Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;929171]Ever notice when conservatives decry Obama socialism they rarely, if ever, point to an actual policy signed into law?[/quote]

It is amazing the level of intellectual deficit they often exhibit. When asked specifically what part of Romney's plan for the country they like, it's as if they are on taped infinite loop...anything is better than Obama...anything is better than Obama....anything is better than Obama How will Romney cut taxes, increase defense spending, eliminate the deficit, strengthen Medicare and Medicaid and decrease the national debt? Anything is better than Obama! How is Romney going to tackle Iran? Anything is better than Obama! How is Romney going to be different than Bush? Anything is better than Obama! lalalalalalalalala...Anything is better than Obama!



Men who lack conscience will even lie to themselves...fortunately for all of us Romney isn't going to be our next president.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;929169]On second thought, let's just look at one clean chart from the Wall Street Journal. A trustworthy right leaning source.

[URL="http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/"]Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ[/URL][/quote]Yes, let's look and compare Bush to Obama.

Bush, created 3M jobs. Obama [B]lost[/B] 1.37 million jobs.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[IMG]http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/403314_10150530091797271_398883760_n.jpg[/IMG]

This is so true...lol

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;929257]Yes, let's look and compare Bush to Obama.

Bush, created 3M jobs. Obama [B]lost[/B] 1.37 million jobs.[/quote]

This chart uses the same formula I used to to cite private sector growth under Obama, 4.5 million jobs. In fact, if we're calculating net job growth, Bush may have ended his presidency slightly under water.

It's an indisputable fact that George W. Bush had the worse jobs creation record of any modern president. It's also a fact we were bleeding 750K jobs a month before Obama was sworn in and passed the stimulus. Mitt Romney wants to essentially go back and double down on his failed policies.

Look, we can play this game of statistics all day. President Obama will get reelected and the economy will continue it's trajectory of recovery -- with or without Republicans. Things are headed in the right direction.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;929166]Again, you repeat the blatant lie that Obama raised taxes and you know full well that he's cut them; at least 18 times. Between extending the Bush tax cuts and the stimulus (36% tax cuts), you're talking massive cuts across the board. But oh no...he's distributing the wealth. Socialism!! Get outta here. It's a lie.[/quote]Please don't deny Obama's philosophy is "spread the wealth around", those are his own words. The only reason taxes haven't skyrocketed under Obama is the GOP House wins in 2010.

- 21 tax hikes in ObamaCare hitting taxpayers with over $ 675B.

- and Obama and the Dems are smart, most tax increases go into effect after 2012. [URL="http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=12228"]Taxes | U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan[/URL]

- another good read for those who are concerned about what happens in 2013 and beyond....based on Obama's own budget and CBO estimates.

[URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/3/"]President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History - Forbes[/URL]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;929276]Please don't deny Obama's philosophy is "spread the wealth around", those are his own words. The only reason taxes haven't skyrocketed under Obama is the GOP House wins in 2010.

- 21 tax hikes in ObamaCare hitting taxpayers with over $ 675B.

- and Obama and the Dems are smart, most tax increases go into effect after 2012. [URL="http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=12228"]Taxes | U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan[/URL]

- another good read for those who are concerned about what happens in 2013 and beyond....based on Obama's own budget and CBO estimates.

[URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/3/"]President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History - Forbes[/URL][/quote]

SS3, if that's his philosophy as you say, what policies has he enacted that support that?

Healthcare reform is spreading the wealth around?

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;929273][I]This chart uses the same formula I used to to cite private sector growth under Obama, 4.5 million jobs[/I]. In fact, if we're calculating net job growth, Bush may have ended his presidency slightly under water.

It's an indisputable fact that George W. Bush had the worse jobs creation record of any modern president. [/quote]You are factually incorrect. The chart is quite simple, Jobs at End of Term vs. Jobs at Start of Term. Bush added 3M. Using the same formula, currently Obama has lost 1.37M.


This is the methodology you have been citing on the 4.5M job added [B]-[/B] By going back 27 months, Obama starts counting at the low point of employment for the private sector in February 2010 and tracks how far it has come. But counting farther back, since the end of the recession in June 2009, private-sector job gains have been much more modest, 3.1 million. That's a more meaningful measurement to economists.
[I][B]Overall, the economy has lost 1.37 million jobs — 784,000 in the private sector — since Obama was inaugurated.[/B][/I]
Read more: [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/15/fact-check-where-obama-romney-missed-mark/#ixzz22tGvxTyK"][COLOR=#000080]FACT CHECK: Where Obama, Romney missed mark | Fox News[/COLOR][/URL]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;929279]SS3, if that's his philosophy as you say, what policies has he enacted that support that?

Healthcare reform is spreading the wealth around?[/quote]When you have the Fed implementing billions (will be over $ 1T) in taxes to cover a program that only benefits a small percentage of Americans, that is "speading the wealth around".

Here are a few of his policies:
- Consider the case of Americans who built up value in a home their entire lives and never made more than a modest annual income. They will be “rich” according to Obama in the one year they sell that home – and subject to a hefty tax hike with the new health care surtax on capital gains taking the tax above the exempt amount from 15 percent now to 23.8 percent next year.

- That hefty increase in capital gains and the even bigger, near tripling of the dividend tax from 15 percent to 43.3 will trigger a massive stock market sell-off that will wallop the retirement accounts of people of all income levels. Economist Don Luskin has estimated that allowing these provisions to expire as Obama today proposed will cause a 30 percent collapse in the stock market – bad news for every American hoping to retire or already living out of a retirement account.

- Bloomberg News recently reported: “President Barack Obama’s plan to raise tax rates for the top 2 percent of U.S. households would mean higher taxes on 53 percent of business income reported on individual returns, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.”
Such a huge tax hike on small businesses – who comprise the overwhelmingly majority of upper-income individual tax filers – will negatively impact not just business owners but every worker on the margin of being hired or laid off.

- Obama didn’t mention it Monday, but one of the “tax hikes on the rich” he has favored, and presumably would include in his plan, is to allowing the death tax to jump from its current 35 percent rate above $5 million to a confiscatory 55 percent rate on everything above $1 million -- this will put a lot of family businesses and farms out of business.


All that being said, you're OK with the Fed expanding by taking more money from individuals/private sector and putting it under gov't control? You've got WAAAYYYY more faith in the Fed (no matter who sits in the WH) than I do, or historical fact shows is prudent.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

Was just listening to Mitt Romney streaming on C*SPAN.

He said I'll repeal Obamacare, then literally five seconds later said he'll reform healthcare because "he knows a little a bit about fixing healthcare". ???? I bet the hypocrisy went completely over the audiences heads.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=saden1;929164]You losing $100 is a forgone conclusion, in fact, I am so confident that I am willing to bet in 12thMan's place and put another 100 in the pot.

Brown isn't winning MA and neither is McCaskill in MO. Nelson is an old dog with cat like lives, Tester is done for and Allen Macaca isn't going to win VA... ultimately Dems need 3 seats to maintain control which really doesn't mean much these days as Republicans have indiscriminately utilized the filibuster to instituting gridlock the last 3.5 years.

Bottom line, your money is going to get spent with or without a Federal Budget and you need to get these stupid Republican talking points out of your head and assume the fetal position or just grab your ankles, it will all go a lot smoother that way.[/quote]If 12th wants to step up, he needs to put his own skin-in-the-game. If you're up for doubling down, I'm good for $ 200 total. I'll await your response.

As far as fetal positions and such, that will never happen, but I'll keep your comments in mind on Nov. 7th...after Romney has won.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;929291]..but I'll keep your comments in mind on Nov. 7th...after Romney has won.[/quote]


...and absolutely nothing changes one bit. If anything, it gets worse.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;929273]This chart uses the same formula I used to to cite private sector growth under Obama, 4.5 million jobs. In fact, if we're calculating net job growth, Bush may have ended his presidency slightly under water.

It's an indisputable fact that George W. Bush had the worse jobs creation record of any modern president. It's also a fact we were bleeding 750K jobs a month before Obama was sworn in and passed the stimulus. Mitt Romney wants to essentially go back and double down on his failed policies.

Look, we can play this game of statistics all day. President Obama will get reelected and the economy will continue it's trajectory of recovery -- with or without Republicans. Things are headed in the right direction.[/quote]

Obama is not running against Bush and sorry Obam is still in the red as far a net job growth not in the plus as you think. BTW how many jobs dis the stimulas create?

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;929287]When you have the Fed implementing billions (will be over $ 1T) in taxes to cover a program that only benefits a small percentage of Americans, that is "speading the wealth around".

Here are a few of his policies:
- Consider the case of Americans who built up value in a home their entire lives and never made more than a modest annual income. They will be “rich” according to Obama in the one year they sell that home – and subject to a hefty tax hike with the new health care surtax on capital gains taking the tax above the exempt amount from 15 percent now to 23.8 percent next year.

- That hefty increase in capital gains and the even bigger, near tripling of the dividend tax from 15 percent to 43.3 will trigger a massive stock market sell-off that will wallop the retirement accounts of people of all income levels. Economist Don Luskin has estimated that allowing these provisions to expire as Obama today proposed will cause a 30 percent collapse in the stock market – bad news for every American hoping to retire or already living out of a retirement account.

- Bloomberg News recently reported: “President Barack Obama’s plan to raise tax rates for the top 2 percent of U.S. households would mean higher taxes on 53 percent of business income reported on individual returns, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.”
Such a huge tax hike on small businesses – who comprise the overwhelmingly majority of upper-income individual tax filers – will negatively impact not just business owners but every worker on the margin of being hired or laid off.

- Obama didn’t mention it Monday, but one of the “tax hikes on the rich” he has favored, and presumably would include in his plan, is to allowing the death tax to jump from its current 35 percent rate above $5 million to a confiscatory 55 percent rate on everything above $1 million -- this will put a lot of family businesses and farms out of business.


All that being said, you're OK with the Fed expanding by taking more money from individuals/private sector and putting it under gov't control? You've got WAAAYYYY more faith in the Fed (no matter who sits in the WH) than I do, or historical fact shows is prudent.[/quote]

So basically we're going to swap links. Here's my link debunking pretty much everything you just said. particularly interesting are the steps the administration has taken to help owners facing foreclosure and refinance their homes. (though they've fallen short)

Read it though. Interesting.

[url=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/fact-check-crossroads-ad-hits-obama-for-broken-promises/]Fact Check: Crossroads Ad Hits Obama for ‘Broken Promises’ - ABC News[/url]

It's weird that you would blame President Obama for monetary action taken by the Fed has taken to keep the economy going.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[url=http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/gop-insider-how-religion-destroyed-my-party]GOP Insider: How Religion Destroyed My Party | Alternet[/url]

[quote][B][SIZE="3"]GOP Insider: How Religion Destroyed My Party[/SIZE][/B]

In the new book, "The Party Is Over," veteran Republican Mike Lofgren writes about the rise of politicized religious fundamentalism and [U]how the GOP devolved into anti-intellectual nuts.[/U]
[/quote]


:laughing-

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=NC_Skins;929293]...and [I][B]absolutely nothing changes one bit[/B][/I]. If anything, it gets worse.[/quote]I'll be $ 200 richer. :)

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;929298]So basically we're going to swap links. Here's my link debunking pretty much everything you just said. particularly interesting are the steps the administration has taken to help owners facing foreclosure and refinance their homes. (though they've fallen short)

Read it though. Interesting.

[URL="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/fact-check-crossroads-ad-hits-obama-for-broken-promises/"]Fact Check: Crossroads Ad Hits Obama for ‘Broken Promises’ - ABC News[/URL]

It's weird that you would blame President Obama for monetary action taken by the Fed has taken to keep the economy going.[/quote]It was a good read but doesn't debunk anything I stated:

- On homes, your link doesn't address what is fact....ObamaCare includes a new health care surtax on capital gains taking the tax above the exempt amount from 15 percent now to 23.8 percent next year.

- the link does nothing to refute the fact of the Dividend Tax increase from 15 to 43.3%

- it also does not refute the fact that Obama's plan to raise tax rates for the top 2 percent of U.S. households would mean higher taxes on 53 percent of business income reported on individual returns, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.”

- your link does nothing to refute the Death Tax increase.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-romney-tax-plan-would-result-in-cuts-for-rich-higher-burden-for-others/2012/08/01/gJQAbeCCOX_story.html]Study: Romney tax plan would result in cuts for rich, higher burden for others - The Washington Post[/url]


:laughing2 :rofl: :laughing-



Crazy how you'll have the sheep lining up just to vote this guy in thinking he'll serve their best interest.


The biggest con job of all has been convincing the conservative poor/middle class people that giving tax breaks to the rich will somehow trickle down to them. I like to refer to these people as "inconvenienced millionaires". The conservative dream, to work hard, bust your ass so you will reach the top and bask in the wealth like they do. Biggest myth ever perpetrated in American history.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=NC_Skins;929307][URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-romney-tax-plan-would-result-in-cuts-for-rich-higher-burden-for-others/2012/08/01/gJQAbeCCOX_story.html"]Study: Romney tax plan would result in cuts for rich, higher burden for others - The Washington Post[/URL]


:laughing2 :rofl: :laughing-



Crazy how you'll have the sheep lining up just to vote this guy in thinking he'll serve their best interest.


The biggest con job of all has been convincing the conservative poor/middle class people that giving tax breaks to the rich will somehow trickle down to them. I like to refer to these people as "inconvenienced millionaires". The conservative dream, to work hard, bust your ass so you will reach the top and bask in the wealth like they do. Biggest myth ever perpetrated in American history.[/quote]Crazy how sheep don't look into details of links they post. Embarrassing.

- By the way, even the Tax Policy Center admits that "we do not score Governor Romney's plan directly as certain components of his plan are not specified in sufficient detail." But no matter, the study plows ahead to analyze features of the Romney plan that aren't even in it.

- Campaign officials noted that one of the three authors, [I]Adam Looney of Brookings, served as a senior economist on the Obama Council of Economic Advisers.[/I] The other two authors are Samuel Brown and William Gale, both of whom are affiliated with Brookings and the Tax Policy Center.

Here's an analysis of the study you cite: [URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443792604577574910276629448.html?mod=googlenews_wsj"]Review & Outlook: The Romney Hood Fairy Tale - WSJ.com[/URL]

another: [URL="http://washingtonexaminer.com/flat-out-lies-on-romneys-tax-plan/article/2504243"]Flat-out lies on Romney's tax plan | WashingtonExaminer.com[/URL]

[B][I]Here are FACTS about Romney's proposal[/I][/B]....not left-wing hack job crap:

Had the Tax Policy Center been more meticulous, it would have noticed the simple description of the Romney tax proposal on his website. After describing the damage that high top marginal rates do to small-business hiring, the site states that Romney's plan would:
• Make a permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
• Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends and capital gains
• Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with adjusted gross income below $200,000 on interest, dividends and capital gains
• Eliminate the death tax
• Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax
[B][I]Most fifth-graders could read this plan and see that it never once calls for raising taxes on anyone. Nor does the Romney tax plan call for giving tax cuts to high-income Americans before there are tax cuts for middle- and low-income Americans, as alleged by the TPC.[/I][/B]
[B][I]In fact, low-and middle-income earners would get tax cuts that upper-income Americans will not enjoy, such as a zero tax rate on income from dividends and long-term capital gains.[/I][/B]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

More facts you say?

[url=http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/]FactCheck.org : Romney’s Impossible Tax Promise[/url]


You were saying? Unbiased you say?

[quote]But he has steadfastly refused to say which tax preferences would be cut or reduced. He has pointed to the revenue-neutral proposals for rate-cutting put forth by the deficit commission as evidence that what he proposes is possible in theory, but those proposals pay for the cuts largely by taxing capital gains at the higher rates that apply to ordinary income, a measure Romney has specifically ruled out.

So Romney has failed to produce evidence that what he promises is possible. And we judge that the weight of evidence and expert opinion is clear — it’s not possible.[/quote]


[quote]But Romney’s claim that he can somehow slash individual income tax rates without losing federal revenue or favoring the wealthy remains at best unproven, and in our judgment, based on available evidence, impossible.[/quote]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[IMG]http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/6af50907-5155-49da-a64e-8ff6eaac2d6f.jpg[/IMG]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;929171]Ever notice when conservatives decry Obama socialism they rarely, if ever, point to an actual policy signed into law?[/quote]- ObamaCare isn't a socialist policy?
- U.S. ownership in GM isn't a socialist policy (read $ 23B redistribution of taxpayer dollars to a union)?
- Under ObamaCare the Department of Education took control of the student loan program thereby eliminating their partnership with banks. Before this happened banks such as Citi and Bank of America provided federal loans, private loans, what have you. Now the government provides loans and banks are no longer able to offer any type of loan to students as a result. This isn't socialist?
- FCC Net Neutrality rules aren't socialist? As stated by Robert McChesney, founder of Free Press, a group with deep ties to the Obama administration, the FCC, and the FTC, “At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But [I]the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”[/I]
[I]He also said, "Our struggle to make the Internet into a public utility conflicts with the interests of telephone and cable firms. So it is a tough fight, but a very important one."[/I]
- Proposing budgets with 1T+ defecits and no reform to entitlements that will bankrupt the U.S. in our lifetimes, knowing the only way out of financial collapse is massive tax increase isn't socialist?
- supporting an increase in the Death Tax isn't socialist?
- The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order giving the WH control over ALL food, water resources and transportation isn't a socialist policy? If this is so desparately needed why the F is Obama cutting defense?
[B]Obama:[/B] Holy crap we've got a major war on the horizon with China, Iran, and Lichtenstein. I've got to issue an Executive Order that will allow me to control all natural resources (including water) in the U.S.
[B]SECDEF Panetta:[/B] Should I prepare a budget with more funding to ramp up?
[B]Obama:[/B] LOL, we're cutting your budget!

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=NC_Skins;929321]More facts you say?

[URL="http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/"]FactCheck.org : Romney’s Impossible Tax Promise[/URL]


You were saying? Unbiased you say?[/quote]As usual, you've got nothing.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;929291]If 12th wants to step up, he needs to put his own skin-in-the-game. If you're up for doubling down, I'm good for $ 200 total. I'll await your response.

As far as fetal positions and such, that will never happen, but I'll keep your comments in mind on Nov. 7th...after Romney has won.[/quote]



Who am I to deny you the right to lose money. We are on for an addition $100...winner takes home $200.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;929330]- ObamaCare isn't a socialist policy?
- U.S. ownership in GM isn't a socialist policy (read $ 23B redistribution of taxpayer dollars to a union)?
- Under ObamaCare the Department of Education took control of the student loan program thereby eliminating their partnership with banks. Before this happened banks such as Citi and Bank of America provided federal loans, private loans, what have you. Now the government provides loans and banks are no longer able to offer any type of loan to students as a result. This isn't socialist?
- FCC Net Neutrality rules aren't socialist? As stated by Robert McChesney, founder of Free Press, a group with deep ties to the Obama administration, the FCC, and the FTC, “At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But [I]the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”[/I]
[I]He also said, "Our struggle to make the Internet into a public utility conflicts with the interests of telephone and cable firms. So it is a tough fight, but a very important one."[/I]
- Proposing budgets with 1T+ defecits and no reform to entitlements that will bankrupt the U.S. in our lifetimes, knowing the only way out of financial collapse is massive tax increase isn't socialist?
- supporting an increase in the Death Tax isn't socialist?
- The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order giving the WH control over ALL food, water resources and transportation isn't a socialist policy? If this is so desparately needed why the F is Obama cutting defense?
[B]Obama:[/B] Holy crap we've got a major war on the horizon with China, Iran, and Lichtenstein. I've got to issue an Executive Order that will allow me to control all natural resources (including water) in the U.S.
[B]SECDEF Panetta:[/B] Should I prepare a budget with more funding to ramp up?
[B]Obama:[/B] LOL, we're cutting your budget![/quote]

By my definition, no it's not socialist. Is Justice John Roberts a socialist? Are Republicans that voted for Obamacare socialist? How about Romneycare, Medicare, and Social Security? Social safety net. Are these programs, too, socialism?

You seem to have it in your head because you find sharp disagreement with a policy or even President Obama's style of governing, which is fine, you go to the extreme opposite and label it socialism. That's absurd and alarmist, as far as I'm concerned. Just say you don't like it. Say it will fail. It won't work because of XYZ. Knock it off with the socialist crap. It's not. Healthcare is broken and Washington has been fukcing around for 30 years trying to fix it.

I'm curious to find out what Mr. Romney's alternative to Obamacare is since he's running away from the program he implemented in Massachusetts.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

SS33, twice in this thread you've cited independent government agencies, the Federal Reserve and the FCC, as examples of government promulgating socialist policies. I'm sure you're fully aware they both operate outside of the purview of the federal branch. Even if President Obama rolled down Pennsylvania Avenue in a red armored tank, pulled up to the doorsteps of the Fed and threatened full take over, those guys wouldn't budge one iota. That's the way it works, my man. That's one helluva leap to blame the actions of the Federal Reserve or the FCC on the President of the United States. Just doesn't work that way.

Oh..Pell Grants. With college tuition sky rocketing you're defending Citibank and the big banks that basically monopolized the student loan industry and profited off it for years?

CBO says the direct lending approach with save [B]taxpayers[/B] $61 billion over 10 years.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[QUOTE=Slingin Sammy 33;929330]- ObamaCare isn't a socialist policy?
- [B]U.S. ownership in GM isn't a socialist policy (read $ 23B redistribution of taxpayer dollars to a union)?[/B][/QUOTE]

As oppose to what? Letting them go out of business? Giving them 25 billion like Bush did without any strings attached? TARP and the Bank Bail out? Socialism is only socialism when the other guy is doing it.


[QUOTE=Slingin Sammy 33;929330]- Under ObamaCare the Department of Education took control of the student loan program thereby eliminating their partnership with banks. Before this happened banks such as Citi and Bank of America provided federal loans, private loans, what have you. Now the government provides loans and banks are no longer able to offer any type of loan to students as a result. This isn't socialist?[/QUOTE]

As oppose to what? Getting out of the lending business all together? Giving low interest guaranteed loans to the Banks and letting them just turn around and lend it to students at higher rate? What is more socialistic, subsidizing the middlemen banks or students?

[QUOTE=Slingin Sammy 33;929330]- FCC Net Neutrality rules aren't socialist? As stated by Robert McChesney, founder of Free Press, a group with deep ties to the Obama administration, the FCC, and the FTC, “At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But [I]the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”[/I]
[I]He also said, "Our struggle to make the Internet into a public utility conflicts with the interests of telephone and cable firms. So it is a tough fight, but a very important one."[/I][/QUOTE]

As oppose to what? Getting the government out of regulating the internet whose development they bankrolled and was founded on social ownership and cooperative management principles? We should let companies discriminately toll the internet? Are we to pay ISPs for our internet service and for individual websites that are successful at attracting consumers.


You have been weighed, measured, and found wanting.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

For the life of me I have no idea why conservatives are still pounding the GM big government narrative. GM is back. It worked. A lot of manufacturing jobs returned to our shores as a result. Was it the best solution? Hell no. Under ideal circumstances GM would have been solvent and profitable. But that wasn't the case. It's a win for the country.

Right now Treasury owns 500 million GM shares. Seems they are waiting for the right time to sell (around $32 per share) to repay taxpayers.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;929365]For the life of me I have no idea why conservatives are still pounding the GM big government narrative. GM is back. It worked. A lot of manufacturing jobs returned to our shores as a result. Was it the best solution? Hell no. Under ideal circumstances GM would have been solvent and profitable. But that wasn't the case. It's a win for the country.[/quote]

I think Bush had it right on the subject when he said "Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy." Reading all this conservative drivel you would think this Administration and Democrats enjoy bailing and dolling out monies to corporations and hurting them at the same time.


How do you look left and right at the same time again?

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;929361]SS33, twice in this thread you've cited independent government agencies, the Federal Reserve and the FCC, as examples of government promulgating socialist policies. I'm sure you're fully aware they both operate outside of the purview of the federal branch. Even if President Obama rolled down Pennsylvania Avenue in a red armored tank, pulled up to the doorsteps of the Fed and threatened full take over, those guys wouldn't budge one iota. That's the way it works, my man. That's one helluva leap to blame the actions of the Federal Reserve or the FCC on the President of the United States. Just doesn't work that way.

Oh..Pell Grants. With college tuition sky rocketing you're defending Citibank and the big banks that basically monopolized the student loan industry and profited off it for years?

CBO says the direct lending approach with save [B]taxpayers[/B] $61 billion over 10 years.[/quote]Never said Fed Reserve, I said Dept. of Education and FCC. The student loan issue was another rider to ObamaCare. Rising college tuition costs have nothing to do with banks, artifically lowered loan rates from the fed and fed subsidies are the primary catalyst to rising college costs. Similar to the housing bubble bust that was fueled by lowered approval standards/rates due to gov't intervention in the market.

FCC commissioners are appointed by the POTUS, Obama has appointed 4 of the 5 current commissioners. The Net Neutrality vote was along partison lines: The order received support from Chairman Julius Genachowski and Democratic commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn, but was not approved by Republican commissioners Robert McDowell and Meredith A. Baker.

no need to roll down in tanks when you appoint the folks making decisions.

EDIT: and I forgot to mention the HHS Mandate forcing religious institutions to subsidize abortion drug, sterilization, contraception.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=saden1;929363]As oppose to what? Letting them go out of business? Giving them 25 billion like Bush did without any strings attached? [/quote]As opposed to letting the UAW be treated as any other creditor in a bankruptcy and not getting $ 23B is taxpayer bailout. BTW that $ 23B is the gov't estimate on the taxpayers' backs after all is said and done. An GM still has higher labor costs than it's competitors.


[quote]As oppose to what? Getting the government out of regulating the internet whose development they bankrolled and was founded on social ownership and cooperative management principles? We should let companies discriminately toll the internet? Are we to pay ISPs for our internet service and for individual websites that are successful at attracting consumers.[/quote]Initial development of internet, yes. Expansion to citizens was done by private investments. You don't find "social ownership and cooperative management" by the Fed disturbing. I'm not up for a China-like internet, thank you.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

So who's going to give in first and vote for the other person? Personally I think most people know who they are going to vote for and all this back and forth is pretty much not going to change anyones mind. The people who claim to be undecided probably will go to the voting booth and vote for whoever happens to be on their mind that day. The undecides try to act like they are waiting to make the choice but how can you at this point not know who your going to vote for if you keep up with the politics in any way.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;929372]As opposed to letting the UAW be treated as any other creditor in a bankruptcy and not getting $ 23B is taxpayer bailout. BTW that $ 23B is the gov't estimate on the taxpayers' backs after all is said and done. An GM still has higher labor costs than it's competitors. [/quote]

So you want to let the life savings of their employees' vanish and tell them to hit the unemployment line with their hand out asking Uncle Sam for change? Do you have cost benefit analysis on different scenarios? I'm betting it's cheaper to let people keep their retirement money and continue to be employed than paying investors first at the expense of gutting an industry and having people join the unemployment line. Even worse, cut of unemployment all together and have people go hungry.


[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;929372]
Initial development of internet, yes. Expansion to citizens was done by private investments. You don't find "social ownership and cooperative management" by the Fed disturbing. I'm not up for a China-like internet, thank you.[/quote]

What is really disturbing is that you want tax payers to bankroll the creation of the internet, turn it over to private companies, give these companies monopolies and free access to public land to lay down lines and finally allow them to charge them for both packet requests and responses.

...fck that!



ISP: You want to go visit google.com? Sorry, we have a deal with Microsoft and it's bing.com search engine? Maybe we can get something worked out where you pay us more to visit google.com?

Consumer: You are one of two ISPs allowed in my neighborhood? Am I paying to connect to the "internet" on your intranet?


...pragmatism is truly lost.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=firstdown;929394]So who's going to give in first and vote for the other person?[/quote]

I'm voting for neither as I've said all along. If those were the only two candidates on the ballot, I would skip the that particular vote. **** voting for the lesser of the two evils. That said, Romney is still worse than Obama by a long shot. Almost sad when you long for the days when McCain was actually running...lol

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=saden1;929400]So you want to let the life savings of their employees' vanish and tell them to hit the unemployment line with their hand out asking Uncle Sam for change? Do you have cost benefit analysis on different scenarios? I'm betting it's cheaper to let people keep their retirement money and continue to be employed than paying investors first at the expense of gutting an industry and having people join the unemployment line. Even worse, cut of unemployment all together and have people go hungry. [/quote]no one said their "life savings" would vanish, but the gold-plated, retire at 55 with benefits far above the standard for other auto-workers plan is BS. UAW and the contributions to the retirement fund should have been handled as any other creditor. As it was they received better treatment than SECURED creditors.

[url=http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/302888/auto-bailout-or-uaw-bailout-james-sherk]Auto Bailout or UAW Bailout? - By James Sherk & Todd Zywicki - The Corner - National Review Online[/url]


[quote]What is really disturbing is that you want tax payers to bankroll the creation of the internet, turn it over to private companies, give these companies monopolies and free access to public land to lay down lines and finally allow them to charge them for both packet requests and responses.

...fck that![/quote]The fed isn't giving the ISPs access to "free gov't land", they have to pay for cable right-of-way. And if there are any special deals they are at the state or local level. The fed isn't paying to lay down lines....unless it's done by some Obama stimulus program.

I'd rather the internet be regulated by the free market rather than gov't bureaucrats. If a local ISP is price gauging, someone will step in to fill the void with a more competitive solution.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=saden1;929400][B]So you want to let the life savings of their employees' vanish and tell them to hit the unemployment line with their hand out asking Uncle Sam for change? Do you have cost benefit analysis on different scenarios? I'm betting it's cheaper to let people keep their retirement money and continue to be employed than paying investors first at the expense of gutting an industry and having people join the unemployment line. Even worse, cut of unemployment all together and have people go hungry. [/B]




What is really disturbing is that you want tax payers to bankroll the creation of the internet, turn it over to private companies, give these companies monopolies and free access to public land to lay down lines and finally allow them to charge them for both packet requests and responses.

...fck that!



ISP: You want to go visit google.com? Sorry, we have a deal with Microsoft and it's bing.com search engine? Maybe we can get something worked out where you pay us more to visit google.com?

Consumer: You are one of two ISPs allowed in my neighborhood? Am I paying to connect to the "internet" on your intranet?


...pragmatism is truly lost.[/quote]


Your also assuming GM would have gone under. The bailout only made it easier on GM I don't think they would have gone belly up without gov aid.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=firstdown;929431]Your also assuming GM would have gone under. The bailout only made it easier on GM I don't think they would have gone belly up without gov aid.[/quote]

They would have most certainly gone under.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;929434]They would have most certainly gone under.[/quote]No, they would've restructured under existing bankruptcy laws. With the ability to completely rework the union contracts they'd be in a stronger position than they are today.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

why do the republicans insist on attacking unions every chance they get?

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;929443]No, they would've restructured under existing bankruptcy laws. With the ability to completely rework the union contracts they'd be in a stronger position than they are today.[/quote]

The Unions had already made offers of help in any way they could.



[url=http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-05-29-gm-uaw_N.htm]UAW members approve General Motors concessions - USATODAY.com[/url]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;929443]No, they would've restructured under existing bankruptcy laws. With the ability to completely rework the union contracts they'd be in a stronger position than they are today.[/quote]

No, they needed a huge injection of capital as well and no one -- I mean no one -- was giving GM money. Credit was tight as you recall.

In the end the company did undergo a restructuring and the unions made huge concessions in the process. That's how the whole thing managed to work.