chess online
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Obamaisms"I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration for getting spending under control"... BO in his 2009 pledge. But, in reality... the budget deficits have been: 1.55 trillion 2009 1.37 trillion 2010 1.36 trillion 2011 The federal debt exploded by more than $4 trillion in BO's first 1000 days, adding as much debt as the U.S. had accumulated from 1776 to 1993. Total U.S. debt is now almost $16 trillion and that is NOT counting social security obligations. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#2: Shovel-Ready Jobs He confessed in October 2010, to the New York Time, that "there's no such thing as shovel-ready projects when it comes to public works" and he said the same thing to columnist David Brooks, off the record, a year earlier. |
||||||
|
softy ... |
||||||
|
#3: Caterpillar ************************************************ "Yesterday, Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off"... BO February 2009, in front of Caterpillar. Later, asked if Caterpillar would in fact be rehiring if the stimulus passed Congress, Jim Owens (then CEO and Board Chairman at Caterpillar) responded with: "I think, realistically no. I mean, the honest reality is that we'll probably have to have more layoffs before we start hiring again". Shortly after that unemployment rose to 10%, before eventually starting downward again. |
||||||
|
softy ... |
||||||
|
chaz This was BO in front of Caterpillar trying to sell his stimulus, by telling a lie. Jim Owens himself said that the statement was false. This is just one of several BO statements that turn out to be "misstatements", "errors", "falsehoods", or not true. |
||||||
|
#4: Taxpayers will be repaid Five months later, Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary, said "We're going to lose money in the auto industry on net, but we did this for the jobs we were going to save, not to maximize return". The taxpayer is out $14 Billion on GM. GM stock closed at $25.17 on March 23, 2012. That's less than one-half the $53 per share needed to reimburse taxpayers for the funds dumped into GM and the UAW. As GM stocks tank, taxpayer loss is estimated to be at $23.77 Billion, according to a January 2012 Treasury estimate. This deal gave the UAW pension fund 17.5% of the new GM, and left their wages and pensions untouched, even though the original GM stockholders were wiped out. Preferred stockholders are required by law to be the first to be repaid when there is a bankruptcy... but apparently NOT in this preferred theft of GM and redistribution to the UAW. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
change There is a process for declaring bankruptcy (Chapter 11 I think... ask Illi) that allows the company to nullify their debts, reorganize the company/management/ and agreements such that the company stays in business, continues operations, and hopefully recovers to profitability. In the cases where that fails and the company ceases business, the assets are sold and shareholders are paid what can be paid. Employees then lose that job, but just as assets are usually bought up by competitors so also are the employees usually scooped up by the competitors... as well as former customers. So, net of it all, it is not good when a company fails, but it is hardly catastrophic. Shareholders get some of their money back and competitors pick up the pieces (equipment, employees, and customers). The vendors do lose some money, but it is a risk of being in business and they "write it off". If GM went bankrupt, there would have been some temporary hurt and damage, but the industry would quickly have recovered. There are plenty of competitors in this industry to take over if somebody leaves the playing field. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
So if you want to quit making cars, let GM go under. Only a couple of Ron Paul types would want to see that happen. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
There is no end in sight. The company is failing for a reason (it needs bailout money for a reason). They have been doing something wrong. If you give them money to continue in business, you are subsidizing failure... You are, in effect, spending good money after bad. You have not solved anything. The example is GM which has seen sales plummet... and this is supposedly the 2nd summer of our recovery! How much money are you willing to give them and how long do you want to continue bailing them out? Better to get it over with and recover than to continually pay for failure after failure. This plan is exactly the same plan BO had with the stimulus. He spent almost $1 BILLION and didn't stimulate anything. All he did was fund government and unions for one more year before the problem was back. Now GM is tanking again, still owes the public money from the first bailout, and "here we go again".... |
||||||
|
softy ... As it is, GM is doing remarkably well getting back on their feet according to most who are evaluating their performance ... the gov't is getting paid back (but less than what I think they needed to) ... and as the economy slowly rebounds, they'll be just fine. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
chaz Your understanding of capitalism is so far from right that you prove once again you are left. Your desire to paint capitalism as the greedy exploiting the poor working class is also as far left (wrong). First of all, we do not have a pure for-profit capitalistic society or economic system. We do collect a lot of taxes including income taxes, payroll taxes, business taxes, sales taxes, death taxes, capital gains taxes, fuel & tobacco taxes etc. etc. etc.... Income taxes are progressive taxes meaning that the more you make, the more you are taxed. These taxes pay for huge welfare, food stamps, medicare, housing etc. etc. etc. for a lot of people. That is socialism... it is just not as much socialism as you would like. France is going to raise taxes on the wealthy to 75%... maybe you would like to move there. Secondly, your understanding of how capitalism works is so weak, I don't know why I'm bothering to explain it once again... BUT, the company is not trying to make society the beneficiary of its efforts. It is NOT supposed to do that because then the company will fail. The company must work for its' own best interest, just like individuals work for their own best interest. When everybody is working in their own best interest, without government intrusion, it turns out that the most fair price for goods and services is established and labor is applied in the most efficient and effective ways. Resources are also used in the best way for longer sustainability. It also results in better, higher quality goods and services at lower costs to the consumer. When corporations and/or individual entrepreneurs work in their own best interests and are successful, society benefits in many ways, whereas if they are not successful, it is society that pays. |
||||||
|
This results in a lot of waste. Free markets are remarkable in their ability to innovate, but when the entire system breaks down, it breaks down. That is why one can not look at the failure of GM or AIG in isolation. When the failure causes a system meltdown, government should and does step in. If you remember, in 2008, Lehmann Brothers went bankrupt, and that was acceptable to the Government. They asked for a bailout. It was when AIG went soft that people began to worry if the banks would fail, and that can not happen. It doesn't matter how conservative the President (Bush) is. Its fine to say this and say that now, but those are the facts and if conditions repeat themselves, history will repeat itself. |
||||||
|
illi |
||||||
|
softy ... |
||||||
|
#5 Stimulus Plan Fights Poverty Since he signed the act into law on Feb.17, 2009, almost 10 million more Americans have entered the ranks of the poor, according to an Indiana University study released January 2012. The Brookings Institute predicts that child poverty rate will have grown to 22% by 2011, up from 17.8% in 2007. The UI study found that 46.2 million Americans were living in poverty in 2010, a jump of 27% since 2006. The study also predicted that number would rise in 2011, due to the stalled economy, high unemployment, and long-term unemployment. (Duh) This counters BO's statement that the Stimulus would improve everything. And, clearly, with the huge increase of people on welfare, food stamps, and unemployment compensation, the Stimulus did NOT work. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#6 Create or Save Jobs The President's economic advisers said unemployment would stay below 8% as a result of spending $787 billion. It actually reached 9.9% in May 2010 and has been above 8% ever since. It is now trending back upwards again. However, real unemployment (when counting those who have given up looking or are "underemployed", or have exhausted their unemployment insurance) is at 15.1% in January 2012, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics. The long-term unemployed (workers unable to find a job for more than 27 months) has grown 83% in the last three years to 5.5 million. And, because of this, household income is down 7% from February 2009. So, in summary, unemployment is stagnant above 8% and climbing, long-term joblessness has ballooned, and household incomes are down. This is the "new normal", the lasting change we can expect unless we see REAL change in November. |
||||||
|
#7 Fast & Furious In the midst of his global apology tour in 2009, he stopped in Mexico and announced that the U.S. must share in the blame for the brutal Mexican drug war. He said "This war is being waged with guns purchased not here but in the United States". According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) statistics show that just 17% of the guns found at Mexican crime scenes come from the U.S. And, of course, thousands of those came as a result of the government Fast & Furious that intentionally let guns walk across the border. Why did they do this? Obviously to try and make a case for stiffer gun control laws and to weaken gun ownership rights. The question is Who knew What and When in this administration. The administration has been stonewalling the congressional investigation for nearly two years now with the AG probably going to face impeachment or civil trial for Contempt of Congress. That alone should tell you that somebody "high up" knows something and had a hand in this stupid plan. |
||||||
|
dmaestro 07-Aug-12, 18:25 |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| |||||||
Log in 
