If Tea Party Is Racist, Why Is Cain Rising?

[red states rule]

I wonder if any of our resident liberals will answer this question.





If Tea Party supporters are racist, why is Herman Cain generating such excitement?

The liberal line of attack on the Tea Party movement that has gained the most traction is that it opposes President Obama because of his skin color, not his policies. The movement is, in the mind of many in the Democratic Party and liberal organizations, rooted in a fundamentally racist view of America and of the president.

This charge is conventional wisdom for many in the media. Former NPR fund-raising executive Ron Schiller denounced the Tea Party movement to undercover conservative activists posing as Muslim financiers: “I mean, basically they ... believe in sort of white, middle-America, gun-toting. I mean, it's scary. They're seriously racist, racist people.”

The NAACP passed a resolution, later walked back, denouncing "racist elements" within the Tea Party movement. The resolution accused Tea Party supporters of holding signs “intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically" and called "the racist elements" within the movement "a threat to progress."

David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Washington think tank that explores issues of concern to minority communities, contends that Tea Party supporters “know they can't use any overtly racist language. So they use coded language,” calling the president socialist or attacking his perceived tendency to apologize for American actions overseas.

A new book by veteran White House reporter Kenneth Walsh recounts an episode in which President Obama himself insinuated there was an underlying racism in the movement. At a private White House dinner last May, Obama suggested there was a racially motivated “subterranean agenda” behind Tea Party opposition to his policies.

Then why is Herman Cain, a conservative black businessman and radio host from Georgia, generating such excitement among the very people maligned as angry white racists? In a recent national Gallup poll of Republican and Republican-leaning Independents, Cain beat out Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, and Tim Pawlenty. Cain did even better among respondents further on the right, tying Newt Gingrich among self-identified conservatives with 10 percent.

http://www.american.com/archive/2011/june/black-tea-1

[avatar4321]

Because the Tea Party never has been racist.

But the truth doesnt help Progressive politics.

[red states rule]

Because the Tea Party never has been racist.

But the truth doesnt help Progressive politics.

With the left, there are many racists in America

If you oppose Obama you are a racist

If you are a member of the Tea Party you are a racist

If yoiu support AZ immigration law you are a racist

If you oppose the Ground Zero Mosque you are a racist

If you voted against Democrats in the 2010 election you are a racist

Do you see a pattern here?

[avatar4321]

Of course I do. I've seen it for years. They can't intellectually defend their positions or attack the Tea Party, so they have to resort to an emotional argument that is completely irrelevant to the discussion in an attempt to silence any opposition and eliminate any need to work at defending their beliefs.

What's amusing about it is they pride themselves on being such "intellectuals' despite relying on pure emotion.

[maineman]

I don't think, in retrospect, that the teaparty was ever inherently racist, per se. I just think they were single minded and somewhat naive. The fact that there is a large statistical union between birthers and baggers doesn't necessarily indicate racism on the part of the tea party folks... it only indicates their foolishness and their willingness to believe anything, no matter how bizarre, if it feeds their preconceived notion.

[red states rule]

Of course I do. I've seen it for years. They can't intellectually defend their positions or attack the Tea Party, so they have to resort to an emotional argument that is completely irrelevant to the discussion in an attempt to silence any opposition and eliminate any need to work at defending their beliefs.

What's amusing about it is they pride themselves on being such "intellectuals' despite relying on pure emotion.

Yet look how these same liberals treat black conservatives like Justice Thomas

Better yet I will let their own words do the talking

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/E3ctO7fdrcc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[red states rule]

I don't think, in retrospect, that the teaparty was ever inherently racist, per se. I just think they were single minded and somewhat naive. The fact that there is a large statistical union between birthers and baggers doesn't necessarily indicate racism on the part of the tea party folks... it only indicates their foolishness and their willingness to believe anything, no matter how bizarre, if it feeds their preconceived notion.

Naive in thinking government needs to live within ts means? Or taxes are to high and government spends to much?

Of course more proof the left lied when it played the race card

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/N-D24laQFu0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[maineman]

naive in thinking that as a minority political party, that they can get everything they want without ever having to compromise.

[red states rule]

naive in thinking that as a minority political party, that they can get everything they want without ever having to compromise.

and why should the WINNERS of the election compromise with the LOSERS of the election?

[avatar4321]

naive in thinking that as a minority political party, that they can get everything they want without ever having to compromise.

What compromise is there with evil?

[red states rule]

What compromise is there with evil?

To MM compromise is when Republicans give Dems everything they want and get nothing in return

[DragonStryk72]

With the left, there are many racists in America

If you oppose Obama you are a racist
Despite all the folk who are against Obama who are black, or of another minority.


If you are a member of the Tea Party you are a racist
Despite the various minorities that are in the Tea Party, that they knew about and creatively "cut around" while shooting to make sure nobody saw anything but white people.

If yoiu support AZ immigration law you are a racist
My friend, Sarah Vidal, is in favor of the AZ immigration law. Not only is she full-blooded mexican, but her Grandparents immigrated here from Mexico. But yeah, clearly she's a racist.

If you oppose the Ground Zero Mosque you are a racist
Despite the fact that most have a legitimate concern about the "taste" of it. I'm even in favor of it, but I understand the points against it.

If you voted against Democrats in the 2010 election you are a racist
So, the majority of America, regardless of race, are racist?

Do you see a pattern here?

Nope, no pattern whatsoever. Why would you say that?

[Thunderknuckles]

and why should the WINNERS of the election compromise with the LOSERS of the election?
Keep that in mind when the Republicans get their asses handed to them in an election :p

[red states rule]

Keep that in mind when the Republicans get their asses handed to them in an election :p

You mean like how the Dems locked the Republicans out of everything when they took over in January 2007 and again in January 2009 when they both the House and the Senate?

[avatar4321]

Keep that in mind when the Republicans get their asses handed to them in an election :p

When on earth have the Democrats ever compromised when they won an election?

[maineman]

and why should the WINNERS of the election compromise with the LOSERS of the election?

I think that moderate, mainline republicans still know how to compromise. I don't think that the tea party folks understand that, even though they are an important bloc in the new majority, they are not, in and of themselves, THE majority.

[avatar4321]

I think that moderate, mainline republicans still know how to compromise. I don't think that the tea party folks understand that, even though they are an important bloc in the new majority, they are not, in and of themselves, THE majority.

Republicans arent the ones who need to start compromising. They are always the ones compromising. You can only compromise so much with bad policy before we are royally screwed. Case in point: The Present.

[red states rule]

I think that moderate, mainline republicans still know how to compromise. I don't think that the tea party folks understand that, even though they are an important bloc in the new majority, they are not, in and of themselves, THE majority.

So what if the Republicans put up a moderate, mainline Republican who knows how to compromise - you would vote against him anyway

You had that type of Republican in McCain - and you voted for Obama

[red states rule]

When on earth have the Democrats ever compromised when they won an election?

****NOTHING****

Remember Obama when he brought in the Republicans after the 2008 election

He told them simply "I WON"

[maineman]

So what if the Republicans put up a moderate, mainline Republican who knows how to compromise - you would vote against him anyway

You had that type of Republican in McCain - and you voted for Obama

I have never said that I personally was a moderate republican. I can imagine very few situations where I would vote for one. I did, however, vote for Anderson in 1980. Carter had disappointed me terribly by failing to act more aggressively to get the Iranian hostages back. I certainly couldn't vote for Reagan... my dad had known him when he worked at WOC radio and thought he was a total jerk.

my point here is that good legislation is made when people of good will come from both sides of the aisle and craft compromises that are acceptable to both sides. THe tea party folks seem to think that THEY - and not the greater republican party - are the majority and they seem unwilling to compromise on anything.

[red states rule]

I have never said that I personally was a moderate republican. I can imagine very few situations where I would vote for one. I did, however, vote for Anderson in 1980. Carter had disappointed me terribly by failing to act more aggressively to get the Iranian hostages back. I certainly couldn't vote for Reagan... my dad had known him when he worked at WOC radio and thought he was a total jerk.

my point here is that good legislation is made when people of good will come from both sides of the aisle and craft compromises that are acceptable to both sides. THe tea party folks seem to think that THEY - and not the greater republican party - are the majority and they seem unwilling to compromise on anything.

Yea you could not vote for Reagan MM. He showed how tax cuts worked, increased revenue, put America back to work, and unleashed the greatest peacetime growth in the economy in US history

I wonder how you felt in 2004 as the election results came in and saw 49 states voted for the man you would not vote for simply out of pure spite

Right now as the economy continues to sink - despite your false calim it is growing - the election will be about Obama's economy. and right now Obama's job prospects for 2013 are looking pretty damn bleak

[maineman]

Yea you could not vote for Reagan MM. He showed how tax cuts worked, increased revenue, put America back to work, and unleashed the greatest peacetime growth in the economy in US history

I wonder how you felt in 2004 as the election results came in and saw 49 states voted for the man you would not vote for simply out of pure spite

Right now as the economy continues to sink - despite your false calim it is growing - the election will be about Obama's economy. and right now Obama's job prospects for 2013 are looking pretty damn bleak

It wasn't out of spite, it was because I disagreed with his policies and I had someone I deeply respected who had personal knowledge of Reagan's personality.

Like I said, I did not vote for the democrat in that election.

and like I showed you, right now, Obama's job prospects are looking pretty good given the weak field of challengers your party has come up with.

[red states rule]

It wasn't out of spite, it was because I disagreed with his policies and I had someone I deeply respected who had personal knowledge of Reagan's personality.

Like I said, I did not vote for the democrat in that election.

and like I showed you, right now, Obama's job prospects are looking pretty good given the weak field of challengers your party has come up with.

I can see where YOU would disagree with his policies

letting people keep of the money the earn

record setting private sector job growth

making people proud to be Americans

restoring America's military power

all the things liberals hate and detest. Yea, I can see why you could not vote for such policies Virg

[fj1200]

I think that moderate, mainline republicans still know how to compromise. I don't think that the tea party folks understand that, even though they are an important bloc in the new majority, they are not, in and of themselves, THE majority.

Moderates suck and by extension compromise sucks. I think the Tea Party understands that.


my point here is that good legislation is made when people of good will come from both sides of the aisle and craft compromises that are acceptable to both sides.

Compromise acceptable to both sides does NOT make good legislation. The proof lies here, Congress as an Institution... is Stupid (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30097-Congress-as-an-Institution...-is-Stupid).

[maineman]

Moderates suck and by extension compromise sucks. I think the Tea Party understands that.


so... you would have America governed by uncompromising ideologues from the far right side of the political spectrum?

You would have them shove their ideas down the throats of all the rest of us who weren't from the far right side of the political spectrum and you would expect us to just shut the fuck up and endure it?

have I got that right?

[Kathianne]

so... you would have America governed by uncompromising ideologues from the far right side of the political spectrum?

You would have them shove their ideas down the throats of all the rest of us who weren't from the far right side of the political spectrum and you would expect us to just shut the fuck up and endure it?

have I got that right?

Don't you worry fat man, your folks are more than able to say they want to ram their agenda down our throats. Yes, all of us will eventually be fucked.

[maineman]

Don't you worry fat man, your folks are more than able to say they want to ram their agenda down our throats. Yes, all of us will eventually be fucked.
we know how representative democracies work, clearly you don't.

[Gaffer]

Don't you worry fat man, your folks are more than able to say they want to ram their agenda down our throats. Yes, all of us will eventually be fucked.

Yep, we are already getting the far left agenda shoved down our throats. And no matter how far right I look I don't see anything near as bad as what we are getting now. A lot of leftie rhetoric about how bad the right would be as they do exactly what they say the right would do.

[maineman]

Yep, we are already getting the far left agenda shoved down our throats. And no matter how far right I look I don't see anything near as bad as what we are getting now. A lot of leftie rhetoric about how bad the right would be as they do exactly what they say the right would do.

the "far left agenda"?

If you were getting the far left agenda shoved down your throat, you'd have single payer government health care, you'd see us out of Iraq AND Afghanistan, you'd see gay marriage institutionalized at the federal level, you'd see HUGE tax increases on the millionaires....

the fact remains... representative democracies work by the representatives creating compromises with one another. And the make up of that group of representatives determines where the line is drawn.

[red states rule]

the "far left agenda"?

If you were getting the far left agenda shoved down your throat, you'd have single payer government health care, you'd see us out of Iraq AND Afghanistan, you'd see gay marriage institutionalized at the federal level, you'd see HUGE tax increases on the millionaires....

the fact remains... representative democracies work by the representatives creating compromises with one another. And the make up of that group of representatives determines where the line is drawn.

We have seen the government takeover of private companies that have cost taxpayers billions

We have seen the government interfere with the banking process and spent billions in a failed attempt to keep people in homes they cannot afford

We have seen reckless spending on a stimulus that has done nothing to create private sector jobs

As far as Obamacare we have the solicitor general Neal Katyal state in open court that if people do not like the individul mandate all they have to do is earn less money.

Is is any wonder a majority want Obamacare repealed? It should have told you how bad this bil was when Harry Reid had to openly bribe (with taxpayer money) other Dems to get their vote

[maineman]

We have seen the government takeover of private companies that have cost taxpayers billions

We have seen the government interfere with the banking process and spent billions in a failed attempt to keep people in homes they cannot afford

We have seen reckless spending on a stimulus that has done nothing to create private sector jobs

As far as Obamacare we have the solicitor general Neal Katyal state in open court that if people do not like the individul mandate all they have to do is earn less money.

Is is any wonder a majority want Obamacare repealed? It should have told you how bad this bil was when Harry Reid had to openly bribe (with taxpayer money) other Dems to get their vote

government "TAKEOVER" of private business? hardly. Our investment in TARP and in the auto industry have been good ones and are almost completely paid off, and they clearly saved the financial industry AND the auto industry.

My post was about a "far left agenda". that is not what any of that is. I listed a few key elements of the far left agenda and we haven't seen any of them... and we won't, just like we won't see the success of the far right tea party agenda either... because representative democracies work when they compromise.

[red states rule]

government "TAKEOVER" of private business? hardly. Our investment in TARP and in the auto industry have been good ones and are almost completely paid off, and they clearly saved the financial industry AND the auto industry.

My post was about a "far left agenda". that is not what any of that is. I listed a few key elements of the far left agenda and we haven't seen any of them... and we won't, just like we won't see the success of the far right tea party agenda either... because representative democracies work when they compromise.

Good invenstment eh?

Taxpayers are losing BILLIONS on the "investment"

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31379-Taxpayers-will-lose-14-billion-of-auto-bailout-funds

I

[red states rule]

government "TAKEOVER" of private business? hardly. Our investment in TARP and in the auto industry have been good ones and are almost completely paid off, and they clearly saved the financial industry AND the auto industry.

My post was about a "far left agenda". that is not what any of that is. I listed a few key elements of the far left agenda and we haven't seen any of them... and we won't, just like we won't see the success of the far right tea party agenda either... because representative democracies work when they compromise.

Good invenstment eh?

Taxpayers are losing BILLIONS on the "investment"

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31379-Taxpayers-will-lose-14-billion-of-auto-bailout-funds

I notice

[red states rule]

government "TAKEOVER" of private business? hardly. Our investment in TARP and in the auto industry have been good ones and are almost completely paid off, and they clearly saved the financial industry AND the auto industry.

My post was about a "far left agenda". that is not what any of that is. I listed a few key elements of the far left agenda and we haven't seen any of them... and we won't, just like we won't see the success of the far right tea party agenda either... because representative democracies work when they compromise.

Good invenstment eh?

Taxpayers are losing BILLIONS on the "investment"

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31379-Taxpayers-will-lose-14-billion-of-auto-bailout-funds

I notice you

[red states rule]

government "TAKEOVER" of private business? hardly. Our investment in TARP and in the auto industry have been good ones and are almost completely paid off, and they clearly saved the financial industry AND the auto industry.

My post was about a "far left agenda". that is not what any of that is. I listed a few key elements of the far left agenda and we haven't seen any of them... and we won't, just like we won't see the success of the far right tea party agenda either... because representative democracies work when they compromise.

Good invenstment eh?

Taxpayers are losing BILLIONS on the "investment"

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31379-Taxpayers-will-lose-14-billion-of-auto-bailout-funds

I notice you had

[red states rule]

government "TAKEOVER" of private business? hardly. Our investment in TARP and in the auto industry have been good ones and are almost completely paid off, and they clearly saved the financial industry AND the auto industry.

My post was about a "far left agenda". that is not what any of that is. I listed a few key elements of the far left agenda and we haven't seen any of them... and we won't, just like we won't see the success of the far right tea party agenda either... because representative democracies work when they compromise.

Good invenstment eh?

Taxpayers are losing BILLIONS on the "investment"

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31379-Taxpayers-will-lose-14-billion-of-auto-bailout-funds

I notice you had nothing

[red states rule]

government "TAKEOVER" of private business? hardly. Our investment in TARP and in the auto industry have been good ones and are almost completely paid off, and they clearly saved the financial industry AND the auto industry.

My post was about a "far left agenda". that is not what any of that is. I listed a few key elements of the far left agenda and we haven't seen any of them... and we won't, just like we won't see the success of the far right tea party agenda either... because representative democracies work when they compromise.

Good invenstment eh?

Taxpayers are losing BILLIONS on the "investment"

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31379-Taxpayers-will-lose-14-billion-of-auto-bailout-funds

I notice you had nothing to

[red states rule]

government "TAKEOVER" of private business? hardly. Our investment in TARP and in the auto industry have been good ones and are almost completely paid off, and they clearly saved the financial industry AND the auto industry.

My post was about a "far left agenda". that is not what any of that is. I listed a few key elements of the far left agenda and we haven't seen any of them... and we won't, just like we won't see the success of the far right tea party agenda either... because representative democracies work when they compromise.

Good invenstment eh?

Taxpayers are losing BILLIONS on the "investment"

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31379-Taxpayers-will-lose-14-billion-of-auto-bailout-funds

I notice you had nothing to say

[red states rule]

government "TAKEOVER" of private business? hardly. Our investment in TARP and in the auto industry have been good ones and are almost completely paid off, and they clearly saved the financial industry AND the auto industry.

My post was about a "far left agenda". that is not what any of that is. I listed a few key elements of the far left agenda and we haven't seen any of them... and we won't, just like we won't see the success of the far right tea party agenda either... because representative democracies work when they compromise.

Good invenstment eh?

Taxpayers are losing BILLIONS on the "investment"

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31379-Taxpayers-will-lose-14-billion-of-auto-bailout-funds

I notice you had nothing to say about Obamacare

[maineman]

I said it earlier... Obamacare is not part of any far left wing agenda. If it were, it would be single payer. Obamacare was a compromise that didn't go anywhere near far enough according to the far left.

wow... if I had posted the same link eight times in one thread, I'd get banned! :LOL:

[maineman]

a different opinion:

http://www.wealthvest.com/blog/wade-dokken/auto-bailout-provides-huge-payback/

[fj1200]

so... you would have America governed by uncompromising ideologues from the far right side of the political spectrum?

You would have them shove their ideas down the throats of all the rest of us who weren't from the far right side of the political spectrum and you would expect us to just shut the fuck up and endure it?

have I got that right?

You didn't look at my thread did you? I would have America governed by people who have confidence in the strength of their ideas rather than by compromise for the sake of legislation. You'll notice how I stated my position without the use of unnecessary inflammatory rhetoric. ;)

We've had 70 years of growing compromise and now we have a government that is growing even more into every sector of non-governmental life and has created massive entitlements on folks who shouldn't be anywhere near an entitlement program. That is the result of compromise.

[fj1200]

government "TAKEOVER" of private business? hardly. Our investment in TARP and in the auto industry have been good ones and are almost completely paid off, and they clearly saved the financial industry AND the auto industry.

False premise and the denial of moral hazard. Government inserted itself into a process where it shouldn't be and has continued the expectation of government intervention and bailout.


My post was about a "far left agenda". that is not what any of that is. I listed a few key elements of the far left agenda and we haven't seen any of them... and we won't, just like we won't see the success of the far right tea party agenda either... because representative democracies work when they compromise.

They may WORK when they compromise but they don't WORK BEST under compromise. The key is clear delineation of rules under which a Republic can operate especially at the Federal level.

[fj1200]

a different opinion:

http://www.wealthvest.com/blog/wade-dokken/auto-bailout-provides-huge-payback/

Again, false premise and OMG another different opinion. :eek:

Yet Another GM Bailout (http://mises.org/daily/3202)

[Missileman]

I said it earlier... Obamacare is not part of any far left wing agenda. If it were, it would be single payer. Obamacare was a compromise that didn't go anywhere near far enough according to the far left.

wow... if I had posted the same link eight times in one thread, I'd get banned! :LOL:

The expansion of government is the "prime directive" of the far left agenda and Obamacare fits that bill perfectly...I don't know who in hell you think you're kidding with you denials.

A compromise with who exactly? No, we don't have single payer because the Dems are far more worried about getting re-elected than anything else. They're a bunch of un-principled, gutless cowards with NO interest in what's best for the country.

[Missileman]

government "TAKEOVER" of private business? hardly. Our investment in TARP and in the auto industry have been good ones and are almost completely paid off, and they clearly saved the financial industry AND the auto industry.

My post was about a "far left agenda". that is not what any of that is. I listed a few key elements of the far left agenda and we haven't seen any of them... and we won't, just like we won't see the success of the far right tea party agenda either... because representative democracies work when they compromise.

You consider a $17 billion dollar loss a good investment? Hey man...send me all your money. I can guarantee you the investment of your dreams.

[red states rule]

Hey MM, in case you were too lazy to click on the link, please comment and tell us again how this was a "great investment" :laugh2:





WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Wednesday that the government will lose about $14 billion in taxpayer funds from the bailout of the U.S. auto industry, a third of the loss officials had initially estimated.

In a report from the president's National Economic Council, officials said that figure is down from the 60 percent the Treasury Department originally estimated the government would lose following its $80 billion bailout of Chrysler and General Motors in 2009.

The report's release coincides with the administration's efforts to tout the bailout's role in the revitalization of the U.S. auto industry after last week's announcement that Chrysler is repaying $5.9 billion in U.S. loans and a $1.7 billion loan from the Canadian government. Those payments cover most of the federal bailout money that saved the company after it nearly ran out of cash in and went through a government-led bankruptcy.

For Obama, the auto industry comeback is one of the few bright spots in an otherwise sluggish economic recovery. What's more, the auto industry has a big footprint in key presidential battleground states like Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Missouri.

General Motors Co., which also went through bankruptcy, received a $49.5 billion U.S. bailout. The federal government has lowered its equity stake in the company from 61 percent to 26.5 percent of GM after selling part of the stake in November. Ford did not seek federal government assistance.

"In the last year, the Detroit Three have all gained market share, they have all added jobs and they have all shown the ability to make money," Ron Bloom, President Barack Obama's top adviser on manufacturing, said in reference to the three U.S. car makers.

http://m.courierpress.com/news/2011/jun/01/government-lose-14-billion-auto-bailout-funds/

[red states rule]

a different opinion:

http://www.wealthvest.com/blog/wade-dokken/auto-bailout-provides-huge-payback/

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/110605beelertoon_c20110606061203.jpg

[maineman]

I think that most people would agree that $14B is a small price to play to save the entire American auto industry and supporting manufacturing and parts suppliers and the thousands and thousands of jobs of the folks who worked in all those companies.

we'd have racked up billions and billions of dollars in unemployment benefits paid out to those folks and we wouldn't have an auto industry.

yeah. I think that it was a great investment.

[maineman]

I guess you didn't read this either... you just posted one of your cute comics instead:

The return on investment for the public from the restructuring of the domestic auto industry was extraordinary. Federal, state, and local governments saved between $10 and $78 for every dollar invested in the auto industry restructuring plan. Federal taxpayers are likely to recoup most or all of their investment in GM, and will enjoy a net gain of at least $61 billion on their $5 billion to 7 billion investment in the auto industry recovery plan. This was a very savvy investment, at a time when failure to intervene would have been catastrophic for the domestic economy.
The General Motors Company completed the largest global initial public stock offering (IPOs) in history this week (November 18). The U.S. government sold nearly half its stock holdings, which puts it well ahead of schedule for exiting from ownership of the company. The proceeds from the stock sales alone (Thursday’s and the expected returns from the ultimate sale of its remaining 500 million shares in the company) will pay back most or all of the U.S. government’s initial $49.5 billion investment in GM (Welch, Spears and Trudell 2010). Overall, the government may lose only $5 billion to $7 billion on the entire recovery plan (Trudell 2010) after GM and Chrysler are privatized again. This report, however, shows that this investment resulted in far larger savings to the economy, and to federal, state, and local budgets. Without the aid of the government-assisted restructuring, one or more of the Big 3 domestic automakers would have collapsed. Between 1.1 and 3.3 million domestic jobs would have been lost, resulting in the loss of 0.5% to 3.0% in GDP in each year between 2009 and 2011, which would have sharply increased federal, state, and local budget revenues. This report shows that the auto recovery plan resulted in net savings to the federal government of between $70 billion to $389 billion in this period, and an additional $24 billion to $126 billion in savings to state and local government. In other words, the $5 billion to $7 billion not recouped via stock sales and loan repayment is offset many times over by the $94 billion to $515 billion in net savings to government.

[fj1200]

... to save the entire American auto industry...

I guess you'd have to believe that wouldn't you.

[Nukeman]

I think that most people would agree that $14B is a small price to play to save the entire American auto industry and supporting manufacturing and parts suppliers and the thousands and thousands of jobs of the folks who worked in all those companies.

we'd have racked up billions and billions of dollars in unemployment benefits paid out to those folks and we wouldn't have an auto industry.

yeah. I think that it was a great investment.you honestly believe that "without" govt intervention the ENTIRE auto industry would have collapsed!!! Wow just wow!!!! tell me smart guy how is it that Ford that took NO MONEY is doing better than GM and Chrysler who both took money from the feds. How is that NO foriegn auto company took federal money yet they continue to prosper in the US..

Yes GM would have gone broke but that would have left them available for purchase and gowth from another source, ultimately it would have been broken up and reorganized WITHOUT the blood sucking union that is distroying this country and primarily the auto industry!!!!!!!!!!

[maineman]

This report shows that the auto recovery plan resulted in net savings to the federal government of between $70 billion to $389 billion in this period, and an additional $24 billion to $126 billion in savings to state and local government. In other words, the $5 billion to $7 billion not recouped via stock sales and loan repayment is offset many times over by the $94 billion to $515 billion in net savings to government.

good investment indeed.

[CSM]

I love this:

"Overall, the government may lose only $5 billion to $7 billion"

Great savings indeed!

[maineman]

I love this:

"Overall, the government may lose only $5 billion to $7 billion"

Great savings indeed!

did you READ the next few sentences?


yes or no

[CSM]

did you READ the next few sentences?


yes or no

yep.

You forgot to ask me if I believe your initial premise that the entire US auto industry would have collapsed without government intervention.

[fj1200]

... we wouldn't have an auto industry.

It's probably also valid to say that the very fabric of life would have been torn and the rupture in the space-time continuum would never be sealed. Thank God for BO. :rolleyes:

[maineman]

yep.

You forgot to ask me if I believe your initial premise that the entire US auto industry would have collapsed without government intervention.

I really don't care if you believe it or not. I understand that we would probably still be making automobiles in America, but I am not so sure who would be making them, or where they would be getting their parts. I believe that, had we not stepped in when we did, that the domino effect would have toppled a lot more companies than just GM....

and now... before I forget, let me ask you this: what part of this statement do you not understand?

"In other words, the $5 billion to $7 billion not recouped via stock sales and loan repayment is offset many times over by the $94 billion to $515 billion in net savings to government."

[fj1200]

I believe...

As you've made clear.

[Nukeman]

I guess you didn't read this either... you just posted one of your cute comics instead:

The return on investment for the public from the restructuring of the domestic auto industry was extraordinary. Federal, state, and local governments saved between $10 and $78 for every dollar invested in the auto industry restructuring plan. Federal taxpayers are likely to recoup most or all of their investment in GM, and will enjoy a net gain of at least $61 billion on their $5 billion to 7 billion investment in the auto industry recovery plan. This was a very savvy investment, at a time when failure to intervene would have been catastrophic for the domestic economy.
The General Motors Company completed the largest global initial public stock offering (IPOs) in history this week (November 18). The U.S. government sold nearly half its stock holdings, which puts it well ahead of schedule for exiting from ownership of the company. The proceeds from the stock sales alone (Thursday’s and the expected returns from the ultimate sale of its remaining 500 million shares in the company) will pay back most or all of the U.S. government’s initial $49.5 billion investment in GM (Welch, Spears and Trudell 2010). Overall, the government may lose only $5 billion to $7 billion on the entire recovery plan (Trudell 2010) after GM and Chrysler are privatized again. This report, however, shows that this investment resulted in far larger savings to the economy, and to federal, state, and local budgets. Without the aid of the government-assisted restructuring, one or more of the Big 3 domestic automakers would have collapsed. Between 1.1 and 3.3 million domestic jobs would have been lost, resulting in the loss of 0.5% to 3.0% in GDP in each year between 2009 and 2011, which would have sharply increased federal, state, and local budget revenues. This report shows that the auto recovery plan resulted in net savings to the federal government of between $70 billion to $389 billion in this period, and an additional $24 billion to $126 billion in savings to state and local government. In other words, the $5 billion to $7 billion not recouped via stock sales and loan repayment is offset many times over by the $94 billion to $515 billion in net savings to government.

OK heres the PROBLEM with your report you found. That is pure SPECULATION. No valid information to back this up. they are ASSUMING a total collapse of one of the big 3 auto manufactures. If you believed that they would just close their doors and walk away from hundreds of thousands of employee than you might have a point but I really doubt that would have happened.

Sure some would lose out but in the end the company would be leaner and better situated to compete in the free market...

You really are an idiot at times...

Find a source with REAL numbers not ones pulled out of someones ass to make thier ideas seam valid........

[CSM]

I really don't care if you believe it or not. I understand that we would probably still be making automobiles in America, but I am not so sure who would be making them, or where they would be getting their parts. I believe that, had we not stepped in when we did, that the domino effect would have toppled a lot more companies than just GM....

and now... before I forget, let me ask you this: what part of this statement do you not understand?

"In other words, the $5 billion to $7 billion not recouped via stock sales and loan repayment is offset many times over by the $94 billion to $515 billion in net savings to government."

I understand the statement just fine. I don't believe the basic premise on which it is based. What you believe is irrelevant to me just as what I believe is irrelevant to you. Claims of what COULD have happened are subjective in the extreme and purely speculative. One speculation is as good as another. What I know is that the government spent a whole lot of taxpayer money and the country's debt is a lot higher.

[Kathianne]

OK heres the PROBLEM with your report you found. That is pure SPECULATION. No valid information to back this up. they are ASSUMING a total collapse of one of the big 3 auto manufactures. If you believed that they would just close their doors and walk away from hundreds of thousands of employee than you might have a point but I really doubt that would have happened.

Sure some would lose out but in the end the company would be leaner and better situated to compete in the free market...

You really are an idiot at times...

Find a source with REAL numbers not ones pulled out of someones ass to make thier ideas seam valid........

How can you refer to 'jobs saved or created' as mere speculation? :laugh2:

[Nukeman]

How can you refer to 'jobs saved or created' as mere speculation? :laugh2:

cause I can!!! :rolleyes:

[maineman]

If you believed that they would just close their doors and walk away from hundreds of thousands of employee than you might have a point but I really doubt that would have happened.



I bet you would have said the same thing about Studebaker in 1967

[Nukeman]

I bet you would have said the same thing about Studebaker in 1967

Studebaker fell to progress plain and simple. They couldn't keep up with the cheaper cars made by Ford, and GM. Funny that you think they just closed their doors. Most of the holding of Studebaker were gathers up by OTHER companies, some employees went with them some didn't. The dealers are now mostly Mercedes dealers.. So as you can see your WRONG the industry absorbs what was once Studebaker and retooled it ran in different directions but the "doors" weren't simply "closed"......:poke:

ohh the last studebaker was made in 1966 not 67!!!!!!

Not to mention the "Studebaker" plant in Southbend IN became AM General.. You know that little company that made the humvee!!!

[maineman]

tell that to the workers at the Hamilton plant.

[Nukeman]

Never did I say No One would lose their jobs but it would NOT have been the catastrophic ending of doom and gloom that you and your ilk predict!!!!

[red states rule]

I think that most people would agree that $14B is a small price to play to save the entire American auto industry and supporting manufacturing and parts suppliers and the thousands and thousands of jobs of the folks who worked in all those companies.

we'd have racked up billions and billions of dollars in unemployment benefits paid out to those folks and we wouldn't have an auto industry.

yeah. I think that it was a great investment.

as usual Virgil you are full of it

Even the Washington Post is calling Obama (and you) on the BS you both are sprewing





Posted at 12:00 PM ET, 06/07/2011
President Obama’s phony accounting on the auto industry bailout
By Glenn Kessler


With some of the economic indicators looking a bit dicey, President Obama traveled to Ohio last week to tout what the administration considers a good-news story: the rescue of the domestic automobile industry. In fact, he also made it the subject of his weekly radio address.

We take no view on whether the administration’s efforts on behalf of the automobile industry were a good or bad thing; that’s a matter for the editorial pages and eventually the historians. But we are interested in the facts the president cited to make his case.

What we found is one of the most misleading collections of assertions we have seen in a short presidential speech. Virtually every claim by the president regarding the auto industry needs an asterisk, just like the fine print in that too-good-to-be-true car loan.

Let’s look at the claims in the order in which the president said them.

“Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes American taxpayers for their support during my presidency — and it repaid that money six years ahead of schedule. And this week, we reached a deal to sell our remaining stake. That means soon, Chrysler will be 100 percent in private hands.”
Wow, “every dime and more” sounds like such a bargain. Not only did Chrysler pay back the loan, with interest — but the company paid back even more than they owed. Isn’t America great or what?

Not so fast. The president snuck in the weasel words “during my presidency” in his statement. What does that mean?

According to the White House, Obama is counting only the $8.5 billion loan that he made to Chrysler, not the $4 billion that President George W. Bush extended in his last month in office. However, Obama was not a disinterested observer at the time. According to The Washington Post article on the Bush loan, the incoming president called Bush’s action a “necessary step . . . to help avoid a collapse of our auto industry that would have had devastating consequences for our economy and our workers.”

Under the administration’s math, the U.S. government will receive $11.2 billion back from Chrysler, far more than the $8.5 billion Obama extended.

Through this sleight-of-hand accounting, the White House can conveniently ignore Bush’s loan, but even the Treasury Department admits that U.S. taxpayers will not recoup about $1.3 billion of the entire $12.5 billion investment when all is said and done.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-phony-accounting-on-the-auto-industry-bailout/2011/06/06/AG3nefKH_blog.html






reaad the rest Virgil and get back to us later

[TheShadowKNows]

I wonder if any of our resident liberals will answer this question.

This will sound somewhat idealistic, and more than a little towards "wishful thinking". But stop for a minute and try to visualize the response from the left, if the R's put together a 2012 Pres. ticket of Herman Cain, and Michele Bachmann.
Put them in any order that you may see fit to, but imagine to yourself the awsome power of such a ticket. First off the left can't play the race card, as they did, and are still doing on the first go round. Coupled with immediately losing an extremely large demographic of the black, and minority electorate. ( not to mention the steady growing number of black youths that are abondoning the dem's in droves, having witnessed first hand what the "entitlement" mentality did to their parents )
Next we have a small but steadfast and growing segment that usually votes for D's. If only because they're clueless, self-serving, and pathetically in need of a life. The same group that has been telling anyone that will listen, that they "voted for the first Black Man". Can't wait to recycle their nausea with "The first Woman" elected to high office.
Once having dismantled the core of the left's approach to campaigning, while leaving them to squirm within the unfamiliar confines of effective rational, decency, truth, and objectivity. The numerous "splinter" groups that go to compromise the base constituency of that liberal dung heap, formerly a legitimate political party. Will have all the "wind taken out of their collective sails", as confusion, empathy, and panic become the order of the day, coming from the top down.( just imagine a serpent without a head )
As to say that all of this will inspire a Republican landslide unknown within the annals of American political electioneering, would be the gross understatement since the birth of our great Republic, 235 years ago next month. :clap::clap::clap:

[maineman]

as usual Virgil you are full of it

Even the Washington Post is calling Obama (and you) on the BS you both are sprewing




reaad the rest Virgil and get back to us later

answer me one question:

why the FUCK should I have to read YOUR articles when you NEVER read mine?

I'll wait.

[red states rule]

answer me one question:

why the FUCK should I have to read YOUR articles when you NEVER read mine?

I'll wait.

Admit it Virg, the Washington Compost just blew your old wrinkled ass out fo the water :laugh2:

[red states rule]

This will sound somewhat idealistic, and more than a little towards "wishful thinking". But stop for a minute and try to visualize the response from the left, if the R's put together a 2012 Pres. ticket of Herman Cain, and Michele Bachmann.
Put them in any order that you may see fit to, but imagine to yourself the awsome power of such a ticket. First off the left can't play the race card, as they did, and are still doing on the first go round. Coupled with immediately losing an extremely large demographic of the black, and minority electorate. ( not to mention the steady growing number of black youths that are abondoning the dem's in droves, having witnessed first hand what the "entitlement" mentality did to their parents )
Next we have a small but steadfast and growing segment that usually votes for D's. If only because they're clueless, self-serving, and pathetically in need of a life. The same group that has been telling anyone that will listen, that they "voted for the first Black Man". Can't wait to recycle their nausea with "The first Woman" elected to high office.
Once having dismantled the core of the left's approach to campaigning, while leaving them to squirm within the unfamiliar confines of effective rational, decency, truth, and objectivity. The numerous "splinter" groups that go to compromise the base constituency of that liberal dung heap, formerly a legitimate political party. Will have all the "wind taken out of their collective sails", as confusion, empathy, and panic become the order of the day, coming from the top down.( just imagine a serpent without a head )
As to say that all of this will inspire a Republican landslide unknown within the annals of American political electioneering, would be the gross understatement since the birth of our great Republic, 235 years ago next month. :clap::clap::clap:

For a new guy you sure as hell know ol Virgil real well :laugh2:

[maineman]

Never did I say No One would lose their jobs but it would NOT have been the catastrophic ending of doom and gloom that you and your ilk predict!!!!

OK... let's say that my article's claims are off by half... no.. let's say that they have exaggerated the potential disaster if we had done nothing by THREE times... no... FOUR TIMES.... even then, we came out way ahead.

[maineman]

Admit it Virg, the Washington Compost just blew your old wrinkled ass out fo the water :laugh2:
I have no idea. I won't read what you post until you read what i have posted.

and I am asking you, as a moderator, to stop using my real name. It is personal information that i do not want shared with the posters on this site and I respectfully request you honor my request.

[jimnyc]

answer me one question:

why the FUCK should I have to read YOUR articles when you NEVER read mine?

I'll wait.

Because you're a fat piece of shit blowhard, who runs around and gets banned on every community on the internet, and is down to his last one?

Wait all night and hold your breath till you collapse, you fat fuck.

[red states rule]

I have no idea. I won't read what you post until you read what i have posted.

and I am asking you, as a moderator, to stop using my real name. It is personal information that i do not want shared with the posters on this site and I respectfully request you honor my request.


With Obama losing The Washington Compost, he's knows he is deep trouble. and all he has left to defend him is a perverted fake preacher troll to try and provide cover for him.

and as far as your request. You can ask

[jimnyc]

I have no idea. I won't read what you post until you read what i have posted.

and I am asking you, as a moderator, to stop using my real name. It is personal information that i do not want shared with the posters on this site and I respectfully request you honor my request.

I'm replying to you, as owner, and I'm telling you I will call you virgil whenever the fuck I feel like it. It's well known and everyone here knows it, and what a jerk off you are too.

[red states rule]

I'm replying to you, as owner, and I'm telling you I will call you virgil whenever the fuck I feel like it. It's well known and everyone here knows it, and what a jerk off you are too.

I guess Virgil got his answer to that request :laugh2:

[maineman]

I'm replying to you, as owner, and I'm telling you I will call you virgil whenever the fuck I feel like it. It's well known and everyone here knows it, and what a jerk off you are too.


** I expect Staff to be held to a higher standard as they set the tone of our community. As I am asking them to take the high road and refrain from engaging members in 'flaming', members are asked to refrain from 'flaming' Staff. If you have an issue with board decisions, or a particular member of Staff, please PM an Admin. There will be very little tolerance for members that go out of their way to engage Staff in a manner unbecoming to the community. **

physician, heal thyself

[red states rule]

** I expect Staff to be held to a higher standard as they set the tone of our community. As I am asking them to take the high road and refrain from engaging members in 'flaming', members are asked to refrain from 'flaming' Staff. If you have an issue with board decisions, or a particular member of Staff, please PM an Admin. There will be very little tolerance for members that go out of their way to engage Staff in a manner unbecoming to the community. **

physician, heal thyself

Well if he did not have enough flooding problems in the country now Virgil starts his crying an ocean of tears

[jimnyc]

** I expect Staff to be held to a higher standard as they set the tone of our community. As I am asking them to take the high road and refrain from engaging members in 'flaming', members are asked to refrain from 'flaming' Staff. If you have an issue with board decisions, or a particular member of Staff, please PM an Admin. There will be very little tolerance for members that go out of their way to engage Staff in a manner unbecoming to the community. **

physician, heal thyself

That applies to everyone, 'cept fake preachers, people who lie about their military service, call women the "C" word many times, wish death upon others...

In other words, your fat ass doesn't count.

[maineman]

That applies to everyone, 'cept fake preachers, people who lie about their military service, call women the "C" word many times, wish death upon others...

In other words, your fat ass doesn't count.

nice to know that your higher standards for your staff are so closely maintained. LIE about my military service.... tell ya what... I'll send you a little teaser in a PM, and then, we'll see if you have any honor at all.

[red states rule]

nice to know that your higher standards for your staff are so closely maintained. LIE about my military service.... tell ya what... I'll send you a little teaser in a PM, and then, we'll see if you have any honor at all.

Hey fake preacher man instead of being born again, why don't you just grow up?

Stop the pity party - it really is getting old

[jimnyc]

nice to know that your higher standards for your staff are so closely maintained. LIE about my military service.... tell ya what... I'll send you a little teaser in a PM, and then, we'll see if you have any honor at all.

Don't send me shit, I don't want you sending me personal shit. I don't like you and don't want a conversation with you. It will just be deleted without being read.

[jimnyc]

nice to know that your higher standards for your staff are so closely maintained. LIE about my military service.... tell ya what... I'll send you a little teaser in a PM, and then, we'll see if you have any honor at all.

Don't send me shit, I don't want you sending me personal shit. I don't like you and don't want a conversation with you.

[maineman]

even if it is proof that YOU are a liar?

go on... read it.

[jimnyc]

even if it is proof that YOU are a liar?

go on... read it.

I haven't lied about a damn thing, Virgil. Every last thing I posted you have done on this board. The way you talk certainly, without a doubt, makes you a fake preacher. And me doubting you served doesn't make me a liar, and I won't read your personal PM's. After the filth you sent my brother about me I have no desire to open a PM with your name on it.

[red states rule]

I have no idea. I won't read what you post until you read what i have posted.

and I am asking you, as a moderator, to stop using my real name. It is personal information that i do not want shared with the posters on this site and I respectfully request you honor my request.

and I respectfully deny your request Virgil

I am sorry I cannot provide you the resolution you were seeking

[Nukeman]

OK... let's say that my article's claims are off by half... no.. let's say that they have exaggerated the potential disaster if we had done nothing by THREE times... no... FOUR TIMES.... even then, we came out way ahead.

You can claim all you want but it has no bearing on the FACT that it is PURE SPECULATION!!!! I give you my thought its as good as the moron who wrote the tripe you keep quoting. They reduced their workforce by 5-10 percent through attrition renegotiate the contracts with the UAW to actually keep them in line with REAL workers, and they restructure their management team and are in a better footing for the future WITHOUT a freaking dime of MY money to keep them afloat.

They could have sought private loans as easy as federal ones, But they would have had to have had a VIABLE business plan to do it.. The Fed just handed them money to do the same ol same ol.

Now we have the head of GM calling for HIGHER gas tax.. Why the fuck do you think that is. Ohh lets see GM now makes smaller compact cars that get better MPG so people will trade in for new smaller cars so they don't get raped at the gas pump. Gee does that sound to you like cronyism, or back room deals. Not only are we to bail them out but now that they make a product lets have the fed regulate so their product is more attractive.

God you people make want to vomit!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[maineman]

I haven't lied about a damn thing, Virgil. Every last thing I posted you have done on this board. The way you talk certainly, without a doubt, makes you a fake preacher. And me doubting you served doesn't make me a liar, and I won't read your personal PM's. After the filth you sent my brother about me I have no desire to open a PM with your name on it.

your words:


"people who lie about their military service"


I gave you a link to a newspaper article that will show you that you are LYING about me with that statement. GO ahead. open it.

[red states rule]

your words:


"people who lie about their military service"


I gave you a link to a newspaper article that will show you that you are LYING about me with that statement. GO ahead. open it.

Keep going Virgil

You are thin ice and Spring thaw is just hours away

[jimnyc]

your words:


"people who lie about their military service"


I gave you a link to a newspaper article that will show you that you are LYING about me with that statement. GO ahead. open it.

I made a statement based on my beliefs. I already deleted your PM without reading it, just like I said I would. You're a known liar, a known fraud and VERY well known for writing absolute filth to anyone who dares disagree with you. Now, kindly fuck off.

[jimnyc]

You can claim all you want but it has no bearing on the FACT that it is PURE SPECULATION!!!! I give you my thought its as good as the moron who wrote the tripe you keep quoting. They reduced their workforce by 5-10 percent through attrition renegotiate the contracts with the UAW to actually keep them in line with REAL workers, and they restructure their management team and are in a better footing for the future WITHOUT a freaking dime of MY money to keep them afloat. They could have saught private loans as easy as fedearl ones, But they would have had to have had a VIABLE business plan to do it.. The Fed jsut handed them money to do the same ol same ol.

Now we have the head of GM calling for HIGHER gas tax.. Why the fuck do you think that is. Ohh lets see GM now makes smaller compact cars that get better MPG so people will trade in for new smaller cars so they don't get raped at the gas pump. Gee does that sound to you like cronyism, or back room deals. Not only are we to bail them out but now that they make a product lets have the fed regulate so their product is more attractive.

God you people make want to vomit!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here, Fatman, I suggest you stick to the topic with Nukeman instead of wasting your time.

[maineman]

Here, Fatman, I suggest you stick to the topic with Nukeman instead of wasting your time.

hey tat-boy... when you read the link, I'll move on.

I guess you have a hard time reading something that proves you are wrong... but big boys need to be able to do that.

[red states rule]

hey tat-boy... when you read the link, I'll move on.

I guess you have a hard time reading something that proves you are wrong... but big boys need to be able to do that.

Virgil, you do not know when to shut up do you?

[Sir Evil]

and I am asking you, as a moderator, to stop using my real name.

:laugh2::laugh2:

Screw you VIRGIL!!!

[jimnyc]

hey tat-boy... when you read the link, I'll move on.

I guess you have a hard time reading something that proves you are wrong... but big boys need to be able to do that.

I deleted your PM, I already told you, Virgil Bozeman III

[red states rule]

I deleted your PM, I already told you, Virgil Bozeman III

Jim, thats Virgil Fackney Bozeman III

[Sir Evil]

Jim, thats Virgil Fackney Bozeman III

Negative! thats Virgil fackney homo bozeman..... :coffee:

[Missileman]

OK... let's say that my article's claims are off by half... no.. let's say that they have exaggerated the potential disaster if we had done nothing by THREE times... no... FOUR TIMES.... even then, we came out way ahead.

Let's say your article's claims are pure Dem fantasy like the bullshit they spew about the stimulus bill creating or saving jobs...what then?

[DragonStryk72]

hey tat-boy... when you read the link, I'll move on.

I guess you have a hard time reading something that proves you are wrong... but big boys need to be able to do that.

Here's one: How about you post the link on here where we all can read it? As opposed to only sending it via PM?

[hortysir]

When on earth have the Democrats ever compromised when they won an election?
Definitely not in 2008...
:coffee:

[red states rule]

OK... let's say that my article's claims are off by half... no.. let's say that they have exaggerated the potential disaster if we had done nothing by THREE times... no... FOUR TIMES.... even then, we came out way ahead.

While you are pushing one of Obama's lie here are others you can defend as well

http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies

[red states rule]

I guess you didn't read this either... you just posted one of your cute comics instead:



http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/GM110605CLR-Economic20110606013951.jpg

[hortysir]

by the $94 billion to $515 billion in net savings to government.
That's a mighty damned big range.....In other words they have no freekin clue how it'll come out

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/110608%20headwinds%20RGB20110608093738.jpg