http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/04/hillary-clinton-gun-control-forefront-campaign
I just don't know how this happens. Polling among millennials shows pretty strong opposition to the idea that gun control has any effect on gun violence. This crowd reads the data and knows that those tactics can't work.
I just gotta wonder how well this is going to play out for her.
I have little faith in the upcoming generation(s). Some of them may have an understanding of some individual issues, but they are still Utopian-Socialists.
We could hope...
.....but the sheeple elected Obozo not once, but TWICE!
Hillary is going to win, the only way to stop her is of the GOP finds a General or businessman that is honorable. And no, 3X married bankrupt Trump is not.
Hillary will not win. However, unsure who will at this point.
Quote from: Wolfie on November 04 2015 04:26:12 PM MST
Hillary is going to win, the only way to stop her is of the GOP finds a General or businessman that is honorable. And no, 3X married bankrupt Trump is not.
You wish.
I think Bernie will give her a hard run for the Dem nomination. And I don't think she realizes she just gave him some more votes by going strong anti-gun.
But, I agree with Wolfie. I don't think that the republicans don't have anyone in the race right now that can beat her. I wish they did.
The Republican core (that means anyone who is reading this, thinks I am wrong, and thinks there are lots of good candidates in the Republican primary) needs to figure out fast that they can't elect a president by themselves. They need swing voters that are attracted to the candidates. And swing voters think the Republican pack stinks.
If swing voters believe a habitual liar and an avowed socialist are more appealing than the republican field, we are truly screwed.
Quote from: JMag1 on November 05 2015 11:18:36 AM MST
If swing voters believe a habitual liar and an avowed socialist are more appealing than the republican field, we are truly screwed.
Here is the problem.
The typical swing voter is a high information voter. They have read and accept the scientific information for evolution and global warming. They perceive that the Citizens United case handed corporate america a license to bribe. And they see the growing income gap as a looming issue far more important than abortion, planned parenthood or the shoulder thing that goes up.
And they look at the republican group and don't find a single person among them that can speak intelligently about any of these issues. A group that is bought and paid for, except for one who is a reality TV star gone wild.
I don't mean to pick on your comment personally, but it illustrates perfectly the problem to which I was referring. So many republicans can't see that these candidates just aren't going to positively motivate the voters that actually win elections.
These candidates that appeal to the republican core. News flash....The republican core would vote republican for almost anyone on the ballet. And, in general, that is 45% of the electorate. (Another 45% vote democrat for the same reason).
It is the 10% in between we need to woo. If you wanna know what those voters think, you have to get off the conservative boards and read some public opinion elsewhere. And it isn't pretty.
Quote from: sqlbullet on November 05 2015 01:05:34 PM MST
Quote from: JMag1 on November 05 2015 11:18:36 AM MST
If swing voters believe a habitual liar and an avowed socialist are more appealing than the republican field, we are truly screwed.
Here is the problem.
The typical swing voter is a high information voter. They have read and accept the scientific information for evolution and global warming. They perceive that the Citizens United case handed corporate america a license to bribe. And they see the growing income gap as a looming issue far more important than abortion, planned parenthood or the shoulder thing that goes up.
And they look at the republican group and don't find a single person among them that can speak intelligently about any of these issues. A group that is bought and paid for, except for one who is a reality TV star gone wild.
I don't mean to pick on your comment personally, but it illustrates perfectly the problem to which I was referring. So many republicans can't see that these candidates just aren't going to positively motivate the voters that actually win elections.
These candidates that appeal to the republican core. News flash....The republican core would vote republican for almost anyone on the ballet. And, in general, that is 45% of the electorate. (Another 45% vote democrat for the same reason).
It is the 10% in between we need to woo. If you wanna know what those voters think, you have to get off the conservative boards and read some public opinion elsewhere. And it isn't pretty.
No offense, but you give the typical swing voter way too much credit for being truly informed as to issues central to our Founders' intent and consistent with the COTUS.
I consider most independents to be low information, riders of the wave types. No offense to those who are self-described independents.
Most voters vote for those that are most like them.
Hillary is a women and no way blacks, hispanics and asians go GOP.
As Senator Graham said, the GOP is not generating enough angry white guys.
PS: Its not even going to be close.
Quote from: Wolfie on November 05 2015 04:06:09 PM MST
Most voters vote for those that are most like them.
Hillary is a women and no way blacks, hispanics and asians go GOP.
As Senator Graham said, the GOP is not generating enough angry white guys.
PS: Its not even going to be close.
You might be right. But I'm not worried. A Democrat president will be a lame duck, just like Obama is. The house of reps or Senate won't turn blue for at least the next 8-10 years.
Patriot, you and your boys need to wake up. The GOP wants a Democrat POTUS, this way they can control everything else.
They fool your kind while they game the system to make serious coin at the local, county and state level and the national level its a push.
Its about the $$$$ wake up.
Quote from: Wolfie on November 05 2015 07:43:58 PM MST
Patriot, you and your boys need to wake up. The GOP wants a Democrat POTUS, this way they can control everything else.
They fool your kind while they game the system to make serious coin at the local, county and state level and the national level its a push.
Its about the $$$$ wake up.
Oh I'm awake. The only candidates talking about gun control have a (D) after their name.
That's all I need to know.
I don't see background checks from person to person being gun control. I also do not see anyone coming for our guns and if that happened I would be on your side.
Quote from: Wolfie on November 05 2015 08:15:21 PM MST
I don't see background checks from person to person being gun control. I also do not see anyone coming for our guns and if that happened I would be on your side.
They are, and they soon will. Choose wisely, my friends.
No one is coming for our guns.
Well scratch that, GOP judges who grant women restraining orders to take their husbands guns away in domestics.
That's what I have been seeing.
And not a peep from the NRA or anyone else.
Quote from: Wolfie on November 05 2015 08:15:21 PM MST
I don't see background checks from person to person being gun control. I also do not see anyone coming for our guns and if that happened I would be on your side.
You are drinking the kool-aide they are serving. "They" use buzz-words such as "universal background checks", "gun show loophole", "assault weapon", "high capacity", and "automatic", without a clue (to the constituents) of what they mean. We already have background checks, there is no "gun show loophole, every weapon is an "assault weapon" (not just the scary black ones), their use of "high capacity" is standard factory capacity by any other definition, and any firearm other than a single-shot is "automatic". Every "gun control" candidate wants unconditional confiscation, and have stated as much in their use of the U.K. and Australia as "successful" examples, but they know that's a bridge too far, at this time. It's a progressive process, and they know it. We all know NONE of their "solutions" would have prevented or diminished any of the incident examples they use to sell their policies, but they continue to beat that drum. They rely on the misguided emotional response of the uninformed and/or misinformed voter, and by reading your responses, it seems you are among that count.
Quote from: Wolfie on November 06 2015 08:30:17 AM MST
No one is coming for our guns.
Well scratch that, GOP judges who grant women restraining orders to take their husbands guns away in domestics.
That's what I have been seeing.
And not a peep from the NRA or anyone else.
Very narrow-sighted. Any judge may issue a restraining order for domestic violence. It's the liberal laws that allow for firearm confiscation based on that. This is after the fact, and doesn't apply to all restraining orders. Most states only prohibit the purchase of firearms while the RO is in effect. The form 4473 makes a distinction of the types of RO's. Some states (do I need to list them?) take it further, and allow the confiscation.
Of course its liberal laws being passed. (You do know that most Republicans are liberal)
Yet its GOP judges granting them without due process.
No one has presented a cogent argument to me about what requiring a background check on every transaction is going to change with regard to violent crime.
Criminals acquire their guns predominately through straw purchases, which are already illegal. Or theft, also already illegal.
That is why I oppose them. Lets focus on things that will reduce violent crime, not something that makes uninformed people feel good.
I don't think they are coming for my guns. But I think they are wasting my time and money, on several levels.
Quote from: JMag1 on November 05 2015 03:52:47 PM MST
No offense, but you give the typical swing voter way too much credit for being truly informed as to issues central to our Founders' intent and consistent with the COTUS. These
I consider most independents to be low information, riders of the wave types. No offense to those who are self-described independents.
None taken. But, your definition of high information does not align with what I said. I agree they either may not be informed about the founders intent, or the grants of power of the COTUS. These swing voters are pragmatic...they want solutions that will work, without much concern for the philosophical intent of men who have been dead for 200 years. T
I am not saying these voters are right, or informed in the way we want them to be, or even if I think they deserve a vote.
These voters, regardless of what they know about 18th century government philosophy, are the guys whose vote the Republicans need if they want to win. And the current crowd is not going to get any of that vote.
Quote from: Wolfie on November 06 2015 08:52:54 AM MST
Of course its liberal laws being passed. (You do know that most Republicans are liberal)
Yet its GOP judges granting them without due process.
Restraining orders are not a subject of due process. They are merely a conditional order that instructs parties to not contact or interfere with each other, during the "due process", or after a conviction. Even TRO's not issued by a judge are the same (I've issued more than a few). It's the 'after the fact' laws that use their issuance to limit other liberties, absent due process. Restraining orders can also allow a victim additional liberties, in many cases, bypassing draconian liberal laws.
If one cannot identify a better solution than the current POTUS from this group, they have issues beyond not being well informed. The republican field is mostly comprised of smart, capable people. The same cannot be said of the democrats.
All the Democrats need is Hillary.
Just wait till Obama hits the 2016 DNC and reminds people of what he inherited and fixed while the GOP plan will be to go back to the same exact policies that ruined the county.
Then Bill introduces the 1st woman ever to run for POTUS.
She is going to destroy any of the class of clowns the GOP are currently running. In order for them to win they need to find a military man or business person who did not hurt anyone.
Quote from: Wolfie on November 06 2015 02:45:31 PM MST
All the Democrats need is Hillary.
Just wait till Obama hits the 2016 DNC and reminds people of what he inherited and fixed while the GOP plan will be to go back to the same exact policies that ruined the county.
Then Bill introduces the 1st woman ever to run for POTUS.
She is going to destroy any of the class of clowns the GOP are currently running. In order for them to win they need to find a military man or business person who did not hurt anyone.
As I said, you're probably right. For some reason, democrats are only focused on winning the presidency. It appears to me that democrats in general are into that whole "supreme leader" thing and they are suffering in every other area of politics. They think the president controls everything, like a king or something. If you take a look around the country, democrats are only interested in the top spot. They aren't doing anything else.
While democrats show up in droves for presidential elections, they are getting smashed across the board in congressional elections, governors races and state legislatures. They have a few state strongholds, like ultra liberal New York, California, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon and Nevada. But the rest of the country is rapidly turning red.
Consider this:
Republicans now hold 64% of the state governor positions.
Republicans have total or split control of 76% of state legislatures.
Democrats have lost 913 state legislature seats since 2010.
Republicans have gained 69 seats in the House of Reps and 13 in the senate since 2008.
Democrats have unified control (the governor and state legislative majority) in only 7 states. Republicans have 25 states under unified control.
It doesn't matter if Hillary gets elected. Or Bernie Sanders. Or Kermit the Frog.
Their agenda won't go anywhere. No laws will be passed. A democrat in the oval office will be a lame duck.
Republicans control the NYS Senate and a majority of county and local governments as those elections are in odd numbered years. (NYS Republicans are the biggest spenders in NY history just like their federal brothers)
The Democrat voter is just plain lazy when it comes to non presidential years, and the GOP turnout is just a little better to get it done.
As for Hillary being a lame duck we will see, the GOP will need to start delivering or they will be put out soon, I see no love for them either and with demographics going against them, this may be the last GOP "Golden Years." Plus the black guy will be out.
The clock is ticking on the GOP as Senator Graham said the GOP is not generating enough angry white guys. This is where the Democrats win, they think LONG term and in the end liberals always win.
Quote from: Wolfie on November 06 2015 08:30:17 AM MST
No one is coming for our guns.
Well scratch that, GOP judges who grant women restraining orders to take their husbands guns away in domestics.
That's what I have been seeing.
And not a peep from the NRA or anyone else.
+1,000
.
Quote from: DM1906 on November 04 2015 08:38:54 AM MST
I have little faith in the upcoming generation(s). Some of them may have an understanding of some individual issues, but they are still Utopian-Socialists.
This shouldn't be a surprise. The education system has been slowly indoctrinating the young for decades. College professors put the icing on the cake. Since all teachers must get run through the socially engineered college courses to get "licensed", each generation is more leftest than the prior.
Add the stark realities that school systems are hooked on federal funds and they will literally do anything to maintain funding. The Fed says "jump" and they must.
Greg
Quote from: Wolfie on November 06 2015 07:47:17 PM MST
The clock is ticking on the GOP as Senator Graham said the GOP is not generating enough angry white guys. This is where the Democrats win, they think LONG term and in the end liberals always win.
I agree with the "clock ticking" on the GOP, and it's the one positive thing I see in politics today.
It's ticking because more and more conservatives, more pro-constitution, more libertarians are refusing to be called republican and have moved to "independent".
More and more those that are elected as republicans are tired of the entrenched politics, and have driven out the old guard from positions of power, and cracks are forming in the foundation. The people are tired of the slide this country is on, and the ONLY transformation is happening on the Republican side. Dems and power grubbing republicans tried to kill the tea party, but look at the polls for Republican nomination. Outsiders dominate because the people have had enough.
On the other side, Webb was what the Democrats used to be, and couldn't get past 1% in the polls. Military service, no help. Secretary of the Navy, no big deal. Hero's aren't what is needed in the Democrat party. Just socialist office holders elected by people that don't seek information. Just give them free stuff and they will sell their souls.
Greg
Geeman you make great points and I will focus on 4 issues.
1. Tea Party, had a chance to be a real player, but they went GOP 100% and the establishment GOP used them to get back in power. McConnell and until recently Boehner, the same exact guys that let Bush run wild are back in power. If they included Ds they would be running the show right now and that racist tint they have does not help at all.
2. Republicans calling themselves Indies and still voting GOP 100% at general elections are still Republicans.
3. Webb, Tester and Manchin are my type of Democrats. I would spend my own money to campaign for Webb. I will not do anything for Hillary.
4. Democrats have been giving away free stuff since the birth of the nation. They gave the Germans, Irish, Jews and Italians "free stuff" and now its a issue when hispanics are getting free stuff. As for the socialist charge no one does that better than the GOP. After all who socialised the losses in the Great Recession after the corporations took all the profits? R E P U B L I C A N S
Quote from: Wolfie on November 08 2015 10:00:44 AM MST
4. Democrats have been giving away free stuff since the birth of the nation. They gave the Germans, Irish, Jews and Italians "free stuff" and now its a issue when hispanics are getting free stuff. As for the socialist charge no one does that better than the GOP. After all who socialised the losses in the Great Recession after the corporations took all the profits? R E P U B L I C A N S
I didn't know FDR was a Republican.
I would have voted Webb before at least half the bunch the Republicans put up. I'm not with him on alot of the issues, but at least he is a man of honor. You don't get much of a chance to vote "D" and not vote massive redistribution very often.
Republican insiders aren't any better. Rather that redistribution to the poor, its giving big corporations what the want to suck $ out of the people's pockets and jointly hold power over their subjects.
Pitiful to be honest.
Greg
How did FDR create SS? After the GOP cratered the economy.
How did Obama create the ACA? After the GOP cratered the economy.
Here is a short list of GOP socialist programs the GOP created the last time they were in charge.
1. No Child Left Behind
2. Medicare Advantage
3. Prescription Drugs
4. Nation Building
5. TARP
Difference between the 2, Democrats pay for their programs the GOP does not.
Quote from: Wolfie on November 08 2015 11:00:20 AM MST
Difference between the 2, Democrats pay for their programs the GOP does not.
The difference between the 2 of us, I want nothing from government from either party, except for their constitutional responsibilities. You are paid for, just like the rest of the supporters of the Democrats.
Don't worry. Eventually the money runs out and the whole thing collapses. Banks and big business will own the whole thing.... By design.
Greg
Geeman, you know who I am and claim I am a freeloader? How do you know?
I have been working since I was 12, joined the Army and recently retired from my law enforcement job. Everything I have I earned, I even saved and bought my house in principle by working side gigs.
Was a Republican still a conservative all my life until Obama.
Lost 200K under the GOP years in investments and made it all back and plus some under Obama.
My sweet 10mm collection happened thanks to President Obama.
PS: The money ran out when the GOP was in absolute charge and said debt does not matter.
Quote from: Geeman on November 08 2015 08:26:20 AM MST
Quote from: DM1906 on November 04 2015 08:38:54 AM MST
I have little faith in the upcoming generation(s). Some of them may have an understanding of some individual issues, but they are still Utopian-Socialists.
This shouldn't be a surprise. The education system has been slowly indoctrinating the young for decades. College professors put the icing on the cake. Since all teachers must get run through the socially engineered college courses to get "licensed", each generation is more leftest than the prior.
Add the stark realities that school systems are hooked on federal funds and they will literally do anything to maintain funding. The Fed says "jump" and they must.
Greg
Fairly spot on. Good post!
Quote from: Wolfie on November 08 2015 01:07:41 PM MST
Geeman, you know who I am and claim I am a freeloader? How do you know?
I have been working since I was 12, joined the Army and recently retired from my law enforcement job. Everything I have I earned, I even saved and bought my house in principle by working side gigs.
Was a Republican still a conservative all my life until Obama.
Lost 200K under the GOP years in investments and made it all back and plus some under Obama.
My sweet 10mm collection happened thanks to President Obama.
PS: The money ran out when the GOP was in absolute charge and said debt does not matter.
Presidents don't make laws. What does Obama have to do with your investments? He doesn't set policy. He doesn't set interest rates. A president really has no affect on the economy, unless his recommendations get passed through Congress, which hasn't happened because the republicans block everything he's tried.
Obama isn't the commander in chief of wall street.
Quote from: Patriot on November 08 2015 02:39:35 PM MST
Obama isn't the commander in chief of wall street.
A quote from Thomas Jefferson...
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.And the Federal Reserve is not under the control of the government, nor the people.
Greg
Presidents do have power over the economy, the GOP wanted the US auto industry to go under Obama saved it. Today its sales are highest since 911.
Energy, the all of the above approach is better than drill baby drill.
Just think how better the economy would have been if the GOP worked with Obama and took the 4-1 deal in favor of the GOP. They refused thinking they would beat him and then got one to one and now a 2 year deal taking debt deals out of the GOPs hand.
Its not a coincidence that more jobs are created during a Democrat presidents reign and its not even close.
Quote from: Wolfie on November 08 2015 04:06:10 PM MST
Presidents do have power over the economy, the GOP wanted the US auto industry to go under Obama saved it. Today its sales are highest since 911.
Energy, the all of the above approach is better than drill baby drill.
Just think how better the economy would have been if the GOP worked with Obama and took the 4-1 deal in favor of the GOP. They refused thinking they would beat him and then got one to one and now a 2 year deal taking debt deals out of the GOPs hand.
Its not a coincidence that more jobs are created during a Democrat presidents reign and its not even close.
Once again, it's not the president that makes laws. Obama can thank high job numbers on his Republican Congress, you know, the people that create the laws and regulations, and authorize spending.
Oh, and by the way, George Bush negotiated the auto bail out. Stage one was implemented under George Bush's watch, stage two was implemented under Obama, but was already set in place by Bush. Obama did nothing but put in motion a plan that had already been worked out by a REPUBLICAN congress and REPUBLICAN president.
Republicans who broke the economy fixed it.
I love it.
In June 2009, John Boehner sneeringly asked: "Does anyone really believe that politicians and bureaucrats in Washington can successfully steer a multi-national corporation to economic viability?" Other critics went well beyond economic arguments. The day the restructuring of General Motors was announced on March 30, 2009, Rush Limbaugh accused the president of simply wanting to "take over" the auto industry, so that it would "become another industry doing his bidding." As for how the bailout would work out, three months later Limbaugh added: "[Obama's] taking over more of these businesses and running them into the ground at the same time." The critics were having an effect. By June 2009, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that the American people disapproved by a 53 to 39 percent margin of "the federal government providing loans and financial assistance to Chrysler and GM." Romney himself, on the campaign trail in early 2012, also accused the president of playing politics with the bailout, characterizing it as "crony capitalism on a grand scale," and added, "instead of doing the right thing and standing up to union bosses, Mr. Obama rewarded them." Were the critics right?
By September 2012, even Limbaugh himself had flip-flopped. Rather than continuing to bash Obama over the bailout, he found a new tune to sing: It worked, but the credit belongs to George W. Bush alone. "George W. Bush did the auto bailout. Yeah, Obama asked Bush to, but Bush did it. It was already done by the time Obama got there." Bear in mind that in April 2009, Rush had claimed that Chrysler and GM "bent over, [and] grabbed the ankles" because "everybody's scared of Obama." Leaving aside the reprehensible connotations of rape, Limbaugh has the president somehow morphing from an intimidating bully into an essentially uninvolved bystander. Why bring all this up now? This past month, U.S. auto sales reached their highest levels since September 11.
Just wait till the GOP takes credit for Obamacare too.
This article predates Obama even being in office.
http://www.politico.com/story/2008/12/bush-announces-174-billion-auto-bailout-016740
"In September 2008, the Big Three asked for $50 billion to pay for health care expenses and avoid bankruptcy and ensuing layoffs, and Congress worked out a $25 billion loan. By December, President Bush had agreed to an emergency bailout of $17.4 billion to be distributed by the next administration in January and February."
Thats right Patriot thats why the GOP ran against it.
Specifically, Barack Obama was right when he acted more aggressively than any recent president to intervene in the running of a major industry. Doing so saved anywhere from two to four million jobs, and saved between $40 and $105 billion in net costs to the American people, according to an analysis done by the Center for Automotive Research. We must publicize and, yes, celebrate that success. We must do so because, despite all the evidence, despite the walk-backs and apologies issued by some who criticized the deal, the boogeyman is still out there. Marco Rubio, now considered by lots of smart people to be "the most likely candidate to win the Republican 2016 presidential nomination," had this to say just a few months ago about what the government did to save the auto industry:
I don't think that was the right way to handle it, but certainly our auto industry is important. Again, it was a problematic approach that the federal government took to doing it. But at the end of the day our industry has to be globally competitive. One of the things that makes them globally competitive ... is having a workforce that can do the work and also having tax policies, regulatory policies that ensures that America continues to be a place where all industries thrive including the auto industry.
Auto industry wasn't bailed out.
The UAW was bailed out. GM and Chrysler went bankrupt. The money saved the union and the bankruptcy screwed the shareholder. Imagine, the same taxpayer lost money AND had to pay the unions.
Am I the only one that sees a problem with the government choosing the winners and losers? This was a success story?
Shareholders screwed over in the bankruptcy, payed taxes to keep the union viable, and now looses more money with the fines handed down due to defective ignition switches. Should have been jail time.
Its all a game to suck money out of the people's pockets. Just bend over and take it.
Its worth mentioning that Ford needed no help.
Greg
Ford would have went under if GM and Chrysler were not bailed out. That's why they supported the bailout.
Ford Motor Co., the only large U.S. automaker that didn't receive a U.S. government bailout, would've failed along with General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC if President Barack Obama's administration hadn't rescued the industry, said Steven Rattner, who headed Obama's auto task force.
"Ford would have closed because it wouldn't have been able to get parts, because the parts industry in this country was in arguably worse shape than the assemblers," Rattner said today at the Center for American Progress in Washington.
Rattner, now chairman of the Willett Advisors LLC investment firm, led the $63.4 billion bailout in 2009 of GM and Chrysler, which he said would have fired all their workers and ceased to exist without the bailout.
President George W. Bush, who preceded Obama, "did the right thing" by beginning the bailout process, giving $17.5 billion to GM and Chrysler in 2008, Rattner said.
The auto bailout has been a point of contention in the presidential race between Obama and Republican Mitt Romney as they compete for votes in swing states including Ohio, home to U.S. automaker and parts-supplier plants. Romney opposed the government bailout.
Ford's View
Ford Chief Executive Officer Alan Mulally last month made similar comments, saying he doesn't regret testifying before Congress in support of taxpayer support for his competitors.
"We think about that a lot, should we have gone back and testified on behalf of our competitors who were bankrupt," Mulally told reporters Sept. 18 in New York. "I would do the same thing again today."
Mulally said he agreed with the assessment of "the economic advisers of the Bush administration and the Obama administration that if GM and Chrysler had gone into free fall, they could have taken the United States from a recession into a depression."
The U.S. government was the only entity that could save the domestic automakers because no one, including banks that were dealing with their own financial crises, was willing to put private capital into GM and Chrysler at the beginning of 2009, Rattner said.
"If you can't pay your workers, if you can't pay your suppliers, if you can't pay your electric bills, then you have to liquidate," he said. "This is what government is set up to do."