According to the article linked below and others I have read, the two of the three auto makers who will be receiving these emergency loans will be required to either show a viable plan for their industries by March 31, 2009, or face repayment of the loans. While I agree with the premise of this requirement, I have to wonder if, given the amount of time that it took them to get into this situation in the first place, will 3 months, more or less, be enough time for them to find a way to save their dying companies? Is this bailout/loan just a temporary fix to a more permanent problem? What happens, if on 03/31/2009, the automakers have spent the money fronted them, are unable to come up with a plan to satisfy the stipulations, and can not repay the loan? Is it fair for taxpayers to bear the burden of this as well as the other bailouts that have been given and are likely yet to come?
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database It isn't just how she talks. s/m
Doggone it I talk just like her. LOL She doesn't put herself forward (IMO) as being a person of great substance. She is the "pit bull with lipstick." Aside from the fact that she doesn't seem to know a lot about Russia, she just doesn't come across (to me) as being very intelligent. Alaska has a pretty small population. I don't care about her inexperience. I do care about the "troopergate," which it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know she would do whatever was within her power to come to the aid of her sister, wouldn't you? I would. Especially if it involved a custody battle involving my nieces and nephews. She says she was cleared of any wrongdoing and that is just not exactly true. So I don't care if she DID try to get her ex-brother-in-law fired, just don't lie about it. All I hear her do is rail against Obama, nothing about what she and her running mate are going to do to improve this country. So if she has any level of intelligence I wish she would display it. I for one would still be willing to listen.
Even Obama talks about God a lot.
Not just republicans, folks! Religion and politics go hand in hand.
As anywhere else...money talks.
do you have any idea of the combined wealth of Buffet and Soros? Keep sipping.
And almost every job that Obama talks
about being created by this stimulus package is being created by a special project which means a temporary job. How long will that last? then what? Will that money be paid back by the time the project is completed? Of course, most projects are not creating any jobs.
Money talks
Only when the other networks see that unbiased reporting pays will anything like fair reporting be considered. Maybe not even then; today's *journalists* are such a direct product of leftist journalism professors. I doubt we could field a large enough team of non-liberal reporters to staff any network in addition to Fox.
Methinks we have another one who talks to himself...
.
When BO Talks, markets tank.
Some people would call this a "trend.”
Rush Limbaugh is the Obama Presidency place holder for Clinton's Iranian Asprin Factory, only this time the folks getting screwed are We the People, not the “woman in the blue dress.”
I can't help but think that the Bumbling Buffoon with the Teleprompter is laughing all the way to his goal of ruining America and setting himself up as our Dear Leader.If BO is a 'puppet' and an “empty suit,” who has his hand up his backside?
If the Birth Certificate is irrelevant, why is BO spending over $800,000 and countless lawyers having it “sealed” along with his school records?
If BO is so “eloquent,” why does he need a teleprompter for a news conference? Is he interested in filling in for Tom Brokaw?
The most honest thing to come from Obama: "I will stand with the Muslims.”
It appears that being President is also above Obama's pay grade.
You're like a talking doll - braaaaaak - Bush caused katrina. braaaaaaaak - Bush made unqualified losers default on their morgages. braaaaaaaa - Bush can't walk on water.
So boring listening to you Obots jabber the same worn out phrases over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amid record oil prices and soaring gasoline costs, Exxon Mobil's $400 million retirement package to its former CEO is a shameful display of greed that should be reviewed by Congress and investigated by federal regulators, Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record) said on Tuesday.
Dorgan said he wants Exxon Mobil officials to appear at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing to explain how the corporation justifies giving its former boss, Lee Raymond, such a huge retirement package.
There can be no more compelling evidence that the price gouging and market manipulation which has produced record oil prices is out of control, and is working to serve the forces of individual greed and corporate gluttony at the painful expense of millions of American consumers, Dorgan said.
Dorgan's criticism of Raymond's financial package came on the same day that U.S. crude oil prices hit a record high of more than $71 a barrel at the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Higher crude oil prices are helping to push of up gasoline costs. The Energy Department reported prices jumped 10 cents over the last week to a national average of $2.78 a gallon, up 55 cents from a year ago.
President George W. Bush said on Tuesday he was concerned about the impact high gasoline prices were having on families and businesses.
Exxon earned the wrath of many lawmakers when it reported more than $36 billion in profits last year as energy prices paid by consumers soared.
Dorgan said he will push to win passage of his legislation that would impose a windfall profits tax on big oil companies and rebate that money to consumers, unless the companies used their earnings to explore for and produce more energy.
I think a sensible public policy would insist that the big oil companies either invest those windfall profits in things that will increase our own domestic energy supplies, or we should return some of that money to consumers, Dorgan said.
Using them to drop $400 million dollars in the pocket of a big oil executive is simply unacceptable, he added.
Exxon Mobil has defended Raymond's retirement package, saying it was pegged to the rise in the company's profit and market capitalization that occurred during his tenure.
I'm also going to give those people who don't work for a living, or pay into the system, a $500 check too.
Oh, did I forget to mention.....
You're going to owe the govt. $10,000 in taxes, once I can get away with asking you all to foot the bill for my stimulus package.
Stimulus plan...the short version....no one talks about....
Obama: My trillion dollar stimulus package, very dire, we must do something NOW, right now, before it gets worse. Therefore I'm going to......
I'm going to give you a one-time $500 check.
I'm also going to give those people who don't work for a living, or pay into the system, a $500 check too.
Oh, did I forget to mention.....
You're going to owe the U.S. govt. $10,000 in taxes, once I can get away with asking you all to foot the bill for my stimulus package.
Mr. Dean talks thought the mouth of a horse
Yeah, like anything he has to say is valuable. This is the guy who screamed out all those states - HEEEEE-YAWWWWWW?
Mr. Dean is a spiteful crat to the bone and did not do his job properly. He didn't stand on the side of the people, who stood with the big money people.
If he's going to call anyone a murderer he best go back to Billy boy himself with those wars he started that he had no place involving the US troops. Lots of innocent people were slaughtered because of him back then and no he did not follow the Geneva code.
Stimulus plan...the short version (fine print)....no one talks about....
Obama: My trillion dollar stimulus package, very dire, we must do something NOW, right now, before it gets worse. (I can sell anything...just tell me what to say.....) Therefore I'm going to......
I'm going to give you a one-time $500 check.
I'm also going to give those people who don't work for a living, or pay into the system, a $500 check too.
Oh, did I forget to mention.....
Each one of you taxpayers are going to owe the U.S. govt. $10,000 in taxes, once I can get away with asking you all to foot the bill for my stimulus package. (2 years down the line or so.....when we have to become fiscally responsible)
Built into this plan, which is very complex, are social programs for schools, which are going down fast, health aid, food stamps for those who have lost their jobs and need to eat while looking for new jobs that Obama is tring to create, funds to build companies to work with alternative energy and green solutions to get us less dependent on foreign oil and stop poisoning our earth.....
There is no quick fix!!! Just like the Great Depression, it is going to take time to reap all the benefits from this package, but they are meant to be real, lasting jobs and benefits to our society, not a quick boo-boo bandaide,which is all that Bush could provide with his quickie tax rebates!!!! Take off the jaundiced glasses and blinders, forget party lines and affiliations, and just go to MSN or CNN and read the copious outlines there.
Annan Urges U.S.-Iran Direct Talks in Atomic Dispute (Update3)...sm
Annan Urges U.S.-Iran Direct Talks in Atomic Dispute (Update3)
May 12 (Bloomberg) -- United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan today said the U.S. needs to follow up on Iranian offers of direct negotiations in order to resolve peacefully their dispute over the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.
``I've asked all sides to lower their rhetoric and intensify their diplomatic efforts to find a solution,'' Annan said at a briefing in Vienna. ``I think it's important that the United States comes to the table.''
The U.S. has let French, German and U.K. diplomats lead talks with Iran over the atomic dispute. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, at a meeting of the Developing Eight group of Islamic countries in Indonesia, said Iran is ready for direct talks and will comply with any UN decision on its atomic program based on international rules. A U.S. State Department spokesman in Vienna declined to comment.
The U.K. and France, backed by the U.S., have proposed a resolution under Chapter 7 of the United Nations charter to compel Iran to stop its nuclear work. A Chapter 7 resolution can invoke economic sanctions or military force against ``any threat to the peace'' of other countries. Iran says it's developing nuclear technology to generate power, while the U.S. and European countries accuse Iran of trying to develop atomic weapons.
China and Russia, veto-wielding members of the Security Council, oppose a Chapter 7 resolution for Iran.
Iran's Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency said he didn't have any information about an Agence France-Presse report that inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium in his country.
Uranium Particles
``I haven't been informed of any such findings,'' Aliasghar Soltanieh said in a telephone interview.
Particles of weapons-grade uranium came from sample swipes that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors took at the Lavizan-Shian site in Tehran, where a physics research center was dismantled and topsoil removed in 2004 after suspicions were raised about activities there, AFP said.
The IAEA reported to the Security Council on April 28 that inspectors took environmental samples at suspected nuclear sites in their most recent visit to Iran. The samples were to undergo testing for uranium particles at IAEA laboratories. IAEA spokespeople declined to comment.
The Iranians won't ``put everything on the table'' until the U.S. joins the European-led negotiations, Annan said. Negotiations should be around a ``comprehensive package'' including economic and regional security concerns, he said.
`Engaged in Dialogue'
Annan's call for direct talks between Iran and the U.S. followed those of Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA. ``Once we get to security issues, the U.S. should be engaged in the dialogue,'' ElBaradei said March 8.
The Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany will meet in London May 19 to consider new incentives for Iran to renounce its atomic program, AFP reported, citing unidentified diplomats. The permanent five are the U.S., U.K., France, Russia and China.
The U.S. and Iran broke off diplomatic relations in 1979 after Islamic revolutionaries overthrew the government of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and kept 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Jonathan Tirone in Vienna at jtirone@bloomberg.net
Your refusal to pull your head out of the sand, in my opinion, regarding what will happen makes any further discussion of this issue futile. Hope the sand protects your little head when all heck breaks loose.
why do we have to continue with what others before
did wrong?
Tit-for-tat and 2 wrongs doesn't make anything right.
Obama is a very promising and respectable 44th President of the United States of America and if you do not see that, I feel very sorry for you.
and yet you continue...
to slander everyone on this board who doesn't agree with you.
I will continue to care for the little guy
Well, you go ahead and defend big corporations and the rich..frankly, they could not care about you one bit. I will continue to care for the middle class, the poor, the disadvantaged.
Why must you continue to post?
Nah, just someone who cannot imagine why a neocon dinosaur who knows she/he is not wanted or needed on the liberal board would continue to post.
go ahead...continue...
....being rude.
Life's too short to be so full of hate, directed at every member of the opposite viewpoint.
But as you say, the silence is deafening....maybe you need a hearing aid??
Not what I said. Just wondering why we continue getting
and not a single person can stop and show a bit more humanity....that's all.
And I suppose you would rather we continue...(sm)
to run that torture chamber in Guantanamo. Yeah, that would be the one where they can hold supposed SUSPECTS for how long without trial? Maybe you should rent the documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side."
Not that I feel I need to continue.... sm
this seemingly endless and mindless banter, but rather to just satisfy your apparent thirst for blood, I went back and looked to see what I had posted that I felt the need to apologize for. Here is the post that I made to abc that sent her off into a tizzy about it being her body and her embryo, etc.
""And I prefer an abortion to giving up my baby for adoption. I would not be able to sleep a single night, having given my baby to strangers." (Note: This was a quote from abc that I was addressing. )
But you could sleep knowing that you took your baby's life? I am not trying to criticize but simply trying to understand this line of reasoning. " (This was my answer to her quote.)
Now..... go cool off!
Why can't I continue to discuss
You all carry on about Obama's palling around (re: believing things that simply cannot be substantiated), but you sure can't take it when someone turns around and comments on your precious heroine. How very sad for all of you who hold this vapid, undereducated, unqualified, power hungry example of hollow charm in such high esteem. Perhaps we should be discussing your judgment instead of hers.
Why do you continue to ask "where" when you have
=>
Obama will continue to act like he did regarding
nm
and the personal attacks continue Go ahead continue to talk about which you know nothing about
Go ahead, then, continue to talk about what you know nothing about other than news reports and slanted history books and we, who truly know a bit more about jewish issues and Israel will sit back and continue to smile and, of course, like I said in my previous post, there are always courses in the local synagogue that you can take. Join a jewish discussion group either in the net or in your home town, that is if your home town even has a jew in it, and learn the truth. Not what is being put out there by radical orthodox jews. Those are the ones that you see fighting in Israel to stay in Gaza. The radical orthodox jews. Sharon, as much as I dont like him, is right in what he has decided. It is unfortunate but it is just and right.
The gullible continue to hit themselves with hammers.
It's really amazing to see. In the first place, Bush's tax cuts mainly affected investment income. Do you think the ultra wealthy 1% do 9 to 5 at Burger King and report their wages like the rest of us working slobs? Please. They don't have wages and so, do not even contribute to the Social Security coffers (though that doesn't stop them from accepting huge chunks of OUR hard-earned money in Bush free for all tax refund giveaways). Bush took OUR money and gave it to his friends - and himself, by the way.
But here's the real story without the skewed numbers (excerpt):
Grossly Unfair: Evaluating the Bush Proposal
By Ron Sider, President
Evangelicals for Social Action
It is true that the wealthy pay a lot more taxes than others. But even though the Treasury Department reports that the top one percent pay only 20 percent of all federal taxes, Bush wants to give them 40 percent of the tax cut. The bottom 40 percent get only four percent of Bush’s tax cut—i.e., about 1/9 of what the richest one percent receive. The bottom 80 percent receive only 29 percent.
The more closely you look at what has been happening in the last few decades, the more outrageous this 40 percent tax cut for the richest one percent appears. The income of the top one percent has grown vastly more that the rest of the population. From 1989 to 1998, the after-tax income of the bottom 90 percent grew by only five percent, but the richest one percent enjoyed a 40 percent jump. That means the income of the top one percent grew eight times faster than the bottom 90 percent. (That explosion of after-tax income happened even though President Clinton and Congress raised the highest income tax rate to 39.6 percent in 1993—a small tax increase that apparently did not discourage investment, harm the economy or prevent the richest from significantly widening the gap between themselves and everybody else.) Furthermore, the total effect of changes in the tax laws between 1977 and 1998 has already lowered the federal tax payments of the top 17 percent of families by over 14 percent ($36,710) whereas the bottom 80 percent of families saw their average tax payments fall by just 6.9 percent ($335).
It gets still worse. President Bush says his plan is fair because it lowers the tax rates for everyone. In fact, the poorest 31.5 percent of all families do not get a cent from Bush’s proposal (even though 80 percent of them are working) because their incomes are so low they do not pay any federal income taxes. (They do pay substantial payroll taxes, but the tax cut does not change that.) More than half of all black and Latino children are in families that would not benefit a cent from this plan.
Abolishing the estate tax is also wrong. Of course it needs to be revised so that children can inherit family farms and small businesses (that would cost only a fraction of what abolishing it will cost). When fully implemented in 2010, the repeal of the estate tax would provide a mere 64,000 estates with a tax cut of $55 billion—which is the same amount that the poorest 74 percent of all U.S. families (192 million people) would receive in tax cuts.
Abolishing the estate tax is misguided for several reasons. It would discourage charitable giving and thus undermine civil society. Wealthy individuals today can avoid estate taxes on wealth they give to charitable organizations. Consequently, abolishing the estate tax would almost certainly reduce charitable giving to a vast array of private agencies., including precisely the private, non-profit social service agencies in civil society that President Bush (wisely) wants to strengthen and expand. His proposal on the estate tax fundamentally contradicts his desire to expand the role of civil society in general and FBOs in particular in combating poverty—which is why John Dilulio, the head of Bush’s new White House Office on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, recently criticized abolishing the estate tax. Fortunately, some of the wealthiest Americans (including Bill Gates’ father) have launched a campaign to preserve the estate tax!
The whole article can be read at www.christianethics.com, issue 35.
Don't let anybody be misled by the sneaky claim that the rich pay oh so much more of the tax burden than you do. Say you make 30,000 and you pay 20% of your wages in taxes - 6000. Along comes rich guy who makes no wages but has to pay 20% of his 3 million investment income in taxes - he would pay 600,000.
Oh my God!!! The rich guy has just paid 600,000 and you only paid 6000! He paid 100 TIMES what you did!! Oh the poor, poor overburdened rich guy! That's how they devise their 80-90% figures. Never mind about fair share, never mind that you are paying taxes on wages that would otherwise go to rent and food and utility costs, while they are paying taxes on free money they get just for having huge sums of money invested wisely, as the rich certainly know how to do. And why shouldn't they? But let's not pretend they need that money for food or shelter. Let's not pretend that they should be in any way exempt from contributing a fair share to the system that makes their happy lifestyles possible.
Before you continue with your generalization rampage
William Bennett's remarks are definitely NOT representative of conservative views as a whole. However, you and GT's comments do nothing...absolutely nothing but make the division between political views that much worse. If you and your ideology truly want unity and peace you would do the cause much good by not adding gasoline to an already bad bonfire.
Not unlike Bush, who wants to have world domination, you want to dominate all boards here.
Accidents are exused. There's no reason on earth to excuse you.
I don't think it serves any purpose to continue this. sm
Suffice it to say, I can't imagine how I would feel were I in his shoes. Israel is facing some pretty terrible prospects in the days ahead. Anyway, I'd say it's time to let it drop. It's funny, as I am posting this, I see over to the side on the right under the ads by Google, Christian Jewish tours. I have always wanted to go. I have friends who have gone with their churches. I may never get the chance.
You continue to prove my point. (nm)
nm
oh yea, continue the horrors for the victim
Yes, make sure the mother has the baby of the person that raped her. Make sure she goes on for nine months every minute of the day remembering the horrible incident. A lot of rape victims want to commit suicide. Luckily most of them are able to get through it with counseling but most of them don't have a belly to show. But hey, let that belly get bigger. Let her feel the child of the person that committed the horendous crime and violated her body. Make sure she remembers that. Geez - why not just frame the rapists photo so she can see his picture every day. Then the cherry on the cake will be the actual birth when she can once again see the rapist once her baby is born.
And then we have the wonderful knowledge that a lot of times these tendencies are hereditary (not always but a lot of times). Would you want to raise a rapists child knowing that when he/she becomes an adult the likelihood of them committing the same crime against someone else is there.
Oh yes that's a nice 20-year sentance for the victim.
Good. Let the games continue. nm
nm
While you continue to preach to the choir
su
you continue to minimize the gravity of this...
situation. This is not your normal "crisis" for the love of Pete. Whatever McCain has done on deregulation, and I already said he had been for it, when push came to shove, when this looming disaster was foreseen, it was HE who foresaw it, and it was Obama, Dodd, and Frank who ignored everyone, and not only that, ENCOURAGED them to continue the way they were going.
THAT is the point, THAT is what you ignore, and because ou are so enamoured of Barack Obama you do not hold his feet to the fire for his part in this, nor the Democratic party for this.
In THIS issue, NO. The Republicans did NOT have a part in it. They all voted, every single ONE Of them, to push that legislation forward. All the Democrats, eVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, voted not to. That includes Obama and Biden.
Why on EARTH would you trust him as President? I just don't get it.
I'd rather leap into the unknown, than continue
Republican government. We all KNOW we'll lose our shirts with them. It'll be 'business as usual' with those old fossils. At least with some new blood in office, some of us (who AREN'T corporate CEO's) will stand half a snowball's chance in H___ of survival in the future.
Unlike past elections, which I voted in on ideals alone, this one is different. Lots of us are voting SURVIVAL.
For those that want to continue to live in the dark
I do not care to do that. As a democrat, I have watched this man whom so many think will be their saving grace. This man was raised Muslim, is Muslim through and through, and only went Christian on us after he came here and started attending Rev Wright's church.
He is very careful about skirting around questions posed to him. He has never been able to prove US citizenship...refuses to put forth a legitimate birth certificate proving it, and is now facing a suit to hopefully force him to prove just that. I am not so easily led as some O lovers.
I have a close friend in Atlanta, GA, who is an aware winning journalist. This is where one of the most recent honor killings took place. As all campaigns are questioned when something important surfaces, they want to know how the candidate feels about certain things. Well, knowing Obama is Muslim by birth and upbringing, this question was posed out of Georgia to his camp, who would not give a straight answer. They refused to let Obama speak to this. They went round and round the question, but wouldn't even come out and say he would condemn such things. Not even a condemnation of these acts.
Gallup has Obama at his lowest numbers in their polling at 58% approval (down from a high of 69%) and his approval index remains low at +1 on Rasmussen. The approval index is computed as the difference between those who strongly approve minus those who strongly disapprove.
And, both pollsters say that the difference is the growing disenchantment of independents. Republicans and Democrats have held fairly steady opinions, although some Dems are also beginning to have buyer's remorse.
ABC News is going to try to pull Obama's fat out of the fire on healthcare by turning the whole network over to the White House while allowing no dissenting views (bananas, senorita? we have some berry, berry nice fruits here in Banano Republico), but it's safe to predict that it won't work.
Meanwhile, Obama is spending more time denouncing Fox News than Kim Jong IL or the ruling clerics in Iran - and meanwhile Fox viewership continues to grow and grow and grow. None of his folks will come on Fox, of course, so yes - you do hear the faint sound of chickens clucking in the background.
The longer this man is in office, the more cracks we see in his character (i.e., that it really didn't matter to us which Iranian candidate was declared the winner, which betrayed a singular lack of commitment to the principles of democracy) and the more his inexperience shows (i.e., that he doesn't realize that the American people don't want anymore of his programs and spending).
I think that this is the fastest I've ever seen an American public grow sick and tired of a President. The best thing for him to do would be to keep his ugly mug off the TV right now. If he rotates his czars out in front of the camera, one a week, we wouldn't have to look at him for months and months.
Gallup has Obama at his lowest numbers in their polling at 58% approval (down from a high of 69%) and his approval index remains low at +1 on Rasmussen. The approval index is computed as the difference between those who strongly approve minus those who strongly disapprove.
And, both pollsters say that the difference is the growing disenchantment of independents. Republicans and Democrats have held fairly steady opinions, although some Dems are also beginning to have buyer's remorse.
ABC News is going to try to pull Obama's fat out of the fire on healthcare by turning the whole network over to the White House while allowing no dissenting views (bananas, senorita? we have some berry, berry nice fruits here in Banano Republico), but it's safe to predict that it won't work.
Meanwhile, Obama is spending more time denouncing Fox News than Kim Jong IL or the ruling clerics in Iran - and meanwhile Fox viewership continues to grow and grow and grow. None of his folks will come on Fox, of course, so yes - you do hear the faint sound of chickens clucking in the background.
The longer this man is in office, the more cracks we see in his character (i.e., that it really didn't matter to us which Iranian candidate was declared the winner, which betrayed a singular lack of commitment to the principles of democracy) and the more his inexperience shows (i.e., that he doesn't realize that the American people don't want anymore of his programs and spending).
I think that this is the fastest I've ever seen an American public grow sick and tired of a President. The best thing for him to do would be to keep his ugly mug off the TV right now. If he rotates his czars out in front of the camera, one a week, we wouldn't have to look at him for months and months.
And didn't you say you were going to Iraq, as well? I think you'd be an incredible asset to Bush in Iraq. If you were there, we could win the war immediately. All you have to do is spread your word to the enemy. After five minutes of listening to your skewed logic, they'd turn the weapons on themselves. Masters of surprise terror attacks that they are, this would be a wonderful surprise tactic to use on them.
It doesn't work here any more, though. The only thing that would surprise some of us is if you actually told the truth about something.
marks the location of current message within thread
