Spanky, stop confusing the facts - mixing and matching non-related issues to make your point. e.g. TARP was BUSH/Paulson - not Obama, although he supported it - just like I support it too...

Also, don't forget, Romney also wanted to GM to go bankrupt and then wrote an Op-ed about it....so he was for it before he was against it. LOL.

And to Romney: "Put a sock in it, I think you should be more worried about Gingrich than Obama... cos at this rate you wont even get the nomination"...

GM did go bankrupt Tunde.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization

'adopted a lot of thoughts' from my campaign

That ought to go over well with those that already think he is a moderate. My guess he just lost a few more votes.

Additionally those that want zero tax on capital gains would be hard pressed to vote for a millionaire that would benefit greatly from that type of tax policy. Can't have someone in office who would be paying zero taxes that might expose their hypocrisy.

JoAnna.

There is a difference between the type of bankruptcy that GM went through with the governments support, and the type of bankruptcy that they would have had to go through without the governments support.

One, the one Obama picked, led to success. The other, the one Romney and the ignorant right wing picked, would have led to liquidation, and likely the collapse of the auto industry in this country.

Romney's position on the Auto companies, and it was the correct one, was to let the companies go through a managed bankruptcy without exposing the taxpayers with loans or bailouts.

In the end the government bought GM (Gave it to the Unions), and then it went through a manged bankruptcy anyway.

No rebublicants, there is not a difference. Except for the fact that the bond holders and tax payers got screwed andd the Unions made out like bandits.

Chrysler was given loans, which it quickly burned through, went through a managed bankruptcy anway, and Fiat bought a de-valued Chrysler.

Romney was right. No matter how the Left tries to spin it.

Gm filed for chapter 7?

Huh.

Guess Wiki got it wrong, eh republicants?

WCA -- You talk about a component of capitalism called destructive capitalism. Romney practices selective destructive capitalism. Remember he was in favor of bailing out the banks.

One, the one Obama picked, led to success.

Businesses get to be real successful when you bury $50 billion of the tax payers money into them and don't get it back, and when you stiff the creditors along with the vendors. Really helps the the bottom line. If only everyone could do so, you know, just to make it fair. You Libs like "fair" correct?

The other, the one Romney and the ignorant right wing picked, would have led to liquidation, and likely the collapse of the auto industry in this country.

How so? The other auto makers would have realized a growth in demand because of one smaller or gone competitor. The demand wouldn't have changed with GMs demise, it just would have been supplied by other makers.

Romney will actually be able to work with both sides of the isle. Obama has no track record working with both houses. Let's elect a better leader in 2012...

To the lot of yez here who are spinning and stretching out every Whopper you can:

Denial, self-delusion, and denial are terrible things.

Give folks a break. Stop misinforming them.

Spanky:

TARP wasn't Obama. You should know that by now. He helped implement a plan for the bank bailouts but the bailout was already funded when he took office. But the GM and Tarp bailouts have pretty much been repaid. And without them, a depression would have been far more likely. Tough calls - but when jobs are being lost at 700,000 to 800,000 a month when you take office and these things are on your plate, it is perhaps wiser to proactively head off the depression. Hoover didn't. Oops, but you want to harp on Solyndra and I didn't reply to that. How 'bout Solyndra was Obama's mulligan and Iraq was G.W. Bush's mulligan? (But, of course, W. needed many, many mulligans.) Let's see: half a billion vs. one trillion and 4500 dead soldiers. Gosh, I see why you're all exercised about Solyndra. Did you get upset about the 9 billion in cash (supposed bribe money) that the Bush Administration lost in Iraq (lost as in no clue and no records as to where it went). It was three large truckloads of $100 bills. Bigger than a breadbox.

i'm curious...how can any female vote republican? just following their husbands lead?

Whats more, how can anyone of any color vote for a republican? Any vote for a republican is to vote to raise your taxes while giving the richest more tax cuts.

Doing nothing and letting the bush tax cuts expire the deficit would be paid off by 2026, but the republicans like Romney and Gingrich want to make the bush tax cuts permanent and then give more tax cuts to the rich on top of that. Then you want us to believe that the republicans care about the deficit and how it is going to affect our grand-kids.

I am not quite sure why the republicans want to lead us back to near depression where bush left us. The rich 1%, the only ones the republicans care about, are doing fine but the rest of us didn't fair so well.

Romney only made 42 million in two years. He doesn't work, makes over $58,000 a day and thinks you should pay a higher tax rate than him. Vote for any republicans and that is exactly what will happen, your taxes will go up to pay for Mitt the 1% taxes, to go down.

White Collar Auto.

Your ignorance on this issue makes your name very ironic.

Romney is not right, and neither are you. GM and Chrysler would not have gone through a managed bankruptcy if not for the governments help. They would have been liquidated.

The reason? There was no one to finance a managed bankruptcy at the time, but the government. I realize many of you cable news parrots were not paying attention at the time, but credit was absolutely frozen....which is why the government had to step in.

Study up kids.

Spanker.

Your ignorance knows no end. Have you ever thought to look past what you were fed, just once?

GM would have had to file under chapter 7 if the government had not stepped in because without the government, there was no one to finance a chapter 11.

Why do you always blather on about things you know nothing about?

JoAnna.

Doubling down on your ignorance is something you have a penchant for...

Businesses get to be real successful when you bury $50 billion of the tax payers money into them and don't get it back, and when you stiff the creditors along with the vendors. Really helps the the bottom line. If only everyone could do so, you know, just to make it fair. You Libs like "fair" correct?

Estimates for the cost of bailing out GM depend on the stock value. However, no one buried $50 billion. The highest recent estimates put the cost around $24 billion. It is rather pathetic to watch all you blind, mindless drones jump through hoops of fire to avoid giving the adminstration credit for something that was an obvious success. Rather pathetic....

How so? The other auto makers would have realized a growth in demand because of one smaller or gone competitor. The demand wouldn't have changed with GMs demise, it just would have been supplied by other makers.

LOL!!! Is that the latest rationalization? Wow. You really don't EVER know what you are talking about, huh? Just a giant desperate crusade to continue the delusional reality you were fed...

There was a reason why Ford, who didn't take a bailout, testified that congress should help GM and Chrysler. If those two auto makers had gone under, so would have many of the suppliers, transporters, etc The same suppliers, transporters, etc. who supply Ford, Toyota, and other auto makers in the U.S. If those supporting industries had gone under, that would have decimated the auto industry in this country.

Study up.

P.S. Conservative know nothings.....

Some independent analysis on the auto bailout. Study up.

http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/bankruptcy.pdf

White Collar Auto (Irony? I think so...)

Romney was right. No matter how the Left tries to spin it.

Is that what you were told? LOL!!!

Start thinking for yourself. The bailout was a success, and it would not have been so without the government intervention. No matter how you were told to spin it.

UAW - good observation.

Repulicants...

your lack of intelligence and reasoning abilities is showing. So Jr, by your reasoning that it was government backing that saved GM how would you apply that same reasoning for when the government backed fannie and freddy or solyndra? BTW - GM stock will have to trade in the mid 50's for the US taxpayers to get their money back.

Rather than trying to support your deluded idealogy with strawman arguments why not just stick with what actually occured? OK junior?

Romney would do much better if he would stop trying to hide who he is and what his record was, including health care. Instead Romney thinks winning is all about the right amount of scuff on his shoes.

President Obama, on the other hand, faces Teapublican BS straight on, including saving the auto industry -- what little manufacturing we still have -- and Solyndra saying it's time to invest in renewable energy instead of Big Oil even if success isn't always guaranteed, because it is the future. And of course ya gotta love the president's comment about class warfare. Awesome.

Republicants,

have you bought your Chevy Volt yet?

Goverment managed idea from start to finish...

Burned through untold billions of tax dollars...for a lemon that burns though the garage.

Big success, the Volt.....for roasting marshmellows.

Bob,

With people like you around we would never have cell phones given the initial battery problems. Oh, and radiation, don’t forget the microwaves that destroy the brain cells.

Republicants, we both know that providing debtor in possession financing which the government could have done is much different than intruding into the bankruptcy plan process which the government did deciding who was going to come out as the new owner of GM. GM was making an operating profit prior to bankruptcy and by eliminating its debt clearly was successful afterwards.

Yo, Mutt, maybe it's the other way around.Maybe you "stole" some of Obama's ideas. No wait. Your health care plan came BEFORE Obama's.

american.

your lack of intelligence and reasoning abilities is showing. So Jr, by your reasoning that it was government backing that saved GM how would you apply that same reasoning for when the government backed fannie and freddy or solyndra? BTW - GM stock will have to trade in the mid 50's for the US taxpayers to get their money back.

LOL!! My lack of intelligent reasoning? No child, it is your collective delusion, and inability to think for yourself that is showing.

Had you, or the others, taken the time to research the issue, and not just blindly parroted what you were fed, you would have realised why GM needed the government in order to avoid a Chapter 7 liquidation. Without the government, there would have been no one to finance the bankruptcy.

And your lame deflection to Fannie and Freddie (which you are likely ignorant on) and Solyndra only highlights further your juvenile understanding of this issue. Study up child.

Rather than trying to support your deluded idealogy with strawman arguments why not just stick with what actually occured? OK junior?

LOL!!! I am supporting my argument....with facts.....and independent analysis kid. These facts and analysis support what actually occured, this administration saving the auto industry in the U.S. Study up child.

Booby.

Still haven't dropped the delusion yet, huh?

Still blindly parroting the crap you are fed, and deflecting from your ignorance.

Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb....

Kirk.

Republicants, we both know that providing debtor in possession financing which the government could have done is much different than intruding into the bankruptcy plan process which the government did deciding who was going to come out as the new owner of GM. GM was making an operating profit prior to bankruptcy and by eliminating its debt clearly was successful afterwards.

We also both know the auto bailout worked, and the right has issues with giving Obama credit for anything, so they do whatever they can to attempt to tarnish the success.

(And they look absolutely ridiculous doing so....)

TARP was Bush. It has been pretty much paid back, anyway.

Solyndra may not have panned out, but the policy is correct. No one can bat 1.000. (Ask Bush. On second thought, don't: He thought he did bat 1.000).

The auto company bailout worked.

Oh, and we're out of Iraq; Osama bin Laden is dead; we've successfully supported the overthrows of Mubarak and Qaddaffi; 32,000,000 people will soon have access to health care; and our economy has not been subject to the kinds of deep recession that has afflicted much of Europe. All this despite an opposition that put defeating the president ahead of the good of the country.

What more do you want?

If Romney had been president, there would be no American Auto Industry today. I don't think Obama stole Mitt's idea that it's better to let an entire industry collapse than to sully conservative ideology!

The comments regarding "no bailouts" refers to the financial industry: The financial industry is supposed to serve the economy, not be serviced by it.

Romney all the way !!! Put Obama and Romney next to each other. If this was a Job interview and the resume was put on the table, Romney will get the job, or maybe not (if he is overqualified) .

Romney 2012 !

Republicants--first of all, no one said that the government stepping in and providing financing didnt work, what people say is it didnt need to happen the way it did. You are completely wrong that in order to avoid chapter 7 liquidation, the government needed to step in. That shows your financial naive view of the world. Have you not paid attention to the real estate industry and every other lending maturity under this administration? Since GM was making an operating profit, there is zero chance it would have been liquidated. Nobody liquidates profitable companies, they reorganize its capital structure. The fact that it couldnt pay its debts and needed debtor in possession financing only means that the banks wouldnt have gotten paid and they would have had to extend and pretend no different than they have been doing for 3 years in the real estate industry.

I bet you are also one of those inexperienced youngsters who thinks because they can read they somehow are smarter than more knowledgable experienced people. You probably also think that Obama's comments regarding tax incentives for offshore international corporations was accurate and agree that we need to tax corporations more who do business overseas?

Kirk.

Actually, many people say the government stepping in didn't work. You may not have, but many others have.

I am not completely wrong that in order to avoid chapter 7 bankruptcy, the government had to stop in. The fact that you think they didn't, shows your naive view of the world, and your inability to think cognatively to come to your own conclusions.

There was no financing for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. None. Zip. Nada. Credit was frozen at the time, so the only way to avoid liquidation was for the government to step in and provide financing. Your blathering about operational profits and unsupported pontificating about there being zero chance the auto companies would have been liquidated is simply not supported by the facts, kid.

And your projecting about who or what I am. or what I think, only highlights your own ignorance, inexperience, naivete, and lack of knowledge about this issue. If you knew anything more then what you were fed, jr, you would not have to do so. You would be able to support your arguments...because they would be your arguments...that you came up with and thought through, rather then crap you went on a desperate search for in an effort to reinforce your ignorant, spoon fed delusional reality.

But just for the hell of it, lets take a look at what the independent analysis on the bailout shows:

"CAR’s May 26, 2009 memorandum produced estimates for two scenarios, as well: a quick, orderly Section 363 bankruptcy (which is what happened), and a drawn-out, disorderly bankruptcy proceeding leading to liquidation of the automakers."

"The difference between the two scenarios presented in CAR’s May 2009 memo represented the anticipated private and public benefits of avoiding the scenario of a bankruptcy liquidation of both General Motors and Chrysler."

"The "good bankruptcy" outcome was projected to have avoided a loss of 1.28 million jobs in 2009, and 267,300 in 2010. Personal income losses were expected to be $65.3 billion less in 2009, and $16.5 billion less in 2010. It was estimated that avoiding the worst case scenario provided a net government impact—in terms of changes in transfer payments, social security receipts and personal income tax receipts—of $25.8 billion in 2009 and $6.5 billion in 2010, a total of $32.3 billion."

"The May results estimated that the outcomes of the orderly bankruptcy proceedings would save 1.28 million jobs in 2009, while the current review estimates slightly lower job savings of 1.14 million jobs. For 2010, original estimates (of orderly bankruptcies vs. unsuccessful proceedings) were that 267,300 jobs would be saved, while the current review estimates that 314,400 jobs were preserved."

"Once Chrysler and GM emerged from their "orderly" bankruptcies, the growth of automotive sector employment has been strong, with 52,900 workers added since July 2009. Had GM and Chrysler not successfully emerged, those jobs would have been permanently lost."

"Providing government assistance to General Motors and Chrysler through quick and structured bankruptcy proceedings avoided the worst case scenario."

http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/bankruptcy.pdf

-------------------------

So study up, kid. Pull yourself away from the TV for a while, and see if you can start coming to your own conclusions, and not the ones fed to you sources like WSJ OPEDs, who are on a quest to deny reality, and find something...to daemonize the very successful auto bailout.

Wow. Just wow.

Sorry dude but I am an experienced lawyer CFO who has done this for a living forever. It has nothing to do with TV nor political views since I have voted for more democratic presidential candidates than GOP. I agree that providing government assistance certainly avoided the worst case scenario which you cite but in my opinion and most financially objective astute opinions by the way, the worst case scenario was beyond unlikely to happen. So lets play this out. No debtor in possession financing right? So the banks dont get paid the outstanding debt that was maturing and there wasnt enough operating profit to service all the interest and principle payments. What do you think happens? You really think the banks force a liquidation to get paid? Stop spewing nonsense. That was never going to happen. The banks would have either by court order through a chapter 11 process or through a work out because it was forced by lack of payment would have restructured the debt and equity. This is a stupid argument as GM was never going to be liquidated, just no chance of that happening. Obama stepping in to provide financing at a time there was no market for it was a good thing and he should take a bow. His interference in the bankruptcy process to provide a political payoff to the Unions was not necessary and wrong.

You are an obnoxious little twit that clearly has no real experience and knowledge.

LOL!! Unable to counter reality, and in the face of the independent analysis, the "experienced CFo lawyer" is reduced to calling me "an obnoxious little twit that clearly has no real experience and knowledge."

I am truely sorry the delusional reality you were fed left you so unprepared to defend your parroted position, jr.

There was a reason why Ford lobbied Congress to bailout GM and Chrysler when they did not need a bailout themselves. It was because their "experienced CFo lawyers" knew that without the government intervention, Chapter 7 bankruptcy and liquidation was very, very likely (almost assured), and not "beyond unlikely to happen." Your opinion, likely parroted from someplace like the WSJ OPED section, is contrary to the independent analysis, so it is quite obviously not true it was the "most financially objective astute opinions."

Let me explain to you again, "Mr. CFO", why the government had to step in. There was NO FINACING for a Chapter 11. None. Zip. Nada. This was not normal circumstances. Credit was absolutely frozen. The normal rules simply did not apply. This was not a normal bankruptcy and those were not normal circumstances. Obama was wise to tweek the process that GM and Chrysler went through. Obviously. Just look at the results.

So, you are obviously full of crap, dude, and have made it obvious you are simply trying to caveat a clear success with some partisan crap about the Unions and political payoffs. Stop spewing nonsense and trying to reinforce your political delusion.

BTW. Claiming to be something on the internet after making it obvious you know nothing about the topic that your experience was supposed to make you good at, suggests either you were very poor at what you did, or are completely full of Sh***t.

I think we're all beating around the "automotive" bush here: GM went bankrupt, because GM manufactures P.O.S. automobiles, probably in my humble opinion, because they spend too much time arguing about union entitlement, instead of building a quality freaking car.

I dont understand why you cant ever stay on topic and address the specific financial details that are provided to you. I could care less about your attempts to mock and try to diminish knowledge and experience through your condescending "parrot" rhetoric that just makes you sound like some college kid sitting in his bedroom with his mom yelling at him to get off the computer. Your inability to comprehend the basic financial information I provide you so you can try to spin facts in a manner that fits your political views is unfortunate for you.

You do this everytime and cant stay on point so lets try something different. Dont reply by spewing venom or parroting some thinkprogress blog you were reading but just reply to simple factual points. First, I agreed that the government provided debtor in possession financing when it wasnt available so we dont need to discuss that issue again, so if you can lets see if you can stay of the Ritalin for a second and stay on this exact point. So GM was making an operating profit correct? Do you really truly think that your so called worst case scenario that if the banks were not paid off or provided current interest and principal late 2008 and beginning of 2009, they would have forced a UCC foreclosure forcing GM to sell of assets and liquidate to pay its liabilities or would the banks have worked out a deal? If they had worked out a deal, would it have been a work out similar to a chapter 11 reorg or would they may have just extended the current debt to allow a work out? Moreover, in the event your worst case scenario happened and the assets needed to be sold to pay off the debt, do you really think a company with an operating profit and zero leverage wouldnt have been sold intact to some buyer which clearly would have kept the company operating. (New buyer may have changed the business model to be more efficient and would have likely been less union labor friendly but that is one of the reasons the government stepped in also) Finally, under the government plan of reorg did they circumvent established bankrutcy law by giving unsecured creditors ownership in GM over the secured creditors? Simple for a guy like you to answer right? Now dont go off topic and start discussing points unrelated to these as you always do in your attempt to mock and show off intelligence you dont really have.

What is astonishing about your responses is that I never said that Obama cant take credit for stepping in and giving GM a fighting chance of making it another economic cycle while keeping the auto industry more vibrant. I dont believe he saved it nor GM but he certainly did a good thing and its politics to embellish but your naive view of politics and business is really symptomatic of his administration and why Obama's economic policies have been failures. Get a job dude and get out in the real world and get some experience so you can respond with some humility and credibility.

A couple of things, Kirky jr.

The fact that you need to believe I am some college kid, need a job, or whatever only highlights your low self esteem, and is an acknowledgement by you that you have no idea what you are talking about. (Talk about spewing venom....dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb...)

I well understand this information, which is why you are get taken to school on this issue.....every time.

If we agree there was no financing, then there is no argument. You are simply trying to avoid giving the administration credit, and tie things like cronyism to the obvious success of the bailout.

Now your argument has been reduced to claiming, without having any evidence, that beyond financing, the government had no role. You say this because your partisan inclinations will not allow you to give the administration credit for what the independent analysis shows they deserve credit for. You can blather on all day about some imaginary deal you speculate someone would have somehow worked out, ignoring the mess that would have surely ensued, even without complete liquidation.

You can ask a bunch of questions you copied from WSJ OPEDs as well. They do not make your point. They do, however, allow you to rationalize the B.S. you were fed, with reality you chose to believe in.

What is astonishing is the extent you will go through, spinning in circles, to avoid giving credit where credit is due. You, in a sheepish effort to appear credible, say the government needed to supply financing, but then turn around and attempt to claim the other things they did were unnecessary.

Well, dude. You can claim they were unnecessary all you want, ignoring the independent analysis, and the circumstances. However, your unsupported claims, and laughable rationalizations only highlights your political naiveté, and utter ignorance on these issues.

I suppose claiming to be a "experienced CFO lawyer" on the internets makes you feel better about arguing about issues you don't understand.....thanks for the laugh, btw...

Kirky.

I dont believe he saved it nor GM but he certainly did a good thing and its politics to embellish but your naive view of politics and business is really symptomatic of his administration and why Obama's economic policies have been failures. Get a job dude and get out in the real world and get some experience so you can respond with some humility and credibility.

LOL!!! I now completely understand why you need to project my age, employment status, etc. You really have no understanding of politics, or any of the issues you blindly blather on about, repeating the ignorant drivel you were fed.

For example:

Auto Bailout. You say you don't believe he did a good thing, but present only an incoherent argument, that ignores the independent analysis, and the reality staring you in the face, that shows it was a good thing, and why it was a good thing.

Considering the facts, and reality, are completely against you, one can only conclude that you are a partisan hack, unable to think for himself, and on a desperate crusade (much like many other wingers) to prove what they were blindly fed.

http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/bankruptcy.pdf

Obama's economic policies have been failures.

Example 2:

This is completely and utterly false. Much like the previous example, the delusional reality you were fed has somehow forced you to ignore reality, and the independent economic analysis.

John Makin of the conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute:

The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.

http://www.aei.org/outlook/100928

Or Mark Zandi, advisor to the McCain campaign:

The Great Recession has finally come to an end, in large part because of unprecedented policy efforts by the Federal Reserve and fiscal policymakers. The cost to taxpayers has been substantial but would have been even greater if aggressive action was not taken and the financial crisis and recession had been allowed to continue unchecked.

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/JEC-Fiscal-Stimulus-102909.pdf

Or the CBO about the third quarter of 2009:

On that basis, CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA (see Table 1). Those ranges are intended to reflect the uncertainty of such estimates and to encompass most economists’ views on the effects of fiscal stimulus.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/Frontmatter.2.2.shtml

Or what the CBO said about the forth quarter of 2009:

In sum, CBO estimates that in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009, ARRA’s policies:
-- Raised real GDP by between 1.5 percent and 3.5 percent,
-- Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.5 percentage points and 1.1 percentage points,
-- Increased the number of people employed by between 1.0 million and 2.1 million, and
-- Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.4 million to 3.0 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise (see Table 1).

The effects of ARRA on output and employment are expected to increase further in calendar year 2010 but then diminish in 2011 and fade away by the end of 2012 (see Table 3).

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11044

On that basis, CBO estimates that in the first quarter of calendar year 2010, ARRA’s policies:
--Raised the level of real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.2 percent,
--Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.5 percentage points,
--Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million, and
--Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise (see Table 1). (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11525/05-25-ARRA.pdf

P.S. Kirky.

You are a comlete and utter joke. I think it may be time to change your sign on.

Maybe with the next one you could imagine you are a Peruvian Prince?

LOL!!! Wow.

Ha, just what I thought--you couldnt answer them. I wish I had copied those questions from the WSJ because I it would provide some additional third party objective credibility for my conclusions. So basically you couldnt stay on point and respond to the simple questions I gave you and then make bogus claims and accusations that I didnt make. I made no rationalizations, just provided you with simple facts and questions which you were unable to answer because you would prefer partisan rhetoric than objective factual discussions. I gave the administration all the credit it deserves and gave it all the objective criticisms it deserves, nothing more nothing less. If you really knew what you were talking about you would have just shut up and answered the easy simple questions. Its always the defense of a feeble mind and weak defense to respond with personal attacks rather than factual analysis. By the way, the reason I know you are some youngster sitting in his room pulling his pud is that you spend too much time thinking about whether you won and trying to defend your guy rather than just doing any critical thinking which comes with maturity. You havent shown any critical thinking skills yet in any of these discussions which gives away your immaturity. Your lack of experience comes through via your inability to discuss the substance of any of these issues. You parrot some media blog with concepts you hang on to but cant seem to understand the next step. You want to focus on the debtor in possession financing because you read it somewhere when that is not the issue and you really dont understand what happens next. Do you know the difference between an operating profit and net income? Do you understand how debt maturites work and how banks foreclose under the UCC or their secured contractual loan documents? Do you understand why a corporation files bankruptcy and then how that plays out or do you just want to repeat something you read on a thinkprogress blog? Because you havent provided any educated or experienced responses regarding my questions on these topics, it shows you have no experience.

I am glad I gave you a little chuckle and some day maybe and just maybe you will be to escape your parents basement bedroom and become employable so that skin can get some sun. You are no threat to intellectual debate on here but more of an annoyance. Its the true idealogues that support Obama and his class warfare, equality of outcome no more personal responsibility and accountability policies that truly think that an entitlement society like Greece is better than what made America great. I doubt you are one of those radical left wing looneys just a young kid who is still idealistic to think that true love lasts forever and if you give everyone an equal chance they will have an equal outcome. Your just a young idealist with no real experience and knowledge.

Mark Zandi is the economist you are now going to start citing? Dude go away. Further, if you cant start having discussions on your own and provide your own critical analysis and thinking, why should I see you as anything but a shill for thinkprogress. You very well know that for everyone of those economic statistics I can quote you 10 that are bad starting with deficits, unemployment rates, long term unfunded entitlement liability increase, 80% increase in government assistance over 3 years to 900 billion annually, a tax system that he wants to make worse in which 50% dont even pay any income tax and the other 50% think they pay too much, etc etc. You know his unemployment statistics are skewed by the fact that it doesnt count college kids who graduate looking for jobs and people who stop looking. For example, it doesnt count you in your basement. As for these topics, I am not going to try and debate a shill as I have all the evidence I need in Illinois where Obama's economic policies have been used for years as a guinea pig for the national economy. We both know how that is turning out now dont we.

Kirky.

Ha, just what I thought--you couldnt answer them.

LOL!!! Ha! Just what I thought. Your logical capabilities are as poor as your ability to think for yourself.

Usually, when ignorant parrots have been caught blathering about things they know nothing about, and cannot refute the independent analysis and facts placed before then, they start asking irrelevant questions in a desperate attempt to deflect from their ignorance.

Because you havent provided any educated or experienced responses regarding my questions on these topics, it shows you have no experience.

Pretty amusing. I suppose when you are so beholden to an ignorant ideology you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the independent analysis and facts presented, or even to present anything on your own, you have to claim and project.

I really have no idea whether you are young, old, or in between. What I do know is you have shown yourself to have an extremely weak understanding of the issues you attempt to talk about, and that you have an extremely juvenille approach to the issues. You have repeated the paritsan lines, and like most partisans, failed in your pathetic attempts to make the arguments fed to you.

Study up, kirky....LOL!!! Wow. Talk about living in a delusional bubble.

Kirky.

Mark Zandi is the economist you are now going to start citing? Dude go away.

Like most partisan parrots, Kirky does not like it when analysis and facts contridict his delusional reality, so he dismisses everything put before him. It is a laughable strategy, but does make it easier for the delusional to continue on with their delusions.

Further, if you cant start having discussions on your own and provide your own critical analysis and thinking, why should I see you as anything but a shill for thinkprogress

Of course Kirky would project I am a shrill for thinkprogress. He must continue the delusion at all cost. A delusion that forces him to ignore the independent economic analysis from well respected economists like Mark Zandi, adviser to the McCain campaign, the CBO, or even analysis from conservative economists like John Makin.

Also note, Kirky has no analysis of his own, beyond what he wants so desperately to believe.

You very well know that for everyone of those economic statistics I can quote you 10 that are bad starting with deficits, unemployment rates, long term unfunded entitlement liability increase, 80% increase in government assistance over 3 years to 900 billion annually,

Yet another example of Kirky's desperate attempts to rationalize his spoon fed delusion, and inability to think the issues through, free of partisan goggles.

Your bad stats, Kirky, are not analysis. Sorry. In addition, had you taken the time to think the issue through (try it, just once), and do a little research on your own (again, try it, just once), you would have realized some key things.

The majority of the high deficits since 2009 are a result of the recession in the form of lost federal revenue and increased mandatory outlays, as well as the leftover spending from the Bush administration (the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and the wars). The policies from this administration have contributed far less then half of the roughly $4.6 trillion in debt added since 2009. These basic facts, jr, are all laid out in CBO reports. All you had to do was turn off the partisan crap feeding you, and look. I'll help you out:

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=9957

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/BudgetOutlook2010_Jan.cfm

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12039

You know his unemployment statistics are skewed by the fact that it doesnt count college kids who graduate looking for jobs and people who stop looking.

And of course there is some nafarious conspiracy regarding the unemployment numbers. Never mind nothing has changed in the way the unemployment rate is counted.

This is also apparently another point of ignorance for you. The official unemployment number has not changed. The BLS calculates several numbers. Even some that take into account people who have stopped looking.

A better picture of the jobs situation, jr, is the one presented by the net jobs gained/lost, as unemployment is a lagging indicator. Let's look.

Jobs in 2008: -3.6 million

Jobs in 2009: -5 million

Jobs in 2010: 940,000

Jobs in 2011: 1.64 million

As for these topics, I am not going to try and debate a shill as I have all the evidence I need in Illinois where Obama's economic policies have been used for years as a guinea pig for the national economy.

Of course you are not going to try and debate these topics. You know you have already lost.

Besides, you have all the anecdotal evidence you need to reinforce the delusional reality you were fed. Debating the issue would not only make you look even dumber then you already do, it may cause you to question who or whatever is spoon feeding you.... and it looks like you are getting tired (and maybe a bit embarrassed) of getting taken to school.

To FN school...LOL....study up, Kirky.

Exactly, still couldnt answer the questions could you. No matter how you cut it and try to avoid and deny, you still were unable to respond. Its tough when you get challenged by someone who actually ate you for lunch. But anytime you want to stop being a tiny little twit and have a real debate and discussion on a topic you have the ability to discuss critically, this has been fun.

As for studying up, any time you want to come out from behind that anonymous wall and compare pedigrees and experience, I am all for it. Its been a pretty successful delusional bubble ha.

Dude, just spewing numbers without analysis or critical thinking is useless. No Mark Zandi is not a well regarded economist anymore and I doubt he ever has been. I could care less if he was an advisor to the McCain campaign. Lawrence Summers was an advisor to Obama who changed his stripes many times. So stop the games playing. What is it you are trying to refute with all the spew. Just take one and stop the games. Are you claiming the deficit didnt go up under Obama's budgets? I never blamed Obama for the recession nor am I a Bush fan so dont start making assumptions. I even voted for Kerry but I did make the mistake of voting for Bush the first time. Just because Bush was bad doesnt mean that Obama's economic policies as a substitute are better. So tell me, stop providing stupid numbers that are meaningless without more. For example, is it true that the highest government revenue ever collected was under Bush after the tax cuts? But I bet you will say the tax cuts actually are bad. You do realize that more revenue was collected under every year under Bush than Obama ever collected right? But those statistics without analysis dont tell the whole story now do they?

As for Obama's deficits, his spending policies have exacerbated the problem whether it be the stimulus bill, expansion of entitlements or his refusal to address spending as a whole.

No so far you havent embarassed me in fact, its been quite enjoyable watching you get all worked up in a lather trying to be a mean girl. Did they call you Lindsey in school?

LOL!!! Wow. You certainly are desperate to preserve your delusion.

Mark Zandi is somehow not well regarded, because his analysis contradicts what you were fed, and desperately want to hold onto. It makes it rather easy to believe anything you want when you arbitrarily dismiss what ever contradicts the B.S. you were fed, huh?

Really dude. This is getting ridiculous.

I post independent analysis on the auto bailout, and lay out clear reasoning as to why the government had to step in, as well as why they did the bankruptcy like they did it. You go on a parroted tirade about what some partisan hacks told you should have been done, ignoring the circumstances and the obvious success of what was done.

You post some parroted drivel about the effect of Obama's policies on the economy. I post independent economic analysis from conservative, moderate, and non-partisan sources clearly showing the positive effect of the administration's policies. You post some crap about Zandi not being credible, ignore all the other economic analysis, and then project about what I think about tax cuts.

I post the CBO reports showing exactly what makes up the deficits and debt, and where they came from. You post a line doubling down on your spoon fed ignorance.

LOL!!! It is flat out comical. The only thing in your posts were parroted assertions, irrelevant questions, anecdotal facts, and projections about me. The things missing from all your posts were non-partisan and independent sources supporting the arguments you made (or more accurately, repeated).

Study up, Kirky. LOL!!!

(Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb.....)

P.S. Kirky....To FN school......LOL!!!!!

Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb......(Man you are stupid.)

Just as always you didnt present any analysis on the auto industry except what would have happened in the worst case scenario. Who cares about worst case if its such a low probability we are talking reality and you couldnt respond to well thought out critical thinking and questions I posed to you because you cant. Sorry thats called you have no answer because you cant. Calling someone names doesnt change that but to show your lack of your own knowledge sorry dude.

Yes Zandi has been making wrong economic predictions for awhile just like their are crazy economists on both sides. Sorry that doesnt cut it either. Think for yourself for once and try to critically think it might help you later in life when you get a job.

Its been a good try on your part but thats it. When you can reply the answers come back and debate

Kirky. You are denying reality again. Bad wingnut. Bad.

Just as always you didnt present any analysis on the auto industry except what would have happened in the worst case scenario.

The analysis: http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/bankruptcy.pdf

What the analysis said:

"CAR's May 26, 2009 memorandum produced estimates for two scenarios, as well: a quick, orderly Section 363 bankruptcy (which is what happened), and a drawn-out, disorderly bankruptcy proceeding leading to liquidation of the automakers."

"Providing government assistance to General Motors and Chrysler through quick and structured bankruptcy proceedings avoided the worst case scenario."

-------------

The analysis was on the benefits from the government bailout compared to what would likely have happened had they not stepped in, the worst case scenario. Try reading the study rather then attempting to parrot some blog you read.

Who cares about worst case if its such a low probability

Low probability? Huh? It is only a low probability in your delusional little world, Kirky. I suppose you must make ridiculous statements like that considering the hole your ignorant parroting has placed you in. However, not many people at the time(or now) thought it was a low probability.....probably one of the reasons why you are having such a hard time supporting anything you posted.

we are talking reality and you couldnt respond to well thought out critical thinking and questions I posed to you because you cant. Sorry thats called you have no answer because you cant.

You are not talking reality. You are parroting a delusional narrative fed to you. One that involved no critical thinking on your part. That is why you had to ask irrelevant questions, and continually project your faults onto me.

Calling someone names doesnt change that but to show your lack of your own knowledge sorry dude.

I avoided calling you names for a while, douchebag. And ignored several insults from you. Go back and look at the thread, child. I did not insult you in my response to your response to me. However, you immediately started projecting your faults onto me, likely because you were well aware of the weakness of the crap you spewed.

Yes Zandi has been making wrong economic predictions for awhile just like their are crazy economists on both sides.

LOL!!! Still unable to find any independent economic analysis that supports your delusional reality, huh? Don't hold your breath looking. And btw. What about the plethora of reports from the CBO....or the findings of John Makin....or the many other economic analysis that says the same thing?

Sorry that doesnt cut it either. Think for yourself for once and try to critically think it might help you later in life when you get a job.

LOL!!! I have a thought. Try taking your own advise (ironically parroted from me.......oh @!$%#...even more irony....lol), and attempt to think the issues through critically, BUT ONLY AFTER YOU DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Thinking through crap fed to you will only lead you to the conclusions the people feeding you the crap want you to get to....as has happened with you on these issues.

Once you do do (LOL) your own research, critically think the issues through on your own, and come to your own conclusions, perhaps, just perhaps, you will actually be able to make your own arguments, that you can support, and will not have to continually project your shortcomings onto me.

Its been a good try on your part but thats it. When you can reply the answers come back and debate

It has been a pathetic effort on your part, so I understand why you would want to call it quits, Kirky. When you can reply with your own arguments, that you can support, you might be able to come back and actually debate (instead of simply parroting a bunch of crap you were fed).

But I do thank you, Kirky, for acknowledging the efforts I have gone through to help you dissolve your delusional reality, even if you are still refusing to step away from it.

Take heart in the fact that acknowledging your problems is generally the first step to fixing them.

Goodnight, stupid.

Ha, boy its amazing how being treated as you treat others sometimes just isnt fun is it little republicant. Getting red around the collar again? I love how you spend an entire post again projecting but not answering my questions. Your own independent report says this is what would have happened to avoid worst case scenario. Worst case means in of itself a low probability dufus. Base case means what is likely to happen. Best case is low probability on the good side and worst case is low probability on the bad side. Second, I dont need to research the issues I raised because they are factually true and you havent been able to respond now after what 10 replies? I asked you simple questions regarding what took place including some basic financial questions and you clearly were unable to answer because I am correct.

As for economic analysis and Mark Zandi, stop being an idiot and if you really think that the national economy is humming and Obama has done a fantastic job with his economic policies, why dont you move here to Illinois and tell all of us what a wonderful job his policies have done for the state.

I also notice you really dont want to have a pedigree discussion as I am sure sitting in your mom's basement isnt going to be too impressive to anyone right? So if you are so smart since you cant seem to get past the auto industry issue and are stuck in first gear, lets see if you provide me with your views on Obama's claims that corporations who are doing business overseas need to be paying their fair share of tax and have incentives to bring jobs back. Tell me if you think our current tax system and how it applies to multi national corporations doing business internationally is working to offshore jobs? Explain how taxing international profits will bring those jobs back?

LOL!!!

Kirky. It sucks when nothing supports the delusion you were fed, huh? And it sounded so good when it was being fed to you, I know.

Unfortunately, you chose to be ignorant, and didn't look into anything. You are obviously very frustrated. Perhaps, the next time, prior to blathering on about things you do not understand, and therefore cannot support, you will pause and do a little independent research. Research in an effort to learn about the issues, and not support what you were previously told to think.

When you finally do learn to research the issues, you will be able to discuss them intelligently, and support them using independent analysis and relevant facts.

Then, Kirky, you will not have to go on tangents asking a plethroa of irrelevent questions in order to deflect from your spoon fed ignorance. Nor will you have to rationalize away the findings in the independent economic analysis, or completely ignore it.

Then, Kirky, you will know things like what has led to the high debt and deficits. You will understand the policies (and who passed them) and circumstances that contributed to the debt.

Then, Kirky, you will not have to project onto me your own short comings, like living in mommies basement, for example.

You will also find you no longer look like an ignorant little twit who has his head up his favorite entertainment news pundits arse.

And I will no longer be able to legitimately call you stupid, stupid.

So again, all personal attacks and no responses. Is it that hard for someone who claims to be so knowledgeable and intelligent?

1) What do you think would happen if debtor in possession financing wasnt provided? Come on explain to me how the UCC foreclosure process would have worked that would lead to your worst case scenario? Go through the steps that support this claim. Or, do you think the banks whose debt was maturing or interest wasnt paid and a default happened would have extended the debt or worked it out? Do you think they would have a liquidated a company making an operating profit or sold it to someone else?

2) Do you know the difference between an operating profit and net income?

3) Did the unsecured creditors receive preference in contravention of established law over the secured creditors in the bankruptcy proceeding?

Are these questions too tough for you?

Next, dont avoid the debate by personal attacks, lets go give me your best on Obama's foreign tax policy speech in the state of the union. Cant support his suppositions can you? Didnt think so.

Was I mistaken and you really are an idealogue? Because you seem to like to quote statistics out of context and support only half the story but dont really understand the second half, I just figured you for young arrogant kid which clearly you are but I didnt think you were old enough to truly believe in the this progressive BS. Do you really believe that choice has nothing to do with people's economic status in life? Do you really believe that we should as a government dictate equality of outcomes even if there isnt equality of effort, merit, performance, investment, talent etc?

Kirky. You started the personal attacks when you failed miserably to make a cognative argument, and support any of the crap you repeated.

Don't be mad if I am better at pissing matches, as well as debating and understanding the issues. Do something about it.

BTW. Have you found any independent economic analysis that supports what you were fed about the effect of this adminstrations policies on the economy?

Or did you look into what actually led to the high debt?

Or are you going to continue to do like you did with the auto bailout, and hold true to the drivel WSJ OPED's fed you?

Or you could continue projecting your own faults on me, like living in your mommies basement, or like accusing me of not supporting my arguments......?

In other words, jr, are you going to continue to live in your fantasy land where you can ignore any and all relevant facts, independent analysis, or logic that does not support your spoon fed delusion?

(Judging by your previous posts, and inability to support a single thing you repeated, my guess is you will continue with the delusion....but, you can surprise me....)

Kirky.

P.S.

someone who claims to be so knowledgeable and intelligent?

I never claimed anything. I merely pointed out that you had bought into a delusional reality, and were attempting to argue things you do not understant.

I then proceded to support what I pointed out, with relevant facts and independent analysis.

That really irritated you, I guess. But, hey, your ignorance is your problem. I just get to make fun of it.

Stupid.

Seriously, did you get bounced on your head as a baby? If I was fed something from some news source dont you think I would cite it? First you accuse me of doing no research and then you accuse me of doing research but from a news source you dont like. Which is it? Again, why are my questions so hard for you to answer and they have nothing to do with a news source but just legal and financial knowledge? Whats interesting is that the answers to those questions dont impact the conclusion that the administration did a good thing by providing debtor in possession financing they just didnt save the auto industry as they like to embellish.

So again, you cant respond can you? Simple easy questions? Why cant you stand up to the challenges? Answer simple questions, debate a new issue, talk about progressive philosophy, compare economic policies with guinea pig states, lets step outside the anonymous wall and compare pedigrees? Everytime I give you substance to chew on you spew some nonsense about independent analysis to support my conclusion that the Illinois economy sucks (do I really need to do that and if so you really are showing your age) or that under Obama the debt has grown by $5 trillion and of course you want to blame it on Bush but what do I need to show you. Besides regardless of how the debt was caused, Obama's policies have only made it worse not better so you cant win either way in your debate. Oh yes, Zandi says it would have been far worse if Obama wasnt in office. Thats like finding our your wife was cheating on you with 5 different guys and she says it could have been worse it could have been 10 guys but I didnt have enough time. Your thinking that you are making fun of someone who so far has eaten you for lunch is somewhat hilarious and I have identified your type so easily. To be honest this has been pretty fun watching you squirm and get all red in the face.

Kirky.

It would be nice if you could cite anything to support your spoon fed delusion.

Your questions only highlight the fact that you have no argument, and you have nothing to support the drivel (you call an argument) you were fed.

The fact that you think not answering your questions proves anything, only highlights your low intelligence level, and inability to think logically.

Also hightlighted by the questions is your complete lack of any substance. You have shown you are completely unable to have a reasonable debate. Your second post was scattered with insults in an attempt to hide your weak, parroted argument, and you then proceded to spend the rest of the thread denying reality and rationalizing away what you didn't want to believe.

It was fun to mock, jr.

Thanks for all the laughs, stupid. LOL!!!

One last try--so I just asked a young Obama believer in the office to read through these posts and give me her honest objective reaction. Her first reaction was I wonder why this guy doesnt answer your questions because they arent that hard and second, why does he keep asking for cites on responses you have made that are clearly just legalistic and factual. There isnt a cite based conclusion that needs to be reached. Finally, she says I agree that this is just some young kid in his room stuck on repeat that doesnt really know what to do next so he keeps repeating himself. If it was someone that had real understanding, knowledge and experience he would have tried to meet your challenge and debate and tell you where you were wrong even if you disagreed with him. Because he cant means he is stuck and doesnt know what to do next so tries instead to put you down.

So buddy, you are fortunate that I had a few minutes over the last few days to provide you with some education. Dont worry as you get older, some of this will become more understandable to you. You just need to get out more. Just let me know next time you have an issue you would like to get more knowledgeable on if I have the time, I will give you the benefit of my wisdom.

LOL!!!

Now you are using imaginary friends to support your delusional reality. Wow.

I have spend some time mocking you and your ignorance, after you made it very, very clear you had no understanding of the crap you were told to parrot, and decided you could make your case much better with insults.

It was fun watching you dance around the facts and analysis that shows you are yet another victim of the conservative game of telephone, and then project your faults onto me. (I suppose that is a from of therapy...).

So, the next time you want to be literally taken to school, or just made fun of for being an ignorant parrot, just look for, and respond to one of my posts. I will be glad to oblige, and you can also use it as an opportunity to continue your therapy of projecting your problems onto others.

And again, thanks for the laughs, stupid. LOL!!!

Kirky. BTW.

Does this mean you are finally done attempting to argue the delusional reality you were fed? Have you run out of insults, projections, and illogical reasoning?

Or are you just tired of me making a fool of you?

I hope not. Mocking your ignorant, juvenile arse is a blast. Come back anytime for another arse whooping.....stupid.

Cheers.......

Good try sitting behind your anonymous wall thinking you scored some points to someone else sitting behind an anonymous wall. Again, cant answer the questions can you? Really quite simple. Yes I am done with you until you can figure out how to reply. Even if you cant figure it out or dont know it, you could google and find out how a UCC foreclosure works and find out that a liquidation of GM was never going to happen. You could google and find out why a company with an operating profit would never get liquidated versus a GOL. You could google and discover what an unsecured creditor means and what it is.

Furthermore, I have given you plenty of additional challenges assuming you have given up proving your assertion regarding GM. I am actually giving you an opportunity to come back into the ball game after losing the last one with a new topic and even then you cant rise to the challenge. I even gave you a soft ball with the foreign tax policy agenda for Obama and again you strike out.

See the difference between you and I is that I am willing to debate issues while you want to attack people's motivations and think calling someone dumb behind the iron curtain makes you a man. The measure of a man is what he does in the light not in the dark.

The real difference between me and you, Kirky, is that I can support the issues I chose to debate, and you, simply put, cannot.

This is why you were reduced to asking a series of questions to deflect from the fact you cannot support what you were fed. It is also why you used your imaginary friend to cusion the blow to your fragile ego.

And your concession is noted, jr. Thanks.

P.S. Kirky.

Let's remember who started with the insults and projections to deflect from your ignorance. Second post in, jr.

I bet you are also one of those inexperienced youngsters who thinks because they can read they somehow are smarter than more knowledgeable experienced people. You probably also think that Obama's comments regarding tax incentives for offshore international corporations was accurate and agree that we need to tax corporations more who do business overseas?

And you are dumb. Stupid to be more precise.

But the problem is that you didnt support anything and you couldnt even reply to simple explanations that went deeper into the issue than your superficial here is what a worst case scenario we avoided would have been. Plus you simply are telling a falsehood in that you havent chosen to debate me, you have chosen to run, attack and avoid. Show me one response to any of my challenges or questions so you clearly chose not to debate. You continue to run and hide. In the last post I even gave you the opportunity to respond again and you chose to not debate. I think if I asked you if the Bears were in the Super Bowl, you would say "the CBO tells me that the super bowl is being played in Indy" I would say but the Bears arent in the Super Bowl and your answer is irrelevant to the question I asked and you would say "see there you go again parroting local newspapers and not doing your own research" I would say but what I said is true and you would say "you are just so dumb how could you not understand that the super bowl is being played in Indy you are such a partisan Packers fan" I would say you need pyschiatric help because just answer the simple question of whether the Bears are in the super bowl and you would say "thanks for conceding you clearly dont understand the issue because you must be a Packers fan. Does that give you some help as to how stupid your responses look to my questions?

As for imaginary friends sorry dude, I actually work in the real world and I am not afraid of my opinions, statements or conclusions and I am happy to share them and show them to others with my name and reputation attached. So I dont need imaginary friends because I have enough work colleagues who can debate me to my face and not hide behind your wall. I really bother you dont I. Its too bad you are afraid to see the light of day.

Calling you inexperienced is a personal attack? Thats the best you can do? That hurt your feelings so much you chose to not stand up and debate me and respond? If you notice you didnt even answer that question either did you? Should we go back to your constant attempts to belittle, use of the word dumb and all the other 8th grade immature comments that remove any credibility you would have. You see people who debate with credibility, knowledge and experience do so in a tone that people can respect not laugh at.

Actaully Kirky, I did support everything. You couldn't support ANYTHING, and thus the questions meant to deflect.

(And the imaginary friends giving you moral support. LOL!!!)

And as for your B.S. rationalization about my sources not being relevant, jr, let's review the stuff from the CBO, since you brought it up:

Kirky: your naive view of politics and business is really symptomatic of his administration and why Obama's economic policies have been failures

I then posted independent economic analysis showing Obama's policies have worked. Analysis from the CBO, Mark Zandi, and John Makin. Your response was:

Kirky: Mark Zandi is the economist you are now going to start citing? Dude go away.

Then you proceded to completely ignore the analysis from the CBO (until this post) and Makin, and made a weak attempt to discredit Zandi.

You also presented nothing to support your original statement that Obama's policies were failures.

Your fantasy, and all the imaginary support inside of it, will be much easier to hold on to without me knocking it down. IJS.

Kirky.

My successful belittling of you is in response to your tone and insults.

I am sorry you are no better at pissing matches then you are at debating and understanding the issues.

You cant mock or belittle when its just you and I anonymously dufus. Seriously dude, you really dont understand that your cite was not responsive to the issue? You really dont see that the answer to the unsecured creditor question directly relates to my assertions? You really dont see that you ended up being wrong on this issue? You really dont see that you citing this car article is no different than if I cited the WSJ or Fox News? You really dont see that any comparison on this issue to worst case is like Obama claiming that by killing Osama he saved 10 million lives? You know because worst case he got ahold of a nuclear bomb and killed 10 million people so by killing him I just avoided the worst case scenario and I personally can say that I saved 10 million lives?

Why are you scared of getting into debate on the issues? I have challenged and invited you to and provided a ton of information on specific issues that are not in Obama's favor but your only response is that Mark Zandi says things are great? Again I invite you to come from behind the curtain and show yourself to the world and lets see how good you are in the light?

Review #2:

You displayed an unoriginal level of ignorance about the debt and deficits, as most blind, spoon fed partisans generally do.

Kirky: You very well know that for everyone of those economic statistics I can quote you 10 that are bad starting with deficits,

To which I pointed out where the debt and deficits actually came from, as well as what circumstances and policies led to the rise. I cited CBO reports clearly supporting my post. Those CBO reports show that it was the recession and leftover policies that contributed the most, with Obama's policies - mostly to combat the recession - making up only a portion....far less then half.

You, posted this:

Kirky: As for Obama's deficits, his spending policies have exacerbated the problem whether it be the stimulus bill, expansion of entitlements or his refusal to address spending as a whole.

Once again, providing nothing to support your delusion.

Kirky.

You are delusional, as I have said.

Seriously dude, you really dont understand that your cite was not responsive to the issue?

What? Independent analysis on the success of the auto bailout is not responsive to the issue? LOL!!!! Wow. Just wow.

How about the independent economic analysis as it relates to the economic impact of the adminstrations policies? Is that somehow not relevant to a discussion on the economy? I guess in your feeble little mind, nothing that contridicts your delusion would be relevant. (Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb...wow, you are stupid.)

You really dont see that you citing this car article is no different than if I cited the WSJ or Fox News?

LOL!!! Independent analysis is not the same as WSJ OPEDs or Fox News. No wonder you believe so much of the crap you are fed.

Why are you scared of getting into debate on the issues?

Scared? LOL!!! I did get into a debate on the issues, and took you to school.

I have challenged and invited you to and provided a ton of information on specific issues that are not in Obama's favor but your only response is that Mark Zandi says things are great?

Actually, jr, you provided NO INFORMATION. You simply blathered on repeating the same tired partisan lines.....which I easily debunked with independent economic analysis. Analysis from Zandi, the CBO, and John Makin.

You responded with a string of the typical conservative drivel, easily debunked with facts, and a lame attempt to discredit Zandi....all the while ignoring the CBO, and Makin.

Kirky: You very well know that for everyone of those economic statistics I can quote you 10 that are bad starting with deficits, unemployment rates, long term unfunded entitlement liability increase, 80% increase in government assistance over 3 years to 900 billion annually,

Kirky: Mark Zandi is the economist you are now going to start citing? Dude go away.

LOL!!!

Again I invite you to come from behind the curtain and show yourself to the world and lets see how good you are in the light?

I am sure, being the fool you are, you would have no issue disclosing information on the internet. You are quite stupid.

So you are rising to a challenge? First, you totally again ignored the GM debate and continue to avoid answering the questions that would prove your wrong on the limited assertions I made. Remember I agreed that the administration should have provided debtor in possession financing and said Obama should take credit for stepping in when he did. My assertion was that he didnt save the auto industry and that he didnt need to intrude into the bankruptcy process to provide a political payoff to the unions.

As for the deficit, first I never blamed Obama for the declining revenue related to the recession nor did I blame him for spending increases associated with prescription drug plan or the wars. My beef with Obama has been his failure to address the deficit and actually making it worse. I have given you a ton of topics that make up the various aspects of the deficit that you have avoided. So Obama's policies to take on the recession make up only half of the deficit--thats only on the spending side right? Besides the stimulus he has increased government assistance programs via 90 separate programs over 80% in 3 years. As of the last budget ending in October, it now spends $900 billion on government assistance. He has failed to address serious tax reform instead cutting temporary taxes which we all know from the Bush years dont work. But forget the deficit, lets discuss individual economic policies and I have given you a bunch to discuss that I believe have failed. I asked about international tax policy but you obviously dont like that one. Which one do you like?

You cant mock or belittle when its just you and I anonymously dufus

Since it is the end of the day, Kirky......

The real reason I enjoy debating, arguing, or getting into pissing matches on these blogs, is politics is a unique subject.

It is one of the few subjects that can drive people to believe things that are more than obviously false, to the point that most partisans are not just ignorant, they are willfully so.

Take, for example, your ignorance on the stimlus, and Obama's policies. Or where the debt came from.

Or, take as an example the auto bailout. The actions taken by this adminstration worked. This is undeniable. Both auto manufacturers are doing quite well.

You are trying to caveat this success by saying they should have done it differently. You provide no evidence or even reasoning that would suggest doing it differently would have produced better results.

You did attempt to marginalize the study by suggesting the worst case would not have happened. I suppose we will never know, but we do know the best case scenario presented did happen, and the analysis suggests the worst case was likely.

However, even if the worst case didn't occur, it is highly unlikely that without the government stucturing the bankruptcy, it would have turned out better, or even close to the same, for reasons laid out in the report.

Without a quick bankruptcy, many things would have occured. It was estimated production and employment would fall 90%, causing, among other things, serious problems for suppliers and distributers, putting many out of bussiness. This would cause severe shortages in parts for other U.S. auto makers. U.S. market share would further decline as a result.

Another factor is confidence. The longer the bankruptcy, the less confident consumers will be in purchasing a GM or Chrysler vehicle.

You are so intent on reinforcing what you were previously fed, you never even bothered to look at the sources I posted, try to understand the information in them, or actually think the issue through. You simply deflected, insulted, and went on more then a few rants.

What is really interesting is what happens when people get worked up. All reason goes out the window, as was the case with you. It is really quite an interesting look into the psychological effects of politics on people who are otherwise quite rational (you, I am not so sure about...but it was interesting, none the less.)

So thanks for being such a willing, and delusional subject.

Kirky.

As for the deficit, first I never blamed Obama for the declining revenue related to the recession nor did I blame him for spending increases associated with prescription drug plan or the wars. My beef with Obama has been his failure to address the deficit and actually making it worse.

You don't know what makes up the deficit, if you think he really made it that much worse.

Again, jr. The only thing this administration really spent anything on was efforts to combat the recession, and that adds up to far less then half of the current debt added since 2009. (I see you still have not looked at the reports...)

I have given you a ton of topics that make up the various aspects of the deficit that you have avoided

No you didn't. After I took you to school on this issue as well, you posted only this:

As for Obama's deficits, his spending policies have exacerbated the problem whether it be the stimulus bill, expansion of entitlements or his refusal to address spending as a whole.

You just parroted the delusional line of B.S. you were fed.

So Obama's policies to take on the recession make up only half of the deficit--thats only on the spending side right?

Wrong. Why is it so hard for you to do your own research? Quit trying to continually rationalize the deulusional reality you were fed.

Besides the stimulus he has increased government assistance programs via 90 separate programs over 80% in 3 years. As of the last budget ending in October, it now spends $900 billion on government assistance

Wrong again. Do you ever think anything through? Wow.

Governent assistence is up as a result of the recession. This is what makes up much of the increase in manditory outlays. This is what happens in a recession. Revenue goes down, and spending (required by law) goes up.

----------------

Seriously. You are just digging a deeper hole of ignorance, and making even more clear how desperate you are to preserve you spoon fed conservative delusion.

No wonder you want to keep changing the debate and deflecting.

Goodnight stupid.

If I am delusional why do you think I was fed anything? Unlike you I can critically think for myself and havent been fed anything from any source.

As for the auto bailouts--read your post and then look how much of what you stated was opinion based conclusions. Actually not ignorant at all on any of the deficit issues and how they came about and have provided you plenty of challenges which you have refused to debate. Not sure why you are so bent on proving yourself right on huge conclusions like "The GM bailout worked" or "Obama's policis havent failed" as opposed to discussing the issues that make up those statements.

How can you say the actions of this administration worked? Thats an opinion that cant be proven either way. The government is still $50 billion in the red on that investment and there is zero proof that it wouldnt have turned it exactly the same without that loss of $50 billion except your opinion. I didnt marginalize the study, I said it doesnt even address my issues which you again refuse to respond or answer because you cant. A company that was making an operating profit before and after elimination of debt of course is in great shape. Your incredible grasp of the obvious is perfect and of course GM is doing well know that it has no interest payments. Wow what an observation.

As for Obama policies, I have tried to challenge you and stop the thinkprogress noise but you clearly cant do anything but the high level talking points. When you want to debate specifics come on back otherwise go away

Huh? You were fed a delusional reality you cannot led go of. Obviously you are not very good at thinking critically.

Opinion based? Dude. You are a laugh riot.

It is a fact that some of the concerns that led to the decision to bail out GM and Chrysler were high loss of employment, a steep drop in production, the impact on the suppliers and distributors, part shortages, confidence and market share loss, in the event of a drawn out bankruptcy. The independent analysis now, and then suggests there was risk for all, in some degree.

I specifically list some of the risks, you flippantly dismiss them, addressing none. Then, two sentences later, you accuse me of not wanting to discuss the issues. (Do ya see why I now call you stupid, stupid?)

On to your next delusional reality.....

Actually are ignorant on the deficit issues, obviously. You have provided NOTHING. Zip. Zero. Nada. You have no idea what makes up the deficit. You were simply repeating some crap that made it obvious you know NOTHING about this issue.

Stating that a rise in mandatory out lays and need for government services is the result of Obama's policies is laughable. As are you. Stupid.

On to your next delusional denial....

I can say the actions of this administration worked because I am not prone to denying reality. We know where the auto industry was. We know what the government did. We know where GM and Chrysler are today.

On to your next delusional deflection....

Not to mention, the estimates on the cost are not $50 billion. It depends on when the government sells and what they sell for. You only use the highest number, because your argument, or lack thereof, absolutely sucks. Stupid.

On to your next...oh man, another denial....

Actually, there are quite a few things that suggest the auto industry would not have come out exactly the same. Many are listed above. Not to mention, you failed to present anything that would suggest it would turn out as good.

The study didn't address your issues?????

Dude. You never bothered to once think the issue through. Not once. You got stuck on that operating profit crap because it told you what you wanted.

A long drawn out bankruptcy would have resulted in disruption to employment, production, consumer confidence, suppliers, etc, etc, etc,....which would have in turn resulted in no operating profits. Ruh roh....there goes your entire lame little argument.

Now on to your contradiction....

At the beginning of the paragraph, you ask me, "How can you say the actions of this administration worked? That's an opinion that cant be proved either way."

At the end of the paragraph you state, "Your incredible grasp of the obvious is perfect and of course GM is doing well know that it has no interest payments. Wow what an observation."

Why is it that they have no interest payments? LOL!!! You see why....oh never-mind.....

On to your last delusional view of where you stand in this debate.....

You did try meekly to challenge on what I posted on the economy. And I once again made it clear I was aware you had no ideal what you were talking about...addressing each issue, and showing how. I also posted independent economic analysis from moderate, conservative and non-partisan sources showing the effects of the administrations policies.

You again, had nothing.

Seriously. Stupid. Was that specific enough for your stupid arse?

As I thought, you really dont understand do you? You really dont know what an operating profit and where interest payments fit in? You really dont get how a bankruptcy process works. It confirms why you cant answer my questions and continue to parrot repetitively what your think progress buddies tell you. Actually a drawn out chapter 11 bankruptcy which was what GM filed under stabilizes the company and doesnt cause disruption because there is no fear of not getting paid anymore. I understand it makes you feel better that I am delusional because I have experience and knowledge and you have neither but nice try youngster. You put up an admirable fight for stay at home little punk.

Anytime you want to move on to the foreign tax debate let me know ha which we both know you wont happen right?

LOL!!!

Dude, your lame little argument about operating profits fell apart. A long drawn out bankruptcy would have resulted in disruption to employment, production, consumer confidence, suppliers, etc, etc, etc,....which would have in turn resulted in no operating profits. Now, you are trying to claim a drawn out bankruptcy would have been good for GM, and that it would not have caused disruption?

Wow. Anything to preserve the delusional reality you were fed, huh jr?

I feel you are delusional because you are. You are also very desperate to preserve that delusion.

Seriously stupid. You seem to think claiming to be in the know somehow makes the fact that you have shown to be ignorant irrelevant. You are a fn joke. Your "arguments" are irrational. Your facts irrelevant or non-existent. And you have not once provided anything to support your delusional reality. It is no wonder you feel the need to project your shortcomings onto me.

I also do not find it at all surprising you would want to move on to another debate after making your ignorance on the auto bailout more than clear. However, if your ignorance on this issue, the debt, or the economy is any indication, you won't fair much better.

Perhaps you should work on getting out of that basement you keep projecting onto me first, stupid?

Oh Lindsey--I really hit home with you sitting at home with your mom comment. Sorry I was right about that one didnt mean to hurt your feelings.

Let me ask you a simple question, American Airlines is in Chapter 11, how disruptive has it been? Your ignorance of bankruptcy law and its financial impact is apparent and you try to overcome that with think progress blogs. Sorry dude, you still dont know what you are talking about.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

American Airlines? Really? Is that the best you can come up with Jr? Parroting yet another stupid right wing talking point that only highlights the fact you know nothing about this issue, and never thought it through?

American Airlines is not the auto industry, and the circumstances are no where near what they were then. You are not the first delusional right winger to repeat the B.S., and I am sure you will not be the last.

Unable to support the crap you were fed in any way, and after your silly little "argument" fell apart in the face of reality, the facts, and independent analysis, you attempt to deflect by comparing apples to oranges.

Sorry dude. But you have made it very clear you have no idea whay you are talking about. None. Zip. Nada. Your new deflection (although not original) only makes it that much clearer.

Wow. Just wow. LOL!!! (This is too much fun, jr.)

Lindsey, then why are you shrieking? If its so much fun for you why have you been unable to provide answers to simple questions. The only part that was different back then was the ability to obtain debtor in possession financing, the bankruptcy process would have been exactly the same process that American is going through. Sorry dude but access to financing to replace the debt that was owed and due is the only thing that was different. Once the administration provided access to that or the banks worked out a different capital plan, the process would run exactly the same. It shows how inexperienced and your lack of knowledge. You didnt provide any independent analysis, you showed what would have happened in the worst case scenario and you refused to provide any knowledge of what an operating profit is or what an unsecured creditor is. Still dont know do you?

No deflection just waiting for you to respond to the original points made in the first post 5 days ago and I continue to get deal silence and personal attacks instead. As for moving to the foreign tax credit question, it was more fun and games for me so I could slap that pasty face again on the next topic nothing else.

Who is shreaking? LOL!!! Oh. Another delusion.

Seriously. At some point you have to come back to reality and stop continually making things up so you can stay in your delusion.

---------------------

Parroting the comparison between American Airlines and the auto industry only shows you have no understanding of this issue, jr.

And the fact you refuse to acknowledge the obvious differences between the circumstances now, and the circumstances then, just makes it even more clear how ignorant you are...and how desperate you are to preserve your delusional reality.

Your only argument is that you think the government should have provided the financing, and then walked away. (The irony is, had they done that, you would have been one of the first ignorant fools out whining about no oversight.)

Even after I shot down your lame crap about operating profits by pointing out a long drawn out bankruptcy would have destroyed those operating profits, you still seem to want to use it.

I know. You are stuck in a corner. You really shouldn't keep trying to argue things you don't understand.

Kirky: No deflection just waiting for you to respond to the original points made in the first post 5 days ago and I continue to get deal silence and personal attacks instead. As for moving to the foreign tax credit question, it was more fun and games for me so I could slap that pasty face again on the next topic nothing else.

ALL you do is deflect.

I killed your parrted points five days ago. This entire thread is me mocking your deflections....and you digging and digging and digging and digging....

Quite amusing...LOL!!!

Lindsey--everyone of your posts is a female shriek. Your use of LOL and your other middle school chat room symbols gives away your age sitting in your parents basement. Your inability to do anything but state conclusions as the equivalent of factual responses gives away your lack of knowledge. I gave you a detailed response several times on how the bankruptcy process works and you reply with conclusions with no facts and personal attacks. You never responded yet to what an unsecured creditor is, why an operating profit means that GM was never going to be liquidated, and on and on. Never a reply because you dont know the answers. I never said the government should have provided the debtor in possession financing and then walked away, they should have acted like any lender would in that situation and let the plan of reorganization as filed by GM work as intended. I also said that if they didnt provide the financing the banks would have worked it out without causing a liquidation and cessation of business.

Kirky-Lindsey.

everyone of your posts is a female shriek. Your use of LOL and your other middle school chat room symbols gives away your age sitting in your parents basement

It doesn't take much to reinforce anything you want desperately to believe. It is no surprise you would make that illogical corralation. Being stupid as you are.

Your inability to do anything but state conclusions as the equivalent of factual responses gives away your lack of knowledge. I gave you a detailed response several times on how the bankruptcy process works and you reply with conclusions with no facts and personal attacks.

Your responses were not factual. In addition, you have yet to provide anything to support those responses, despite being asked repeatedly.

Also, you parroting what you read somewhere about how the bankruptcy process works is not giving a detailed response. It is parroting what you read somewhere.

You make it very clear that you know nothing about this issue.

You never responded yet to what an unsecured creditor is, why an operating profit means that GM was never going to be liquidated, and on and on

You attempted to ask a bunch of questions to deflect from your ignorance, and then, when I laughed at them, you used you poor understanding of logic to conclude that meant something it did not.

And that thing you got stuck on, the operating profit crap, fell apart. There were very real concerns about high loss of employment, a steep drop in production, the impact on the suppliers and distributors, part shortages, confidence and market share loss in the event of a drawn out bankruptcy. These things would most certainly have led to no operating profit.

And thus, the B.S. you were fed falls apart, once again.

I never said the government should have provided the debtor in possession financing and then walked away, they should have acted like any lender would in that situation and let the plan of reorganization as filed by GM work as intended. I also said that if they didnt provide the financing the banks would have worked it out without causing a liquidation and cessation of business.

And I have said, over and over again, that you are attempting to provide an imaginary alternate scenario to avoid giving credit to the administration for the successful bailout. You must believe that the administration should have done it differently, despite there being no evidence doing it your way would have had near the postive result.

I have provided you reasoning, analysis, facts and reality. All you have provided is a parroted delusion, projections, deflections and rationalizations.

You are a joke.

Why do you think you have provided anything but your fantasy views and conclusions? You really think I need to cite what the definition of an operating profit or unsecured creditor under bankruptcy law? If you are so stupid to not understand I dont need to be your teacher. Where have you cited these real concerns about loss of employment etc except that they are someone else's opinion as a worst case scenario? See that is just plain your stupidity when you rely on someone else's opinion without any knowledge. GM had already filed bankruptcy and if their were those concerns about the operating profit falling apart, it would have happened. In fact the opposite happened because their was genuine belief that if GM could shed its debt, it would be a very viable company. Guess what it shed its debt and was a very viable company. It didnt need the government intervention into the process to shed its debt, it just needed a work out which is what happened.

Same thing with the school discussion. You truly have no leg to stand on with education reform and if I googld education reform and teacher's union, how many articles pop up? Thousands and I am not going to cite them all for you. As for stimulus, there is so much partisan BS on both sides that when you google that you find the same crap. The problem is that I actually lived it and approved a local budget reallocating funds from our street projects to our police and fireman union pension plans that are underfunded by about $40 million. There were no additional jobs created because we already had allocated funds to do the streets.

If you werent such a dick, I would try and sit down and teach you how to listen to others so you might learn something in this life. When you finally move out of your parents home and get a job, how long do you think you will survive? What profession would you like to have when you grow up? Its going to be a tough road for you Lindsey but if you are willing to put the time in to change you might find employment.

Why do you think you have provided anything but your fantasy views and conclusions

On the auto bailout I provided independent analysis of the bailout showing what was done was a success. Also shown in that analysis, was the worst case scenario. In a previous study that I also referenced from May of 2009, that worst case was laid out in more detail. The assumptions for the worst case were things like high loss of employment, a steep drop in production, the impact on the suppliers and distributors, part shortages, confidence and market share loss in the event of a drawn out bankruptcy.

My arguments, supported by the analysis, showed that because of the circumstances at the time - frozen credit and a deep recession, government intervention was necessary.

What you attempted to argue here is that even though the best case scenario is what happened, doing it some other way, or doing nothing, would have been better for the country and the auto industry. In other words, you attempted to argue that even though Obama won the game with regards to the auto industry, it was your completely partisan and unsupported opinion that it would have been better some other way.

The stimulus.

You made some ignorant comments about the effects of the stimulus. Again, you were unable to support your ignorant comments.

I provided independent analysis as to the effects of the stimulus. Analysis from a moderate econmist, a conservative economist, and the non-partisan CBO showing that the stimulus saved jobs, created jobs, and raised the GDP. You still denied reality.

I then asked you to see if you could find any independent analysis that makes your point. You apperently could not. The best you could do is this:

As for stimulus, there is so much partisan BS on both sides that when you google that you find the same crap.

If you would take the time to do some research on the issue rather then blindly repeating the partisan crap you were fed on the issue, you would be able to recognize and cite independent analysis, and would not have to spend so much time attempting to demonize the sources I provided in order to deflect from the fact their is nothing to support your parroted opinion.

The school discussion.

Same thing with the school discussion. You truly have no leg to stand on with education reform and if I googld education reform and teacher's union, how many articles pop up? Thousands and I am not going to cite them all for you

It would be nice if you could cite anything. You made quite a few claims in all of these discussions. You have not once provided anything to back up the delusional crap you post. Most likely because it is delusional.

You have, however, repeatedly deflected, projected, claimed to be in the know, and insulted. It likely has to do with your wide spread ignorance.

The debt and deficit.

Once again an issue you are completely ignorant on. You displayed another pathetic lack of knowledge in regard to this issue. You showed you have no idea what makes up the high deficits and what has contributed to the debt since 2009.

If you werent such a dick, I would try and sit down and teach you how to listen to others so you might learn something in this life. When you finally move out of your parents home and get a job, how long do you think you will survive? What profession would you like to have when you grow up? Its going to be a tough road for you Lindsey but if you are willing to put the time in to change you might find employment.

Your posts consist of no substance, which is why most of them end like this; you calling me names, projecting my age and living situation, and claiming you know what you are talking about.

The problem is, the crap that came before these projections, insults and claims made in completely clear you are projecting your low maturity and intelligence level, as well as your living situation, onto me. They also made more then clear your lack of knowledge on these issues, and made clear how easily the conservative game of telephone shapes your political views.

I really wish I was you

I really wish you would turn off whatever is feeding you your partisan point of view, research the issues on your own and think the issues through in an effort to find reality.

Then, you would be able to intelligently discuss the issues, and support what you post.

As it stands, however, you have made it very clear you do not understand any of the issues beyond what you were fed, and want very desperately to continue believing....which is exactly why you had such a hard time supporting anything.

I am sorry if I shook up your delusional reality, but you may thank me in the future......if and when you actually do something about your ignorant view of the issues.

I guess we will see.

What is so ironic is that you dont even get that you parrot whatever opinionated source you get your information and then turn around and accuse others of doing the same. If I was parroted someone and someone feeding it to me, dont you think I would cite it. See Lindsey, I am 52, have 4 kids, have substantial financial and legal experience (and surprisingly for as dumb as you think I am, quite successful at it). I really do know what I am talking about on these issues and dont need to parrot someone else like you do. I can provide very well reasoned arguments without getting on google and trying to figure it out. Clearly all you know is what has been told you and when pushed with real arguments and facts, you have no response. I just googled Teachers and education reform and found zillions of articles including those bastions of conservativism, Time Magazine January 28, 2010 edition who agrees with me but I need to figure out how to hyperlink on here and I dont want to do it. You are just being an obstinate dick for no other reason that you are a partisan hack. I at least can debate the different issues and give each party credit and scorn when its warranted. Not you as you have a total blind loyalty for Obama.

As for stimulus, there are zillions more and you know it. I never said no new jobs were created by the stimulus, but I would say the tax cuts were a waste of money and the cost benefit analysis for each job created was so high we would have been better off just handing everyone a check. As for the deficit, I know exactly what is causing it and so what, the issue has Obama done anything to bring it down or has he made it worse? I know you have your own partisan opinionated views that you dont support either but that of course if beyond your comprehension.

What bothers you the most about me is that I am right and you cant figure out how to respond and answer the questions so you attack. Has that style ever worked in the past? When you debate your mom do you call her dumb when you disagree and if you did, do you think she would change her mind? Seriously dude, how old are you and do you have a job? Do you really have any experience at anything useful? Is that what is making you so angry?

Wow.

I am not parroting opinionated sources you delusional hack. I am making an arugment, and using non-partisan and independent sources to back it up.

You are repeating arguments fed to you, and are unable to support them because they were fed to you. The reason you do not and cannot support what you are parroting is becauase the only thing that supports what you repeat comes from partisan sources.

Claiming you do not know how to hyperlink is seriously lame. Either you are too stupid to know what to look for on the tool bar and too stupid to know how to copy and paste, or you simply do not have anything to support the drivel you are spewing.

Again stupid. If you really did know what you were talking about, you would know where to look to support the crap you clearly repeat, and would not have to google anything. But alas, once again the only thing you can do is claim you are in the know. Dumb...dee...dee...dumb....dumb...dumb....

The stimulus.

You are again blathering on about things you know very little about, simply repeating the crap that you want so desperately to believe. If there were really "zillions more", or any that showed what you are repeating, one would think you could find it and post it. You would be able to post that cost/beneifit analysis. (Wonder why you didn't? LOL!!!) In reality, there is not any independent analysis that shows what you were told to think about the stimulus, and that is why you cannot find any.

The Debt and deficit.

You displayed you know nothing about the debt or deficits. You have no idea what makes up the debt since 2009, or what is in the yearly deficits. The vast majority of the debt since 2009 is from the recession in the form of lost federal revenue and leftover policies from the last adminstration. Obama's policies have contributed, but primarily to combat the recession. The fact that you would even suggest any President could have done anything to bring down the debt in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression only highlights the level of your ignorance on this issue.

------------

What amuses me most about you is that you are so deluded, you think you are right, despite your obvious inability to support the crap you are spewing. You are so convinced that the conservative game of telephone has been feeding you accurate information, you have never bothered to look, and still will not look even after being literally taken to school on these issues.

You were not able on once support anything you said. Not once. In fact, you just attempted to use my being able to support my arguments against me. Too fn funny, dude.

I am not angry, stupid. I am nothing but amused.

Thanks for all the laughs. Seriously.

What is so ironic is that you dont even get that you parrot whatever opinionated source you get your information and then turn around and accuse others of doing the same

Seriously Kirky.

I am still laughing at this. FN rich. I mean really.

I am a parrot for being able to support my arguments with independent analysis, facts and clear reasoning.

And you are somehow smarter and more informed, despite the fact you cannot form a cognative argument that wasn't fed to you, or support ANYTHING you post (besides claiming to be in the know)...

LOL!!! Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb....

President Obama's "thoughts" have nothing to do with you. His "thoughts" come from experiences throughout his life. His "thoughts" come from actually talking to people, to both working people and corporate America. His "thoughts" are very much in line with America's values.

You on the other hand have no American values. As someone wrote last night, Osama bin Laden is dead and the auto industry is alive. Thanks to President Obama.

You really need to concentrate on Newt, otherwise your campaign is in serious serious trouble.

I noticed one time when Mitt's voice really changed was when he confronted Gingrich on his lobbying for Freddie Mac during the last debate. All of a sudden, Mitt spoke slowly and with less pressure. Maybe when he says something he sincerely believes he speaks more calmly?

Amy, what I remembered about the debate was Mitt's self-deportation for undocumented immigrants.

I just noticed Willard's eyes are brown.

Amy, what I remembered about the debate was Mitt's self-deportation for undocumented immigrants.

===============

Maybe Mr. Romney can use the surveillance video from the border showing all of the illegial aliens fleeing the Country in fear of a Romney Administration to bolster his credientials as being a strong leader who illegals better be afraid of, no?

Feisty: Doesn't Mittens remind you of that annoying kid at school that would try to show off by correcting the teacher? The kid that wore the "in" clothes, and drove the "in" car, but was avoided like the plague by the cool kids?

The boyo has a tin ear. He is so surrounded by family and handlers telling him how brilliant he is that he just wears badly. And, hence, the corresponding drop in poll numbers.

He sure makes Gingrich's job easy.

His lies are getting tiresome. I wonder what folks he was sitting around the table with? Lower income workers with their mortgages underwater or Republican donors. He didn't say so I will assume the latter. He is just so out of touch with ordinary people. A free house and car in college is nothing to this guy. We don't envy wealth in this country so much as we despise hypocrisy.

The man is looking more pathetic as each day passes. As Newt Gingrich would, Romney's spouting "pious baloney" but I prefer Michele Bachmann's, Mitt's got "chitspa".

The irony is there's probably some small element of truth in what Mitt said because at some point during the last 5 years of running for president and doing a lot of back flips, Romney probably did have some ideas that were similar to President Obama's. Mitt used to be pro choice, pro cap & trade, pro-health care and individual mandate. In fact, Willard was probably for everything Obama said last night before he was against it.

Conservative posters and politicians whine a great deal and often about President Obama's work as a "community organizer"; they mock and disparage such work as irrelevant. Well, guess what, that experience is worth far more in understanding people, their struggles, and what needs to be done to make it better for everyone not just some. That experience is exactly why President Obama understands the hardships of working people, the difficulties for communities whose factory gates were closed due to outsourcing or "vulture capitalists" who bankrupted previously profitable firms and shuttered the windows. It means President Obama really has lived on the real streets of America, has worked with the downtrodden, the disadvantaged, the poor to help them improve their lives and improve their communities by working together toward common goals.

Feisty: In a previous thread Romney slams President Obama's SOTU address as being in "Fantasyland" removed from reality. Now he wants to claim credit? Un-be-lieve-able!!

Un-be-lieve-able!!

His name isn't Flipper for nothing ya know! ;o)

You can get whip-lash watching him...

So pat - yes, obamas thoughts are so good, funny how he ignored his own debt commision report, 2010 midterm election results, NDAA, rahms advice on getting a health care plan through with minimum discourse, etc.

I don't suppose his thoughts bore such great resultseither when it wasn't until 2010 that he decided to have a sitdown with congressional minority leaders. That does speak so well for obamas policy of bipartisanship, doesn't it?

That self deportation fits right in with the self taxation for the wealthy. Brilliant people.

Oh this goes to prove Willard (by the way is a rat's name ) is a Democrat ! please Willard , your not that SMART !!!

Of course Willard has to take credit for Obama's SOTU speech. I wonder if he wrote his own papers in college, plagariazed them, or paid someone to do his school work for him.

Sandy - "I just noticed Willard's eyes are brown"

As long as both eyes are brown I guess that is a good thing for him. Otherwise - not so much!

Romney thought the speech was "fantasyland" before the polls showed a 91% approval rating. Now he must hurry to catch up to his people, so he can lead them. We should coin a new phrase. Mitt flopping.

How can you post a comment about pork chops without mentioning Gingrich?

But yes, Romney will take credit for Obama's lunch decisions as long as he thinks there is political advantage in it.

Paul, I don't think anyone is "taking credit" for any of Obama's decisions. Not even Obama is doing much of that.

Obama 2012 - "It's someone elses fault, really, it is"

Except the GOP are EVIL and the Dems are just misguided!

The GOP is evil.

In an ideal world they would be punished. What the Republicans have done is treason. It should be considered treason. Obstructing? They purposely TRIED to make the president of the United States fail and in doing so purposely attempted to get millions people (not to just to fail but) lose their homes, jobs, sense of self-worth.

GOP belongs behind bars.

One thing Romney never has to notice, is running out of money.

One thing Romney never has to notice, is running out of money.

And that seems to be a big problem for you, isn't Amy? Why is that? Or do you believe more taxes on the Romney's of the world (like Pelosi, Rockerfeller, Kohl, Harmen, Kerry, Lowery, Feinstein, Boxer, etc) will somehow make your pitiful life better? If so, you need to get to an Obama kool-aide rehab unit stat.

how quickly Joanna forgets that up until reagan the highest tax rate was over 70%.

The country was prosperous and the Rich did NOT move to some other country.

You conservatives are suck suckers. We have been doing this trickle down thing for 30 years!

You think it's going to kick in if we just give it 30 more??

JTFM: blah, blah, blah Reagan, blah blah blah, the country was prosperous and the Rich did NOT move to some other country

Apparently JtFM missed the Nixon-Ford-Carter years. You would term those years "prosperous"?

"suck suckers."

How eloquent.

Oh and I love 'trickle down thing' which of course is capitalism. Think the libbies got a better system?

In my experience, "interesting" is what you call something when you're trying to be diplomatic and not say something bad.

Spanky, the "trickle-down thing" is not capitalism, it's government shoveling money at rich people through tax cuts and subsidies and telling us that they are doing it so "the job-creators will create jobs,"

Of course, many of those "job-creators" are in fact NOT creating jobs with the largesse of our money (cost of tax cuts added onto debt), they are simply viewing it as more cake for themselves. Or if they are creating jobs, they are creating them in other countries.

Why would they go through the hassle of creating jobs when they can net more after tax profits from capital gains? Crony capitalism is about profit, not jobs. The only way to get them to create jobs is to drastically increase taxes on capital gains, so that it is more profitable to exploit labor than support hedge fund managers. What incentive do they have now?

I just noticed the article right before this one on First Read says Romney slams Obama "Fantasyland", "detachment from reality"

so my response is:

Projection much, Romney?

I seriously doubt Americans as a whole eagerly await another Bush run for President even if his name is not George. The only people who think Jeb Bush should run for President are Laura, George W, George H. W. and Barbara plus their children and grandchildren. The rest of us have had enough Bush to last a century.

No, that would be Jeff Immelt (GE), Obama's "czar", who sent jobs to China.

BTW........ GE paid NO taxes, so why are all you libbies obsessing over Romney and his 15%?

We can make Jeff Immelt ( jobs czar) the poster boy for Obama's favorite slogan........"DO WHAT I SAY, NOT WHAT I DO."

Jeff Immelt a staunch and lifelong Republican.

Dennis, that's just your kool aid talking. You think a man who pays no taxes through GE, ships jobs to China and works as a czar to the Obama admin. is a Republican??

If he's a registered repub., then he's a repub. on paper only.

The kool aid is destroying you brain cells. GET HELP before it's too late.

Registered Republican – read and weep !!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_R._Immelt

dennis,

don't confuse the battle ax with facts,...she won't accept them.

registered republican means NOTHING, considering the man works for the most socialist minded president in history.

Remember: The Republican Party eats its own, so they are trained to attack anyone not towing the GOP line that everything done by anyone other than the anointed ones of their own party must necessarily be drek.

We can only hope that the Republicans keep on with their inane RINO lynchings until they have so little relevancy to the American people that they just drift off into insignificance.

...and your answer to the illegals is what??

You favor amnesty?