PDA

View Full Version : FLASHBACK: ...Humble pie time for the righties.



Qtec
11-19-2010, 12:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FLASHBACK: Republicans Warned That <span style='font-size: 17pt'>GM Rescue Was ‘<u>Road Toward Socialism,’ ‘Predictable’ Disaster</u></span>

<span style="color: #990000">This morning, a rejuvenated General Motors made its initial public offering of stock, hoping to raise $23.1 billion. As a result of the offering, which is the largest in the nation’s history, the federal government’s ownership in the auto company was halved “and billions of dollars in bailout money was returned to the federal government.” According to the New York Times, “a complete exit by the government could happen even within the next two years.”</span>

“Supporting the American auto industry required tough decisions and shared sacrifices, but it helped save jobs, rescue an industry at the heart of America’s manufacturing sector, and make it more competitive for the future,” said President Obama in a statement today. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>At the time of the auto company rescue, however, Republicans severely criticized the administration’s effort, warning that keeping the companies from a catastrophic collapse would lead the country down “the road to socialism,” and end in “predictable” disaster</span>


Rep. John Boehner (R-OH): “<u>Does anyone really believe that politicians and bureaucrats in Washington can successfully steer a multi-national corporation to economic viability?</u>” [6/1/09]

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL): “It’s basically going to be a government-owned, government-run company. …<u>It’s the road toward socialism.</u>” [5/29/09]

RNC Chairman Michael Steele: “No matter how much the President spins GM’s bankruptcy as good for the economy, <u>it is nothing more than another government grab of a private company and another handout to the union cronies who helped bankroll his presidential campaign.”</u> [6/1/2009]

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): “Now the government has forced taxpayers to buy these failing companies without any plausible plan for profitability. Does anyone think the same government that plans to double the national debt in five years will turn GM around in the same time?” [6/2/09]

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA): “Unfortunately, this is just another sad chapter in President Obama’s eager campaign to interject his administration in the private sector’s business dealings.” [6/2/09]

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX): The auto company rescues “have been the leading edge of <u>the Obama administration’s war on capitalism.”</u> [7/22/09]

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ): <span style='font-size: 17pt'>When government gets involved in a company, “the disaster that follows is predictable.”</span> [7/22/09]

According to the Center for Automotive Research, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“if the government had not invested in the automotive industry, up to 80,000 automotive jobs would have been lost, and General Motors alone would have lost one million units of sales in 2009.</span> Once Chrysler and GM emerged from their ‘orderly’ bankruptcies, the growth of automotive sector employment has been strong, with 52,900 workers added since July 2009. Had GM and Chrysler not successfully emerged, those jobs would have been permanently lost.”</div></div>
link (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/18/gm-flashback/)



Man up guys, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>'get your man pants on'</span> and admit you were wrong. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Q

LWW
11-19-2010, 03:43 AM
It really doesn't take mush to deceive you does it?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">General Motors won’t be government-owned for much longer, but it’s getting a parting gift from Uncle Sam: a $45.4 billion tax exemption that could leave it tax-free for years.</div></div>

What jhappened is that GM was given billions of tax exemptions so that GM could take the money it would have paid to the treasury so it could repay it's debt to the treasury.

Bottom line is that the taxpayer was hosed, GM is a "profitable" company only because the books are cooked, and you licked the spoon clean ... again ... of whatever "TRUTH" the party put upon it.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/ONLINE%20ARGUMENTS/Snoopy.jpg

OH DEAR (http://www.newser.com/story/104483/gm-doesnt-have-to-pay-taxes.html)

LWW

Qtec
11-19-2010, 04:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"The Internal Revenue Service has decided that the government's involvement with these companies, both its acquisitions plus its disposals of their stock, means they should be exempt" from the rule, said Robert Willens, a New York tax consultant who advises investment banks and hedge funds.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The government's rationale, said people familiar with the situation, is that the profit-shielding tax credit makes the bailed-out companies more attractive to investors, and that the value of the benefit is greater than<u> the lost tax payments, especially since the tax payments would not exist if the companies fail. </u></span> </div></div>

Obama saved 80,000 jobs and those dependent on those jobs, families etc.

As usual you ignored the point of the post.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Republicans Warned That GM Rescue Was <u>‘Road Toward Socialism,’ ‘Predictable’ Disaster </u></div></div>

Turns out they and you were wrong. Just admit it.

Q

LWW
11-19-2010, 04:37 AM
So ... your definition of success is:

- Pouring $45.4B into a company now worth $23.1B and de facto forgiving that debt.

- Losing $567,500.00 per job "SAVED" by the regime's most optimistic figures.

Amounts to a "SUCCESS" simply because the regime tells you it's a success?

This is before the 80,000 jobs saved myth is slain.

Can you for once, just <u><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style="color: #3333FF"><span style='font-size: 26pt'>ONCE</span></span></span></u>, think for yourself?

LWW

Qtec
11-19-2010, 05:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">- Pouring $45.4B into a company now worth $23.1B and de facto forgiving that debt. </div></div>

No $45 B was 'poured' in.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Amounts to a "SUCCESS" simply because the regime tells you it's a success?</div></div>

No, its because investors are willing to invest again.

The workers have given up a lot to help the company. Its not a perfect success but its way better than the GOP wanted, ie bankruptcy.

You complain about risking $40 B to save a major manufacturing company in the US but this is only HALF what the top 1% would receive in the BUSH tax cuts in the first year! <span style='font-size: 14pt'>You [ and the TP/GOP] want to give money to those who don't need it and deny money to those who do need it........adding to the deficit at the same time.</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Today marked the return of automaker GM to public <u>trading on the stock market.</u> All hail the American automakers, returning to profitability in a little over a year after bankruptcy proceedings and billions of government dollars in bailouts, right?

Not so fast. Though the stock prices are expected to be high and papers have called it "historic," <u>let's not forget that bailout dollars and profits for shareholders come on the backs of union worker concessions, buyouts, and layoffs. And that's still not enough for some.</u>


[quote]
"If GM has a social purpose beyond generating profits, shareholders will suffer," said Antony Page, quoted in the Wall Street Journal. The same article warned prospective buyers that GM has underfunded its pension fund to the tune of $17 billion—you know, those pesky retirements that all those workers expect to have.

Unemployment is still sky-high in the U.S. and bailing out GM kept some people in work, it's true—but with unemployment benefits ready to run out and no job-creation programs in sight under a Republican House, <u>one can expect more pressure on union autoworkers to make even more concessions—all in the name of keeping the company profitable, of course.</u></div></div>

Q



<span style='font-size: 26pt'>As usual you ignored the point of the post.

Quote:
Republicans Warned That GM Rescue Was <span style="color: #3333FF">‘Road Toward Socialism,’ ‘Predictable’ Disaster </span></span>

Were they [ and you] right?

Yes or no?

Put your man pants on.

Gayle in MD
11-19-2010, 05:36 AM
Dear Q,
Humble Pie? From the right? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

It would be a first. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

LWW
11-19-2010, 05:37 AM
By your own statistics ... they, and I, were absolutely correct.

Who wouldn't want to invest in a corporation that is exempt from the confiscatory tax policy of this regime?

Especially when it can be bought for less than half of what the regime invested in it to keep the corpse alive.

LWW

Qtec
11-19-2010, 06:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As usual you ignored the point of the post.

Quote:
Republicans Warned That GM Rescue Was ‘Road Toward Socialism,’ ‘Predictable’ Disaster </div></div>

STILL no comment?

Q

LWW
11-19-2010, 06:36 AM
Numerous ... they just sail obver your head.

In any event ... your point is seen by all, and that is that your goal was to regurgitate the "TRUTH" fed to you by the regime.

Actual truth seems to be to you like Kryptonite was to Superman.

LWW

llotter
11-19-2010, 06:59 AM
The Road to Socialism is being expanded to an 8 lane highway. The old definition of socialism has been modified over the years for complete ownership by the state to less threatening management by the state and it is under the newer definition that we are now operating.

Under this management model, it becomes the prerogative of the state to manage what used to be managed by the private sector and this results in the private sector working to satisfy their elected overseers rather than satisfying their customers. Of course, those overseers are a bunch of nincompoops and will always and inevitably lead to economic failure.

Qtec
11-19-2010, 07:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Good News for Taxpayers, writes Tom Taulli at Daily Finance:

" The presumption is that GM will raise as much as $20 billion. This will be good news for U.S. taxpayers, since the federal government owns a hefty 61% stake in the automaker. Uncle Sam plans to sell roughly a fifth of its 304 million shares. It also looks like the United Auto Workers union will sell a portion of its 17.5% equity stake."

*

A Crowning Achievement for Obama, writes David Dayen at Fire Dog Lake: <u>"The rescue of the auto industry, particularly GM, has been one of the highlights of the Obama Administration's domestic policy. This intervention saved over a million manufacturing and support jobs, and even increased them at the margins, as GM hired a few new factory workers (though not very much compared to their profit margins in the last two quarters of 2010). With the IPO increasing their cash flow, hopefully the automaker will decide that they're stable enough to start hiring again in bulk."</u>

Sources </div></div>

The Govt is reducing its stake in GM as fast as it can, totally the opposite of a Govt takeover.!!!

Admit it, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>this socialism, this Govt takeover</span>, is all in your head, it doesn't exist outside the RW blogosphere.


BTW, compelling everyone to have medical insurance is not socialism , its common sense.

Q

llotter
11-19-2010, 08:12 AM
The point that I was trying to make is that it is now the prerogative of government to do as they see fit, to 'help' where they think help is needed. That means that we are working under the benevolence of dictators. They have assumed the power to shuffle around what used to be considered private resources to satisfy their political goals. This process has already brought us into what is commonly described as unsustainable and more interference is not the cure, like more alcohol is not the cure for alcoholism.

Who do you think will benefit most from this political interference? Let me suggest that it is the large and politically connected, just the evil big business types that the Left continually castigates. And those that pay the cost will be the little guy and his children.

Qtec
11-19-2010, 08:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The point that I was trying to make is that it is now the prerogative of government to do as they see fit, to 'help' where they think help is needed.</div></div>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>What BS.</span>

Did the Govt say we think GM needs help and we are taking over the Company or was it GM, a private company that came to the Govt for help?

Did Obama say , " I am taking over all the banks or was it the banks that held a loaded gun against the Govt, ie bail us out or face ruin?



Q

Gayle in MD
11-19-2010, 09:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point that I was trying to make is that it is now the prerogative of government to do as they see fit, to 'help' where they think help is needed. That means that we are working under the benevolence of dictators. They have assumed the power to shuffle around what used to be considered private resources to satisfy their political goals. This process has already brought us into what is commonly described as unsustainable and more interference is not the cure, like more alcohol is not the cure for alcoholism.

Who do you think will benefit most from this political interference? Let me suggest that it is the large and politically connected, just the evil big business types that the Left continually castigates. And those that pay the cost will be the little guy and his children. </div></div>

None of you points address the circumstances which were left by Bush.

We were on the brink, of a decade long Depression.

This President, pulled us back fro that brink.

Only the government, has the power and the resources, to address an imppending disaster.

Hence, saving the auto busines, was essential, since Bush left with us hemmoraging 750,000 jobs a month, after a whole year or more of hemmoraging jobs...and allowing the auto industry to fail, would have added over 5 million more, lob loses, and millions more in related suppliers.

Health Insurance companies, had a monopoly. those costs drove people into foreclosures, hard morking Middle Class people, not loafers. Not Welfare recipients, hard workijg AMericans, who became ill, were dropped, and lost their homes.

It was not a government Perrogative, as you suggest, to help out, it was essential, to avoid the Bush Depression.

The large and politically connected, are the Corporations, which are responsible not only for dropping the ill from their coverage, but also for making them ill in the first place, by filling the atmosphere with cancer causing chemicals, annd people like Cheney, annd his Halliburton Loophole.

The Military Industrial Complex, which has operated like the Mafia, for decades, launching wars, to fill the pockets of war profiteering corporations, like halliburton, and The Carlyle group, no bid contracts, both of them connected to Bush and Cheney...

Pharmacueticals, the cost of which went through the roof, during the Bush Administration, and made unprecedented profits, thanks to the Bush, Prescription Drug Program, which none of the righties, even question, although the costs were put on the Bush Credit card, and he blocked any effort to shop drug prices, from other countries.

Then we had the Wall Street Pigs, who took advantage of the message, from Bush, his p[ush for his The ownership Society, the whole message, we will look the other way on regulatory oversight, as one of the SEC stated, we knew, and saw the red flags, but we couldn't go against the presidents policies, quest, for The Ownership Society.

they create exotic instrumennts of finance, that even Greenspan said, he could figure out....they hid their inability, to back up their own bets, sold off tosic mortgages, they knew would faail, and then behind the scenes, but on their failure. Predwatory Lenders, IOW, the Banking Industry....the coal Industry, chopping off mountain tops, polluting the streams and rivers, and filling the ground water, with toxic, Cancer causing agents.

These are among the six corporations, which bought and paid for the big Republican win in congress, these are the millionaires, and billionaires, the very powerful, which you yourself, single out, who were behind the Tea Party groups. Behind all of the misinformation, and distortion about the Health Care REform Bill...buying up representatives, to do their bidding.

Dick Armey, has been in bed with these croooks, for decades! So have the Cheney's and The Bush family.

Wake up! Government has the only sufficient power and organization to divert an impending depression. Republicans, and the wealthy, have held up the recovery at every pass, sitting on trillions upon trillions of dollars, stashed away, instead of using it to bring this economy back, much of it in foreign countries...also responsible for outsourcing American Jobs....and now Republicans want to expand the deficit, with more billions in debt, to cut taxes for the very same pigs who cleaned out the Middle class, made them ill, outsourced their jobs, ran up the costs for drugs, medical care, insurance costs, OIL, GAS Groceries, picking the Middle Class clean like VULTURES!!!! for eight years, under Bush, while Greenspan, infalmed the Real Estate Bubble, with unheard of consistant low interest rates....ad predatory lenders exploited the old, pusing them into mortgages with hidden language, too complex for them to understand, annd millionaires, further blew up the balloon, buying up six and eight houses, and walking out annd leaving the keys...
and hedge funders, bilked everyone they could get away with bilking...

Banks lending money, they had no cash in reserve, to cover, and then dumping their toxic loans into an alredy inflated market...going in many cases from a 4 to 1 ratio, to a 40 to 1 ratio....

The Democratics are trying to protect the Middle Clases and the Republicans are saying that if we don't agree to continue to dig this deficit hole, by maintaining the Bush Tasx cuts, for the same wealthy pigs who have bilked Americans for three decades, then the Middle Class can die on the vine, the poor can go uhungry and die, the ill can die on the streets...Republicans are pigs.

G.

Chopstick
11-19-2010, 09:06 AM
<span style="color: #000099">I can understand your position. With the TARP, Stimulus, and Health Care bill standing as the largest rip offs of the tax payers in history, the totally illegal GM fraud seems like small potatoes.

How can a company that defaulted on it's bond holders, whose stock went to zero, is billions in debt, has no earnings, was in bankruptcy court, whose CEO went on national TV and lied through his teeth and everybody knew it, issue a new IPO? This violates so many securities laws it would take me days just to count them.

And you think we should be humble about it.
</span>

eg8r
11-19-2010, 09:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Republicans Warned That GM Rescue Was ‘Road Toward Socialism,’ ‘Predictable’ Disaster

</div></div>If the US Government can get their hands out of GM, recoup every penny of the $45billion poured in, recoup all the taxes which were previously forgiven then it will be a success.

If all the money is recouped which will not happen with this IPO then it could be looked upon like a loan to keep a business afloat until better times. When a company is hemorrhaging the way GM was job losses are a requirement to stay afloat, I completely understand. Expenditures need to drop considerably to try and get control of the debt. I just wish Obama could understand this part of the story and quit spending more money than all other US Presidents combined.

eg8r

Chopstick
11-19-2010, 01:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Republicans Warned That GM Rescue Was ‘Road Toward Socialism,’ ‘Predictable’ Disaster

</div></div>If the US Government can get their hands out of GM, recoup every penny of the $45billion poured in, recoup all the taxes which were previously forgiven then it will be a success.

If all the money is recouped which will not happen with this IPO then it could be looked upon like a loan to keep a business afloat until better times. When a company is hemorrhaging the way GM was job losses are a requirement to stay afloat, I completely understand. Expenditures need to drop considerably to try and get control of the debt. I just wish Obama could understand this part of the story and quit spending more money than all other US Presidents combined.

eg8r </div></div>

GM doesn't make any money building cars and hasn't for years. The make all their money from their credit division. They even used the TARP money to buy out a sub prime lending company.

llotter
11-19-2010, 04:54 PM
It is not so much that the government interference cannot make the GM investment a success (which they cannot do) but that even if they could, in a free society, they shouldn't...and if we want to follow the Constitution, they can't legally. The responsibility for our success as individuals and as a society is ours if we want to remain free and it is something that cannot be delegated.

eg8r
11-19-2010, 05:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is not so much that the government interference cannot make the GM investment a success (which they cannot do) but that even if they could, in a free society, they shouldn't...and if we want to follow the Constitution, they can't legally. The responsibility for our success as individuals and as a society is ours if we want to remain free and it is something that cannot be delegated. </div></div>In theory we all agree. In reality that did not happen so shouldn't we be grateful that things have NOT turned out as bad as some Reps said they would? I surely am. Considering the fact that things didn't go your way in the beginning is it too hard to see a least some good that the company is not shutting its doors and trying to dig its way out?

eg8r

llotter
11-19-2010, 10:06 PM
It is the drug of excessive spending by both the private and the government sectors that is the cause of our mega-problems. We have become addicted to spending that has been financed by debt and the addiction cannot be cured by adding still more spending and more debt. That is why it is predictable that the course we are on is doomed.

It should be obvious that politicians are not competent to handle government affairs, let alone business affairs. We must let the markets work because the markets are the most efficient, people spending their own money as they think best for them instead of letting others spend it for them.

Gayle in MD
11-20-2010, 09:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Republicans Warned That GM Rescue Was ‘Road Toward Socialism,’ ‘Predictable’ Disaster

</div></div>If the US Government can get their hands out of GM, recoup every penny of the $45billion poured in, recoup all the taxes which were previously forgiven then it will be a success.

If all the money is recouped which will not happen with this IPO then it could be looked upon like a loan to keep a business afloat until better times. When a company is hemorrhaging the way GM was job losses are a requirement to stay afloat, I completely understand. Expenditures need to drop considerably to try and get control of the debt. I just wish Obama could understand this part of the story and quit spending more money than all other US Presidents combined.

eg8r </div></div>

GM doesn't make any money building cars and hasn't for years. The make all their money from their credit division. They even used the TARP money to buy out a sub prime lending company. </div></div>


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwt21jfxNKM

Gayle in MD
11-20-2010, 09:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="color: #000099">I can understand your position. With the TARP, Stimulus, and Health Care bill standing as the largest rip offs of the tax payers in history, the totally illegal GM fraud seems like small potatoes.

How can a company that defaulted on it's bond holders, whose stock went to zero, is billions in debt, has no earnings, was in bankruptcy court, whose CEO went on national TV and lied through his teeth and everybody knew it, issue a new IPO? This violates so many securities laws it would take me days just to count them.

And you think we should be humble about it.
</span> </div></div>


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwt21jfxNKM

eg8r
11-20-2010, 04:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It should be obvious that politicians are not competent to handle government affairs, let alone business affairs. </div></div>I still don't disagree but why are you ignoring my question? Given that things did not go the way you wanted, should you not still be at least partly happy that GM might be bouncing back? Look at it this way...Government steps in and GM goes completely belly up, and we are out all the taxpayer invested money. At least there is a chance for hope that some of it will get paid back if not all some time down the road.

I am not talking theory or what you think "should" happen. I am referring only to what DID happen and the current results.

eg8r

Qtec
11-21-2010, 04:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is the drug of excessive spending by both the private and the government sectors that is the cause of our mega-problems. </div></div>

Not true.

http://wickershamsconscience.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/deficitchart.jpg

In 2001 there was no deficit. At the very least, if there was a deficit, it was a very small one. i can give Bush a bye for the 2001 tax cuts- the projections were rosy- but after 9/11 and the added cost of fighting 2 wars abroad- a second round of tax cuts was irresponsible. Don't forget, that vote passed in the Senate with Cheney casting the deciding vote!



Q........thought you needed 60 votes to pass a new cantine menu in the Senate?

LWW
11-21-2010, 04:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Q........thought you needed 60 votes to pass a new cantine menu in the Senate? </div></div>

That's because you insist on pontificating about things which you know little to nothing about.

The current 60 vote rule for cloture was passed by the democrook controlled US senate in 1975.

The 60 vote rule only applies to bringing something to an actual vote.

IOW ... you must have 60 votes in favor of having an actual vote, and the actual vote would only require 51 votes for passage.

It is, quite simply, a legislative tool from a bygone era. In the days when there was no talk radio or Fox the democrooks could get away with far more than they can today.

The cloture rule would allow ... being that the democrooks had 62 votes at that time ... up to 11 democrook senators to vote "YEA" on having a vote on controversial legislation while then voting "NAY" in the actual vote.

Made simple ... it allowed them to pander to the feeble minded that they had voted for something at one campaign stop and then say they had voted against it at the next campaign stop.

LWW

Qtec
11-21-2010, 05:06 AM
You left out the main point, ie <span style='font-size: 20pt'>the Filibuster.</span>

You fail to mention that the reason you need 60 votes to go forward is because the Opposition is Filibustering.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the United States Senate, rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>to speak for as long as they wish</span> and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[26] (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. This means that as few as 41 senators, which could represent as little as 12.3% of the U.S. population, can make a filibuster happen. According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, and in this case votes from three fifths of Senators would be required to break the filibuster.[ </div></div>

These days they don't even have to speak for 24 hours or whatever, they just have to give their intention to do so.


The reason, which you so obviously FAIL to mention is that the Obama Govt can't get anything done because the GOP FILIBUSTER EVERYTHING.



Q...capiche?

sack316
11-21-2010, 06:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You left out the main point, ie <span style='font-size: 20pt'>the Filibuster.</span>

You fail to mention that the reason you need 60 votes to go forward is because the Opposition is Filibustering.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the United States Senate, rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>to speak for as long as they wish</span> and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[26] (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. This means that as few as 41 senators, which could represent as little as 12.3% of the U.S. population, can make a filibuster happen. According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, and in this case votes from three fifths of Senators would be required to break the filibuster.[ </div></div>

These days they don't even have to speak for 24 hours or whatever, they just have to give their intention to do so.


The reason, which you so obviously FAIL to mention is that the Obama Govt can't get anything done because the GOP FILIBUSTER EVERYTHING.



Q...capiche? </div></div>

If anyone cares to research this practice further, one need look no further than Mr. Robert Byrd in 1970 (hint: look for "double tracking"). Let me know what you kids find out... and for the life of me I can't seem to remember if he was (R) or (D)... anyone care to help me with that?

Sack

Qtec
11-21-2010, 06:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me know what you kids find out. </div></div>

If you have something to say, SAY IT!

I don't have time to research your musings. That's not how it works.

Your post is a total waste of time and pretty condescending.

Q

LWW
11-21-2010, 06:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me know what you kids find out. </div></div>

If you have something to say, SAY IT!

I don't have time to research your musings. That's not how it works.

Your post is a total waste of time and pretty condescending.

Q </div></div>

Well ... this is what you would have found out, if you had any interest in finding anything out other than what was on the AM spoon:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate.

The Civil Rights Act provided protection of voting rights; banned discrimination in public facilities—including private businesses offering public services—such as lunch counters, hotels, and theaters; and established equal employment opportunity as the law of the land.

As Senator Byrd took his seat, House members, former senators, and others—150 of them—vied for limited standing space at the back of the chamber. With all gallery seats taken, hundreds waited outside in hopelessly extended lines.
Georgia Democrat Richard Russell offered the final arguments in opposition. Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, who had enlisted the Republican votes that made cloture a realistic option, spoke for the proponents with his customary eloquence. Noting that the day marked the 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's nomination to a second term, the Illinois Republican proclaimed, in the words of Victor Hugo, "Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come." He continued, "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!"</div></div>
Robert Cornelius Calvin Sales Carlyle Byrd (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibuster_Ended.htm) and his racist pals filibustered for EIGHTY THREE CONSECUTIVE DAYS (http://www.conservapedia.com/Robert_Byrd) in opposition.

Anything else I can help you with?

Or course not, we both know you are flushing this down the memory hole as you read it.

LWW

Gayle in MD
11-21-2010, 09:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me know what you kids find out. </div></div>

If you have something to say, SAY IT!

I don't have time to research your musings. That's not how it works.

Your post is a total waste of time and pretty condescending.

Q </div></div>

And pretty typical of his posting style.

On another note:


WASHINGTON — The filibuster – tool of obstruction in the U.S. Senate – is alternately blamed and praised for wilting President Barack Obama's ambitious agenda. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Some even say it's made the nation ungovernable.</span>

Exactly what they stated they intended, to cripple the presidency, at a time when our country was teetering on the brink.



It took a lot of courage and high intention, for this president, and the Democratic Majority, to commit to tackling health Care reform, regardless of the political consequences.

Every president since Roosevelt, paid lip service to it, but how many failed to even make the attempt?

Most just put it off, saying the time to do it was not right. hence it was never accomplished. President Obama knew if he waited for the right time, it wouldn't get done at all, as usual.

The Republicans put their political interests, before the needed reforms, gaining seats, trumped bi-partisan cooperation, in addressing our immediate needs, during the emergency circumstances, left by Bush....

Health costs play a major role in our economic problems, and the demise of the Middle Class, with 62% of the early foreclosures, having been realated to health issues.

And Obesity, the major cause of rising costs.

And where are the greatest number of obese Americans?

You guessed it...in the South. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif






G.

"You can never predict the behavior of wild animals, and all it takes is a split-second for an animal to attack and seriously maim or kill a person."

Sev
11-21-2010, 08:01 PM
The sad truth is that GM is still in danger of failure.

LWW
11-22-2010, 03:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The sad truth is that GM is still in danger of failure. </div></div>

Without a dramatis change of events GM has become the modern day British-Leyland.

LWW

eg8r
11-22-2010, 08:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In 2001 there was no deficit.</div></div>What is your fantasy with this lie? We have had a debt for decades upon decades upon decades.

eg8r

Qtec
11-22-2010, 09:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In 2001 there was no deficit.</div></div>What is your fantasy with this lie? We have had a debt for decades upon decades upon decades.

eg8r </div></div>

Ed, the deficit refers to the budget. Money in Vs Money out. Profit or loss in a year.
The Nat Debt is something different.

Q

Chopstick
11-22-2010, 09:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In 2001 there was no deficit.</div></div>What is your fantasy with this lie? We have had a debt for decades upon decades upon decades.

eg8r </div></div>

Ed, the deficit refers to the budget. Money in Vs Money out. Profit or loss in a year.
The Nat Debt is something different.

Q </div></div>

<span style="color: #000099">That is because Clinton cut government spending more than any other president in history. In fact, he cut more than the next four presidents on the list combined. Obama has spent more money than any president in history. There isn't even a close second. He is in a league all his own.</span>

Gayle in MD
11-22-2010, 10:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In 2001 there was no deficit.</div></div>What is your fantasy with this lie? We have had a debt for decades upon decades upon decades.

eg8r </div></div>

Ed, the deficit refers to the budget. Money in Vs Money out. Profit or loss in a year.
The Nat Debt is something different.

Q </div></div>

<span style="color: #000099">That is because Clinton cut government spending more than any other president in history. In fact, he cut more than the next four presidents on the list combined. Obama has spent more money than any president in history. There isn't even a close second. He is in a league all his own.</span> </div></div>

And that's because he inherited the worst economic situation in our hihstory, exce[pt for maybe Roosevelt.

Bush is the one who told us we had to have TARP, he is the one who said we had to bail out the automobile industry, before this president even took office.

You folks continue to put all of the debt on President Obama.

Did you think nothing had to be address? No TARP, to keep thhe banks going?

No auto bailoout, just take on another five to twenty million more job losses?

NO trying to stimulate the economy?

The wealthy do not pay their fair share....never have.

Republican deregulation, Republican tax breaks for the wealthy, we had all of it for eight years! Did you not see what it led to?


It did not lead to job growth. It led to Middle Class people borrwing on their one asset, their homes, to stay afloat, many of them because the corporate pollution made them ill, and HCInsurance dropped them.

The crooks on Wall Street, were bundling, and selling off toxic loans.

What did you expect obama to do, with two damned wars raging, a collapsed economy, frozen up credit, banks refusing to lend, small business unable to use a credit line for their businesses? Just sit around and do nothing?
G.

Chopstick
11-23-2010, 11:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
And that's because he inherited the worst economic situation in our hihstory, exce[pt for maybe Roosevelt.

<span style="color: #000099">Caused by his own party.</span>

Bush is the one who told us we had to have TARP, he is the one who said we had to bail out the automobile industry, before this president even took office.

<span style="color: #000099">Obama was in the room when the decision was made. He did not oppose it.</span>

You folks continue to put all of the debt on President Obama.

<span style="color: #000099">No we don't. Pelosi and Reid share the blame.</span>

Did you think nothing had to be address? No TARP, to keep thhe banks going?

<span style="color: #000099">No TARP. The Fed is the one who bailed them out and they could have done that at any time. They are all private corporations and they should have settled it themselves. The Fed was holding out to put the tax payers on the hook for a loan.</span>

No auto bailoout, just take on another five to twenty million more job losses?

<span style="color: #000099">GM does not employ 20 million people. Ford did not need a bailout. Fiat bought out Chrysler. Yes let them fail. Their cars are crap anyway. They do not deserve to continue.</span>

NO trying to stimulate the economy?

<span style="color: #000099">How's that working? The stimulus was a scam for a democrat pork fest to help themselves get re-elected. That didn't work either. The stimulus did nothing but waste money that we do not have.</span>

The wealthy do not pay their fair share....never have.

Republican deregulation, Republican tax breaks for the wealthy, we had all of it for eight years! Did you not see what it led to?

<span style="color: #000099">They did not begin to go far enough. No more government spending. No more government taxation. Reduce the Government by 90% or more. Privatize all entitlement programs into non-profit organizations. Get them out of government hands and make it illegal for the government to be involved. Wait a minute. It already is.</span>


It did not lead to job growth. It led to Middle Class people borrwing on their one asset, their homes, to stay afloat, many of them because the corporate pollution made them ill, and HCInsurance dropped them.

The crooks on Wall Street, were bundling, and selling off toxic loans.

<span style="color: #000099">Blah blah blah. Same old same old.</span>

What did you expect obama to do, with two damned wars raging, a collapsed economy, frozen up credit, banks refusing to lend, small business unable to use a credit line for their businesses? Just sit around and do nothing?
G.

<span style="color: #000099">Absolutely. I expect him to keep his nose out of private businesses. He doesn't know anything about it. He has never even had a real job. The government has never fixed anything. They just screw it up.

His current job does not include flying around the country campaigning for his buddies at the tax payers expense. He should be required to take time off without pay and pay for it himself.</span>

</div></div>

pooltchr
11-23-2010, 12:31 PM
I'm really confused on Gayle's position here. On one hand, she seems to be blaming Bush for the TARP program, yet on the other hand, she tells us that there was no other option available.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif

Steve

Gayle in MD
11-23-2010, 01:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZo5DaJKkIo

I expect you to tell the truth...none of you righties ever do that.

LWW
11-23-2010, 03:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm really confused on Gayle's position here. On one hand, she seems to be blaming Bush for the TARP program, yet on the other hand, she tells us that there was no other option available.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif

Steve </div></div>

As I've said ... Orwell was a prophet.

Gee uses doublethink as seamlessly as anyone I know of.

LWW