Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

You received two of them. Remember that "Making Work Pay" credit on your tax form?

Sorry, that money didn't come close to being the equivalent of a bailout. Try again.

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

Primary day for House and Senate candidates in several states.

Interesting to see that in Ohio, a Jewish ex-Marine is a Republican candidate for the Senate.

In CT's 5th District, a Jewish businessman is one of four contendors for the Republican nomination. The Democratics have three people running for nomination in that district. The whole state has been flooded with really nasty ads on the Democrat side; I hope Elizabeth Esty loses merely because her ads have been the most obnoxious!

The Dem side even has Bill Clinton involved, endorsing one of the candidates who's been slimed by Esty.

[Rover]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

I fully support the Romney-Ryan ticket going to Ohio, Michigan, etc and telling people the US auto industry should have been allowed to go under. In fact they should stand outside the factories that are still open and tell the workers that and have no qualms about having this all captured on live TV to see the audience's reaction so it can be used in their future campaign ads. Who amongst my fellow posters has any objections to this?

Regarding Medicare, can some knuckledragger please answer the question of how cutting Medicare for those under 55 to give the rich another tax cut benefits the rest of us?

[5mn_Major]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

I can't begin to pretend all those things are calculable. But while they make compelling talking points (put forth by the few who actually benefited from the taxpayer bailouts), they miss a lot of things that should be given, just by common sense. For example why is it always assumed that if GM restructured under bankruptcy that 100% of the employees of the original company would never find another job? Why is it always taken as a given that every supplier of GM products would also lose every other customer and also go out of business and that 100% of their employees would also be unqualified to go work anywhere else? Why is it a public cost to "retrain" them for another job? Could it be that the market doesn't support what they were doing? And why is it assumed that, given that the employees of GM and all its suppliers are apparently unqualified to ever work anywhere else (which is really a bizarre claim if you stop to think about it), why is it a "cost to the communities" to pay their unemployment benefits? We're all in that boat.

The unemployed numbers may result in 100% being unemployed permanently, but it would have been pretty high considering most people of those layed off are all in the same handful of communities. Likewise the average time for an unemployed person to get rehired is at 9 months today (NYT - that's not in Detroit and Toledo)...an an all time high since '45. So that 50% (or whatever) that does not get hired immediately...may take years, etc. And there is no basis to say that these unemployed would have consumed less training and unemployment services than average. The overall costs of letting the sector go down would have been devastating and could have set off many more ramifications at that time in banks, retailers, etc.

Regarding whether the 'marketplace could support what they're doing'...it is supporting what they're doing today. The companies are profitable, employees are paying taxes and these communities have survived. Its stark evidence that this was a unique crisis...and this patch was critically important for the midwest and therefore the country as a whole.

Regarding whether we'll see this again...who knows. Crisises and bailouts of this magnitude have not happened in 70 years and I have yet to hear anyone have a preference to have government own businesses...nobody. So there is no evidence to think this will happen in the foreseeable future...but if it does happen once every 70 years, I'm not so black and white that I can't live with that.

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

Sorry, that money didn't come close to being the equivalent of a bailout. Try again.

Your problem was that you didn't donate enough money to Obama in the first place.

Haven't you noticed the connection?

Every business that received bailout money also donates a lot, a real lot, of money to the Democrats (Wall St. donations to Democrats generally are substantially larger than Wall St. donations to the Republicans, you know...though after Dodd-Frank passed, the balance has shifted somewhat).

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

Regarding Medicare, can some knuckledragger please answer the question of how cutting Medicare for those under 55 to give the rich another tax cut benefits the rest of us?

I'd really like it if Mitt Romney would answer this question. Apparently he won't answer ANY questions on the differences between he and Ryan's Medicare plans.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

Your problem was that you didn't donate enough money to Obama in the first place.

Haven't you noticed the connection?

Every business that received bailout money also donates a lot, a real lot, of money to the Democrats (Wall St. donations to Democrats generally are substantially larger than Wall St. donations to the Republicans, you know...though after Dodd-Frank passed, the balance has shifted somewhat).

But, the media always tells me how honorable and squeaky clean the Democrats are? They would never mislead me, would they?

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

I'd really like it if Mitt Romney would answer this question. Apparently he won't answer ANY questions on the differences between he and Ryan's Medicare plans.

Kind of like how Obama has never explained how he keeps promising to get the federal budget under control, yet at the same time promising more handouts at every turn. Almost seems like they realize the American public really doesn't want to face the truth of the fix our nation is in.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

Sorry, that money didn't come close to being the equivalent of a bailout. Try again.

The only way you'll get your revenge is set the person with the bright idea adrift and get into a Canadian argument.

I'm not your friend, buddy!
I'm not your buddy, guy!
I'm not your guy, friend!

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

The unemployed numbers may result in 100% being unemployed permanently, but it would have been pretty high considering most people of those layed off are all in the same handful of communities. Likewise the average time for an unemployed person to get rehired is at 9 months today (NYT - that's not in Detroit and Toledo)...an an all time high since '45. So that 50% (or whatever) that does not get hired immediately...may take years, etc. And there is no basis to say that these unemployed would have consumed less training and unemployment services than average. The overall costs of letting the sector go down would have been devastating and could have set off many more ramifications at that time in banks, retailers, etc.

Regarding whether the 'marketplace could support what they're doing'...it is supporting what they're doing today. The companies are profitable, employees are paying taxes and these communities have survived. Its stark evidence that this was a unique crisis...and this patch was critically important for the midwest and therefore the country as a whole.

Regarding whether we'll see this again...who knows. Crisises and bailouts of this magnitude have not happened in 70 years and I have yet to hear anyone have a preference to have government own businesses...nobody. So there is no evidence to think this will happen in the foreseeable future...but if it does happen once every 70 years, I'm not so black and white that I can't live with that.

You're probably right.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

Kind of like how Obama has never explained how he keeps promising to get the federal budget under control, yet at the same time promising more handouts at every turn. Almost seems like they realize the American public really doesn't want to face the truth of the fix our nation is in.

The President can only do so much. For the first time in history we had leadership in Congress state that their goal for the Congress was to make him a one term President. I don't know any leader that can accomplish anything of substance under those circumstances. And yes, Bush had some vile things said about him as well. But, Bush managed even without 60 votes in the Senate to pass every single one of his major agenda items. The only major loss that I remember was the attempt to privatize social security. And your immediate response will be the bailout and Obamacare. Both were compromises in the extreme. Much larger compromises than Bush had to endure.

[DaveStPaul]

Where were they when Bush was running the system into the ground?

Paul Ryan is a fine example. He rubber stamped EVERYTHING that Bush did. And we're to believe that he's fiscally sane? No, I don't think so.

There's always the possibility he's doing a Gorby:
You know your system and your party are headed for ruin; but no one ever succeeds by starting out as a game-changer. The system's too entrenched, and you'll be forced out. To really change a system/party you think is rotten you have to prove your bona fides, and that means being a good foot soldier early on. Then you can move up; and then if you're lucky enough to get to the top, then you can act.

What do you think Gorbachev's chances of reform were in the 60s and 70s when it was all Khrushchev and Brezhnev? You gotta be a good foot soldier when you start!

(Ryan also might actually *be* those things.) (But he might be a Gorby!)

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

The President can only do so much. For the first time in history we had leadership in Congress state that their goal for the Congress was to make him a one term President.

It's not the first time. The Congressional leadership that tried to impeach both Andrew Johnson and Clinton were each politically motivated to destroy those presidencies. The Whig Congress during Andrew Jackson's second term was also trying to bring him down. There is precedent for a Congress trying to overturn an election, and each time the Republic survived.

The Dems didn't cause this crisis directly -- that's the Tea Party and the GOP's doing -- but they are contributing indirectly by not putting forward a believable plan to attack the debt. Nobody can stop the straight ticket voters from backing the GOP no matter what, but there are still people who will hold their noses and vote for the TP agenda because they simply don't see any action coming from the Dems to address the debt. That's the Dems' fault, and only they can fix that.

But to do it they will have to have the yarbles to slash military spending and restore a truly progressive tax structure. Ryan's plan to destroy Medicare in the name of "deficit reduction" (even if that's just a ploy) actually gives the Dems cover to unwind the drunken binge of military spending and empire building that has nearly wrecked the country. The question is, as it always is with the Dems, do they have the guts to actually put their principles up for an honest vote.

[LynahFan]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

The unemployed numbers may result in 100% being unemployed permanently, but it would have been pretty high considering most people of those layed off are all in the same handful of communities. Likewise the average time for an unemployed person to get rehired is at 9 months today (NYT - that's not in Detroit and Toledo)...an an all time high since '45. So that 50% (or whatever) that does not get hired immediately...may take years, etc. And there is no basis to say that these unemployed would have consumed less training and unemployment services than average. The overall costs of letting the sector go down would have been devastating and could have set off many more ramifications at that time in banks, retailers, etc.

Regarding whether the 'marketplace could support what they're doing'...it is supporting what they're doing today. The companies are profitable, employees are paying taxes and these communities have survived. Its stark evidence that this was a unique crisis...and this patch was critically important for the midwest and therefore the country as a whole.

I still can't decide whether I think the auto bailouts were a good idea, so I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but I do think you're really overstating your case. Who knows if there even would have been layoffs without the bailout? Companies go bankrupt all the time and continue operations until they can find new investors or work their way through restructuring their debt. The auto companies are only "profitable" now because a huge portion of their debt was swept off the books and into taxpayers' pockets. A normal bankruptcy would have also swept debt off the books, but the liability would have fallen onto their shareholders, pensioners, unions, etc, rather than the general public. "Every employee in the auto industry would have been laid off!!!!!!1!!11!!!" is an incredibly unrealistic strawman and is not useful for comparison purposes.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

The President can only do so much. For the first time in history we had leadership in Congress state that their goal for the Congress was to make him a one term President. I don't know any leader that can accomplish anything of substance under those circumstances. And yes, Bush had some vile things said about him as well. But, Bush managed even without 60 votes in the Senate to pass every single one of his major agenda items. The only major loss that I remember was the attempt to privatize social security. And your immediate response will be the bailout and Obamacare. Both were compromises in the extreme. Much larger compromises than Bush had to endure.

The party out of power always has the goal of making the incumbent a one term president.