danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Right, but isn't that negated by the October statement he made--after the meltdown?

If the crash negated it, then surely you need to drop it from your 'evidence' of a promise, then?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman2 wrote:...How could you really attack a military hero?

One word: McCain.

What are you referring to here? That McCain was a great hero? That he was attacked on that war record in 2008 by liberals? Or that his 2000 candidacy was destroyed by a nasty whispering push-poll from republicans?

Poor guy has certainly had his hero status tarnished by everyone. He would have been a better President for 2001-9 than the winner, but unfortunately his time had passed by 2008.

So, Brokaw and the MSM are straight-shooters and the American people, especially undecideds, believe them

In general trust in television news has been on the rise over the last two years. Trust in NBC News is up 15 points compared to 2010, CBS and ABC News are both up by 12 points, and CNN is up by 6 points. The only outlet in worse shape than it was 2 years ago is Fox News, which is down 9 points. But they're still headed in the right direction- they're up 7 points from 2011 after dropping by 16 points between 2010 and 2011.

-Democrats trust everything- except Fox News. NBC does the best with them at +50 (67/17), followed by PBS and CNN at +49 (66/17 and 65/16 respectively), ABC at +38 (57/19), CBS at +35 (58/23), MSNBC at +33 (56/23), and even Comedy Central at +4 (36/32). Fox News comes in at -36 (25/61).

-Republicans meanwhile don't trust anything except Fox News. PBS comes the closest to breaking even among non-Fox outlets, although not very close, at -30 (26/56). It's followed by CNN at -49 (18/67), MSNBC at -51 (18/69), NBC at -52 (17/69), CBS at -54 (17/71), ABC at -56 (14/70), and Comedy Central at -59 (12/71). But Fox News comes in at a stellar 73/17.

Independents are with the Democrats. They trust everything except Fox News. Main takeaway from this poll: tv news has become just as polarizing as the political parties in this country.

freeman2 wrote:Another take on Ryan's speech:

. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... _blog.html

Oh by the way the idea that the plant was not really closed in December, 2008 is laughable. There were 2000 jobs before the closure in December, 2008; a "skeleton" crew of 57 was left to make medium-size trucks until April, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janesville ... mbly_Plant

rickyp wrote:fate

So, Brokaw and the MSM are straight-shooters and the American people, especially undecideds, believe them

Interesting question. Generally, amongst television news, PBS is most trusted and least distrusted. But independents? They trust everything but Fox News.
PPP does an annual poll.

So yeah, if independent undecided voters hear on NBC that Ryan is loose with the truth, they'll tend to come away beleiving that...
On the other hand, anyone who is still undecided is perhaps totally disengaged and doesn't see much television news.

freeman2 wrote:It's amusing to see you defend the indefensible. " Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: “I believe that if our government is there to support you . . . this plant will be here for another hundred years.” That’s what he said in 2008.

Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year" What part of that is not clear? Obama promised to keep the plant open with government intevention and he broke that promise--the plant was closed within a year.Except it was effectively closed before Obama could do anything about it.

Now Ryan is lying and saying that he was not trying to criticize Obama for not keeping the plant open.

S.C. Democratic Chairman Dick Harpootlian, never a loss for a quick quip, tossed a few stinging one-liners at the Wednesday delegation breakfast.

On Gov. Nikki Haley participating in daily news briefings in a basement studio at the NASCAR Hall of Fame: “She was down in the bunker a la Eva Braun.”

Right, because when Obama took office, an entire month later, it was far too late to save the plant.

freeman2 wrote:Oh you're right, DF, the president broke his promise to keep the plant going to save those 57 jobs! The plant sustained a 97% cut in jobs but it was still really open!

The preferential treatment given to the United Auto Workers accounts for the American taxpayers' entire losses from the bailout. Had the UAW received normal treatment in standard bankruptcy proceedings, the Treasury would have recouped its entire investment. Three irregularities in the bankruptcy case resulted in a windfall to the UAW.

First, GM and Chrysler owed billions of dollars to the union's Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA) when they went bankrupt. The union and the auto makers created VEBA in 2007 to assume responsibility for the UAW's generous retiree health benefits. The benefits allowed UAW members to retire in their mid-50s with minimal out-of-pocket health-care expenses for the rest of their lives. GM owed $20.6 billion and Chrysler owed $8 billion to VEBA as unsecured claims.

A bedrock principle of bankruptcy law is that creditors with similar claims priority receive equal treatment. If you owe $1,000 each on two credit cards, in bankruptcy you cannot choose to pay $900 to Citi and only $200 to Chase. Each of the creditors is entitled to an equal percentage recovery.

In the auto bankruptcies, however, the administration gave the unsecured claims of VEBA much higher priority than those of other unsecured creditors, such as suppliers and unsecured bondholders.

At the time of bankruptcy, GM owed these unsecured creditors $29.9 billion, for which they received 10% of the stock of "new" GM, which went public in November 2010, and warrants to purchase 15% more at preferred prices. Yet VEBA got 17.5% of new GM and $9 billion in preferred stock and debt obligations. Based on GM's current stock price, VEBA collected assets worth $17.8 billion—$12.2 billion more than if the administration had treated it like the other unsecured creditors.

The same thing happened at Chrysler, only to a greater degree. Chrysler's junior creditors recovered none of their $7 billion in claims. In normal bankruptcy proceedings, the UAW would have also collected nothing. Instead it walked away owning almost half of new Chrysler and a $4.6 billion promissory note earning 9% interest. Had the stock and note gone to the Treasury instead, the bailout would have cost taxpayers $9.2 billion less.


The administration also insulated the UAW from most of the sacrifices that unions usually make in bankruptcy—at taxpayer expense. Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code enables reorganizing companies to improve their post-bankruptcy competitiveness by renegotiating union contracts to competitive rates. In April, for example, American Airlines proposed using this power to bring down its labor costs to the level of its rivals, just as Delta and United had in earlier bankruptcy filings.

rickyp wrote:fate

Right, because when Obama took office, an entire month later, it was far too late to save the plant.

If the 57 people who were decommissioning the plant, were busy. They would have stripped the plant of any equipment or assets that could be sold, or salvaged... Anything the owners were liable for enviromentally would also be drained, moved, or disposed of...

In two months, there wouldn't have been much left but the building envelope. So, you're probably right when you say it was far too late to save the plant... since there were plenty of plants still fully tooled and equippped to handle the downsized company that came out of the auto bailout.