Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?

[calmissile]

The top three issues that will have an impact on the election are the economy, Obamacare, and possibly foreign policy. Here is the breakdown:
 
The Economy:
 
Despite the creeping recovery of the economy, Obama can still pull out a win over Romney in this area although it is President Obama’s biggest, if any, weakness. President Obama rescued America's failing automotive industry, and bailed-out the country's largest financial institutions. Surely without these measures taken, most Americans would still be eating canned food and sleeping in a cardboard box. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has an uphill battle if he wants to shake off the image of himself portrayed as a crony-capitalist because of his time at Bain Capital. The Obama camp needs to make certain that the Bain image sticks, and continue to highlight whatever minor successes the administration has had thus far with the economy.
 
Obamacare:
 
Romney cannot touch Obama on this one because of the fact that Obamacare is an inspired version of Romney’s care that he enacted in his own state as governor. And, even though Republicans are harping on the individual mandate as a tax, hoping that an image of Obama as a robber-baron tax-hiker will stick, a recent CBC/New York Times poll shows that only 37% of American favor lowering taxes and cutting spending compared to the 56% who favor raising taxes and increasing spending. There is also the poll by USAToday that shows about only 21% of people will actually vote for the candidate that shares their opinion on Obamacare. This is at a time when about half of Americans support Obamacare. Do you really think that is enough people to turn Obamacare into a nail in the presidential coffin?
 
Foreign Policy:
 
Can you hear that? That is the sound of the GOP getting Barack-slapped on foreign policy with the death of the world’s leading terrorist, Osama Bin Ladin. Add to the death of Al Qaeda's second in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi, and you have a much weaker Al Qaeda. Not to mention a successful drawdown in Iraq. If you were Romney, would you go anywhere near foreign policy issues in the debates?
 
Of course, there is no cyrstal ball to predict the outcome of any election, and I surely have my doubts, but my instincts tell me that America is not ready to get rid of Barack Obama and steer the nation back in the opposite direction just yet.

I won't even comment on most of your post, but sounds like democratic propoganda.   Your comment highlighted in bold above is so absurd, that there is no credibility in the rest of your post.
Where do you live that most Americans would be living out of cardboard boxes?

Some feel that the auto industry and banks should have been allowed to fail and not bailed out with taxpayer money.  We already have bankruptcy procedures that accomodate even the largest companies.  Businesses that are viable are usually picked up by investors at a very good price and the companies restructured with new management manage to get back on their feet.

As far as the crooks at the banks.... let them fail and put the crooks in jail that made the speculative investments with other peoples money!  Why should the everyday taxpayer bail them out?  You noticed I am sure that some execs made millions if not billions on the bailouts and walked away with huge sums in their pockets while not a single one of them is in jail.

[GQBlues]

...President Obama rescued America's failing automotive industry, and bailed-out the country's largest financial institutions. Surely without these measures taken, most Americans would still be eating canned food and sleeping in a cardboard box....

LOL, just like my good buddy 'J'. Are you agreeing with 'J', Edwin, that the bail-out pot came from the Stim Bill, too? 2008 isn't that long ago to forget these things, you know.

[Faux Pas]

LOL, just like my good buddy 'J'. Are you agreeing with 'J', Edwin, that the bail-out pot came from the Stim Bill, too? 2008 isn't that long ago to forget these things, you know.

LOL, my first reaction to Erwin's post was, "are you kidding me"? Nothing more dangerous at election time than ignorance in motion

[The Natural]

I'm not naive, I understand corruption and special interests. However life is better and people have more freedom when we have politicians in the office who are backed by corporations rather than politicians backed by unions, the left and the likes of George Soros. Just my opinion.

You can't be serious? I mean, you seem like a really nice man, but what you're calling for here is fascism. A plutocratically run neo-feudalistic system. Great if you're among the tiny elite at the top, but I reckon none here on RWD is there.
 
As far as I see the big picture, that's exactly where it's going, with Obama or Romney. Either will ensure that austerity measures increase and that the development of the destruction of the middle class continue. Webster Tarpley say that with Obama you get death by a thousand cuts, but with Romney it will be swift and that the corporate elite wants Romney because Obama doesn't do the job quickly enough.
 
I understand that goverment can be too big and believe in a balance between private and government. But government and the nation state is the foundation on which people can make changes. Having a corporate goverment and no unions destroy all possibilities for regular people to influence policies and leave them with only the option of open and violent revolt.

[Anotherkiwi]

I won't even comment on most of your post, but sounds like democratic propoganda...

Considering the amount of Republican propoganda that has been spewed out over the last few months, isn't the other side allowed to contribute? 
 
If the Republican platform is so solid, Doug, what harm can this ONE post possibly do?  It obviously won't influence any of the voters on here (nor will anything that BC or I post, because we "don't live there").  It seems such a shame that your two parties can't work TOGETHER to create a better country - but, of course, that will never happen (not even in the blue moon that you guys had last night).

[calmissile]

Considering the amount of Republican propoganda that has been spewed out over the last few months, isn't the other side allowed to contribute? 
 
If the Republican platform is so solid, Doug, what harm can this ONE post possibly do?  It obviously won't influence any of the voters on here (nor will anything that BC or I post, because we "don't live there").  It seems such a shame that your two parties can't work TOGETHER to create a better country - but, of course, that will never happen (not even in the blue moon that you guys had last night).

Of course both sides are allowed to contribute.  His statement refering to living in cardboard boxes was so rediculous that not even the democratic party would make such a statement.  It brings into question the rest of his post, which is also inacurate.

My question about why so much interest in our elections, was just that, a curiosity.  It seems that those in Europe are viewing our culture in the light of what those of you in Europe want in a government.  What makes America unique is that we do not want socialism and the government controling our lives from cradle to grave.  It is not the foundation of our beliefs and never has been.

There is much valid criticism about the corruption in our government and the flaws in our system.  That cannot be argued, however we prefer to attempt to resolve those issues as best we can without changing the basic tenants of our fundamental principals as laid out in our constitution.

For the most part, the democratic party used to represent the working middle class following WWII.  The party has gradually become the party, not of the middle class but the welfare and left leaning socialist (collective) class.  Traditionally, in the past the Republican party represented the big business interests.  Small business fell somewhere inbetween often belonging to both parties.
What has happened is that neither party currently represents the (shrinking) middle class. We are faced with a choice of having to decide whether to vote for more socialism and government control over our lives, or the wealthy big business party that wants to reduce the size of government and reduce or eliminate the laws we had on the books for many years that limited the power of big business.   At least in this election we have a clear choice which is the lesser of two evils.

[ML]

What has happened is that neither party currently represents the (shrinking) middle class.

I am not such an expert on this as others here but . . .

I thought the 'religious right' was firmly in the Republican camp.

And, aren't the majority of them middle class folks?

[BC]

BC,

I don't know you but am curious about your interest in US politics.  Your avitar indicates you are from Italy.  Are you an American living in Italy or have some other connection to the USA?

Calmissile,

I am a very, very long term expat.  Some here claim so long that I have lost perspective.  Lets just say that I have 'seen the green' on both sides of the fences, what I think is a fairly unique view on things both here and there.

[BC]

BC,
After posting, I played golf in a large Friday skins game, won a a couple of skins, had a few beers,  and am now too tired to study your posts.  And tomorrow is busy.  But I will return and address your comments.

Gator,

no problem at all.. have time now for only a couple of short posts... been shopping most of the day and will now enjoy a good pot of lobsters with family.  Prices are very reasonable this year so bought two for each person including our 8 year old who loves them and can handle two easily.  (flown in from US BTW)..  around 12 eur per kilio.. little under 7 bucks a pound live.

[Eduard]

Calmissile,

I am a very, very long term expat.  Some here claim so long that I have lost perspective.  Lets just say that I have 'seen the green' on both sides of the fences, what I think is a fairly unique view on things both here and there.

sounds like we have more in common than just age 

[calmissile]

I am not such an expert on this as others here but . . .

I thought the 'religious right' was firmly in the Republican camp.

And, aren't the majority of them middle class folks?

I was referring the the economic middle class.  And yes of course, the "religious right" are aligned with the Republicans because the party has made religion part of the parties platform and core beliefs.  IMO those in this group are not Republicans because of economic ideals as much as it is their desires to make sure their religious views are embedded in laws that affect everyone.

By the same token there are probably as many, if not more non believers and agnostics associated with the Democratic party.  Some of them are Democrats because they are anti-religion and the democratic party represents their views.  The rest of them have gotten intoxicated with the handouts by governmet over the past couple of generations and there seems no way to ween them off the tit of government.

As has been noted by many posts of others, the "economic middle class" has been screwed over by both political parties.  Our economic problems did not just occur by accident or because of world affairs.  Laws by congress and executive orders by the 'king' (president) created the environment for the failed economy.  There is enough blame to go around for nearly every congressman and president going back 30 years or so.   Laws and regulations passed to accomodate all of the special interests is what took us off the track we were on in the 40's, 50's, 60's, etc.

We drank the big business cool-aid that led us into believing the 'world economy' was what was to drive our thinking and policies without any consideration as to what it would mean to our own future.  Any discussion of reintroducing tarriff controls, anti-trust laws, etc is all met with shouts of 'protectionism'.  Yep, maybe it's time we started re-thinking about taking care of ourselves and not the whole world (including being the worlds policeman).

When we changed our tax laws and tarriff restrictions that allowed large corporations to use slave labor (wages) in foreign countries and created the loss of jobs and tax revenue in the US, it was the beginning of the end.  It also created a large problem in ways that most americans are not even familiar with.  When the electronics manufacturing moved to overseas there were many fallouts that are not obvious.  Not only do we not manufacture many goods in the US anymore, the technology to manufacture them was also lost after a generation or two.  The highly sophisticated equipment that is used in the processes are not even made in the US anymore.  The foreign counties now make their own robotics and other machinery.  The highly technical skilled work force to manufacture the products are also gone, mostly through retirement of the older workers.

Another weakness we now have is that the components to manufacture electronics equipment are no longer made in the US.  That was a huge industry before we lost our manufacturing capability.  Such simple things as resistors, capacitors, semiconductors, hardware, etc. are just to name a few.

[Erwin]

LOL, just like my good buddy 'J'. Are you agreeing with 'J', Edwin, that the bail-out pot came from the Stim Bill, too? 2008 isn't that long ago to forget these things, you know.

Not sure who your good buddy "J" is, but my good buddy Mr. "T" reminded me of the fact that, in 2008, former Massachusetts Governor Romney published an opinion piece in The New York Times titled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” It outlined a process whereby the Tottering Two would go through a managed bankruptcy process with a government guarantee of post-Chapter 11 financing, allowing them to cut costs by shedding dealers and renegotiating labor contracts.
 
Romney probably would object to being linked to the word “bailout,” however. Romney would use that to describe the billions shoveled into the firms by the Bush and Obama administrations prior to the auto firm’s entrance into bankruptcy court in early 2009 – subsidies he opposed.
 
President Obama probably did not clip his piece from the NYT’s dead tree edition and route it to his economic team with a note that said, “This sounds great! Do it!” A managed bankruptcy for the Detroit behemoths was an option many experts talked a lot about at the time.
 
Romney’s tone in regards to Detroit’s situation at the time was a bit bracing as far as Michiganders were concerned. After all, the Romneys are to the Mitten State what the Kennedys are to Massachusetts and the Bushes are to Maine and Texas and wherever else they have houses – political royalty. Mitt’s dad George saved American Motors and then became a beloved Michigan governor. So they hurt along Woodward Avenue when Mitt said in 2009 that the US investment in GM was “a very, very sad circumstance for this country.”
 
According to Mr. T, if it was up to Romney, we’d all be driving foreign cars. Obama, not Romney saved Detroit. Don't you think Obama is more truly attuned to American values?

[Erwin]

I won't even comment on most of your post, but sounds like democratic propoganda.   Your comment highlighted in bold above is so absurd, that there is no credibility in the rest of your post.
Where do you live that most Americans would be living out of cardboard boxes?

Some feel that the auto industry and banks should have been allowed to fail and not bailed out with taxpayer money.  We already have bankruptcy procedures that accomodate even the largest companies.  Businesses that are viable are usually picked up by investors at a very good price and the companies restructured with new management manage to get back on their feet.

As far as the crooks at the banks.... let them fail and put the crooks in jail that made the speculative investments with other peoples money!  Why should the everyday taxpayer bail them out?  You noticed I am sure that some execs made millions if not billions on the bailouts and walked away with huge sums in their pockets while not a single one of them is in jail.

What do you think would have happened to the Detroit auto industry if Romney had been President?
 
That depends on which Romney you are talking about. The Romney that said, IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye" (November 18, 2008), or the Romney that said the president (Obama) did exactly what he suggested and he (Romney) deserves "a lot of credit" because he supported the idea of managed bankruptcy (May 9, 2012). I guess you will have to elect him to see what's in him...probably just a bunch of hot air!
 
Some history, for those who have forgotten: In late 2008, with Wall Street in crisis and the economy grinding to a halt, General Motors and Chrysler revealed they were on the brink of collapse. They'd been struggling for years, paying the price for poor decisions by management and labor, but now things were much worse: They simply didn’t have the money to keep operating. In normal times, the carmakers could have filed for bankruptcy, obtained financing to reorganize and renegotiate contracts, and then emerged as leaner, stronger companies. But these were not normal times. The financial industry was in no position to offer that kind of assistance. Had the companies gone into bankruptcy, the likely result would have been liquidation.
 
And that would have been catastrophic. Closure of Chrysler and General Motors would have forced many of their suppliers to shut down. The economic shock wave would have rippled through the Midwest and quite possibly destroyed Ford, a relatively healthy company that nevertheless depended on the same firms to produce parts. Estimates from the Center for Automotive Research suggested that the cumulative job losses could have reached three million. That was the worst-case scenario, but even substantially fewer job losses would have been devastating.
 
If you don’t live in the Midwest, you might not grasp just how critical the auto industry is to the region. So my buddy Mr. T used an analogy that will resonate with you in and around Washington, D.C.

Imagine the federal government went out of business, shuttering virtually every agency and putting their employees out of work. Now think of all the companies in the Washington area whose businesses consist of selling goods and services to the agencies and their workers—the grocery stores, the I.T. firms, the contractors, the mom-and-pop dry cleaners. They’d go out of business, too. Pretty soon the city would be an economic Beirut.
 
By 2008 and 2009, parts of the midwest already looked that way, because the American auto companies had been closing their plants for years. If you've been to Flint, or if you've seen Roger and Me, then you know what I'm talking about. Other communities, like Lansing and the northern Detroit suburbs, had avoided that fate. A total collapse of Chrysler and GM would have crushed them, too.
 
In the waning days of his presidency, President Bush had the good sense to extend the companies a short-term, emergency loan. That put the onus on President Obama, still fresh on the job, to decide their fate. He didn’t give the companies a handout: He insisted they go through bankruptcy, renegotiate their contracts, clean out management, and downsize to an enterprise they could realistically support. Basically, he forced them to do what they would have done in normal economic times. Plenty of skeptics (including me!) worried the treatment was too harsh. But the companies complied and the results have been as good as anybody might rightly have hoped.
 
Since Obama made his decision, the unemployment rate in the auto states has declined steadily and substantially.  A big reason is that the auto companies, profitable again, have stopped firing and started hiring. It remains to be seen just how strong Chrysler and GM can become. They've had some hiccups and I wouldn't be surprised if, someday, Chrysler disappears into the Italian conglomerate that purchased it. But GM's plants are frequently operating at or above capacity, and they happen to make some very good cars. 
 
But the future performance of the companies is almost beside the point. The story of the auto bailout is a story of government saving the Midwest from oblivion. No less important, it is a story of leadership.
 
If you’ve followed this saga, you know that Romney has said multiple, conflicting things about the auto industry rescue. Last I heard, he was saying that Detroit carmakers survived because Obama took Romney’s advice and forced them into bankruptcy. At the same time, Romney has said he opposed putting taxpayer money at risk.
 
That, people, is a nonsensical position: The whole point of the rescue was to supply the industry with taxpayer funds, because the financial industry wouldn’t, or couldn’t, provide money of its own. But it really doesn’t matter what Romney is saying now or what he said six months ago or what he said last year. The point is that Romney said different things at each of those moments, in a transparent effort to win the Republican primaries by pleasing angry conservatives without totally alienating the midwest.
 
The contrast with Obama is striking. The auto rescue may be the single best test of Obama's leadership on domestic policy because it was the one instance in which he didn't need Congress to act. He got mixed advice from his economic advisers, who were wary of another shock to the economic system but reluctant to prop up the ailing companies, particularly Chrysler. He also got mixed advice from his political advisers, who were aware of labor's longstanding support but were looking at poll numbers that suggested the public, already weary of bailouts, was in no mood for another industry rescue. Obama approved it anyway.

Obama got plenty wrong in his first term. But he got the Detroit rescue very, very right.
 

[calmissile]

I went and saw the documentary 2016: tonight at the cinema.  It was not what I expected and was impressed with the movie.  Since Obama has not refuted any of the facts that I am aware of, I have to assume that it was pretty accurate.  The author does present a theory about what motivates Obama in his dreams and actions, but setting that aside there are a lot of facts about his childhood and association with other people that was enlightening.  I would recommend the movie regardless of political or idealogical leanings.

BTW, there was nothing about his birth certificate, college records,  and the usual political arguments.

[Erwin]

I went and saw the documentary 2016: tonight at the cinema.  It was not what I expected and was impressed with the movie.  Since Obama has not refuted any of the facts that I am aware of, I have to assume that it was pretty accurate.  The author does present a theory about what motivates Obama in his dreams and actions, but setting that aside there are a lot of facts about his childhood and association with other people that was enlightening.  I would recommend the movie regardless of political or idealogical leanings.

BTW, there was nothing about his birth certificate, college records,  and the usual political arguments.

WASHINGTON — "2016: Obama's America," a new conservative film exploring the roots of President Barack Obama's political views, took in $6.2 million to make it one of the highest-grossing movies of last weekend. The film, written and narrated by conservative scholar Dinesh D'Souza, argues that Obama was heavily influenced by what D'Souza calls the "anti-colonial" beliefs of his father, Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan academic who was largely absent from the president's life.
 
To document that claim, D'Souza travels to Kenya to interview members of Obama's extended family as well as to Hawaii and Indonesia, where Obama grew up. He also cites several actions and policy positions Obama has taken to support the thesis that Obama is ideologically rooted in the Third World and harbors contempt for the country that elected him its first black president.
 
The assertion that Obama's presidency is an expression of his father's political beliefs, which D'Souza first made in 2010 in his book "The Roots of Obama's Rage," is almost entirely subjective and a logical stretch at best.
 
It's true that Obama's father lived most of his life in Kenya, an African nation once colonized by the British, and that Obama's reverence for his absent father frames his best-selling memoir. D'Souza even sees clues in the book's title: "Notice it says `Dreams From My Father,' not `of' my father," D'Souza says.
 
But it's difficult to see how Obama's political leanings could have been so directly shaped by his father, as D'Souza claims. The elder Obama left his wife and young son, the future president, when Obama was 2 and visited his son only once, when Obama was 10. But D'Souza portrays that loss as an event that reinforced rather than weakened the president's ties to his father, who died in an automobile accident when Obama was in college.
 
D'Souza interviews Paul Vitz, a New York University psychologist who has studied the impact of absent fathers on children. In Obama's case, Vitz says, the abandonment meant "he has the tension between the Americanism and his Africanism. He himself is an intersection of major political forces in his own psychology."
 
From there, the evidence D'Souza uses to support his assertion starts to grow thin.
 
D'Souza says Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, shared his father's left-leaning views. After living in Indonesia for several years, D'Souza said, Dunham sent the younger Obama to live with his grandparents in Hawaii so he would not be influenced by her second husband, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian who worked for American oil companies and fought communists as a member of the Indonesian army.
 
"Ann separates Barry from Lolo's growing pro-Western influence," D'Souza says in the film. Obama has said his mother had sent him back to Hawaii so he would be educated in the United States.
 
In Hawaii, D'Souza asserts with no evidence that Obama sympathized with native Hawaiians who felt they had been marginalized by the American government when Hawaii was becoming a state. D'Souza also asserts – again with no evidence – that Obama had been coached to hold those views at Punahou, the prestigious prep school he attended.
 
"Oppression studies, if you will. Obama got plenty of that when he was here in Punahou," D'Souza says, standing on the campus in Honolulu.
 
In Kenya, D'Souza interviews Philip Ochieng, a lifelong friend of the president's father, who claims the elder Obama was "totally anti-colonial." Ochieng also discloses some of his own political views, complaining about U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Iraq and saying the U.S. refuses to "tame" Israel, which he calls a "Trojan horse in the Middle East." D'Souza seems to suggest that if a onetime friend of Obama's late father holds those opinions, so, too, must the president himself.
 
D'Souza then goes through a list of actions Obama has taken as president to support his thesis. Many of them don't hold water:
 
_ D'Souza rightly argues that the national debt has risen to $16 trillion under Obama. But he never mentions the explosion of debt that occurred under Obama's predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, nor the 2008 global financial crisis that provoked a shock to the U.S. economy.
 
_ D'Souza says Obama is "weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadists" in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He does not mention that Obama ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and the drone strikes that have killed dozens of other terrorists in the region.
 
_D'Souza wrongly claims that Obama wants to return control of the Falkland Islands from Britain to Argentina. The U.S. refused in April to endorse a final declaration on Argentina's claim to the islands at the Summit of the Americas, provoking criticism from other Latin American nations.
 
_D'Souza says Obama has "done nothing" to impede Iran's nuclear ambitions, despite the severe trade and economic sanctions his administration has imposed on that country to halt its suspected nuclear program. Obama opposes a near-term military strike on Iran, either by the U.S. or Israel, although he says the U.S. will never tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran.
 
_ D'Souza says Obama removed a bust of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill from the Oval Office because Churchill represented British colonialism. White House curator William Allman said the bust, which had been on loan, was already scheduled to be returned before Obama took office. Another bust of Churchill is on display in the president's private residence, the White House says.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/2016-obama-america-fact-check_n_1835710.html

[calmissile]

What would you expect from the huffingtonpost?
Wikipedia......"The Huffington Post was launched on May 9, 2005, and is known as a left-leaning commentary outlet".

Still recommend seeing the movie and let people decide for themselves.

[GQBlues]

...According to Mr. T, if it was up to Romney, we’d all be driving foreign cars. Obama, not Romney saved Detroit. Don't you think Obama is more truly attuned to American values?

LOL.

Nothing wrong with driving a Honda, VW, Toyota, etc...autos made in the USA by non-unionized American auto workers. You should test drive one. I bet you'd agree how much more wonderful they are compared to GM and Chrysler.

Erwin-

Like 'J' and apparently Mr. T, you need to get yourself re-tuned. Troubled Asset Relief Program - 2008. You need to get yourself familiar with that because if you do you'll find much of what you posted doesn't hold water. TARP came into fruition on early October 2008 under then -president George Bush aimed to bail-out banks and other financial institutions during the fallout. The auto industry lined up for the loot including UAW's Ron Gettlefinger ( He retired in 2010, cushy and lavishly, courtesy of the US taxpayers conveniently sometime after a brisk labor reorganization in 2009). I'll grant you that under Obama additional 'funding' was given to GM, GMAC and Chrysler, but that'll just blow up the merit of what those 'added' sums really were for considering GM (i.e. the Goverment's Motors) needed financial boost to fund manage it's bankruptcy reorganization in 2009. 

That silly bail-out, especially Obama's additional cash-out extravaganza, was as successful as the silly Chevy VOLT. So screw the taxpayers and one up for the Democrats Unions. Thank you Mr. Hussein! Cash-4-Clunkers (15+ billion USD more), anyone?

Obama, in 2010, sank millions more to flood the airwaves and the Kool-aid pitchers about how profitable the Goverment Motors had been since. Heck, he even went as far as declaring the debt were paid for completely.

http://gm-volt.com/2010/04/25/obama-says-gm-bailout-has-been-a-success/

Check GM's stock today and tell me how successful they really are.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/043012-609777-general-motors-not-really-repaying-taxpayer-bailout.htm

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300075/obama-and-gm-cook-books-john-lott-jr

So yeppers, man. Romney was right on the money on this one. 

Don't you find it strange that a US president can sit there and tell folks like you how we can lose 1 million jobs if he doesn't bail-out GM/Chrysler? Is that one million GM/Chrysler autoworkers? WOW! I find it strange because if you took the time to find out exactly how many autoworkers there really are in the US, including those non-unionized workers from US-based Toyota, Honda, VW, Nissan, etc...it hardly tops that million threshold.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-12-04-auto-workers-by-state_N.htm

LOL.

Amazing isn't it? That DC clown not only can move mountains and part the red sea, he can dupe millions with hardly an effort, eh?

Obama 2010:

"...Obama also said he believes the additional $50 billion in stock the government has bought from GM will soon be divested. “It wont be too long before the stock the Treasury is holding in GM could be sold,” he said...."

Today's GM stocks... http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/gm ~ You'll need double that (sub 22 USD) just to even up with the taxpayers monies... So kudos for Romney. Had he been president then, we certainly could have prevented more than a few billion non-unionized taxpayers monies to fund Detroit's union, eh?

[Erwin]

What would you expect from the huffingtonpost?
Wikipedia......"The Huffington Post was launched on May 9, 2005, and is known as a left-leaning commentary outlet".

Still recommend seeing the movie and let people decide for themselves.

Let them see this conservative anti-Obama film that wasn't backed by any Hollywood movie studio. Reviews were mostly negative. It premiered in Houston, not Los Angeles or New York.
 
Let them check the facts and make informed decision.
 
Do you know that the movie was distributed by Salt Lake City-based Rocky Mountain Pictures, "2016" and directed by Dinesh D'Souza, a former staffer for President Ronald Reagan, who is now president of King's College in New York and author of several books, including "The Roots of Obama's Rage," the basis for "2016" that claims Obama's beliefs are rooted in the anti-colonialism of his late father, a Kenyan academic who was largely absent from the president's life?
 
Do you know how the progressive Media Matters for America, Ryan Chittum in the Columbia Journalism Review, and others, disputed D'Souza's claims regarding Barack Obama?
 
Do you know how conservative publications also criticized D'Souza's theory. Daniel Larison of The American Conservative states, "Dinesh D’Souza has authored what may possibly be the most ridiculous piece of Obama analysis yet written. ... All in all, D’Souza’s article reads like a bad conspiracy theory." Andrew Ferguson of The Weekly Standard writes, "D’Souza always sees absence of evidence as evidence of something or other. ... There is, indeed, a name for the beliefs that motivate President Obama, but it’s not anticolonialism; it’s not even socialism. It’s liberalism!"
 
 

[calmissile]

Quote from GQ
Cash-4-Clunkers (15+ billion USD more), anyone?

It was not totally a useless program... It got a lot of Obama bumper stickers off the road.   LOL

[GQBlues]

Don't you worry yourself too much about Dinesh D'Souza, Erwin. For every Dinesh D'Souza there's a Micheal Moore lounging about.

 

[GQBlues]

What do you think would have happened to the Detroit auto industry if Romney had been President?
 
That depends on which Romney you are talking about. The Romney that said, IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye" (November 18, 2008), or the Romney that said the president (Obama) did exactly what he suggested and he (Romney) deserves "a lot of credit" because he supported the idea of managed bankruptcy (May 9, 2012). I guess you will have to elect him to see what's in him...probably just a bunch of hot air!
 
Some history, for those who have forgotten: In late 2008, with Wall Street in crisis and the economy grinding to a halt, General Motors and Chrysler revealed they were on the brink of collapse. They'd been struggling for years, paying the price for poor decisions by management and labor, but now things were much worse: They simply didn’t have the money to keep operating. In normal times, the carmakers could have filed for bankruptcy, obtained financing to reorganize and renegotiate contracts, and then emerged as leaner, stronger companies. But these were not normal times. The financial industry was in no position to offer that kind of assistance. Had the companies gone into bankruptcy, the likely result would have been liquidation.
 
And that would have been catastrophic. Closure of Chrysler and General Motors would have forced many of their suppliers to shut down. The economic shock wave would have rippled through the Midwest and quite possibly destroyed Ford, a relatively healthy company that nevertheless depended on the same firms to produce parts. Estimates from the Center for Automotive Research suggested that the cumulative job losses could have reached three million. That was the worst-case scenario, but even substantially fewer job losses would have been devastating.
 
If you don’t live in the Midwest, you might not grasp just how critical the auto industry is to the region. So my buddy Mr. T used an analogy that will resonate with you in and around Washington, D.C.

Imagine the federal government went out of business, shuttering virtually every agency and putting their employees out of work. Now think of all the companies in the Washington area whose businesses consist of selling goods and services to the agencies and their workers—the grocery stores, the I.T. firms, the contractors, the mom-and-pop dry cleaners. They’d go out of business, too. Pretty soon the city would be an economic Beirut.
 
By 2008 and 2009, parts of the midwest already looked that way, because the American auto companies had been closing their plants for years. If you've been to Flint, or if you've seen Roger and Me, then you know what I'm talking about. Other communities, like Lansing and the northern Detroit suburbs, had avoided that fate. A total collapse of Chrysler and GM would have crushed them, too.
 
In the waning days of his presidency, President Bush had the good sense to extend the companies a short-term, emergency loan. That put the onus on President Obama, still fresh on the job, to decide their fate. He didn’t give the companies a handout: He insisted they go through bankruptcy, renegotiate their contracts, clean out management, and downsize to an enterprise they could realistically support. Basically, he forced them to do what they would have done in normal economic times. Plenty of skeptics (including me!) worried the treatment was too harsh. But the companies complied and the results have been as good as anybody might rightly have hoped.
 
Since Obama made his decision, the unemployment rate in the auto states has declined steadily and substantially.  A big reason is that the auto companies, profitable again, have stopped firing and started hiring. It remains to be seen just how strong Chrysler and GM can become. They've had some hiccups and I wouldn't be surprised if, someday, Chrysler disappears into the Italian conglomerate that purchased it. But GM's plants are frequently operating at or above capacity, and they happen to make some very good cars. 
 
But the future performance of the companies is almost beside the point. The story of the auto bailout is a story of government saving the Midwest from oblivion. No less important, it is a story of leadership.
 
If you’ve followed this saga, you know that Romney has said multiple, conflicting things about the auto industry rescue. Last I heard, he was saying that Detroit carmakers survived because Obama took Romney’s advice and forced them into bankruptcy. At the same time, Romney has said he opposed putting taxpayer money at risk.
 
That, people, is a nonsensical position: The whole point of the rescue was to supply the industry with taxpayer funds, because the financial industry wouldn’t, or couldn’t, provide money of its own. But it really doesn’t matter what Romney is saying now or what he said six months ago or what he said last year. The point is that Romney said different things at each of those moments, in a transparent effort to win the Republican primaries by pleasing angry conservatives without totally alienating the midwest.
 
The contrast with Obama is striking. The auto rescue may be the single best test of Obama's leadership on domestic policy because it was the one instance in which he didn't need Congress to act. He got mixed advice from his economic advisers, who were wary of another shock to the economic system but reluctant to prop up the ailing companies, particularly Chrysler. He also got mixed advice from his political advisers, who were aware of labor's longstanding support but were looking at poll numbers that suggested the public, already weary of bailouts, was in no mood for another industry rescue. Obama approved it anyway.

Obama got plenty wrong in his first term. But he got the Detroit rescue very, very right.

Erwin-

Before anyone *thinks* the above quoted post, as all your other posts, are *yours*, allow me to cite the source to the above to avoid confusion...I can cite the others too if you want...

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106737/ryan-janesville-gm-obama-detroit-rescue

That's being far too LIBERAL of you.

 

[Anotherkiwi]

...What makes America unique is that we do not want socialism and the government controling our lives from cradle to grave.  It is not the foundation of our beliefs and never has been...

All this shows, Doug, is that you have no idea of how modern socialist governments in Europe and the rest of the world function.  I can't give precise examples of how the government works in European countries because it's a long time since I've been there, but I'm sure Manny, MissAmeno and Ranetka (amongst others) can give examples in the United Kingdom; Sandro, BC, Patagonie, Shadow, The Natural and Ade can all contribute from the Continental side.
 
Although the current New Zealand government is nominally conservative, it is still probably left of centre in US terms, despite the fact that it is extremely friendly to big business.  We do have a "cradle to the grave" safety net for everyone - it's called Social Welfare, and it's the biggest item in our Governmental Budget.  However, the Government doesn't control our lives - it has certain requirements of people who wish to obtain benefit payments (e.g. unemployment or sickness), for example, but it does not dictate how those payments are to be spent.  I don't imagine that this is any different from what exists already in the USA.
 

We are faced with a choice of having to decide whether to vote for more socialism and government control over our lives, or the wealthy big business party that wants to reduce the size of government and reduce or eliminate the laws we had on the books for many years that limited the power of big business.   At least in this election we have a clear choice which is the lesser of two evils.

You can't have it both ways.  If those are your choices then the first option is the only one.  It's not governments that caused the Wall Street crash or the GFC.

[calmissile]

All this shows, Doug, is that you have no idea of how modern socialist governments in Europe and the rest of the world function.  I can't give precise examples of how the government works in European countries because it's a long time since I've been there, but I'm sure Manny, MissAmeno and Ranetka (amongst others) can give examples in the United Kingdom; Sandro, BC, Patagonie, Shadow, The Natural and Ade can all contribute from the Continental side.
 
Although the current New Zealand government is nominally conservative, it is still probably left of centre in US terms, despite the fact that it is extremely friendly to big business.  We do have a "cradle to the grave" safety net for everyone - it's called Social Welfare, and it's the biggest item in our Governmental Budget.  However, the Government doesn't control our lives - it has certain requirements of people who wish to obtain benefit payments (e.g. unemployment or sickness), for example, but it does not dictate how those payments are to be spent.  I don't imagine that this is any different from what exists already in the USA.
 
You can't have it both ways.  If those are your choices then the first option is the only one.  It's not governments that caused the Wall Street crash or the GFC.

We probably agree on some things more than you think and disagree on others.
The cradle to grave 'safety net' is a great humanitarian idea.  The problem is in the implementation of it and the size of it.  When I was growing up in the 40's and 50's, we had very little government welfare.  In the small city I was raised, I can remember only two families that got government assistance.  In both cases the women were physically handicapped and UNABLE to care for themselves.  I also remember one family with 20+ kids that were dirt poor, but still survived without government help.  My grandparents,  after retirement supplemented their income by my grandfather (a machinist) having a small business in the basement where he did small contract jobs for Boeing and other companies.  Welfare was not available, so people worked out their own problems.

For the destitute, the majority of assistance came from the churches and charity organizations.  I don't remember seeing or hearing about anyone starving or being homeless.  One thing that seems to be not understood is part of our culture that began with Americans being rugged individualists and being proud to take care of ourselves without government help.  Of course there were exceptions such as during the great depression, but for the most part we only got help from charities and helping each other as needed.

Once welfare became institutionalized and all you had to do was sign up and get free benefits, the system grew out of control.  It  is human nature.  Why work and sweat when you don't have to.  Our system of welfare has gotten totally out of control!   Personally I do not have an problem with the idea of a safety net.  The problem is that it is so easy and now considered an entitlement that people no longer bust their ass to help themselves.

An example of the problem is the idea that people have to work or being actively seeking work to get welfare or unemployment.  Our liberal politicians and activist groups have watered the requirements down so much that you are not expected to put forth any real effort to receive benefits.  Once a large segment of the population is used to receiving the freebies, they have clout in in the lawmaking process and lobby to continue the expansion of benefits.  This is why it is out of control.

I  think we fundamentally agree on the 'safety net' idea, it is in the implementation of it that we might not agree with.

It's not governments that caused the Wall Street crash or the GFC.

We disagree on this one.  The bank failures due to the housing crash, and the bank failures due to speculative investments by the banks WERE caused by the government.  It was deregulation of the banks that led to the problems.  We had sensible/moderate laws prior to this time that required our financial institutions to be more responsible in investing their depositors money.  For the most part, the Republicans fought hard for deregulation of nearly everything they could find.  The cool-aid we were fed was the message that we now live in a 'global economy' and regulation is bad and hampering free enterprise.  Even the institutional investors and pension funds jumped on the bandwagon to deregulate in order to reap the benefits of greater profits.  It was our elected officials (government) that changed the laws and allowed the crash and bank failures to happen.  The corporations could not have done it without their cronies in Washington changing the laws.

Although not directly related, the same thing happened that caused our manufacturing to move offshore and the loss of good jobs and technical skills associated with manufacturing our own consumer goods.  It was our elected officials that made the changes in our laws thanks to the lobbying of the special interest groups.

My disappointment is that there is a general feeling among liberals and progressives that any policies of the past is BAD, and we are too dumb, or stupid to look back and pick what worked when things were good and re-institute those successful policies and laws.

[BC]

calmissile,

Here's another 'take' on your post.

Yes, during the 40's, 50's 60's and even early 70's life was quite 'bare'..  For the most part the only major appliance in most households was a refrigerator.  Folks in a community indeed 'stuck together' in hard times, especially within family units.  Many did not wander far from the place where they were born, family stuck together often providing assistance or at least a communal meals for those less fortunate.  In other words the existing 'social net' was for the most part pretty adequate for the needs. It was a simple but also for the most part a good life. 

But thinking hard about the later years, I think you will find and even agree that striving to be the greatest economic power on Earth also meant that the social net was continually torn apart.  Mobility was key to success.. getting that good job three states away also hit family units hard.  Frequent moving also eroded the sense of community.. today here, somewhere else tomorrow.  Thoughts turned more to 'It's about me' instead of 'us'.

This left many behind with little they could depend on in times of need.  So increases in the government social net became necessary.

Think of it more like a trade-off.

Then economically speaking, despite a good manufacturing base, the economy slumbered somewhat.  Many factory workers could not really afford to buy the goods they were making. To reach the upside again, the powers that be recognized that in order to grow, a means that would allow the masses to afford major purchases was needed.  The answer was credit..  Those factory workers building cars were now in a position to buy one, adding huge strides in GDP.  At the same time, folks started saving for things like education, down payments on a dream home, a vacation to Europe, etc etc....  the bank vaults were filled to capacity..  so banking had to start being even more creative.  The worth of a company's stock was no longer the book value but instead more and more speculative creating bubble after bubble..  In old times folks bought stock in exchange for a moderate dividend and as a underpinning for their retirement hoping that a stock would rise with normal company growth.. Instruments like default swaps where one could also bet against success were unheard of.

Instead of being satisfied with a steady linear growth rate,  the greed wave with all kinds of instruments hit that would heat up the economy based solely on future promises and speculation.  This is where things really went haywire and remains so to this day.  Everyone wanted to be a winner and to do so ethics be damned.  A culture of 'getting what I want' grew and grew..  Living within one's means flew out the window.

The government learned to spend too... With ever increasing federal debt, more taxes were needed.. so there were only two ways to do that.. raise taxes or ease credit so millions of iphones could ber bought by consumers along with a hundred different models of salad shooters and the 'ultimate' toaster.

The upside with this is that as long as interest rates remained low, the interest paid by the government for debt was also low... allowing for evermore debt to be created.  But inflation often times caught up and had to be 'managed' by monetary policies like restricting cash in circulation which drove interest rates up.

I could go on and on, but think about it...  From the lowest to the very top levels all sense of responsibility and ethics are gone.  In fact as far as the stock market goes instability is actually needed to keep it going!  without the ups and downs, money is not changing hands!  What is a roulette table worth if the wheel does not spin?

At the same time all this is happening, the workforce itself, already financially exploited, has not even been kept educated or healthy! 

I really believe that some other countries recognized this and started long ago to ensure their workforce was educated and healthy, that it was a core value of society and government to see that it happens in the interests of long term economic success.

Today, in order to have any chances of survival, the US absolutely must invest heavily in these most important aspects....   There are plenty of jobs out there that need highly skilled, technical workers.  Romney says he will create 12 million jobs.... doing what with poorly educated and unhealthy workers?  Flipping burgers?  He has to get real.. cramming even more sick kids into already crowded classrooms ain't gonna get it done.

Education to the university level and elevated trade schools should be free.  Good, free healthcare should be a given.

Europe is going through a crisis period...  guess who is still succeeding?  Germany and most of the northern countries are doing just fine.. because they have invested in the most important, basic social aspects and are doing a damned good job at it.  All this even with unions, higher taxes, 30 day vacations, universal health care and a social net that may look like pillows to outsiders.  Guess what.. the trick is to make it so that social pillow is not needed that awful much in the first place. 

A study in 2009 showed that 60% of personal bankruptcies were due to medical bills. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/american_journal_of_medicine_09.pdf  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/05/earlyshow/health/main5064981.shtml  Guess what... of those bankruptcies 2/3 were insured....  That says a lot IMHO.  Each of these bankruptcies carries aftershocks that include higher insurance costs for others.  What good is insurance when it gets cancelled because one can no longer work for a time?  That just puts folks in the position of not even being able to get well and re-enter the workforce...

I'll poke a stick in the eye of anyone that screams socialism without even knowing what the word means.  For all intents and purposes they can call it 'success' instead.  Whatever their definition of  'socialism' is, I can define it as 'just works'.

As far as Germany and the unemployment in during the latest economic crisis  this chart speaks for itself.  Just a blip.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z8o7pt6rd5uqa6_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:de&fdim_y=seasonality:sa&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+germany#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:sa&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country_group&idim=country:de&ifdim=country_group&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

High GDP comes at a huge cost..

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:DEU:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Credit, speculation, external government spending (i.e. wars)

these charts are very interesting....

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sh_med_phys_zs&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:DEU:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Healthcare is also a supply/demand market..  demand is obviously higher than supply.. which also keeps prices high..

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sh_xpd_pcap_pp_kd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:DEU:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Pay more, get less.

Fear of one misdefined word (socialism) is wreaking havoc.  I simply cannot trust any politician that uses it for the purpose of instilling fear to leverage a vote..  The numbers simply do not add up.

Just my two euro cents at current exchange rates.

[The Natural]

Europe is going through a crisis period...  guess who is still succeeding?  Germany and most of the northern countries are doing just fine.. because they have invested in the most important, basic social aspects and are doing a damned good job at it.  All this even with unions, higher taxes, and social net that may look like pillows to outsiders.  Guess what.. the trick is to make it so that social pillow is not needed that awful much.

Yes, that's right. Norway, Sweden and Finland is doing fine, Denmark is struggling a bit. The mantra in politics here in Norway has been for as long as I can remember job creation. It is a welfare state yes, and there will always be slackers that take advantage of it. But that shouldn't mean we should abolish it. Not even the conservatives would dream of that. But I can tell you there is a stigma attached to "go on the social" if you're an able person, especially if you live in a small community. And besides, receiving unemployment benefits and other social benefits does not come close to giving you the kind of living standard you have if you have a job.
 
Income tax and and other taxes are higher, yes. But you have to do the whole calculation. You don't need medical insurance unless you travel outside the EU. If you have health problems, a chronic disease and need medicines for a vital drug and medical attention, you pay about 350 dollars on your own in a year and the rest is covered by the society.
 
You get 175 dollars per child per month from age 0 to 16. Kindergarten is subsidized and if you don't use the kindergarten from 13 to 18 months the parents get close to 900 dollars and somewhat less after that. One year paid leave from work for the mother of a new-born. The father also get a few weeks, don't know how many.
 
VAT is 13-14% on food and 25% on most other things. Items like gas, alcohol and tobacco have added taxes which I guess makes it the most expensive in the world. The price level in general is quite higher than most of the rest of Europe, but so are the wages. I paid about 28% income tax last year and is middle class and can live a comfortable middle class life with what I have. Going abroad, to Ukraine for example, is very nice economically as I can spend money in a low cost country with money earned in a high cost/high wage country.
 
The greatest problem in the US and some other countries now is, I think, the large loss of jobs. In Norway there is more than full employment. Anyone willing will find a job and there are thousands of foreigners coming here to get jobs. The fastest growing group of immigrants are Polish and there are many from Sweden and Denmark and other countries as well.
 
No country or system is perfect of course, and there's always plenty to complain about. But I think if you asked people here, I think practically none would exchange the welfare state for the system in USA.