[Edited on January 5, 2012 at 11:39 PM. Reason : mmm...babies]

1/5/2012 11:39:37 PM

^^^
You're sort of right. According to an opinion written by the Justice Department during the Clinton-era, three days is probably what constitutes a recess. That doesn't make it a "law" - it only means the courts would likely find in favor of congress in a dispute over whether congress was technically "in session". Even if there was a law on the books, who would have written that law? The very people that benefit directly from such a law. So now you'd be defending a law crafted precisely to allow law-makers to nullify one of the constitutional powers of the executive branch.

Don't get me wrong: Obama is a crony-appointing SOB; irresponsibly expanding the scope of the executive branch. He's no saint. However, the system itself has bred this conflict. We have gone from a system of checks and balances, to a system where only way to have any power at all is to abuse it. This would have happened regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office. Laying the whole of the blame of this situation on one branch is fucking ignorant and does nothing to solve the root problem.

[Edited on January 6, 2012 at 1:15 AM. Reason : [b]s not cooperating]

1/6/2012 1:15:30 AM

Quote :

"The appointments were submitted in December of 2011, so they haven't even been considered by the Senate. This is a power grab. Don't give me this shit about an obstructionist Congress. That's some bullshit and you know it. You do not want to side with Obama on this. He is intentionally breaking the law. Why he's doing it for these particular appointees, I'm not sure. "

LOL

are you serious? The economy and country was taken to the brink in large part by anti-consumer policies and practices of banks, and you're asking why we need to set up an agency to manage this issue?

Obama is 100% in the right on this one.

And if you believe that the republicans are just following the constitution on this, you're naive. They're not rejecting the person Obama is choosing, they're rejecting the entire POSITION. they've vowed to block ANY appointee. The proper procedure in this case is to remove the position legislatively, not play games by exploiting loopholes in the letter of the law.

It's the same thing children do when they hold their finger as close to you as possible, without touching you. The Republicans are these children playing their childish games, and apparently you can't see through their child-like logic.

1/6/2012 1:32:32 AM

Quote :

"The Constitution, on its face, does not establish a minimum time that an authorized break in the Senate must last to give legal force to the President's appointment power under the Recess Appointments Clause. And we do not set the limit today... ...the text of the Constitution does not differentiate expressly between inter- and intrasession recesses for the Recess Appointments Clause"

Evans vs. Stephens. 11th Circuit, 2004 (which was the highest court to rule on recess appointments)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14575856744547292492&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr



[Edited on January 6, 2012 at 3:10 AM. Reason : ]

1/6/2012 3:06:44 AM

I thought Obama was up to 30?

Doesn't matter , it's still far lower than anyone since Ford.

/ 1 senator showing up for work every three days should not equal congress being in session

1/6/2012 6:38:21 AM

Quote :

"Laying the whole of the blame of this situation on one branch is fucking ignorant and does nothing to solve the root problem."

I'm not trying to lay the blame on Obama. The 'pubs being douches is certainly a big part of this. but, when a sitting president says, out loud, in front of reporters, "fuck the Constitution," then we have a problem; a huge problem.

Quote :

"are you serious? The economy and country was taken to the brink in large part by anti-consumer policies and practices of banks, and you're asking why we need to set up an agency to manage this issue?"

too bad this agency won't help any of that. it's specifically crafted NOT to affect the banks or Fannie and Freddie. you know, the very people who enabled and created this whole mess.

^^ what a disingenuous set of statistics you just posted. OMG, OBAMA DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF RECESS APPOINTMENTS!!! OMG, PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE WORRIED ABOUT THIS ONE APPOINTMENT THAT SHITS ALL OVER THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE OBAMA DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF RECESS APPOINTMENTS!!!

^ I can't disagree.

Quote :

"Obama is 100% in the right on this one."

Really? Saying "fuck the Constitution, I'm going to do whatever the hell I want" is "100% right"? Really? I guess it would take a "Constitutional law professor" to know that...

[Edited on January 6, 2012 at 9:09 AM. Reason : ]

1/6/2012 9:07:57 AM

^ that's what the NDAA does, though.

1/6/2012 9:36:48 PM

Quote :

"are you serious? The economy and country was taken to the brink in large part by anti-consumer policies and practices of banks, and you're asking why we need to set up an agency to manage this issue?"

Yes, let's expect the same government that pushed for the creation of the bubble to "crack down on greed". Come on, that's a joke. The government gets to benefit during the boom ("look at all this prosperity we created!"), and during the bust, they create do-nothing bureaucracies which make it seem like they're "doing something". They're buying votes on the way up and the way down, and once you understand basic economics, you recognize that it's all bullshit.

1/7/2012 12:35:08 PM

The year: 2009.

Unemployment: 10%

The White House:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083831/Obamas-held-secret-Alice-Wonderland-themed-party-White-House-depths-recession-2009.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9001133/White-House-covered-up-Tim-Burton-staged-Alice-in-Wonderland-Halloween-party.html

Quote :

"The president's aides decided the [2009 Halloween] party would send the wrong message at a time when the Tea Party was on the rise with its message against Washington's excesses and unemployment had risen sharply to ten per cent. "White House officials were so nervous about how a splashy, Hollywood-esque party would look to jobless Americans or their representatives in Congress, who would soon vote on health care that the event was not discussed publicly and Burton's and Depp's contributions went unacknowledged," Miss Kantor writes."

1/8/2012 7:26:18 PM

Quote :

"in large part by anti-consumer"

Extending loans to people who otherwise wouldnt have gotten the money is about as pro consumer as it gets. Its an insult to our society's intelligence - which I suspect Democrats like you are just fine with - that we need to set up yet another institution designed to protect people from themselves.

1/8/2012 8:52:11 PM

Chief of Staff Daley stepping down. being replaced by Budget Director Jack Lew

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-william-daley-to-step-down-as-obamas-chief-of-staff-20120109,0,1505407.story

[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 2:20 PM. Reason : hmmph]

1/9/2012 2:19:16 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Lew

Quote :

"Lew was born in New York City. He attended New York City public schools, graduating from Forest Hills High School. His father was a lawyer and rare-book dealer who came to the United States from Poland as a child. Lew graduated from Harvard College in 1978 and the Georgetown University Law Center in 1983. Early career Lew began his career in Washington, D.C., in 1983 as a legislative aide. From 1979 to 1987 he was a principal domestic policy advisor to House Speaker Tip O'Neill, where he served at the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee as Assistant Director and then Executive Director. There he was responsible for domestic and economic issues including Social Security, Medicare, budget, tax, trade, appropriations, and energy issues. Lew practiced as an attorney for five years as a partner at Van Ness, Feldman and Curtis. His practice dealt primarily with electric power generation. He has also worked as Executive Director of the Center for Middle East Research, Issues Director for the Democratic National Committee's Campaign 88, and Deputy Director of the Office of Program Analysis in the city of Boston's Office of Management and Budget. Clinton administration From February 1993 to 1994, Lew served as Special Assistant to the President under President Clinton. Lew was responsible for policy development and the drafting of the national service initiative (AmeriCorps) and health care reform legislation. Lew left the White House in October 1994 to work as OMB's Executive Associate Director and Associate Director for Legislative Affairs. From August 1995 until July 1998, Lew served as Deputy Director of OMB. There, Lew was chief operating officer responsible for day-to-day management of a staff of 500. He had crosscutting responsibilities to coordinate Clinton administration efforts on budget and appropriations matters. He frequently served as a member of the Administration negotiating team, including regarding the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. President Clinton nominated Lew to be Director of the OMB, and the United States Senate confirmed him for that job on July 31, 1998. He served in that capacity until the end of the Clinton administration in January 2001. As OMB Director, Lew had the lead responsibility for the Clinton Administration’s policies on budget, management, and appropriations issues. As a member of the Cabinet and senior member of the economic team, he advised the President on a broad range of domestic and international policies. He represented the Administration in budget negotiations with Congress and served as a member of the National Security Council. Post-Clinton years Until June 2006, Lew served as the Executive Vice President for Operations at New York University and was a Clinical Professor of Public Administration at NYU's Wagner School of Public Service. In June 2006, Lew was named chief operating officer of Citigroup's Alternative Investments unit. Lew co-chaired the Advisory Board for City Year New York. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institution Hamilton Project Advisory Board, and the National Academy of Social Insurance. Lew is also a member of the bar in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. Obama administration Deputy Secretary of State As Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, Lew was the State Department's chief operating officer and was primarily responsible for resource issues, while James Steinberg, who is also serving as the Deputy Secretary, was responsible for policy. Lew was co-leader of the State Department's Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. Budget director On July 13, 2010, the White House announced that Lew had been chosen to replace Peter Orszag as Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), subject to Senate confirmation. On November 18, 2010, Lew was confirmed by the Senate by unanimous consent. The $3.7 trillion 2011 budget President Obama unveiled the administration estimated reductions to federal spending deficits by $1.1 trillion over the next decade if adopted and economic assumptions were fully achieved. An analysis of the proposal by the Congressional Budget Office offers a different estimate. Two-thirds of the that estimated reduction would come from spending cuts through a five-year freeze in discretionary spending first announced in Obama’s 2011 State of the Union address, as well as savings to mandatory programs such as Medicare and lower interest payments on the debt that would result from the lower spending. Tax increases are responsible for the other third of the reduction, including a cap on itemized reductions for wealthier taxpayers and the elimination of tax breaks for oil and gas companies."

1/9/2012 6:02:30 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/obama-asks-congress-for-12-trillion-increase-in-nations-borrowing-limit/2012/01/12/gIQA7QT7tP_story.html

just another 1.2 trillion, no big deal.

asked for after brangelina left his office-

what a fucking joke this president is.

1/12/2012 4:15:02 PM

Quote :

"The Obama administration has told a federal judge that Baltimore police officers violated the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments by seizing a man's cell phone and deleting its contents. The deletions were allegedly in retaliation for the man's use of the phone to record the officers' arrest of his friend. According to the Maryland ACLU, this is the first time the Obama Justice Department has weighed in on whether the Constitution protects citizens' right to record the actions of police with their cell phones. [...] The Maryland ACLU told the Baltimore Sun that this is the first time the Obama Administration has weighed in on the issue. The decision to come down on Sharp's side of the argument is particularly significant because the executive branch is ordinarily quick to defend the prerogatives of law enforcement. Although this specific incident involved city police officers, the same reasoning would presumably protect the right of citizens to record and disseminate videos on the conduct of officials in the FBI, DEA, and other federal law enforcement agencies. The filing is the latest sign of an emerging consensus that the First Amendment protects the right to record the public conduct of government officials with a cell phone. Last week, the Boston PD was forced to admit its officers acted improperly when they arrested a man for recording an arrest, after the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the city. And while Judge Richard Posner worried that a right to record the police will lead to excessive "snooping around," his fellow judges on the Seventh Circuit seemed sympathetic to the ACLU's argument that Illinois's strict wiretapping statute violates citizens First Amendment rights."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/obama-administration-says-constitution-protects-cell-phone-recordings.ars

1/12/2012 5:12:13 PM

Obama has stated that he will not support the current SOPA and PIPA bills.

For a President to take a strong stand against a bill with broad bipartisan support during his potential reelection year is quite ballsy. It demonstrates a willingness to defend civil liberties & the economy, despite going against a united Congress and a broad swath of corporate backers. He should have been like this from the beginning of his term. +1 Credibility

With the exception of Ron Paul (also +1), Republican candidates have avoided taking a stance on the bill. I think that belies the truth behind their platforms: subservience to corporate backers, disregard for civil liberties, and an unacceptable ignorance regarding digital communication.

1/17/2012 5:53:25 PM

I think support for this bill would be political suicide for Obama. His base of young voters will, in many cases, look over his foreign policy or drug policy. Why, I don't know. But, if YouTube or streaming sites get shut down, blood will fill the streets.

This is the kind of legislation that needed to be passed in the dead of night before anyone had a chance to read it or hear about it. It's become too public now, and after Wikipedia/Reddit shuts down tomorrow, this bill is dead on arrival.

1/17/2012 6:40:36 PM

Obama was for the SOPA bill before he was against it. So he get's no pass from me. He's just backing down now because A) the polls show most Americans are against it and mass website shutdowns will only strengthen public opposition, B) it's an election year, and he needs to ramp up the populist rhetoric to keep the progressive base in line, and C) Big internet companies like Google and Facebook are playing ball and donating to campaigns (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/25/google-antitrust-microsoft-war_n_976804.html?page=1)

This is such a government shakedown. Senators are putting themselves in the middle of a bidding war between old Media (Hollywood Studios and Corporate Media tycoons) vs. new-age Internet Giants.

1/17/2012 7:40:03 PM

Quote :

"Obama was for the SOPA bill before he was against it. So he get's no pass from me. "

Not true. Also, congrats on being petty.

1/17/2012 11:00:12 PM

Quote :

"At Wednesday's hearing, Google was the only corporation to speak against the legislation on a panel stacked with representatives of Hollywood studios, pharmaceutical giants and intellectual property hawks from the Obama administration"

11/16/11

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/sopa-internet-censorship-online-piracy-house-hearing_n_1098255.html

1/17/2012 11:17:21 PM

None of the panel witnesses were part of the Obama administration. Huff Post is just trying to slip a little sensationalism into the article. Maria Pallante is the only panelist with a connection to Obama, but she's no more a part of the administration than Sonia Sotomayor.

Here is a white house statement from Nov 8 that establishes a precedent for their recent decision:

Quote :

"“It would be ill-advised to threaten the very foundations of innovation in the Internet economy and the democratic spirit that has made the Internet a force for social progress around the world,” the White House said in its release. "

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/192349-obama-threatens-to-veto-resolution-repealing-net-neutrality-rules

[Edited on January 18, 2012 at 8:53 PM. Reason : a]

1/18/2012 8:50:49 PM

Does anyone still want to argue that the auto bailouts were not only unnecessary, but a failure as well?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-18/auto-plants-at-capacity-buoying-all-parts-of-u-s-economy-cars.html

Quote :

"The new third shifts, adding more than 4,300 jobs in four states at GM alone, bring jobs to the economy and revenue to governments as well as demand at odd hours for everything from daycare and dentistry to financial services and food. U.S. auto plants this year may operate at about 81 percent of capacity after falling as low as 49 percent in 2009, according to estimates from IHS Automotive in Northville, Michigan."

Quote :

"The momentum for added production is expected to continue this year as auto deliveries may rise about 5.6 percent to 13.5 million, the average estimate of 10 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. Vehicle sales rose 11 percent in 2010 and 10 percent last year after sales fell to a 27-year low of 10.4 million sales in 2009."

http://www.freep.com/article/20120119/BUSINESS0101/120119015/GM-again-the-world-s-largest-automaker?odyssey=nav|head

Quote :

"General Motors surpassed Toyota and Volkswagen to reclaim the crown of world’s largest automaker with global sales of 9.03 million vehicles in 2011. That was 11% higher than Volkswagen, which last week reported 2011 global sales of 8.16 million. Toyota has not yet reported its final 2011 sales, but last month the Japanese automaker estimated it sold 7.9 million vehicles globally last year. "

http://www.freep.com/article/20120119/BUSINESS06/201190451/Michigan-s-economy-starting-to-turn-around-but-experts-say-there-s-a-long-way-to-go

Quote :

"First the good news: Michigan's unemployment rate in December declined another half-percentage point to 9.3%, the state's lowest rate since the 8.9% rate recorded in September 2008, said the Michigan Department of Technology, Management & Budget. And data released Wednesday confirmed that 2011 marked the first year since 2000 that Michigan posted a net increase in jobs."

But yeah, we should have just let GM die because government bailouts are evil and federal spending should be cut at all costs. Just try to defend that stance now you fucking morons.

[Edited on January 19, 2012 at 2:09 PM. Reason : double negatives are bad grammar]

1/19/2012 2:06:59 PM

Ford did fine w/o em.

1/19/2012 2:23:15 PM

^^None of that supports your argument. I can make money too, just give me some bailout money first.

Of course the bailouts weren't necessary. They were only necessary if you see keeping GM/Chrysler alive as an end in itself. As long you keep pointing to results of government bailouts/stimulus, like increased revenue or jobs created, you'll be missing the big pictures. Of course the bailouts meant jobs and revenue. You'd be hard pressed to find an example of government stimulus that didn't have some positive effects in the short-term.

What you need to understand is the lost productivity and value that comes from bailouts. Firstly, the money that paid for the bailouts was not free - it came from somewhere, either taxes or inflation, so the taxpayers took a hit.

You also have to consider the alternative. What if GM and Chrysler went out of business? Would the factories and machines have been sold and melted down? Highly unlikely. Other companies would have acquired that capital and used it, except without all the bullshit. GM and Chrysler make shitty cars, man. I would never buy one. They look bad and they're not as dependable as Hondas or Toyotas.

Bankruptcy happens. It needs to happen. Thinking that you're allowing these companies to "cheat death" is destructive and unsustainable.

Quote :

"But yeah, we should have just let GM die because government bailouts are evil and federal spending should be cut at all costs. Just try to defend that stance now you fucking morons."

Haha, you're ridiculous.

[Edited on January 19, 2012 at 3:06 PM. Reason : ]

1/19/2012 3:04:53 PM

^do a Google Image Search of Gary, Indiana, and you'll understand the result of letting a City's main employer die.

I'm not making an argument one way or the other, but the short term struggles that you're talking about have very drastic results to communities and the people who live there.

1/19/2012 3:19:54 PM

It was paid back, with interest, in less than half the amount of time they were given. It was a fantastic investment that many idiots are still sore about.

However, the real thing that saved the companies was declaring bankruptcy and giving the middle finger to the greedy UAW.

1/19/2012 3:23:08 PM

Quote :

"You also have to consider the alternative. What if GM and Chrysler went out of business? Would the factories and machines have been sold and melted down? Highly unlikely. Other companies would have acquired that capital and used it, except without all the bullshit. GM and Chrysler make shitty cars, man. I would never buy one. They look bad and they're not as dependable as Hondas or Toyotas."

Not only are you a complete fucking moron, you don't even understand what the bailouts entailed. It wasn't just GM and Chrysler that got money. Auto parts suppliers also got billions of dollars, and many of them were saved from bankruptcy. That didn't just affect GM/Chrysler, it also helped Ford and even Honda/Toyota/Kia/Volkswagon who all build cars in the US. The entire industry from top to bottom, international and domestic, was saved from a long term decline that would have had serious economic repercussions.

Also, the forced bankruptcy and restructure that the Obama administration imposed on GM is the reason for their current resurgence. They saved and reinvigorated that company in a way that was faster and more efficient than any private intervention could have possibly hoped for. Detroit had nearly a decade to try and fix itself via private means and saw nothing but steady decline over that time period. Now, after the bailouts, the US auto industry is stronger than it ever was. You couldn't be more shortsighted and wrong with your views.

Quote :

"Ford did fine w/o em."

No, they didn't. Ford would have been completely fucked if their supplier chain had gone down.

[Edited on January 19, 2012 at 3:45 PM. Reason : :]

1/19/2012 3:40:09 PM

Quote :

"do a Google Image Search of Gary, Indiana, and you'll understand the result of letting a City's main employer die. I'm not making an argument one way or the other, but the short term struggles that you're talking about have very drastic results to communities and the people who live there."

I'm aware of what can happen when a city's main employer goes out of business, but it's not helpful to view these situations in isolation.

It's a very limited view to accept that most people need to live in one city and work at one job for their entire life. I know this is what many people would prefer to do, but it's not necessarily best for the economy as a whole. It's a global economy now. Companies come and go, and that's how it should be. Some people will prefer complete stagnation over finding better towns with better jobs, but we shouldn't start blowing taxpayer money to preserve those lifestyles.

I'm not being insensitive. If a company is mismanaged or isn't making products people want to buy, bankruptcy needs to happen and the capital should be taken over. Some (not all) jobs will be preserved.

Quote :

"It was paid back, with interest, in less than half the amount of time they were given. It was a fantastic investment that many idiots are still sore about. However, the real thing that saved the companies was declaring bankruptcy and giving the middle finger to the greedy UAW."

And they're still making shitty cars. What's your point? Again, I too can make money if you give me money.

^You're calling me shortsighted? What a joke. All you can do is point to a government supported enterprise and say, "Look, we gave them money, and it worked! They used the money! Gotcha, bitches!" I mean, this is exactly what you do when we're talking about banks and treasury. "Hey, we gave money to the banks, now they have money!"

Quote :

"No, they didn't. Ford would have been completely fucked if their supplier chain had gone down."

So you're asserting here that, without the bailouts, the capital would have been thrown away and not liquidated. Got it.

[Edited on January 19, 2012 at 3:48 PM. Reason : ]

1/19/2012 3:46:55 PM

Not everyone can move to China

1/19/2012 4:02:43 PM

Quote :

"It was paid back, with interest, in less than half the amount of time they were given."

Ummm, no it wasn't.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/27/gms-phony-bailout-payback

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/02/nyt-gm-treasury-lied-about-bailout-repayment/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39210297/ns/business-autos/t/gm-bailout-repayment-could-take-years/#.TxiEh4FciWQ

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/2/watchdog-questions-gm-bailout-repayment/?page=all

They've basically shuffled money around several times. They repaid the $6.7b cash loan back with different government monies held in escrow. Imagine paying off one credit card with another and declaring yourself debt free. We, the people, still also own about $40b in GM stock purchased by the gov. as part of the bailout deal which they still need to sell or buyback.

[Edited on January 19, 2012 at 4:05 PM. Reason : quote]

1/19/2012 4:05:34 PM

Quote :

"And they're still making shitty cars. What's your point? Again, I too can make money if you give me money."

Where is your data to support this other than your own personal opinion and dogged desire to be right about something that were clearly wrong about. If GM still made shitty cars, they'd still be in big trouble. Instead, they are making money and selling more cars than ever. Sure, most of those are cheap compact cars, but they are reliable and fuel efficient. The exact same formula that made the Japanese and Korean car companies successful. Just admit you were wrong. You have nothing supporting your view except ridged ideology. The facts are all against you.

[Edited on January 19, 2012 at 4:11 PM. Reason : :]

1/19/2012 4:07:05 PM

Consumers and investors say they suck ass. Here's a great little data tidbit... in its 10 weeks on the market in 2011 the Prius V wagon (just that version, not the Prius overall) outsold the Chevy Volt for all of 2011.

And yes, while GM did move the most units this year, it did so in large part as a result of significant production decreases in Japan due to natural disasters. They also did it without being particularly profitable in comparison to their competition.

Really the only positive thing GM has going for it is sales growth in China, which is not insignificant, but is still probably not enough to keep it financially healthy without taxpayers taking a bath on the huge chunk of ownership we have in them (GM stock would have to more than double in order for taxpayers to break even).

[Edited on January 19, 2012 at 4:21 PM. Reason : adfsf]

[Edited on January 19, 2012 at 4:26 PM. Reason : sff]

1/19/2012 4:18:50 PM

^^i'm too lazy to look, but were you so gung ho about the financial industry bailouts?

[Edited on January 19, 2012 at 4:19 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2012 4:19:06 PM

Quote :

"Really the only positive thing GM has going for it is sales growth in China, which is not insignificant, but is still probably not enough to keep it financially healthy without taxpayers taking a bath on the huge chunk of ownership we have in them (GM stock would have to more than double in order for taxpayers to break even)."

They've shown sales growth in all regions where they operate, and they've gained market share. Most of all, they are actually profitable. Many times in the past, GM has held the top sales spot but wasn't profitable. The fact they are doing both now shows a pretty dramatic shift.

^Yeah, I was pretty gung ho in that they were necessary in keeping the entire global economy from collapsing. Ideally though, they should have been carried out in an identical manner to the GM bailout, namely forcing the banks to breakup and restructure. Unfortunately, Bush was President when that all went down, not Obama.

1/19/2012 4:29:47 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, I was pretty gung ho in that they were necessary in keeping the entire global economy from collapsing"

Although I disagree, I was pleasantly surprised with your consistency,

Quote :

"Unfortunately, Bush was President when that all went down, not Obama."

then back to reality.

1/19/2012 4:33:41 PM

http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/20/president-obama-lets-loose-with-some-al-green/?hpt=hp_bn4

love him or hate him, you gotta admit this is pretty fucking awesome

1/20/2012 2:15:41 PM

Quote :

"Does anyone still want to argue that the auto bailouts were not only unnecessary, but a failure as well?"

jesus, you going on this schtick again? it wasn't enough to unload your BS in another thread where you were thoroughly embarassed multiple times, including the time where you didn't know what moral hazard was. no, now you've got to come into another thread and parrot the same falsehoods.

Quote :

"do a Google Image Search of Gary, Indiana, and you'll understand the result of letting a City's main employer die."

Meh, Gary, Indiana was a dump even when Harold Hill didn't attend school there

Quote :

" Unfortunately, Bush was President when that all went down, not Obama."

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

someone needs to do a little research and learn that half of the bailouts were overseen by Bush and the other half by Obama. cognitive dissonance must be a bitch for you. then again, I do remember you jizzing over the bailouts in another thread on here. maybe we can fix your screwed up memory on this, too

[Edited on January 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM. Reason : ]

1/20/2012 2:27:04 PM

People who hate Obama couldn't even say "Killing OBL was awesome" without adding 15 caveats so good luck with that

1/20/2012 2:28:17 PM

maybe that's because there's more to say about it than just "killing OBL was awesome." call me crazy, but I'd put a hell of a caveat on running such a raid in another nation without that nation's approval.

1/20/2012 2:36:43 PM

meh, he's certainly a better alternative than Gingrich and Santorum

1/20/2012 2:41:56 PM

Quote :

"People who hate Obama couldn't even say "Killing OBL was awesome" without adding 15 caveats so good luck with that"

Yes, only people who hate Obama had disagreements with that operation.

1/20/2012 2:42:56 PM

The way Osama bin Laden died was very good for America.

1/20/2012 2:48:04 PM

Well, you sure changed my mind with that argument.

1/20/2012 2:53:22 PM

Quote :

"jesus, you going on this schtick again? it wasn't enough to unload your BS in another thread where you were thoroughly embarassed multiple times, including the time where you didn't know what moral hazard was. no, now you've got to come into another thread and parrot the same falsehoods."

You mean the thread where you offered absolutely no factual evidence to refute my claims? The thread where your only argument in the face of a mountain of facts supporting my view was "the bailouts were bad cuz....." followed by nonsense, just like you're doing here? That thread? How about you actually address my points, backed by facts, concerning the irrefutable success of the auto bailouts instead of just making an ass of yourself and regurgitating the same intellectually disingenuous nonsense you always do. Of course you won't , because you've proven time and time again that you are wholly incapable of any intelligent discourse, either by choice, or due to a lack of the required mental capacity.

Quote :

"someone needs to do a little research and learn that half of the bailouts were overseen by Bush and the other half by Obama. cognitive dissonance must be a bitch for you. then again, I do remember you jizzing over the bailouts in another thread on here. maybe we can fix your screwed up memory on this, too"

Bush gave GM $13 billion dollars with no strings attached. Literally the worst kind of bailout possible that true conservatives should loath. Obama didn't give them another dime until they agreed to adopt his administrations restructuring plan. No cognitive dissonance here. Do you even know what that means?

As a side note, I typed this whole post on my iPhone, showing that it only takes one finger to effectively debate this clown.

[Edited on January 20, 2012 at 3:01 PM. Reason : :]

1/20/2012 2:55:56 PM

Quote :

"http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/20/president-obama-lets-loose-with-some-al-green/?hpt=hp_bn4 love him or hate him, you gotta admit this is pretty fucking awesome"

err...no

1/20/2012 3:34:23 PM

I can never tell if a politician is just pandering for votes or genuinely doing something cool. Probably a little of both in this case.

1/20/2012 3:42:56 PM

Quote :

" Yes, only people who hate Obama had disagreements with that operation."

No, but the people who hated obama were the only ones who had disagreements with giving him an ounce of credit for it, or even went out of their way to credit Bush.

[Edited on January 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM. Reason : .]

1/20/2012 4:27:36 PM

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/205413-obama-administration-orders-health-plans-to-cover-birth-control-without-co-pays

I don't agree with this in principle. But, hey, if it prevents some more stupid Americans from breeding, myself included, we'll probably be better off.

1/20/2012 4:49:40 PM

Quote :

"You mean the thread where you offered absolutely no factual evidence to refute my claims?"

no, I mean the thread where every single one of your claims was shown to be factually incorrect. go reread it. there was an update recently showing that, surprise surprise, your numbers were fucking bogus. like everyone else said from the beginning.

Quote :

"How about you actually address my points, backed by facts, concerning the irrefutable success of the auto bailouts instead of just making an ass of yourself and regurgitating the same intellectually disingenuous nonsense you always do."

because someone else has already debunked your nonsense, yet again. throw enough money at just about anyone and they'll produce something. doesn't mean it was a good use of money or even the best way to have accomplished it.

Quote :

"Bush gave GM $13 billion dollars with no strings attached. Literally the worst kind of bailout possible that true conservatives should loath. Obama didn't give them another dime until they agreed to adopt his administrations restructuring plan. No cognitive dissonance here. Do you even know what that means?"

move those goalposts. I quoted you talking about the bank bailouts. you know. the ones where half dubya, half Obama. like I said? damn, you suck at this. might wanna pull those other fingers out of your ass and use them; couldn't hurt

[Edited on January 20, 2012 at 5:08 PM. Reason : ]

1/20/2012 5:08:01 PM

Quote :

"no, I mean the thread where every single one of your claims was shown to be factually incorrect. go reread it. there was an update recently showing that, surprise surprise, your numbers were fucking bogus. like everyone else said from the beginning."

Ummm, no it didn't. You dumb fucks were just so quick to jump the gun and say "gotcha!!" that you didn't even read the article. I guess I'll go ahead and show you why you're wrong here though..

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-229

Quote :

" OFS also reported that from inception through September 30, 2011, the incurred cost of TARP transactions was $28 billion. Although Treasury regularly reports on the cost of TARP programs and has enhanced such reporting over time, GAO’s analysis of Treasury press releases about specific programs indicate that information about estimated lifetime costs and income are included only when programs are expected to result in lifetime income. For example, Treasury issued a press release for its bank investment programs, including CPP, and noted that the programs would result in lifetime income, or profit. However, press releases for investments in AIG, a program that is anticipated to result in a lifetime cost to Treasury, did not include program-specific cost information. "

No bogus numbers and no evidence that anything I posted wasn't factual. All they are saying is that the treasury's press releases only talked about the individual TARP programs that are expected to return a profit. Like bank bailouts for example, which was what that entire thread was about. Nothing the GAO put in that report shows that the treasury was lying about their profitability. Sorry, you're still wrong and you STILL CAN'T READ.

Quote :

"because someone else has already debunked your nonsense, yet again. throw enough money at just about anyone and they'll produce something. doesn't mean it was a good use of money or even the best way to have accomplished it."

Obama didn't just "throw money" at it though. That's what Bush did. Obama actually forced them to take actions that resulted in their returning to profitability. I know, it's hard for you to swallow, because it would require conceding that a "community organizer" was able to run a company more efficiently and achieve better results than it's private management was able to muster over the better part of a decade. It shakes your ideology to it's very core, which is why you'll never accept it.

Quote :

"the ones where half dubya, half Obama."

Citation please? I've already shown that every goddamn thing you've posted about the bank bailouts have been utter horseshit, so I'm going to require some sort of evidence anytime you post anything else about the subject.

1/20/2012 6:47:27 PM

Hey, everybody!

Take Shrike Srsly, guyz!

1/20/2012 6:54:35 PM