|
|
I wonder how mad Obama is at Biden right now.
President Obama's same-sex marriage endorsement makes a full quarter of Florida voters less likely to cast their ballots for him, according to a poll released Monday.
Quinnipac's latest poll of the Sunshine State finds that 25 percent of voters say Obama's endorsement of gay marriage makes them less likely to vote for him. On the other hand, 11 percent say that it makes them more likely to vote for him.
Among independents, 23 percent say that they're less likely to vote for Obama over same sex marriage. Older voters (55 and older), born-again evangelical Christians, lower income voters and military veterans are all more likely than other demographic groups to say that Obama's backing of same-sex marriage will sway them towards Romney.
On the whole, Romney beats President Obama by six points in Florida, leading 47 to 41 percent over the incumbent president.
Source.
|
I'm sure Obama had some choice words for Biden, and it probably wasn't the first time.
|
On May 23 2012 08:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 05:10 kwizach wrote:On May 22 2012 10:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2012 08:46 Defacer wrote:On May 22 2012 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Damn, I thought I was so clever with my John Kerry line. Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage before he was against it — and before he was for it again.
Meh, you know what I mean. There's a difference between being evasive and just flat out lying, is all I'm trying to say. In the case of Obama on gay marriage, he shifted positions on gay marriage over the span two decades. Mitt Romney changed his mind -- or more accurately, outright lied about his current and past stance -- on the Auto Bailout in less than 6 months, and is now laughably trying to take credit for it. I haven't looked closely at what Romney said about the auto bailout, but my understanding is that he has always been against the bailout but has been for a managed chapter 11 bankruptcy, which are two different things. The auto industry got the bailout first, which did not work. Then it went through managed bankruptcy, which did work. Except there was not enough liquidity in the country to choose the private chapter 11 option, so the right way to do it was exactly what Obama did and certainly not what Romney was saying. Wrong on all counts. First, capital infusions are not necessary components of chapter 11 bankruptcy. All chapter 11 does is restructure, reduce, and (in some cases) eliminate debts while allowing the business to continue as a going concern. Second, the auto-industry bailout was only $14 billion, which isn't that much. Facebook just launched roughly a $100 billion IPO. Ford did just fine on its own without a bailout, and secured its own private investment. There's no reason why GM and Chrysler couldn't have done the same.
It's funny, because GM wanted to and they couldn't. But of course, you know better.
Bob Lutz, a retired vice chairman of GM and author of the book Car Guys vs. Bean Counters: The Battle for the Soul of American Business, was at GM at the time of the crisis.
"Frankly, what we told ourselves at General Motors was we're sure he's a good governor, but he doesn't know what he's talking about in this instance," Lutz says.
Lutz says he and other executives wrote off Romney's idea of a private-sector restructuring for one simple reason.
"What he conveniently forgets is that there was zero liquidity in the country," Lutz says. "There was no way to fund a private Chapter 11 — even though, believe me, General Motors really tried to get private debt financing or organize a private Chapter 11. But there was no money to do it."
Ultimately, GM and Chrysler did go through managed bankruptcies — managed by the government with taxpayer dollars. In the months since that November debate, Romney has changed his emphasis, saying he was also open to the idea of government guarantees — though not government checks — to help the companies emerge from bankruptcy.
Lutz describes himself as a conservative and a Republican and he's no fan of President Obama — that is, except in the case of the auto rescue.
"He just went in and he put the right team together and he got it done and the results are there for all to see, and I think you have to give credit where credit is due," Lutz says.
And, despite his own personal political leanings, Lutz says it's not due to Romney.
"I hope he carries Michigan, but to me there's something not quite right about a political system that will rely on modifications of the truth in order to get the political job done," Lutz says.
Source. You're wrong.
On May 23 2012 08:52 xDaunt wrote:
Here's the bottom line: Obama used the government to get his union pals sweetheart deals rather than merely letting the companies go into bankruptcy and get their debt issues fixed. It was an unnecessary, expensive, and corrupt move.
Here's the bottom line: you're wrong. What Obama did was exactly the right way to manage the issue, as acknowledged by every single actor who was involved/is knowledgeable on the subject and not involved in trying to defeat Obama.
|
On May 24 2012 08:22 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 08:52 xDaunt wrote:
Here's the bottom line: Obama used the government to get his union pals sweetheart deals rather than merely letting the companies go into bankruptcy and get their debt issues fixed. It was an unnecessary, expensive, and corrupt move.
Here's the bottom line: you're wrong. What Obama did was exactly the right way to manage the issue, as acknowledged by every single actor who was involved/is knowledgeable on the subject and not involved in trying to defeat Obama.
When you promote bad ideas by bailing out (friend or not) you only encourage more bad ideas. When you implement a "too big to fail" mentality you encourage bigger, non calculated, risk taking and ignore facts because no matter what you do, you will just be bailed out!
Free markets work because there is a profit motive. That's what gives incentive to make rational decisions based on the facts. The alternative being making poor decisions and losing it all. Removing the risk only promotes bad decisions because you have nothing to lose.
Unfortunately neither Obama nor Romney understand this. What's worse is that the money used to bailout the crappy companies comes from the successful companies who could better to allocate those resources to something productive.
|
On May 24 2012 09:43 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2012 08:22 kwizach wrote:On May 23 2012 08:52 xDaunt wrote:
Here's the bottom line: Obama used the government to get his union pals sweetheart deals rather than merely letting the companies go into bankruptcy and get their debt issues fixed. It was an unnecessary, expensive, and corrupt move.
Here's the bottom line: you're wrong. What Obama did was exactly the right way to manage the issue, as acknowledged by every single actor who was involved/is knowledgeable on the subject and not involved in trying to defeat Obama. When you promote bad ideas by bailing out (friend or not) you only encourage more bad ideas. When you implement a "too big to fail" mentality you encourage bigger, non calculated, risk taking and ignore facts because no matter what you do, you will just be bailed out! Free markets work because there is a profit motive. That's what gives incentive to make rational decisions based on the facts. The alternative being making poor decisions and losing it all. Removing the risk only promotes bad decisions because you have nothing to lose. Unfortunately neither Obama nor Romney understand this. What's worse is that the money used to bailout the crappy companies comes from the successful companies who could better to allocate those resources to something productive.
It has been pointed out countless times already in this thread and in the republican nominations thread that your idea of a free market fixing itself and not being prone to crises has no basis in reality.
The answer isn't simply to bail financial institutions out and cross fingers, it's to bail them out (the alternative being the loss of far too many jobs) AND adopt tighter regulations that will help prevent further crises. Unfortunately, today's Republicans are ideologically-opposed to regulations.
|
On May 24 2012 22:37 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2012 09:43 Epocalypse wrote:On May 24 2012 08:22 kwizach wrote:On May 23 2012 08:52 xDaunt wrote:
Here's the bottom line: Obama used the government to get his union pals sweetheart deals rather than merely letting the companies go into bankruptcy and get their debt issues fixed. It was an unnecessary, expensive, and corrupt move.
Here's the bottom line: you're wrong. What Obama did was exactly the right way to manage the issue, as acknowledged by every single actor who was involved/is knowledgeable on the subject and not involved in trying to defeat Obama. When you promote bad ideas by bailing out (friend or not) you only encourage more bad ideas. When you implement a "too big to fail" mentality you encourage bigger, non calculated, risk taking and ignore facts because no matter what you do, you will just be bailed out! Free markets work because there is a profit motive. That's what gives incentive to make rational decisions based on the facts. The alternative being making poor decisions and losing it all. Removing the risk only promotes bad decisions because you have nothing to lose. Unfortunately neither Obama nor Romney understand this. What's worse is that the money used to bailout the crappy companies comes from the successful companies who could better to allocate those resources to something productive. It has been pointed out countless times already in this thread and in the republican nominations thread that your idea of a free market fixing itself and not being prone to crises has no basis in reality. The answer isn't simply to bail financial institutions out and cross fingers, it's to bail them out (the alternative being the loss of far too many jobs) AND adopt tighter regulations that will help prevent further crises. Unfortunately, today's Republicans are ideologically-opposed to regulations.
The answer is simple and is obvious: don't ever allow companies to pose a systemic threat to the economy. Simply don't let banks get too big. That and making it clear to consumers how many risks their "banking" company is taking are all the regulations necessary. This should be completely obvious but the only person explicitly advocating this is John Huntsman Jr.
|
kwizach , khanofmongols
Even if you guys are disputing that free markets fix themselves... That's fine because it's not necessary to defend the rest of my arguments.
So please address them.
On the issue of business going banko and therefore loss of jobs? Look up "Say's Law" It's an economics principle that your point contradicts. Say's Law basically states that the demand for jobs will always equal supply at the right price.
Incase you don't know what a principle is and why it is relevant here you go:
Principle: A fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.
If you are unsure of the validity of some claimed truth you must check your premises.
|
On May 24 2012 22:37 kwizach wrote:
Unfortunately, today's Republicans are ideologically-opposed to regulations.
That's wrong and contradicts history: The horrible Bush administration added over 10,000 pages of regulations. They say they are against them but actions speak louder than words. Not only did Bush introduced alot of regulations, he also introduced some of the most vile regulations in the history of America. A quick google search confirms this however it's been reported time and time again.
http://bit.ly/7vli9d
|
On May 25 2012 01:26 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2012 22:37 kwizach wrote:
Unfortunately, today's Republicans are ideologically-opposed to regulations. That's wrong and contradicts history: The horrible Bush administration added over 10,000 pages of regulations. They say they are against them but actions speak louder than words. Not only did Bush introduced alot of regulations, he also introduced some of the most vile regulations in the history of America. A quick google search confirms this however it's been reported time and time again. http://bit.ly/7vli9d
Thats part of the reason there is a rise in people lile me who consider themsekves coservatives and not repub. Bush was almost as bad as obama
Edit: sry for grammer errors, posting from cell
|
On May 25 2012 01:18 Epocalypse wrote:
kwizach , khanofmongols
Even if you guys are disputing that free markets fix themselves... That's fine because it's not necessary to defend the rest of my arguments.
So please address them.
On the issue of business going banko and therefore loss of jobs? Look up "Say's Law" It's an economics principle that your point contradicts. Say's Law basically states that the demand for jobs will always equal supply at the right price.
Incase you don't know what a principle is and why it is relevant here you go:
Principle: A fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.
If you are unsure of the validity of some claimed truth you must check your premises.
I'm not sure I see your point. Say's law is a principle that has been criticized, just like plenty of other principles, and it hardly counters what I said to defend the need for government intervention in the case of the auto industry.
On May 25 2012 01:26 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2012 22:37 kwizach wrote:
Unfortunately, today's Republicans are ideologically-opposed to regulations. That's wrong and contradicts history: The horrible Bush administration added over 10,000 pages of regulations. They say they are against them but actions speak louder than words. Not only did Bush introduced alot of regulations, he also introduced some of the most vile regulations in the history of America. A quick google search confirms this however it's been reported time and time again. http://bit.ly/7vli9d
It's not wrong, since today's Republicans are in the opposition and do oppose serious financial regulations (and all of the Republican candidates for nomination declared throughout the campaign that regulations were one of the main evils besetting the economy - Romney is probably going to keep hammering that until the general election). One only has to look at the Dodd-Frank act, which was passed largely along party lines.
|
On May 25 2012 03:33 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2012 01:18 Epocalypse wrote:
kwizach , khanofmongols
Even if you guys are disputing that free markets fix themselves... That's fine because it's not necessary to defend the rest of my arguments.
So please address them.
On the issue of business going banko and therefore loss of jobs? Look up "Say's Law" It's an economics principle that your point contradicts. Say's Law basically states that the demand for jobs will always equal supply at the right price.
Incase you don't know what a principle is and why it is relevant here you go:
Principle: A fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.
If you are unsure of the validity of some claimed truth you must check your premises. I'm not sure I see your point. Say's law is a principle that has been criticized, just like plenty of other principles, and it hardly counters what I said to defend the need for government intervention in the case of the auto industry. Show nested quote +On May 25 2012 01:26 Epocalypse wrote:On May 24 2012 22:37 kwizach wrote:
Unfortunately, today's Republicans are ideologically-opposed to regulations. That's wrong and contradicts history: The horrible Bush administration added over 10,000 pages of regulations. They say they are against them but actions speak louder than words. Not only did Bush introduced alot of regulations, he also introduced some of the most vile regulations in the history of America. A quick google search confirms this however it's been reported time and time again. http://bit.ly/7vli9d It's not wrong, since today's Republicans are in the opposition and do oppose serious financial regulations (and all of the Republican candidates for nomination declared throughout the campaign that regulations were one of the main evils besetting the economy - Romney is probably going to keep hammering that until the general election). One only has to look at the Dodd-Frank act, which was passed largely along party lines.
If I'm not mistaken, one of Romney's ads talks about reducing government spending and getting rid of regulation.
The best part about the disaster that is the aggregate Republican plans is that it is all about to blow up in their face with the sequester. The CBO is already warning about a double dip recession if it goes through along with the tax cuts expiring. Mix this in with the supposed opposition to raising the debt ceiling AGAIN, and we have a recipe for disaster for Republicans and their line of thinking.
|
On May 23 2012 10:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 10:14 darthfoley wrote:On May 23 2012 10:09 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 10:04 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2012 09:59 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 09:42 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2012 09:13 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 09:06 Defacer wrote:On May 23 2012 08:52 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 05:10 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Except there was not enough liquidity in the country to choose the private chapter 11 option, so the right way to do it was exactly what Obama did and certainly not what Romney was saying. Wrong on all counts. First, capital infusions are not necessary components of chapter 11 bankruptcy. All chapter 11 does is restructure, reduce, and (in some cases) eliminate debts while allowing the business to continue as a going concern. Second, the auto-industry bailout was only $14 billion, which isn't that much. Facebook just launched roughly a $100 billion IPO. Ford did just fine on its own without a bailout, and secured its own private investment. There's no reason why GM and Chrysler couldn't have done the same. Here's the bottom line: Obama used the government to get his union pals sweetheart deals rather than merely letting the companies go into bankruptcy and get their debt issues fixed. It was an unnecessary, expensive, and corrupt move. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/27/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-gave-away-car-companies-uni/Take you pithy Karl Rove diarrhea and get out! Wow, that article is laughable. How is giving the auto companies to the UAW trust fund any different from giving it to the union? It was a fucking bailout for out-of-control union pensions and benefits, which is little different than giving the money directly to the unions. False my ass. It would appear that your conception of "little different" is remarkably flawed. "What tips Romney’s claim even further from reality is the fact that the union itself does not own any GM or Chrysler stock. The trust that manages health benefits for retirees is the stockholder, and it is independent from the UAW. It is not a majority shareholder in either company, nor does it have a vote on the board." Apparently this concept is very difficult for some people to understand, so I'll explain why there is no difference: The UAW represents all of the union workers who are members of the UAW. The UAW is funded by the union dues paid by the individual members. It really isn't any different than a tax, particularly because UAW membership mandatory for autoworkers in many states. The purpose and singular goal of the UAW is to advance the interests of the union and its workers. Politically, it is no different than any other special interest group. Using the resources of its members, the UAW donates to and campaigns for politicians who will advance the interests of its members. If the politicians do not return the favor and do something for the UAW members (for example, giving a bailout to bankrupt union pension funds), then the UAW obviously will stop contributing. So let's fast forward to the height of the auto industry crisis, where, under weight of obscene pensions and health benefits promised to UAW members under collective bargaining, the auto companies were so debt-laden that they needed to enter bankruptcy to restructure the obligations. The UAW saw the writing on the wall and knew that, because the union members benefits and pensions constituted such a large percentage of the auto company's debts, that they were about to take a huge financial hit. So what does the UAW do? The only thing it can do to protect its members: call Obama and other politicians and start calling favors. This is how they got the bailout. The money and stocks constituting the bailout went to the trust fund that guards union pensions and benefits as the politifact article points out. What this effectively means is that the union members' obscene benefits were protected -- which is little different than sending the money directly to the individual members of the UAW. Here's the bottom line: the lobbyist group (the UAW) did not get the bailout, the people whom the lobbyist group represented did. It's a shell game, which is why I say that there's no difference between the UAW and the trust fund getting the money. This is K street 101 stuff, and I'm shocked that some of you don't get it. So the auto workers, who bore the brunt of the industries downturn with major threats to pensions, wages, benefits, and factory shutdowns, got the relief they needed to make the change from a flourishing american auto market to a market in contraction. This was the correct decision. Your wordy condescension can't hide your overwhelming bias I'm afraid. You're right, I firmly believe that the auto workers should have born the brunt of the bankruptcy because it was their pensions and benefits that were bankrupting the auto companies. Sure, the auto industry execs deserve their share of the blame for agreeing to those stupid deals in the first place, but it doesn't change the fact that the auto workers were getting way too much and still are (go look up what their effective hourly wage is including benefits; it will shock you). I'm just glad that you actually understand now why it's appropriate to say that the UAW got a bailout. No, they should get all of the blame. Of course people will advocate for better wages for themselves/their people, but it's the idiots that agreed to it (using your point) that should get all of the blame. If you want to blame the execs, fine. The fact remains that the UAW should have born the brunt of the bankruptcy, and would have, if not for the bailout.
Wow. We live in a world where a Wall Street exec can implode the economy and land with a 50+ million dollar parachute, and you're pissing and moaning about how unions are to blame for bankrupting the auto industry because ... what? They have benefits and pensions for being long term employees?
You're like an ridiculous cartoon character sometimes.
|
An endorsement of same-sex marriage was long considered risky for President Obama because of the expected backlash from the African-American community. Few seemed to consider the alternative, which polling suggests is playing out instead: Rather than changing their minds about the president, some black voters are reconsidering gay marriage.
A pair of polls released in the last week suggest Obama’s highly publicized announcement may have helped trigger a shift in attitudes among African-Americans, a historically socially conservative voting bloc, in states where same-sex marriage has been at the forefront of public debate. On Thursday, Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP) released the results of a survey showing that the state law legalizing same-sex marriage in Maryland is a strong favorite to be upheld by voters in November, with 57 percent of likely voters saying they will vote for the referendum and only 37 percent intending to vote against.
The poll, commissioned by Marylanders for Marriage Equality, also revealed marked movement among Maryland’s black voters, 55 percent of whom now say they will support the new law. That marks a dramatic flip since PPP’s previous survey in March, when 56 percent of African-American Maryland voters said they would vote against the measure, which was passed by the state legislature and signed into law by Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) earlier this year.
The Maryland poll comes on the heels of a PPP survey of North Carolina released last week, which also found a pronounced shift among black voters in the wake of Obama’s announcement. In that survey, 27 percent of black voters in North Carolina now support the right of gay and lesbian couples to get married, while 59 percent are opposed. That still amounts to robust opposition, but it also represents an 11-point shift since PPP’s final survey before North Carolina’s statewide vote on Amendment One, a measure that establishes marriage between one man and one woman as the only legally recognized union. Amendment One passed overwhelmingly just one day before Obama’s announcement.
Source
|
On May 25 2012 05:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +An endorsement of same-sex marriage was long considered risky for President Obama because of the expected backlash from the African-American community. Few seemed to consider the alternative, which polling suggests is playing out instead: Rather than changing their minds about the president, some black voters are reconsidering gay marriage.
A pair of polls released in the last week suggest Obama’s highly publicized announcement may have helped trigger a shift in attitudes among African-Americans, a historically socially conservative voting bloc, in states where same-sex marriage has been at the forefront of public debate. On Thursday, Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP) released the results of a survey showing that the state law legalizing same-sex marriage in Maryland is a strong favorite to be upheld by voters in November, with 57 percent of likely voters saying they will vote for the referendum and only 37 percent intending to vote against.
The poll, commissioned by Marylanders for Marriage Equality, also revealed marked movement among Maryland’s black voters, 55 percent of whom now say they will support the new law. That marks a dramatic flip since PPP’s previous survey in March, when 56 percent of African-American Maryland voters said they would vote against the measure, which was passed by the state legislature and signed into law by Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) earlier this year.
The Maryland poll comes on the heels of a PPP survey of North Carolina released last week, which also found a pronounced shift among black voters in the wake of Obama’s announcement. In that survey, 27 percent of black voters in North Carolina now support the right of gay and lesbian couples to get married, while 59 percent are opposed. That still amounts to robust opposition, but it also represents an 11-point shift since PPP’s final survey before North Carolina’s statewide vote on Amendment One, a measure that establishes marriage between one man and one woman as the only legally recognized union. Amendment One passed overwhelmingly just one day before Obama’s announcement. Source
Wow. While I was always aware that politicians had much more power to persuade the electorate than we give them credit for, this is rather interesting.
|
On May 25 2012 05:00 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 10:17 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 10:14 darthfoley wrote:On May 23 2012 10:09 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 10:04 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2012 09:59 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 09:42 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2012 09:13 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 09:06 Defacer wrote:On May 23 2012 08:52 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Wrong on all counts. First, capital infusions are not necessary components of chapter 11 bankruptcy. All chapter 11 does is restructure, reduce, and (in some cases) eliminate debts while allowing the business to continue as a going concern. Second, the auto-industry bailout was only $14 billion, which isn't that much. Facebook just launched roughly a $100 billion IPO. Ford did just fine on its own without a bailout, and secured its own private investment. There's no reason why GM and Chrysler couldn't have done the same.
Here's the bottom line: Obama used the government to get his union pals sweetheart deals rather than merely letting the companies go into bankruptcy and get their debt issues fixed. It was an unnecessary, expensive, and corrupt move.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/27/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-gave-away-car-companies-uni/Take you pithy Karl Rove diarrhea and get out! Wow, that article is laughable. How is giving the auto companies to the UAW trust fund any different from giving it to the union? It was a fucking bailout for out-of-control union pensions and benefits, which is little different than giving the money directly to the unions. False my ass. It would appear that your conception of "little different" is remarkably flawed. "What tips Romney’s claim even further from reality is the fact that the union itself does not own any GM or Chrysler stock. The trust that manages health benefits for retirees is the stockholder, and it is independent from the UAW. It is not a majority shareholder in either company, nor does it have a vote on the board." Apparently this concept is very difficult for some people to understand, so I'll explain why there is no difference: The UAW represents all of the union workers who are members of the UAW. The UAW is funded by the union dues paid by the individual members. It really isn't any different than a tax, particularly because UAW membership mandatory for autoworkers in many states. The purpose and singular goal of the UAW is to advance the interests of the union and its workers. Politically, it is no different than any other special interest group. Using the resources of its members, the UAW donates to and campaigns for politicians who will advance the interests of its members. If the politicians do not return the favor and do something for the UAW members (for example, giving a bailout to bankrupt union pension funds), then the UAW obviously will stop contributing. So let's fast forward to the height of the auto industry crisis, where, under weight of obscene pensions and health benefits promised to UAW members under collective bargaining, the auto companies were so debt-laden that they needed to enter bankruptcy to restructure the obligations. The UAW saw the writing on the wall and knew that, because the union members benefits and pensions constituted such a large percentage of the auto company's debts, that they were about to take a huge financial hit. So what does the UAW do? The only thing it can do to protect its members: call Obama and other politicians and start calling favors. This is how they got the bailout. The money and stocks constituting the bailout went to the trust fund that guards union pensions and benefits as the politifact article points out. What this effectively means is that the union members' obscene benefits were protected -- which is little different than sending the money directly to the individual members of the UAW. Here's the bottom line: the lobbyist group (the UAW) did not get the bailout, the people whom the lobbyist group represented did. It's a shell game, which is why I say that there's no difference between the UAW and the trust fund getting the money. This is K street 101 stuff, and I'm shocked that some of you don't get it. So the auto workers, who bore the brunt of the industries downturn with major threats to pensions, wages, benefits, and factory shutdowns, got the relief they needed to make the change from a flourishing american auto market to a market in contraction. This was the correct decision. Your wordy condescension can't hide your overwhelming bias I'm afraid. You're right, I firmly believe that the auto workers should have born the brunt of the bankruptcy because it was their pensions and benefits that were bankrupting the auto companies. Sure, the auto industry execs deserve their share of the blame for agreeing to those stupid deals in the first place, but it doesn't change the fact that the auto workers were getting way too much and still are (go look up what their effective hourly wage is including benefits; it will shock you). I'm just glad that you actually understand now why it's appropriate to say that the UAW got a bailout. No, they should get all of the blame. Of course people will advocate for better wages for themselves/their people, but it's the idiots that agreed to it (using your point) that should get all of the blame. If you want to blame the execs, fine. The fact remains that the UAW should have born the brunt of the bankruptcy, and would have, if not for the bailout. Wow. We live in a world where a Wall Street exec can implode the economy and land with a 50+ million dollar parachute, and you're pissing and moaning about how unions are to blame for bankrupting the auto industry because ... what? They have benefits and pensions for being long term employees? You're like an ridiculous cartoon character sometimes.
This argument holds absolutely no water. One group of companies makes cars, the other provides capital for other businesses. Apples and oranges here.
|
On May 25 2012 07:25 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2012 05:00 Defacer wrote:On May 23 2012 10:17 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 10:14 darthfoley wrote:On May 23 2012 10:09 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 10:04 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2012 09:59 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2012 09:42 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2012 09:13 xDaunt wrote:Wow, that article is laughable. How is giving the auto companies to the UAW trust fund any different from giving it to the union? It was a fucking bailout for out-of-control union pensions and benefits, which is little different than giving the money directly to the unions. False my ass. It would appear that your conception of "little different" is remarkably flawed. "What tips Romney’s claim even further from reality is the fact that the union itself does not own any GM or Chrysler stock. The trust that manages health benefits for retirees is the stockholder, and it is independent from the UAW. It is not a majority shareholder in either company, nor does it have a vote on the board." Apparently this concept is very difficult for some people to understand, so I'll explain why there is no difference: The UAW represents all of the union workers who are members of the UAW. The UAW is funded by the union dues paid by the individual members. It really isn't any different than a tax, particularly because UAW membership mandatory for autoworkers in many states. The purpose and singular goal of the UAW is to advance the interests of the union and its workers. Politically, it is no different than any other special interest group. Using the resources of its members, the UAW donates to and campaigns for politicians who will advance the interests of its members. If the politicians do not return the favor and do something for the UAW members (for example, giving a bailout to bankrupt union pension funds), then the UAW obviously will stop contributing. So let's fast forward to the height of the auto industry crisis, where, under weight of obscene pensions and health benefits promised to UAW members under collective bargaining, the auto companies were so debt-laden that they needed to enter bankruptcy to restructure the obligations. The UAW saw the writing on the wall and knew that, because the union members benefits and pensions constituted such a large percentage of the auto company's debts, that they were about to take a huge financial hit. So what does the UAW do? The only thing it can do to protect its members: call Obama and other politicians and start calling favors. This is how they got the bailout. The money and stocks constituting the bailout went to the trust fund that guards union pensions and benefits as the politifact article points out. What this effectively means is that the union members' obscene benefits were protected -- which is little different than sending the money directly to the individual members of the UAW. Here's the bottom line: the lobbyist group (the UAW) did not get the bailout, the people whom the lobbyist group represented did. It's a shell game, which is why I say that there's no difference between the UAW and the trust fund getting the money. This is K street 101 stuff, and I'm shocked that some of you don't get it. So the auto workers, who bore the brunt of the industries downturn with major threats to pensions, wages, benefits, and factory shutdowns, got the relief they needed to make the change from a flourishing american auto market to a market in contraction. This was the correct decision. Your wordy condescension can't hide your overwhelming bias I'm afraid. You're right, I firmly believe that the auto workers should have born the brunt of the bankruptcy because it was their pensions and benefits that were bankrupting the auto companies. Sure, the auto industry execs deserve their share of the blame for agreeing to those stupid deals in the first place, but it doesn't change the fact that the auto workers were getting way too much and still are (go look up what their effective hourly wage is including benefits; it will shock you). I'm just glad that you actually understand now why it's appropriate to say that the UAW got a bailout. No, they should get all of the blame. Of course people will advocate for better wages for themselves/their people, but it's the idiots that agreed to it (using your point) that should get all of the blame. If you want to blame the execs, fine. The fact remains that the UAW should have born the brunt of the bankruptcy, and would have, if not for the bailout. Wow. We live in a world where a Wall Street exec can implode the economy and land with a 50+ million dollar parachute, and you're pissing and moaning about how unions are to blame for bankrupting the auto industry because ... what? They have benefits and pensions for being long term employees? You're like an ridiculous cartoon character sometimes. This argument holds absolutely no water. One group of companies makes cars, the other provides capital for other businesses. Apples and oranges here.
On one hand, you're absolutely right. GM wasn't giving executives $50 million in severance packages while the company nosedived. However, the CEO did recieve considerable increases in compensation leading up to the bailout, despite very poor performance since 2004. He went from just under 5 million to 15 million from 2005 to 2007.
|
On May 25 2012 05:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +An endorsement of same-sex marriage was long considered risky for President Obama because of the expected backlash from the African-American community. Few seemed to consider the alternative, which polling suggests is playing out instead: Rather than changing their minds about the president, some black voters are reconsidering gay marriage.
A pair of polls released in the last week suggest Obama’s highly publicized announcement may have helped trigger a shift in attitudes among African-Americans, a historically socially conservative voting bloc, in states where same-sex marriage has been at the forefront of public debate. On Thursday, Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP) released the results of a survey showing that the state law legalizing same-sex marriage in Maryland is a strong favorite to be upheld by voters in November, with 57 percent of likely voters saying they will vote for the referendum and only 37 percent intending to vote against.
The poll, commissioned by Marylanders for Marriage Equality, also revealed marked movement among Maryland’s black voters, 55 percent of whom now say they will support the new law. That marks a dramatic flip since PPP’s previous survey in March, when 56 percent of African-American Maryland voters said they would vote against the measure, which was passed by the state legislature and signed into law by Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) earlier this year.
The Maryland poll comes on the heels of a PPP survey of North Carolina released last week, which also found a pronounced shift among black voters in the wake of Obama’s announcement. In that survey, 27 percent of black voters in North Carolina now support the right of gay and lesbian couples to get married, while 59 percent are opposed. That still amounts to robust opposition, but it also represents an 11-point shift since PPP’s final survey before North Carolina’s statewide vote on Amendment One, a measure that establishes marriage between one man and one woman as the only legally recognized union. Amendment One passed overwhelmingly just one day before Obama’s announcement. Source
And this is why the US is a representative democracy. We want to elect representatives who can be our better selves and lead the country in a direction which, although the majority may not want, is ultimately better and fairer for all citizens.
Please ignore all the cynicism about any political motivation Obama may have had for declaring his support for gay marriage and just think about that for a moment.
|
On May 24 2012 22:37 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2012 09:43 Epocalypse wrote:On May 24 2012 08:22 kwizach wrote:On May 23 2012 08:52 xDaunt wrote:
Here's the bottom line: Obama used the government to get his union pals sweetheart deals rather than merely letting the companies go into bankruptcy and get their debt issues fixed. It was an unnecessary, expensive, and corrupt move.
Here's the bottom line: you're wrong. What Obama did was exactly the right way to manage the issue, as acknowledged by every single actor who was involved/is knowledgeable on the subject and not involved in trying to defeat Obama. When you promote bad ideas by bailing out (friend or not) you only encourage more bad ideas. When you implement a "too big to fail" mentality you encourage bigger, non calculated, risk taking and ignore facts because no matter what you do, you will just be bailed out! Free markets work because there is a profit motive. That's what gives incentive to make rational decisions based on the facts. The alternative being making poor decisions and losing it all. Removing the risk only promotes bad decisions because you have nothing to lose. Unfortunately neither Obama nor Romney understand this. What's worse is that the money used to bailout the crappy companies comes from the successful companies who could better to allocate those resources to something productive. It has been pointed out countless times already in this thread and in the republican nominations thread that your idea of a free market fixing itself and not being prone to crises has no basis in reality. The answer isn't simply to bail financial institutions out and cross fingers, it's to bail them out (the alternative being the loss of far too many jobs) AND adopt tighter regulations that will help prevent further crises. Unfortunately, today's Republicans are ideologically-opposed to regulations.
But a defaulting government, will help the free market? The government bailed out not only the banks, but a failing automotive industry. Auto companies in the US wont be able to compete, going on the track that they have been going, so how does government giving them money help this comapany correct itself? Pure regulation will prevent these companies from making mistakes, and bailouts will not.
|
On May 25 2012 08:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
And this is why the US is a representative democracy. We want to elect representatives who can be our better selves and lead the country in a direction which, although the majority may not want, is ultimately better and fairer for all citizens.
The US was properly founded as a Constitutional Republic... Unfortunately people are failing to understand this and we are turning into a democracy which is inconsistent with Individual Rights. No majority can vote rights, properly defined, away under a constitutional republic. They can and have in democracies. One example is that Republicans want to vote by majority rule to ban abortion... and birth control... raw milk... the list goes on.
Take it from an expert:
"The American system is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. A democracy, if you attach meaning to terms, is a system of unlimited majority rule; the classic example is ancient Athens. And the symbol of it is the fate of Socrates, who was put to death legally, because the majority didn’t like what he was saying, although he had initiated no force and had violated no one’s rights.
Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom . . . .
The American system is a constitutionally limited republic, restricted to the protection of individual rights. In such a system, majority rule is applicable only to lesser details, such as the selection of certain personnel. But the majority has no say over the basic principles governing the government. It has no power to ask for or gain the infringement of individual rights."
- Leonard Peikoff
|
On May 25 2012 08:20 BroodKingEXE wrote:
But a defaulting government, will help the free market? The government bailed out not only the banks, but a failing automotive industry. Auto companies in the US wont be able to compete, going on the track that they have been going, so how does government giving them money help this comapany correct itself? Pure regulation will prevent these companies from making mistakes, and bailouts will not.
People run companies, people run government. What makes you think that politicians with their regulations are any smarter than the people running a business? They aren't and they are prone to the same mistakes. Regulations are a good excuse for businesses; after all, now they don't have to take responsibility... it's the regulation's fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
