Leaderboard

You can count on Adam for interesting posts. I've always admired the wit of his screen name.

If I remember right (not always something I would bet on), the GM bailout will wind up costing the Feds 10 to 15 billion at the most which sum has likely already been largely offset by additional taxes paid by the supply chain and dealerships. Chump change on the scale these sorts of thing are measured on.

WHERE WAS THE WIT ???? AM I OBLIVIOUS DEHAVILLAND AGAIN ????

I always hate interruptions and distraction while "ingesting"..... Excuse ME ?????

Of course it would be irritating if hungry, but fun after a couple of drinks. Fun and food are two of the three "F" words worth pursuing. Best regards, RA1

Excuse me, darling, but I'm forgetting your name again.

North Carolina same-sex marriage ban struck down as Idaho given green light Supreme court removes final legal obstacle in Idaho on same day federal judge opens way for marriages in North Carolina http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/10/same-sex-marriage-idaho-north-carolina

To comment on one thing I actually know a little bit about, wonders never cease, Romney is stridently on record as opposing the auto industry bailout. Even after it demonstrably worked, he argued GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy without any federal meddling. Steve Rattner, who ran the bailout under Obama in its crucial early stages, demolished that argument in a withering piece in the WSJ, detailing how he and his team scoured the earth for private financing to support restructuring of the car companies, but came up empty-handed -- understandably so in the investment climate of early 2009. Without government intervention, GM and Chrysler would have gone into liquidation. Besides the hundreds of thousands of job losses at the two companies, the knock-on effect would have pulled down much of their supply chain. Those suppliers being in turn crucial to many other industries besides, the damage to the entire U.S. manufacturing economy would have taken decades to repair, and would have eliminated us as competitors altogether in many segments. As Bush himself defended the bailout to a Republican gathering after leaving office, "Sometimes reality gets in the way of philosophy." / End of rant.

What would be really helpful, to me anyway, would be if you would share just how you think those things got done and just who did them. In spite of his healthcare initiatives in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney wasn't planning to extend them to the nation at large. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary. John McCain wasn't trying to figure out ways to reduce our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and shift some responsibility to Middle Eastern partners. Unless you know something I don't. Rick Santorum wasn't working to let gays get married, or even serve openly in the military. Unless he shared those plans with you and I just missed it. Paul Ryan wasn't suggesting that insurers cover preexisting conditions and he sure wasn't backing away from handing out vouchers to Medicare recipients and letting them figure out how to make up the difference. Unless he's changed his thinking and forgot to let us know. I know it's a lot easier to say "Obama's awful and has not done a single thing for anyone in the Country!" but, when it comes to pointing to a specific Republican initiative that would have worked better, the voices seem to get much quieter. Believe me, I am not averse to learning something new. It's just that I still have this old-fashioned desire to base that knowledge on something with even a tinge of specificity. All lines are open.

Holding this ticket in my back pocket feels probably just about as good as using it would.

Obama's no PR guy, that's for sure. If he were, I think he'd have some pretty good material to work with. When he took office, it wasn't a sure thing that: - our economy wouldn't still be in the tank - the stock market would get out of the 8000's - unemployment would go down - we could bring troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan - the auto industry would survive - we'd stay out of default - we'd have millions more folks with affordable insurance - Social Security and Medicare would still be intact - we'd have a coalition in the Mideast with Mideast members - DADT would be abolished - gays could marry in thirty states and DC If a PR company couldn't find something to work with in that list, top-of-my-head as it is, they should take down their shingle. Even his failures in immigration reform and economic equality have been stymied by an obstructionist Republican Congress. I think Obama can be forgiven for thinking that folks must be able to see that with the naked eye. But it wouldn't hurt to remind them. The Democratic Congress, in my opinion, is getting nearly as dysfunctional as the Republican Congress. Why they think it's up to Obama to do all the heavy lifting is beyond me. It wouldn't hurt them to get out in front and talk about the accomplishments they've all shared. The fact is, more of us are a hell of a lot better off than we would have been with any of the 2008/2012 Republican presidential candidates and, to my knowledge, no one is saying that. At least not that I can hear. I don't see it happening but, if the 99% of ordinary folks in the U. S. want to see their lives get better in the next little while, they'd vote to continue the things Obama's got done and get him some more Democratic help in the Congress. On the other hand, if they want to see wealth continue to get concentrated at the top, they'll vote in some more Republicans. If voters need someone to tell them that, then it wouldn't hurt the President to be that someone. Although perhaps he's saving it for the book.

(choked laughing)