Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, May 12, 2012.
Vote Republican, they haven'f ****ed up enough stuff yet.
Whoops, you forgot to source the link, but I found it.
I don't think he's the only person to suggest a large-denomination coin. It may come to that.
Kind of a stupid way to finance a government, but if the other side wants to play stupid games....
My bad. I edited the post.
Obviously I edited mine too.
Not surprised by this at all. The GOP is never willing to pay up to its end of the deal. It is only going to get worse as time goes on. The gop is digging in. It is already clear they have no problem hurting the weakest group for there own gain.
The gop lovers here can not argue that the GOP is willing to compromise at all. This is just more proof the current problems and dead lock fall 90% on the GOP. They are there way or kill the country
Why do idiots still vote for these guys.
Pie in the sky.
They are very, very, very good propagandists.
They are good at selling fear. Vote for them or Obama will be reviewing parades of Soviet-style tanks in the square. Shivering people will have to use their worthless money for fireplace kindling. Grandma will be dragged off to a death camp. Repo men will be here in the morning to put the country up on a flatbed and haul it away.
Idiots believe this. Therefore idiots vote for these guys.
Can you imaging if McCain had won?
GM and Chrysler would be gone. Ford might have followed. Not to mention all the suppliers.
We'd likely have troops on the ground in Libya.
We'd still be in Iraq big time.
Afghanistan would have no end in sight.
Who the hell knows if he would have bombed Iran already?
There would have been no stimulus plan in 2209. I shudder to think where we'd be without that.
Would it matter by then?
Like John Stewart said, they're basically trying to turn a suicide pact into plain old murder.
The Democrats could possibly retake the House if this crazy train keeps free falling after falling off the cliff last year.
How could have ford followed?
Last I knew they did not accept any government money. They worked with their suppliers and union.
Didn't ford work with their suppliers and not just tell them sorry like GM and Chrysler?
Not to me.
Just watched that.
Republicans are a bunch of duplicitous bastards.
No, Ford had the uncanny foresight to stockpile credit before the worst of the downturn - they even mortgaged their logo - and had something around $30B in credit available. They just barely outlasted GM and Chrysler. If GM and Chrysler went down, they would've dragged down countless suppliers and dealers, negatively affecting Ford due to the interconnected nature of the industry.
Anyways, on topic - hope it dies in the Senate or gets vetoed. Doubt this sees the light of day. People tend to forget that matters regarding spending start in the House. It's unfortunate to see even such a bill propose and pass, but what else would you expect from them?
Ford also had the foresight to make arrangements with their suppliers in US, Mexico, Canada and China.
You liberals are so deep in denial and fear mongering that you cannot see the problems lie in your bleeding heart, give it all away, socialistic mentality.
It's time the government stop trying to solve everyone's problem by taxing the "rich" and giving to those who vote in order to be elected for another term.
Vote for anyone who supports cutting government spending back to 1980 levels and we may survive this one. It's not the party that's the problem, it's the philosophy.
We HAVE TO STOP SPENDING and quit giving away other people's futures.
At this rate, businesses will continue to leave the country at a record pace, and wealth will all but disappear.
You cannot tax your way to prosperity. It's a one way trip to total destruction.
Wake up America. This has got to stop!
Er don't you have one of the lowest rates of tax right now?
You mean give away the poor's future to fund the rich?
Also is this trolling, you have not read what the article is about?
Yes, cut spending and make the GDP drop even more. That'll show the economy.
We have more people and some things just cost more than they did in 1980. So, if you are willing to allow for 1980 spending levels on important stuff adjusted for inflation and allowing for certain increases that are necessary or unavoidable (like stealth fighters cost more than tomcats), then I would be happy to agree with that, just so long as you agree to adjusting our tax levels to 1980 levels as well.
Our spending is not the problem, it is our revenue that hasn't been adjusted.
In 1980, under St. Reagan, we had a 50% marginal rate, and only a little over 4000 tax returns that were for an AGI in excess of $1M per year.
Since the GOP embraced voodoo economics and put our country into debt, look what has happened:
Oh, don't say this is an ideological fight, because President Obama has cut more spending, and the GOP has done NOTHING to help. When the country needs revenue, even Reagan and the Bushes agreed to tax increases. Now the right is so desperate to beat Obama, that they have opposed every effort to turn things around.
Despite their obstruction and historic failures by the prior administration, President Obama still managed this:
Oh, do you honestly think it is the rich who are getting the raw end of the deal? If so, study this chart:
If you think unions are the bad guys...
Not to mention that by the time the debt ceiling issue needs to be revisited, we will have even more "no compromise" Tea Party members in Congress. They'll force the country into bankruptcy unless Democrats agree completely to their draconian plans.
Do you have numbers on debt increases? That graph is misleading, of course increases on a bigger debt have a smaller percentage. Debt was 1 trillion I added 1 and made it 2 that's double a 100% increase! You do the same and add 1 now 2 becomes 3 holy **** 2 went to 3 a 50% increase, I only raised the debt half of what you did.
edit: also 2 terms vs not 1 full term.
As others have pointed out, the US auto industry is linked together through supplier and dealer networks.
If GM and Chrysler had collapsed that would have disrupted several of the companies that supply all three, shuttering factories and leaving Ford without the parts needed to build new cars. At best, Ford might have been able to scrounge for new suppliers, but this would have been complex and costly with no guarantee of success. At the same time, the collapse of that network would have resulted in more job losses.
Multiple studies have noted this and The Economist, which originally argued that GM should go through bankruptcy "naturally" later apologized for this position, noting that "...given the panic that gripped private purse-strings...it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended."
One study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research noted that bankruptcy proceedings for GM and Chrysler would have cost the US economy 8.4 million jobs.
Seems like ford already had plans for their part suppliers.
You didn't even read the article. The Republican side of the agreement involved defense budget cuts. They're backing out of spending cuts on their end.
Ford put together a plan to reduce the complexity of its parts by increasing commonality of parts throughout its automotive line in 2010.
GM entered the bailout program under the federal Emergency Economic Stabilization Act on December 29, 2008. Or two years earlier.
Again, without the EESA GM would have gone into bankruptcy, a process that would have been destructive to the entire industry, including those that Ford was later able to negotiate new commonality agreements.
Exactly. The GOP has argued intensely for spending cuts while fighting tooth and nail against tax increases. However, the minute they have the opportunity, they abandon spending cuts because it happens to hurt their sacred cow.
At the same time, the DoD outlined its own budget proposal in 2011 cutting nearly $78 billion from its roles, but Republican lawmakers have mostly ignored that process.
And, we should understand why, Republican lawmakers are linked to the defense industry. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that the Army is spending $17,000 on a drip-pan for Blackhawk helicopters from a company in Kentucky. Rather than using a similar product from a company that charges $2,500, the Army was required to use the more expensive equipment because of an earmark attached to the 2009 defense bill by Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY).
But is there an actual law against graft?