Barack Obama, our next President

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>Carol, one of the things I really liked about Ross Perot was his propensity to use little pie charts and graphs to reinforce his messages. Another thing was that the little guy would always mention the flipside,"Folks, if we do this, here's what happens, if we don't do this here's what happens." Fifty seven percent of Americans didn't know what in the hell he was talking about, they just liked because he said some "cute stuff."
I mention Ross Perot for he was one of the very many who attempted and failed to bring change to the GM business philosophy. Perot said, "Here's a company that has answers to questions that no one ever asked."
He also said, "Here's a company that remained arrogant long after they had anything to be arrogant about."
But investors kept investing didn't they?

GetRidofRitter wrote:

Obama and the Congressional leftistlature are raping the American working middle class taxpayer. Come on 2012, if it won't be too late to save us.

GetRidofRitter wrote:

<quoted text>
Honesty is not difficult for me, how about you. Replace the President, his cabinet, Congress and all state politicians with anyone other than a Democrat or Republican. It will never happen, both parties are blind especially the Dems. Americans are too stupid to see what is happening and the consequences of the current administrations actions. Since the Hopi say the world ends December 21, 2012, it doesn't matter anyway. Well, if that little f*cker in North Korea doesn't get us first.

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
I liked Perot too just because of his business-like approach to running the government. It was very refreshing. That's why I voted for him. However, I've often regretted that decision as my vote and other republicans who also voted for him gave the minority vote to Clinton on a silver platter. We could have been spared the entire Lewinsky fiasco.
Anyway, he was quirky but knew how to manage money. That's all I ask in a president. It's why I'm still looking at Romney if he runs again. Even though Mormonism is a religion I will never understand, his money smarts easily overshadows that in my book.

carol wrote:

I've been wanting to bring up the subject of the Irani demonstrations and, specifically, our president not taking the opportunity to support these demonstrators unequivacally. Thought this article might be a good way to start up a discussion.
David Solway, FrontPageMagazine.com
"It is obvious that Obama has stumbled over Iran. It is equally obvious that he is intensely preoccupied with grooming his image.
Obama is not unintelligent nor is he overly impressionable—at least, not any longer—but he is, on the evidence, exceedingly vain and disturbingly arrogant. This is a man who relies on his urbanity and pizzazz to impose his will upon an awed electorate. A man who responds to an unwelcome query with the rejoinder,'I won' and who appears to regard himself as pretty well infallible, irrespective of what reality is telling him. It is this character trait which likely disables him from scrupulously assessing the real nature of the world’s preeminent conflict. It is this which may well account for his obvious reluctance to develop a robust and workable strategy on the Iranian file."
My question: Why is Obama more concerned about Yuck-my-dinner-jacket and sitting down to tea with him rather than resoundingly supporting those risking their lives in the streets of Iran for freedom and democracy?

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>Well the money spent so far to salvage GM and Chrysler is far less than the money which would have been spent had the two automakers
collapsed which is exactly what would have happened. Carol, these deals were very complicated and cannot be explained in an editorial or on a talk show. The automotive experts are shocked by the way "all national media" are spewing misinformation regarding this subject. I've been reading the business sections of the Detroit Free Press and Toledo Blade each day as a way to keep informed. There is a reasonable chance that the GM deal will pay off perhaps as early as 2012. The jury is still out on Chrysler but the company did reopen 7 plants last week.

MisterTibbs wrote:

So Clinton got a BJ and that ruined your life?
<quoted text>

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>I'm pretty sure that the President, the State Department et. al. are going to sit back and watch Iran simmer in it's own vomit for awhile, this is after all the one Muslim nation that the experts predicted was ripe for implosion. The Iranians, Persians if you will, subscribe to the Shia side of Islam if you're keeping score. Carol, it might get interesting.

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>As I said, it's a complicated issue. You did pick up on the investors being dislodged from their investments however and plenty of them are po'd. Too bad for them eh?

Lynn wrote:

<quoted text>
This is not very complicated. Secure creditors are by law required to get paid first. Obama made up his own rules and bypassed the secured creditors and gave ownership to the unions. Those evil investors. Those teachers and police officers from Indiana whose pension funds were invested as a secured creditor with GM just lost out. But nobody likes investors, so it is okay to break laws and make them up as you go. Funny thing, are we not all investors? Don't the majority of us have 401k and other investments? Is it okay to break the law if it doesn't affect us and only affects who we perceive as evil. The next "crisis" might involve our investments or maybe even people who have investment property. Didn't you say you own more than 1 home, because you know that really isn't fair. I only have 1 home. I think Obama needs to do something about all these people with 2nd homes and investment homes. These people are greedy and there are all these other people who are losing their homes and it just isn't good for the country for some people to have no home and others to have more than one.
Bottom line, what you should be upset about is that Obama was allowed to break these laws, because right now he isn't coming after you, but when he does you have no right to complain.

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
I wonder how many IGs are going to go off on their own now to investigate wrongdoing since Obama rewrote that law too and can apparently fire anyone who he finds a threat to his political self-preservation. Kind of spooky if you ask me. Sixteen czars that are accountable only to him, taking over banks and car companies and now immune to scrutiny by the very people whose job it is to scrutinize. We really do have an unusual state of affairs. However, the people will be heard.

Lynn wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not exactly sure how you think 80 billion dollars is far less than having these 2 auto companies go through Chapter 11, which is what they are doing now anyway. What is the difference? We are closing down 7 GM plants and 1100 dealers. We are now opening 7 Chrylser plants, which we should as all of them were closed and we have to make cars and we also closed 789 Chrylser dealers. So what would have been the difference between this and Chapter 11. I will tell you...it's all political. We have a government running car companies making decisions based on getting reelected. The only difference between chapter 11 and a government bailout was that the unions came out on top.
Now I may live in Fantasy Land and you say this deal will pay off by 2012. Check my math...but we have invested around 50 billion dollars in GM and let's say we make a 2000 dollar profit on each car, then we will have to sell 25,000,000 cars by 2012 for this to pay off. Now considering that only about a total of 8,000,000 cars are sold in the US by all car companies a year, can you please explain how this will pay off?

Lynn wrote:

<quoted text>
This is not very complicated. Secure creditors are by law required to get paid first. Obama made up his own rules and bypassed the secured creditors and gave ownership to the unions. Those evil investors. Those teachers and police officers from Indiana whose pension funds were invested as a secured creditor with GM just lost out. But nobody likes investors, so it is okay to break laws and make them up as you go. Funny thing, are we not all investors? Don't the majority of us have 401k and other investments? Is it okay to break the law if it doesn't affect us and only affects who we perceive as evil. The next "crisis" might involve our investments or maybe even people who have investment property. Didn't you say you own more than 1 home, because you know that really isn't fair. I only have 1 home. I think Obama needs to do something about all these people with 2nd homes and investment homes. These people are greedy and there are all these other people who are losing their homes and it just isn't good for the country for some people to have no home and others to have more than one.
Bottom line, what you should be upset about is that Obama was allowed to break these laws, because right now he isn't coming after you, but when he does you have no right to complain.

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>I own several homes and a few small commercial properties which I rent out to others as a way of earning a living. Would it be different if I owned a motel or car rental agency? Hell no it wouldn't, we each chose our paths in life and today I'm regretting that I didn't choose an easier path with benefits retirement and such.
What kind of question was that?

Patrick K wrote:

<quoted text>
We often make life decisions we later second guess.
In retrospect would you choose a different course if you were given another chance?
interested, No disrespect.!!!

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>No! But if I had life to live over, I would like to have learned how to play the piano.
No fooling!

Lynn wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not exactly sure how you think 80 billion dollars is far less than having these 2 auto companies go through Chapter 11, which is what they are doing now anyway. What is the difference? We are closing down 7 GM plants and 1100 dealers. We are now opening 7 Chrylser plants, which we should as all of them were closed and we have to make cars and we also closed 789 Chrylser dealers. So what would have been the difference between this and Chapter 11. I will tell you...it's all political. We have a government running car companies making decisions based on getting reelected. The only difference between chapter 11 and a government bailout was that the unions came out on top.
Now I may live in Fantasy Land and you say this deal will pay off by 2012. Check my math...but we have invested around 50 billion dollars in GM and let's say we make a 2000 dollar profit on each car, then we will have to sell 25,000,000 cars by 2012 for this to pay off. Now considering that only about a total of 8,000,000 cars are sold in the US by all car companies a year, can you please explain how this will pay off?

MisterTibbs wrote:

Ah ha! you mean like GW the Moron Bush who fired all the scientists who didn't go along with his phony Ideology. carry on.
<quoted text>

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>Lynn, it's a little more complicated than, "let's say we." And I'll agree that WE have a long way to go and a short time to get there but IMO Obama made the right choices re: GM, not so sure about Chrysler. By the end of next year, barring worldwide calamity GM should begin a process of reissuing publicly traded stock, the early estimates suggest that those stock sales could bring as much as much as $48 billion into the fold. Will it work out as planned? I dunno, but the alternative, letting the entire company disappear, would cost the Federal, State and Local governments at least $1 Trillion and perhaps more.
You do understand that that GM, all it's subsidiaries, suppliers and dealers would otherwise disappear right?

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>No! But if I had life to live over, I would like to have learned how to play the piano.
No fooling!