• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

Easy, you're making a leap not supported by facts. Who exactly isn't making a profit? Such a business won't stay in business, so I don't accept your position, and it is not an answer to his comment.

So? Here is what he quoted:
Chevrolet sold 1.2 million vehicles globally in the third quarter, the best July-to-September results in the brand’s 100-year history. In the first nine months of 2011, Chevrolet sold 3.6 million vehicles globally, positioning the brand for its best-ever calendar-year sales.​

Given that government motors had billions of taxpayer dollars given to them, they ought to have had large sales. They no longer have all of the usual market forces at play. Is that clearer? They are propped up. Is that clearer?
 
I don't care whether you accept it or not. The post was not directed to you.

Doesn't matter. You present something rather poor as a source goes. :coffeepap
 
So? Here is what he quoted:
Chevrolet sold 1.2 million vehicles globally in the third quarter, the best July-to-September results in the brand’s 100-year history. In the first nine months of 2011, Chevrolet sold 3.6 million vehicles globally, positioning the brand for its best-ever calendar-year sales.​

Given that government motors had billions of taxpayer dollars given to them, they ought to have had large sales. They no longer have all of the usual market forces at play. Is that clearer? They are propped up. Is that clearer?

Did they not make a profit? There was still a need to make a profit, is that not so?

And that wasn't giving to unions? That's more than a huge leap on your part, a factually inaccurate leap.
 
That's just more opinion that Obama bailed out GM in order to save the unions. In the unlikely event that is true, there still was no government money given to unions. It was given to GM. Further, wasn't that TARP money that went to GM? Wasn't TARP signed into law by Bush? or is my timeline off here?

I believe Obama did more than bailout GM/Chrysler, he took majority ownership and then fired the CEO. Bush gave a loan guarantee to GM but never came close to taking them over. I truly believe that Obama's move was politically motivated and had nothing to do with doing what was right, which IMO was to let the market take care of GM
 
I believe Obama did more than bailout GM/Chrysler, he took majority ownership and then fired the CEO. Bush gave a loan guarantee to GM but never came close to taking them over. I truly believe that Obama's move was politically motivated and had nothing to do with doing what was right, which IMO was to let the market take care of GM

There was no other option short of simply giving them the money. Securing the bailout funds with stock ownership was the best way to go. It didn't take long to get them to a point where they could do an IPO and reduce government ownership to minority status. Wagoner should have been fired YEARS before GM's fortunes came to a head. That was absolutely a necessary move.

You can bitch and moan about how it was done, but there is no question that they were goners without the bailout and they are now on the path to profitability. The consequences of failure right at the depths of the recession would have been enormous: far worse than Lehman.
 
There was no other option short of simply giving them the money. Securing the bailout funds with stock ownership was the best way to go. It didn't take long to get them to a point where they could do an IPO and reduce government ownership to minority status. Wagoner should have been fired YEARS before GM's fortunes came to a head. That was absolutely a necessary move.

You can bitch and moan about how it was done, but there is no question that they were goners without the bailout and they are now on the path to profitability. The consequences of failure right at the depths of the recession would have been enormous: far worse than Lehman.

Your opinion is noted
 
Did they not make a profit? There was still a need to make a profit, is that not so?

And that wasn't giving to unions? That's more than a huge leap on your part, a factually inaccurate leap.
No profit is mentioned in that article. And what would it look like? The government essentially nationalized GM with 50 billion dollars of taxpayers money. I suppose having a 50 billion dollar sugar daddy isn't a big deal to you. But it sure would ease market pressures, dontcha think?

So what would a profit look like? They don't have to account for the cost of money I suppose.

Fun stuff:

The Treasury Department took majority ownership of GM in 2009.

In all, the government pumped about $81 billion into rescues of GM, Chrysler Group LLC and their affiliated credit arms, and has about $51 billion left to recover... The government sold some of its shares a year ago so taxpayers own about 1/3rd of GM instead of 2/3rds.

There are articles floating the idea that the government should sell its remaining shares at a loss...hmmm, I wonder why?

I believe it was the wrong thing to do.

Oh, what about the unions? Who is paying the union pensions? Taxpayers? I could not find a clear answer.
 
Last edited:
Umm, the bill was voted on and passed in committee... I didn't say Republicans were against it, nice strawman ... I said Democrats didn't block it; and they didn't. As the minority party, they were outnumbered 11 to 9. Senate leadership never brought the bill to the floor for a full vote in the Senate.

Do you understand now?

More than you do.

Last Action:

Jul 28, 2005: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

So it came out of committee and never went for a general vote. Could mean no cloture, could mean parliamentary action etc etc. We dont know.

So if all the democrats voted against it, how do you then say Republicans are responsible? Party of no and all that crap get tossed around pretty, ahem liberally, pardon the pun.

So, does that mean all the bills in the Senate right now, not getting passed are the fault of the Dems? Since the house already passed them.
 
No profit is mentioned in that article. And what would it look like? The government essentially nationalized GM with 50 billion dollars of taxpayers money. I suppose having a 50 billion dollar sugar daddy isn't a big deal to you. But it sure would ease market pressures, dontcha think?

So what would a profit look like? They don't have to account for the cost of money I suppose.

Fun stuff:

The Treasury Department took majority ownership of GM in 2009.

In all, the government pumped about $81 billion into rescues of GM, Chrysler Group LLC and their affiliated credit arms, and has about $51 billion left to recover... The government sold some of its shares a year ago so taxpayers own about 1/3rd of GM instead of 2/3rds.

There are articles floating the idea that the government should sell its remaining shares at a loss...hmmm, I wonder why?

I believe it was the wrong thing to do.

Oh, what about the unions? Who is paying the union pensions? Taxpayers? I could not find a clear answer.

Actually taxpayers now own about 25% of GM, not one third.
 
What?? You were serious about relying on a WorldNut Daily article??

Ok, fine, I counter it with a Daily Kos nut article ...



Gramm-Leach-Bliley

Summary of Provisions

-- Repeals the restrictions on banks affiliating with securities firms contained in sections 20 and 32 of the Glass-Steagall Act.


[...]
Provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act

were directed at these abuses:

(1) Banks were investing their own assets in securities with consequent risk to commercial and savings deposits. The concern of Congress to block this evil is clearly stated in the report of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee on an immediate forerunner of the Glass-Steagall Act.

(2) Unsound loans were made in order to shore up the price of securities or the financial position of companies in which a bank had invested its own assets.

(3) A commercial bank's financial interest in the ownership, price, or distribution of securities inevitably tempted bank officials to press their banking customers into investing in securities which the bank itself was under pressure to sell because of its own pecuniary stake in the transaction.

Daily Kos: A not-so-brief History of Banking's Mismanagment of Risk


... prove the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act wasn't a Conservative policy aimed at deregulation ...

So you are saying it was a conservative that signed this into law ??? Clinton was a conservative? What I find funny about hacks like you is you blame only one side ... I seem to remember things being pretty decent at the end of 2006 when Democrats took over the house and senate... So by the same standards that you put on Republicans then everything that happened from 2007 on is the fault of the Democrats who controlled the house and senate right ???

Now don't get me wrong because I agree this was a terrible policy that was passed, but while you go on your political hackery to place blame on one party, both had a hand in it ... or are Democrats so inept that they didn't know how to stop a bad bill? Or the president so dumb that he didn't know he could have vetoed it ?
 
Last edited:
So you are saying it was a conservative that signed this into law ??? Clinton was a conservative?
Is English your second language? Where did I say Clinton was a Conservative? I said it [the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act] was Conservative policy.

The bill was called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, not the Clinton act. Yes, Clinton idiotically signed it, but that bill was drafted and sponsored by Conservatives in the House and Senate for whom it was named after -- it was their policy.
 
Last edited:
So it came out of committee and never went for a general vote. Could mean no cloture, could mean parliamentary action etc etc. We dont know.

So if all the democrats voted against it, how do you then say Republicans are responsible? Party of no and all that crap get tossed around pretty, ahem liberally, pardon the pun.
Because the party in charge is responsible for adding bills that come out of committee onto the legislative calendar so that there can be a full vote in the Senate. And yes, we do know there was no cloture vote because had there been one, it would have been recorded. Republicans have used the pathetic excuse that they didn't bother to send it to the Senate floor because they expected Democrats to filibuster it. It's unfortunate for them that they didn't force Democrats to take that position, because as it stands, Republicans dropped the ball on that one.

Just like they did on 'S. 1508: Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2003' and 'H.R. 1461 [109th]: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005' ... two more bills that made it to Republican leadership in the Senate where they refused to let the full Senate vote on them.

That is why it's a lie to claim Democrats blocked Republicans from passing oversight of the GSE's ... Republicans had at least three opportunities and each time, Republican leadership in the Senate refused to allow a vote.

G'head ... this is where Conservatives blame Barney Frank.


:coffeepap

So, does that mean all the bills in the Senate right now, not getting passed are the fault of the Dems? Since the house already passed them.
Of course not, just like Republicans weren't always to blame when they were in charge. I don't hold the majority party responsible for failing to pass bills in the Senate when the minority party filibusters a bill ... I do blame the Republican-led Senate for the three aforementioned bills though since none of them were filibustered and all of them stalled with Republican leadership in the Senate.
 
Last edited:
Is English your second language? Where did I say Clinton was a Conservative? I said it [the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act] was Conservative policy.

The bill was called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, not the Clinton act. Yes, Clinton idiotically signed it, but that bill was drafted and sponsored by Conservatives in the House and Senate for whom it was named after -- it was their policy.

Still living in the past? I understand why you would divert from the Obama record but neither Clinton or Bush will be on the ballot in 2012 nor will Bush's record. Obama has had three years to make things better and after adding 4.5 trillion to the debt we still have a net job loss, declining labor force, and rising misery index
 
Still living in the past? I understand why you would divert from the Obama record but neither Clinton or Bush will be on the ballot in 2012 nor will Bush's record. Obama has had three years to make things better and after adding 4.5 trillion to the debt we still have a net job loss, declining labor force, and rising misery index

So tell us all how is a Republican going to fix this?
 
Is English your second language? Where did I say Clinton was a Conservative? I said it [the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act] was Conservative policy.

The bill was called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, not the Clinton act. Yes, Clinton idiotically signed it, but that bill was drafted and sponsored by Conservatives in the House and Senate for whom it was named after -- it was their policy.

No English isn't my 2nd language. But with you comprehension is sorely lacking, or maybe you just don't know any better, either way you do show just how our educational system is failing us.

How ever I am glad you agree that Clinton then was a idiot, along with the 44 members of the Senate that couldn't figure out a way to stop this bill from being passed.

Seeing a liberal signed the bill into law, (for you have stated that Clinton wasn't a conservative) that makes it a compromise, and thus a bill of both parties .
 
Because the party in charge is responsible for adding bills that come out of committee onto the legislative calendar so that there can be a full vote in the Senate. And yes, we do know there was no cloture vote because had there been one, it would have been recorded. Republicans have used the pathetic excuse that they didn't bother to send it to the Senate floor because they expected Democrats to filibuster it. It's unfortunate for them that they didn't force Democrats to take that position, because as it stands, Republicans dropped the ball on that one.

Just like they did on 'S. 1508: Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2003' and 'H.R. 1461 [109th]: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005' ... two more bills that made it to Republican leadership in the Senate where they refused to let the full Senate vote on them.

That is why it's a lie to claim Democrats blocked Republicans from passing oversight of the GSE's ... Republicans had at least three opportunities and each time, Republican leadership in the Senate refused to allow a vote.

G'head ... this is where Conservatives blame Barney Frank.


:coffeepap


Of course not, just like Republicans weren't always to blame when they were in charge. I don't hold the majority party responsible for failing to pass bills in the Senate when the minority party filibusters a bill ... I do blame the Republican-led Senate for the three aforementioned bills though since none of them were filibustered and all of them stalled with Republican leadership in the Senate.

Why not just tell the truth for a change .. as a liberal you live by the mantra of the liberal party ... everything is always someone else's fault .. from reading this post that is exactly what you are saying ..
 
Still living in the past?
Those who turn a blind eye on the past are doomed to repeat it.

I understand why you would divert from the Obama record but neither Clinton or Bush will be on the ballot in 2012 nor will Bush's record. Obama has had three years to make things better and after adding 4.5 trillion to the debt we still have a net job loss, declining labor force, and rising misery index
And yet, Obama still defeats every Republican being thrown against him. Guess most people don't blame him like you do. Then again, you do claim to be smarter than most people. :roll:
 
Why not just tell the truth for a change .. as a liberal you live by the mantra of the liberal party ... everything is always someone else's fault .. from reading this post that is exactly what you are saying ..
Really?? Is that the best you can do? That's just sad.

No, not everything is someone else's fault and just because I point out that Republicans dropped the ball 3 times on passing oversight, which they did, doesn't mean I blame them for everything.

Hyperbole much?
 
Those who turn a blind eye on the past are doomed to repeat it.


And yet, Obama still defeats every Republican being thrown against him. Guess most people don't blame him like you do. Then again, you do claim to be smarter than most people. :roll:

Still living in that liberal dream world and fantasy land. You really don't understand percentage change at all but that is ok. The majority get it even if you never will. Obama added 4.5 trillion to the debt in 3 years and still has a net job loss along with a declining labor force. You proud of those results?
 
No English isn't my 2nd language. But with you comprehension is sorely lacking, or maybe you just don't know any better, either way you do show just how our educational system is failing us.
Hisses the poster who thought I called Clinton a Conservative when I never did. Talk about an acute lack of self-awareness.

:roll:

How ever I am glad you agree that Clinton then was a idiot, along with the 44 members of the Senate that couldn't figure out a way to stop this bill from being passed.

Seeing a liberal signed the bill into law, (for you have stated that Clinton wasn't a conservative) that makes it a compromise, and thus a bill of both parties .
Calling it a compromise may be a fair term, that still doesn't make it Liberal policy.

The policy was drafted by Conservatives. The policy was sponsored in both the House and Senate by Conservatives. The worst you can say about Clinton on this is that he approved the policy -- but the policy was still Conservative policy.

Saying otherwise would be like fallaciously calling welfare reform, 'Liberal policy,' because even though that was also drafted and sponsored by Conservatives in Congress, that policy was also signed into law by Clinton. That doesn't make it Liberal policy.
 
Last edited:
Still living in that liberal dream world and fantasy land. You really don't understand percentage change at all but that is ok. The majority get it even if you never will. Obama added 4.5 trillion to the debt in 3 years and still has a net job loss along with a declining labor force. You proud of those results?
Given the horrid conditions he was handed by Bush and given where we are now? $1.4 trillion added to the debt over the prior year, negative 8.9% GDP, 8 million jobs lost in Bush's Great Recession, the worst recession since the Great Depression ... I'd say he's doing an ok job.

Still, no GOPer beats him next year according to current polling. Guess he's not as bad as you like to think he is.
 
Back
Top Bottom