GM Ramps Up Risky Subprime Auto Loans To Drive Sales

[ELVIS]

Investors Business Daily

President Obama has touted General Motors (GM) as a successful example of his administration's policies. Yet GM's recovery is built, at least in part, on the increasing use of subprime loans.

The Obama administration in 2009 bailed out GM to the tune of $50 billion as it went into a managed bankruptcy.

Near the end of 2010, GM acquired a new captive lending arm, subprime specialist AmeriCredit. Renamed GM Financial, it has played a significant role in GM's growth .

The automaker is relying increasingly on subprime loans, 10-Q financial reports shows.

Potential borrowers of car loans are rated on FICO scores that range from 300 to 850. Anything under 660 is generally deemed subprime.

GM Financial auto loans to customers with FICO scores below 660 rose from 87% of total loans in Q4 2010 to 93% in Q1 2012.

The worse the FICO score, the bigger the increase. From Q4 2010 to Q1 2012, GM Financial loans to customers with the worst FICO scores — below 540 — shot up 79% to more than $2.3 billion. The second worst category, 540-599, rose 28% from about $3.4 billion to $4.3 billion.

Prime loans, those above 660, dropped 42% to $676 million.

GM Financial provides just over 8% of GM's financing. Prior to 2006, GM's captive lending arm was GMAC, but GM sold a controlling stake in 2006. GMAC later renamed itself Ally Financial and continues to provide the bulk of GM's financing.

At the peak of the credit crisis and recession in late 2008, Ally announced that it would move away from subprime lending.

By spring 2010 GM's new management, led by North American executive Mark Reuss, wanted to move back into subprime, fearing that GM couldn't compete.

Subprime lending in cars is not as risky as in housing. Car loans are cheaper, so customers have an easier time making payments. When they do go into default, the cars can be repossessed and sold to recover some of the loss.

"The subprime market grew as a result of the recession," said GM spokesman Jim Cain. "Our experience, however, is that with proper management they are very good risks."

He points to GM's credit losses which have not risen above 5.5% since late 2010.

Nevertheless, since it acquired GM Financial, GM has seen its subprime loans grow from about 4.8% of sales in Q4 2010 to 8.2% in 2012.



:elvis:

[Nitro Express]

It was GM's finance division GMAC that broke the company's back. Sure they may have ran with SUV's too long but it was making bad loans that did most the damage.

Bailouts just buy some time but without letting the market clear out the bad wood nothing gets fixed and they soon burn through the bailout money and continue to make the same bad mistakes. Also, when you know the government will continue to bail you out there is no incentive to be careful.

Some government loans have worked well. When Lee Iacocca ran Chrysler he got a government loan and paid it back early. He cut his salery and cut waste in opperations even printing the annual report on cheap pulp paper to save money. What I don't see in our society anymore is waste cutting. There is so much waste but we throw these endless bailouts at it and get nowhere.

I think most people don't care anymore. I think in the past there was a percentage of the population that realized someone eventually was going to have to pay for that loan and how was that going to affect those people. Now we just charge up the ass for tuition and healthcare and don't care that it ruins people's lives. In fact, we are so far gone the politicians use these real problems to lie to us and then make it law we have to pay the racketeers.

The country is ran by racketeers. If anyone in here did what our politicians and big corporate leaders do we would go to jail. Martha Stewart goes to prison for insider trading but the politicians in Washington who do it don't. We get fined and go to jail for tax evasion, Timothy Geither doesn't.

This is the problem. The criminals are in control and this is why things get worse.

[Nickdfresh]

All dealerships have "special financing" for subprime customers. GM merely is doing what everyone else is. In fact, Ford Motor Credit will often buy customers who've mediocre and even bad credit...

[baru911]

All dealerships have "special financing" for subprime customers. GM merely is doing what everyone else is. In fact, Ford Motor Credit will often buy customers who've mediocre and even bad credit...

So, you're saying is everyone else is doing it so it is OK? If they fail again then all us tax payers will bail out GM again. We did it before. Oh wait, the sales of the Volts will counter the exposure from the sub-prime car loans. The rapid sales of the Volt have proven that. Sure, that's the ticket.

[ELVIS]

LMAO!!!

Nick thinks this is just normal business as usual...

"they all do it."

LMAO !!

[Nitro Express]

All dealerships have "special financing" for subprime customers. GM merely is doing what everyone else is. In fact, Ford Motor Credit will often buy customers who've mediocre and even bad credit...

Very true. They just want to generate loans so they can resell them and resell them and resell them and use the base as collateral for more loans. It's what caused the problem in the first place with mortgages. We haven't fixed a damn thing. The banks are up to the same games but now they have stuck the taxpayer with the losses.

[Nitro Express]

So, you're saying is everyone else is doing it so it is OK? If they fail again then all us tax payers will bail out GM again. We did it before. Oh wait, the sales of the Volts will counter the exposure from the sub-prime car loans. The rapid sales of the Volt have proven that. Sure, that's the ticket.

The Volt is too expensive. I can see a niche for electric commuting cars but the price would have to be down around $20,000. Petrolium will be king for long range driving but I think an electric car with a top speed of around 85mph and a range of 200 miles would work just fine for most daily in town driving. You will be seeing electric delivery trucks more and more. They are starting to make them.

[ELVIS]

The banks are up to the same games but now they have stuck the taxpayer with the losses.

And they'll do it again...

[baru911]

The Volt is too expensive. I can see a niche for electric commuting cars but the price would have to be down around $20,000. Petrolium will be king for long range driving but I think an electric car with a top speed of around 85mph and a range of 200 miles would work just fine for most daily in town driving. You will be seeing electric delivery trucks more and more. They are starting to make them.

We all know the Volt is too expensive. The vehicle has been sold in other countries and does not sell well there either. In 2+ years of production 35,000 of them have been produced with around 26,000 being on the road world wide. To compare the vehicle to another GM car that was released around the same time take a look at the Chevy Camaro. 1st 12 months sales for the vehicle was 99,872 units. Tells ya that the Volt is not being marketed correctly, is too expensive, and nobody but the Rocky Roads of the world want to own one.

[Nitro Express]

And they'll do it again...

It's all illusion. The key for them is to stay in power and grab more power. The problem is when you only have half the population paying the tax and the other half is driving the debt higher and higher, it's unsustainable. Let's just call the banker bailouts what they are. Welfare for the rich. Where the revolt will happen is from the tax paying sector. Not from the rich or the ones on welfare. It's the guy paying the taxes that is fed up and ready to tear throats out.

[Nitro Express]

We all know the Volt is too expensive. The vehicle has been sold in other countries and does not sell well there either. In 2+ years of production 35,000 of them have been produced with around 26,000 being on the road world wide. To compare the vehicle to another GM car that was released around the same time take a look at the Chevy Camaro. 1st 12 months sales for the vehicle was 99,872 units. Tells ya that the Volt is not being marketed correctly, is too expensive, and nobody but the Rocky Roads of the world want to own one.

If GM came out with a commuting vehicle for $18,000 they would sell well. Something to get you to work and back and run around some. The problem is they want to continue the finance a car you can't really afford model. The problem with cars is they are too expensive for basic models and we need to get the prices down.

[Nickdfresh]

So, you're saying is everyone else is doing it so it is OK?

Yeah. Are you saying that everyone else can do it but they shouldn't?


If they fail again then all us tax payers will bail out GM again. We did it before. Oh wait, the sales of the Volts will counter the exposure from the sub-prime car loans. The rapid sales of the Volt have proven that. Sure, that's the ticket.

If they don't sell cars, they fail. Secondly, if GM doesn't do through their financing arm, then the dealership just uses on of "its banks" which may also have been bail-out...

WTF does the Volt have to do with any of this?

[Nickdfresh]

LMAO!!!

Nick thinks this is just normal business as usual...

"they all do it."

LMAO !!

Yeah, um pretty much dummy. According to several friends in F&I, it absolutely is and always has been...

This is a non-issue by sour-grapes cunts that can't admit that the Obama Admin's saving of General Motors is an unqualified success and douchebags like Romney were wrong...

[Nickdfresh]

Chevy Volt wins drivers' hearts, gets top marks in satisfaction

Chevy Volt owners are happier with their cars than any other compact owners in the US, according to a recent survey. The Chevy Volt garnered top marks across a wide range of categories, including performance, style and comfort.

By Nikki Gordon-Bloomfield, Guest blogger / July 27, 2012

According to a recent, very peppy General Motors ad campaign, many Chevrolet Volt owners are brimming with enthusiasm about their plug-in hybrid.

Then again, having Chevy Volt owners evangelize about their cars in an ad designed to sell the plug-in hybrid is hardly a fair yardstick to gauge how Volt owners feel about their cars.

But a recent J.D. Power Survey has come to the same conclusion as GM’s own ad: drivers of the 2012 Chevrolet Volt are more satisfied with their new car than any other compact car buyer in the U.S. today.

RELATED: 10 coolest cars you've never heard of

In its recent 2012 Automotive Performance, Execution and Layout (APEAL) study, which examines owner impressions of their new car 90 days after purchase, J.D. Power and Associates discovered that Volt attracted the highest level of satisfaction in its segment.

In its impartial study, J.D. Power noted that the 2012 Chevrolet Volt was awarded a maximum of five stars for its Overall Performance and Design, Features and Instrument Panel, Style, Performance and Comfort.

In second place, came the 2012 Volkswagen Golf, while the 2012 Honda CR-Z hybrid coupe came in third.

With its win in the compact segment, the 2012 Chevrolet Volt helped Chevrolet win the highest number of segment awards, with the 2012 Avalanche and 2012 Sonic also receiving the top award in the large pickup and subcompact car segments respectively.

The Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2012/0727/Chevy-Volt-wins-drivers-hearts-gets-top-marks-in-satisfaction)

[Nitro Express]

Not to this level. The levels of debt is not business as usual. Then they use debt as collateral for the other loans. It's pretty much a ponzi scheme if you look at what's really going on. Someone gets stuck with the loses and it's not the people who are responsible. Usually they make more money than ever.

[Nickdfresh]

Not to this level. The levels of debt is not business as usual. Then they use debt as collateral for the other loans. It's pretty much a ponzi scheme if you look at what's really going on. Someone gets stuck with the loses and it's not the people who are responsible. Usually they make more money than ever.

Not to this level? Um, actually subprime car loans were far more common, or at least easier to finance, prior to 2008...and do you even know what a ponzi scheme is? Apparently not. "Stuck with the losses?" For the most part, cars can be easily repo'd most of the equity intact. In fact, most of these loans are predicated on a large down payment...

[Nitro Express]

Debt in general. Sure you get a used car back but you have to sell the used car to somebody. A ponzi scheme is getting people to buy in on an investment that simply doesn't have enough money to pay back all the investors. It's named after Mr. Ponzi who ran such a scheme in Boston years ago. I think it should be called a Madoff since he ran a bigger one. Derivatives based on consumer debt like car loans are nothing but a huge ponzi scheme. It can be mortgages, it can be auto loans, it can be any kind of a loans. It's called the debt multiplier. For each loan they make they can use a multiple for more loans and there lies the problem. It's not the loans you see it's the loans you don't see and those are called derivatives.

These loans are traded and used at colladeral for other loans, bundled and packaged and rated as prime loans.

Nothing has changed.

[Nitro Express]

If you live in Buffalo I advise you don't buy a Volt. The heater sucks according to Consumer Reports. If you run on short runs on battery power only it's great. As soon as you run the heater or AC it runs the engine. It also scrapes the front bumper so if your roads suck that's a problem too.

[Nitro Express]

The loaner of last resort the US Government is a ponzi scheme according to someone who knows a lot about them.

[baru911]

Yeah. Are you saying that everyone else can do it but they shouldn't?

Nope, I'm saying that nobody should do it. I don't think that the banks should be allowed to run amok again. Course, nothing has been done to reel them in since everything started so why should I expect it to change. Both parties take huge donations from Wall Street and The Banks so it isn't gonna change.

[ELVIS]

Yeah. Are you saying that everyone else can do it but they shouldn't?



If they don't sell cars, they fail.

What ?????

The government will bail them out !!

[Nickdfresh]

Nope, I'm saying that nobody should do it.

Why? These banks are very profitable and have few problems....


I don't think that the banks should be allowed to run amok again.

These banks never ran amok with few exceptions, in fact they were far more responsible than those funding mortgages actually, because they ususally demand big money down and have ready collateral. Repo'ing a car is far easier and has much bigger return than foreclosing on a house...


Course, nothing has been done to reel them in since everything started so why should I expect it to change. Both parties take huge donations from Wall Street and The Banks so it isn't gonna change.

Actually, I'm told Americredit was almost like dealing with the mob for customers. GM Financial is probably far more responsible and above board than Americredit ever was. GM needed a lending arm, and AC provided a ready made network they've probably reigned in...

[Nickdfresh]

What ?????

The government will bail them out !!

The gov't never bailed out auto-loans, dolt...

[baru911]

These banks never ran amok with few exceptions, in fact they were far more responsible than those funding mortgages actually, because they ususally demand big money down and have ready collateral. Repo'ing a car is far easier and has much bigger return than foreclosing on a house...

You provided as an answer that you view predatory lending by banks, i.e., sub-prime loans as OK because the banks will remain profitable. I'm surprised by that view. I learned something about you Nick in that response.

I'm conservative and love the capitalistic system but I shy away from defending sub-prime loans in any shape or form. Glad that making it easier to repo the car makes it OK from your point-of-view. Screwing people's credit up so they have to pay higher interest rates throughout their lives is what the sub-prime loan game is about. Risk = More Money. It only works until the house of cards falls down. Happened once. The Governments of the world might not be able to loan the banks the money to fix it if it happens again. More than likely they won't be able to. Maybe that isn't such a bad thing.

It is my belief that sub-prime loans for anything should be eliminated. If you can't afford the object of your desire you shouldn't be allowed to obtain it if you can't afford it. I've always wanted a AC Cobra 427 but I can't afford one. Taking any type of loan out isn't gonna allow me to be able to afford it via monthly payments.

While I don't like business being hampered by regulations I do believe that Clinton should not have repealed the Glass–Steagall Act. It opened the flood gates and started the world on the road we are traveling on right now.

[Nickdfresh]

You provided as an answer that you view predatory lending by banks, i.e., sub-prime loans as OK because the banks will remain profitable. I'm surprised by that view. I learned something about you Nick in that response.

You don't even know what "preditory lending" is. Nothing is hidden. Fees are spelled out and the law requires higher interest rates are disclosed. Those are not predatory lending practices. If you actually remember what the real issue was with "preditory lending" and "subprime loans", it had to do with the Housing Bubble, not cars...


I'm conservative and love the capitalistic system but I shy away from defending sub-prime loans in any shape or form.

No you're not, you're just another fake conservative that is only capitalist when it benefits him...


Glad that making it easier to repo the car makes it OK from your point-of-view. Screwing people's credit up so they have to pay higher interest rates throughout their lives is what the sub-prime loan game is about. Risk = More Money. It only works until the house of cards falls down. Happened once. The Governments of the world might not be able to loan the banks the money to fix it if it happens again. More than likely they won't be able to. Maybe that isn't such a bad thing.

LOL So you're so for the poor peoples now with teh bad credits! Yet you don't think they should have a chance to reform their credit nor have a decent car. Some of these people are actually able to refinance their car loans if their credit scores improve as they pay down their loans!


It is my belief that sub-prime loans for anything should be eliminated. If you can't afford the object of your desire you shouldn't be allowed to obtain it if you can't afford it. I've always wanted a AC Cobra 427 but I can't afford one. Taking any type of loan out isn't gonna allow me to be able to afford it via monthly payments.

There's a difference between buying a high end performance car and a more basic ride to get to A and B. And many CAN afford the payments if they can get a loan. And a car is an absolute necessity in this society bereft of of reliable, extensive public transport...


While I don't like business being hampered by regulations I do believe that Clinton should not have repealed the Glass–Steagall Act. It opened the flood gates and started the world on the road we are traveling on right now.

Well good for you, neither do I. But that had little to do with car loans and the deregulation actually began under Carter and was accelerated under Reagan...

[ELVIS]

You just got owned, nickforsubprime...

[Nickdfresh]

You just got owned, nickforsubprime...

:cheer: :blow:

What's wrong with subprime, you retard?

[baru911]

You don't even know what "predatory lending" is. Nothing is hidden. Fees are spelled out and the law requires higher interest rates are disclosed. Those are not predatory lending practices. If you actually remember what the real issue was with "predatory lending" and "subprime loans", it had to do with the Housing Bubble, not cars...

Umm, I don’t and fees are spelled out? Really? You bought a vehicle lately? The loan package I signed through Ford Credit a year ago was about as ½ the size as the one I signed when I purchased my home 4 years ago. Between all the crap that is required by law and the crap Ford credit threw in their it took almost 2 hours for me to read it. According to the loan guy at the dealership I was the only person in the last year that inspected what I was signing. I found a “mistake” that saved me over 750.00. I have an advanced degree and had to question some of the things I was reading to get a clear understanding of what the loan package paperwork was relaying.


I'm conservative and love the capitalistic system but I shy away from defending sub-prime loans in any shape or form.


No you're not, you're just another fake conservative that is only capitalist when it benefits him...

Hey, glad you can just through out things about me and NOT know anything about me. I’ll attempt the same - You seem to be a flip-flopper for your liberal friends in power. You argue anything in an attempt to make the liberals remain in power here no matter what. At least I can say that I hold on to my beliefs and speak my mind about it. I ding both sides of the isle as they have both gotten us where we are and continue to leads us down the path we are on. In the USA today neither side has a true leader that wants to do the right thing. Their game is about staying in power. At the national level there really isn’t much of a difference between either side on topics that could really change the course we are on. Everything talked about in politics is a hot button subject that is red herrings to keep the masses divided.


Glad that making it easier to repo the car makes it OK from your point-of-view. Screwing people's credit up so they have to pay higher interest rates throughout their lives is what the sub-prime loan game is about. Risk = More Money. It only works until the house of cards falls down. Happened once. The Governments of the world might not be able to loan the banks the money to fix it if it happens again. More than likely they won't be able to. Maybe that isn't such a bad thing.


LOL So you're so for the poor peoples now with teh bad credits! Yet you don't think they should have a chance to reform their credit nor have a decent car. Some of these people are actually able to refinance their car loans if their credit scores improve as they pay down their loans!

OIC, poor people all have bad credit in your eyes. I have never been against poor people. Like every different level of our socioeconomic class system I think there are some with bad credit and some with good credit. I don’t think poor credit has anything to do with being poor. I think it has to do with an individual, family, business, and/or government attempting to buy thing outside their means and not paying the loaning party back. Isn’t that how you get bad credit or did I miss that day in economics class?



While I don't like business being hampered by regulations I do believe that Clinton should not have repealed the Glass–Steagall Act. It opened the floodgates and started the world on the road we are traveling on right now.


Well good for you, neither do I. But that had little to do with car loans and the deregulation actually began under Carter and was accelerated under Reagan...

Neither of those two Presidents took down the act that opened the floodgates. Clinton also signed NAFTA. Two things that in the short term stimulated the economy and in the long term FUCKED the USA and the USA’s middle class. Go Bill Go!

To be fair - I'll ding Reagan for deregulating the Trucking industry. Why? 1) It allowed the size of trailers to increase which causes greater wear on the roads. Means that more governmental money needs to be spent fixing them more often. 2) Allowing drivers to say on the road longer driving makes it less safe to be on them. There are lots of other reasons like the destruction on the Teamsters Union which was a good and bad thing but deregulating that industry wasn't a good idea when weighed as a whole.

[BigBadBrian]

baru911............1
Nickdfresh.........0

[ELVIS]

More like ten to zero...

[Nickdfresh]

baru911............1
Nickdfresh.........0

baru911, these guys are like gay for you and shit...

[jhale667]

baru911, these guys are like gay for you and shit...

Wait 'til they realize they're supposed to hate him... ;)

[Nickdfresh]

Umm, I don’t and fees are spelled out? Really? You bought a vehicle lately? The loan package I signed through Ford Credit a year ago was about as ½ the size as the one I signed when I purchased my home 4 years ago.

Right! In 1940 it was about two pages. Welcome to the world of lawsuits and CYA...


Between all the crap that is required by law and the crap Ford credit threw in their it took almost 2 hours for me to read it. According to the loan guy at the dealership I was the only person in the last year that inspected what I was signing. I found a “mistake” that saved me over 750.00. I have an advanced degree and had to question some of the things I was reading to get a clear understanding of what the loan package paperwork was relaying.

The "fine print" is very extensive, but unless you bought your car at Shady Asshole Ford & Lincoln™, or your state is completely different than mine, all the fees, rate, price of the car, mo/payments have to be spelled out up front of the contract. What did you save the $750 on?


Hey, glad you can just through out things about me and NOT know anything about me. I’ll attempt the same - You seem to be a flip-flopper for your liberal friends in power.

Specifically how?


You argue anything in an attempt to make the liberals remain in power here no matter what.

How would me arguing on a msg. board make my "liberal friends" stay in power? I'm pretty sure stealerships and lenders donate to both parties...


At least I can say that I hold on to my beliefs and speak my mind about it. I ding both sides of the isle as they have both gotten us where we are and continue to leads us down the path we are on. In the USA today neither side has a true leader that wants to do the right thing. Their game is about staying in power. At the national level there really isn’t much of a difference between either side on topics that could really change the course we are on. Everything talked about in politics is a hot button subject that is red herrings to keep the masses divided.

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


OIC, poor people all have bad credit in your eyes.

Is that what I said, strawman?


I have never been against poor people.

I never said you were, but don't speak out of two sides of your mouth and act like you're doing them a favor by denying them subprime loans when the only alternative would be truly predatory "buy-here-pay-here" lots where nothing positive gets reported to their credit report for making on time payments or paying a car off...


Like every different level of our socioeconomic class system I think there are some with bad credit and some with good credit. I don’t think poor credit has anything to do with being poor. I think it has to do with an individual, family, business, and/or government attempting to buy thing outside their means and not paying the loaning party back. Isn’t that how you get bad credit or did I miss that day in economics class?

Or medical bankruptcies. Divorce. Personal tragedy. Et cetera. You are correct that there are people making six figures that go bankrupt or have abused the system. There are also a lot of people that simply couldn't afford to pay their medical bills of a sick child. Do they get lumped into your "live beyond their means" mantra, too?


Neither of those two Presidents took down the act that opened the floodgates. Clinton also signed NAFTA. Two things that in the short term stimulated the economy and in the long term FUCKED the USA and the USA’s middle class. Go Bill Go!...

It wasn't the "act that opened the floodgates." Deregulation took many years and lots of lobbying despite the easy propaganda you base your false assertions on...

[baru911]

And you respond with the above? Nick, you're better than that. Least from some of your post I think you are but what do I know?

I get it. I'm just some conservative guy in fly over country that does rate consideration when all you northeastern big city folk do your highfalutin pompous thinkin' that we just wouldn't understand. Why would someone from my neck of the woods have any idea that might be worthy of your time? I should just say "Thank you" and get my banjo out and play it.

Do you generally just type stuff like shill, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, strawman, propaganda or whatever in an attempt to some how deflect the facts that Bill "Oh crap, she kept the blue dress" Clinton did sign NAFTA, and did repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. I didn't make that up. That happened. Sorry, that your liberal hero started the USA down the road we find ourselves on. Like I said good in the short run but has been murder on the middle class in the long run. We used to have a manufacturing base. NAFTA sucked that right on out of here and those middle class factory jobs along with it.

BTW, I liked Reagan but for a reason that most people think about. We'd been through Vietnam, Watergate, the oil crisis, the entire Carter Administration, and the Iran Hostage crisis. Our Country had been walking around with our confidence and our head in the gutter. This old man comes into Office and made you proud to be an American again. He made you want to do better and to better yourself. The 1980's were a great time. The music reflects it. The music is about having a party. That old man made you believe in something outside of yourself. Maybe not as idealistic as JFK but he made you believe. That comes around once maybe twice in a lifetime. I don't see any leader in the USA on a national level who has that. 4 years ago I thought there might be a guy but he's proven to be as much a disappointment as he is a teleprompter reader.

I saved $ 750.00 on some type of dealer warranty that was written into the contract without me agreeing to it.

[baru911]

Wait 'til they realize they're supposed to hate him... ;)

That made me laugh.......thanks.

[ELVIS]

Who's supposed to hate who ??

[BigBadBrian]

gayhale is just babbling again, E. He forgot his meds.

[Nickdfresh]

And you respond with the above? Nick, you're better than that. Least from some of your post I think you are but what do I know?

I get it. I'm just some conservative guy in fly over country that does rate consideration when all you northeastern big city folk do your highfalutin pompous thinkin' that we just wouldn't understand. Why would someone from my neck of the woods have any idea that might be worthy of your time? I should just say "Thank you" and get my banjo out and play it.

Did I accuse you of having a banjo or something? I fucking love great banjo playing circa Pete Townsend...


Do you generally just type stuff like shill, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, strawman, propaganda or whatever in an attempt to some how deflect the facts that Bill "Oh crap, she kept the blue dress" Clinton did sign NAFTA, and did repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. I didn't make that up. That happened. Sorry, that your liberal hero started the USA down the road we find ourselves on. Like I said good in the short run but has been murder on the middle class in the long run. We used to have a manufacturing base. NAFTA sucked that right on out of here and those middle class factory jobs along with it.

You become a strawman when you rewrite my posts in your response to say stuff I never even came close to implying. NAFTA sucks, and so did the repeal of Glass-Steagall, but you cannot soley blame Clinton as a lot of hypowit Republicans tried to do when they fail to mention that it was a GOP dominated Congress that voted to repeal it...


BTW, I liked Reagan but for a reason that most people think about. We'd been through Vietnam, Watergate, the oil crisis, the entire Carter Administration, and the Iran Hostage crisis. Our Country had been walking around with our confidence and our head in the gutter. This old man comes into Office and made you proud to be an American again. He made you want to do better and to better yourself. The 1980's were a great time. The music reflects it. The music is about having a party. That old man made you believe in something outside of yourself. Maybe not as idealistic as JFK but he made you believe. That comes around once maybe twice in a lifetime. I don't see any leader in the USA on a national level who has that. 4 years ago I thought there might be a guy but he's proven to be as much a disappointment as he is a teleprompter reader.

I have a soft-spot for the Gipper too. In fact, many say Obama has a soft spot for the ol' Gipper. He still did a lot of shitty things in a bad, then very good economy he didn't have a lot to do with in either case. Just like Carter did. And Reagan read a teleprompter too...


I saved $ 750.00 on some type of dealer warranty that was written into the contract without me agreeing to it.

Good for you, it should have been itemized on the first page. A stealership in my area was indicted and sued for charging customers $50 to fill their Hyundais with gas when Hyundai had already paid the dealership a gassing fee...

[baru911]

You become a strawman when you rewrite my posts in your response to say stuff I never even came close to implying. NAFTA sucks, and so did the repeal of Glass-Steagall, but you cannot soley blame Clinton as a lot of hypowit Republicans tried to do when they fail to mention that it was a GOP dominated Congress that voted to repeal it...

Bill "Lord, my wife is ugly" Clinton signed NAFTA in Dec. 1993. NAFTA was implemented on Jan. 1, 1994. The GOP was the minority power in Congress when he signed it as they had not been sworn in. They had been elected but they did NOT hold the power in Washington nor had they been the majority in Congress for 50+ years. Also, the President holds VETO power. To repeal a law like Glass-Steagall you have to follow the same steps as passing a new law. Thus, Bill "Can you define THE for me" Clinton had to sign the repeal once it came to his desk. He could have stopped both. He did not in both cases.

[Nickdfresh]

Bill "Lord, my wife is ugly" Clinton signed NAFTA in Dec. 1993. NAFTA was implemented on Jan. 1, 1994. The GOP was the minority power in Congress when he signed it as they had not been sworn in. They had been elected but they did NOT hold the power in Washington nor had they been the majority in Congress for 50+ years. Also, the President holds VETO power. To repeal a law like Glass-Steagall you have to follow the same steps as passing a new law. Thus, Bill "Can you define THE for me" Clinton had to sign the repeal once it came to his desk. He could have stopped both. He did not in both cases.

I was obviously talking about Glass-Steagall, which was never fully repealed but was rather partially nullified in 1999 by the passing of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act with the belief that it would make banks more competitive internationally. However, part of the act wsa tampered with under both the Carter Admin in 1978 and the Reagan Admin in 1987, especially, encouraged banks to take advantage of loopholes.

As for NAFTA, few foresaw the short comings of it and at the time it was thought a great way to open up markets to U.S. goods. Incidentally, despite your obvious vitriolic, programmed Stepford Wife-like hatred of Clinton, he presided over economic booms, lower deficits and balanced budgets, appropriate tax levels, and relative peace and prosperity.

But WTF does any of this have to do with the thread subject?..

[baru911]

I was obviously talking about Glass-Steagall, which was never fully repealed but was rather partially nullified in 1999 by the passing of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act with the belief that it would make banks more competitive internationally. However, part of the act wsa tampered with under both the Carter Admin in 1978 and the Reagan Admin in 1987, especially, encouraged banks to take advantage of loopholes.

As for NAFTA, few foresaw the short comings of it and at the time it was thought a great way to open up markets to U.S. goods. Incidentally, despite your obvious vitriolic, programmed Stepford Wife-like hatred of Clinton, he presided over economic booms, lower deficits and balanced budgets, appropriate tax levels, and relative peace and prosperity.

But WTF does any of this have to do with the thread subject?..

Nick, instead of repeating the bullshit that is out there about Clinton and how wonderful his administration was lets go find some facts from lets say the US Treasury’s web-site:

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

It's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

The US Treasury website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

Fiscal
Year
FY1993, Year Ending, 09/30/1993 National Debt $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 Year Ending, 09/30/1994 National Debt $4.692749 trillion, Deficit $281.26 billion
FY1995 Year Ending, 09/29/1995 National Debt $4.973982 trillion, Deficit $281.23 billion
FY1996 Year Ending, 09/30/1996 National Debt $5.224810 trillion, Deficit $250.83 billion
FY1997 Year Ending, 09/30/1997 National Debt $5.413146 trillion, Deficit $188.34 billion
FY1998 Year Ending, 09/30/1998 National Debt $5.526193 trillion, Deficit $113.05 billion
FY1999 Year Ending, 09/30/1999 National Debt $5.656270 trillion, Deficit $130.08 billion
FY2000 Year Ending, 09/29/2000 National Debt $5.674178 trillion, Deficit $17.91 billion
FY2001 Year Ending, 09/28/2001 National Debt $5.807463 trillion, Deficit $133.29 billion

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down.

I don't like Clinton because he cheated on his wife. I'm a bit old fashion.

Serbia, Somalia, the bombing of US Embassies, The USS Cole? Sure peaceful times. Al-qaeda heats up and gears up during his administration and we bombed a pharmaceutical factory to stop them. Yes, he could lay the bitch slap down for sure. Way to hold up the Clinton doctrine as the route we should take as a foreign policy.

I do like Clinton for getting the Family Medical Leave Act passed. He moved a mountain of crap in Washington to get that passed. Lots of deals made to make it happen. It shows what can go right in Washington when both sides give a little to get something done. That won't happen in today's Washington. That is sad that neither side can make a move towards the other without the fringe "left" or "right" going crazy and screwing things up.

Lastly, I'd love for the US to move back towards running the deficits he ran. Makes a ton more sense than the budgets we have now. Spend less and tax everyone (I do mean everyone from the richest of the rich to the poorest of the poor) at a little higher rate. Seems like what you or I would do to balance the budget at home.

[ELVIS]

I've proved the Clinton bullshit surplus was a myth on more than one occasion on this website, but these agenda driven retards don't care about facts...

[Nickdfresh]

Nick, instead of repeating the bullshit that is out there about Clinton and how wonderful his administration was lets go find some facts from lets say the US Treasury’s web-site:

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

Dude seriously, easy with your new found hard-on for me and Clinton..."Treasury Website?" Please provide links...and if you give such a fuck about the deficit, why the love-athon for Reagan? He's the one who blew it up. Again with the irrational stupidity of partisanship...


It's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Again, cite his surplus record...there was never an "increase."


The US Treasury website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

Fiscal
Year
FY1993, Year Ending, 09/30/1993 National Debt $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 Year Ending, 09/30/1994 National Debt $4.692749 trillion, Deficit $281.26 billion
FY1995 Year Ending, 09/29/1995 National Debt $4.973982 trillion, Deficit $281.23 billion
FY1996 Year Ending, 09/30/1996 National Debt $5.224810 trillion, Deficit $250.83 billion
FY1997 Year Ending, 09/30/1997 National Debt $5.413146 trillion, Deficit $188.34 billion
FY1998 Year Ending, 09/30/1998 National Debt $5.526193 trillion, Deficit $113.05 billion
FY1999 Year Ending, 09/30/1999 National Debt $5.656270 trillion, Deficit $130.08 billion
FY2000 Year Ending, 09/29/2000 National Debt $5.674178 trillion, Deficit $17.91 billion
FY2001 Year Ending, 09/28/2001 National Debt $5.807463 trillion, Deficit $133.29 billion

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down.

Dolt! Really, sophist semantics? It DID GO DOWN because revenue went up...


I don't like Clinton because he cheated on his wife. I'm a bit old fashion.

But you think corporate goons in Blackkkwater should be able to indiscriminately kill Iraqi civilians? And you hated LONG before Monica-gate...and the chances are that Ron Reagan was a cuckold and nothing was all sweat and rosy between him and clairvoyant Nancy. They were just older...


Serbia, Somalia, the bombing of US Embassies, The USS Cole? Sure peaceful times. Al-qaeda heats up and gears up during his administration and we bombed a pharmaceutical factory to stop them. Yes, he could lay the bitch slap down for sure. Way to hold up the Clinton doctrine as the route we should take as a foreign policy.

The wars with Serbia and the resolution of the Yugoslavian problem were relatively bloodless to the US and NATO and stabilized Europe while stopping genocide and the radicalization of European Muslims. A couple terrorist attacks? You have thousands of times a greater chance of being struck by lightening!

And we didn't just "bomb a pharmaceutical factory" to stop al Qaida, we attempted a decapitation strike using cruise missiles and had subs on station and sent a message to the genocidal Sudanese gov't....


I do like Clinton for getting the Family Medical Leave Act passed. He moved a mountain of crap in Washington to get that passed. Lots of deals made to make it happen. It shows what can go right in Washington when both sides give a little to get something done. That won't happen in today's Washington. That is sad that neither side can make a move towards the other without the fringe "left" or "right" going crazy and screwing things up.

Lastly, I'd love for the US to move back towards running the deficits he ran. Makes a ton more sense than the budgets we have now. Spend less and tax everyone (I do mean everyone from the richest of the rich to the poorest of the poor) at a little higher rate. Seems like what you or I would do to balance the budget at home.

But you hated Clinton and still auto-voted everything Republican...

[Nickdfresh]

I've proved the Clinton bullshit surplus was a myth on more than one occasion on this website, but these agenda driven retards don't care about facts...

Conspiracy shithead says what?

[ELVIS]

He says he's smarter than you...

[knuckleboner]

I've proved the Clinton bullshit surplus was a myth on more than one occasion on this website, but these agenda driven retards don't care about facts...

i'll bite. i care a little about facts. and let me throw one out there: there definitely was a budgetary surplus in FY 1999 and FY 2000. your turn...

[jhale667]

i'll bite. i care a little about facts. and let me throw one out there: there definitely was a budgetary surplus in FY 1999 and FY 2000. your turn...

:lmao:

[ELVIS]

i'll bite. i care a little about facts. and let me throw one out there: there definitely was a budgetary surplus in FY 1999 and FY 2000. your turn...

In the late 1990s, the government was running what it -- and a largely unquestioning Washington press corps -- called budget "surpluses." But the national debt still increased in every single one of those years because the government was borrowing money to create the "surpluses."
So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or checked the facts. Eric Planin--all he has to do is not spread rumors or get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000. - Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999
An overall "downsizing" of government and a virtual end to the arms race have contributed to the surplus, but the vast majority is coming from excess Social Security taxesbeing paid by the workforce in an attempt to keep Social Security benefit checks coming once the "baby-boomers" start to retire.
Of the $142 billion surplus projected by the end of 2000, $137 billion will come from excess Social Security taxes.
When these unified budget numbers are separated into Social Security and non-Social Security components, however, it becomes evident that all of the projected surplus throughout this period is attributable to Social Security. The remainder of the budget will remain in deficit throughout the next decade.
Despite a revenue shortfall, full benefits are expected to be paid out between 2017 and 2041. The system will draw on its trust fund, a collection of special-issue bonds from the government, which borrowed prodigiously from the program's surplus over the years. But since the country is already running a deficit, the government will have to borrow more money to pay back its debt to Social Security. That's a little like giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
The surplus deception is clearly discernible in the statistics of national debt. While the spenders are boasting about surpluses, the national debt is rising year after year. In 1998, the first year of the legerdemain surplus, it rose from $5.413 trillion to $5.526 trillion, due to a deficit of $112.9 billion... The federal government spends Social Security money and other trust funds which constitute obligations to present and future recipients. It consumes them and thereby incurs obligations as binding as those to the owners of savings bonds. Yet, the Treasury treats them as revenue and hails them for generating surpluses. If a private banker were to treat trust fund deposits as income and profit, he would face criminal charges.


link! (http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/craigsteiner/2011/08/22/the_clinton_surplus_myth/page/full/)

[ELVIS]

And Assfail, this is way over your head, so get back to the drive thru...

[jhale667]

And Assfail, this is way over your head,



So why the fuck are you posting here, dimwit?

[jhale667]

So...kinda like when YOU post in Gear Street, then... got it. :baaa:

[Nitro Express]

And Assfail, this is way over your head, so get back to the drive thru...

??? It's pretty obvious Mr. J does not work in fast food but writes articles and reviews. I've read some of his stuff and it's good. He also is a real gigging musician with some talent. If you don't agree politically that's one thing but please, the fast food bit is getting old.

[ELVIS]

More lies and bullshit that makes no sense...

Go back to google...

[ELVIS]

??? It's pretty obvious Mr. J does not work in fast food but writes articles and reviews. I've read some of his stuff and it's good. He also is a real gigging musician with some talent. If you don't agree politically that's one thing but please, the fast food bit is getting old.

You think I give a fuck ??

I know all of that...

I can slam his pussy ass as much as he slams me...

Next!

[Nitro Express]

Ok. You can do whatever you want to do. I think a slam has more power to it if it's based in reality.

[jhale667]

You think I give a fuck ??

I know all of that...


And there we have the admission.


I can slam his pussy ass as much as he slams me...

Next!


Not quite. The difference being, when I slam you, it's reality-based entertainment. :yo: Google that, bitch.









Next!











:guitar:

[ELVIS]

You may be right, nitro...

I don't want to bash him and his accomplishments for real though, that wouldn't be cool...

I'm here for fun and I bash his liberal point of view...

I don't hate the guy like some might think...

[knuckleboner]

In the late 1990s, the government was running what it -- and a largely unquestioning Washington press corps -- called budget "surpluses." But the national debt still increased in every single one of those years because the government was borrowing money to create the "surpluses."
So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or checked the facts. Eric Planin--all he has to do is not spread rumors or get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000. - Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999
An overall "downsizing" of government and a virtual end to the arms race have contributed to the surplus, but the vast majority is coming from excess Social Security taxesbeing paid by the workforce in an attempt to keep Social Security benefit checks coming once the "baby-boomers" start to retire.
Of the $142 billion surplus projected by the end of 2000, $137 billion will come from excess Social Security taxes.
When these unified budget numbers are separated into Social Security and non-Social Security components, however, it becomes evident that all of the projected surplus throughout this period is attributable to Social Security. The remainder of the budget will remain in deficit throughout the next decade.
Despite a revenue shortfall, full benefits are expected to be paid out between 2017 and 2041. The system will draw on its trust fund, a collection of special-issue bonds from the government, which borrowed prodigiously from the program's surplus over the years. But since the country is already running a deficit, the government will have to borrow more money to pay back its debt to Social Security. That's a little like giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
The surplus deception is clearly discernible in the statistics of national debt. While the spenders are boasting about surpluses, the national debt is rising year after year. In 1998, the first year of the legerdemain surplus, it rose from $5.413 trillion to $5.526 trillion, due to a deficit of $112.9 billion... The federal government spends Social Security money and other trust funds which constitute obligations to present and future recipients. It consumes them and thereby incurs obligations as binding as those to the owners of savings bonds. Yet, the Treasury treats them as revenue and hails them for generating surpluses. If a private banker were to treat trust fund deposits as income and profit, he would face criminal charges.


link! (http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/craigsteiner/2011/08/22/the_clinton_surplus_myth/page/full/)

actually, that's incorrect.

the government "borrowed" money from social security, in that it always does. what actually happens is that every year social security runs a surplus of its own, that surplus is invested in a safe investment that will produce a little growth - specifically U.S. treasury bills. so the government gets money from social security, but then has to repay it.

so, yes, the social security surplus is added as revenue to the budget, but then must also be considered an addition to debt. therefore, to get an accurate picture of the deficit in any one year, you have to subtract the off-budget surplus (social security) from the on-budget surplus/deficit (general fund + social security.)

and of clinton's 4 official budget surpluses, FY1998 through FY2001, indeed, FY 1998 and FY 2001 were technical surpluses only, as the total surpluses, $69 billion in FY1998 and $128 billion in FY 2001, were more than offset by higher social security surpluses of $99 billion in FY1998 and $161 billion in FY2001, meaning that without the social security transfers those 2 years would have been deficits, with the non-social security federal budget spending more than it took in.

not so with FY 1999 and FY 2000. in FY1999, the total budget surplus was $125 billion, but pulling out the $123 billion surplus still left a budget surplus of $2 billion. FY 2000 was better: total surplus of $236 billion less the $150 billion social security surplus, leaving $86 billion in acutal surplus.

so, why did total debt increase? because the NET surplus of $86 billion was less than the social security surplus, which was invested in treasury bills. still, any year that yearly government spending is less than yearly government revenue is a surplus. fact.

OMB historical table 1.1 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals)

[ELVIS]

:yo: Google that, bitch.









Next!











:guitar:

Don't flatter yourself by calling yourself names...

It's not healthy...

[jhale667]

Does it suck going through life a bitter hater? 'Cause you really don't seem to be "having fun"... :baaa:

[ELVIS]

I've read all of that over the yeas, knucklehead...

The bottom line is the surplus as Clinton claimed was misleading...

Clinton claimed an exact figure as if there were an actual cash surplus...

There is no surplus when your borrowing trillions...

[ELVIS]

Does it suck going through life a bitter hater? 'Cause you really don't seem to be "having fun"... :baaa:

That's because you can't read very well, and you have a pre-conceived idea that just because someone disagrees with you that it must be hate...

[knuckleboner]

I've read all of that over the yeas, knucklehead...

The bottom line is the surplus as Clinton claimed was misleading...

Clinton claimed an exact figure as if there were an actual cash surplus...

There is no surplus when your borrowing trillions...

like i said, i'll give you that 4 years surplus is heavily misleading. but without a doubt, there were 2 years of legit surpluses there.


now, if you want to argue about where the actual credit for those surpluses lies, i agree, it clearly wasn't all (or most) clinton...

[ELVIS]

That's cool...

[Nitro Express]

The big picture is the money is backed by nothing and is worthless anyways. LOL! It's like we all are fighting over nothing.

[ELVIS]

That's true...

The real nightmare is the debt the American people are expected to pay back which is based on trillions of printed bullshit dollars...

[FORD]

I've read all of that over the yeas, knucklehead...

The bottom line is the surplus as Clinton claimed was misleading...

Clinton claimed an exact figure as if there were an actual cash surplus...

There is no surplus when your borrowing trillions...

You should send that (and whatever idiotic right wing source it came from ) directly to John Boner c/o the House of Representatives.

Not that I buy it for a second, but if there were no such thing as the Clinton Surplus, then they could no longer deny that the Chimp tax "cuts" for tax dodging inheritance rich assholes are what crashed the economy.

Which of course they did anyway.

[ELVIS]

Well, it's all in the past so it doesn't matter much now anyway, does it ??

And in the light of today's spending it's nothing...

[Nitro Express]

That's true...

The real nightmare is the debt the American people are expected to pay back which is based on trillions of printed bullshit dollars...

That's the scam. The Federal Reserve if not a collusion of central banks is behind it. When you have to back your money with commodities and there is only so much, you are very careful how you loan it out. If you can just make it out of nothing the real asset is debt. As long as you can keep the strong arm of government to enforce your debt payment via the tax collection agency (IRS) you control the people and real assets. You can rob the people with taxes and you can rob them through inflation. Eventually the producer of the money owns everything because they have bankrupted everyone else and as long as you have the iron fist of the government on your side you own everything.

This is the scam. This is why the government and the banks want as much debt as they can generate. It also why they want to take away any power the people can use to revolt against this system. This is exactly why they want a police state.

Interesting Martha Stewart did prison time for inside trading but the politicians in Washington DC are getting rich doing it and so are their banking buddies and nothing happens to them. If the public really knew what was going on and everyone felt the pain, they sure as hell wouldn't be doing it now. The key is to buy off enough of the public with government goodies to keep them from getting angry. That's why we can have such high unemployment numbers and inflation numbers and we don't have riots in the streets of Washington looking for a politician to hang from a tree or a banker to drag behind a car.
The people at the top of the banking pyramid could really care less about money. They want to control the real assets. Food production, water, energy, transportation, the media. Then keep everyone arguing with each other over red herrings and distracted with entertainment while they do it. They have done a pretty good job of it over the years. The thing is, they can't quite corral us.

Right now they are using the media to divide us even more over a bunch of social issues. It's getting nastier and nastier. They are hoping the bad economy will make both sides hate each other even more. Like crazy Charles Manson who dreamed of instigating a race war in the US the bankers also dream of instigating more conflict over social and even race issues to play one side of the public over the other while they just run up more debt using one party or another to do this and as they bring this country closer and closer to being a police state pointing to the violence as the excuse to do it.

[ELVIS]

And why Ron Paul says we should just wipe out that kind of debt and start over...

[Nickdfresh]

You may be right, nitro...

I don't want to bash him and his accomplishments for real though, that wouldn't be cool...

I'm here for fun and I bash his liberal point of view...

I don't hate the guy like some might think...

But I thought you were out of the "left right game," "Thall shalt not lie," El-Gar-o....

[ELVIS]

There's good and bad on both sides...

[jhale667]

That's because you can't read very well, and you have a pre-conceived idea that just because someone disagrees with you that it must be hate...

If I couldn't read or write well, my work wouldn't be getting published would it? And yet you just admitted you know it IS. Nice try.
And it's not a preconceived notion you're a hater when you can't argue your case w/o having to resort to spewing the hateful crap you do here every day.

[ELVIS]

Go save someone from dying in a fire...

[jhale667]

Go save someone from dying in a fire...

Go hang with the cast of "Swamp People" and let them feed you to the 'gators.

[ELVIS]

They feed them chickens like you...

[baru911]

Dude seriously, easy with your new found hard-on for me and Clinton..."Treasury Website?" Please provide links...and if you give such a fuck about the deficit, why the love-athon for Reagan? He's the one who blew it up. Again with the irrational stupidity of partisanship...

I don't have a new found "hard-on" for you nor Clinton. Clinton I have zero respect for as a man. He is a dishonorable person who takes the path of least resistance to get out of trouble, i.e., he lies. You, I think sometimes spout forth the crap that everyone hears over and over and never gets challenged with facts. You seem intelligent and that makes for a good discussion on a board. Your opinion is different than mine on some things but not all things. I like to engage people with different ideas. I'll stop engaging you in a discussion as you seem to feel that I have unjustly targeted you. However, I won't stop calling BS when something gets thrown out that doesn't pass the kosher test.

As far as posting links..........Dude, do your own research. I did and don't have time to do your's also. The US Treasure web-site has all the numbers. LOOK THEM UP. I'm not putting forth some bullshit made-up stuff here. Its public information. If you don't want to it is no skin off my ass.

BTW, when people claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is false and bullshit. The national debt went up every single year and the US Treasure shows that. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt (take an econ class and government class if you want to know what the difference is). He paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of governmental holdings, i.e., Social Security. He borrowed from Peter to pay Paul. Its the same Washington bullshit accounting every President has used. All it does is get the US more and more in debt.


But you think corporate goons in Blackkkwater should be able to indiscriminately kill Iraqi civilians?

LMAO...how many dumbass jarheads have been put on trial/court-martialed for murder in the same war-zone? I can think of a few..Sgt Lawrence Hutchins and his buddies (who killed a handicapped man) ring a bell, or how about the massacre at Haditha? Jarheads murdered 24 unarmed Iraqi men, women and children in Haditha. Evil Blackwater wasn't there on either of those days. Seems it was just a bunch of dumbass, and undisciplined jarheads that did those killings. Under the logic of the "paint with a broad brush" I guess all Jarheads are undisciplined, dumbass, murders. Although the retired ones I've known and humped a mile or two with in my travels didn't come across as that. They seemed very professional to me. I digress, go ahead and point your finger you hypocrite you're going to anyway.



But you hated Clinton and still auto-voted everything Republican...
I don't hate Clinton. I don't respect him. I didn't vote everything Republican and never have at any point in my life. Just like I've never voted a straight democratic ticket. I have and always have voted for how I thought could do the job the best. I've voted for both parties throughout my life. I am equally disappointed in both parties and where we have ended up due to the path we have traveled as a country in the last 20 years.

[jhale667]

They feed them chickens like you...

Said the guy who's too chicken to post an example of his playing... :lmao:

[ELVIS]

A gator dun went an ate my geetar...

[jhale667]

So STFU and use the other one.

[ELVIS]

I have over twenty others...

[jhale667]

So then - quit making excuses.

[Nickdfresh]

I don't have a new found "hard-on" for you nor Clinton. Clinton I have zero respect for as a man. He is a dishonorable person who takes the path of least resistance to get out of trouble, i.e., he lies. You, I think sometimes spout forth the crap that everyone hears over and over and never gets challenged with facts. You seem intelligent and that makes for a good discussion on a board. Your opinion is different than mine on some things but not all things. I like to engage people with different ideas. I'll stop engaging you in a discussion as you seem to feel that I have unjustly targeted you. However, I won't stop calling BS when something gets thrown out that doesn't pass the kosher test.

How'd that voting for Bush work for the nation? Massive deficits, a massive terrorist attack, wars with countries that had nothing to do with the attack...what's "honorable" again?


As far as posting links..........Dude, do your own research. I did and don't have time to do your's also. The US Treasure web-site has all the numbers. LOOK THEM UP. I'm not putting forth some bullshit made-up stuff here. Its public information. If you don't want to it is no skin off my ass.


You're putting it out of context and confusing information, stats and figures for truth. In any case, posting links is our one little ode to trying not to rip anyone off or being plagiarists...


BTW, when people claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is false and bullshit. The national debt went up every single year and the US Treasure shows that. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt (take an econ class and government class if you want to know what the difference is). He paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of governmental holdings, i.e., Social Security. He borrowed from Peter to pay Paul. Its the same Washington bullshit accounting every President has used. All it does is get the US more and more in debt.

This has already been addressed by knuckleboner, ALL admins borrowed from Social Security. So what? Even by that standard his Admin was far more fiscally responsible than any other..


LMAO...how many dumbass jarheads have been put on trial/court-martialed for murder in the same war-zone? I can think of a few..Sgt Lawrence Hutchins and his buddies (who killed a handicapped man) ring a bell, or how about the massacre at Haditha? Jarheads murdered 24 unarmed Iraqi men, women and children in Haditha. Evil Blackwater wasn't there on either of those days. Seems it was just a bunch of dumbass, and undisciplined jarheads that did those killings. Under the logic of the "paint with a broad brush" I guess all Jarheads are undisciplined, dumbass, murders. Although the retired ones I've known and humped a mile or two with in my travels didn't come across as that. They seemed very professional to me. I digress, go ahead and point your finger you hypocrite you're going to anyway.

Firstly, at least the marines WERE court martialed even if they received lenient bullshit sentences. The Haditha Massacre was an isolated incident and largely the result of poor planning, poor strategy, and a listless mentality that afflicted the military in many parts until 2006-2007. Secondly, there were a hell of a lot more marines and soldiers there than Blackwater mercs and Blackwater was up to its ass in trouble nearly every place they were as they had no vested interest in winning over the population and acted as a law unto themselves with repeated random shootings in traffic, the Baghdad Massacre, repeated thwarting of U.S. gov't investigations, lack of oversight, and a complete yahoo mentality that far exceeded the excesses of any marines that suffered continual combat stress and the frustration of repeated, pointless patrols while waiting to be bombed. The members who murdered innocent Iraqis in 2007 like a bunch of reckless, trigger-happy fucks have never really been brought to justice...


I don't hate Clinton.

I can tell with regards to your personal attacks on his wife and summarizing his presidency with Monica-gate...


I don't respect him. I didn't vote everything Republican and never have at any point in my life. Just like I've never voted a straight democratic ticket. I have and always have voted for how I thought could do the job the best. I've voted for both parties throughout my life. I am equally disappointed in both parties and where we have ended up due to the path we have traveled as a country in the last 20 years.

I'm thinking you vote a lot more Republican than Dem...

[ELVIS]

So Dickforbrains, you just suggested that voting for Bush may have caused 911...

Please elaborate...

[Nickdfresh]

So Dickforbrains, you just suggested that voting for Bush may have caused 911...

Please elaborate...

That's not what I said, El-herpes-virus...

[ELVIS]

You said that's what we got by voting for Bush...

[jhale667]

El-herpes-virus...



:lol: OK, that's funny!

[Nitro Express]

The Bush administration did enourmous damage to this country. Everyone knows invading Iraq was never needed. Even former generals have admitted the Rumsfeld department of deffense was planning to invade middle east countries just because they could. If anything the average American gets nothing from these power games. The politically connected do. The only place in the US with a growing economy is Washington DC. Politically connected enjoying the money they are borrowing and sticking us with the bill for. I think one major reason Obama was elected was the swing vote were hoping the Democrats who suppossedly were the anti-war party would undo a lot of what the Bush Administration did. Unfortunately they were wrong on this aussumption and the situation just continues to get worse.

Until we elect people who will undo what Bush did, we are fucked.

[Nickdfresh]

:lol: OK, that's funny!

And fitting since he keeps coming back...

[ELVIS]

Washing DC is not tho only place with a growing economy...

South Louisiana is booming as well as countless places in Texas, just off hand...

[Nitro Express]

Oil producing states. North Dakota as well. Most people don't know it but California is the third largest oil producing state. Some of the oil fields are right under Los Angeles. That being said the state is broke. As is Illinois and New York due to horrid fiscal mismanagement and political corruption. Amazing. Even will oil some states fail.

[FORD]

So Dickforbrains, you just suggested that voting for Bush may have caused 911...

Please elaborate...

Oh, I'll take this one.......

The PNAC document specifically called for a "New PERLE Harbor" in order to sell the American people on their agenda of global zionfascism.

The treasonous bastards who wrote the PNAC manifesto were not in any position to do something about it when they wrote it. But after 5 BCE appointees on the Supreme Court threw out the 2000 election and appointed that brainless Chimp as pResident, most of those very same treasonous bastards became the executive branch of the United States government.

Al Gore (the actual winner of the 2000 election ) was not a PNAC signator, and would not have appointed a cabinet full of PNAC signators determined to force their agenda on us, nor did Al Gore have a family friend that his daddy trained to be a terraist. If the legitimate election results had been allowed to stand, the World Trade Center would also have been.

[ELVIS]

I've heard it all now...

FORD, as much as I hate big pharma poison, you may need some...

[Seshmeister]

My guess is the towers probably would not be standing but it's quite possible Gore or Clinton or Bush senior would have acted on the warnings.

I'm inclined to think the boxcutters would still have got on the planes though and passenger reaction that it was a sit tight situation would have remained so the only chance would have been catching them at the flight school or finding some specific intel.

I think Gore or most other potential presidents for that matter would have used the massive outpouring of support for the US in the wake much much more wisely though and we would all be living in better times.

[Nitro Express]

The mindset of the time was cooperate with hijackers. Not now. Now the passangers would be fighting for their lives. Also, people forget there was another attempt to take the towers down when a van full of explosives blew up the parking garage. Nobody ever talks about that. They tried, failed and then used a different method later.

The Bush Administration just viewed the situation as never let a crisis go to waste. There was money to be made and no Soviet Union to worry about. The US had a military big enough to take over countries and nobody in the world to match it so they went crazy and are still going crazy.

[Seshmeister]

I really wish we still had the threads in 1999 where I was screaming not to vote for Bush. That was not a fashionable view on this board back in the day, FORD and I were in the minority.

[FORD]

I've heard it all now...

FORD, as much as I hate big pharma poison, you may need some...

What part of what I said do you have a problem with?

You could ask Alex Jones if you don't believe me. Though he would probably tell you that Al Gore is a reptillian lizard from somewhere 35 light years west of Betelguese, so we would have had an alien invasion 9/11 instead.

[ELVIS]

Alex jones doesn't buy into the David Icke bulkshit...

[Nickdfresh]

You said that's what we got by voting for Bush...

Get a copy of The Official 9/11 Report, and read the part where it says "the light was blinking red," (in July-August of 2001) then observe that Bush was on vacation and avoiding meetings with his Counterterror Tsar, mainly because he was a lazy fuckwit...

[baru911]

How'd that voting for Bush work for the nation? Massive deficits, a massive terrorist attack, wars with countries that had nothing to do with the attack...what's "honorable" again?

Think he did fine until we went into Iraq. That's where things went South. Can't say anything good about the administration after that. Don't even get me started on the Patriot Act and how unconstitutional I think it is and what it allows the US Government to do.


Firstly, at least the marines WERE court martialed even if they received lenient bullshit sentences. The Haditha Massacre was an isolated incident and largely the result of poor planning, poor strategy, and a listless mentality that afflicted the military in many parts until 2006-2007. Secondly, there were a hell of a lot more marines and soldiers there than Blackwater mercs and Blackwater was up to its ass in trouble nearly every place they were as they had no vested interest in winning over the population and acted as a law unto themselves with repeated random shootings in traffic, the Baghdad Massacre, repeated thwarting of U.S. gov't investigations, lack of oversight, and a complete yahoo mentality that far exceeded the excesses of any marines that suffered continual combat stress and the frustration of repeated, pointless patrols while waiting to be bombed. The members who murdered innocent Iraqis in 2007 like a bunch of reckless, trigger-happy fucks have never really been brought to justice...

Blackwater wasn’t sighted as being one of the reasons we got pulled out of Iraq. The Haditha Massacre was sighted as a reason. Before you just brush the Haditha Massacre aside lets look at how the “isolated incident” played out according to Time:

A unit of Marines from Kilo Company, wanting revenge after a roadside bomb killed a comrade, broke into homes near the blast area and systematically executed the civilians they found there, along with five men who happened to be passing by in a taxi.

Want more? The “bunch of reckless, trigger-happy fucks”/dumbass Jarheads left their carnage for the world to see. Photos taken by military intelligence after your “isolated incident“ show what Marines do to unarmed people when they set their minds to it. Those photos include the following:

- In one house an entire family, including seven children, were attacked with guns and grenades. Only a 13-year-old girl survived from that home. Think your dumbass Jarheads won over her heart and mind that day?
- In another home the photo shows an Iraqi mother and young child, kneeling on the floor. They were shot dead at close range.
- Other photos show other victims, shot execution-style in the head and chest in their homes.

Your beloved brothers in arms MURDERED and executed women, and children in some type of revenge plot. Then they went about covering it up to hide what they had done. Blackwater personnel have nothing on your buddies in Kilo Company. Hey, once a devil dog always a devil dog. On the sentences here is what the men charged received:

On December 21, 2006, the U.S. military charged eight Marines (four enlisted and four officers). The four enlisted men were charged with 13 counts of unpremeditated murder, while the officers were charged with covering up the killings and failing to investigate properly. Six of the cases were dropped and one officer was acquitted at court-martial. Only one Jarhead was sentanced to anything. Sgt. Frank Wuterich - Plead to negligent dereliction of duty. His sentenced was forfeiture of two-thirds of pay for three months and reduction in rank to private.

Can you say COVER-UP?

As this case shows - If you're a Jarhead you literally can get away with executing unarmed civilians (many women and children). Makes ya proud to be one don't it, Nick? Come on - All Marines are trained the same so EVERY Marine must be able to kill unarmed civilians and then cover it up right? Each of you taught that in Basic or is it picked up later? You're all the same - baby killer!
************************************************** ************************************************** *********************


All the above shows what I can do if I use a broad brush to paint the Corps with. It is an illogical argument. Don't you see how stupid the above is? It is the same illogical argument that seems to directed at Blackwater.

All we can gather from situations like this and the ones you guys keep shouting about is:There are people within all organizations that are NOT what the organization is nor stands for.

[gbranton]

My guess is the towers probably would not be standing but it's quite possible Gore or Clinton or Bush senior would have acted on the warnings.

Clinton had his shot and blew it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ns/nbcnightlynews/t/osama-bin-laden-missed-opportunities/#.UBm5a6BQStM

"The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?

“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst."

[ELVIS]

Bin Laden denied any involvement in 911...

[jhale667]

Just like Manson denied involvement with the Tate murders.

[gbranton]

Just like Manson denied involvement with the Tate murders.

I believe the quote was "I didn't have to do no murders, I just had to think it. It's all up here (pointing to his empty head)."

[ELVIS]

Well, I believe Bin Laden over the federal government...

It's against Islam to lie...

Had he been involved, he would have said so...

Real Islamic terrorists take credit for their work...

[knuckleboner]

And why Ron Paul says we should just wipe out that kind of debt and start over...

and start over with our economy, too. as wiping out the world's reserve currency would lead to some serious economic chaos. and depressions. and lots of bad things. which possibly includes libertarian nirvana...

[ELVIS]

He never said wipe out reserve currency...

[knuckleboner]

He never said wipe out reserve currency...

the U.S. dollar, which is federal reserve notes, IS the world's reserve currency.

and ron paul most definitely wants to end federal reserve notes.

[FORD]

My guess is the towers probably would not be standing but it's quite possible Gore or Clinton or Bush senior would have acted on the warnings.

I'm inclined to think the boxcutters would still have got on the planes though and passenger reaction that it was a sit tight situation would have remained so the only chance would have been catching them at the flight school or finding some specific intel.

I think Gore or most other potential presidents for that matter would have used the massive outpouring of support for the US in the wake much much more wisely though and we would all be living in better times.

I don't buy the boxcutters bullshit story for a second, of course. But it has to be mentioned that the Clinton administration tried to tighten airport security in the mid - late 1990s, and were blocked by the Repuke congress. And the same right wing media whores (FAUX, Limpdick, etc.) who would turn around in 2001 and falsely claim that Clinton "didn't do enough".

[ELVIS]

the U.S. dollar, which is federal reserve notes, IS the world's reserve currency.

and ron paul most definitely wants to end federal reserve notes.

But he never said he wanted to end the dollar but to stop the fed from printing dollars and manipulating interest rates...

He wants to shore up the dollar and make it worth something again by reinstating a gold standard...

[knuckleboner]

But he never said he wanted to end the dollar but to stop the fed from printing dollars and manipulating interest rates...

He wants to shore up the dollar and make it worth something again by reinstating a gold standard...

making drastic changes to the U.S. dollar would be disastrous. and, look up ron paul's "free competition in currency" bill. he wants to start alternative currencies.

as i've told doc, i honestly respect ron paul. i think he's one of the most sincere members of congress. but that doesn't mean his economic policies aren't generally nuts.

[ELVIS]

Leaving it how it is is what's disastrous...

Were still heading into a recession despite the time bought by the stimulus...

It's unsustainable and it's being artificially kept afloat...

There are very very few new jobs and zero on the horizon...

[Nickdfresh]

Think he did fine until we went into Iraq. That's where things went South. Can't say anything good about the administration after that. Don't even get me started on the Patriot Act and how unconstitutional I think it is and what it allows the US Government to do.

I think Bush sucked pretty much from the start with his apathetic overall demeanor...


Blackwater wasn’t sighted as being one of the reasons we got pulled out of Iraq. The Haditha Massacre was sighted as a reason. Before you just brush the Haditha Massacre aside lets look at how the “isolated incident” played out according to Time:

Who's sighting? The Iraqi Gov't, our one largely based on Shiite militia thugs, hated Blackwater and probably objected far more to their presence than they did the massacring of infidel Sunnis....


A unit of Marines from Kilo Company, wanting revenge after a roadside bomb killed a comrade, broke into homes near the blast area and systematically executed the civilians they found there, along with five men who happened to be passing by in a taxi.

Want more? The “bunch of reckless, trigger-happy fucks”/dumbass Jarheads left their carnage for the world to see. Photos taken by military intelligence after your “isolated incident“ show what Marines do to unarmed people when they set their minds to it. Those photos include the following:

- In one house an entire family, including seven children, were attacked with guns and grenades. Only a 13-year-old girl survived from that home. Think your dumbass Jarheads won over her heart and mind that day?
- In another home the photo shows an Iraqi mother and young child, kneeling on the floor. They were shot dead at close range.
- Other photos show other victims, shot execution-style in the head and chest in their homes.

Your beloved brothers in arms MURDERED and executed women, and children in some type of revenge plot. Then they went about covering it up to hide what they had done. Blackwater personnel have nothing on your buddies in Kilo Company. Hey, once a devil dog always a devil dog. On the sentences here is what the men charged received:

On December 21, 2006, the U.S. military charged eight Marines (four enlisted and four officers). The four enlisted men were charged with 13 counts of unpremeditated murder, while the officers were charged with covering up the killings and failing to investigate properly. Six of the cases were dropped and one officer was acquitted at court-martial. Only one Jarhead was sentanced to anything. Sgt. Frank Wuterich - Plead to negligent dereliction of duty. His sentenced was forfeiture of two-thirds of pay for three months and reduction in rank to private.

Can you say COVER-UP?

As this case shows - If you're a Jarhead you literally can get away with executing unarmed civilians (many women and children). Makes ya proud to be one don't it, Nick? Come on - All Marines are trained the same so EVERY Marine must be able to kill unarmed civilians and then cover it up right? Each of you taught that in Basic or is it picked up later? You're all the same - baby killer!
************************************************** ************************************************** *********************

I'm well aware of the details and think the higher-ranking ringleaders of the massacre should have been executed if found guilty by courts martial....



All the above shows what I can do if I use a broad brush to paint the Corps with. It is an illogical argument. Don't you see how stupid the above is? It is the same illogical argument that seems to directed at Blackwater.

All we can gather from situations like this and the ones you guys keep shouting about is:There are people within all organizations that are NOT what the organization is nor stands for.

Firstly, your comparison is faulty logical:

-I'm not basing my claims on one single massacre as much as I'm basing them on the overall attitude and MO of Blackwater. Even when their personnel were victims, they obstructed investigations by military authorities and their incompetence led to the infamous "Battle of Falluja."

-Overall, the USMC was one of the more effective counterinsurgency and nation-building organizations in Iraq and many of their initiatives were adopted by the creators of "The Surge," which ultimately allowed us to save face and get the fuck out of there...

-if we're going to compare massacres, at least be fair and say the marines were victims or poor strategy leading to frustration and a meltdown in which they rampaged and murdered noncombatants, but ones they may have thought (correctly or incorrectly, it doesn't matter--murder is murder) were culpable in the bombing(s) against their stupid, predictable 'convoy/patrols'...

-the Blackwater douchebags opened fire on a crowd of civilians virtually unprovoked in Baghdad in 2007 (more than two years after the 2005 Haditha incident and during a period when the US was making inroads during the Surge and everyone was beginning to hate AQI for being primeval, sadist fuckwits), even members of Blackkkwater confirmed this! This is coupled with an institution that blatantly did whatever they wanted with little discipline or bearing and acted as they were gods on earth to the population.

-and to top it all off, most of the BlackKKwater goons were simply over-payed soldiers with little more than regular training performing functions that should have been performed by regular soldiers and marines for far less money--yet whose corporate whores donated to the dominate political party so they could profit off the Rumsfeldian notion of making immoral, self-defeating wars politically cheaper by using a smaller army and avoiding the draft or wider sections of the populations involvement that a larger force inevitably would...

The very fact that you compare mercenary scum to US Marines getting payed a fraction of the salary to endanger their lives twice as much is nauseating...

[Nickdfresh]

Bin Laden denied any involvement in 911...

No he didn't. He initially feigned denial, then basically admitted it. And whether he denied it or not, do you remember what happened on September 9th, 2001? I do, I was shaving when I heard it on the radio. One of the Talibans'/al Qaidas' biggest, most effective and popular Afghan enemies, Gen. Mahsood, was assassinated by suicide bombers in Afghanistan in a decapitation strike designed to head-off a U.S. response inevitably leading to an alliance with him...

[baru911]

I think Bush sucked pretty much from the start with his apathetic overall demeanor...

I think he did a fantastic job right after 9/11. He did a much better job than Al Gore would have. The reason I can't get warm and fuzzy for Mitt Romney is because he reminds me of Al Gore. How? Both of them are cardboard. The appear to have substance. However, when they get pushed on they buckle and flip-flop. Both are candidates that have no core values. I can't trust someone like that as you're never sure what they may or may not do when the pressure is on.


....I'm basing them on the overall attitude and MO of Blackwater.

You sound like a typical marine that has had some“made-up bullshit bad” experiences with SEALs. “Oh, SEALs are prima donnas. Every time you see them they have their hair spiked and wear Oakleys”. Wa, Wa, Wa.


The very fact that you compare mercenary scum to US Marines getting payed a fraction of the salary to endanger their lives twice as much is nauseating...
Cry me a river Nick. Your devil dogs murdered and executed 24 unarmed civilians. That is a WAR CRIME. You can’t brush that off.

You write “the Blackwater douchebags opened fire on a crowd of civilians virtually unprovoked in Baghdad in 2007” and yet you seem to give a free pass to the members of Kilo Company’s actions. The members of Kilo Company executed unarmed non-combatants in cold blood and at close quarters. It takes a particular type of individual to kill a mother and child who are kneeing in front of a person begging for their lives. That type of person needs to be culled from the herd of humanity. However, from your post you seem to give them a pass because they were "victims". I guess the “mercenary scum” that are retired Marines I know and am proud to call friends are cut from a different cloth than you and your brothers in Kilo Company who are…how did you put it? “Victims or poor strategy leading to frustration and a meltdown.” How the fuck can the guys in Kilo Company be victims of anything? My friends would have no issue culling the members of Kilo Company who killed innocents from the USMC and they would NOT be labeling them as victims. The "mercenary scum" I know have a backbone and have more honor than to attempt to ever interject that the Marines in question in Kilo Company were or are "victims".

Also, you ding Blackwater (BW) but never mention the heroics that “mercenary scum” displayed in April 2004, at the U.S. government's headquarters in Najaf. Didn’t BW save a marine who was injured that day? I know. No big deal from your view-point. That wasn't a member of Kilo Company they saved.

Or how about on October 22, 2006 when BW Aviation BW 33 and BW 34 were returning from a mission when BW 34 observed a US Army motorcade that was attacked by an insurgent placed explosive formed charge. There were numerous people injured in the vehicle. The door gunners of both of those BW aircraft laid down suppressing fire and took the most seriously wounded on board. They also called in medium lift BW helocopters to assist with the MEDEVAC.

There are good and bad in all organizations. You don't get to paint with a broad brush and taint the whole for the action(s) of a member or small number of members.

[ZahZoo]

Ok I'm lost... What does Bin Laden, Blackwater, 911, USMC, etc.... have fuck all to do with GM and car loans..?

[ELVIS]

I give up, what ??

[Nickdfresh]

I think he did a fantastic job right after 9/11. He did a much better job than Al Gore would have. The reason I can't get warm and fuzzy for Mitt Romney is because he reminds me of Al Gore. How? Both of them are cardboard. The appear to have substance. However, when they get pushed on they buckle and flip-flop. Both are candidates that have no core values. I can't trust someone like that as you're never sure what they may or may not do when the pressure is on.

A border colley could have done a "fantastic job" after 9/11, but go ahead and quantify how much better he was than the rightfully elected president was after Bush invaded the wrong country...


You sound like a typical marine that has had some“made-up bullshit bad” experiences with SEALs. “Oh, SEALs are prima donnas. Every time you see them they have their hair spiked and wear Oakleys”. Wa, Wa, Wa.


No, the SEALs may be indeed prima donnas at times, but they have earned a reputation of being overall competent and deserve some accolades. Please don't compare the Blackwater goofs with SEALs either...


Cry me a river Nick. Your devil dogs murdered and executed 24 unarmed civilians. That is a WAR CRIME. You can’t brush that off.

I didn't "brush it off?" Did you actually fucking to bother to read my post? It doesn't seem it...


You write “the Blackwater douchebags opened fire on a crowd of civilians virtually unprovoked in Baghdad in 2007” and yet you seem to give a free pass to the members of Kilo Company’s actions. The members of Kilo Company executed unarmed non-combatants in cold blood and at close quarters. It takes a particular type of individual to kill a mother and child who are kneeing in front of a person begging for their lives. That type of person needs to be culled from the herd of humanity. However, from your post you seem to give them a pass because they were "victims". I guess the “mercenary scum” that are retired Marines I know and am proud to call friends are cut from a different cloth than you and your brothers in Kilo Company who are…how did you put it? “Victims or poor strategy leading to frustration and a meltdown.” How the fuck can the guys in Kilo Company be victims of anything? My friends would have no issue culling the members of Kilo Company who killed innocents from the USMC and they would NOT be labeling them as victims. The "mercenary scum" I know have a backbone and have more honor than to attempt to ever interject that the Marines in question in Kilo Company were or are "victims".

Also, you ding Blackwater (BW) but never mention the heroics that “mercenary scum” displayed in April 2004, at the U.S. government's headquarters in Najaf. Didn’t BW save a marine who was injured that day? I know. No big deal from your view-point. That wasn't a member of Kilo Company they saved.

Or how about on October 22, 2006 when BW Aviation BW 33 and BW 34 were returning from a mission when BW 34 observed a US Army motorcade that was attacked by an insurgent placed explosive formed charge. There were numerous people injured in the vehicle. The door gunners of both of those BW aircraft laid down suppressing fire and took the most seriously wounded on board. They also called in medium lift BW helocopters to assist with the MEDEVAC.

There are good and bad in all organizations. You don't get to paint with a broad brush and taint the whole for the action(s) of a member or small number of members.

When I mentioned the ring leaders "should have been executed", how is that a "free pass?" And Blackwaters "heroics" are no where near those of the armed services and you can mindlessly defend Cuntwater all you want, but they have a long standing legacy of corporate wrong doing and arrogance that is institutional...

[ELVIS]

GM COULD BE HEADING FOR BANKRUPTCY AGAIN (http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/16/gm-could-be-heading-for-bankruptcy-again/)

President Obama loves to tout the General Motors bailout as the signature “achievement” of his presidency, even though current taxpayer losses on the deal are estimated at over $25 billion. The exact degree to which the rest of us got soaked so Obama could give GM to his union allies changes constantly as the value of the stock held by We the People fluctuates. You don’t remember being asked if you would like to become a GM stockholder and willingly accept massive losses to protect highly compensated union jobs, do you? Well, that’s the great thing about command economics. It relieves the ruling class of the tedious chores private-sector entrepreneurs face when attracting voluntary investment.

Not only does Obama portray the GM bailout as a great success, he has actually said, in public, that he wants a lot more “successes” just like it. “I said I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he told an audience in Colorado last week. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.”

That really should have been accompanied by some ominous thunderclaps, or perhaps the “Friday the 13th” musical cue that plays when Jason Voorhees is stalking a victim. Even if you can swallow the idea that the GM bailout was a “success,” there is literally not enough money in the world for a $25 billion bailout of every industry. The point of the 2012 presidential campaign is getting delusional liberals to understand that our beyond-bankrupt government doesn’t have enough money to take over any more industries, and had no business taking over industries to begin with.

Unfortunately for Obama, it’s increasingly difficult to pretend the GM bailout was a “success” for anyone but the United Auto Workers. Earlier this week, Investors Business Daily described the loss taxpayers took for President Obama’s inaugural adventure in crony socialism as “staggering,” a judgment not improved by the recall of 38,000 Chevy Impalas, which are widely used as police cars. In fact, the only reason GM can post decent sales figures is that government agencies buy a lot of fleet vehicles from them. Taxpayers were compelled to rescue the company from bankruptcy, then they were compelled to buy its products, and Obama tells them it’s all a smashing “success” that should be duplicated throughout the private sector. Taken literally, as the President prefers his words not to be taken, this would mean the end of the private sector.

A normal bankruptcy procedure would have spared the taxpayers from this raid on the public treasury, and as IBD notes, it didn’t even “save” jobs in the long run. Bankruptcy would not have erased GM facilities, or Detroit. It would have allowed GM to correct the ridiculously expensive labor contracts that caused it to go belly-up in the first place. Instead, we got large-scale closures of small businesses selling GM cars – a process the TARP Inspector General officially condemned as politicized, with some dealerships “retained because they were recently appointed, were key wholesale parts dealers, or were minority- or woman-owned dealerships.”

And let’s not get started on the ill-fated, heavily subsidized Chevy Volt, which is basically Solyndra on wheels.

Now Forbes tells us GM is probably heading for bankruptcy again. Its stock price would have to more than double, to $53.00 per share, for taxpayers to recover their “investment.” Instead, stock values have declined by 39 percent in absolute terms, and 49 percent relative to the Dow average, since GM went public in 2010. Louis Woodhill of Forbes thinks political considerations would prompt Obama to “ride the stock down to zero” instead of cashing out at a massive loss to the public.

GM’s market share is also falling, as competitors beat its pants off in key vehicle classes. Disappointing new models will likely yield excess inventory that must be sold off at a loss in years to come. GM CEO Dan Akerson, who has mused on the record that it would be awfully nice if Obama made gas more expensive with higher taxes so GM’s electric cars would sell better, is “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic” in Woodhill’s view, while more innovative and knowledgeable managers at competing companies run rings around him.

Not only does the government lack the money to nationalize all industries, as in Obama’s fever dreams, but it doesn’t have the resources to bail GM out again. There’s no money for more Solyndras, either. The absurd fiction of command economics, government-created jobs, and ideologically-driven “investment” must be put to rest, along with Barack Obama’s career, if the American economy is to have a prayer of recovery.


:elvis:

[jhale667]

I'm reeally having trouble accepting the veracity of a conservative site where the first pop-up ad is "(M)Ann Coulter in your Inbox"... :biggrin:

[Nickdfresh]

Horeshit negative Sally stuff. GM's stock is currently "under-performing," which explains the supposed $28 billion "losses" but the long term prognosis is good and they're profitable. Their stock has risen over $3 a share significantly cutting into that "loss of $28B"...

[ELVIS]

Should I post a similar Forbes article from today validating the same thing, or would that also be horseshit ??

[jhale667]

Betcha Forbes doesn't have (M)Ann Coulter pop-ups at least... :rolleyes:

[ELVIS]

I didn't see that on my iPhone...

[Satan]

Just the phrase "Mann Coulter pop ups" puts visuals in this Devil's head that I didn't really want to see! http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/teufel/g010.gif

[jhale667]

I didn't see that on my iPhone...

Lucky you...

[BigBadBrian]

I wonder how many people who support the GM bailout have GM vehicles. Anyone want to 'fess up? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Some economists (that's a big word for you, jhale, sound it out) theorize a bailout like just happened at GM could cost the US workforce more than 500,000 jobs in the long run (I'm reading about it now so don't get on my ass about that one...yet). A structured bankruptcy and reorganization would have been much better. I think Elvis already brought that up in another thread. :elvis:

[ELVIS]

Several times...

[Satan]

American cars sell better in Hell than cars from any other country. Which makes the members of UAW local #666 very happy, of course.

[BigBadBrian]

American cars sell better in Hell than cars from any other country. Which makes the members of UAW local #666 very happy, of course.

If they are a UAW local (at least the leadership), they belong in HELL.

[Nickdfresh]

I wonder how many people who support the GM bailout have GM vehicles. Anyone want to 'fess up? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Some economists (that's a big word for you, jhale, sound it out) theorize a bailout like just happened at GM could cost the US workforce more than 500,000 jobs in the long run (I'm reading about it now so don't get on my ass about that one...yet). A structured bankruptcy and reorganization would have been much better. I think Elvis already brought that up in another thread. :elvis:

I haven't read it word for word, but basically it's a bullshit Forbes article written by some dick that thinks the Chevy Malibu is going to cause the downfall of GM as he never actually talks about finances and structure. Another jerkoff who has no idea what he is talking about trying to reignite the 'Baileout' debate...

[FORD]

If they are a UAW local (at least the leadership), they belong in HELL.

Actually, the decline of unions over the last 30 years is sending THIS country to Hell in a handbasket :(

[BigBadBrian]

I haven't read it word for word, but basically it's a bullshit Forbes article written by some dick that thinks the Chevy Malibu is going to cause the downfall of GM as he never actually talks about finances and structure. Another jerkoff who has no idea what he is talking about trying to reignite the 'Baileout' debate...

Nope. I'm not, and wasn't, reading Forbes. You got a link for that, though?

[Nickdfresh]

Nope. I'm not, and wasn't, reading Forbes. You got a link for that, though?

They do have this fabulous contraption called Google, but here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/15/general-motors-is-headed-for-bankruptcy-again/