Bucco - that article lost me at "failed bailout".

Record profits at GM kind of shoot holes in that story. And that's just for starters.

Originally Posted by djplong

Bucco - that article lost me at "failed bailout".

Record profits at GM kind of shoot holes in that story. And that's just for starters.

"“The Obama Administration yesterday acknowledged the reality we have long been pointing out – that General Motors stock is hopelessly below our break-even price. And that We the People will not – as the President once asserted – make money on the auto bailout."

"Word came late yesterday that the Barack Obama Administration had upped dramatically the estimated loss on the automobile industry bailout – from $14.3 billion to $23.6 billion."

Plus, you do know that most of the money, if not all, received prior to the bail out, ie. money recd from the Bush adminstration did not have to be paid back.....BILLIONS. Good route to profit.

Good News: We Won’t Lose $14.3 Billion on the Auto Bailout – Bad News: It Will Actually Be $23.6 Billion

Now, we know that GM, etc DID IN FACT go into bankruptcy just like the President said they didnt....after he gave them money..they could have done that for fee I think and the banks would have been fine with restructing.

Chrysler is now owned and managed by Fiat....however

Most important to me is that I always am on folks for blaming Bush for everything....this President Obama has said that HE saw the trouble and went into action to save them, BUT......Bush fought with congress who said NO to him and gave them 17 BILLION dollars on condition that they shrink debt, negotiate with the union on wage cuts and benefit cuts and submit plans for the future...NOT OBAMA but BUSH. I didnt agree then with Bush and agree less with Obama and really get upset when I listen to him and his cronies say how HE saved the industry,

The jury is still out on how much the loss or profit (however unlikely) will be on the GM bailout because the government does still own GM stock, though not nearly as much as when the bankruptcy happened.

Can you quote me something where the President said GM *didn't* go into bankruptcy - because what they went through sure seemed like it to me. The difference being a reorganization versus a liquidation (there were no banks willing to loan GM the money to go through a reorg).

Originally Posted by djplong

The jury is still out on how much the loss or profit (however unlikely) will be on the GM bailout because the government does still own GM stock, though not nearly as much as when the bankruptcy happened.

Can you quote me something where the President said GM *didn't* go into bankruptcy - because what they went through sure seemed like it to me. The difference being a reorganization versus a liquidation (there were no banks willing to loan GM the money to go through a reorg).

You are correct that the President never said that...I apologize

I still hang with my premise on this subject however..and that stock that the Govt owns is very very devalued !

But, I think it will ALWAYS have been a bad idea, but how bad will take a number of years.

Originally Posted by janmcn

And what about the republican congress that won't pass one thing the president proposes even when it was their idea in the first place?

and whaat about a president and senate who will NOT meet the opposition part way and negotiate what might not be best BUT would be a better path for america? - regardless of whose idea it is!!!

Compromise by both parties is lacking but is much needed by both sides.

Originally Posted by njbchbum

and whaat about a president and senate who will NOT meet the opposition part way and negotiate what might not be best BUT would be a better path for america? - regardless of whose idea it is!!!

Please cite examples of this so I can comment.

Originally Posted by janmcn

Please cite examples of this so I can comment.

Last count I saw was TWENTY EIGHT 28 bills stalled in the Senate passed by the house, and of course...

"Harry Reid Sits on Jobs Bill to Force Votes on 17 Obama Lifetime Judiciary Nominees. Senate majority leader Harry Reid is at it again. Instead of putting the recent jobs bill passed in the House last week, and endorsed by Obama, in front of the Senate for a vote, Reid is setting it aside in order to force votes on 17 Obama lifetime judicial nominees. Harry Reid, in his obstruction of passing the jobs bill, wants to blame the Republicans, again, for obstructionism as he forces votes.

Yes, Reid has blamed Republicans repeatedly for obstructionism:"

UPDATE: Harry Reid Sits on Jobs Bill to Force Votes on 17 Obama Lifetime Judicial Nominees - American Live Wire | American Live Wire

"Jobs Bill Stalls as Congress Fights Over Agency"

"A fight over a small export credit agency is dividing Congress and holding up a popular bipartisan jobs bill. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/bu...er-agency.html

Having said all of this, the post to which you want to reply to is simply a reply to another post calling out the Republican party for blocking bills. THEY BOTH DO IT, and if you need to waste time in tit for tat on THIS, then the party is your most important thing and not actually what is happening. Congress, BOTH PARTIES have a low approval rating for a reason...to color it a Red or Blue is just a waste of time

Bucco is right about this situation.

Barbara Bush was recently quoted as saying that it seems Compromise is a dirty word for politicians. Smart lady.

Originally Posted by janmcn

And what about the republican congress that won't pass one thing the president proposes even when it was their idea in the first place?

janmcn: Those Republicans are doing what the Navy did during World War II, deflecting kamikaze pilots.

Originally Posted by janmcn

Please cite examples of this so I can comment.

janmcn - as you posted no examples in your response to waynet ["And what about the republican congress that won't pass one thing the president proposes even when it was their idea in the first place?"], i was simply turning the tables without example.

Originally Posted by njbchbum

janmcn - as you posted no examples in your response to waynet ["And what about the republican congress that won't pass one thing the president proposes even when it was their idea in the first place?"], i was simply turning the tables without example.

Fair enough. Here are just a few examples of the republican congress fighting the president at every step: not wanting to raise the debt limit, not wanting to pass the payroll tax cut, not wanting to approve his nominee to head the Consumer Protection Agency, not wanting to pass the Affordable Care Act, saying no to his Jobs Bill, not funding the FAA. If the republican led house does not pass the highways bill by March 31, all highway projects come to an end and thousands of people lose their jobs.

Now cite your examples.

Originally Posted by janmcn

Fair enough. Here are just a few examples of the republican congress fighting the president at every step: not wanting to raise the debt limit, not wanting to pass the payroll tax cut, not wanting to approve his nominee to head the Consumer Protection Agency, not wanting to pass the Affordable Care Act, saying no to his Jobs Bill, not funding the FAA. If the republican led house does not pass the highways bill by March 31, all highway projects come to an end and thousands of people lose their jobs.

Now cite your examples.

janmcn - can't do that today - wish i could - have a patch over one eye and have difficulty negotiating the computer - but i googled 'obama won't negotiate' and you can read a bunch of examples there. in the examples you cited, did the republicans flat out refuse to negotiate? or did the pres refuse to give a bit to get a bit? i don't recall where the repubs flat out said NO; but rather, wanted something in return or perhaps a different approach to a similar end.

Originally Posted by janmcn

Fair enough. Here are just a few examples of the republican congress fighting the president at every step: not wanting to raise the debt limit, not wanting to pass the payroll tax cut, not wanting to approve his nominee to head the Consumer Protection Agency, not wanting to pass the Affordable Care Act, saying no to his Jobs Bill, not funding the FAA. If the republican led house does not pass the highways bill by March 31, all highway projects come to an end and thousands of people lose their jobs.

Now cite your examples.

What in my post above did the republicans not fight the president every step of the way? Then today I pick up the newspaper and find out republicans are against the "Violence Against Women Act". So I guess this means they are for violence against women. Seems like republicans are trying to lose every election in 2012.

How long has it been since the Democrate controlled Senete has passed a budget resolution and sent it on to the House? Not a CR, but a real budget resolution.