New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Well...

S

Sickofleft

Guest
If I am the President, I would rather talk about Race (again way to bring people together) then say Detroit or the IRS.

Detroit has been run by Democrats since 1961, it is a shinning example of Big Government spending.....Detroit is what you voted for.

Welcome to the idiocracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jen
If I am the President, I would rather talk about Race (again way to bring people together) then say Detroit or the IRS.

Detroit has been run by Democrats since 1961, it is a shinning example of Big Government spending.....Detroit is what you voted for.

Welcome to the idiocracy.

I voted for Detroit? Huh....who knew?

Why would Obama talk about the IRS or Detroit when the topic of the day is the Zimmy trial and the "riots" that didn't happen?

Now tell me how Obama brought Detroit down and how he can fix it.

Then you can make up stuff about the "IRS conspirators' '10,000 visits to the White House' ".
 
If I am the President, I would rather talk about Race (again way to bring people together) then say Detroit or the IRS.

Detroit has been run by Democrats since 1961, it is a shinning example of Big Government spending.....Detroit is what you voted for.

Welcome to the idiocracy.

You think it would have been any different with Republicans with the population dropping from nearly 2 million down to 700,000 and manufacturing jobs being shipped out of the country? Tell me what Republicans would have done. Fought to keep the jobs in Detroit? Oh no, Government shouldn't interfere in the private sector. How would they have kept the population from dropping? Well I guess they could have outlawed abortion like they keep trying to do but that wouldn't have done much. Let's hear your answers to those.
 
I voted for Detroit? Huh....who knew?

Why would Obama talk about the IRS or Detroit when the topic of the day is the Zimmy trial and the "riots" that didn't happen?

Now tell me how Obama brought Detroit down and how he can fix it.


Mister ZZ,


this utterly ludicrous thread is precisely why I am moving on to new site and am moving away from PJ's

It has been my pleasure to exchange views with you for quite some time. The RWers have taken leave of their senses of late and the only ones remaining on PJ's are the radical upstarts who couldn't pour piss out of a boot unless the directions for doing so were printed on the bottom side of the heel. Good luck!
Then you can make up stuff about the "IRS conspirators' '10,000 visits to the White House' ".

GRAMPS
 


ZZ I typed a response which didn't print. Oh, well. Thought I would tell you that this thread which you are wasting time answering is but one of the many reasons I'm moving on. The right wingers have lost touch with reality and, besides, I have a brand new computer that I do not wish to be contaminated by their insanity. It's been my pleasure to exchange views with you. Good luck.

gramps
 
Thanks, Gramps. I sure have enjoyed your contributions.

I know how you feel. Sometimes, it feels like we're just talking to each other over the din of a room full of "special" children. I guess I'm always waiting to see one (other than Phil the Sane) say, "I don't really believe the crap I write. I just hate Obama. April fools!" But alas, the Limbotomies seem to be genuine and irreversible.

I think I know where you've gone. Maybe I'll show up under a new nic and see how long I can pull it off. I've always wanted to try that. I figure I could last a couple of hours....maybe.
 
If I am the President, I would rather talk about Race (again way to bring people together) then say Detroit or the IRS.

Detroit has been run by Democrats since 1961, it is a shinning example of Big Government spending.....Detroit is what you voted for.

Welcome to the idiocracy.

not sure if stockton or any california cities had republican municipal governments. that said, most of the large urban areas do - cleveland, detroit, chicago, ny, DC . . .the ones that are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

municipal governments seem unable to resist awarding ever higher health benefits and pensions to public workers, since most government employees deliver large blocks of votes. in our state government employees get RAISES in their pensions, automatically, in addition to the higher rates whenever contracts come up for renewal at the bargaining table.

show me anywhere in the private sector where a pension has an automatic raise annually. most corporations would go bankrupt if they signed up for this. cities have it, and they're going bankrupt
 
You think it would have been any different with Republicans with the population dropping from nearly 2 million down to 700,000 and manufacturing jobs being shipped out of the country? Tell me what Republicans would have done. Fought to keep the jobs in Detroit? Oh no, Government shouldn't interfere in the private sector. How would they have kept the population from dropping? Well I guess they could have outlawed abortion like they keep trying to do but that wouldn't have done much. Let's hear your answers to those.
You must have forgotten, Italia. Mittwit "saved the auto industry" by saying to let them go bankrupt and everything would work itself out.
 
You must have forgotten, Italia. Mittwit "saved the auto industry" by saying to let them go bankrupt and everything would work itself out.


It was a better plan then the Presidents. If they had gone through a structured bankruptcy earlier it would have saved the taxpayers billions of dollars instead of us paying for them to open factories in Detroi....oh wait I am sorry those are being opened in China........

GM will need to bailed out again for the very same reason Detroit is 20 Billion dollars in debt.
 
It was a better plan then the Presidents. If they had gone through a structured bankruptcy earlier it would have saved the taxpayers billions of dollars instead of us paying for them to open factories in Detroi....oh wait I am sorry those are being opened in China........

GM will need to bailed out again for the very same reason Detroit is 20 Billion dollars in debt.

A little behind the times?

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/general-motors-repays-81-billion-government-loans/story?id=10437944

General Motors Pays Back $8 Billion to Taxpayers Ahead of Schedule

General Motors today $8.1 billion in government loans repaid, five years ahead of schedule and nine months after the troubled auto giant declared bankruptcy, signaling that the auto maker may be on the path to profitability.

"As of today, GM has repaid in full and interest," said GM CEO Ed Whitacre to a crowd assembled on floor of a GM plant in Kansas City, Kan.

To smiles and applause from workers, Whitacre also announced GM's plan to invest $257 million in that plant and another in Detroit to ramp up production of the Chevy Malibu.

Cheering on the floor of a GM factory would have been unthinkable a year ago, when the company was on a downward spiral towards its bankruptcy in June 2009.

When it emerged from restructuring last year, GM had converted most of the $52 billion in federal bailout funds into company stock, leaving a $6.7 billion outstanding loan from the U.S. Treasury. The Canadian government lent the company an additional $1.4 billion.


Who owned that stock, Sicko?
 

Thanks. Twice.

Technically, under the terms of the bailout, GM has in fact paid back its obligation to taxpayers. Its payments were a mix of cash and GM stock, which is exactly what was called for in the agreement.

The federal government spent about $85 billion bailing out the auto industry during the economic crisis -- about $25 billion under President George W. Bush during his last days in office, the rest under President Obama.
 
What's a matter Biff, afraid to read the rest?

So why does the Treasury say that it's still out over $25 billion?

Several reasons, but here's a big one: GM's stock price hasn't played along.

Get the Jumper Cables

GM's "payment" to the Feds included stock. A lot of stock. The government has sold some, but it still owns 500 million shares of General Motors.
GM's stock rose to almost $39 after its return to the public markets in late 2010, but it's been all downhill since. Right now, GM is stuck around $20 to $21 a share, a range it has been in for a while.

Here's the problem: For the Feds to break even on the bailout, the shares of GM still owned by the Treasury have to get up to around $53 a share.

That's not happening -- at least, not any time soon. That's not exactly GM's fault: Believe it or not, CEO Dan Akerson and his team are -- for the most part -- doing a solid job of getting GM's house in order.

Eventually, GM's stock price should reflect the progress they're making. But even though Akerson is doing pretty well, and even though GM's profits in 2011 were at an all-time high, there are several factors holding back GM's stock:
  • Europe is a mess. Like rival Ford (F), GM is losing big bucks in Europe: $361 million in the second quarter alone, thanks to ongoing economic troubles that have clobbered car sales. A turnaround is coming, but it could take a few years. Meanwhile, losses could continue, and investors hate that.
  • GM's losing ground at home. GM's share of its most important and profitable market -- the USA -- has fallen in recent months, a fact that might have contributed to the recent ouster of its global marketing chief. Upcoming new cars and trucks should help, but they're a year or two off. Meanwhile, discounts are up, sales are down, profits aren't what they could be, and Wall Street remains concerned.
  • The Fed might dump its investment. 500 million shares is a lot of stock. If the government decides to bail on its investment after the election, the price will drop further as all of those shares hit the market. That possibility makes investors nervous.
GM has other problems that worry investors, but what they all have in common is that they're likely to be resolved in time -- but it could take a few years. Eventually, GM's share price should rise quite a bit -- in fact, for a long-term investor, GM stock might be a pretty good buy right now.

But taxpayers -- or at least, the Treasury Department -- may decide not to wait for that likely-but-not-certain rise. And the way things look now, that means a big loss is likely.

If you don't like that you can read this:

http://www.freeinews.com/automotive...markets-lack-of-new-vehicles-could-spell-doom
 
Back
Top