Something the Dog Said wrote: [Read the photo. Make your complaints with the workers whose last day at GM was December 23, 2008. More than 2000 GM employees were laid off at that time with a handful remaining for the remaining 4 months to finish off orders for the light trucks.
You are the one using it as a source for your lies.
Come on Bob, show me where I lied. Look back at my post and point to a single lie that I made. I dare you. Back up your words or crawl away.
The point under discussion was when the plant closed. You quoted a source that was wrong. ipso facto. Feel free to split the hair that that was a mistake rather than a lie.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I quoted a documented source. You claimed I lied. Yet no where did I lie. On December 23, 2008, according to over 2000 workers who were laid off at that site, stated in a photograph that the last vehicle rolled off that production line. You have yet to provide any source that any other vehicle rolled off that line. Perhaps a few trucks built by a handful of individuals rolled off another line, but you have yet to prove that any vehicle rolled off that line after December 23, 2008. You and Printsmith can pretend that the plant was viable until April, 2009, but it can not be argued with any credibility that the plant was still a viable concern after December 23, 2008. Again, prove that I lied, or crawl away.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
PrintSmith wrote: So we agree Dog. The last day of SUV production was in December of 2008 but the plant remained open, building medium duty trucks, for 4 months after that. The production of GM products in Janesville thus ended in April of 2009, 3 months after Obama was sworn in and during the time that his administration was orchestrating the bailout of GM. This after Obama had told those union workers at the Janesville plant that with the assistance of the federal government they would be building vehicles there for the next hundred years. Obama had the opportunity to make good on what he told those union workers at the Janesville plant, presuming, of course, that he remembered telling them that and it wasn't just a throw away line trying to muster up a few more votes.
Obama had a transition team for the last 2 months of the Bush administration. He was thinking about the automobile industry so much that he asked Bush to sign the legislation that the Democrat majority in Congress was about to place on his desk to divert funds from TARP to be applied towards the bailout of the automobile sector so that his administration would have a head start on getting their policy off the ground. Said bailout, I need not remind our reading audience, these same Democrats want to distance themselves from at this point in time in a full court press to say that it was Bush that ratcheted up the deficit by signing that bill.
Wow - sounds a lot like what I have been posting for the last couple of pages, doesn't it. Imagine that.
Once again, another Printsmith distortion of the facts. Candidate Obama did not tell the Janesville plant workers that he would assist them in building vehicles there for the next hundreds years. What Candidate Obama stated was this:
"I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday, and I know how hard your Governor has fought to keep jobs in this plant. But I also know how much progress you've made — how many hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles you're churning out. And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it's where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that's the future I'll fight for as your president."
He was stating that if the government was able to be there to assist in the transition to fuel efficient vehicles (not trucks and SUVs). Unfortunately, GM decided that it was not economically viable to retool that particular factory, thus no government assistance was necessary. It seems that you and Ryan are complaining that the government did not intervene and force GM to keep that factory going. It would seem that you and Ryan are complaining that private industry can not build it, and government is necessary in order for industry to proceed. Is that correct?
GM made the decision to close that plant well before Candidate Obama took office. You and the other tools here can pretend that the newly inaugurated president was at fault for not jumping and intervening in GM's business decision that had been made months before he took office to keep a promise that he never made. Had the republican administration taken the approach during the economic downturn that forced the closure of that plan, GM and the government working together could have built a future that would have kept the plant open, such as implementing fuel standards and incentives for fuel efficient vehicles and training and tax credits for retooling the plant.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
What is a documented source? You used an incorrect source to perpetuate a lie. Now you are arguing that a plant operating at reduced capacity is closed.
I think you would be better off going back to calling Romney a felon. Keep on making mountains out of molehills and you loose.
I predict that in 30 days Obama will completely pivot his campaign all of you will pivot with him.
Blazer Bob wrote: What is a documented source? You used an incorrect source to perpetuate a lie. Now you are arguing that a plant operating at reduced capacity is closed.
I think you would be better off going back to calling Romney a felon. Keep on making mountains out of molehills and you loose.
I predict that in 30 days Obama will completely pivot his campaign all of you will pivot with him.
The source I linked to was a newspaper photo dated December 23, 2008. That is a documented source. A plant where the decision to close it was made in June 2008 is no longer considered open when it is not accepting any new orders and is finishing up final production runs. Try telling the 2000 employees who were laid off that the plant is still open and in business.
What did I "loose"? The middle class will lose if the RMoney is elected, seeing their tax burdens rise while the wealthy one percent get even more tax cuts.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
So help me understand, conservatives. Relying upon government assistance is bad (unless you are an equity manager seeking to bail out Bain Capital through government help while at the same time looting the company) because "We Built It". Yet President Obama is being blamed for not intervening during the final production run of a plant that had been marked as closed a year before, that he did not properly provide government to prop up private industry so "They Could Build It" with government help. Is that right?
That Ryan/Romney continue to harp on the government not providing assistance to private industry, because "We Built It", yet Ryan voted for government assistance for the auto industry, the financial industry, private businesses in his district. Ryan/Romney continue to complain about the stimulus, yet Ryan repeatedly begged for stimulus money for his cronies. Is this right?
Please explain?
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Eric Cantor 'Probably Can't Speak' To Why Paul Ryan Included Obama Medicare Cuts In His Budget
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) couldn't address why vice-presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) attacked a $716 billion Medicare reduction from the Affordable Care Act during his acceptance speech after Ryan included the cuts in his own budget.
In an interview with Fortune magazine published Thursday, Cantor was asked about Ryan proposing his own budget to turn Medicare into a quasi-voucher system, using the same cuts he called a cold "power play" by Democrats during his Republican National Convention speech on Wednesday.
"The assumption was that, um, the, the, ah, again — I probably can't speak to that in an exact way so I better just not," he said.
So help me understand, conservatives. Relying upon government assistance is bad (unless you are an equity manager seeking to bail out Bain Capital through government help while at the same time looting the company) because "We Built It".
My answer is that relying upon government assistance is bad - no matter if you are a single welfare mother - or if you are an equity manager.
No able to work private citizen should ever be provided assistance by our government- and no private business should ever be provided assistance either.
This is how the government gets to pick the winners and losers- rather than the free market. In either case- it's corruption.
