2 GMs because I thought they were good deals (brand new 04 and 06). Both are in the 50-70K mileage range and are maintenance nightmares now. Prior I bought used Fords a Toyota and Nissans in that mileage range and had little maintenance problems in the additional 40-50K miles I drove them. This has a little to with being convinced that GM is worthless and earned their dilemma. (along with a couple of friends in the same boat)

I feel no differently then the other companies going under. Hell, my father builds houses for a living. He's gone out of business a few times due to the housing market - not once has the government bailed him out. He's close to it again and is trying to redo the business for a different market. If he fails, he'll make ends meet like he's always done. Driving truck, remodeling and whatever else he can do.

I've lost my job due to economy and the market being bad. Ended up in all kinds of crazy overseas places to make ends meet, the government did not give me a free ride. I did work for the government, but nothing was given for free - had a clearance, useful skill and willing to travel

Fuck GM and I truly wish the employees the best of luck. If they want work bad enough, they'll do like every other hard working American does and MAKE it happen. Too bad all the illegals are doing the work that Americans usually did (work 2-3 jobs) to make ends meet during hard times. Don't say they aren't, cause that's a standard counter argument every time for them being here.

Take care,

[Juiceweezl]

You do realize that "market share" isn't a number that's set in stone, right? Say the total vehicle sales in the US for the year are 1 million units, the Big 3 sold 500k, and all others accounted for the other 500k, each set has a 50% market share. OH SNAP, "RECESSIONZ!" BETTER NOT BUY A CAR NOW! BAM sales drop by half, with the Big 3 selling 250k units and all other manufacturers the other 250k. Guess what! NO CHANGE in market share, only in units sold. I know it's a bit of an abstract concept, but please, try to understand. I might be able to draw you a picture if you need further help.

You mean things like unemployment and less income? So demand is directly affected by that just like I said. Look at it this way. I want a ferarri, but I don't have the money to buy one, so there isn't a demand for it from me because I don't have enough disposable income.

[mikeb]

I've lost my job due to economy and the market being bad. Ended up in all kinds of crazy overseas places to make ends meet, the government did not give me a free ride. I did work for the government, but nothing was given for free - had a clearance, useful skill and willing to travel

Fuck GM and I truly wish the employees the best of luck. If they want work bad enough, they'll do like every other hard working American does and MAKE it happen. Too bad all the illegals are doing the work that Americans usually did (work 2-3 jobs) to make ends meet during hard times. Don't say they aren't, cause that's a standard counter argument every time for them being here.

Take care,

No free ride here either. Was employed but did not receive a paycheck for several months due to company cashflow, bailed out, and now i'm out on my own contracting, but I travel out of state for work. It's good to have a job, but sleeping in a hotel room for ~25 nights a month gets old quick. I've been a contractor before so these working conditions are not totally unusual for me. I'm doing what I have to do to provide for my family, and the wife is on board with the plan.

Could be worse, a guy that is in a similar situation as me is looking at having to take a deal in london, he'll have to be over there for 3 weeks at a stretch. I get to go home every two weeks, and it's only a 3.5 hour flight one way.

Some people will adapt, some won't. If GM goes belly up then I foresee a lot of union people suffering since they are used to making demands for what they want. In the real world that shit doesn't fly (and in the new world it doesn't either), and what you know how to do plus your networking skills and references are what gets you work.

In a way I feel kind of sorry for the UAW people because they have been insulated for a long time, and the shit is about to hit the fan for them. They aren't prepared for whats coming.

[Juiceweezl]

Well damn man, you brought up a valid point. However, you did not answer a question I asked earlier - how damned long are we supposed to support large companies? I wish the answer were that we didn't have to at all. As it is now, we are acting like a bank. Sadly it's the "last line of defense" bank because they've exhausted every option (of course the banks were broke too). The first time GM got money, they just used it to make payroll and didn't really work to "fix" anything. This time they are trying and working up a new model to right the ship. They'll receive money as long as that is happening and the company is moving in the right direction. Eventually they'll get moving forward nicely and the government can step away, make a little profit on the money lent, and a bank will jump in (we hope).


What's the difference between GM going tits up and the hundreds/thousands of SMBs going under?

Maybe it makes more sense to pay/retrain the individual employee as opposed to supporting a poorly managed company?
The difference between GM and small businesses, is the number of employees. If Dallas Mustang or Gearheads or HPP went out of business, no one would really notices save for a few people on here. Yes, there would be a dozen or so people without jobs, but it wouldn't impact the towns/cities/economy that much. If GM goes under and 350K plus people lose their job, you're talking about a much, much larger impact on communities and other industry in the area. You have suppliers and other people that do business with GM that now lose money, those workers are no longer spending money on new clothes, CD's, computers, TV's, etc. It moves right on down the line. Tons of people are impacted. There just isn't a large enough concentration of small businesses that could go under and have that type of impact.

MAYBE there is not enough room for poorly managed companies in the vehicle market? No, there isn't. That's why GM has been forced to change management at many levels.


Maybe it makes sense to ban all non-big 3 sales in the US? That would surely help GM right? That would be anti-capitalism and would anger everyone. It might help GM sell more vehicles, but it won't help their real issue -- lack of profits on what they sell. They need to fix margins more than anything.


Just throwing out other ideas that I think are far fetched, just like you think letting GM take their knocks/go under is far fetched. I just can't agree with the principle of letting crap companies get more assistance to continue to be crap. I don't think it's far fetched to let companies go under that are "crap." I just don't think GM is one of those companies. How long have they been around now? They've been successful in the past. They haven't done that awful or they've would've shut the doors a long time ago. They need some help, and they'll get it to protect than many workers.

I own 2 GMs because I thought they were good deals (brand new 04 and 06). Both are in the 50-70K mileage range and are maintenance nightmares now. Prior I bought used Fords a Toyota and Nissans in that mileage range and had little maintenance problems in the additional 40-50K miles I drove them. This has a little to with being convinced that GM is worthless and earned their dilemma. (along with a couple of friends in the same boat)
My personal opinion is that GM sucks compared to Ford or the imports. It's not that they couldn't build a competitive vehicle, they just haven't done it. GM has always had too many lines in their offering. Make a few less lines and make them better products.
I feel no differently then the other companies going under. Hell, my father builds houses for a living. He's gone out of business a few times due to the housing market - not once has the government bailed him out. He's close to it again and is trying to redo the business for a different market. If he fails, he'll make ends meet like he's always done. Driving truck, remodeling and whatever else he can do.It always sucks when people lose their job. Again though, I point out that your father is one man and a hard working one at that. He can find work. If you got rid of 350K people at the same time in the same area, how many do you think are going to apply for every job around town? You have a surplus of workers and not enough work. That means people have no job and no extra money.

I've lost my job due to economy and the market being bad. Ended up in all kinds of crazy overseas places to make ends meet, the government did not give me a free ride. I did work for the government, but nothing was given for free - had a clearance, useful skill and willing to travel
Congrats and good for you. Still, you're talking one person to 350K people. No comparison.

Fuck GM and I truly wish the employees the best of luck. If they want work bad enough, they'll do like every other hard working American does and MAKE it happen. Too bad all the illegals are doing the work that Americans usually did (work 2-3 jobs) to make ends meet during hard times. Don't say they aren't, cause that's a standard counter argument every time for them being here.

Take care,

It's tough to make it happen when you live in a town that has an auto mill, employs 80% of the population and then they go down. You have 200 people trying to apply for the same work if not more. It becomes impossible for everyone to "make ends meet." They need help, or they'll end up in the streets begging for cash.

Thanks for taking the time to post in a structured and though out manner. I enjoy real respones. Peace!

-Juice

[ceyko]

The difference between GM and small businesses, is the number of employees. If Dallas Mustang or Gearheads or HPP went out of business, no one would really notices save for a few people on here. Yes, there would be a dozen or so people without jobs, but it wouldn't impact the towns/cities/economy that much. If GM goes under and 350K plus people lose their job, you're talking about a much, much larger impact on communities and other industry in the area. You have suppliers and other people that do business with GM that now lose money, those workers are no longer spending money on new clothes, CD's, computers, TV's, etc. It moves right on down the line. Tons of people are impacted. There just isn't a large enough concentration of small businesses that could go under and have that type of impact.


Oddly, it seems from what you're saying we agree on just about everything - except what to do about it. (GM Going Away)

This is the only part I seen enough to argue about. Yes, 1 GM is much bigger then 1 HPP, Gearheads...etc. The only point I'm trying to make is 1 GM is crap compared to several thousand (don't know exactly how many, doubt many do) companies that employ 1-200 people that are likely going under too.

I understand what you're saying about the concentration of those people at GM in certain areas as well. (One of them being local)

I don't know which one will really work best for long term, it just seems that letting them go under is best. (long term) If (and we probably will) we finance this company - at a minimum it should be...

-Paid back with interest
-Plan should be public
-Progress on payback, success/failures should be reported monthly to the public
-etc along these lines.

If the 1st and 2nd can't be done, that's just damned unfair. Like everyone else in the US, interest is just the way it is.

[Juiceweezl]

Oddly, it seems from what you're saying we agree on just about everything - except what to do about it. (GM Going Away)

This is the only part I seen enough to argue about. Yes, 1 GM is much bigger then 1 HPP, Gearheads...etc. The only point I'm trying to make is 1 GM is crap compared to several thousand (don't know exactly how many, doubt many do) companies that employ 1-200 people that are likely going under too.

I understand what you're saying about the concentration of those people at GM in certain areas as well. (One of them being local)

I don't know which one will really work best for long term, it just seems that letting them go under is best. (long term) If (and we probably will) we finance this company - at a minimum it should be...

-Paid back with interest
-Plan should be public
-Progress on payback, success/failures should be reported monthly to the public
-etc along these lines.

If the 1st and 2nd can't be done, that's just damned unfair. Like everyone else in the US, interest is just the way it is.


I hear ya'. GM's deadline for its restructuring plan has not arrived yet for the additional money they requested. All money given to them is due to be repaid with interest. I'm not sure how public the details will be, but you're right, there should be knowledge of it. I do know that even with the first money weekly reports had to be made showing their progress.

We'll see what happens. It is frustrating that the government is getting involved, but something needs to be done. I'd rather us loan the money to the company and it get things turned around and repay the loan versus just handing it out as unemployment to all the people suddenly out of work because GM shut down.

[Bobba Fett]

We'll see what happens. It is frustrating that the government is getting involved, but something needs to be done. I'd rather us loan the money to the company and it get things turned around and repay the loan versus just handing it out as unemployment to all the people suddenly out of work because GM shut down.

But we won't get all that money back. The govenment will only get 51% of GM. Meanwhile, the UAW, which has a claim on $20 billion for its health-care and pensions obligations, would only have to sacrifice half of that to get 39%. The private investors, who's stakes is $27 billion, will only get 10%. Does that sound "fair?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/27/AR2009042700872.html

And Chrysler, well, won't pay back a dime:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/05/news/companies/chrysler_loans/index.htm?postversion=2009050517

Admit it. The statist has convinced you that they needed our tax dollars. You never reply to my comments, even after I hand you proof after proof. You are as ignorant as the people who convinced you that they needed to be bailed out.

[Juiceweezl]

But we won't get all that money back. The govenment will only get 51% of GM. Meanwhile, the UAW, which has a claim on $20 billion for its health-care and pensions obligations, would only have to sacrifice half of that to get 39%. The private investors, who's stakes is $27 billion, will only get 10%. Does that sound "fair?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/27/AR2009042700872.html

And Chrysler, well, won't pay back a dime:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/05/news/companies/chrysler_loans/index.htm?postversion=2009050517

Admit it. The statist has convinced you that they needed our tax dollars. You never reply to my comments, even after I hand you proof after proof. You are as ignorant as the people who convinced you that they needed to be bailed out.


You're the ignorant one. Let's see...GM goes under and everyone is unemployed. They draw government money and no taxes come in or only a limited amount. GM stays afloat, keeps employees, and they pay taxes -- money in and the loan will be repaid.

As for sounding fair, it's an investment -- a risk -- and a bad investment in GM at that. You guys are the ones talking about how bad the company has been for a while, so why shouldn't those who chose poorly to invest in it have to suffer some? Do you think they should make money on that poor decision?

What comments have I not replied to? The fact that you have no idea how money works? You say disposable income has no impact on car sales. It's a function of loans. What do you think loans are based on??? Income maybe? Let's see. If I'm employed and make $75K a year, do you think I can get a loan for a new Chevy truck? If I'm unemployed and have no income, do you think I can get the same loan?

I don't like the fact that we're financing a poorly run company anymore than the next guy, but something needed to be done. They are forcing GM to take corrective actions as part of the terms. Hopefully it works, they turn things around, and repay the money. Time will tell.

[Bobba Fett]

You're the ignorant one. Let's see...GM goes under and everyone is unemployed. They draw government money and no taxes come in or only a limited amount. GM stays afloat, keeps employees, and they pay taxes -- money in and the loan will be repaid.

Everyone will not be unemployed. Bankruptcy would have allowed the company to re-structure. That's why bankruptcy laws were made.

As for sounding fair, it's an investment -- a risk -- and a bad investment in GM at that. You guys are the ones talking about how bad the company has been for a while, so why shouldn't those who chose poorly to invest in it have to suffer some? Do you think they should make money on that poor decision?

The investors should suffer, to the extent of the law. It's law that the investors should be paid back a certain percentage. In this case, they are getting less than the law requires because Obama wants to help out his campaign contributors. Is that fair to you?

What comments have I not replied to? The fact that you have no idea how money works? You say disposable income has no impact on car sales. It's a function of loans. What do you think loans are based on??? Income maybe? Let's see. If I'm employed and make $75K a year, do you think I can get a loan for a new Chevy truck? If I'm unemployed and have no income, do you think I can get the same loan?

This has nothing to do with our debate that the government should have not bailed out the auto companies. That's you going off tangent and using moderate logic. You want to say that GM is going under b/c people are not buying. I'm saying that it's not the government's job to jump in. I'll agree that part of it is that people are not buying, but what does this have to do with the government jumping in? If you want to argue this, fine, but we will get no where. I only wanted to point out that the term you was using was just silly at best.

I don't like the fact that we're financing a poorly run company anymore than the next guy, but something needed to be done. They are forcing GM to take corrective actions as part of the terms. Hopefully it works, they turn things around, and repay the money. Time will tell.

I'm pointing out that it will not work out, and most of the money will not be paid back. I posted links to prove my point. What is your opinion on that?

[Juiceweezl]

I'm pointing out that it will not work out, and most of the money will not be paid back. I posted links to prove my point. What is your opinion on that?

You're pointing out your belief that it won't work. It may or it may not. If it does work, then the government will have no trouble collecting money. As far as it being "fair" to the bondholders, they have a vote. If they vote for, then it's their fault for it being "unfair" as you say. If they vote against, they can take their chance in bankruptcy settlements. You can't blame that on the Obama administration -- it's up to the bond holders.

[Juiceweezl]

[QUOTE=Bobba Fett;5700930]This has nothing to do with our debate that the government should have not bailed out the auto companies. That's you going off tangent and using moderate logic. You want to say that GM is going under b/c people are not buying. I'm saying that it's not the government's job to jump in. I'll agree that part of it is that people are not buying, but what does this have to do with the government jumping in? If you want to argue this, fine, but we will get no where. I only wanted to point out that the term you was using was just silly at best.[QUOTE]

You should reread your own post. You were the one calling me out for saying that having reduced or no income is the main reason people aren't buying new cars. I never said that people not buying cars is THE reason GM is going under. Heck, they were headed down this slope with record sales. Just know that if people were still buying in record numbers, the economy would be good, and no one would even care what was going on because the government wouldn't be involved. GM should look internally for what went wrong -- they're being forced to do that now as part of the rescue funding.

[Bobba Fett]

You're pointing out your belief that it won't work. It may or it may not.

No, the bailout has FAILED. Hello! It's either GM files bankruptcy, or accepts the partial nationalization plan that GM has laid out. The only difference here is that the plan that GM has laid out has Obama's proposals in it. What makes you think the investors are going to settle for that? Would you accept that offer, knowing you would get more if you voted to file bankruptcy?

[Bobba Fett]

GM should look internally for what went wrong -- they're being forced to do that now as part of the rescue funding.

This would have been done filling bankruptcy, and our tax dollars would not have been wasted. This is just Obama filling campaign promises, which you seem to ignore.

[Bobba Fett]

You're pointing out your belief that it won't work. It may or it may not. If it does work, then the government will have no trouble collecting money. As far as it being "fair" to the bondholders, they have a vote. If they vote for, then it's their fault for it being "unfair" as you say. If they vote against, they can take their chance in bankruptcy settlements. You can't blame that on the Obama administration -- it's up to the bond holders.

Alright Juice, I guess you're not going to respond. I was waiting to post these articles to see your response to my other questions and articles, but no answer.

Take a look at these two articles and tell me how you think the bondholders have a fair vote in Chrysler's nationalization proceedings. Explain to me how this isn't Obama's fault. If Chrysler is treated this way, what makes you think GM's story will be any different?

From Forbes


Chrysler Creditors Lose Fight For Secrecy (http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/05/chrysler-bankruptcy-tarp-business-autos-chrysler-update.html)

They have been vilified on message boards and called greedy speculators, criminals and vultures. President Obama says he "does not stand with them." They have received death threats. They're the hedge funds opposed to the Chrysler reorganization, who desperately tried to keep their identities secret to all but the federal bankruptcy court judge overseeing the case.

But the judge, Arthur Gonzalez, isn't buying it. Tuesday, he ruled that the group had until 10 a.m. Wednesday to reveal their identities. The group, which describes itself as the group of creditors that did not have to take federal bailout money under the Troubled Asset Relief program, is trying to block the Obama administration's proposed reorganization of Chrysler.

In court documents Tuesday, attorneys for the so-called "non-TARP" creditors, who own $300 million of secured debt, said intensifying pressure and name calling by the government threatened to harm them if their identities became public.

"The Chrysler non-TARP lenders are afraid," the court documents say. They cannot argue against the proposed bankruptcy "if that means being subjected to heavy-handed tactics that will threaten their business and safety."


Here's another article, this one from Business Insider



New Allegations Of White House Threats Over Chrysler (http://www.businessinsider.com/new-allegations-of-white-house-threats-over-chysler-2009-5)

Creditors to Chrysler describe negotiations with the company and the Obama administration as "a farce," saying the administration was bent on forcing their hands using hardball tactics and threats.

Conversations with administration officials left them expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said.

Although the focus has so been on allegations that the White House threatened Perella Weinberg, sources familiar with the matter say that other firms felt they were threatened as well. None of the sources would agree to speak except on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of political repercussions.

The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say they were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person described the administration as the most shocking "end justifies the means" group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger." Both were voters for Obama in the last election.

[5.0_CJ]

LOL, this is just even more pure drone talk than I expected in this thread.

You want to compare unemployment to car sales, like unemployment is the only thing affecting sales of cars. What about CAFE standards the government has been imposing for years on US automakers? You don't think those have anything to do with bankrupting US automakers?

Do you believe that people are struggling that much?? 20 years ago only the rich had cell phones. Now even the poorest can afford a cell phone. In 1940, only the rich could afford to jet around the world. Today, people complain when their flight is delayed 10 minutes. Do you really think we are THAT bad off?

Were you around for the 80-81 recession?? No? Here, take a look:

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t12/jakester05/1980s.jpg

Keep ignoring my posts. It's obvious no one can get anywhere with a drone such as yourself.

first of all, that graph cherry picks the peaks of the worst with the lowest of the current.

Secondly, inflation is coming, and it will be coming at a massive rate... inflation is elastic, it takes time to happen.

[Bobba Fett]

first of all, that graph cherry picks the peaks of the worst with the lowest of the current.

You are correct, that is why I used it, to prove that Juice is crying over nothing.

Secondly, inflation is coming, and it will be coming at a massive rate... inflation is elastic, it takes time to happen.

Correct again. I've posted an article on that exact scenario. See post #102.

Link (http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Examiner-Editorial-Get-ready-for-Obamas-coming-hyperinflation-44030232.html)

[5.0 svo]

And then there was that brilliant idea that vets should pay for their own healthcare.

I think that is a good idea. Cause the VA is a joke. Give them money to pay for their own healthcare instead of having hundreds of worthless VA workers that dont do shit.

[ceyko]

I think that is a good idea. Cause the VA is a joke. Give them money to pay for their own healthcare instead of having hundreds of worthless VA workers that dont do shit.

It really would not be that hard either. Just a standard damned insurance plan - paid. My father-in-law died of cancer and during his whole battle the VA was not even very sympathetic to his pain. One time he ended up at Baylor and the care they gave him was like VIP treatment compared to the VA.

I too am not happy with the way the VA works. Another inefficient, costly (lives, health and money) government entity.

Edit: But if I remember right there was something that Obama was wanting to do that would screw veterans. It was not like he was just getting private health care or anything...I could be wrong, but pretty sure he was insane.

[Mr Majestyk]

It really would not be that hard either. Just a standard damned insurance plan - paid. My father-in-law died of cancer and during his whole battle the VA was not even very sympathetic to his pain. One time he ended up at Baylor and the care they gave him was like VIP treatment compared to the VA.

I too am not happy with the way the VA works. Another inefficient, costly (lives, health and money) government entity.

Edit: But if I remember right there was something that Obama was wanting to do that would screw veterans. It was not like he was just getting private health care or anything...I could be wrong, but pretty sure he was insane.

Our veterans should be given, gratis, the same choices in health plans made available to Congress and the Federal workforce. There's a novel idea I recommend to Obama.

[Juiceweezl]

Our veterans should be given, gratis, the same choices in health plans made available to Congress and the Federal workforce. There's a novel idea I recommend to Obama.

Agreed. I've never understood the differences between state and federal employees at the various positions. My mother spent 25+ years working for the state and has crap benefits. My wife's a teacher and denies even her "free" crap because it's way cheaper for me to cover her at my work. State/federal employees, particularly vets, should have the bet health coverage in the country at the lowest rate around -- period. Why this doesn't happen is something I have never understood.

[forever_frost]

I have to pay for Tricare Prime and Medicare part B for about 120 a month. This bites. The only reason i'm even carrying insurance is because I want my wife covered. I've not had too bad of a time with the VA. You just have to call a Senator time to time

[5.0 svo]

It says alot about you and others who think his changing back and forth on many campaign promises and spending trillions of dollars in his first 100 days is still something that could be considered good. I remember a time when you Bush haters claimed Bush was spending too much and made government too big. I also love how when Obama lies you claim he is rethinking his position but when Bush did the same thing you screamed he was a liar.

Hypocrites!

The thing about that is by the time anyone even started saying anything about bushs lies it was towards the end of his term. Lieing to get into office is a part of the game. U leak information about people to certain groups that will think there is a small chance it is true and then they will vote for you just because they think you might support whatever it is you are into. For instance Bill Clinton leaked information that he had tried weed but never inhaled. Who do you think all the pot smokers voted for? The key is to see through those lies and see what people are really into.

What we really need is a president that sells America. We need people to start buying American made products so people can get jobs and we can prosper. Isnt it funny how more people from other countries support our president then in our own country?
The war market is gone, time for change.

[Paladin]

The thing about that is by the time anyone even started saying anything about bushs lies it was towards the end of his term. Lieing to get into office is a part of the game. U leak information about people to certain groups that will think there is a small chance it is true and then they will vote for you just because they think you might support whatever it is you are into. For instance Bill Clinton leaked information that he had tried weed but never inhaled. Who do you think all the pot smokers voted for? The key is to see through those lies and see what people are really into.

It is voters like you who voted Obama into office and I hold you idiots responsible for the chaos we will endure over the next decade or so trying to recover from his administration.

[5.0 svo]

It is voters like you who voted Obama into office and I hold you idiots responsible for the chaos we will endure over the next decade or so trying to recover from his administration.

edited just for you.

[Vertnut]

The thing about that is by the time anyone even started saying anything about bushs lies it was towards the end of his term. Lieing to get into office is a part of the game. U leak information about people to certain groups that will think there is a small chance it is true and then they will vote for you just because they think you might support whatever it is you are into. For instance Bill Clinton leaked information that he had tried weed but never inhaled. Who do you think all the pot smokers voted for? The key is to see through those lies and see what people are really into.

What we really need is a president that sells America. We need people to start buying American made products so people can get jobs and we can prosper. Isnt it funny how more people from other countries support our president then in our own country?
The war market is gone, time for change.

They support our POTUS, because he's weak on foreign policy and they know they can stomp all over us. I'd rather the world hate us for being strong, than love us for being weak. Been there, done that, and got the T-shirt...

[5.0 svo]

They support our POTUS, because he's weak on foreign policy and they know they can stomp all over us. I'd rather the world hate us for being strong, than love us for being weak. Been there, done that, and got the T-shirt...

They don't love him because he is weak. They love him because of all the propaganda they have been fed. Whos to say its not all true. It doesn't really matter. What does matter is it is his job to take care of America now. Do you think anyone wants to leave behind them a legacy of failure? No, he will do his best for us and that is all that matters.

[Paladin]

edited just for you.

wtf?

[5.0 svo]

wtf?

Ok after you quoted me I went back and added some more info to the original statement. Thats what.

[Paladin]

Ok after you quoted me I went back and added some more info to the original statement. Thats what.

Okay, I don't usually go backwards in threads, I try and stay forward looking.

As far as the changes, you do have the liberal secular progressive rhetoric down.

[Vertnut]

They don't love him because he is weak. They love him because of all the propaganda they have been fed. Whos to say its not all true. It doesn't really matter. What does matter is it is his job to take care of America now. Do you think anyone wants to leave behind them a legacy of failure? No, he will do his best for us and that is all that matters.

"Failure" is in the eye's of the beholder. He and his cabinet will see what they want to see. Jimmy Carter has never felt his term was a "failure", based on the many interviews over the years, and the fact that he takes it upon himself to give unsolicited advice to current president's.

The real Barry will come forth on June, 4, when he addresses the worlds muslim population from Egypt. In all aspects, this will be a world-changing speech. His weaknesses will come ringing through for all our countrymen to see. Hide and watch...

[Mr Majestyk]

Ok after you quoted me I went back and added some more info to the original statement. Thats what.

:haha::haha::haha: i.e., he (again) stumbled over his own words on the first attempt.

[Paladin]

:haha::haha::haha: i.e., he (again) stumbled over his own words on the first attempt.

He sure got it right about being anti-American though.....:thumbsdown:

[5.0 svo]

It really would not be that hard either. Just a standard damned insurance plan - paid. My father-in-law died of cancer and during his whole battle the VA was not even very sympathetic to his pain. One time he ended up at Baylor and the care they gave him was like VIP treatment compared to the VA.

I too am not happy with the way the VA works. Another inefficient, costly (lives, health and money) government entity.

Edit: But if I remember right there was something that Obama was wanting to do that would screw veterans. It was not like he was just getting private health care or anything...I could be wrong, but pretty sure he was insane.

I know the VA in Waco is a joke. I know lots of people that work there and I'll bet they dont do shit but sit on their ass. No offense to anyone but most government and state jobs like the VA and state schools etc are held by over weight black women. You know how hard they work.

[5.0 svo]

"Failure" is in the eye's of the beholder. He and his cabinet will see what they want to see. Jimmy Carter has never felt his term was a "failure", based on the many interviews over the years, and the fact that he takes it upon himself to give unsolicited advice to current president's.

The real Barry will come forth on June, 4, when he addresses the worlds muslim population from Egypt. In all aspects, this will be a world-changing speech. His weaknesses will come ringing through for all our countrymen to see. Hide and watch...

Why are you always on Jimmy Carters nuts? You act like its a well known fact that he was a bad president when in fact its not. He really didn't do shit as a president.

[Vertnut]

Why are you always on Jimmy Carters nuts? You act like its a well known fact that he was a bad president when in fact its not. He really didn't do shit as a president.

Because unlike most folks on here, I lived it. Did you? I found some old personal papers the last time I moved, which included a 36 month car note (a brand new '79 Z28) that was a 21% loan! 21%? Dude...Tony Soprano ain't got SHIT on Jimmy! How about a 13.5% mortgage? 20% prime lending rate? Double-digit inflation? 10% unemployment? On top of his horrendous fiscal record/policies, his foreign policy was even worse! This current guy is considerably worse than Carter, by his incredibly quick spending and power-grabbing scams. You obviously know nothing of the Carter administration, or are you just an idiot?
See, you liberals always get your panties in a knot when Carter comes up, because you don't have the answer or the cure. He's the cancer of the democratic party, and as long as people are around that lived it, you have to deal with it. Now come up with a credible argument, little man, or move along.

[Mr Majestyk]

No offense to anyone but most government and state jobs like the VA and state schools etc are held by over weight black women. You know how hard they work.

Much of what this poster puts up in here is offensive to somebody. Just when I think he couldn't possibly come up with any more ignorant posts in here something like this comes along. It would be funny if he didn't actually believe what he posts.

[Vertnut]

Much of what this poster puts up in here is offensive to somebody. Just when I think he couldn't possibly come up with any more ignorant posts in here something like this comes along. It would be funny if he didn't actually believe what he posts.

Damn! I thought staunch "conservatives" like myself, were supposed to be the racists' among us.:cool:

[Mr Majestyk]

Damn! I thought staunch "conservatives" like myself, were supposed to be the racists' among us.:cool:

Here was another little gem. You'd think an Obama nut-hugger would show just a little more more common sense than to spew forth such dumbassery stereotyping African-Americans.

Even if he is prejudice. Perhaps the one thing he will do is motivate the black community to get out of the slums and off the welfare. Try to be somebody.

[ceyko]

Here was another little gem. You'd think an Obama nut-hugger would show just a little more more common sense than to spew forth such dumbassery stereotyping African-Americans.

So, I'm just going to speak up here real quick. The way he made his point about the VA sucks, but his point about the VA still holds true for the most part - although I'm sure there are plenty of other peeps in there making it so.

Take care

[Mr Majestyk]

Agree completely. Thatr's why I would like to at least see our veterans afforded the opportunity to make their own choices on who provides their health care, be it through the VA or through the best private hospitals in the country, because they deserve that and more.

[bullet]

Because unlike most folks on here, I lived it. Did you? I found some old personal papers the last time I moved, which included a 36 month car note (a brand new '79 Z28) that was a 21% loan! 21%? Dude...Tony Soprano ain't got SHIT on Jimmy! How about a 13.5% mortgage? 20% prime lending rate? Double-digit inflation? 10% unemployment? On top of his horrendous fiscal record/policies, his foreign policy was even worse! This current guy is considerably worse than Carter, by his incredibly quick spending and power-grabbing scams. You obviously know nothing of the Carter administration, or are you just an idiot?
See, you liberals always get your panties in a knot when Carter comes up, because you don't have the answer or the cure. He's the cancer of the democratic party, and as long as people are around that lived it, you have to deal with it. Now come up with a credible argument, little man, or move along.




How come you left out what savings accounts were paying back then ?

I lived it too but can you please tell us what Carter has to do with inflation caused by an embargo when the price of oil quadrupled in 73 -74 when Honest Nixon was president after he helped supply weapons to Israel ?



While you are there, explain how much power the president has over the federal reserve that controls the fed funds rate.




Thank your honest republicant presidents Nixon and Ford for their legacy that helped raise inflation for Carter to inherit.


Speaking of cancer, Can you tell us how honest of a fellow Mr. Agnew was ?

[Vertnut]

How come you left out what savings accounts were paying back then ?

I lived it too but can you please tell us what Carter has to do with inflation caused by an embargo when the price of oil quadrupled in 73 -74 when Honest Nixon was president after he helped supply weapons to Israel ?



While you are there, explain how much power the president has over the federal reserve that controls the fed funds rate.




Thank your honest republicant presidents Nixon and Ford for their legacy that helped raise inflation for Carter to inherit.


Speaking of cancer, Can you tell us how honest of a fellow Mr. Agnew was ?

Bullet, nobody had any savings...it took every penney just too live. With gas lines, 10% unemployment and 21% car loans, who was saving?

You blame Bush for all the same things above...you can't have it both ways, even a flip-flopper like you knows that!

All this housing mess goes back to '77 and Carter. He cranked up the whole urban-renewal mess that continued to escalate with Clinton.

As I've said before, my biggest problem with Carter as a young man, was the cowardly way he handled almost EVERY foreign issue. What a frigging milquetoast POTUS he was.

[bullet]

Bullet, nobody had any savings...it took every penney just too live. With gas lines, 10% unemployment and 21% car loans, who was saving?

You blame Bush for all the same things above...you can't have it both ways, even a flip-flopper like you knows that!

All this housing mess goes back to '77 and Carter. He cranked up the whole urban-renewal mess that continued to escalate with Clinton.

As I've said before, my biggest problem with Carter as a young man, was the cowardly way he handled almost EVERY foreign issue. What a frigging milquetoast POTUS he was.

My point is did the world end back then ?



Savings were at near record highs back then and have declined ever since due to our instant gratification society.


http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PSAVERT




Blame bush for what ?

Nixon is the one who started putting our nose in the middle east in the early 70's by giving aid to Israel to fight a war which turned them against the United States.


Are you going to answer those simple questions or not ?



:)

[Mr Majestyk]

My point is did the world end back then ?

Savings were at near record highs back then and have declined ever since due to our instant gratification society.

Savings were high because the interest rates paid were high, along with the inflation rate. There was no gain because because the higher rates one was paid on savings accounts was more than offset by higher prices for consumer goods and services.

Nixon had nothing to do with the current situation with one middle eastern country in particular, that being Iran. That all rests on Carter and his weak handling of the then-budding Islamic republic.

[Bobba Fett]

Savings were at near record highs back then and have declined ever since due to our instant gratification society.


http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PSAVERT

)

What does savings accounts have to do with Carter or Nixon? What the hell are you talking about?

Go ahead, post another useless fact, followed by your DOW prediction. We all know how you operate here.

[MR TINFOIL HAT]

Do you think anyone wants to leave behind them a legacy of failure? No, he will do his best for us and that is all that matters.

You're a complete fool if you actually believe that. He's a puppet, no more, no less. He does what the elite bankers tell him to do.

[Bobba Fett]

Let's address your questions one by one, because you are all over the place, and you haven't made one point.

How come you left out what savings accounts were paying back then ?

Let me ask what this has to do with any president, or even the discussion about Carter. Are you trying to say that because of the inflation that savings accounts were higher yield then stocks? OK, then what about CDs and bonds then? Even so, it doesn't prove anything other than what I stated.

I lived it too but can you please tell us what Carter has to do with inflation caused by an embargo when the price of oil quadrupled in 73 -74 when Honest Nixon was president after he helped supply weapons to Israel ?

The problem with this statement is that you are blaming the the inflation during the Carter years solely on the oil embargo.

NRO did a great write up on the Carter inflation. Here is a summary, as well as the full article here (http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200406140846.asp).



Warriors Against Inflation
...
The inflation of the 1970s came about primarily because Fed chairman Arthur Burns gunned the money supply to get Richard Nixon re-elected in 1972. He was followed by G. William Miller, appointed by Jimmy Carter. Miller didn’t have a clue about monetary policy and only made the dismal inflation situation he inherited far worse.

The consumer price index, which rose 4.9 percent in 1976, the year Carter was elected, jumped steadily to 6.7 percent in 1977, 9 percent in 1978, and 13.3 percent in 1979. At this point, Carter realized that he had made a serious error appointing Miller to the Fed. But he could not be fired, so Miller had to be induced to leave voluntarily. Consequently, Carter fired Treasury Secretary W. Michael Blumenthal, who had been doing a fine job, in order to open the position for Miller, who left the Fed to replace him.

Under pressure from Wall Street, Carter reluctantly appointed Paul Volcker to be chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in 1979. Volcker had been under secretary of the Treasury for Richard Nixon and was then serving as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. However, it is naïve to think that Volcker was given a free hand by Carter. His inability to fully implement a tight-money policy is why the inflation rate fell only to 12.5 percent in 1980, despite a sharp recession that year.

It was only after the election, when Volcker knew that Carter had lost, that he really clamped down on the money supply. This illustrates an important point: Presidents get the Fed policy they want, no matter how “independent” the Fed may be. If there had been any doubt about this, it was settled in 1967, when Fed chairman William McChesney Martin buckled under pressure from Lyndon Johnson and eased monetary policy even though Martin knew he should have tightened it. This caused inflation to jump from 3 percent in 1967 to 4.7 percent in 1968 and 6.2 percent in 1969.
...



While you are there, explain how much power the president has over the federal reserve that controls the fed funds rate.

See the write-up above and the BOLD section


Thank your honest republicant presidents Nixon and Ford for their legacy that helped raise inflation for Carter to inherit.

I'll thank Nixon and Ford, as soon as you thank Reagan for fixing what Carter couldn't.

[5.0 svo]

You're a complete fool if you actually believe that. He's a puppet, no more, no less. He does what the elite bankers tell him to do.

Well then why are you on Obamas nuts? Did the elite bankers agenda change just because a different president was elected?

[MR TINFOIL HAT]

Well then why are you on Obamas nuts? Did the elite bankers agenda change just because a different president was elected?

Me on Obama's nuts????? I don't think so. I'm not for the left or right. I'm for the truth! I will never vote in America. Especially in a voting system that is as fake as ours is. I've said it before and I'll say it again. You've been lied to your whole life by the establishment, they are not to be trusted. If you sleep well at night thinking your government has your best interest in mind, you better wake the fuck up. To answer your question about the elite bankers, no their agenda has not changed one bit, you and everyone like yourself fell for the Obama CHANGE bullshit, and we will quickly see how flawed this system is really soon, bet on it!

[5.0 svo]

Me on Obama's nuts????? I don't think so. I'm not for the left or right. I'm for the truth! I will never vote in America. Especially in a voting system that is as fake as ours is. I've said it before and I'll say it again. You've been lied to your whole life by the establishment, they are not to be trusted. If you sleep well at night thinking your government has your best interest in mind, you better wake the fuck up. To answer your question about the elite bankers, no their agenda has not changed one bit, you and everyone like yourself fell for the Obama CHANGE bullshit, and we will quickly see how flawed this system is really soon, bet on it!

The key words here are Common Interests. Why would anyone especially the mega rich want to see the fall of the United States of America?

[MR TINFOIL HAT]

The key words here are Common Interests. Why would anyone especially the mega rich want to see the fall of the United States of America?

Complete control that's why. They've started all the wars, profited off all of them, scared the shit out of Americans with terrorism to the point they're willing to give up all their rights, and then come on the news (which they own) and feed you what they want you fed. I know it's hard to understand why your own country would want to do that, but it's not just the elite of our country it's several other countries leaders and elite also. It's a "you're with us or against us attitude" these bankers pull on the politicians, and if you don't go along well you never know what might happen. When someone has an unlimited budget, and the power to change the rules of the game that they play, THEY WILL ALWAYS WIN.

[black01gt]

Complete control that's why. They've started all the wars, profited off all of them, scared the shit out of Americans with terrorism to the point they're willing to give up all their rights, and then come on the news (which they own) and feed you what they want you fed. I know it's hard to understand why your own country would want to do that, but it's not just the elite of our country it's several other countries leaders and elite also. It's a "you're with us or against us attitude" these bankers pull on the politicians, and if you don't go along well you never know what might happen. When someone has an unlimited budget, and the power to change the rules of the game that they play, THEY WILL ALWAYS WIN.
Yep.

[ceyko]

scared the shit out of Americans with terrorism

See, I think the just the opposite. I feel the American public in general has forgotten about terrorism in general and how they felt during/after 9/11.

I get the feeling a lot of Americans are like...."Shew, glad that's over and it was not me. Now, what selfish thing can I do today. Oh, I'll drive slow in the fast lane, not pay some bill but buy 20" rims for my ride. Hope that government bailout money comes for this house I have that I can't afford. Feeling bad for the suckers next door, they had to buy older used cars...their clothes are crap and they ain't getting any government money cause they are responsible. haha, suckers."

[bullet]

What does savings accounts have to do with Carter or Nixon? What the hell are you talking about?

Go ahead, post another useless fact, followed by your DOW prediction of a rally from 6600. . We all know how you operate here.



This is not rocket science.


Vertnut said no one was saving in the 70's when the facts show personal savings rates were at historic highs. That is why I posted the chart.


He posted about 20% mortgage rates. But left out what cd's and savings accounts were paying. Compare the correlation of today's 30 yr mortgage and cd/ savings rate to the same in the 70's.



To say that the inflation of the 70's was caused by the fed juicing money supply to get nixon reelected is nonsense. If you truly believe that, it even strengthens my argument further about thanking Nixon and Ford for the inlfation that they passed on to Carter. No it was not caused entirely from the oil embargo but when oil went from $3 to $12 in less than a year it sure did not help the situation.

What do you think would happen right now if oil went from 60 to 240 in the next year ?

Couple a 300% increase in oil in a year worldwide crop failure that led to supply shock and high food prices and you get your answer.

How was carter responsible for Nixon supplying arms to Israel in 1973 that caused other Arab countries to raise the price of oil 300% in a year ?

What did Carter have to do with worldwide failure of crops that caused supply shock inflation ?


And for the record I think Carter was a terrible president but he was also given a shity hand to play just like nearly all of the other Democrap presidents that follow republicants.

[Vertnut]

This is not rocket science.


Vertnut said no one was saving in the 70's when the facts show personal savings rates were at historic highs. That is why I posted the chart.


He posted about 20% mortgage rates. But left out what cd's and savings accounts were paying. Compare the correlation of today's 30 yr mortgage and cd/ savings rate to the same in the 70's.



To say that the inflation of the 70's was caused by the fed juicing money supply to get nixon reelected is nonsense. If you truly believe that, it even strengthens my argument further about thanking Nixon and Ford for the inlfation that they passed on to Carter. No it was not caused entirely from the oil embargo but when oil went from $3 to $12 in less than a year it sure did not help the situation.

What do you think would happen right now if oil went from 60 to 240 in the next year ?

Couple a 300% increase in oil in a year worldwide crop failure that led to supply shock and high food prices and you get your answer.

How was carter responsible for Nixon supplying arms to Israel in 1973 that caused other Arab countries to raise the price of oil 300% in a year ?

What did Carter have to do with worldwide failure of crops that caused supply shock inflation ?


And for the record I think Carter was a terrible president but he was also given a shity hand to play just like nearly all of the other Democrap presidents that follow republicants.

I never said 20% mortgages. See, this is how stuff slides by with you geniuses. I said 20% prime and car loans. Mortgages were at 13.5% (or more, as this was my personal rate).
Jimmy's insistence on everyone owning a home (beginning in '77), put our housing issues where they are now. The "savings rate" and interest rates being paid out, didn't offset the inflation rate and interest rates we were paying.

Now...carry on with your bullshit, as you try to defend JIMMY CARTER?!

[Bobba Fett]

This is not rocket science.


Vertnut said no one was saving in the 70's when the facts show personal savings rates were at historic highs. That is why I posted the chart.

He posted about 20% mortgage rates. But left out what cd's and savings accounts were paying. Compare the correlation of today's 30 yr mortgage and cd/ savings rate to the same in the 70's.

To say that the inflation of the 70's was caused by the fed juicing money supply to get nixon reelected is nonsense. If you truly believe that, it even strengthens my argument further about thanking Nixon and Ford for the inlfation that they passed on to Carter. No it was not caused entirely from the oil embargo but when oil went from $3 to $12 in less than a year it sure did not help the situation.

What do you think would happen right now if oil went from 60 to 240 in the next year ?

Couple a 300% increase in oil in a year worldwide crop failure that led to supply shock and high food prices and you get your answer.

How was carter responsible for Nixon supplying arms to Israel in 1973 that caused other Arab countries to raise the price of oil 300% in a year ?

What did Carter have to do with worldwide failure of crops that caused supply shock inflation ?


And for the record I think Carter was a terrible president but he was also given a shity hand to play just like nearly all of the other Democrap presidents that follow republicants.

THEN WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING HIM? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT THEN????? lolz

And I already explained to you why savings was at a historic high. YET IT STILL DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING, AS I ALREADY STATED!!

You're a moron! I'm done arguing with you. I tried to use small words, give you proof with links, and you still argue over nothing. Go drive your Benz around with your Obama sticker on the bumper if it makes you feel better, but you won't get any sympathy from me.

[bullet]

I never said 20% mortgages. See, this is how stuff slides by with you geniuses. I said 20% prime and car loans. Mortgages were at 13.5% (or more, as this was my personal rate).
Jimmy's insistence on everyone owning a home (beginning in '77), put our housing issues where they are now. The "savings rate" and interest rates being paid out, didn't offset the inflation rate and interest rates we were paying.

Now...carry on with your bullshit, as you try to defend JIMMY CARTER?!



Mortgages hit just shy of 19% in the third quarter of 1981 under you good buddy Ronnie. Of course back then it was required to put 20% down just to get one.


So now it's Jimmy's fault for the subprime fiasco after republicants let investment banks leverage mortgages 25 years after he is president ?

Housing ownership actually peaked under him and declined til Clinton's second term.



Nobody's defending him. If he was worth a damn he would have gotten a second term.

[5.0 svo]

Mortgages hit just shy of 19% in the third quarter of 1981 under you good buddy Ronnie. Of course back then it was required to put 20% down just to get one.


So now it's Jimmy's fault for the subprime fiasco after republicants let investment banks leverage mortgages 25 years after he is president ?

Housing ownership actually peaked under him and declined til Clinton's second term.



Nobody's defending him. If he was worth a damn he would have gotten a second term.

Why are you telling him all this? He was there when it happen. He remembers how bad Carter was.

[Vertnut]

Mortgages hit just shy of 19% in the third quarter of 1981 under you good buddy Ronnie. Of course back then it was required to put 20% down just to get one.


So now it's Jimmy's fault for the subprime fiasco after republicants let investment banks leverage mortgages 25 years after he is president ?

Housing ownership actually peaked under him and declined til Clinton's second term.



Nobody's defending him. If he was worth a damn he would have gotten a second term.

So Reagan was in office 3 months, and it's his 19% mortgage? I thought you were smarter than that entire post. I'm sick of wasting my time telling you about Jimmy Carter. Were you in a cave? Are you in a cave now? I'm done with explaining basic Carter knowledge to you. Read a damn book, man.

[Vertnut]

Why are you telling him all this? He was there when it happen. He remembers how bad Carter was.

Thank you. I know you weren't, because you defend him, too. It's just nuts...

[Mr Majestyk]

Thank you. I know you weren't, because you defend him, too. It's just nuts...

He was there but was in diapers then, and apparently has not matured much since.

[Vertnut]

He was there but was in diapers then, and apparently has not matured much since.

Even the damn democratic party doesn't defend the Carter administration, but two guys here do? LOL!:cool:

[Bobba Fett]

Even the damn democratic party doesn't defend the Carter administration, but two guys here do? LOL!:cool:

That was confusing me also. I guess some people argue just for the sake of arguing. :lame: