Griffnow stop crying heifer we dont need all that!!!
That is completely incoherent, but I guess you country folk use a language I haven't studied.
Paul Ryan Falsely Blames Obama For GM Plant Closing
As you can see in the video at the top of the post, Ryan told a crowd in North Canton, Ohio yesterday that the president's energy policies had led to the factory's closure in 2009. Ryan delivered the attack in personal terms, saying he had high school buddies who worked at the factory. "A lot of my high school buddies worked at that GM plant," Ryan said. "One of the reasons that plant got shut down is $4 gasoline. You see, this costs jobs. The president's terrible energy policies are costing us jobs."
But despite Ryan's emotional story, GM announced the plant's closure in June of 2008. In October of 2008, the date was accelerated from 2010 to the end of the year. And on December 23, 2008 the last SUV rolled off the line.
Ryan said the factory closed because gas prices had climbed to $4 per gallon. Gas prices were that high, but that was in June of 2008, when George W. Bush was the president. Gas prices today are lower than they were then, though they do remain high.
Ryan also claimed the President Obama had promised to keep the factory open—but that's not true according to The Detroit News, USA Today, and TPM.
Bottom line: Without the benefit of facts, Ryan's story sounded compelling, but once you learn what really happened, you quickly realize Ryan was telling a tall tale that was just too perfect to be true. And with that kind of thing starting to become a pattern with Ryan, it's no wonder that Mitt Romney likes him so much.To add—Ryan is INSISTENT that the plant closed because of bad energy policy. Hence, it was George W. Bush's energy policy that closed down that plant. So how is Mitt Romney's energy policy any different?
How can I be " all washed up" if I'm so damn dirty?
Looks like they were open until 2009.
Janesville GM Assembly Plant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Janesville Assembly's location in Wisconsin
Janesville Assembly Plant is an automobile factory owned by General Motors located in Janesville, Wisconsin. Opened in 1919, it is the oldest-operating GM plant.
Contents
[hide] 1 History
2 2008
3 2010
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
[edit] History
The factory was originally built to produce Samson tractors. These failed to find buyers, so GM switched it to producing Chevrolet automobiles in 1923. It has produced automobiles and pickup trucks over the years, but most recently built full-size SUVs.[1]
Production at the factory was halted during the Great Depression for a short time and there was a famous sit-down strike in 1937. The Janesville Assembly also produced artillery during World War II.[1]
The Janesville Assembly was until recently one of three plants producing the GMT900 trucks, such as the Chevrolet Suburban, and began building the next-generation short-wheelbase GMT900 trucks in January 2006. It began producing long wheelbase GMT900 trucks in March of that year and an overtime shift was added to meet demand.[citation needed]
From 1994 until 2009, the plant also produced medium-duty trucks for Isuzu under its partnership with GM.[2]
The plant covers 4,800,000 ft³ (446,000 m³).[3] It employed around 7,000 workers at its peak in 1970, but was down to about 1,200 at its closing in 2009.[4]
dennistyler Looks like they were open until 2009. Janesville GM Assembly Plant From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Janesville Assembly's location in Wisconsin Janesville Assembly Plant is an automobile factory owned by General Motors located in Janesville, Wisconsin. Opened in 1919, it is the oldest-operating GM plant. Contents [hide] 1 History 2 2008 3 2010 4 See also 5 References 6 External links [edit] History The factory was originally built to produce Samson tractors. These failed to find buyers, so GM switched it to producing Chevrolet automobiles in 1923. It has produced automobiles and pickup trucks over the years, but most recently built full-size SUVs.[1] Production at the factory was halted during the Great Depression for a short time and there was a famous sit-down strike in 1937. The Janesville Assembly also produced artillery during World War II.[1] The Janesville Assembly was until recently one of three plants producing the GMT900 trucks, such as the Chevrolet Suburban, and began building the next-generation short-wheelbase GMT900 trucks in January 2006. It began producing long wheelbase GMT900 trucks in March of that year and an overtime shift was added to meet demand.[citation needed] From 1994 until 2009, the plant also produced medium-duty trucks for Isuzu under its partnership with GM.[2] The plant covers 4,800,000 ft³ (446,000 m³).[3] It employed around 7,000 workers at its peak in 1970, but was down to about 1,200 at its closing in 2009.[4]
The plant officially stopped production on Dec. 23, 2008, according to an Associated Press report.
The report noted that "about 50" workers remained at the plant until May or June 2009 to complete outstanding orders.
.Ryan spokesman Brendan Buck said the energy policies Ryan referenced to were those held by the president's party. In the summer of 2008, Democrats attempted to block a longtime ban on offshore drilling in the Atlantic and the Pacific from expiring, initiating a lengthy fight with President George W. Bush's White House and congressional Republicans.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows President Obama attracting support from 45% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns the vote from 43%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided.
This is the lowest level of support for Romney since March.
August 20th, 2012 1:12 am Joe Conason
Defending himself against the perception that he has no significant foreign policy experience, Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has drawn fresh attention to one of the most controversial acts of the past decade: the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq before UN weapons inspections were completed. Ryan now points to his vote for war as a token of his readiness to serve in the White House, but he is on the wrong side of both history and public opinion.
The Wisconsin Congressman may come to regret his flippant response to Carl Cameron last Saturday, when the Fox News reporter asked how he would respond to critics who question his weak national security resume. “I’ve been in a Congress for a number of years,” he said. “That’s more experience than Barack Obama had when he came into office.” Perhaps he should have stopped there, but instead blundered on: “I voted to send people to war.”
Does Ryan believe that voting for war constitutes foreign policy experience? If so, it is a kind of experience that reflects very poorly on him. Even he must realize that the underlying premise of the war, Saddam Hussein’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, quickly proved to be nothing more than a Bush administration hoax, along with the secondary claim that Saddam’s regime had some connection with the 9/11 attacks. After casting his party-line vote for a ruinous war because he accepted a faked argument, Ryan never spoke up against its continuation. He ratified every troop escalation and every supplemental appropriation.
Unlike the American people, who turned decisively against the war years ago, and have condemned it by large majorities as a waste of blood and treasure, he apparently still believes it was a swell idea. Concerned as he supposedly is about excessive federal spending, Ryan believes that the Iraq misadventure was worth three trillion dollars it has cost so far (and presumably the lost and destroyed lives of Americans and Iraqis, all the dead, wounded, orphaned, and traumatized, as well).
Except among the neoconservative advisers cocooned in the Romney campaign, such enthusiasm for the war is a very peculiar and distinctly minority perspective. Over the past few years, polls have shown between one-third and one-fifth of voters agreeing that the war was “worth the cost.” Roughly two-thirds to three-fourths of the electorate rejects that assessment and supports President Obama’s withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. That lopsided margin is fair warning for any politician who stakes his reputation on the Iraq war.
What Ryan cites as his chief qualification to serve as commander-in-chief is a series of votes that represent the most fateful, expensive, inexcusable error in recent American history. For him to cite that vote to draw a contrast with President Obama, who got the Iraq issue right, is startling. It reveals something that Americans need to know before he gets any closer to executive power.
August 20th, 2012 1:27 am @LOLGOP
For the right wing in America, a fact is something that gets said enough times on Fox News in order for viewers to confidently repeat it.
That’s why it’s easy to take a lie like “the stimulus failed” and turn it into a right-wing “fact”. Start by callling it “the failed stimulus” even before the bill goes into effect. Then keep repeating that same phrase, even as we go from losing 800,000 jobs a month to creating private sector jobs for 29 months. With Fox News, AM talk radio, and nearly one billion dollars in commercials, mailings and robocalls, you can effectively transform the most effective government economic intervention since the New Deal into some bad gas no one wants to claim.
In his new book The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era, Michael Grunwald uncovers the nearly endless list of hidden successes in the bill still called a “failure” by the Bush admirers who still think Dubya’s far more expensive and useless tax breaks and wars were a success:
“The stimulus is producing the world’s largest wind farm, a half dozen of the world’s largest solar arrays, and America’s first refineries for advanced biofuels. It’s creating a battery-manufacturing industry for electric vehicles almost entirely from scratch. It financed net-zero border stations and visitors centers, an eco-friendly new Coast Guard headquarters, a one-of-a-kind ‘advanced synchrotron light source.’ It jump-started three long-awaited mega-projects in Manhattan alone—the Moynihan Station, the Second Avenue Subway, and the Long Island Railroad connection to the East Side…”
The difference between the stimulus and the New Deal—and the reason the New Deal remains more popular—is that the stimulus was passed and implemented during the worst of the crisis. The New Deal came after two years of Hoover trying to balance the budget instead of healing the economy.
But what Paul Ryan—the ideological leader of the House Republicans—never mentioned is that while he and the GOP were bashing the stimulus, and repeating the lie, he was begging for stimulus dollars.
Paul Ryan’s love of stimulus began back when George W. Bush was president, which was when Ryan was still in love with everything government did. In 2002, amid a slow economy that was getting almost no help from the tax breaks on which the GOP had blown the Clinton surplus, Paul Ryan called for more stimulus. “What we’re trying to accomplish is to pass the kinds of legislation that when they’ve passed in the past have grown the economy and gotten people back to work,” he said.
Cut to seven years later, after all of the failed policies supported by Ryan resulted in the worst financial crisis in half a century: then, Ryan refused to support the President’s stimulus bill. As a member of the right-wing cabal that met with Frank Luntz and Newt Gingrich on the night of the inauguration, Ryan had agreed to oppose anything the President propose. He bashed the President’s stimulus for increasing the deficit yet voted for a $715 billion alternative. Why? Because the President didn’t support it.
Ryan never opposed stimulus; he opposed the President. And this fact became embarrassingly obvious over the past few days when Ryan was forced to admit that he’d requested stimulus funds for his district in 2009.
In five separate letters signed by Ryan, the Congressman asked for stimulus funds for his district. In one of the letters, he stated that the funds he requested would create approximately 7,600 new jobs. Ultimately he was rewarded with over $20 million in funds for his district.
In 2010, he was asked directly if his district had received any stimulus funding. Ryan said, “No, I’m not one [of those] people who votes for something then writes to the government to ask them to send us money. I did not request any stimulus money.” He repeated various versions of denying the requests and not remembering them until he was faced with the actual letters.
Now he says that the requests were “treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security or Veterans Affairs are handled. This is why I didn’t recall the letters earlier. But they should have been handled differently, and I take responsibility for that.”
So he’s basically blaming his staff for not pointing out that the letter he was signing was allegedly against everything he believed in. But Paul Ryan’s staff knew something Fox News viewers don’t: Paul Ryan loves stimulus spending, as long as it doesn’t help the President.
rgrikki92 and I take responsibility for that.”
You'll never hear a democrat say that. That's the difference.
dennistylerYou'll never hear a democrat say that. That's the difference.
Glad to see you are in a kidding mood this morning.
Just an observation from daily life. Democrats are big on deflecting blame(see Obama). At least Ryan manned up and took responsibilty for his mistake.
dennistyler rgrikki92 and I take responsibility for that.” You'll never hear a democrat say that. That's the difference.