created by: Rick | Jun 8, 2010

Arkansas

5,866 votes

Did you vote today?

Click on an option to vote

  • Yes
  • No
  • Other (explain below)
Comments
23,901 - 23,920 of 29,621 Comments Last updated 44 min ago
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25758
Jul 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oneford wrote:
<quoted text>
Hero, before you can expect me to take you seriously, or anyone else with a half of brain you should refrain such post as above.
Let me point something out to you,
"socialistic Democratic party".
Those are your words, and then you make this remark,
"so he/she resorts to name calling and personal degrAdation"
WTF did you mean by,
"socialistic Democratic party"
if it was not an attempt at name calling and personal degradation"
Is that, "toe to toe", enough for you?
As much as you don't want to admit it, today's Democratic party's policies ARE socialistic. Surely you don't disagree. Do you think that's degrading? If you do disagree, I would like to know just what isn't socialistic about taxing the rich so the "less fortunate" can have more benefits? What isn't socialistic about a government that wants to be in control of every aspect of it's citizens lives for "the common good"? If all of these things about our government are true (and they are) then how can they be degrading?
Twofer

Jonesboro, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25759
Jul 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
As much as you don't want to admit it, today's Democratic party's policies ARE socialistic. Surely you don't disagree. Do you think that's degrading? If you do disagree, I would like to know just what isn't socialistic about taxing the rich so the "less fortunate" can have more benefits? What isn't socialistic about a government that wants to be in control of every aspect of it's citizens lives for "the common good"? If all of these things about our government are true (and they are) then how can they be degrading?
. If the Party tells him to disagree, he will disagree, they aren't allowed to think for themselves.
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25760
Jul 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oneford wrote:
All three of America's biggest auto manufacturersóChrysler, GM, and Fordóare stronger today because of President Obama's decisive leadership. GM and Chrysler have repaid their outstanding loans years ahead of schedule, new American cars are inspiring pride, and the auto industry added more than 200,000 jobs in the last three years.
What about the 1.6 billion we loaned to the old Chrysler which is now in bankruptcy? With the U.S. Government still owning 1/3 of GM and an outstanding balance of $850 million on a $1 Billion loan yet to be repaid, I wouldn't get too excited yet. Lastly, both GM and Chrysler went through restructuring bankruptcy. Why would they have needed to do that if the bailouts were so great? I can tell you one thing, if I was given billions of dollars, my business would be healthy too.
storyteller

Ashburn, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25761
Jul 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oneford wrote:
<quoted text>
Princes, before those panties get in any bigger wad, let me enlighten you to the obvious. "END OF STORY" was a opinion, and you hardly need a "crystal ball" to tell you what the person wrote in post
#25692, QUOTE-Social issues certainly constitute the largest percentage of my discontent with Obama.
Ummm...okay?
(Take a little time with the next post, or I may need a crystal ball to figure out your odd and jumbled post)
Hakawati

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25762
Jul 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Why? They are not talking to the people. The people are not talking to them. Why vote on any bill unless you have read it? Why vote "yes" on one if you haven't read it? The person lies to get elected than is not punished for spending your social security and medicare money on anything you were not asked about. Vote? For what? It doesn't mean anything at all.
Knows

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25763
Jul 10, 2013
 
No I don't vote

Since: Jun 12

Detroit City

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25764
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

storyteller wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummm...okay?
(Take a little time with the next post, or I may need a crystal ball to figure out your odd and jumbled post)
Better get yourself a crystal ball, this is the second post in a row you have not understood.

Since: Jun 12

Detroit City

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25765
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the 1.6 billion we loaned to the old Chrysler which is now in bankruptcy? With the U.S. Government still owning 1/3 of GM and an outstanding balance of $850 million on a $1 Billion loan yet to be repaid, I wouldn't get too excited yet. Lastly, both GM and Chrysler went through restructuring bankruptcy. Why would they have needed to do that if the bailouts were so great? I can tell you one thing, if I was given billions of dollars, my business would be healthy too.

"GM and Chrysler went through restructuring bankruptcy. Why would they have needed to do that if the bailouts were so great"

MAYBE-JUST MAYBE those companies going through restructuring bankruptcy was one of the condition to get a government loan.

and Chrysler is not in BK.

But, a valuation of $2.5 billion for four-tenths of the company would essentially make all of Chrysler worth a shade more than $6 billion. The revival of the smallest Detroit automaker is stunning, considering that many analysts thought it might disappear from the market at the beginning of the Obama administration.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/...
Reality Check

Camden, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25766
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oneford wrote:
<quoted text>
"GM and Chrysler went through restructuring bankruptcy. Why would they have needed to do that if the bailouts were so great"
MAYBE-JUST MAYBE those companies going through restructuring bankruptcy was one of the condition to get a government loan.
and Chrysler is not in BK.
But, a valuation of $2.5 billion for four-tenths of the company would essentially make all of Chrysler worth a shade more than $6 billion. The revival of the smallest Detroit automaker is stunning, considering that many analysts thought it might disappear from the market at the beginning of the Obama administration.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/...
If you gave my company billions it would be worth billions as well. If my company got in trouble, would there be a bailout for me? NO. I would have to go through restructuring bankruptcy (Chapter 11) or out of business bankruptcy (Chapter 7). Either way, there would be no help for me. Why are 2 of the big 3 any different? Because they employ so many people? There have been many large corporations go out of business without help. Bear Stearns had contracts of $13 billion and 15,000 employees world wide. Certainly a larger financial stake than GM and Chrysler combined and 15,000 lost jobs is nothing to sneeze at. They conducted shady business and there was no one there to help when they got in trouble. Circuit City had $1.6 billion in annual revenue, 567 superstores, and employed over 20,000 people. Why didn't they get any help? Freidman's Jewlers had over 600 locations and millions in sales. Where was the help for them? All of these companies went out of business because of bad business practices. Is that any different than GM and Chrysler letting the unions gouge them and run their business in the ground? No, it's not. The bailouts to GM and Chrysler were no more than a political gift to the large auto unions that was hyped as a country saving necessity. It wasn't. GM and Chrysler should have gone under. Bailing them out all but insures that they will get in trouble again sometime in the future knowing there will be some politician out there crying gloom and doom for America if we don't "save those jobs". Ford was the only one smart enough to realize the trap of government handouts so they paid their bailout back before they used much if any because they weren't in trouble in the first place.
Reality Check

Camden, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25767
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hakawati wrote:
Why? They are not talking to the people. The people are not talking to them. Why vote on any bill unless you have read it? Why vote "yes" on one if you haven't read it? The person lies to get elected than is not punished for spending your social security and medicare money on anything you were not asked about. Vote? For what? It doesn't mean anything at all.
The Democrats DO know what's in the bill and they always cry "WE NEED TO PASS THIS BILL NOW OR WE'RE HEADED FOR DISASTER!!!" They don't want to give anyone time to read the bills because, if people were allowed to read and comprehend these bills, they know there would be little chance of any of them passing. That being said, the idiot Republicans simply follow suit for fear of losing support for not voting for such a critical bill. More than likely, the establishment Republicans also know what's in these bills. They are just looking out for #1. But hey, we keep voting them in office so maybe we're the idiots. Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. What ever happened to fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me?
MOPAR

Ash Flat, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25768
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the 1.6 billion we loaned to the old Chrysler which is now in bankruptcy? With the U.S. Government still owning 1/3 of GM and an outstanding balance of $850 million on a $1 Billion loan yet to be repaid, I wouldn't get too excited yet. Lastly, both GM and Chrysler went through restructuring bankruptcy. Why would they have needed to do that if the bailouts were so great? I can tell you one thing, if I was given billions of dollars, my business would be healthy too.
What makes you think Chrysler is in bankruptcy?
Besides, originally, the government committed a total of $12.5 billion dollars under the Bush Adm. to Chry.

Since: Jun 12

Detroit City

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25769
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
If you gave my company billions it would be worth billions as well. If my company got in trouble, would there be a bailout for me? NO. I would have to go through restructuring bankruptcy (Chapter 11) or out of business bankruptcy (Chapter 7). Either way, there would be no help for me. Why are 2 of the big 3 any different? Because they employ so many people? There have been many large corporations go out of business without help. Bear Stearns had contracts of $13 billion and 15,000 employees world wide. Certainly a larger financial stake than GM and Chrysler combined and 15,000 lost jobs is nothing to sneeze at. They conducted shady business and there was no one there to help when they got in trouble. Circuit City had $1.6 billion in annual revenue, 567 superstores, and employed over 20,000 people. Why didn't they get any help? Freidman's Jewlers had over 600 locations and millions in sales. Where was the help for them? All of these companies went out of business because of bad business practices. Is that any different than GM and Chrysler letting the unions gouge them and run their business in the ground? No, it's not. The bailouts to GM and Chrysler were no more than a political gift to the large auto unions that was hyped as a country saving necessity. It wasn't. GM and Chrysler should have gone under. Bailing them out all but insures that they will get in trouble again sometime in the future knowing there will be some politician out there crying gloom and doom for America if we don't "save those jobs". Ford was the only one smart enough to realize the trap of government handouts so they paid their bailout back before they used much if any because they weren't in trouble in the first place.
This give you a clue??????????

A study by the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor estimated that the failure of Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp. would eliminate up to 3 million jobs, including those at parts suppliers and smaller businesses that rely on the automakers.

State, local and federal governments would lose more than $150 billion in tax revenue over three years, the study said.
diseases U get

Ravenden, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25770
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oneford wrote:
<quoted text>
Better get yourself a crystal ball, this is the second post in a row you have not understood.
You better get a new a$$ yhey ripped you a new one ! Butt hurt!
Reality Check

Camden, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25771
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MOPAR wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think Chrysler is in bankruptcy?
Besides, originally, the government committed a total of $12.5 billion dollars under the Bush Adm. to Chry.
I didn't say they were currently in bankruptcy. They filed Chapter 11 in 2009 in order to be restructured. Then they sold out. On June 10, 2009 an entity known as The New Chrysler Group bought Chrysler from Chrysler LLC for $6.6 billion which was financed by the American tax payers (U.S. government). Initially, the percentages of equity ownership in Chrysler Group LLC are: Fiat, 20%, U.S. government (Us the taxpayers) 9.85%, Canadian government, 2.46%, and the UAW retiree medical fund 67.69%. This makes the $12.5 billion strengthen my argument that they should have simply been allowed to go under.
Reality Check

Camden, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25772
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oneford wrote:
<quoted text>
This give you a clue??????????
A study by the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor estimated that the failure of Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp. would eliminate up to 3 million jobs, including those at parts suppliers and smaller businesses that rely on the automakers.
State, local and federal governments would lose more than $150 billion in tax revenue over three years, the study said.
I already knew the numbers. Doesn't change the fact that they should have been allowed to go under. Another, or a host of automakers, who weren't so reckless with their businesses, would have picked up the pieces and we would have ended up with stronger and more stable companies than we had before. Jobs would have been saved and wages would have come down to more sustainable levels like those of Nissan. America would have been better for it. It would have forced us to change our labor laws to a more healthy, business-friendly model. You can't argue that these American staple companies would have been owned by foreign companies because 20% Chrysler is already owned by Fiat and that's with our All-American bailouts. It would be a mute point to argue that but I'm sure you'll try. It didn't happen that way so it really doesn't matter at this point anyway.

Since: Jun 12

Detroit City

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25773
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say they were currently in bankruptcy. They filed Chapter 11 in 2009 in order to be restructured. Then they sold out. On June 10, 2009 an entity known as The New Chrysler Group bought Chrysler from Chrysler LLC for $6.6 billion which was financed by the American tax payers (U.S. government). Initially, the percentages of equity ownership in Chrysler Group LLC are: Fiat, 20%, U.S. government (Us the taxpayers) 9.85%, Canadian government, 2.46%, and the UAW retiree medical fund 67.69%. This makes the $12.5 billion strengthen my argument that they should have simply been allowed to go under.


Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
What about the 1.6 billion we loaned to the old Chrysler which is now in bankruptcy?
I did

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25774
Jul 10, 2013
 
I always vote

Since: Jun 12

Detroit City

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25775
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say they were currently in bankruptcy. They filed Chapter 11 in 2009 in order to be restructured. Then they sold out. On June 10, 2009 an entity known as The New Chrysler Group bought Chrysler from Chrysler LLC for $6.6 billion which was financed by the American tax payers (U.S. government). Initially, the percentages of equity ownership in Chrysler Group LLC are: Fiat, 20%, U.S. government (Us the taxpayers) 9.85%, Canadian government, 2.46%, and the UAW retiree medical fund 67.69%. This makes the $12.5 billion strengthen my argument that they should have simply been allowed to go under.
Do a little research before you post, not after, and read more than the first paragraph. Let me make this simple for you,

On July 21, 2011, Fiat bought the Chrysler shares held by the United States Treasury.

Fiat gained majority ownership and control of Chrysler.

The United States government's involvement in the Chrysler bankruptcy cost $1.3 billion not 12.5

That weaken your argument by 11.2 billion reasons.

Since: Jun 12

Detroit City

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25776
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
I already knew the numbers. Doesn't change the fact that they should have been allowed to go under. Another, or a host of automakers, who weren't so reckless with their businesses, would have picked up the pieces and we would have ended up with stronger and more stable companies than we had before. Jobs would have been saved and wages would have come down to more sustainable levels like those of Nissan. America would have been better for it. It would have forced us to change our labor laws to a more healthy, business-friendly model. You can't argue that these American staple companies would have been owned by foreign companies because 20% Chrysler is already owned by Fiat and that's with our All-American bailouts. It would be a mute point to argue that but I'm sure you'll try. It didn't happen that way so it really doesn't matter at this point anyway.
Do you really think the UAW workers and UAW retirees came out of that bankruptcy without paying a price in lower wages and benefits themselves? Is that what you really think, REALLY? As I have pointed out already , Chrysler is now a foreign company unless you think Fiat is a American company.
Before you say what an auto worker should make per hour, may I suggest you put your ass on that assembly line in a plant so loud that you cannot here yourself think and do the same job every min. to 45 sec for 40 hrs. a week on a concrete floor, then tell me WTF you should make in salary. Better yet after 30 years of that they tell you, sorry oh-boy you are only going get half of those benefits you worked your ass off for the last 30 years. Now when you put yourself in those shoes you can tell me about what you know is best for the Auto Worker.

Reality Check

Camden, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25778
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Oneford wrote:
<quoted text>
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the 1.6 billion we loaned to the old Chrysler which is now in bankruptcy?
Didn't mean to say that but that's what I said so one for you. Does that mean the bankruptcy never happened since I said it wrong? I'm not up on the liberal rules of made up realities so I'll rely on you to clarify it.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pocahontas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
AR More than 1,000 dead birds fall from sky in Ark (Jan '11) 26 min Ancient Do Do 9,866
Flattered 2 hr lmao 1
Party Poppers (Oct '10) 4 hr Questions 69
best new name for Pochontas 5 hr Guest 31
Red Golden Retriever on Heather Lane 6 hr ridiculous 8
factory closing 6 hr yoga bear 8
current river drowning 10 hr Dirty laundry 7
•••
•••
•••

Pocahontas Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Pocahontas People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Pocahontas News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Pocahontas
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••