2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

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 taxpayers $61 billion over 10 years.

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

- 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)?

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.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

- 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?

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?

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

- 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 the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”
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."

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

As oppose to what? Letting them go out of business? Giving them 25 billion like Bush did without any strings attached?

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.

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.

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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.

Auto Bailout or UAW Bailout? - By James Sherk & Todd Zywicki - The Corner - National Review Online

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!

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.




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.

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.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

They would have most certainly gone under.

[12thMan]

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

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.

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?

[firstdown]

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.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So who's going to give in first and vote for the other person?

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

[dmek25]

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

[firstdown]

The Unions only came to the table at the last minute to protect themself.

The vote comes before an expected Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection filing by GM (GM) on Monday. Bankruptcy experts say having the labor agreement in place will help move the process through court more quickly.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The Unions only came to the table at the last minute to protect themself.

The vote comes before an expected Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection filing by GM (GM) on Monday. Bankruptcy experts say having the labor agreement in place will help move the process through court more quickly.

And??? What's wrong with that? Shouldn't they in fact protect themselves?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

And??? What's wrong with that? Shouldn't they in fact protect themselves?

You either haven't read or chose to ignore the facts in the link with detail on the UAW bailout.

from my link: "
Before the bankruptcy, UAW members in Detroit made more than $70 an hour in wages and benefits — a major reason GM and Chrysler went under. The automakers also owed tens of billions to a UAW trust fund that provided gold-plated health benefits to the union’s retirees. In a normal bankruptcy, the UAW would be required to bring this compensation down to competitive rates. Bankruptcy law also calls for all unsecured creditors to receive equal treatment. That did not happen in Detroit.
In the bankruptcy, the union gave only minor concessions for existing workers. The union accepted huge cuts for new hires, but as the president’s former Car Czar admitted, “We did not ask any UAW member to take a cut in their pay.” As a result, GM still pays $56 an hour in wages and benefits, more than any of its foreign “transplant” competitors. Not adjusting labor costs to market rates costs taxpayers more than $4 billion.
The UAW’s trust fund also recovered far more of the money owed to it than other unsecured creditors did. At GM the UAW Trust collected $12.2 billion more than it would have had it been treated like the other unsecured creditors. At Chrysler the administration gave the UAW assets worth $9.2 billion. That was a much greater recovery than the secured creditors got — and the reason the UAW wound up with half of Chrysler.
General Motors further spent $1 billion to restore the pensions of UAW retirees at Delphi, a bankrupt former GM subsidiary, to their former levels. GM had no legal obligation to do so, and did not do the same for the pensions of retirees in other unions or those of non-union employees. Former administration officials have refused to co-operate with the inspector general’s investigation into whether the administration played a role in this decision.
Add these handouts up, and you find that the taxpayers spent $26.5 billion subsidizing the pay and benefits of UAW members. Obama gave the UAW more than the U.S. spends on foreign aid. The UAW subsidies account for the entire net cost of the bailout.
Generous compensation is good, but the taxpayers should not be on the hook for paying it. The average worker makes about $30 in pay and benefits. The administration spent the taxes paid by all Americans to preserve union pay in Detroit. That was not an auto bailout. It was a UAW bailout.

This was a BS pay-off to UAW, no other way to spin it.