U.S. Politics - Page 557 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5561  
Old 12-11-12, 17:14
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Well, touché then. Near as I can tell you just ascribed to me the view you hold.



Correct. The last thing any community needs is free market competition.



Funny. The govt is people, or so we are told. Media too. The economic reality in this country is influencable.



I see....

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

I'll try and post the author of this quote when I can find it...

Hardly, else I wouldn't spend time in discussion here.

Free market does not exist outside of a corner of Afpak1stan. Let the dream die.

Yes, people emailed the video. It's not original to her. and, her comments were meant to be an oppositional panacea. The half truth conveyed there is that there is no reality outside of determinant material reality.

On that score, government are professionals not Rousseauian people as you prefer to pretend when it suits.

Last edited by aphronesis; 12-11-12 at 17:36.
Reply With Quote
  #5562  
Old 12-11-12, 18:13
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...get-challenge/

Quote:
As the table shows, spending is not out of control. Entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare are rising gently as the baby-boom generation retires. All other spending, including that for the military and domestic discretionary programs, falls – with the notable exception of interest on the debt. Interest rises sharply as the deficit rises, principally because the G.A.O. assumes that revenue will not be permitted to rise above its historical average – as Republicans continually insist.

Republicans demand that Social Security and Medicare be cut immediately to deal with the so-called fiscal cliff. Popular suggestions for doing so include raising the age of eligibility for Medicare and changing the indexing formula that adjusts Social Security benefits for inflation.

To be sure, some restraint is needed in federal entitlement programs. But the idea that we are facing a crisis is complete nonsense. Spending for Social Security, in particular, is very stable. Relatively modest changes, such as raising the taxable earnings base slightly, would be sufficient to put the program on a sound footing virtually forever.

These facts explain why the tax pledge that virtually all Republicans blindly support is ultimately self-defeating. Refusing to raise revenue automatically leads to higher spending for interest on the debt. However, Republicans routinely deny this, asserting that capping revenue at some arbitrary percentage of G.D.P. will somehow or other force huge cuts in spending that will prevent deficits from rising to inconceivable levels. Implicitly, they believe in a nonsensical theory called starve-the-beast that is totally refuted by the budgetary experience of the last 20 years.
Entitlement spending is not the problem.
Reply With Quote
  #5563  
Old 12-11-12, 18:14
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Even Ford asked the feds to prepare a $9 billion line of credit in case the economy got worse and they took billions in loans from the DOE. Mulally has acknowledged that Ford probably would've been dragged under if GM had been allowed to fail, as you guys wanted it to.

Why? Because despite what the free-market cons would fervently like to believe, there was no private capital coming to the rescue, so it was either the feds go in or allow the entire American auto industry - including Ford - to go under. Pretty clear that there really wasn't much of a choice.
Quote:
Even Ford asked the feds to prepare a $9 billion line of credit in case the economy got worse
lol. A line of credit? Is that what GM got?

Quote:
Mulally has acknowledged that Ford probably would've been dragged under if GM had been allowed to fail, as you guys wanted it to.
Dude, GM DID fail. Non-union stakeholders were shafted. The tax payer sill owns 500 million shares. GM stock will have to sell for over $50 a share to break even, in other words more than double. When do you think that might happen? Ever?

Additionally, you realize GM isn't paying taxes on profit, right? Pretty good deal, eh? Oh and BTW, the feds didn't fix what is wrong with the company and it's only a matter of time before they fail again. Then what?

Quote:
Why? Because despite what the free-market cons would fervently like to believe, there was no private capital coming to the rescue
There was no free market capital because the un-funded pension issue had not been addressed. Private equity may take some crazy risks but investors aren't stupid.

Quote:
so it was either the feds go in or allow the entire American auto industry - including Ford - to go under
This is fantasyland.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5564  
Old 12-11-12, 18:40
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Perhaps conservatives should stop demonizing them.







You sure are enamored with those conservative echo-chamber stereotypes. People choose to be on welfare so they don't have to work! Entitlements make people dependent! Obamacare has Death Panels! Union workers are lazy! Union bosses are corrupt!

I'm sure some of that is true (well, not the death panels). I'm sure there are some people who choose welfare over work. I'm sure there are some lazy union workers (why that's restricted to unions I'm not sure). I'm sure there some corrupt union bosses (how that's different from say Wall St bankers I'm not sure). I'm also sure that they are also very much in the minority and that for the vast majority of those your stereotypes are complete and utter BS.


Everything is a tradeoff. Unions have accomplished much and still do a lot of good for their members, but they can only do so if they have (as the name implies) unity. The tradeoff to that is you have to be part of a union if you work in certain industries. Now that so many of what unions have fought for are enshrined as law it's easy to become complacent about their necessity (and ironically for them to become increasingly obsolete as a result of their own success) and only view them as a drag on business. But all of those laws are completely reversible and it wasn't so long ago that we lived in a country where business had a free hand to rule and there were no unions. It wasn't such a great place. So yeah, unions do sometimes overreach, yep they do have stringent rules and forced dues, etc etc, but the alternative is to go back to a time when workers didn't have collective rights. Which is, of course, exactly what Rs - who only care about one thing, business - really want.

Man, you guys really do live in an alternate universe. There was no private capital coming to the rescue, Scott, even Bush recognized that. It's the only reason the feds - first Bush - decided they had to step in. What really bugs you about it is that it's one of those times where government had to intervene to save the day after markets failed.

They didn't. As was pointed out in an earlier post, there was $9 billion credit line all ready to go for Ford, at Ford's request, should they have needed it.

It's simply amazing to me how you guys on the right are completely unable to grasp the fact that sometimes you have to pay in the short-term to avoid much higher long-term costs. This was one of those situations - either the feds step in and spend a bit of taxpayer money now to save the industry or allow it to go under, which would've cost the American economy a ****load more. Mitigation of GHG emissions is another example. You don't seem to understand that, either.
Quote:
Perhaps conservatives should stop demonizing them.
Demonizing? How about truth telling? When union bosses/members behave like asshats (today for example) they ought to be called out.

Quote:
People choose to be on welfare so they don't have to work! Entitlements make people dependent!
It happens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/op...anted=all&_r=0

Quote:
Union bosses are corrupt!
Funny. I was just reading about Trumka... Federal investigations, election racketeering, you know... run-of-the-mill-it-could-happen-to-anybody stuff.

Quote:
The tradeoff to that is you have to be part of a union if you work in certain industries.
You are pro-choice except when you aren't. I got it.

Quote:
What really bugs you about it is that it's one of those times where government had to intervene to save the day after markets failed.
No, what really, really bugs me is that 1) We have bankruptcy laws on the books now to deal with these issues, 2) had there been no unions involved there would have been no bailout,, i.e., it wasn't about jobs, it was about union jobs, and 3) The Feds didn't fix the structural problems with the company (because it's a union issue).

But for the union saving you could have not cared less about GM. As ststed before, it's a car manufacturer. What doe cars have? Internal combustion engine that, when used, are destroying the planet. Quite conflicted I'm sure.

Had they been non-union you would have happily ****ed on GM's grave.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5565  
Old 12-11-12, 18:52
Alpe d'Huez's Avatar
Alpe d'Huez Alpe d'Huez is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 7,790
Default

Can't keep up, don't care (sorry).

The conversations seem to be blending between the two political threads. Once we hit the new year I'm either going to close this one as having run it's course, or split the two political threads into US Politics, and Global Politics.

Thoughts welcome.
Reply With Quote
  #5566  
Old 12-11-12, 19:05
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Well, touché then. Near as I can tell you just ascribed to me the view you hold.



Correct. The last thing any community needs is free market competition.



Funny. The govt is people, or so we are told. Media too. The economic reality in this country is influencable.



I see....

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

I'll try and post the author of this quote when I can find it...
Selective misinterpretation of a historical necessity (a couple of centuries have demonstrated unions are necessary under the prevailing economic model) does not overrule the objective necessity of its existence.

Unions are a fact of industry, not all industry is good, therefore all unions are not good. This is a medieval syllogism, which has long since been proven a logical fallacy.

Last edited by rhubroma; 12-11-12 at 19:09.
Reply With Quote
  #5567  
Old 12-11-12, 19:49
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
lol. A line of credit? Is that what GM got?
It's what Ford requested.

Quote:
Dude, GM DID fail. Non-union stakeholders were shafted. The tax payer sill owns 500 million shares. GM stock will have to sell for over $50 a share to break even, in other words more than double. When do you think that might happen? Ever?
And the alternative was liquidation. Do you guys really believethat would've been better for the economy? It would've been economic suicide to allow the auto industry to go under during one of the worst recessions in the country's history.

I sometimes wonder if that's what it's really about, though, a secret wish on the right that the auto industry had gone under so Obama (and the big, bad government) would've been blamed instead of receiving all of the credit. That and a reluctance to admit that government was able to do what markets couldn't. There's also no doubt that if the feds had done what you wanted, you'd now be whining and moaning about how government failed to save the American auto industry and put tens of thousands of people out of work and look how it affected the economy and unemployment etc blah blah blah.

Quote:
Additionally, you realize GM isn't paying taxes on profit, right? Pretty good deal, eh? Oh and BTW, the feds didn't fix what is wrong with the company and it's only a matter of time before they fail again. Then what?
Yep, it is a pretty good deal, and it's doing what's necessary over the short term to give the company a chance to get back on it's feet. So far, so good:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business...illion-profit/

...but it'll be years before we know for sure.



Quote:
There was no free market capital because the un-funded pension issue had not been addressed. Private equity may take some crazy risks but investors aren't stupid.
So there was no private capital coming. OK, glad we got that straight.

Quote:
This is fantasyland.
Ford's CEO must live in fantasyland, then. Or you guys do. Given the whole Romney polling thing, I'm betting it's more likely the latter.
Reply With Quote
  #5568  
Old 12-11-12, 20:12
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubroma View Post
Selective misinterpretation of a historical necessity (a couple of centuries have demonstrated unions are necessary under the prevailing economic model) does not overrule the objective necessity of its existence.

Unions are a fact of industry, not all industry is good, therefore all unions are not good. This is a medieval syllogism, which has long since been proven a logical fallacy.
Unions are an industry.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5569  
Old 12-11-12, 20:14
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Unions are an industry.
Unions don't exist without it. Is this a question of which came first the chicken or the egg?
Reply With Quote
  #5570  
Old 12-11-12, 20:35
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
It's what Ford requested.

And the alternative was liquidation. Do you guys really believethat would've been better for the economy? It would've been economic suicide to allow the auto industry to go under during one of the worst recessions in the country's history.

I sometimes wonder if that's what it's really about, though, a secret wish on the right that the auto industry had gone under so Obama (and the big, bad government) would've been blamed instead of receiving all of the credit. That and a reluctance to admit that government was able to do what markets couldn't. There's also no doubt that if the feds had done what you wanted, you'd now be whining and moaning about how government failed to save the American auto industry and put tens of thousands of people out of work and look how it affected the economy and unemployment etc blah blah blah.

Yep, it is a pretty good deal, and it's doing what's necessary over the short term to give the company a chance to get back on it's feet. So far, so good:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business...illion-profit/

...but it'll be years before we know for sure.



So there was no private capital coming. OK, glad we got that straight.

Ford's CEO must live in fantasyland, then. Or you guys do. Given the whole Romney polling thing, I'm betting it's more likely the latter.
Quote:
And the alternative was liquidation.
No. An alternative was liquidation. Another alternative was reorganization, which is what would have and did happen.

Quote:
Do you guys really believethat would've been better for the economy?
I would not have happened the way you hypothesize.

Quote:
I sometimes wonder if that's what it's really about, though, a secret wish on the right that the auto industry had gone under so Obama (and the big, bad government) would've been blamed instead of receiving all of the credit.
Yeah, we secretly hate business.



Quote:
There's also no doubt that if the feds had done what you wanted, you'd now be whining and moaning about how government failed to save the American auto industry and put tens of thousands of people out of work and look how it affected the economy and unemployment etc blah blah blah.
Does that really sound like something you'd hear from me?

Quote:
Yep, it is a pretty good deal, and it's doing what's necessary over the short term to give the company a chance to get back on it's feet. So far, so good:
Was that 7.6 billion pre-tax, or post-tax. Oh yeah, they aren't paying taxes.

The U.S. Treasury is giving up $14 billion in tax revenue because of a sweetheart deal it's giving General Motors.

Quote:
The automaker is expected to post its first profitable year since 2004 when it reports fourth-quarter results on Thursday. But GM (GM) won't have to worry about being hit with a big tax bill because billions in previous losses will provide shelter for years to come. That break will reduce GM's U.S. tax bill by an estimated $14 billion in the coming years, and its global taxes by close to $19 billion, according to a company filing.

Companies typically get a break on future taxes because of past losses. But in most cases they lose that tax break during bankruptcy, because the losses are offset by the "income" the company receives from shedding its debt.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/23/news...lout/index.htm

Lessee, Treasury will sell the stock at $32, which will equate to a tax payer loss of about $13 billion. We lose tax revenue of about $14 billion.

Yeah, it's a sweet deal. For the life of me I don't know why you are defending it. Normally you'd rail against corporate welfare but since Barack did it, I guess it's okay.

Quote:
So there was no private capital coming. OK, glad we got that straight.
And there would not be until the union came to the table. But, they never had to because Barackaclause rolled in with the goodies.

Quote:
Ford's CEO must live in fantasyland, then.
In retrospect, Mulally is kicking himself in the ***. He could have got the same deal GM did and he didn't take it. All in all, stupid move.

EDIT: Did you see that AIG paid back the feds, ahead of time, on the TARP program with something like $27 billion in Federal profit? But AIG are insurance scum....

Oh well, make $27 billion on AIG, lose $27 billion with GM... but only the loser is a success I guess.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009

Last edited by Scott SoCal; 12-11-12 at 20:43.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:16.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.