Depending on what news report you here, we actually ended up coming out ahead on the bailout which is what we were supposed to do even if its one percent. We had to spend stabilize the economy, sorry truth hurts, deficit hawks. We didn't have to spend money on Iraqi or homeland security or No Child Left Behind. Oh wait we didn't fund No Child Left Behind, because we were using that money to bomb everything in Iraqi and then shocked when we had to spend billions if not trillions to rebuild a country that hates us more than they ever hated Saddam. I would also point that Bush was the first one to authorize the bailout not Obama. McCain also supported it as well as many GOP politicians as they watched their 401ks explode around them.
I think the complete irony to this thing will be when the new GOP governors look at their giant deficits and then cry the feds won't give them money. Ron Paul is a joke. He is a one point type of guy. Ask about national security, he has nothing. If you look at his voting record he is taking a number 2 when military spending bills come up, so he can say he didn't vote for spending, but doesn't seem unpatriotic. He is another rich Texan who talks big, because his district is full of morons who don't see through his bullshit. The current plan will put more people out of work then GM did and then what that happens the GOP will say Obama failed even though its their fucking plan
Originally posted by StaggerLeeBut I thought the GOP 's base was the stupid redneck racists with the gun rack on the back if their pick up truck's rear window.
Their money and ultimate constituency comes from the wealthy, however they have done an excellent job in convincing the average American they are looking out for them when in reality they do little if anything to help them.
And I won't use your "stupid redneck racist" term to describe them. I would classify them as hardworking citizens who are being preyed upon (by both sides) using the uncertainty and fear they feel as they find themselves farther and farther behind. Typically they are under-educated (not stupid) and see no way out. The world is rapidly changing and they will have to adapt or find themselves descending the economic ladder. They are scared of what is happening and the pols prey on those fears. They are being used.
Originally posted by StaggerLee You mean the LOAN amount which has already been paid back, or the STOCKS the federal government bought, using money borrowed from China that industry experts never expect GM to be able to sell?
That GM bailout was a fraction of the overall deficit and likely saved the entire American automotive industry. Even Bush had acknowledged that some kind of bailout was inevitable if a major disaster was to be avoided.
Originally posted by Bush's memoir I had to keep my successor in mind. I decided to treat him the way I would have liked to have been treated if I were in his position.
I believed strongly that government should stay out of the auto business. Yet the economy was extremely fragile and my economic advisers had warned that the immediate bankruptcy of the Big Three could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion and set back America’s GDP by hundreds of billions of dollars.
That $60 billion likely saved $150 billion in tax revenues - if not more.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeI am a libertarian. I believe in a limited, fiscally sound federal government.
I know the GOP has very few elected politicians that participate in the screeching. Bachman us an idiot. Palin isn't in office, and has half the GOP hating her for making the rest of them appear to be idiots. There's what, 600 or so congressmen? Of that four it five are vocal in their hatred of Obama.
That doesn't mean all of them feel that way or agree with the hyperbole that dominates headlines.
Possibly, but a lot of moves they make as a party seem to cater to the loudmouths.
I was glad that Bachman did a seperate rebuttal the other night. Go ahead and create a seperate party for the crazy people and hopefully the GOP can take a step back and stop behaving like jackasses.
But on the eve of General Motors’ wildly popular return to public markets, CAR figures Washington only needs to recoup $38 billion more on the taxpayer bailouts to “achieve a two-year break-even.” Put another way, if the Treasury recovers 57 cents on the dollar or more in IPOs of GM and Chrysler, “the public will have been made full whole,” CAR concluded.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeAnd if you want to use GM as the example if what "had to be done" I'd ask you how Ford turned their fortunes around with ZERO help from the feds.
If you think Ford would have had the success they had without the bailout of GM and the relief that bailout provided to industries that rely on both GM and Ford for survival, then you are very mistaken.
I can't find it at the moment, but I do recall reading that it's very likely Toyota (and other foreign companies) would have had to drastically cut back on their U.S. production if that bailout would not have happened.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeHow much interest is going to have accrued by the time we get around to paying China?
Not much, since interest rates are at a historically low rate right now.
It is the policy of the documentary crew to remain true observers and not interfere with its subjects. "Well. Shit." -hansen9j Go Pack Go! (10-6, NFC champions) Let's Go Riders! (getting pretty tired of being the bridesmaid)
Japan bailed out Toyota and Honda. Germany at one point bailed Volkswagon. Almost every major car manufacture has been bailed and repayed their loans. Its wiser to invest in a named auto company then anything else. The government did a good thing and more then likely make money off it. Why does every deficit hawk go off when money is used to save lives, but its ok to spend money on war or arms or the waste of time homeland security has been, its ok? Hell, the color coding terror chart is gone and that was the homeland security's big move. Plus, its not your money either. We make a ton a money off of tariffs then we do most taxes. Hell, most of America gets a third to half taxes back anyway.
If you haven't figured that out, its not the government's fault. I give the government about $500 to $700 more each year, because of the retarded way we do taxes in this country ie if you are married its a good thing to procreate. Yes, I hate doing it, but I don't expect things in life to be free. I don't expect my army to work for free. I don't expect it to be free to build better ships, planes and tanks to defend this country. I don't expect to be people to build technology with sticks and stones. I don't expect that if we have any real chance to getting off this god forsaken rock without some one to build a starship or two or seventy. I pay taxes, because I have to and I am willing too, because nothing is free including freedom.
The entire Libertarian and Tea Party movements seem to be crying all the time about their "money". The money gather probably is such a small insignificant part that it doesn't matter. You don't want to pay taxes move to a country that doesn't have any taxes or walk the earth like Kane from Kung-Fu. Your pick.
Jeez, hyperbole much? I never said I didn't want to pay taxes. What I am saying is that because its good for a (private) ineustry, does not mean every working American should have to pick up the tab.
Why are conservatives and libertarian's money "insignificant" yet liberals seem to think the world would end if we (and the tea party people) got to keep the money that they earned?
And you do realize that the Government doesn't invent anything. They don't have an R and D department. They buy shit that private industry developed. The government hasn't built a plane or a ship, it any other military asset. Everything is from contractors who would be developing things for the private sector if the government wasn't overpaying for it.
Let me guess, you think Halliburton was just helping the economy when they were getting billions from Iraq, right? I mean the government gave them billions, they employed people thus creating payroll taxes, and paid corporate taxes. That Halliburton, they're all such great Americans.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeAnd you do realize that the Government doesn't invent anything. They don't have an R and D department.
The University campus on which I work, which is a PUBLIC institution, has, at least, three world renowned research departments and top engineering college. My fiancé worked for two and a half years in a research position funded by an National Science Foundation grant (which also funded a number of other researchers and graduate students). Her department - The Center for Nanotechnology. Their work is likely to change the face of everything from engineering to medicine.
Early in graduate school, I worked for a sponsored research program that actively positioned public funding of research with private dollars to encourage researchers to not just rely on state money, but, rather, to seek corporate donors to further their research. SETI@HOME was one of our funded projects.
It's not that your categorization of this is wrong, but it's so dreadfully wrong that it's hard to know how one comes to such an erroneous conclusion.
I really hope you dont mean this. Drugs would be cheaper but also much more dangerous, much less efficacious, less potent, and half the time we would have no idea what exactly is in them (and if you are wondering about credibility I am a pharmacologist)...