Omama adding to his trillion dollar debt.

  • MikemikeMike

    Posts: 6932

    Jul 22, 2011 3:04 PM GMT
    Some change -Now Chrysler bailout -epic fail. Now being bought by Italy's Fiat corp. When will it end??? Sell Ford while your at it Mr President. Another 4 yrs of this and we will sink economically beyond recovery. Wake up it is time for real change!! Also his religion/core values will always keep gay men at the bottom of his priority list. Some promises made till election then back to same ole same ole.

    your thoughts.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 3:12 PM GMT
    Share the blame, will ya?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chrysler#2008_financial_crisisOn December 19 [2008], President George W. Bush announced a $13.4 billion rescue loan for the American automakers, including Chrysler.
    ...
    Prior to the bankruptcy filing, Chrysler had received $US 4.5 billion in financing from the U.S. government, under a George W. Bush administration plan, in December 2008, after Congress declined to approve legislation to provide federal loans.
    ...
    On March 30, 2009 President Barack Obama issued a US Government guarantee of Chrysler's warranty liabilities, and publicly stated the U.S. Government will back the warranties on Chrysler vehicles if the company were to go out of business.[64]


    And Ford didn't need much help from the gov't...either in bailouts or in its decision to sell Jaguar and Land Rover to Tata (India) and Volvo to Geely (China).
  • MikemikeMike

    Posts: 6932

    Jul 22, 2011 3:19 PM GMT
    I am not blaming him for being a Dem- Just a lousy president with not enough experience for the job at hand. 4.3 trillion and counting.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 3:20 PM GMT
    Well, it's hard to concentrate on jobs when all the Tea Party wants to talk about is the debt and deficit. icon_lol.gif

    And can I please remind you of this when you say "his" trillion dollar debt:

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/30/cnn-fact-check-is-the-annual-deficit-under-obama-12-times-the-deficit-under-republicans/Obama was essentially correct when he said he inherited a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion. Though the budget deficit for 2008 was a then-record $458.6 billion, the CBO issued a projection in January 2009, just days before Obama took office that the budget deficit would reach $1.2 trillion that year, before the cost of any new stimulus plan or other legislation was taken into account.


    If you want to blame him for anything, blame him for adding to the deficit by capitulating to extending the tax cuts.
  • MikemikeMike

    Posts: 6932

    Jul 22, 2011 3:24 PM GMT
    I understand some folks will keep giving him chances until our country is beyond economic repair. This is not the "change" we needed.icon_idea.gificon_idea.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 7:49 PM GMT
    MikemikeMike saidI understand some folks will keep giving him chances until our country is beyond economic repair. This is not the "change" we needed.icon_idea.gificon_idea.gif





    And we understand that you're a rabid right-winger who's hoped for Obama to fail from day one and is determined to try to keep a Democratic president from getting reelected.

    FYI - going back to the same Bush/Repub economic policies that wrecked the economy to begin with is not the "change" we need.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 8:11 PM GMT
    As of time of post

    Total Cost of Wars Since 2001

    $1,226,864,497,778

    Cos Obama started those wars... wait.... icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 9:51 PM GMT
    Obama did not 'sell' Chrysler. The first automobile bailout was approved by President Bush in December 2008. On January 19, 2009 Fiat announced its deal to purchase part of Chrysler and had already been in the works. Obama took office on January 20, 2009.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/business/worldbusiness/20auto.html


    As for Ford, they were not part of the bailout and the government never had any ownership in that company.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 11:15 PM GMT
    Iceblink saidObama did not 'sell' Chrysler. The first automobile bailout was approved by President Bush in December 2008. On January 19, 2009 Fiat announced its deal to purchase part of Chrysler and had already been in the works. Obama took office on January 20, 2009.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/business/worldbusiness/20auto.html


    As for Ford, they were not part of the bailout and the government never had any ownership in that company.


    Isn't that what I said above? icon_lol.gif

    And who the heck is this Omama?
  • JP85257

    Posts: 3284

    Jul 22, 2011 11:20 PM GMT
    He cant do anything with Ford. Ford didnt go to DC looking for a handout like the other 2 shitty car companies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 11:44 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    Iceblink saidObama did not 'sell' Chrysler. The first automobile bailout was approved by President Bush in December 2008. On January 19, 2009 Fiat announced its deal to purchase part of Chrysler and had already been in the works. Obama took office on January 20, 2009.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/business/worldbusiness/20auto.html


    As for Ford, they were not part of the bailout and the government never had any ownership in that company.


    Isn't that what I said above? icon_lol.gif

    And who the heck is this Omama?


    You did in a way, but I don't know if it was made clear this Fiat deal took place before 'Omama' took office. Just wanted to make sure it was clear because the OP is in error with his assertion that this Fiat deal was the result of Obama selling Chrysler.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 23, 2011 12:41 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    MikemikeMike saidI understand some folks will keep giving him chances until our country is beyond economic repair. This is not the "change" we needed.icon_idea.gificon_idea.gif

    And we understand that you're a rabid right-winger who's hoped for Obama to fail from day one and is determined to try to keep a Democratic president from getting reelected.

    FYI - going back to the same Bush/Repub economic policies that wrecked the economy to begin with is not the "change" we need.

    MikemikeMike, you realize the personal attacks start when you make a point they can't defend. Wear it with honor. This little one coming from the one who "never makes personal attacks", except for the past few days when they have been spewing forth. icon_lol.gif
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jul 23, 2011 5:23 PM GMT
    This is gay news because...? Lord, give the OP the strength and the intelligence to find the News & Politics sub-forum.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 23, 2011 5:32 PM GMT
    creature saidThis is gay news because...? Lord, give the OP the strength and the intelligence to find the News & Politics sub-forum.


    Bitch ain´t got a clue. If brains were dynamite she´d not have enough to blow her nose.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2011 12:40 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    rickrick91 said
    MikemikeMike saidI understand some folks will keep giving him chances until our country is beyond economic repair. This is not the "change" we needed.icon_idea.gificon_idea.gif

    And we understand that you're a rabid right-winger who's hoped for Obama to fail from day one and is determined to try to keep a Democratic president from getting reelected.

    FYI - going back to the same Bush/Repub economic policies that wrecked the economy to begin with is not the "change" we need.

    MikemikeMike, you realize the personal attacks start when you make a point they can't defend. Wear it with honor. This little one coming from the one who "never makes personal attacks", except for the past few days when they have been spewing forth. icon_lol.gif





    LOL!
    Too funny!

    I called Mike a "right-winger".
    I didn't call him fat or stupid or ugly or some other kind of a bad thing.
    I called him a "right-winger".
    Are you saying that being a right-winger is a bad thing, socal?

    LOL!
    If you believe that being a right-winger is bad - WHY DO YOU CHOOSE TO BE A RIGHT-WINGER?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2011 12:44 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    rickrick91 said
    And we understand that you're a rabid right-winger who's hoped for Obama to fail from day one


    Nobody needed to "hope" Obama would fail from day one... it was obvious that he would prior to his election.





    NOPE.

    But it is true that the EPIC mess left behind by Bush made it obvious that Obama would have a very difficult clean up job.
    It's just unfortunate (for the American people) that the Repubs have been doing everything they can think of to try to make the clean up more difficult and time consuming.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2011 12:51 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    socalfitness said
    rickrick91 said
    MikemikeMike saidI understand some folks will keep giving him chances until our country is beyond economic repair. This is not the "change" we needed.icon_idea.gificon_idea.gif

    And we understand that you're a rabid right-winger who's hoped for Obama to fail from day one and is determined to try to keep a Democratic president from getting reelected.

    FYI - going back to the same Bush/Repub economic policies that wrecked the economy to begin with is not the "change" we need.

    MikemikeMike, you realize the personal attacks start when you make a point they can't defend. Wear it with honor. This little one coming from the one who "never makes personal attacks", except for the past few days when they have been spewing forth. icon_lol.gif


    LOL!
    Too funny!

    I called Mike a "right-winger".
    I didn't call him fat or stupid or ugly or some other kind of a bad thing.
    I called him a "right-winger".
    Are you saying that being a right-winger is a bad thing, socal?

    LOL!
    If you believe that being a right-winger is bad - WHY DO YOU CHOOSE TO BE A RIGHT-WINGER?

    Why did you omit that you used the term rabid? I bolded it for you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2011 2:06 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    rickrick91 said
    socalfitness said
    rickrick91 said
    MikemikeMike saidI understand some folks will keep giving him chances until our country is beyond economic repair. This is not the "change" we needed.icon_idea.gificon_idea.gif

    And we understand that you're a rabid right-winger who's hoped for Obama to fail from day one and is determined to try to keep a Democratic president from getting reelected.

    FYI - going back to the same Bush/Repub economic policies that wrecked the economy to begin with is not the "change" we need.

    MikemikeMike, you realize the personal attacks start when you make a point they can't defend. Wear it with honor. This little one coming from the one who "never makes personal attacks", except for the past few days when they have been spewing forth. icon_lol.gif


    LOL!
    Too funny!

    I called Mike a "right-winger".
    I didn't call him fat or stupid or ugly or some other kind of a bad thing.
    I called him a "right-winger".
    Are you saying that being a right-winger is a bad thing, socal?

    LOL!
    If you believe that being a right-winger is bad - WHY DO YOU CHOOSE TO BE A RIGHT-WINGER?

    Why did you omit that you used the term rabid? I bolded it for you.





    If you believe that being Republican is a good thing, then what's wrong with being a rabid Republican?
    The adjective "rabid" means to the extreme.

    If I called someone a rabid car enthusiast, that would obviously not be an insult.
    So why do you assume that calling someone a rabid Republican is an insult?

    I merely described the OP's political bias.
    It's not a personal attack unless you consider being a rabid Republican to be a bad thing.
    And if you do - why the hell do you choose to be such a rabid Republican?!

  • MikemikeMike

    Posts: 6932

    Jul 27, 2011 6:49 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    southbeach1500 said
    rickrick91 said
    And we understand that you're a rabid right-winger who's hoped for Obama to fail from day one


    Nobody needed to "hope" Obama would fail from day one... it was obvious that he would prior to his election.





    NOPE.

    But it is true that the EPIC mess left behind by Bush made it obvious that Obama would have a very difficult clean up job.
    It's just unfortunate (for the American people) that the Repubs have been doing everything they can think of to try to make the clean up more difficult and time consuming.


    And I suppose you think clinton lest us in great shape- the economy was better with Reaganicon_idea.gif

    I am not a rabid right winger -just realized along time ago Obama is far from qualified to run this country. I have voted Dem in the past. Now many of those who voted for him are coming to that same conclusion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2011 7:16 PM GMT
    MikemikeMike said
    rickrick91 said
    southbeach1500 said
    rickrick91 said
    And we understand that you're a rabid right-winger who's hoped for Obama to fail from day one


    Nobody needed to "hope" Obama would fail from day one... it was obvious that he would prior to his election.





    NOPE.

    But it is true that the EPIC mess left behind by Bush made it obvious that Obama would have a very difficult clean up job.
    It's just unfortunate (for the American people) that the Repubs have been doing everything they can think of to try to make the clean up more difficult and time consuming.


    And I suppose you think clinton lest us in great shape- the economy was better with Reaganicon_idea.gif

    I am not a rabid right winger -just realized along time ago Obama is far from qualified to run this country. I have voted Dem in the past. Now many of those who voted for him are coming to that same conclusion.





    When you get your basic facts wrong, you fail to convince anyone with your argument.

    The fact is that the Clinton economy was the strongest longest economic expansion in U.S. history.
    http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/president_bill_clinton.html
    The economy was NOT better with Reagan.
    AND Clinton's policies created an economic boom WITHOUT blowing up the National Debt.
    Reagan, on the other hand, more than tripled the National Debt.

    The reputation Reagan has of being fiscally conservative is a MYTH.
    He expanded government.
    He blew up the National Debt far more than any other president.
    He raised taxes 11 times.
    http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-fail-reagan-litmus-test

    And, the fact is that the American people are coming to the conclusion that it's the REPUBS who aren't "qualified to run this country".
    The Repubs have failed to prevent this debt ceiling situation from becoming a crisis.
    They're so bitterly divided and extreme in their ideology, they're unable to get anything done.

    If our country goes into default and we see an economic downturn, it will be the result of the Repub's inability to govern responsibly and to get the people's business done.

    It's becoming more clear every day that the Repubs are just too extreme to govern.
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Jul 27, 2011 9:46 PM GMT
    rickrick91 saidIf our country goes into default and we see an economic downturn, it will be the result of the Repub's inability to govern responsibly and to get the people's business done.

    It's becoming more clear every day that the Repubs are just too extreme to govern.


    The current Republican economic proposal was tried by FDR in 1937: balance the budget, reduce the national debt. The result was an INCREASE in the unemployment rate from 15% to 18%, plus an INCREASE in the deficit (more unemployment means less income tax income, more safety net spending like unemployment compensation.)

    CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING DURING AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN MAKES THE DOWNTURN WORSE.

    The problem with Obama's stimulus policy was it was too small. Without Obama's stimulus, the unemployment rate could have been up to 2% - 3% higher now.

    When FDR became president in 1933, unemployment was 25% of the labor force. Using deficit spending from 1933-1936, FDR reduced the unemployment rate to 15%. Was there something wrong with that? Wasn't Hoover's economic policy a disaster?

    In trying to insure Obama's defeat in 2012, Republicans are willing to sabotage the economy and create the second Great Depression. Are these the people we want to run the economy?

    Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.

    Republicans only care about deficits when a Democrat is president.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2011 10:10 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    rickrick91 saidrickrick91 said
    Reagan, on the other hand, more than tripled the National Debt.


    RickRick,

    During the Reagan years, did Reagan submit budgets that called for more spending than the Democrat-controlled Congress actually passed?

    (HINT: No, which is why as you love to say, the debt tripled during the Reagan years).




    YUP.
    That's exactly what happened.
    Reagan requested MORE government spending than the Congress ended up spending.

    http://zfacts.com/p/57.html
    http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/56More.htm

    And FYI - the Senate was controlled by the REPUBS for the first six years of Reagan's eight years in office.
    So, the idea that Reagan had to work with a completely Democratic controlled Congress during his presidency is yet another BS MYTH that Repubs like to spread.
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    Jul 27, 2011 11:39 PM GMT
    Obviously nothing much changes around here.

    Socalfitness continues to whine about being maligned.

    Southbeach continues to attack anything to do with people besides the wealthy.

    Rickrick is still using intelligent retorts and passion to attempt to debunk Republican lies coming from people who are willing to do without rights, so long as they get to remain selfish!

    Though I do have to agree with Mark Cuban: Clinton and the Republican controlled Congress were in the right place at the right time for the most part. They profited enormously from the internet boom!

    Mind you, the US government was capable of raising taxes back then when they needed to in order to balance the books!
  • MikemikeMike

    Posts: 6932

    Jul 28, 2011 8:10 AM GMT
    rickrick is just looking for cut and paste info. from liberals to support paper bag arguements. Just because you're passionate doesn't mean you're right. In the direction our current president is heading the whole country is in for worse than ever. He will go down in history as an even worse president than Carter. Even the dems are turning on him like hollywood types like matt damon and even bill maher had no idea why he made that speech the other night??? It wreaked of campaigning. Obama is looking thinner tired and aging at light speed. He's in over his head and was never the right person for the job. His lack of experience is so apparent.
  • Koaa2

    Posts: 1556

    Jul 28, 2011 9:18 AM GMT
    MikemikeMike saidI understand some folks will keep giving him chances until our country is beyond economic repair. This is not the "change" we needed.icon_idea.gificon_idea.gif


    Seems like it is exactly the change we needed, after Bush and the Republicans made the biggest deficit and mess we have ever seen in this country. Obama has done the best anyone could do after what he came into office with.