SI
SI
discoversearch

 Politics | Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: tejek who wrote (646267)2/23/2012 2:38:35 PM
From: joseffy
1 Recommendation   of 819585
 
Gallup: Romney up by 4 on Obama

02/23/12 by Jonathan Easley
thehill.com


Mitt Romney leads President Obama by 4 percentage points in Gallup’s latest national head-to-head polling.

If the election were held Thursday, 50 percent said they would support Romney, versus 46 percent who would support Obama, according to Gallup

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: tejek who wrote (646267)2/23/2012 2:49:53 PM
From: PROLIFE
2 Recommendations   of 819585
 
WHAT A LOSER YOU ARE:


you and yo daddy obama:

Despite GM's profits, taxpayers probably won't be off the hook

Shikha Dalmia at Reason Magazine has some bad news for taxpayers expecting GM to pay back the $30 billion they owe:

Three years after being rescued by a taxpayer bailout, General Motors recently announced some rather ambitious profit targets for 2012. But even if it meets these targets-a big if-taxpayers should not wait on one foot to recover their remaining "investment" in the company.

There is no doubt that GM has returned from the brink. It made $8 billion last year, a record high, and regained enough global market share to once again become the world's biggest automaker, a title it had lost to Toyota. More impressive, it is planning to bump its profit margins from 6 percent last year to 10 percent this year, on par with its best-in-class rivals such as Hyundai and BMW. This, it hopes, will allow it to post $10 billion in profits this year, something that only 17 public companies managed to do in 2010.

How did investors react to all this hope and cheer? With a giant yawn: GM's stock price, which has been hovering around $25 for months, barely budged. That's $8 below GM's IPO price. And it's $30 below what's needed for taxpayers to recover the $30 billion they still have stuck in the company.

If investors aren't buying GM's rosy scenarios, it's for some good reasons. Peter De Lorenzo, editor of Auto Extremist, notes that GM is facing the most competitive market in history and investors are dubious that it can deliver. GM's $8 billion in profits last year resulted partly from the tsunami in Japa that disrupted Toyota and Honda's global supply chain.

Both are back this year and more formidable than ever. While GM reported a 6 percent drop in January sales in North America from a year earlier, its foreign competitors posted impressive gains. GM will have a hard time matching last year's performance, let alone upping it if it has even one more month like January, De Lorenzo notes.

As long as GM's stock price is hovering around $25 a share, they will owe the American people between $20-$30 billion. And then there's the question of what to do with all that extra cash:

For example, McAlinden notes, the administration gave GM about $10 billion more than was strictly necessary to finance its bankruptcy. The money contributed to GM's nice $33 billion cash cushion right now. GM could use this money to buy its own stock and bid up prices, mitigating taxpayer losses-or pay dividends. But McAlinden doesn't believe that's what GM will do. It could use the money to pay off its obligations to the union health-care trust fund, making this a direct infusion of cash from taxpayers to unions.

American auto companies don't exist to make cars; they are in business to fund massive union health and pension funds. An exaggeration? Perhaps. But for Obama to be bragging about bringing the auto industry back from the dead is also an exaggeration and dishonest politics.

GM's first priority should be to pay that cash back. And the best way to do that is to make the business of manufacturing and selling good products that people want to buy their number one priority.




http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/despite_gms_profits_taxpayers_probably_wont_be_off_the_hook.html#ixzz1nEhhzwrU

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: joseffy who wrote (646274)2/23/2012 2:52:08 PM
From: PROLIFE
1 Recommendation   of 819585
 
benen must be paying the pinhead the way rejeck is constantly posting that tripe.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: PROLIFE who wrote (646276)2/23/2012 2:52:10 PM
From: bentway
1 Recommendation   of 819585
 
Who won GOP debate? President Obama

Yael T. Abouhalkah

Yael T. Abouhalkah

The Kansas City Star

Pity the Republican voters. The more they see of their party’s alleged presidential front-runners, the worse it looks for them come November.

Oh, and the better it looks for President Barack Obama’s re-election chances.

Take Wednesday night’s debate, in which both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum got the most attention.

They clashed several times, trying to destroy their opponent’s credibility as a true fiscal conservative.

Romney actually looked pretty aggressive, trying to battle back against his reputation for being a lame debater. Santorum struggled at times to combat Romney’s attacks, looking less like a fast-charging challenger than someone who can’t handle the spotlight.

The best part of the debate came when Romney, the eternal politician, painted Santorum as a Washington, D.C., insider.

The New York Times reported that Romney and Ron Paul “criticized his earmarks, his vote for a provision that financed Planned Parenthood and his support of the No Child Left Behind law, President George W. Bush’s signature education plan now out of favor with conservatives. By the end of the night, the scrutiny seemed to wear on Mr. Santorum, who was taunted with boos when he said he had voted for the education program even though ‘it was against the principles I believed in.’”

Afterward, TV talking heads analyzed the debate and often came up with a non-surprising conclusion: No one had said much of substance, and the person who had come in as the presumptive challenger to Romney’s inevitable victory in the GOP primaries (Santorum) came out worse for the wear.



Read more here: voices.kansascity.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: bentway who wrote (646278)2/23/2012 2:56:16 PM
From: PROLIFE
   of 819585
 
the Kansas City Star??

what was that, a letter to the editor?? LOL!

obama couldn't car less about all the slanted debates, he knew the questions before the moderators did. Except for the Fox debates, they at least has a little honesty and class.

obama is too busy out soaking the rich for reelection money...the very same type of people that he hates and wants to tax out of existence.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (646263)2/23/2012 2:59:09 PM
From: PROLIFE
   of 819585
 
I would call it coercion. but they are probably giving the union members a perk to drive it.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: PROLIFE who wrote (646279)2/23/2012 3:00:26 PM
From: bentway
1 Recommendation   of 819585
 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: bentway who wrote (646281)2/23/2012 3:08:22 PM
From: PROLIFE
2 Recommendations   of 819585
 
Afghan's Karzai demands public trial for Quran burners

uh oh........will bro.obama let it be?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)


To: joseffy who wrote (646273)2/23/2012 3:09:11 PM
From: PROLIFE
   of 819585
 
it's all he has.........

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: TimF2/23/2012 3:09:28 PM
   of 819585
 
Focus on Innovation Instead

Julian Sanchez is a research fellow at the Cato Institute. He is the former Washington editor of the technology news site Ars Technica.

Updated January 18, 2012, 7:07 PM

Over the past decade, copyright holders have successfully shut down scores of Web sites and file-sharing services in a quixotic effort to halt the illicit circulation of movies, music and software online. None of it has made a dent in overall levels of piracy, and bills like the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect Intellectual Property Act are unlikely to fare any better.

Conscripting search engines, Internet service providers and advertisers as online copyright cops — as these bills propose — may not effectively choke off access to supposed "rogue sites" overseas, but it does threaten innovation by imposing new burdens on U.S. start-ups and scaring investors away from cloud storage services and new platforms for user-generated content. That also makes these laws open to abuse, since any platform that lets creators circumvent industry-controlled distribution channels will inevitably facilitate some copyright infringement. If the companies behind SOPA had their way, the government would have killed off the VCR and the MP3 player as well.

Worse, the two bills threaten free expression by bluntly condemning whole Web domains and online platforms — infringing content and protected speech alike — on the basis of streamlined, one-sided hearings that make a mockery of due process. The government would essentially claim the right to choke off traffic and revenue to entire sites, without ever having to try or convict its owners of any crime. It should be no surprise that similar domestic authority has already led to sites being wrongfully shuttered.

Copyright owners already have many mechanisms at their disposal to go after pirate sites — and perhaps they should have others that properly respect due process, like those laid out in the OPEN Act sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Darrell Issa. But we should bear in mind two important facts: First, though copyright industries have concocted some truly absurd statistics purporting to show apocalyptic harms from piracy, by any objective measure they remain extraordinarily healthy. Second, whatever Congress does now, it is only ever going to get easier to copy and circulate information online. As our own State Department recognizes when it comes to regimes like Iran's, building an "information curtain" is a "very expensive endeavor" that's "bound to fail in today’s increasingly interactive world."

As the success of services like Hulu and Netflix suggests, consumers are only too happy to pay for content that's made available in a convenient form, and at a reasonable price. If the content industries want a genuinely effective way to reduce global piracy, they should spend less time and money lobbying for new regulations, and focus on providing innovative services that make piracy unattractive.

nytimes.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.