Ideology says, 'let the market kill off the failed US auto industry'

[bfdd]

There is definitely some interesting cultural anthropology going on. This 100B is chump change compared to around 7 trillion between FED and USG has been pouring to the top/elite failures. Hardly a peep about peoples they look up to.

Anyway I'll continue to buy American and support American labor as long as I can. First they may buy something I sell second I don't like paying to house them to watch TV on welfare.

I agree, the money spent to keep the auto industry afloat wasn't much when compared to other "bail outs". So what? I don't agree with any of it. I'd rather have seen a million people lose their jobs and get pissed off at their government and FORCE change, than sit back mild mannered and content because they're to easily manipulated.

People say they want change, they say they hope for it, but they're all just a bunch of cowards with no conviction. Wave a dollar bill and they fold. Assholes.

 

[Acanthus]

I agree, the money spent to keep the auto industry afloat wasn't much when compared to other "bail outs". So what? I don't agree with any of it. I'd rather have seen a million people lose their jobs and get pissed off at their government and FORCE change, than sit back mild mannered and content because they're to easily manipulated.

People say they want change, they say they hope for it, but they're all just a bunch of cowards with no conviction. Wave a dollar bill and they fold. Assholes.

While i'm in the "let the finance industry fail" camp... I will say that almost all of that money is being recouped plus interest. TARP did work.

We are now facing serious issues with inflation though because of the feds free money policies. They are reinflating the Greenspan bubble.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I agree, the money spent to keep the auto industry afloat wasn't much when compared to other "bail outs". So what? I don't agree with any of it. I'd rather have seen a million people lose their jobs and get pissed off at their government and FORCE change, than sit back mild mannered and content because they're to easily manipulated.

People say they want change, they say they hope for it, but they're all just a bunch of cowards with no conviction. Wave a dollar bill and they fold. Assholes.

this.

 

[bfdd]

While i'm in the "let the finance industry fail" camp... I will say that almost all of that money is being recouped plus interest. TARP did work.

We are now facing serious issues with inflation though because of the feds free money policies. They are reinflating the Greenspan bubble.

I can't deny that, I've read the releases of the paybacks. Doesn't change my stance on it though and I really believe it just delayed the inevitable(unless serious changes occur).

 

[Craig234]

Debate on the repayment aside, this is why I don't like Pelosi. From her quote:



Goddamnit, shut up with the partisan crap! Can't you just say "yay good job Congress", you have to insert this partisan nonsense into your statement?

You are for lying that 'Congress' overall deserves credit for something, when in fact Dems vote FOR it and Repubs vote AGAINST it? Not very honest or useful.

There are people who are clueless about the difference between the parties, who chant the mantra 'they're the same' every election, who need some education. Like you?

 

[sMiLeYz]

While i'm in the "let the finance industry fail" camp... I will say that almost all of that money is being recouped plus interest. TARP did work.

We are now facing serious issues with inflation though because of the feds free money policies. They are reinflating the Greenspan bubble.

I call BS on the second part, where is the inflation?

 

[bfdd]

I call BS on the second part, where is the inflation?

Being hidden by the pegged Yuan and rise/fall of other currencies. Although I can't tell you how bad it is or should be, but it is there. Seems pretty mild imo though so far.


I'd also like to add to what I said earlier. I wish no ill will upon anyone and I definitely do not want 1million or more people to just be out of a job over night. I just believe the whole thing was a buy off of "us"(the people) to be content with the way things are. I see it all blowing up in our faces again in because no one is really fighting to change anything because they are content. We need to be miserable in order to find out what we can do to improve our lives. If we're constantly trying to put bandages over our axe wounds we'll never properly treat them.

 

[Craig234]

All the "experts" that were so expert, they didn't correct the issues before they happened? All the experts that turn to each other and agree with a smile and wink so they can keep their system going?

Yeah....No...

Idiocy. The experts who understand the industry, the effect the parts suppliers have on the automakers, are not the CEO's of the companies who could 'fix the companies'.

When a scientist discusses the effects of something like Fluorocarbons on the atmosphere, do you scream at your TV, "THEN WHY DID YOU LET THEM BE USED!?"?

 

[Darwin333]

I don't know what violations you are referring to. Better to provide the info than beg the question.

Is it really relevant which law they broke? If they can blatantly break one they can break others.

 

[Darwin333]

I call BS on the second part, where is the inflation?

Just about all of the commodities?

 

[Darwin333]

Their idealogical blindness has nothing to do with capitalism ornfree markets and everything to do with the whole " gubbermunt is bad at everything and is out to screw me!" Childishness. Big industry has been telling them for years private industry is king. You might as well try to explain to a wild-eyed street preacher that there is no historical cal record of jesus. They have ignorance tied into their ego and small lives. Its a talk radio fairytale that MUST be true as its the only religion they have. ( cuz these folks sure as he'll don't follow their jesus. Its all about the corporate televangalists on talk radio fox rw websites. Hallelujah. Facts? There are no facts liberals are the infidels just like we are to radical Muslims. Far righie is a far rightie -same shit.

Big industry like, oh I dunno let me just pull one out of my ass, General Motors maybe or perhaps the entire US auto industry? Or is that not big enough?

Kinda makes your argument look rather silly.

 

[chucky2]

Idiocy. The experts who understand the industry, the effect the parts suppliers have on the automakers, are not the CEO's of the companies who could 'fix the companies'.

Idiocy. When it's the auto industry and the parts industry themselves, along with Wall Street who doesn't want anything to get worse, sitting up there and telling each other and the Politicians they have in their pocket (for the benefit of TV and upcoming elections), Oh Yes Mr./Ms. Congressperson, if GM goes bankrupt, it'll just be ssoooooo devestating for us, and then the Auto Exec who doesn't want to go bankrupt goes, Yes, let me just chime in for a second...and proceeds to verbally mastrabate on behalf of his buddy parts supplier...yeah, I don't trust a F'ing word they're saying. Not one.

When a scientist discusses the effects of something like Fluorocarbons on the atmosphere, do you scream at your TV, "THEN WHY DID YOU LET THEM BE USED!?"?

I don't know. Would that be the same scientist that developed them for the company that's going to be releasing them into the atmosphere? Then probably not. Which is the same as parts and auto insiders testifying on behalf of themselves.

But the unions got bailed out, didn't they? But the Big 2 of 3 got bailed out, didn't they?

$65B.....that's a whole F ton of small businesses who actually really could have used the money, that's just as many people affected, if not more. Of course, they're all distributed though, and hence their votes are distributed. Unlike unions and Big Corp., and of course, Wall Street...

Seriously: How F'ing clueless are you? Don't answer, we know....

 

[Aegeon]

5B+ of Chrysler's debt was forgiven for Fiat to buy a stake in the company.

There is no doubt that both GM and C will not even come close to paying their debts.

That being said, i think the impact on the United States would have been worse if they were allowed to fail. Much worse.

In particular, GM for instance had somewhere around a US pension obligation that was underfunded at the time by 13.5 billion dollars, and that's not including the much larger number that the company owed as future obligations as additional payments towards the pension plan. (GM has been working towards paying off that pension obligation since then.)

Both companies pensions are effectively insured by the workers under the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, which currently already has an effective deficit of close to 23 billion dollars. (It may be able to make this up successfully on its own over time by "raising the rate" for other private companies which still offer pensions, adding the full obligations of GM and Chrysler would have changed the picture dramatically.)

While technically the US government is not legally obligated to bail out the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, even though its actually an independent US government agency, in practice there is no question the US would if really necessary to prevent a massive number of US workers in general suddenly being without any pension at all.

Furthermore, a substantial number of both Chrysler and GM retirees are still being covered with a health insurance option right now. If both companies went completely belly up, this would not be the case at all, which would significantly boost the total medicare burden for the US government. (Not to mention the indirect extra cost from those retirees needing treatment at hospitals but then being unable to pay their bills in the future.)

The point is that as long as GM or Chrysler don't go belly up in the near future, the US government actually ended up saving money versus even strictly the financial costs to the government of letting them fail. (I didn't even go into the reality that those suddenly unemployed workers at the two companies obviously would not be paying income taxes in such a scenario.)

 

[Craig234]

So this somehow vindicates government spending?[

Yes, it does. You can't tell which is better between a far worse economy and far better?

Ford turned around without Government help, what does that prove.
This is the sort of foolishness I don't like about P&N.

That one situation can be different than another.

In one period, we dealt with the implosion of the S&L's, but not airlines. Later, we dealth with the implosion of airlines, and not autos. Later, autos and not S&L's.

And each of those industries had businesses that did better and ones that did worse.

And sometimes it made sense to take action and sometimes it didn't.

Here you have a specific situation, where the big 3 automakers were greatly effected by the Wall Street crisis; one had mortgaged hugely and had cash to get through it.

Two others were going out of business - which would probably have killed Ford too.

There was a massive price to the economy if that happened. It made sense to take action.

It's also a good idea to ask, 'can we make changes so that the government doesn't have to do this?'

In this case, the issue seems to be with 'how can we prevent the Wall Street crisis' rather than the auto industry.

And we have done lousy at addressing the Wall Street issue. But IMO we did the right thing clearly in protecting the economy with the US automakers.

Now, let's get rid of a lot of corruption of our political system that protects the Wall Street corruption, and prevent that from happening. Get the money out of elections.

 

[Deeko]

You are for lying that 'Congress' overall deserves credit for something, when in fact Dems vote FOR it and Repubs vote AGAINST it? Not very honest or useful.

There are people who are clueless about the difference between the parties, who chant the mantra 'they're the same' every election, who need some education. Like you?

*sigh* don't be a douche, if you can help it, craigy. Lying? Really? So if a bill does something good, and Congress voted for it, you are *lying* by saying Congress did it? Wow - that is absolutely pathetic of you to say. Also, just because I'm not a blind instrument to a party doesn't mean I can't recognize the differences - and similarities - between the two parties.

Attempting to further the partisan divide does not help the country. It makes things worse. Pelosi's comments did not sway any moderates to be democrats, of that I can assure you - all it did was piss off Republicans, and start partisan pissing fests, such as this thread.

There's a reason being a "partisan hack" is considered a bad thing.

 

[Craig234]

Is it really relevant which law they broke? If they can blatantly break one they can break others.

But when it comes to the laws you broke, that's another matter?

And then you say, 'what laws are you talking about that I broke?'

And then I say, 'is it really relevant which laws you broke? If you can blatantly break one you can break others.'

Hold on, you need to show they broke any laws, and preferably which ones, before just treating it as an assumption they did in a question.

 

[Aegeon]

But the unions got bailed out, didn't they? But the Big 2 of 3 got bailed out, didn't they?

$65B.....that's a whole F ton of small businesses who actually really could have used the money, that's just as many people affected, if not more. Of course, they're all distributed though, and hence their votes are distributed. Unlike unions and Big Corp., and of course, Wall Street...

I am looking through the list of actual costs to the US government, and this figure looks clearly misleadingly high.

Besides the debt Chrysler already paid off, you do have a bit of US ownership in Chrysler which should be sold off in the future. You also had a significant US government stake in GM which is and has been sold off to the general market in order to pay back much of the bailout costs.

As I already covered, without bailing out the companies and the unions if the two companies failed, the US would have ultimately ended up being responsible for paying off a greater debt burden given the pension, health care costs, and other burdens which still would have ultimately fallen upon the US government. This is before you even get into the reality of how many people would have been impacted, including indirectly due to other companies which basically exclusively supply parts to these two companies failing.

 

[Craig234]

*sigh* don't be a douche, if you can help it, craigy. Lying? Really? So if a bill does something good, and Congress voted for it, you are *lying* by saying Congress did it? Wow - that is absolutely pathetic of you to say. Also, just because I'm not a blind instrument to a party doesn't mean I can't recognize the differences - and similarities - between the two parties.

Attempting to further the partisan divide does not help the country. It makes things worse. Pelosi's comments did not sway any moderates to be democrats, of that I can assure you - all it did was piss off Republicans, and start partisan pissing fests, such as this thread.

There's a reason being a "partisan hack" is considered a bad thing.

No, when you have Dems who stands for something, and Repubs oppose it, you can say either 'Congress did it' or 'the Democratic Congress did it'.

But when you complain that the Democrats are mentioned as the party who was for it rather than implying that both did it - that's lying, IMO.

A party taking credit for where it's right and the other pushed the wrong thing is not necessarily "pushing the partisan divide". It's called informing voters about the choice.

"The partisan divide" is a hyperbolic term when you abuse it that simply pointing out which side was right on issue is attempting to start a civil war.

"The partisan divide" is something you can use for when people put party ahead of what's right, when people are inconsistent simply to favor one party.

None of those are the case here. This is a completely legitimate case of the Democrats pointing out that they supported the auto industry bailout and Republicans opposed it.

You taking issue with that makes me suspect your only real issue is that it benefits the Democrats... which would make you 'partisan'.

If Republicans were 'pissed off' that the truth was told about their pushing a wrong policy - too damn bad, I have an solution for them - support the right policy next time.

We need the public aware of who is doing what.

As for your asinine name-calling - you're a step from going on ignore.

 

[TheSlamma]

Junksler needs to go.. they still continue after 2 massive failures to keep trying to be a "race car" company, something especially worthless during $4 a gallon gas.

 

[Deeko]

No, when you have Dems who stands for something, and Repubs oppose it, you can say either 'Congress did it' or 'the Democratic Congress did it'.

But when you complain that the Democrats are mentioned as the party who was for it rather than implying that both did it - that's lying, IMO.

A party taking credit for where it's right and the other pushed the wrong thing is not necessarily "pushing the partisan divide". It's called informing voters about the choice.

"The partisan divide" is a hyperbolic term when you abuse it that simply pointing out which side was right on issue is attempting to start a civil war.

"The partisan divide" is something you can use for when people put party ahead of what's right, when people are inconsistent simply to favor one party.

None of those are the case here. This is a completely legitimate case of the Democrats pointing out that they supported the auto industry bailout and Republicans opposed it.

You taking issue with that makes me suspect your only real issue is that it benefits the Democrats... which would make you 'partisan'.

If Republicans were 'pissed off' that the truth was told about their pushing a wrong policy - too damn bad, I have an solution for them - support the right policy next time.

We need the public aware of who is doing what.

As for your asinine name-calling - you're a step from going on ignore.

And herein lies your folly - you, being one that believes the type of partisan crap I'm talking about here, assume that if I'm disagreeing or disliking Pelosi, that I must be a Republican. I'm not. Nor am I a libertarian, conservative, a neo-con, nor did I vote for McCain or Bush. Believe it or not - I can vote for members of the Democratic party and still prefer a more unified country without partisan attacks. Shocking, I know.

As for your last line....

A) Uhm - you assumed that my preferred way of wording Pelosi's statement is lying, and that making the statement I made earlier is dishonest - neither is true.
B) You also claimed (in a very Glenn Beckish "I'm just asking, not stating" kind of way) that I'm clueless and need education, which is both insulting and not true.
C) I really don't care if you put me on ignore, is your opinion of yourself that high that you think I should? Hate to burst your bubble, but I couldn't possibly care less.

If you don't want to be insulted, don't insult people, its really simple. You are one of the most attacking, insulting, derisive people on these forums, so spare me your "insults are asinine" hypocrisy.

 

[Craig234]

And herein lies your folly - you, being one that believes the type of partisan crap I'm talking about here, assume that if I'm disagreeing or disliking Pelosi, that I must be a Republican. I'm not. Nor am I a libertarian, conservative, a neo-con, nor did I vote for McCain or Bush. Believe it or not - I can vote for members of the Democratic party and still prefer a more unified country without partisan attacks. Shocking, I know.

As for your last line....

A) Uhm - you assumed that my preferred way of wording Pelosi's statement is lying, and that making the statement I made earlier is dishonest - neither is true.
B) You also claimed (in a very Glenn Beckish "I'm just asking, not stating" kind of way) that I'm clueless and need education, which is both insulting and not true.
C) I really don't care if you put me on ignore, is your opinion of yourself that high that you think I should? Hate to burst your bubble, but I couldn't possibly care less.

If you don't want to be insulted, don't insult people, its really simple. You are one of the most attacking, insulting, derisive people on these forums, so spare me your "insults are asinine" hypocrisy.

Your wrong on pretty much everything - for one, my comment about your partisanship was 'using your exaggeration of calling things partisan' to show you what it's like - not saying you are actually a rabid Republican. You say that Pelosi simply, accurately mentioning who did the policies in question is some 'fueling the partisan divide in our country' is like saying that you criticizing her as a Democrat means you are similarly partisan. Guess you don't like your ridiculous standard applied to you - that's the point.

The statement on ignore is simply a statement of fact to let you know my opinion of your behavior - I 'don't care if you care'. You are quite wrong in your statements.

Repeat the excessive name calling, and you go on ignore - I don't need discussion.

If the Republicans had supported the policy, and she called it 'the Democratic Congress' - you would have a point she was wrong.

But there are many issues the Republicans oppose the Democrats - from opposing the Clinton tax increase on the rich that helped lead to a balanced budget, to supporting the Bush borrowed tax cuts for the rich that helped shoot the deficit back up, to their trying to end Medicare as the public program it is and hundreds more - where it is perfectly appropriate for anyone - not just the Democrats' leader - to mention who was on which side when discussing the policy and its effects.

Not doing so allows those who opposed the policy to take equal credit for it - and get elected next time for the wrong reasons by voters who don't know who did what.

Your attack on Pelosi is completely baseless. There are times when things are overly partisan, and this is not one. She was just fine to correctly credit the Democrats.

We're not talking about WWII here saying 'The Democratic administration led the country to victory' when announcing the war is over.

We're discussing a result of the policy that helps answer who was wrong and who was right, and she's pointing out who is who.

 

[bfdd]

Craig, I know you don't realize it but you are if not the biggest one of the biggest partisan hacks on this forum. It has nothing to do with me disagreeing with you most the time and has everything to do with you straight up gobbling the goo the side you choose to support splurts down your throat. Please stop it, all you do is push a partisan agenda. There is no debate with you, you only care about what your side says and that they can do no evil. You ignore hypocrisy, you ignore anyone who says they aren't a republican or neo-con or whatever and just assume they are because I mean what else could they possibly be?

You are a mental midget with an over inflated sense of ego. Every time you try to categorize someone you show this to us. These categories only exist in your head.

 

[Deeko]

Your wrong on pretty much everything - for one, my comment about your partisanship was 'using your exaggeration of calling things partisan' to show you what it's like - not saying you are actually a rabid Republican. You say that Pelosi simply, accurately mentioning who did the policies in question is some 'fueling the partisan divide in our country' is like saying that you criticizing her as a Democrat means you are similarly partisan. Guess you don't like your ridiculous standard applied to you - that's the point.

Use a little critical thinking here. I prefaced my original statement with "this is why I don't like Pelosi", which should insinuate that I feel her habit of partisanship extends beyond this incident. In my opinion, this is par for the course for her - and clearly, its not a direction I agree with.

Whether you agree with my assessment of partisanship or not, it is laughable to try to insult my intelligence because you have a more relaxed definition of partisan attack than I.

The statement on ignore is simply a statement of fact to let you know my opinion of your behavior - I 'don't care if you care'. You are quite wrong in your statements.

Repeat the excessive name calling, and you go on ignore - I don't need discussion.

Again - you insulted me, which in my opinion was a pretty douchey thing to do, so I asked you not to do it again. Pretty simple. As I said above, if you don't want to be insulted, don't insult them first.

If the Republicans had supported the policy, and she called it 'the Democratic Congress' - you would have a point she was wrong.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/10/news/companies/auto_bailout_legislation/index.htm

32 Republicans voted for the bill. I guess I have a point. Although my point from the start wasn't "Hey! She's wrong! Republicans voted for it too!" It was "There's really no need to bring the partisan aspect into this whether she's right or not, save that for the campaign if you have to do it."

But there are many issues the Republicans oppose the Democrats - from opposing the Clinton tax increase on the rich that helped lead to a balanced budget, to supporting the Bush borrowed tax cuts for the rich that helped shoot the deficit back up, to their trying to end Medicare as the public program it is and hundreds more - where it is perfectly appropriate for anyone - not just the Democrats' leader - to mention who was on which side when discussing the policy and its effects.

None of that is at all relevant to this discussion.

Not doing so allows those who opposed the policy to take equal credit for it - and get elected next time for the wrong reasons by voters who don't know who did what.

No, it doesn't. I'm going to assume you've followed an election before. If a Republican congressman who voted against the bill tries to take credit for saving the auto industry in the campaign, you'd better believe (s)he'll be called on it.

Your attack on Pelosi is completely baseless. There are times when things are overly partisan, and this is not one. She was just fine to correctly credit the Democrats.

We're not talking about WWII here saying 'The Democratic administration led the country to victory' when announcing the war is over.

While there have certainly been more extreme cases of partisan attacks, I stand by my opinion that interjecting partisanship to this statement was unnecessary.

We're discussing a result of the policy that helps answer who was wrong and who was right, and she's pointing out who is who.

I was unaware we were in a debate for re-election. I thought she was making a statement about a positive change in our country. Silly me.

 

[Craig234]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/10/news/companies/auto_bailout_legislation/index.htm

32 Republicans voted for the bill. I guess I have a point. Although my point from the start wasn't "Hey! She's wrong! Republicans voted for it too!" It was "There's really no need to bring the partisan aspect into this whether she's right or not, save that for the campaign if you have to do it."

No, you don't. Democrats voting heavily for the bill counts as 'Democrats supported it', and Republicans heavily opposing the bill counts as 'Republican opposed it.'

The measure passed by a count of 237 to 170 thanks to overwhelming Democratic support. But only 32 Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the bill.

Eight of those Republicans are from Michigan, joining the six Democrats in the state's delegation in voting for the measure.

A ninth Michigan Republican, Timothy Walberg, did not vote. Seven other Republicans that voted for the bill are from nearby Midwestern states that are also home to auto plants. But outside of the auto belt, the bailout had little Republican support.

Her characterization was correct; your characterization of the vote as being ones Republicans supporter, and your attack on Pelosi, are wrong.

Democrats from your link: "overwheming Democratic support". Republicans: the bailout had little Republican support" outside the districts directly affected in auto areas.

And a small minority of Republicans at all.

No, it doesn't. I'm going to assume you've followed an election before. If a Republican congressman who voted against the bill tries to take credit for saving the auto industry in the campaign, you'd better believe (s)he'll be called on it.

You don't let the wrong views be held, withholding information, for a year or more and then try to correct it all in an election. You are attacking her for telling the truth.

However much you are not trying to protect the Republicans for partisan reasons, you are demanding they not be held accountable (until the election) for their policies.

While there have certainly been more extreme cases of partisan attacks, I stand by my opinion that interjecting partisanship to this statement was unnecessary.

There was a long hard battle whether to save the industries or not. Republicans made a lot of attacks on the policy to save it, many of which were shown wrong.

Pelosi is reporting news that shows another way the policy has gone well - contradicting Republicans - and it's entirely appropriate to be partisan about it.

I'm happy to say that the partisan bragging about who found bin Laden should not be exaggerated. I can't say not at all, because Obama did do some things better than Bush at it - making it an increased top priority (as Clinton had as well) over Bush's disbanding the bin Laden unit in 2005, his 'don't care much' about bin Laden statement, his ignoring the Clinton administration's suggestion to make Al Queda a priority before 9/11. Still, much of this was not a partisan issue - just operations.

But on an issue like the choice Democrats made, under great attack and opposition from Republicans, to save the auto industry - they earned credit.

I was unaware we were in a debate for re-election. I thought she was making a statement about a positive change in our country. Silly me.

She is making a statement about a positive result of a policy - that Democrats supported while Republicans opposed it.

Republicans may often try to take credit for the good results of policies they oppose, but that doesn't make it right - or Democrats wrong for telling the truth.

This is both a national and a partisan issue. Republicans should have some accountability for opposing the policy.

As I said:

We're not talking about WWII here saying 'The Democratic administration led the country to victory' when announcing the war is over.

We're discussing a result of the policy that helps answer who was wrong and who was right, and she's pointing out who is who.

 

[Deeko]

No, you don't. Democrats voting heavily for the bill counts as 'Democrats supported it', and Republicans heavily opposing the bill counts as 'Republican opposed it.'

So first you say, "If Republicans voted for it, you'd have a point" - now you're taking it back and changing your definition to better fit this argument? Cute - and I'm the one you accuse of being partisan.

Also, you've still completely missed my point several times now, because all you're interested in is partisan shrieking.

Her characterization was correct; your characterization of the vote as being ones Republicans supporter, and your attack on Pelosi, are wrong.

Again - you're entirely missing the point. As I already said - try some critical thinking here, ya know, outside the partisan kicking-and-screaming box.

You don't let the wrong views be held, withholding information, for a year or more and then try to correct it all in an election. You are attacking her for telling the truth.

No one, anywhere, thinks that by saying "Congress passed this bill" that it implies everyone in Congress voted for it. Seriously. Nobody. Not you (and please don't try to claim it, you, I, and everyone else reading knows that would be an outright lie), not me, not anyone. Therefore, it really didn't need to be said. Its kicking a hornet's nest just for the fun of it.

Again...I'll repeat for you....I'm not questioning whether or not she's correct in saying Democrats passed the bill. I *never* claimed that, and if you try to say it again, you will be *lying*, so please, don't bother. My point is that it didn't belong in her statement, whether it was correct or not.

However much you are not trying to protect the Republicans for partisan reasons, you are demanding they not be held accountable (until the election) for their policies.

What are you talking about?? Where do you get this nonsense from? Held accountable for WHAT? Nobody - not a single person in the entire world - is crediting the Republican party for passing this bill, nor am I trying to "protect" them. I'm trying to remove derisive nonsense from the general discourse that doesn't belong.

Pelosi is reporting news that shows another way the policy has gone well - contradicting Republicans - and it's entirely appropriate to be partisan about it.

I disagree.

I'm happy to say that the partisan bragging about who found bin Laden should not be exaggerated. I can't say not at all, because Obama did do some things better than Bush at it - making it an increased top priority (as Clinton had as well) over Bush's disbanding the bin Laden unit in 2005, his 'don't care much' about bin Laden statement, his ignoring the Clinton administration's suggestion to make Al Queda a priority before 9/11. Still, much of this was not a partisan issue - just operations.

But on an issue like the choice Democrats made, under great attack and opposition from Republicans, to save the auto industry - they earned credit.

*yawn* So talk about how it was a great Democrat effort and how you deserve to be re-elected for it in the election. Take a break from the attacks every 30 seconds.

She is making a statement about a positive result of a policy

And she should have stopped at that.

Republicans may often try to take credit for the good results of policies they oppose, but that doesn't make it right - or Democrats wrong for telling the truth.

Find a Republican that didn't vote for this bill that is taking credit for it. Come on - do it. Go on. Prove me wrong. If you can't - you're spouting a whole lot of nonsesne that's irrelevant to this discussion - and the whole "irrelevant partisan nonsense doesn't belong in every single discussion" is EXACTLY my point, so in failing to prove this point, you'll be helping to prove mine.

I'm waiting.