Members Hardvalve Posted January 26, 2012 Members Share Posted January 26, 2012 Nice crap throwing ya little twit..........here's a truth about gm and chrysler.. In reality, GM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members race81 Posted January 26, 2012 Members Share Posted January 26, 2012 Opinion piece with facts in there...the part I pasted.....sorry I didnt have time to type that speel out for everyone....my bad. Not hiding anything......sorry Im not living up to your high on the horsie standards. I mentioned gm is owned by the gov, got called on that and didnt have time to write it all out...so sue me.....its the internet. Dont think I am going to take the time to copy and paste from the 50 plus websites with the same infosigned, saddened part owner of Gm and Chrysler.the piece you copied and pasted from is clearly labeled as an OPINION piece. It is not news. You guys can only copy and paste or mimic what others tell you. You don't have an original idea in your head. At least use quotation marks and post your source material and stop trying to act like it's your own material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members race81 Posted January 26, 2012 Members Share Posted January 26, 2012 I know ...i know... im not usually like that...... :lol: :cop: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Xance Posted January 26, 2012 Members Share Posted January 26, 2012 CTRL C CTRL V WIN/FAIL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted January 26, 2012 Members Share Posted January 26, 2012 I don't know if you are stupid, or a bold faced liar, but this is pure BS. GM being profitable for the first time in years isn't due to the bailout funds that they received. If you think otherwise, you need to get yourself a GED and half a clue. The money that they received from the bailout were loans and went onto the balance sheet as liabilities. Profit is determined by taking all revenues and subtracting all expenses. The money that they received in the bailout (most of which has already been paid back) had no effect on their revenues or expenses, or what people with an education know as the "income statement". The bailout money affected their "Balance Sheet", which is completely different from their "income statement". Anyone who mistakes one for the other is a full on {censored}tard.You obviously don't know the first thing about finance, your attempt to make a witty point just left you with the word "ignorant" stamped on your forehead. Quit before you make it any worse. These are the same people who don't know the difference between "debt" and "deficit" and can't figure how the debt could possibly increase in any given year when the deficit for that same year did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DoubleBarrel Posted January 26, 2012 Members Share Posted January 26, 2012 These are the same people who don't know the difference between "debt" and "deficit" and can't figure how the debt could possibly increase in any given year when the deficit for that same year did not. Big words from someone who doesn't understand the difference between yearly and total. If you have 10 apples. And you sell 10 apples, but then buy 5 back, can you say you have a surplus of apples ???????????? Or that you balanced the apple cart ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted January 26, 2012 Members Share Posted January 26, 2012 Big words from someone who doesn't understand the difference between yearly and total. If you have 10 apples. And you sell 10 apples, but then buy 5 back, can you say you have a surplus of apples ???????????? Or that you balanced the apple cart ????? Again, you're confusing debt and deficit. They are two different things. You're making the mistake of simply looking at the debt numbers and assuming that if the debt increased in any given year, that the deficit for that year was equal to the increase in debt. It doesn't work that way. Again---the mortgage analogy. If I buy a $200,000 house this year with a 30 year mortgage, I've just increased my personal debt. But I didn't increase my annual outlay for this year by $200,000. My annual outlay for this year was only increased by the amount of payments I make this year. And as long as I bring in more money this year than I spend this year, I'm not in deficit for this year. Even though I just increased my personal debt by a huge amount. And continue to still have that debt next year. And maybe even a higher debt next year due to accured interest on that debt. Understand? With your logic, I should be able to say my payments on the next 29 years don't count towards my annual outlays in those years because I bought the house in year one. It doesn't work that way either. You seem to want to have it both ways. You want to count the long term obligations on the total debt AND use them in total towards the deficit in the year they were assumed. Unfortunately, I've heard this claim repeated many times. I've heard it on conservative talk radio which is unfortunate because any talk radio host that claims this is either ignorant or lying. I'm not sure which is worse, but the BIG mistake is for anyone to believe this stuff just because they heard it on the radio and it fits in with their ideology. Whoever was your source for this claim is someone you really should think twice about trusting-without-verifying in the future. Because you're getting bad info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members seajay Posted January 26, 2012 Members Share Posted January 26, 2012 These are the same people who don't know the difference between "debt" and "deficit" and can't figure how the debt could possibly increase in any given year when the deficit for that same year did not. +1 My favorite is when they are shown to be wrong, instead of trying to be open minded & learn something, they just double-down on their bull{censored}. Strange way to go through life. Easier than actually thinking, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Stevetemp Posted January 26, 2012 Members Share Posted January 26, 2012 This notion ...... is why you're probably right about this notion:At some point we have to get past that attitude. Until we do, we'll have to endure the same old {censored} from the (alleged) two-party system. If i had a dime for every time I hear "I'd vote for him but he doesn't stand a chance of winning"...I'd {censored}ing run for President with more money than all candidates combined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Stevetemp Posted January 26, 2012 Members Share Posted January 26, 2012 These are the same people who don't know the difference between "debt" and "deficit" and can't figure how the debt could possibly increase in any given year when the deficit for that same year did not. Let's deal with reality here....economics and finance can be a {censored}ed up thing to try to understand. Just ask Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted January 26, 2012 Members Share Posted January 26, 2012 If i had a dime for every time I hear "I'd vote for him but he doesn't stand a chance of winning"...I'd {censored}ing run for President with more money than all candidates combined. I'm not a member of the Republican party. For whatever reason, Paul wants to be part of the Republican party, their process and influence their way of thinking. Fine. You guys nominate him and I'll probably vote for him in the general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crisis Posted January 26, 2012 Members Share Posted January 26, 2012 To the people saying they are not sure if they are going to vote for Obama: Do you really think one of these Republican clowns is a better option? Really? Indeed. Please people of America. Look at the big picture. Your economy is up the creek but so is much of the world at the moment. It will get better. It always does. What you have to do is ensure you don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted January 26, 2012 Members Share Posted January 26, 2012 Let's deal with reality here....economics and finance can be a {censored}ed up thing to try to understand. Just ask Obama. Why bother him? Can't I get a similarly ignorant response from any of the 535 members of Congress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HKSblade1 Posted January 27, 2012 Members Share Posted January 27, 2012 Lets be clear, I'm backing Newt Gingrich all the way. I don't know if he's best for the country, but he's a client of my families business, and what's good for us is good for Akron. Newt staying in this election will mean a lot of jobs and money to Akron Ohio.I'm just saying realistically, it looks Obama is going to roll whoever the Republicans put put. He's brilliant marketer/politician. I've seen some numbers, some people are projecting he may get 60% of the vote. If he still has 10% UE going and a fiscal {censored}ed budget I'd be surprised if its that much at all. All these politicians know the country is evenly split. Partisan's are pro their party no matter if we had 50% UE. SO they are after the undecideds and their campaigns are aimed and directed at those votes. He'll have the major populations and blue states. That's a given. What he's after the are the ones with no fixed colors attached to them. Currently Pubs are fighting it out among themselves. No different than Dems do the down an dirty against each other when going for the Dem nod. For me, I feel better with a candidate with some practical business sense that won't roll over for Congress or the Senate. Someone with experience working across party lines. I am hoping some Dem like Hillary considers a run against Obama. For a few others here saying Pubs want war with Iran, think again for yourself, not some talking head on MSNBC or Daily Show. You will be hard pressed to see unilateral power moves of the Exec branch again in terms of foreign affairs, going to war etc. I'm not thrilled with Obama's plan to destabilize regions by cutting our forces around the world. It takes months sometimes to organize a military, and not being in those regions gives days or weeks for any country wanting to provoke our allies. Our presence is a built in stalemate. So yeah, I think we need someone in there who is far more experienced. OTOH, It won't matter until mid terms since there isn't much a majority in either House or Senate. Pres would have to invoke exec powers me thinks to get {censored} forced through. That won't be to any exec's benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members skinny mawkis Posted January 27, 2012 Members Share Posted January 27, 2012 Hasn't anyone thought that maybe it's not the politicians we have that are fail, but the system itself. I mean of course politicians are fail, but imagine the most intelligent person you know, and now be honest. Do you think they could change anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members primeholy Posted January 27, 2012 Members Share Posted January 27, 2012 And this is why I dont get into politics. Bunch of {censored}ers thinking their way is the truth. Hmmm. Sounds alot like religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thy God Posted January 27, 2012 Members Share Posted January 27, 2012 Indeed. Please people of America. Look at the big picture. Your economy is up the creek but so is much of the world at the moment. It will get better. It always does.What you have to do is ensure you don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members isvoid Posted January 27, 2012 Members Share Posted January 27, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Stevetemp Posted January 27, 2012 Members Share Posted January 27, 2012 I'm not a member of the Republican party. For whatever reason, Paul wants to be part of the Republican party, their process and influence their way of thinking.Fine. You guys nominate him and I'll probably vote for him in the general election. What's this "you guys" stuff? I meqnt "him" as in general....any candidate not a media darling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Stevetemp Posted January 27, 2012 Members Share Posted January 27, 2012 Hasn't anyone thought that maybe it's not the politicians we have that are fail, but the system itself. I mean of course politicians are fail, but imagine the most intelligent person you know, and now be honest. Do you think they could change anything? Nope...it's us. No one to blame but ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted January 27, 2012 Members Share Posted January 27, 2012 Nope...it's us. No one to blame but ourselves. Until and unless we get the money out of politics, nothing is going to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pinkvoid Posted January 27, 2012 Members Share Posted January 27, 2012 Reading this entire thread leads me to rule that liberals yet again proved to be more intelligent, knowledgeable, open-minded and articulate. The pro-republicans here on the other hand drink the coolaid and speak out of their asses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NixerX Posted January 27, 2012 Members Share Posted January 27, 2012 Until and unless we get the money out of politics, nothing is going to change. 100% correct! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pinkvoid Posted January 27, 2012 Members Share Posted January 27, 2012 Please be logical. That could never happen... Politicians need money to get elected. It's been like this ever since the Greeks invented democracy. AND... money is not a big of a problem as people are. Do you think we don't have good political leaders because of money, or because people are idiots? Just look at the conservative (tea) party. 100% correct! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DoubleBarrel Posted January 27, 2012 Members Share Posted January 27, 2012 Here's your misunderstanding in a nutshell........ Unfortunately, I've heard this claim repeated many times. I've heard it on conservative talk radio which is unfortunate because any talk radio host that claims this is either ignorant or lying. I'm not sure which is worse, but the BIG mistake is for anyone to believe this stuff just because they heard it on the radio and it fits in with their ideology. Whoever was your source for this claim is someone you really should think twice about trusting-without-verifying in the future. Because you're getting bad info.ummmm...no.........the lie is that Clinton balanced the budget. He did not (fact). Figures from the congressional budget office.Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets: FiscalYear YearEnding National Debt Deficit FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion If you disagree, you are going to have to show me proof.......no rhetoric........show me proof.Can't make it any clearer than that. Numbers don't lie, Politicians do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.