Forward!

#27
#27
utvolpj said:
except for 1 case that is absolutely untrue
Click to expand...
Please. Much of the actual political discussion here is surface debate.

Obama's presidency has been a continuation of the Bush administration. Increase in military, decrease in civil liberties, more bailouts, more preferential treatment for those who fill his election coffers (who are the same people that fill the GOP's coffers).

There isn't going to be some sudden massive takeover of industry by the government, they aren't going to take everyone's guns away at once, there isn't going to be some sudden confiscatory tax on the wealthy. These are legitimate concerns I see and hear on a daily basis, but people are lighting their hair on fire over the wrong stuff, because intimations at that crap is all that comes out of talk radio, Faux News and tabloids like the Washington Times.
 
#28
#28
milohimself said:
Means nothing. Politicians are beholden to the people who get them elected in the first place and continue to be beholden after they leave office. Politics doesn't just stop after one is no longer a congressman, senator or president. Obama will have influence in Washington until the day he dies, and there will be people strapped with cash looking to buy some of that influence.
Click to expand...

He's not so beholden when there's nothing to lose. He won't have to spend his entire second term campaigning like he has his first. Instead - he will be trying to make a legacy for himself.
 
#31
#31
golfballs said:
He's not so beholden when there's nothing to lose. He won't have to spend his entire second term campaigning like he has his first. Instead - he will be trying to make a legacy for himself.
Click to expand...

Career politicians continue doing the same thing from day 1 of their first campaign until the day they drop dead.

What is it do you think Newt's been up to since he was forced from the house?
 
#32
#32
milohimself said:
So his second term is for real this time, now he's going to implement complete government takeover of industry and take everybody's guns away?

LOL @ citing Washington Times. Barely a step above gs' nuttier-than-**** blogs. It's Faux News in print.
Click to expand...

The Washington Times was founded in 1982 by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate associated with the Unification Church.

Sun Myung Moon, was the founding president and the founding chairman of the board.

In July 2010 international leaders of the Unification Church issued a letter protesting the direction the Times was taking and urging closer ties between it and the church. On November 2, 2010, Moon and a group of former Washington Times editors purchased the paper from Moon's son, Preston Moon, for $1.
 
#33
#33
milohimself said:
Please. Much of the actual political discussion here is surface debate.

Obama's presidency has been a continuation of the Bush administration. Increase in military, decrease in civil liberties, more bailouts, more preferential treatment for those who fill his election coffers (who are the same people that fill the GOP's coffers).

There isn't going to be some sudden massive takeover of industry by the government, they aren't going to take everyone's guns away at once, there isn't going to be some sudden confiscatory tax on the wealthy. These are legitimate concerns I see and hear on a daily basis, but people are lighting their hair on fire over the wrong stuff, because intimations at that crap is all that comes out of talk radio, Faux News and tabloids like the Washington Times.
Click to expand...

so since it's "a continuation of Bush policies" there is no legit criticism? That makes no sense. Bush didn't take over GM (illegally), pass the stimulus (except tarp which actually worked and the reason Obama tried to claim it), ram through an unconstitutional HC bill that would add $2tril more debt, etc. Just because you voted for the man don't try and shrug off his issues so easily. The man is going to (probably already has) ruin this country so any criticism of him is legit IMO

A corp takeover has already happened, the tax on the wealthy is already being pushed and the left would take guns from citizens if they thought they had a chance in hell of being successful.

also your use of "Faux News" while trying to act like an independent is kinda funny. They do show legit news just like every other channel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#34
#34
utvolpj said:
so since it's "a continuation of Bush policies" there is no legit criticism? That makes no sense. Bush didn't take over GM (illegally), pass the stimulus (except tarp which actually worked and the reason Obama tried to claim it), ram through an unconstitutional HC bill that would add $2tril more debt, etc. Just because you voted for the man don't try and shrug off his issues so easily. The man is going to (probably already has) ruin this country so any criticism of him is legit IMO

A corp takeover has already happened, the tax on the wealthy is already being pushed and the left would take guns from citizens if they thought they had a chance in hell of being successful.

also your use of "Faux News" while trying to act like an independent is kinda funny. They do show legit news just like every other channel.
Click to expand...
There's absolutely legitimate criticism but this "socialist agenda" bull**** is just that -- bull****.

As for GM, if you think their bailout was crap, that's fine and I actually agree with you, but anybody advocating for that also needs to own the fact that GM was likely going to cease to exist without it. Bob Lutz (among the staunchest of conservatives) has said as much. The administrations choices of who got their hair cut how much, but that was political backswing from the prior bailouts which came with no strings attached, when most people didn't want any corporations in hot water to get any money whatsoever.

Two of the main guys in Obama's ear (Summers and Geithner) are long-time government fixtures from the revolving door with Wall Street (Government Sachs, etc) and were around for the last go-round.

If Obama were actually coming to take your guns, then he would be actually getting money from the people who want to see the government take your guns away, but as it stands, they have no use for him.

And this soak the rich crap is nothing more than populism for stump speeches.

Again, putting rhetoric completely aside, the Obama administration has featured little functional difference from Bush II and I'd be willing to put my money where my mouth is that the same will be said about Romney if he gets elected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#35
#35
milohimself said:
There's absolutely legitimate criticism but this "socialist agenda" bull**** is just that -- bull****.

As for GM, if you think their bailout was crap, that's fine and I actually agree with you, but anybody advocating for that also needs to own the fact that GM was likely going to cease to exist without it. Bob Lutz (among the staunchest of conservatives) has said as much. The administrations choices of who got their hair cut how much, but that was political backswing from the prior bailouts which came with no strings attached, when most people didn't want any corporations in hot water to get any money whatsoever.

Two of the main guys in Obama's ear (Summers and Geithner) are long-time government fixtures from the revolving door with Wall Street (Government Sachs, etc) and were around for the last go-round.

If Obama were actually coming to take your guns, then he would be actually getting money from the people who want to see the government take your guns away, but as it stands, they have no use for him.

And this soak the rich crap is nothing more than populism for stump speeches.

Again, putting rhetoric completely aside, the Obama administration has featured little functional difference from Bush II and I'd be willing to put my money where my mouth is that the same will be said about Romney if he gets elected.
Click to expand...

^

This. Absolutely.
 
#36
#36
milohimself said:
As for GM, if you think their bailout was crap, that's fine and I actually agree with you, but anybody advocating for that also needs to own the fact that GM was likely going to cease to exist without it.
Click to expand...

and many others say that was just not true. And so what if GM goes under for being a badly run company. Let them suffer the consequences instead of bailing them out and then later holding them up as a success story

It was also a payoff to the unions and pretty much illegal. But hey, we can still buy a GM instead of a Ford. Yippee

as for the rest you can believe what you want. The people of the US prevent a lot of stuff that would be done if politicians were left to their own devices. Doesn't mean the idea ceases to exist though
 
#37
#37
utvolpj said:
and many others say that was just not true. And so what if GM goes under for being a badly run company. Let them suffer the consequences instead of bailing them out and then later holding them up as a success story
It was also a payoff to the unions and pretty much illegal. But hey, we can still buy a GM instead of a Ford. Yippee

as for the rest you can believe what you want. The people of the US prevent a lot of stuff that would be done if politicians were left to their own devices. Doesn't mean the idea ceases to exist though
Click to expand...

I agree with this to a point...but once the bailouts started pandora's box was opened and any big company could fall under the umbrella of needing to be saved for the greater good of the economy. Just my opinion, but your view would hold more water if you advocate for every bank to fail as well. Maybe you are, I don't know.
 
#39
#39
rjd970 said:
I agree with this to a point...but once the bailouts started pandora's box was opened and any big company could fall under the umbrella of needing to be saved for the greater good of the economy. Just my opinion, but your view would hold more water if you advocate for every bank to fail as well. Maybe you are, I don't know.
Click to expand...

IMO the greater good would be served by allowing companies like GM to fail when their direct competitors proved it can be done. The entire industry was not in jeopardy, just a poorly run but well connected part of it was
 
#40
#40
But it is always more a matter of degree than real policy difference. There is no doubt that the Obama admin is a least a standard deviation more towards the side of Federal government should have more involvement in every aspect of American life and activity than was the Bush presidency (though Bush clearly ramped up the foreign intervention end).

80%+ will be the same with Romney but the 20% does make a difference. We need something that will slow the undetered growth of the Federal government in all phases our life.

Idealistically, I'd like to see much of the Ron Paul agenda enacted but that ain't gonna happen in one or two presidential terms. Practically speaking, I have no doubt that a Romney administration will at least slow the Federal juggernaut. 4 more of Obama will put it in overdrive.
 
Last edited:
#41
#41
utvolpj said:
and many others say that was just not true. And so what if GM goes under for being a badly run company. Let them suffer the consequences instead of bailing them out and then later holding them up as a success story

It was also a payoff to the unions and pretty much illegal. But hey, we can still buy a GM instead of a Ford. Yippee

as for the rest you can believe what you want. The people of the US prevent a lot of stuff that would be done if politicians were left to their own devices. Doesn't mean the idea ceases to exist though
Click to expand...
I don't need a lecture on moral hazard, but I think you get the general picture. But saying that GM didn't deserve a bailout and not recognizing that it's what kept the company alive is trying to have your cake and it too.

What Romney advocated for at the time would have resulted in the death of GM, the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs and deeper recession -- but it would have also been the correct thing to do according to free market doctrine. It's a politically no-win situation.

As for the second part, that's kind of the point. But again, if Obama actually wanted to take your guns, then the lobbying groups actually trying to take away peoples guns would be supporting Obama and giving him money -- not throwing him under the bus and telling their constituencies that he sucks.

FACT: When the Brady campaign gives somebody a failing grade, then that person is doing right by the 2nd amendment.
 
#42
#42
utvolpj said:
IMO the greater good would be served by allowing companies like GM to fail when their direct competitors proved it can be done. The entire industry was not in jeopardy, just a poorly run but well connected part of it was
Click to expand...

Still, large numbers of jobs would have been lost and given the size of the company there would have been negative impact to the economy. The bailout was never about saving the banking industry, it was about preventing economic collapse. Lehman, afterall, was left to bankruptcy...the other major banks were bailed out only to stave off further economic impact.

If enough jobs and significant negative impact could be avoided, GM could absolutely fall under that umbrella.

Not saying I agree with it, but I don't know how one can say the bailout of the banking industry was justified then disagree with the GM bailout on principle.
 
#44
#44
the GM fallout would not have collapsed the economy. They could have restructured and still come out in the end. Not sure the same can be said of the banking industry

milohimself said:
But saying that GM didn't deserve a bailout and not recognizing that it's what kept the company alive is trying to have your cake and it too.
Click to expand...

not sure how this is directed at me since I don't give a damn if GM survived or not. Had they taken steps earlier it wouldn't have been an issue. There was still the probability they would have still been around
 
#46
#46
rjd970 said:
Still, large numbers of jobs would have been lost and given the size of the company there would have been negative impact to the economy. The bailout was never about saving the banking industry, it was about preventing economic collapse. Lehman, afterall, was left to bankruptcy...the other major banks were bailed out only to stave off further economic impact.

If enough jobs and significant negative impact could be avoided, GM could absolutely fall under that umbrella.

Not saying I agree with it, but I don't know how one can say the bailout of the banking industry was justified then disagree with the GM bailout on principle.
Click to expand...

GM was also about political payback and future political favors (as was the bank bailout).

I think most economic observers see a distinction between using TARP as a backstop from financial meltdown and stepping in with GM.

In short, one bailout was more critical than the other.

Put another way, you are on more solid ground if you say we would have had financial calamity without bank bailouts than saying the US auto industry would cease to exist (as Obama has claimed) without the GM bailout.
 
#47
#47
the GM bond holders got the shortest end of the stick

we let Bear Stearns fail. letting GM and Chrysler fail should have been allowed to happen. they would restructure like the airlines. instead, bad businesses are rewarded. ford tightened its belt long before the economic decline and didn't need to be bailed out. GM and Chrysler didn't. Poor management, unwanted products, and prohibitively expensive labor.
 
#48
#48
I seem to recall Chrysler failed a few decades back and Lee Iaccoca brought them back from bankruptcy. Did we bail them out then?
 
#50
#50
volinbham said:
GM was also about political payback and future political favors (as was the bank bailout).

I think most economic observers see a distinction between using TARP as a backstop from financial meltdown and stepping in with GM.

In short, one bailout was more critical than the other.

Put another way, you are on more solid ground if you say we would have had financial calamity without bank bailouts than saying the US auto industry would cease to exist (as Obama has claimed) without the GM bailout.
Click to expand...

All of that may be true, and I don't disagree on principle.

But lets be honest with ourselves, without the banking bailout, the GM bailout would have been a much harder sell, if not impossible. The banks played the political angle to get what they needed to stay in business, and GM and the unions did the same. I see issue with both and fail to make the distinction about one being better than the other, on fundamental level of how it happened. Saying one is better than the other is like saying dog crap smells better than cow crap.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top