Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You are so clever handbag, you must have a wonderful Muse.
BTW, you failed to acknowledge the obvious truth of my post and could not offer a counterpoint. Are you really so dumb ... ? Yep, I need not guess, you are!
What you said was "true," but you completely did not grasp my point. Seriously, when I use terms you don't understand, like "opportunity cost," why don't liberals google it? Why do you post showing you didn't get it and didn't learn it? I google every term or idea I didn't know. But then I care about truth.
Opportunity cost here refers to that the money did not come from nowhere. It was taking OUT of the economy where it would have done all the things you mentioned anyway. So the things you mentioned did happen at GM, but that was offset by that they didn't happen where the money was taken from.
And the price we paid was more debt for taxpayers. Companies that invested wisely were punished by competing with taxpayer subsidized cars. That is what you did not grasp. And the handbag did. She actually is a clever handbag, and you're not.
Nice try. What would be the result if GM had failed? Or under restructuring, what might have been the outcome? Lower wages, less benefits, an inferior product, hence less sales, a falling stock? Or do some think restructuring wouldn't create industry havoc?
Coming to conclusions and making policy which must fit within an ideology is what go us into the economic mess known as the Great Recession. Refusing to 'bail out" GM and Chrysler based on an ideology would have been foolish and catastrophic to the families of GM & Chrysler Employees, their suppliers and the sales force around the country. In the middle of massive layoffs how many more would have lost their jobs?
The economy grew well over 3% last quarter. So remind me how the shutdown cost anything.
More lies and talking points from desperate leftists.
But thanks for pointing out that the taxpayer took it in the ass from "saving" GM. The only defense is the usual "it would have been worse otherwise."
Despite the small loss from the GM bailout, the long term implications will lead to much greater tax revenue than the little that was lost. GM is now strong and thriving due to the bailout. That means tax revenue is coming in that would have been lost had GM failed. I really have to laugh when you guys cry over $10 billion or so that helped save an entire American industry but have no problem with us spending close to $1 trillion per year on defense and related spending.
Inferior products? Chevys always have been pieces of crap. The Only thing worse is Fords.You are so clever handbag, you must have a wonderful Muse.
BTW, you failed to acknowledge the obvious truth of my post and could not offer a counterpoint. Are you really so dumb ... ? Yep, I need not guess, you are!
What you said was "true," but you completely did not grasp my point. Seriously, when I use terms you don't understand, like "opportunity cost," why don't liberals google it? Why do you post showing you didn't get it and didn't learn it? I google every term or idea I didn't know. But then I care about truth.
Opportunity cost here refers to that the money did not come from nowhere. It was taking OUT of the economy where it would have done all the things you mentioned anyway. So the things you mentioned did happen at GM, but that was offset by that they didn't happen where the money was taken from.
And the price we paid was more debt for taxpayers. Companies that invested wisely were punished by competing with taxpayer subsidized cars. That is what you did not grasp. And the handbag did. She actually is a clever handbag, and you're not.
Nice try. What would be the result if GM had failed? Or under restructuring, what might have been the outcome? Lower wages, less benefits, an inferior product, hence less sales, a falling stock? Or do some think restructuring wouldn't create industry havoc?
Coming to conclusions and making policy which must fit within an ideology is what go us into the economic mess known as the Great Recession. Refusing to 'bail out" GM and Chrysler based on an ideology would have been foolish and catastrophic to the families of GM & Chrysler Employees, their suppliers and the sales force around the country. In the middle of massive layoffs how many more would have lost their jobs?
.
The GOP's government shutdown cost US $24 billion, .05% of GDP and 120,000 jobs.
The government loan to GM cost US $10.9 billion, saved 1,000,000 jobs and kept the recession from becoming a depression.
.
You are so clever handbag, you must have a wonderful Muse.
BTW, you failed to acknowledge the obvious truth of my post and could not offer a counterpoint. Are you really so dumb ... ? Yep, I need not guess, you are!
What you said was "true," but you completely did not grasp my point. Seriously, when I use terms you don't understand, like "opportunity cost," why don't liberals google it? Why do you post showing you didn't get it and didn't learn it? I google every term or idea I didn't know. But then I care about truth.
Opportunity cost here refers to that the money did not come from nowhere. It was taking OUT of the economy where it would have done all the things you mentioned anyway. So the things you mentioned did happen at GM, but that was offset by that they didn't happen where the money was taken from.
And the price we paid was more debt for taxpayers. Companies that invested wisely were punished by competing with taxpayer subsidized cars. That is what you did not grasp. And the handbag did. She actually is a clever handbag, and you're not.
Nice try. What would be the result if GM had failed? Or under restructuring, what might have been the outcome? Lower wages, less benefits, an inferior product, hence less sales, a falling stock? Or do some think restructuring wouldn't create industry havoc?
Coming to conclusions and making policy which must fit within an ideology is what go us into the economic mess known as the Great Recession. Refusing to 'bail out" GM and Chrysler based on an ideology would have been foolish and catastrophic to the families of GM & Chrysler Employees, their suppliers and the sales force around the country. In the middle of massive layoffs how many more would have lost their jobs?
The economy grew well over 3% last quarter. So remind me how the shutdown cost anything.
More lies and talking points from desperate leftists.
But thanks for pointing out that the taxpayer took it in the ass from "saving" GM. The only defense is the usual "it would have been worse otherwise."
Despite the small loss from the GM bailout, the long term implications will lead to much greater tax revenue than the little that was lost. GM is now strong and thriving due to the bailout. That means tax revenue is coming in that would have been lost had GM failed. I really have to laugh when you guys cry over $10 billion or so that helped save an entire American industry but have no problem with us spending close to $1 trillion per year on defense and related spending.
more bullshit left wing lying talking points
BTW, I am far from being left wing. Of course to anyone who is so far to the right, being anywhere close to center must look very far left to you.What you said was "true," but you completely did not grasp my point. Seriously, when I use terms you don't understand, like "opportunity cost," why don't liberals google it? Why do you post showing you didn't get it and didn't learn it? I google every term or idea I didn't know. But then I care about truth.
Opportunity cost here refers to that the money did not come from nowhere. It was taking OUT of the economy where it would have done all the things you mentioned anyway. So the things you mentioned did happen at GM, but that was offset by that they didn't happen where the money was taken from.
And the price we paid was more debt for taxpayers. Companies that invested wisely were punished by competing with taxpayer subsidized cars. That is what you did not grasp. And the handbag did. She actually is a clever handbag, and you're not.
Nice try. What would be the result if GM had failed? Or under restructuring, what might have been the outcome? Lower wages, less benefits, an inferior product, hence less sales, a falling stock? Or do some think restructuring wouldn't create industry havoc?
Coming to conclusions and making policy which must fit within an ideology is what go us into the economic mess known as the Great Recession. Refusing to 'bail out" GM and Chrysler based on an ideology would have been foolish and catastrophic to the families of GM & Chrysler Employees, their suppliers and the sales force around the country. In the middle of massive layoffs how many more would have lost their jobs?
total horseshit---------the end result would have been several new smaller more efficient companies.
those new companies would have had union representation votes---the UAW could not take the chance of losing that many dues paying members and the DNC could not take the chance of losing millions from the UAW.
the bailouts were done to save the UAW, nothing more.
You are so clever handbag, you must have a wonderful Muse.
BTW, you failed to acknowledge the obvious truth of my post and could not offer a counterpoint. Are you really so dumb ... ? Yep, I need not guess, you are!
What you said was "true," but you completely did not grasp my point. Seriously, when I use terms you don't understand, like "opportunity cost," why don't liberals google it? Why do you post showing you didn't get it and didn't learn it? I google every term or idea I didn't know. But then I care about truth.
Opportunity cost here refers to that the money did not come from nowhere. It was taking OUT of the economy where it would have done all the things you mentioned anyway. So the things you mentioned did happen at GM, but that was offset by that they didn't happen where the money was taken from.
And the price we paid was more debt for taxpayers. Companies that invested wisely were punished by competing with taxpayer subsidized cars. That is what you did not grasp. And the handbag did. She actually is a clever handbag, and you're not.
Nice try. What would be the result if GM had failed? Or under restructuring, what might have been the outcome? Lower wages, less benefits, an inferior product, hence less sales, a falling stock? Or do some think restructuring wouldn't create industry havoc?
Coming to conclusions and making policy which must fit within an ideology is what go us into the economic mess known as the Great Recession. Refusing to 'bail out" GM and Chrysler based on an ideology would have been foolish and catastrophic to the families of GM & Chrysler Employees, their suppliers and the sales force around the country. In the middle of massive layoffs how many more would have lost their jobs?
How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish
Special flights brought in tonnes of banknotes which disappeared into the war zone
How many of you right winger Obama/American worker haters ever think about this and bitch like their is no tomorrow of where this money went.
How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish | World news | The Guardian
While we are at it...how about this. Tell me what was the financial benefit to the US with this beauty.
War Costing $720 Million Each Day, Group Says
War Costing $720 Million Each Day, Group Says
Not to mention the lost of US soldiers. And now when those gallant soldiers need our help with SNAP and other government assistance. To hell with them. They cost us precious money.
Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study
Despite the small loss from the GM bailout, the long term implications will lead to much greater tax revenue than the little that was lost. GM is now strong and thriving due to the bailout. That means tax revenue is coming in that would have been lost had GM failed. I really have to laugh when you guys cry over $10 billion or so that helped save an entire American industry but have no problem with us spending close to $1 trillion per year on defense and related spending.
more bullshit left wing lying talking points
Of course it's all lies and deception.
more bullshit left wing lying talking points
Of course it's all lies and deception.
your posts contradict that claim. You are far left of center. I am much closer to the center and the majority of americans than you and your obama-worshiping clan.
What you said was "true," but you completely did not grasp my point. Seriously, when I use terms you don't understand, like "opportunity cost," why don't liberals google it? Why do you post showing you didn't get it and didn't learn it? I google every term or idea I didn't know. But then I care about truth.
Opportunity cost here refers to that the money did not come from nowhere. It was taking OUT of the economy where it would have done all the things you mentioned anyway. So the things you mentioned did happen at GM, but that was offset by that they didn't happen where the money was taken from.
And the price we paid was more debt for taxpayers. Companies that invested wisely were punished by competing with taxpayer subsidized cars. That is what you did not grasp. And the handbag did. She actually is a clever handbag, and you're not.
Nice try. What would be the result if GM had failed? Or under restructuring, what might have been the outcome? Lower wages, less benefits, an inferior product, hence less sales, a falling stock? Or do some think restructuring wouldn't create industry havoc?
Coming to conclusions and making policy which must fit within an ideology is what go us into the economic mess known as the Great Recession. Refusing to 'bail out" GM and Chrysler based on an ideology would have been foolish and catastrophic to the families of GM & Chrysler Employees, their suppliers and the sales force around the country. In the middle of massive layoffs how many more would have lost their jobs?
total horseshit---------the end result would have been several new smaller more efficient companies.
Oh, Really. Explain exactly how that might have occurred? In detail since you are so sure of your convictions, you must know
those new companies would have had union representation votes---the UAW could not take the chance of losing that many dues paying members and the DNC could not take the chance of losing millions from the UAW.
the bailouts were done to save the UAW, nothing more.
The govt can not create jobs. The private industry, taxpayer, funds the govt.
Have you noticed how well the private industry flourishes in Somalia? You might see if not afflicted by myopia the reasons for the failure of the Articles of Confederation. How well would private industry do if the products or services they hoped to market needed to use private roads - some paved, some gravel, some sand, some mud - and each had a toll gate?
No, they didn't do it all by themselves. First a strong central government replaced a weak confederation of states, then: the Gov't first put in the Rail Roads by providing the money and land; next, IKE built the nationwide public highway system; FDR the electrical grid and without these improvements we would still be a rural republic of the banana variety.
Because prior to FDR and Ike this country was a stagnant backwater, right?
Your boldness in posting utter crap without any self consciousness is really inspring. I think I'll go vomit.
Have you noticed how well the private industry flourishes in Somalia? You might see if not afflicted by myopia the reasons for the failure of the Articles of Confederation. How well would private industry do if the products or services they hoped to market needed to use private roads - some paved, some gravel, some sand, some mud - and each had a toll gate?
No, they didn't do it all by themselves. First a strong central government replaced a weak confederation of states, then: the Gov't first put in the Rail Roads by providing the money and land; next, IKE built the nationwide public highway system; FDR the electrical grid and without these improvements we would still be a rural republic of the banana variety.
Because prior to FDR and Ike this country was a stagnant backwater, right?
Your boldness in posting utter crap without any self consciousness is really inspring. I think I'll go vomit.
Your ignorance is boundless Rabbi. See:
Rural Electrification Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nice try. What would be the result if GM had failed? Or under restructuring, what might have been the outcome? Lower wages, less benefits, an inferior product, hence less sales, a falling stock? Or do some think restructuring wouldn't create industry havoc?
Coming to conclusions and making policy which must fit within an ideology is what go us into the economic mess known as the Great Recession. Refusing to 'bail out" GM and Chrysler based on an ideology would have been foolish and catastrophic to the families of GM & Chrysler Employees, their suppliers and the sales force around the country. In the middle of massive layoffs how many more would have lost their jobs?
total horseshit---------the end result would have been several new smaller more efficient companies.
Oh, Really. Explain exactly how that might have occurred? In detail since you are so sure of your convictions, you must know
those new companies would have had union representation votes---the UAW could not take the chance of losing that many dues paying members and the DNC could not take the chance of losing millions from the UAW.
the bailouts were done to save the UAW, nothing more.
Again, how do you know!!? If you can't answer this simple question the answer will be obvious. You don't know but you believe everything written or broadcast by those who spread hate and fear on the radio, TV and internet; and you echo the propaganda they spew.
IMO, you see the world through Green Colored Glasses, your envy of those who have good union jobs with good benefits permeates your posts with bitterness and hate for your fellow citizens.
So the guy who told me earlier today that the government doesn't create jobs is full of shit?
I'll pass that on to him.
The govt can not create jobs. The private industry, taxpayer, funds the govt.
Have you noticed how well the private industry flourishes in Somalia? You might see if not afflicted by myopia the reasons for the failure of the Articles of Confederation. How well would private industry do if the products or services they hoped to market needed to use private roads - some paved, some gravel, some sand, some mud - and each had a toll gate?
No, they didn't do it all by themselves. First a strong central government replaced a weak confederation of states, then: the Gov't first put in the Rail Roads by providing the money and land; next, IKE built the nationwide public highway system; FDR the electrical grid and without these improvements we would still be a rural republic of the banana variety.
Because prior to FDR and Ike this country was a stagnant backwater, right?
Your boldness in posting utter crap without any self consciousness is really inspring. I think I'll go vomit.
Your ignorance is boundless Rabbi. See:
Rural Electrification Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have more knowledge in my little fingertip than you will ever get at this rate.
See here:
Coprophagia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The irony runs thick, wry. You see this through your rose colored glasses. It's a shame that the unions and this administration are fleecing each others pockets willingly. In the end the unions destroyed the auto industry until our tax dollars bailed them out.Nice try. What would be the result if GM had failed? Or under restructuring, what might have been the outcome? Lower wages, less benefits, an inferior product, hence less sales, a falling stock? Or do some think restructuring wouldn't create industry havoc?
Coming to conclusions and making policy which must fit within an ideology is what go us into the economic mess known as the Great Recession. Refusing to 'bail out" GM and Chrysler based on an ideology would have been foolish and catastrophic to the families of GM & Chrysler Employees, their suppliers and the sales force around the country. In the middle of massive layoffs how many more would have lost their jobs?
total horseshit---------the end result would have been several new smaller more efficient companies.
Oh, Really. Explain exactly how that might have occurred? In detail since you are so sure of your convictions, you must know
those new companies would have had union representation votes---the UAW could not take the chance of losing that many dues paying members and the DNC could not take the chance of losing millions from the UAW.
the bailouts were done to save the UAW, nothing more.
Again, how do you know!!? If you can't answer this simple question the answer will be obvious. You don't know but you believe everything written or broadcast by those who spread hate and fear on the radio, TV and internet; and you echo the propaganda they spew.
IMO, you see the world through Green Colored Glasses, your envy of those who have good union jobs with good benefits permeates your posts with bitterness and hate for your fellow citizens.
Your ignorance is boundless Rabbi. See:
Rural Electrification Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have more knowledge in my little fingertip than you will ever get at this rate.
See here:
Coprophagia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LOL, it's no wonder, given your engagements with Warrior, that Coprophagia is a topic of interest to you.
