So could Sarah Palin, but the question is what the hell did he say? Why can't I get an answer to that?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
|
So could Sarah Palin, but the question is what the hell did he say? Why can't I get an answer to that?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Not at all. Some use it as a tool, others a crutch... because there is no POTUS without TOTUS.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Again try to keep up.
Hello tal:Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I heard him say that he LOVES the 47% because he made sure the poor in his state were covered by health insurance... The base loved that. I also heard him say that he's going to KEEP the parts of Obamacare that everybody LIKES, but the mandate (how the law is PAID for) has got to go...
Hmmm... Sounds familiar... He wants the GOOD STUFF, but let the future generation PAY for it... Haven't we been here before?
excon
I see, you get to decide if it's a tool or a crutch, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I'm keeping up with you, it's hard but I'm trying!
Ah, now that I've seen the actual video instead of the 'transcript' you provided it's quite simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
"Teach a man how to fish he can feed himself for a life, don't simply feed fish."
There was no gaffe and it's easily understood - don't just (simply, the word omitted from your quote) give a man a fish, help him to help himself for life.
France is really working to solve the problem of greedy rich people not paying their fair share. They're going to tax their wealthiest at 75 percent. Of course all the rich people are going to leave France but hey, problem solved - no more rich people.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Whewwwweee... Then it's a good thing that we're only going to raise their taxes from 32% to 35%.. Our rich can unpack, and start creating those jobs they promised us..
excon
Maybe some of those french will create jobs for you because you own aren't, but then you can't create what isn't there, your rich are busy creating jobs in China
like State owned GM . But it's a good campaign slogan to shout out "Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive." Doesn't matter a lick that the taxpayers got hosed in the arrangement .Quote:
your rich are busy creating jobs in China
Have you flipped your lid or have you taken to wearing foil hats
? Since the bailout GM sells nearly as many cars in China as in the U.S. and has continued expanding operations there while simultaneously shrinking its U.S. operations.GM outsources almost two thirds of its jobs overseas. Less than one in five GM vehicles are manufactured in the United States.
This while the US taxpayer still holds a sizeable stake in the company (about a third of the shares are government owned ) . This is what Obama touts as his signature success. He assails Romney as being an outsourcer while at the same time praises a company that owes it's entire life to US government subsidizing it's foreign investments .
Tom I don't see a problem of establishing an industry overseas that is competing overseas, but there is a problem if it replaces local industry, and The US subsidises exports in various ways so BO found a new way, very enterprising, far more so than Romney who would have cut and run.
I think it is good that the US is playing a major role in the Chinese car industry, competing with european interests, but it should be producing its own vehicles, as far as shrinking local production goes we are seeing this too, local manufacturers need to retool, learn from asian success and become innovative.
Government ownership of industry is a novel experience for the US but your market is big enough for the investment to be privatised again even if you lose a little money on the float
a little ? We will never recoup our losses. It would've been better had GM gone through bankruptcy reorganization. This was just another classic example of government picking winners and losers in the market place.. . something the libs here claim to oppose.Quote:
Government ownership of industry is a novel experience for the US but your market is big enough for the investment to be privatised again even if you lose a little money on the float
Not really Tom they didn't want the industry to collapse as it was a major employer so they sort restructure, a common method of dealing with a struggling industry. It is always difficult for a government to know whether to intervene and to what extent, but such industries are strategic
Thanks for clearing that up, so how does that answer the question of the woman who wants off welfare but has TWO jobs?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I guess that Tom doesn't mind those millions of auto workers and the companies that feeds them having no job and going on the public dole. And all those lost tax revenues.
“Let’s give tax breaks to companies that are investing here. It’s the right thing to do.” By his own standards ,Obama needs to revoke GM’s free pass on taxes and make sure all its bailout money is repaid immediately .Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I guess they didn't mind that so much when they threw Saturn under the bus and put them on the public dole. Oh wait. The stupid Saturn people were non union that's right.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Also subverting current laws to make a deal and to ignore the constitution is quite a record to go by.
Obama didn't have anything to do with the demise of Saturn.They were selling the brand and discontinuing others that GM was producing and that started in 2007.
Saturn Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
In 2004, GM and the United Auto Workers dissolved their unique labor contract for the Spring Hill manufacturing plant, allowing Saturn operations to be integrated with the rest of GM.[9]
[edit] 2008–09: attempt to sell brand, market changes
In US Congressional hearings on December 2, 2008, General Motors announced its intentions to focus on four core brands (Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, GMC), with the sale, consolidation, or closure of Saturn and the remaining brands (Pontiac, Hummer, and Saab).[10] General Motors Chairman and former CEO Rick Wagoner announced during a news conference on February 17, 2009 that Saturn will remain in operation through the end of the planned lifecycle for all Saturn products (2010–11).
In February 2009, GM declared its intent to part with this brand by closing or selling the division, either to investors or to dealers, as part of restructuring plans dependent upon the receipt of a second round of government loans ("bailout" funding).[11] It is the third such action for GM in the 21st century, following those of Oldsmobile, which ceased production in 2004, and Pontiac, which ended production of the 2010 model year by the end of 2009.[12]
General Motors announced in June 2009 that it was selling the brand to Penske Automotive Group.[13] The arrangement was similar to the deal under which Penske distributes Daimler AG's Smart Car in the United States.[14] Penske was not planning to buy the factories and would eventually have to contract other car companies to build cars sold as Saturns. GM would have built the Aura, Vue, and Outlook for Penske for two years. To replace GM as the brand's manufacturer, Penske was in discussions with several global automakers, including Renault Samsung Motors of Korea.[15]
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:27 PM. |