Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Politics
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 08-13-2012, 12:37 PM
BlueStreak's Avatar
BlueStreak BlueStreak is offline
Area Man
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Kind of an odd question. Ford is on the home team, and I'm a huge fan of what they've accomplished. I've said as much here in prior posts. Ford recovered from the mis-management of the company that occurred in the late 1980's and into the 1990's, and was finally on solid financial footing, just missing the credit crunch by a whisker.

Chrysler was looted first by Daimler and later by Cerberus Capital Management. Its a rather sad tale that extends beyond the context of this discussion.

GM has suffered from mis-management at various times in its recent history. Inconsistency in product offering and internal turf wars often hampered company performance.

However, I'm also a Detroit Lions fan, and am used to rooting for an underdog. No one is more critical of the Lions than the home town fans, and no one supports them more when they start to win a few games. Extend that analogy to how Detroiters regard the auto industry, and maybe you'll get the picture.
I understand. Still a Browns fan, though I left that state thirty years ago....

I still read the local news from back home and follow events on the internet.
When visiting relatives, I often surprise them with my knowledge of the goings on in their own back yard.
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 08-13-2012, 12:42 PM
piece-itpete's Avatar
piece-itpete piece-itpete is offline
What, me worry?
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStreak View Post
I understand. Still a Browns fan .....
I'm very sorry

Pete
__________________
"America is still a land of promise, especially during a political campaign."
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 08-13-2012, 12:55 PM
mezz mezz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 543
This is a large subject. In broad terms Obama has accelerated significantly, and proposes to continue accelerating, the country's drift towards a large expansion of the role of government in the economy moving us towards being a social welfare state. With Europe as the example of what we can expect from heading down this road. Obama has not seriously put forth an effort or a plan to reduce spending and the deficit, indeed his going forward proposals will continue to increase both and bring large tax increases.

The tax cuts he has made have been ill thought out and seem geared towards percieved short-term political gains rather than towards long term ecomonic stimulus. His 2% reduction of individual tax rates for one year will cause workers to save rather than spend (temporary cuts=save, permanent=spend). Also bank reserves are already well above required minimums, thus additional reserves gained from worker savings will do nothing to increase lending. This tax cut costs the federal goverment 93 billion which is just added onto the already staggering debt without any
stimulus benefit.

For his stimulus Obama deferred to Democrats in Congress for the writing of his fiscal stimulus. He fought for a big total, but he paid much less attention to what was included in the total. The predictable result: a stimulus that most economists condemn as very poorly designed. Congress loaded up the stimulus with old wish lists ultimately scuplted by lobbyists which were utterly irrelevant to the crisis at hand: $15 billion for more Pell grants, $9 billion for community and rural development, $20 billion for the renewable energy tax credit and so on. $87 billion was used
to bail out state governments that had overspent on Medicaid. About $140 billion was put toward individual tax rebates that -- most economists warned -- would do little or nothing to stimulate economic activity. Infrastructure spending was only a fraction (1 of every 8 dollars). Giving Obama the best benefit of the doubt we possibly could by believing their claims of having created nearly 3 million jobs with the stimulus, we are still looking at each job (which pays on average 63k per year) costing the government 300-400k each to create.

Obama's energy policies have been unproductive and wasteful at best, prohibitive and tainted by scandal at worst... having hindered our efforts to attain more self-reliance while squandering a lot of federal dollars with ultimately questionable motives to some suspiciously connected entities.

Obama's hugely unpopular health care bill essentially through various vehicles, regulations, fines, taxes etc to add millions who currently do not have formal insurance to the health care system. While the cause in theory may be a valid one, the costs are the real issue. The system is already faced with a scarcity of resources and adding 10s of millions into the rolls without any proposed expansion in service capabilities (they aren't plannig to build more hospitals or any big investment of care efficiency improvements) can (and will if allowed to stand) only result in
rationing of service (increased wait times/denial of care). So to attain this lesser level of service we'll be faced with billions of dollars of tax increases. People in America were not dying in the streets before Obama came along. It's obvious that health costs are getting out of control for people, but Obama's plan to whitewash the quality of our healthcare service delivery for everyone is not the answer.

Finally, Obama has almost no reform agenda. His stated proposal is to stay the course on his policies (described above) and continue to wait for results while all the while continuing to vastly increase the national debt with continued expansion of the role of government, widespread growth of entitlements, and rely on large tax increases to pay for it all. By demonizing business Obama has insured a climate of excessive caution which handcuff private sector investment and private sector job growth (two things which Obama doesn't seem to credit with being the real engines of our economy in favor of government spending which he does see as that engine). It should be pretty obvious that Obama's vision as such is unsustainable and his mistakes thus far are enough to disqualify him from being a wise bet for turning things around during another 4 years.

I've omitted a lot here and kept this very broad and high level. As I said above this is a large subject. Most people who study the efforts of Obama on the economy, who can be truly politically objective, will come to the conclusion that overall Obama seems over his head with these issues and his attempts to address our econo,ic problems were ill conceived, half-hearted and half-assed . His early appointments (Geitner, Summers) were horrible mistakes which should have been obvious even before their tenures. The policies that do seem to be part of some plan have predominantly been shown to be flawed in their logic and often shoddy in their implementation anyway. His lack of leadership capability as well as his deficiencies of character permeate his performance on the economy as they have done and continue to do in every other area of his responsibilites as potus. Just look at his campaign and the people he's surrounded himslef with to get an idea of this presidents character. Decidedly unpresidential - as far as the US standard goes anyway.

Last edited by mezz; 08-13-2012 at 01:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 08-13-2012, 01:14 PM
CarlV's Avatar
CarlV CarlV is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SF east bay
Posts: 4,456
Unless you are David Frum you should use quotation marks when you copy and paste.
I am not wasting my time bothering with blogger bullshit.

Carl
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 08-13-2012, 01:27 PM
CarlV's Avatar
CarlV CarlV is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SF east bay
Posts: 4,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Kind of an odd question. Ford is on the home team, and I'm a huge fan of what they've accomplished. I've said as much here in prior posts. Ford recovered from the mis-management of the company that occurred in the late 1980's and into the 1990's, and was finally on solid financial footing, just missing the credit crunch by a whisker.
That and they did borrow at least 18 billion from the USG, it was just before the crash though.
Quote:
Ford borrows $18B for restructuring
Posted: 11/27/2006 11:29:16 AM MST
Updated: 11/27/2006 01:12:59 PM MST
By Bill Koenig
Bloomberg

Ford Motor Co., struggling to overcome record losses this year, plans to borrow $18 billion to pay for U.S. jobs cuts and factory shutdowns and will back its loans with collateral for the first time.
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_4729210

Carl
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 08-13-2012, 01:29 PM
bobabode's Avatar
bobabode bobabode is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 38,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlV View Post
Unless you are David Frum you should use quotation marks when you copy and paste.
I am not wasting my time bothering with blogger bullshit.

Carl
Not every partisan bullshit artiste understands how easy it is to google their plageristic rantings Carl. 'Tis a common failing when they realize they've not an original thought or understanding of the issues they expound on. Mendaciously so.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 08-13-2012, 01:34 PM
piece-itpete's Avatar
piece-itpete piece-itpete is offline
What, me worry?
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,227
That Ford loan looks private.

Pete
__________________
"America is still a land of promise, especially during a political campaign."
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 08-13-2012, 01:41 PM
mezz mezz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlV View Post
Unless you are David Frum you should use quotation marks when you copy and paste.
I am not wasting my time bothering with blogger bullshit.

Carl
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobabode View Post
Not every partisan bullshit artiste understands how easy it is to google their plageristic rantings Carl. 'Tis a common failing when they realize they've not an original thought or understanding of the issues they expound on. Mendaciously so.
It doesn't surprise me that this stuff is pretty far over both of your heads. You are Obama supporters aren't you? Everything you don't like is 'a talking point' - while whatever you incessently regurgitate is of course something else. I would probably die of shock to see one of you actually counter a line of thinking with some thoughts of your own. Your side of the political spectrum remains well chosen in light of your capacity for objective and original thought. Carry on.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 08-13-2012, 01:42 PM
CarlV's Avatar
CarlV CarlV is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SF east bay
Posts: 4,456
I remember it as gov't, could be wrong, but they did restructure in a big way.


Carl
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 08-13-2012, 01:46 PM
whell whell is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlV View Post
That and they did borrow at least 18 billion from the USG, it was just before the crash though.

Carl
Ford did not borrow from the government. The info is right from that article you cited:

"JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. are arranging the financing, which will be completed by Dec. 31, Ford said."
Reply With Quote
Reply


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 -5. The time now is 10:25 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.