A will is useless in this factor Cal.... your family or for the matter of my example my Aires, will not have rights to do so, or the ability to access funds left behind from me and my wife, a will does not constitute rights under these circumstances, government takes. Its just that simple. Good try!

dxp29 wrote: A will is useless in this factor Cal.... your family or for the matter of my example my Aires, will not have rights to do so, or the ability to access funds left behind from me and my wife, a will does not constitute rights under these circumstances, government takes. Its just that simple. Good try!

I don't think the death tax would take effect in your case dxp as there is a floor of $5 million, meaning you can leave $5 million to your heirs before you get taxed. It is supposed to drop to $1 million in 2013 with the expiration of the bush era tax cuts, however if congress can come up with something before then it should go up, I believe there is a plan in place to raise it to $10 million.
I do agree however that whatever you make you should be able to give it to your kids tax free.

It's been a tough almost decade now since the economy took a nose dive but it will get better. A capitalist economy will always go through boom and bust times, it's a never ending cycle, just a fun byproduct of capitalism!
I just hope it's sooner rather than later and the president is not the only one that can influence the economy, it's up to all of us to work hard and if you have no job work hard to find one and don't screw the system.( if only the super wealthy would stop screwing us all with the low tax rate)

Anyway good look to everyone and think positive!

The exclusion of $5M goes down to $1M after Dec. 31, 2012. And the tax rate of 35% goes up to 55%. Unless Congress acts. Think they'll act now? Only to save their own pocketbooks, but I doubt it.

Considering rising college costs (and geez are they rising), planning for the possibility of a parent dying prior to a kid finishing college is made very challenging by these stacked taxes. Will I ever save that much for college? Doubtful, but why should the government take a fourth dip at the same money?

Dip #1: My company earns the money, and the government taxes it and takes a cut.
Dip #2: The *remaining* after-tax net profit is distributed to me as part of my paycheck, and the government takes a big chunk of that through my personal taxes.
Dip #3: Whatever I save from my paychecks after-taxes goes into a bank account or stocks so it can grow slowly. The government taxes the earnings.
Dip #4: I die and leave what remains in a trust to my kids, so they can finish school. If I have a bunch of kids, it doesn't matter, the government (starting in January 2013) takes up to 55% of anything over $1M. If my daughters aren't on football scholarship, this won't cover the costs, especially after the fourth dip.

Why do they do that? Because they can, and because voters fall for it. Republican or Democrat, the system is the same, just the numbers are different. Back and forth, back and forth.

For all his flaws, Herman Cain sure had an interesting idea that married the best parts of Flat Tax and Fair Tax. I still wonder whether all the scandal stuff was true (hmm where are all those accusers now?), or whether the Republican Machine simply decided he wasn't the right fit and cut him out.

By the way, Dip #3 is called Capital Gains Tax and is ~15%. At his stage in life (having already earned most of his money and paid his taxes through #1 and #2), Mitt Romney was earning additional income mostly through investments and paying taxes IN A THIRD DIP to the government through #3. The Democrats and media took this one and said "see Romney only pays 15% and that's the way the rich get richer by paying less taxes than the 99%." Anyone who fell for this did not understand that Romney ALREADY paid tax #1 and tax #2 on that SAME MONEY before getting taxed for 15% on the earnings in tax #3. Well played, Democrats and CNN, your audience really is as dumb as you think they are.

(By the way, I do understand that people could understand double-taxation and still vote for Obama. Voting for Obama is a choice, as plausible and righteous as voting for anyone. I just hope that you didn't get fooled into doing it with the whole 99% taxation word trick. Oh and the Republicans had their tricks too.)

Manfred

And here in the uk we also get taxed on most goods and basics we buy, it's called VAT and is at 20%, retail outlets, manufactures can claim it back, but not we the shopper in the high street, we then have tax on fuel, we also if we own a car, even if your not using it have to pay road tax (about $250 a year) we also have to pay around $280 a year to have a tv even if you never actually watch the damn thing cos its mostly repeats, then of course there's the council tax, depending on where you live and the type of property that could be up to $1500 a year or more, all this from your pay packet after the government has already taxed you. So in many respects I think you guys do pretty damn well for yourselves.

Oh and we get taxed at source, so no chance of a little cheating on the sly.

I miss George Bush still.

Me too, he was funny

Atleast you knew he was a man of his own convictions and those convictions were atleast American and noble, not socialist. I miss him too. Ticks me off liberals rewrite history and teach their spin in the public schools to the younger generations. They don't even have a clue to the real story. It's happening now, Obama claimed the first 4 were a success and half the country believed his word rather than the facts that we are not better off! Noe will we be in another 4 of his agenda. Glad he doesn't have the house!

Manfred wrote: The exclusion of $5M goes down to $1M after Dec. 31, 2012. And the tax rate of 35% goes up to 55%. Unless Congress acts. Think they'll act now? Only to save their own pocketbooks, but I doubt it.

Considering rising college costs (and geez are they rising), planning for the possibility of a parent dying prior to a kid finishing college is made very challenging by these stacked taxes. Will I ever save that much for college? Doubtful, but why should the government take a fourth dip at the same money?

Dip #1: My company earns the money, and the government taxes it and takes a cut.
Dip #2: The *remaining* after-tax net profit is distributed to me as part of my paycheck, and the government takes a big chunk of that through my personal taxes.
Dip #3: Whatever I save from my paychecks after-taxes goes into a bank account or stocks so it can grow slowly. The government taxes the earnings.
Dip #4: I die and leave what remains in a trust to my kids, so they can finish school. If I have a bunch of kids, it doesn't matter, the government (starting in January 2013) takes up to 55% of anything over $1M. If my daughters aren't on football scholarship, this won't cover the costs, especially after the fourth dip.

Why do they do that? Because they can, and because voters fall for it. Republican or Democrat, the system is the same, just the numbers are different. Back and forth, back and forth.

For all his flaws, Herman Cain sure had an interesting idea that married the best parts of Flat Tax and Fair Tax. I still wonder whether all the scandal stuff was true (hmm where are all those accusers now?), or whether the Republican Machine simply decided he wasn't the right fit and cut him out.

By the way, Dip #3 is called Capital Gains Tax and is ~15%. At his stage in life (having already earned most of his money and paid his taxes through #1 and #2), Mitt Romney was earning additional income mostly through investments and paying taxes IN A THIRD DIP to the government through #3. The Democrats and media took this one and said "see Romney only pays 15% and that's the way the rich get richer by paying less taxes than the 99%." Anyone who fell for this did not understand that Romney ALREADY paid tax #1 and tax #2 on that SAME MONEY before getting taxed for 15% on the earnings in tax #3. Well played, Democrats and CNN, your audience really is as dumb as you think they are.

(By the way, I do understand that people could understand double-taxation and still vote for Obama. Voting for Obama is a choice, as plausible and righteous as voting for anyone. I just hope that you didn't get fooled into doing it with the whole 99% taxation word trick. Oh and the Republicans had their tricks too.)

Manfred

I agree that the double tax system sucks when you are the owner of a business and it doesn't matter if republicans or dems are in power the only change is the rates, however it wasn't just the liberal media that spread the Romney tax rate. Romney himself stated "Over the past 10 years, I have never paid less than 13%" in federal taxes. I think more people had a problem with a man running for president who ships jobs overseas and hides his money in offshore accounts to avoid the tax. I personally don't have a problem with the overseas accounts, I do with the jobs but when he's running for president you expect him to be patriotic in all of his dealings public and private and not to ship jobs overseas or to hide his money so as not to pay tax. He is definitely not the only one doing it on both sides but I don't think he was the right choice for the republicans.

Cain had some good tax ideas but I personally thought Ron Paul had some great ideas to cut spending and reduce the size of government. (completely eliminating the IRS works for me) and he apparently had a higher polling rate in battleground states. I think the best thing to come from this may be an overhaul of the GOP and to see 3rd party's start to rise even a little. Its a shame that the partys decide who they think is the right fit and basically we get left with 2 choices. Let them all run for president and vote 1 through 10 first count your number 1 vote, if that candidate doesn't get enough votes count your 2 vote and so on until a winner is declared. It will take longer to count the votes but a small price to pay for a bigger choice on election day.

We need more choice!

That being said welcome back President Obama hopefully this country gets back on its feet soon!

Flyingmuck wrote: And here in the uk we also get taxed on most goods and basics we buy, it's called VAT and is at 20%, retail outlets, manufactures can claim it back, but not we the shopper in the high street, we then have tax on fuel, we also if we own a car, even if your not using it have to pay road tax (about $250 a year) we also have to pay around $280 a year to have a tv even if you never actually watch the damn thing cos its mostly repeats, then of course there's the council tax, depending on where you live and the type of property that could be up to $1500 a year or more, all this from your pay packet after the government has already taxed you. So in many respects I think you guys do pretty damn well for yourselves.

Oh and we get taxed at source, so no chance of a little cheating on the sly.

Agreed, in many respects, we do have it good here. Just trying to keep it that way. And you all have a wonderful country too, just a bit expensive to live there, and tough gun laws. My parents lived there before I was born, and we visited various parts of the UK when I was growing up. Anyway we all do what we can to keep the good aspects and not make our systems wasteful or misdirected, whatever that may mean to each individual.

Manfred

Bama seems like a nice guy but his policies are horrible. 6 trillion MORE in debt? How can anyone "welcome" that? Still having 8% unemployment and more people out of a job than before Obama took office? How can I welcome that? How about Obumma care. Our government can't afford that form of tax as well as all of the extra spending that thing will require. Look at Europe with Greece, Spain and Portuagal. That is what happens when the people demand more from the government than the government can give.

doughens wrote: more people out of a job than before Obama took office? .

Okm for this he came into office losing like 5000 jobs a month. He now is gaining like 3000 jobs a month. By the time he turned it around we have lost more jobs than he could get back. I wanted to stay out of this but this is a mis quote. I'm sorry if you think he was terrible but this is the truth. More jobs were lost in 2 years than were gained in twop years. The way you say it it seems like he came in with -5000 job growth and now has like -6000 job growth. Please do not lower mybkarma because of this. It is true please respect me saying this.

Aceshigh4911 wrote: My sentiments exactly Dr. Dave. Doc please remind me, what squad r u with?

Woof woof its the Wardogzz

He he lol

Just doing my geography homework on push and pull factors of Letchworth the worlds first garden city with the UK's first roundabout

He he I should know I live there!

doughens wrote: Bama seems like a nice guy but his policies are horrible. 6 trillion MORE in debt? How can anyone "welcome" that? Still having 8% unemployment and more people out of a job than before Obama took office? How can I welcome that? How about Obumma care. Our government can't afford that form of tax as well as all of the extra spending that thing will require. Look at Europe with Greece, Spain and Portuagal. That is what happens when the people demand more from the government than the government can give.

6 trillion

don't say that I nearly fainted

Homework

I'm not talking about amount of jobs lost or gained in a particular month. The total number of jobs Americans had when Obama took office was more than what it is now. When one looks at the underemployed that is worse as well. I never said it was a gain before. The total number of people not working includes not just the unemplyed but also those who are not included in the unemployment figure who stopped looking for unemployment.

I didn't misquote. You misunderstood my quote

Also, I'll repeat this which is even MORE important:

"Bama seems like a nice guy but his policies are horrible. 6 trillion MORE in debt? How can anyone "welcome" that? Still having 8% unemployment and more people out of a job than before Obama took office? How can I welcome that? How about Obumma care. Our government can't afford that form of tax as well as all of the extra spending that thing will require. Look at Europe with Greece, Spain and Portuagal. That is what happens when the people demand more from the government than the government can give."

Downey wrote:

Manfred wrote: The exclusion of $5M goes down to $1M after Dec. 31, 2012. And the tax rate of 35% goes up to 55%. Unless Congress acts. Think they'll act now? Only to save their own pocketbooks, but I doubt it.

Considering rising college costs (and geez are they rising), planning for the possibility of a parent dying prior to a kid finishing college is made very challenging by these stacked taxes. Will I ever save that much for college? Doubtful, but why should the government take a fourth dip at the same money?

Dip #1: My company earns the money, and the government taxes it and takes a cut.
Dip #2: The *remaining* after-tax net profit is distributed to me as part of my paycheck, and the government takes a big chunk of that through my personal taxes.
Dip #3: Whatever I save from my paychecks after-taxes goes into a bank account or stocks so it can grow slowly. The government taxes the earnings.
Dip #4: I die and leave what remains in a trust to my kids, so they can finish school. If I have a bunch of kids, it doesn't matter, the government (starting in January 2013) takes up to 55% of anything over $1M. If my daughters aren't on football scholarship, this won't cover the costs, especially after the fourth dip.

Why do they do that? Because they can, and because voters fall for it. Republican or Democrat, the system is the same, just the numbers are different. Back and forth, back and forth.

For all his flaws, Herman Cain sure had an interesting idea that married the best parts of Flat Tax and Fair Tax. I still wonder whether all the scandal stuff was true (hmm where are all those accusers now?), or whether the Republican Machine simply decided he wasn't the right fit and cut him out.

By the way, Dip #3 is called Capital Gains Tax and is ~15%. At his stage in life (having already earned most of his money and paid his taxes through #1 and #2), Mitt Romney was earning additional income mostly through investments and paying taxes IN A THIRD DIP to the government through #3. The Democrats and media took this one and said "see Romney only pays 15% and that's the way the rich get richer by paying less taxes than the 99%." Anyone who fell for this did not understand that Romney ALREADY paid tax #1 and tax #2 on that SAME MONEY before getting taxed for 15% on the earnings in tax #3. Well played, Democrats and CNN, your audience really is as dumb as you think they are.

(By the way, I do understand that people could understand double-taxation and still vote for Obama. Voting for Obama is a choice, as plausible and righteous as voting for anyone. I just hope that you didn't get fooled into doing it with the whole 99% taxation word trick. Oh and the Republicans had their tricks too.)

Manfred

I agree that the double tax system sucks when you are the owner of a business and it doesn't matter if republicans or dems are in power the only change is the rates, however it wasn't just the liberal media that spread the Romney tax rate. Romney himself stated "Over the past 10 years, I have never paid less than 13%" in federal taxes. I think more people had a problem with a man running for president who ships jobs overseas and hides his money in offshore accounts to avoid the tax. I personally don't have a problem with the overseas accounts, I do with the jobs but when he's running for president you expect him to be patriotic in all of his dealings public and private and not to ship jobs overseas or to hide his money so as not to pay tax. He is definitely not the only one doing it on both sides but I don't think he was the right choice for the republicans.

Cain had some good tax ideas but I personally thought Ron Paul had some great ideas to cut spending and reduce the size of government. (completely eliminating the IRS works for me) and he apparently had a higher polling rate in battleground states. I think the best thing to come from this may be an overhaul of the GOP and to see 3rd party's start to rise even a little. Its a shame that the partys decide who they think is the right fit and basically we get left with 2 choices. Let them all run for president and vote 1 through 10 first count your number 1 vote, if that candidate doesn't get enough votes count your 2 vote and so on until a winner is declared. It will take longer to count the votes but a small price to pay for a bigger choice on election day.

We need more choice!

That being said welcome back President Obama hopefully this country gets back on its feet soon!

Yup. A lot of good ideas came out from the other primary candidates. Ron Paul was super, but lacked a likeability factor and came across a little loony in his speaking, kind of like Michele Bachmann.

I don't think there is anything wrong in parking some personal funds overseas. It's certainly one way of diversifying currency and bank risk. When we complete our tax forms, we have to declare any offshore accounts (I don't have any, not wealthy enough yet!) and pay US taxes on income earned there. Romney did all that, so it's not hiding, just a financial choice. I make similar (but less wealthy) choices by placing my savings around a few US banks, because I don't trust that depositor insurance will save me when the next bank defaults.

As for overseas jobs, we can't blame business leaders from making the right financial decisions for shareholders... in fact, shareholders demand it. And offshoring decisions are made because we do it to ourselves. San Jose CA just increased their minimum wage with a popular vote Proposition. Mininum wage is an artificial floor to what otherwise would be free-market-driven job pricing. Powerful unions artificially inflate salaries and pensions the same way. While this was necessary in the mid-20th century because law enforcement could not police predatory employment practices, it's unnecessary today (plenty of protection within the US). Anyway, we price our own labor force out of the global market. And the answer to anti-competitive predatory employment overseas is import tariffs, a critical role of government IMO which we don't do enough of (oh boy, real conservatives might dogpile on me for that one). Level the playing field, but we shouldn't complain when we disadvantage our own manufacturers with a high minimum wage and union-inflated pay scales.

Manfred

why are third party candidates allways looney

their ideas may be good but they dont come across has having the gravitas (thank you spell check)

of a 12 year old (no offence to 12 year olds)

Ron paul, ross perot really???????

they may have great ideas but they belong in comedy routines not in the national spotlight

Also, the libertarian party needs to lose its affiliation with the far left and the legalize marijuana people to be taken seriously.

Americans are ready for third party but need someone presentable for the rest of the world. Bring back the wiggs, not you wig

i explained what i ment. i ment the same thing. you said we have less jobs now then when he came into office right?? well he came in with a negative job increace. now we have a positive job increase. and i am thanksful for him he saved michigan by bailing out GM

Hamers wrote:

doughens wrote: more people out of a job than before Obama took office? .

Okm for this he came into office losing like 5000 jobs a month. He now is gaining like 3000 jobs a month. By the time he turned it around we have lost more jobs than he could get back. I wanted to stay out of this but this is a mis quote. I'm sorry if you think he was terrible but this is the truth. More jobs were lost in 2 years than were gained in twop years. The way you say it it seems like he came in with -5000 job growth and now has like -6000 job growth. Please do not lower mybkarma because of this. It is true please respect me saying this.

Hamers, when will you learn, whenever you ask them not to lower your karma, they feel duty bound to lower it, this is the nature of the beast. Learn the lesson well and karma will grow like the red rose glow of a brand new dawn.
I for one am not going to touch it either way.......at the moment

Doesn't matter who the elected leader is, they can and do make many fairy tale promises, that they then have to break because when they made those promises,nthey were not privy to every little morsel of information to know exactly what is going on at home or abroad. Think back, how many politicians have you voted for in the past because they promised you the moon, then all you got was a chunk of rock from the beach. No politician will ever live up to all his promises, will never live up to all your hopes and expectations, you will always be disappointed at some aspect of his tenure whoever or whatever he is. So accept what you have, learn to deal with it learn to make the best of the situation, learn to live with it, wether you won or lost.

Hamers wrote: and i am thanksful for him he saved michigan by bailing out GM

Yeah that GM bailout sure worked wonders:
- $50B in taxpayer cash that the government didn't have to spare
- With the resulting government share of stock ownership, GM's stock must more than double from today's value to recoup that investment
- GM continues to lose market share and is unprofitable

Some "investment" (Obama's words, something like "taxpayers will recover more than my administration put in"). So many Obama supporters, including several of my close friends, still quote Obama and believe that GM is solvent, has paid back completely, and is a rising star in the bailout landscape.

Not so. Not paid back, not even close. Not even making money. Primed for yet another financial crisis and yet another bailout, if the same logic is used. Don't take my word for it; do some research and see the facts.

Who benefited from the bailout? Ok, Michigan avoided a domino effect of suppliers going under.

Who ELSE benefited? UAW Union Members got their full pensions. Who didn't benefit? Non-union workers' pensions were docked dramatically in the bailout deal. Interesting. Back to that in a minute.

Who else is hurt in all this? If you are a competing car company, having cash injected into one of your major competitors is a huge setback. What if you work at Tesla, a great innovative but still-small US auto company? Is Tesla too small for you to consider? At a point where a major competitor is about to die a natural Darwinian death, in comes the government to breathe life into it. Very hard to make headway in a marketplace where your competitors are government subsidized. So yes, people are actually *hurt* by bailouts. Don't even mention the taxpayers whose money funded it, and our children who will live with the debt.

Anyway, UAW, whose members' benefits got restored first by the GM bailout (over non-union workers, who got screwed), then proceeded to give huge donations to the Obama reelection campaign. There was never any reason to favor one creditor over another, certainly not one unionized labor pool over the non-unionized. I can't think of a reason. Can you? Oh, maybe for payback, but that would be awfully conspiratorial. Hush the thought.

Just because the major news networks say it's simply a bailout, doesn't mean that's all it is. You all draw your own conclusions.

And Californians just voted No on the proposition that would have banned corporate and union contributions to political candidates. How in the world did that one not pass? [See, I'm not just pro-business. I'm anti-corruption, and this whole political PAC contribution dynamic is wholly corrupt.]

Manfred

Let's all just stop arguing, you can move to Colorado or Washington if you want.

Manfred wrote:

Hamers wrote: and i am thanksful for him he saved michigan by bailing out GM

Yeah that GM bailout sure worked wonders:
- $50B in taxpayer cash that the government didn't have to spare
- With the resulting government share of stock ownership, GM's stock must more than double from today's value to recoup that investment
- GM continues to lose market share and is unprofitable

Some "investment" (Obama's words, something like "taxpayers will recover more than my administration put in"). So many Obama supporters, including several of my close friends, still quote Obama and believe that GM is solvent, has paid back completely, and is a rising star in the bailout landscape.

Not so. Not paid back, not even close. Not even making money. Primed for yet another financial crisis and yet another bailout, if the same logic is used. Don't take my word for it; do some research and see the facts.

Who benefited from the bailout? Ok, Michigan avoided a domino effect of suppliers going under.

Who ELSE benefited? UAW Union Members got their full pensions. Who didn't benefit? Non-union workers' pensions were docked dramatically in the bailout deal. Interesting. Back to that in a minute.

Who else is hurt in all this? If you are a competing car company, having cash injected into one of your major competitors is a huge setback. What if you work at Tesla, a great innovative but still-small US auto company? Is Tesla too small for you to consider? At a point where a major competitor is about to die a natural Darwinian death, in comes the government to breathe life into it. Very hard to make headway in a marketplace where your competitors are government subsidized. So yes, people are actually *hurt* by bailouts. Don't even mention the taxpayers whose money funded it, and our children who will live with the debt.

Anyway, UAW, whose members' benefits got restored first by the GM bailout (over non-union workers, who got screwed), then proceeded to give huge donations to the Obama reelection campaign. There was never any reason to favor one creditor over another, certainly not one unionized labor pool over the non-unionized. I can't think of a reason. Can you? Oh, maybe for payback, but that would be awfully conspiratorial. Hush the thought.

Just because the major news networks say it's simply a bailout, doesn't mean that's all it is. You all draw your own conclusions.

And Californians just voted No on the proposition that would have banned corporate and union contributions to political candidates. How in the world did that one not pass? [See, I'm not just pro-business. I'm anti-corruption, and this whole political PAC contribution dynamic is wholly corrupt.]

Manfred

In the end presidents and prime ministers don't really run the country do they, it's big business and big corporations and a very very tiny few world wide mega rich who in the end pull the strings.

Gm payed back their money years ahead of schedual. If gm had fell then the whole auto industry,whitch michigan is dependant on, wohld have fell. By saving gm he saved michigan.

Hamers wrote: Gm payed back their money years ahead of schedual. If gm had fell then the whole auto industry,whitch michigan is dependant on, wohld have fell. By saving gm he saved michigan.

Hamers, let's say you dig out $100 of your own money so I can start a lemonade stand. I say, "Great, let's call $10 of it a loan, due in 2 years. I expect to make $180 in profits over the next 5 years ($36 per year), so let's call the other $90 a purchase of half of my lemonade stand's profits, so in 5 years you'll make the $90 all back." Then I make the stand and start selling lemonade, but I'm only making $12 per year in profits instead of the expected $36. In the first year, I repay the $10 that we called a loan.

I now tell all our friends that I've "repaid your loan" in full! Ahead of time!

Now, you're not really out $90. The lemonade stand is making some money, but it's not worth the $90 you paid for half the profits. It's worth about $45. And maybe it'll do better, but there are other kids' lemonade stands that are kicking my butt. Plus, I'm out there dancing in the streets telling our friends that I've paid off your loan to me in full, 1 year ahead of time.

Tell me, did I represent what happened accurately by saying that I've repaid "the loan" in full?

Here are the facts on GM, and if anyone has different information, please challenge this:

- US$67 Billion of government (taxpayer funded) money was used in the GM bailout alone.

- $1.0B of that was loaned to the pre-bankruptcy GM company, just like a bank lending to a company, except that the government was the bank. $136M has been paid back to the Treasury, leaving $864M unrecovered.

- $6.7B of that was loaned to the post-bankruptcy GM company. That entire amount, plus the interest owed, has been repaid in 2010, five years ahead of schedule.

- The rest (about $59B) was used to purchase GM and GMAC (a financing subsidiary) stock, and then the cash from the stock purchase went to fund operating costs for the company and subsidiaries. That stock is worth about $21B today, leaving $38B in taxpayer funds that have not been recovered.

My beef is that when a politician says "GM repaid its loans," there's a word game being played. The politicians are trying to make it sound like all of the money that went into the bailout has come back to the Treasury, at zero net cost to taxpayers in the end. Just like when I told all our friends that I had repaid your loan to me to start the lemonade stand. The exact words were true, but what the words implied was false.

I just want people here to question when they hear stuff from Republicans, Democrats, any politicians, and the media. Go get the facts, THEN form opinions. Politicians (and the news media, and certainly non-news TV and newspapers) use these word games ALL THE TIME. Why do you think I set up that $10 as a "loan", and why do you think the government set up the $6.7B as a loan? So they could later say that the "loan" was repaid, without admitting that there was still $38B that was outstanding. They really do this, as awful as it sounds. All politicians.

Manfred

By the way Hamers, I can see your point about saving the jobs. Note that if GM went through normal bankruptcy without some government interaction, the GM jobs would have still existed (with some layoffs) and the whole company would have come out of bankruptcy, like American Airlines recently. BUT GM's suppliers would have been screwed, and the US auto industry would have a domino effect. THAT'S what got saved.

I just don't like the way Obama lied about the payback, and how media and people just eat it up. When the facts are clear, we can make our own judgments on whether the bailout was worth the price. But when the price is hidden and miscommunicated, then we are being tricked. Then the whole union thing comes into play, more trickery. Like I've said, government is highly inefficient in spending money because it has ulterior motives, mostly looking good in lieu of doing good.

Manfred

Hamers, obama didnt do much, it looks like he helped out but have u seen the stock prices, they wend down so much.

Hey I was recently in a game with Aces High and I got a great Picture of him welcoming the president. The only problem is that I can't tell if he is bowing or bending over. LOL

Hey Aces, that was some great fighting in those games. Hope to do it again soon.
P.S. I told you it would end up on here lol.

No obama hasn't done much.......... but watch what he does now, we all shall see!
I hope you enjoy bad movies, because I fear this is not going to have happy ending

Well I don't like obama to much. I cant tell you if this is completely true but i heard it from my cusion who is in the army and he is ticked at Obama. He said the people at the embassy in benkazi the guys that died had been asking for more security for months because things were escalating and Obama always said no they did not need it. He then fired Generals and commanders who wanted to help them out. In the end the people at the embassy got killed by terrorist because Obama did not let them have more security. Another thing that makes me mad about this incident is that they said it was just some random response to some video. But my question is then why did it happen so close to the date 9/11/2012. To me that attack was done by terrorists doing a stinking 9/11 remembrance attack. Every single year something goes off in the middle east around 9/11. Anyway I have some radicle beliefs on what obama is up to but I better not mention them.

Skydavis1 wrote: Well I don't like obama to much. I cant tell you if this is completely true but i heard it from my cusion who is in the army and he is ticked at Obama. He said the people at the embassy in benkazi the guys that died had been asking for more security for months because things were escalating and Obama always said no they did not need it. He then fired Generals and commanders who wanted to help them out. In the end the people at the embassy got killed by terrorist because Obama did not let them have more security. Another thing that makes me mad about this incident is that they said it was just some random response to some video. But my question is then why did it happen so close to the date 9/11/2012. To me that attack was done by terrorists doing a stinking 9/11 remembrance attack. Every single year something goes off in the middle east around 9/11. Anyway I have some radicle beliefs on what obama is up to but I better not mention them.

I reserve judgment on the amount of security, unless someone can show levels of security around other embassies (and we sure won't ever see that from any administration). It's hard to find the comparative facts, and without them, we are only guessing at what other security constraints were being served at the time. What does concern me are the lies and misrepresentations. I don't like the word games, and this one is classic, with Obama now saying that he said it was a terror attack early on, when all of the press conferences with him and White House press secretary show that the video was blamed for weeks after the administration knew it was terrorism instead of a public protest against a youtube vid. Was this hidden because it was close to the election?

I'm still trying to find consistent stories about Iran shooting at our drone over international waters. It appears to have happened before the election, yet news of it came out after, and I can't seem to find out why. These election games are B.S.

And yeah, both parties play them, but this President is especially skilled at it. I think Character matters, and he misrepresents the truth, often.

Manfred