Did you vote today?

Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,407 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

boo

Haslet, TX

#25754 Jul 9, 2013
Get with it
boo

Haslet, TX

#25755 Jul 9, 2013
Ha
boo

Haslet, TX

#25756 Jul 9, 2013
No
boo

Haslet, TX

#25757 Jul 9, 2013
Nope
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#25758 Jul 9, 2013
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

#25759 Jul 9, 2013
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

#25760 Jul 9, 2013
Oneford wrote:
All three of America's biggest auto manufacturers—Chrysler, GM, and Ford—are 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

#25761 Jul 9, 2013
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

UK

#25762 Jul 9, 2013
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

#25763 Jul 10, 2013
No I don't vote

Since: Jun 12

Detroit City

#25764 Jul 10, 2013
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

#25765 Jul 10, 2013
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

Little Rock, AR

#25766 Jul 10, 2013
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

Little Rock, AR

#25767 Jul 10, 2013
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

Mountain Home, AR

#25768 Jul 10, 2013
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

#25769 Jul 10, 2013
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

United States

#25770 Jul 10, 2013
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

Little Rock, AR

#25771 Jul 10, 2013
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

Little Rock, AR

#25772 Jul 10, 2013
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

#25773 Jul 10, 2013
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?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Searcy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Objective complete!! 28 min Beady by Proxy 7
News Prosecutor wants answers in Drummond case 1 hr Super_Chick_ 30
Single women with big titts of white county 1 hr Guest 4
If this Offends you! 1 hr Beady by Proxy 22
It's party time! Light the candles! 2 hr Standpoints View 1
Danielle Hill 12 hr Dick 2
I don't see any of you nickel bag boys 13 hr Whooo 2

Searcy Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Searcy Mortgages