Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

Nice of Dems to stick to having debates about issues instead of the idiotfest on the other side. Regarding those issues, I'm not sure coming out against the auto industry bailout is a good policy in Michigan, but Bernie's gotta do what Bernie's gotta do.

From what I read, Bernie voted against half of the auto industry bailout and all of the banks bailout.

Anybody who thinks those bailouts were bad for this country is just wrong. This country was very vulnerable...and the stock market recovered shortly thereafter. Likewise, much of those investments were recouped and those industries continue to pay huge tax dividends today (in addition to saving us from unemployment, training, and missing retail spending of many, many more unemployed). Those sums were a once a generation expense that was in fact not a cost but rather a very high return investment.

 

[joecct]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

While I usually ignore the clickbaity stuff on Facebook the picture of the Drumpf rally where everyone is raising their right hand in a very ominous looking way (Think Godwins Law) is kind of creepy and terrifying....

Even if it is proven to be false, the fact that it is believable AT ALL is pretty horrible.

If they make a fist, is it a sign of revolution (what they did in the 60's)? But, it is scary. There are angry people out there. Lots of angry people become a mob. A big mob becomes a riot. A riot becomes a revolution.

You can't put the cork back in the bottle and return to Ozzie and Harriet. But, less I want it now and more "Come, let us reason together" would be appreciated.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

It's possible for something to be very successful and still be a bad thing for the country. I think the bailouts were a good thing in the short run and not so great in the long run. Michigan is still supported via the automotive umbilical cord. It's no different than allowing the biggest banks to stay "too big to fail" without massively impacting the economy. All it did was kick the can down the road. Michigan would have been a complete crap hole if GM had failed, but the abundant and cheap skilled labor would have eventually attracted a more diverse company base.

Michigan has also majorly ****ed up in that they continue to elect <strike>GOP politicians</strike> plutocrats that promise them everything then rape the state's poor financially.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

It's possible for something to be very successful and still be a bad thing for the country. I think the bailouts were a good thing in the short run and not so great in the long run. Michigan is still supported via the automotive umbilical cord. It's no different than allowing the biggest banks to stay "too big to fail" without massively impacting the economy. All it did was kick the can down the road. Michigan would have been a complete crap hole if GM had failed, but the abundant and cheap skilled labor would have eventually attracted a more diverse company base.

Michigan has also majorly ****ed up in that they continue to elect <strike>GOP politicians</strike> plutocrats that promise them everything then rape the state's poor financially.

Or they just poison their water. Either way.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

Lisa Murkowski has raised millions of dollars, guess where she got it from?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

It's possible for something to be very successful and still be a bad thing for the country. I think the bailouts were a good thing in the short run and not so great in the long run. Michigan is still supported via the automotive umbilical cord. It's no different than allowing the biggest banks to stay "too big to fail" without massively impacting the economy. All it did was kick the can down the road. Michigan would have been a complete crap hole if GM had failed, but the abundant and cheap skilled labor would have eventually attracted a more diverse company base.

Michigan has also majorly ****ed up in that they continue to elect <strike>GOP politicians</strike> plutocrats that promise them everything then rape the state's poor financially.

This is one where we'll never know. But I don't think MI's plight can be blamed on the bailouts. First, I don't think a vast array of great tech companies are going to relocate their headquarters to Detroit because of a bunch of unemployed aging union workers with very narrow skillsets. Its also important to remember that we weren't talking about just GM and Chrystler...but a vast array of supporting tech and service companies that supported the entire industry that would have failed (and of course, the ripple effect of all those unemployed on a variety of other businesses from a destruction of local spending). Not a debate I would have though.

 

[geezer]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

The thing about the bailouts is, while we stay nice and comfy by propping up the big banks and car companies while adding trillions to the debt, it doesn't solve the root problems of enormous and over-leveraged financial conglomerates continuing to control our societal future. We're staying nice and comfy for a very short term (even if it is 30 years) by ignoring and worsening the debt, but multiplying the pain for future generations to face. In the bigger picture it's completely irresponsible. Should have bitten the bullet and paid for our own mistakes, could have been climbing out by now instead of covering our heads under an avalanche of pain waiting to happen.
And it needn't have been terribly painful 10 years ago, either. Cutting military spending in half while letting go a couple giant banks, GM, and Chrysler could have balanced things out quite nicely.
In addition, based on my exhaustively painstaking method of committing to a vague hunch that I have, I don't think allowing bankruptcies would have been a bad thing: how are the green shoots of truly innovative new companies going to grab market share if the government is giving a huge advantage to the dinosaurs like GM? The good workers will always have work in a free market economy. Something like Tesla could have been yooge by now.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

This is one where we'll never know. But I don't think MI's plight can be blamed on the bailouts. First, I don't think a vast array of great tech companies are going to relocate their headquarters to Detroit because of a bunch of unemployed aging union workers with very narrow skillsets. Its also important to remember that we weren't talking about just GM and Chrystler...but a vast array of supporting tech and service companies that supported the entire industry that would have failed (and of course, the ripple effect of all those unemployed on a variety of other businesses from a destruction of local spending). Not a debate I would have though.

I'm not talking about relocating HQs. I'm talking skilled welders, systems operators/technicians, and other manufacturing jobs.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

The thing about the bailouts is, while we stay nice and comfy by propping up the big banks and car companies while adding trillions to the debt, it doesn't solve the root problems of enormous and over-leveraged financial conglomerates continuing to control our societal future. We're staying nice and comfy for a very short term (even if it is 30 years) by ignoring and worsening the debt, but multiplying the pain for future generations to face. In the bigger picture it's completely irresponsible. Should have bitten the bullet and paid for our own mistakes, could have been climbing out by now instead of covering our heads under an avalanche of pain waiting to happen.

This is precisely what I was getting at (you said it a lot better than I did). We shouldn't have a company that is so big it could damage or destroy an economy at the state or federal level.

We did nothing to address the problem, just patch it and move along.

 

[alfablue]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

And it needn't have been terribly painful 10 years ago, either. Cutting military spending in half while letting go a couple giant banks, GM, and Chrysler could have balanced things out quite nicely.

here's the problem with that- our whole economy is based on people consuming stuff. If GM and Chrysler go down, odds are that Ford would, too.

Given that the three of them are about a $500B revenue stream that produces maybe $15B in profits- that's basically $485B that rotates around are economy that would totally stop.

Including people not being able to consume stuff YOU make.

Same goes for defense- just cutting it off means consumers that just stop.

Does not seem like a good plan.

Relying on the banks that make nothing is a terrible idea- the only way for a country to prosper is to take stuff and make it into something else- like ore from Minnesota and turning into cars in Michigan.

(note that there are many, many steps inbetween that).

Banks trading on "value" does nothing but shift money around.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

Sorry guys but this seems like "let them eat cake" logic. The first thing I'd point out, and for the sake of argument I'll keep this specific to the auto industry, is the govt was just getting them over a rough patch. They no longer need assistance. Had we collectively not floated them along for a few years, millions would be out of work while the industry relocated to places that did float them along (China, for example or even Germany).

Second, again specific to the auto industry, a lot of their problems were due to bad corp decisions made 4 decades ago. Its not like you were bailing out bad executives. They're either retired or dead. An orderly bankruptcy for those companies wiped away a lot of that, in a legal and straightforward manner. The only difference was instead of a bankruptcy where you sell the furniture and the copper piping to pay everybody off which some creditors would have demanded, in this case you reached settlements with lenders but kept the firms alive.

Lastly, for years we've heard the tired argument that people left behind just need to be retrained and they'll find similar jobs. Tell that to steel workers. Or textile workers. Two industries that for the most part don't exist, and the places they used to be located in are still struggling years later.

Its easy to be an absolutist and reject everything that doesn't conform to a rigid ideology. Makes for good press (see Ron Paul for example). Problem is its completely unworkable in the real world.

 

[BassAle]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

...but the abundant and cheap skilled labor would have eventually attracted a more diverse company base...

Why hasn't that happened already then? Plenty of auto plants have closed in Michigan and dumped lots of skilled labor onto the street.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

Even in the dark times, rays of light shine through that give me hope for this country: http://www.esquire.com/news-politic...urce=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

 

[geezer]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

Why hasn't that happened already then? Plenty of auto plants have closed in Michigan and dumped lots of skilled labor onto the street.

The state gov. talks about economic diversity a lot, so I looked up some quick stats: in 15 years the unemployment rate went from about 3% to 5% by way of 15% at the time of the crash, at the same time as car manufacturing jobs went from 8% to 4% of the state economy. So there's some progress in the face of a very high level of competition (a good thing in itself), but it's nothing like a fast transition.
(The familiar headline, of course, is that the labor force has shrunk by 8% overall as everyone moves to Houston)

 

[joecct]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

The Catholic intellectuals, and the authors are good ones, have spoken on tD. The answer is "NO!"

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

The Catholic intellectuals, and the authors are good ones, have spoken on tD. The answer is "NO!"

Although the rest of the piece seems solid, point (4) in the first graph is just something out of the AEI. It has nothing to do with any Catholic teaching that I've come across, and basically just bolts a hamfisted conservative talking point onto an otherwise useful piece.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

Although the rest of the piece seems solid, point (4) in the first graph is just something out of the AEI. It has nothing to do with any Catholic teaching that I've come across, and basically just bolts a hamfisted conservative talking point onto an otherwise useful piece.

Yeah, I chuckled a bit when I saw that. I'm surprised they didn't reference Jesus' extensive gun collection.

 

[MaizeRage]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

Bloomberger is out. Too bad. His "Wall Street is a-okay" message would have really resonated with the voters.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

Bloomberger is out. Too bad. His "Wall Street is a-okay" message would have really resonated with the voters.

Here's his statement. Count the first person singulars and win a prize.

Many silly self-serving sentences, but here's the silliest:

In a three-way race, it’s unlikely any candidate would win a majority of electoral votes, and then the power to choose the president would be taken out of the hands of the American people and thrown to Congress. The fact is, even if I were to receive the most popular votes and the most electoral votes, victory would be highly unlikely, because most members of Congress would vote for their party’s nominee. Party loyalists in Congress -- not the American people or the Electoral College -- would determine the next president.

This is as dumb as McConnell's fainting couch "let the people decide" nonsense about the Court nomination. The legislature (and the president) are the voice of the people. For partisan reasons I wouldn't want the Congressional delegations to decide the election, but that is the Constitutional provision and it is an expression of the popular will. These kinds of statements are irresponsible and just further erode public support for republican government.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Campaign 2016 - in bridge, the trump cards are really wild.

Here's his statement. Count the first person singulars and win a prize.

Many silly self-serving sentences, but here's the silliest:



This is as dumb as McConnell's fainting couch "let the people decide" nonsense about the Court nomination. The legislature (and the president) are the voice of the people. For partisan reasons I wouldn't want the Congressional delegations to decide the election, but that is the Constitutional provision and it is an expression of the popular will. These kinds of statements are irresponsible and just further erode public support for republican government.

I don't think he's saying it's wrong, he's just saying how it would likely result in an outcome he doesn't prefer (which is true).