American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Finally something we can agree on. No person or company was "Too Big To Fail" or "Too Big To Jail". Companies, such as AIG, should not have been bailed out. These firms should have been forced to enter bankruptcy, either Chapter 7 or 11, and forced to close or reorganize. The Fed throwing them a bone for going broke was nuts. Where were the criminal complaints from the Stock Holders, States and DOJ over the theft that took place? A lot of folks both in Congress and industry should have been wearing orange jump suits and taking the Perp Walk on TV. Instead these folks are rewarded for failure and to add insult to injury they even got bonuses!

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;418403]Finally something we can agree on. No person or company was "Too Big To Fail" or "Too Big To Jail". Companies, such as AIG, should not have been bailed out. These firms should have been forced to enter bankruptcy, either Chapter 7 or 11, and forced to close or reorganize. The Fed throwing them a bone for going broke was nuts. Where were the criminal complaints from the Stock Holders, States and DOJ over the theft that took place? A lot of folks both in Congress and industry should have been wearing orange jump suits and taking the Perp Walk on TV. Instead these folks are rewarded for failure and to add insult to injury they even got bonuses![/QUOTE]I agree completely, and don't forget to add General Motors to your list of companies that should have been allowed to fall into bankruptcy so their plants could have been bought up and subsequently reopened by more productive manufacturers.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson-

Actually, General Motors DID go into bankruptcy protection, a prepackaged Chapter 11 Reorganization rather than a very likely chaotic Chapter 7 liquidation which

Would have resulted in selling assets. The Chapter 11 consisted of GM stiffing their bondholders, terminating the union contracts and of their stock being relegated to the pink slips. However, GM has since reemerged as a leaner and profitable company that is making payments on its bailout loan. Had they been forced into liquidation they would have been swept into the dustbin of history and all GM employees would have been out on their ass.

Suerte,

RH

[QUOTE=El Alamo;418402]Well said. The government could not produce a rubber band economically much less create jobs.[/QUOTE]In addition to essentially admitting that the stimulus was a failure, the administration stated that each job that the 'stimulus' 'created' cost US$278, 000. Wow. What a waste.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders; 418405]Jackson-

Actually, General Motors DID go into bankruptcy protection, a prepackaged Chapter 11 Reorganization rather than a very likely chaotic Chapter 7 liquidation which

Would have resulted in selling assets. The Chapter 11 consisted of GM stiffing their bondholders, [/quote]To the contrary. Chapter 11 is supposed to provide a codified means through which ownership is transferred from the former owners (equity shareholders) to the new owners (most senior debt holders). In this case those new owners should have been the bond holders. However, intervention by Obama breached the constitutional role of government by deliberately contravening US bankruptcy law by placing the unions ahead of the bondholders. This was pure and simple government theft of private assets which were then given to Obama's political backers in the UAW. Considering that the 'stimulus' was nearly a trillion dollar handout to unions, I guess we shouldn't have been surprised.

[quote=]terminating the union contracts[/quote]No offense to GM union employees but they were treated better than the law allows (except in cases where Obama intervenes).

[quote=]and of their stock being relegated to the pink slips.[/quote]Rightly so given the above-mentioned transfer of ownership.

[quote=]However, GM has since reemerged as a leaner and profitable company that is making payments on its bailout loan. Had they been forced into liquidation they would have been swept into the dustbin of history and all GM employees would have been out on their ass.[/QUOTE]"Forced" into liquidation? By whom? Had the pre-bailout GM not become a 'benefits' company (instead of an auto manufacturer) they might have avoided bankruptcy to begin with. Without the bailout, there was still a pony under the pile of shit that would have merited Chapter 11 (reorg) as opposed to Chapter 7 (liquidation). Maybe the resulting company would have been smaller but under no reasonable scenario would all GM employees been out of work.

[QUOTE=BlueFalcon;418400]At some price point-BF.[/QUOTE]And that's the key point, isn't it. With enough people with enough money, some services will be provided. The key is at what price. And who can afford it. In this system those with the most money get the most, and those with the least money get the least. That's all fine and dandy when it comes to most consumer goods and services. But when it's a matter of basic needs and services (the list of which can be debated), that many cannot afford, then it becomes a moral issue. Fortunately, modern societies have evolved with a view that no, we will not leave the poor in the dust, we will provide a safety net, support and basic services for those at the bottom of the ladder to have a shot at climbing the ladder.

You'll always have some self-interested folks who try to demonize these people by calling them "parasites" and chiding them to "get off their ass and find a job". Painting them all with the same brush, ignoring that the vast majority of these people are honest, ethical people willing to work hard to get ahead. Fortunately, such self-interested people are in the vast minority.

BF- I am glad to see you have shared some info from your recent trip to BA. That is commendable. I hope you had a good time, and that you were able to visit some of the top clubs like Madahos, Black and Hippo.

Obama has been talking to Republicans. Apparently he's telling Congressional Democrats that he will not sign a short term budget deal, he wants a $4 trillion cut in the deficit over the next 10 years, and Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are on the table. He also may be willing to go along with a change in the tax system that makes it more efficient and less burdensome, cuts the statutory marginal tax rate on business, and gets rid of loopholes. All this has Nancy Pelosi scared shitless, as she's afraid of what the voters will do to any Democrat that helps try to restore fiscal sanity to entitlements. And she hates giving up the class warfare card -- proclaiming that all would be well with America if only the evil, wealthy businesses and investors would pay their fair share.

Maybe this will play out like 1994. Back then, a group of new House Republicans in the Reagan mold came to power, not unlike the Tea Party in 2010. Instead of bowing and yielding to the members of his party, Moveon, err, sorry, Bill Clinton worked with the Republicans. We ended up with a period of prosperity, rationalization of welfare, free trade agreements, and budget surpluses.

Maybe Obama thought about whether he wants to go down in history like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, and he chose the latter. Or maybe he figures he's got a better shot in 2012 if he moves toward the center. In either event, it's Americans that come out the winners.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;418380]I suspect the $1 trillion you quote, over who knows how many years, doesn't even touch entitlement spending and is a drop in the bucket compared to the mess we're in.[/QUOTE]As you've just seen Tiny - The latest numbers are up to $4 T over a decade. Obama has given Republicans a golden opportunity to address our deficit and entitlement spending. All they need to do is get past their ideology and agree to tax revenue increases at a small fraction of the total amount. Also holding them back: their "pledge" to Grover Norquist, their fear of losing their jobs from Tea Party rage, and their determination to ensure Obama is not re-elected.

Obama has clearly demonstrated he is serious about tackling spending and deficits. How Republicans respond will reveal their true motives.

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 418413]Obama has been talking to Republicans. Apparently he's telling Congressional Democrats that he will not sign a short term budget deal, he wants a $4 trillion cut in the deficit over the next 10 years, and Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are on the table. He also may be willing to go along with a change in the tax system that makes it more efficient and less burdensome, cuts the statutory marginal tax rate on business, and gets rid of loopholes. All this has Nancy Pelosi scared shitless, as she's afraid of what the voters will do to any Democrat that helps try to restore fiscal sanity to entitlements. And she hates giving up the class warfare card. Proclaiming that all would be well with America if only the evil, wealthy businesses and investors would pay their fair share.

Maybe this will play out like 1994. Back then, a group of new House Republicans in the Reagan mold came to power, not unlike the Tea Party in 2010. Instead of bowing and yielding to the members of his party, Moveon, err, sorry, Bill Clinton worked with the Republicans. We ended up with a period of prosperity, rationalization of welfare, free trade agreements, and budget surpluses.

Maybe Obama thought about whether he wants to go down in history like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, and he chose the latter. Or maybe he figures he's got a better shot in 2012 if he moves toward the center. In either event, it's Americans that come out the winners.[/QUOTE]Job creation=short term, deficit reduction=long term. This is exactly what we need. If this gets done, wall street might do the salsa, and I will put down a deposit on the cruise to Antartica from BA.

Obama has no choice, he is determined to get the 2nd term. He just raised the pot. But the Republicans know that this is the lifeline that Obama needs, will they do the right thing, or let Obama walk the gangplank. Time will tell, it will be interesting to see how Fox News portray their agenda. That murder trial was murdering on me.

Mongers, WW, Jackson, etc-

If you look back at my posts from around the time of the GM bailout, you will see that I was actually opposed to the bailout of both GM and Chrysler because I thought they were both piece of shit companies that were mismanaged for decades and that they were incapable of becoming modern profit generating enterprises. I firmly

Believed that there was no way that GM and / or Chrysler could reemerge to pay back the bailout and that it was just going to amount to flushing taxpayer dollars down t the toilet. However, I was wrong in my analysis as GM is profitable at this point and the taxpayer will probably at least break even on the GM bailout loans. As such,

Really argue on practical grounds at this point that bailing out GM was a mistake? Is it not better to have a functioning and sustainable US carmaker?

[QUOTE=Esten;418362]Read what I said. I said nothing about the extent of support for legalizing prostitution among Democrats.[/quote]You certainly implied that they would support it.

[quote]BTW there is a very important difference between trafficking and prostitution.[/quote]Not in the eyes of anti-trafficking groups.

[quote]If prostitution were the only issue I would vote Libertarian. Between Dems and Repubs, I'd say the party that supports gay marriage is more likely to support legalizing prostitution.[/quote]So by that thinking we should assume the Dems would also support polygamy at least to some degree?

There is a huge difference between gay marriage and prostitution. I don't see anyone trying to connect gay marriage and prostitution, but they are trying to connect trafficking and prostitution.

The Dems just controlled all three branch of government for two years, where was the legislative effort to legalize prostitution?

[quote]It is my opinion that the single biggest obstacle to legalizing prostitution is the religious right and their efforts to maintain and promote a family values culture in the US. This does not mean there would be no other obstacles without them. Only that the religious right is the biggest obstacle, or drag, on moving in the direction of legalization. I'm quite sure many if not most people would agree with this. Care to disagree?[/QUOTE]I will agree that the religious right is against prostitution, but anyone who thinks the leftwing feminist are not trying to connect the dots and build a bridge between trafficking and prostitution, well I'll be nice and say you're just not up to date on this issue. I just saw a documentary on MSNBC the other night about this very subject and to hear them tell it all prostitutes are forced in to the business and it's all the johns, pimps, and traffickers fault.

They're saying mongers like me and you are to blame, no demand, no prostitutes is their thinking, and they're trying very hard to make the rest of the world view this issue in the same light as the USA.

Imagine prostitution worldwide on the same level as the USA, yikes!

IMHO you need to back off the rightwing leftwing stuff and research this issue a little more, this is not a one party issue.

You might however be onto something with that Libertarian thing, they're the only party that I know of that supports a woman's right to choose prostitution.

Sorry for the slow reply I was busy trying to escape from sex prison. I'm free at last, free at last.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;418413]Maybe Obama thought about whether he wants to go down in history like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, and he chose the latter. Or maybe he figures he's got a better shot in 2012 if he moves toward the center. In either event, it's Americans that come out the winners.[/QUOTE]Nah. His lips were moving. He's just lying like usual.

Excerpts from a piece by Charles Krauthammer, which puts Obama in perspective:

[i]Here we go again. An approaching crisis. A looming deadline. Nervous markets. And then, from the miasma of gridlock, rises our president, calling upon those unruly congressional children to quit squabbling, stop kicking the can down the road and get serious about debt.

This from the man who:

• Ignored the debt problem for two years by kicking the can to a commission.

• Promptly ignored the commission's December 2010 report.

• Delivered a State of the Union address in January that didn't even mention the word 'debt' until 35 minutes in.

• Delivered in February a budget so embarrassing — it actually increased the deficit — that the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected it 97 to 0.

• Took a budget mulligan with his April 13 debt-plan speech. Asked in Congress how this new 'budget framework' would affect the actual federal budget, Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf replied with a devastating 'We don't estimate speeches. ' You can't assign numbers to air. [/i]

* * * * *

[i]Obama has run disastrous annual deficits of around $1. 5 trillion while insisting for months on a 'clean' debt-ceiling increase, I. E, with no budget cuts at all. Yet suddenly he now rises to champion major long-term debt reduction, scorning any suggestions of a short-term debt-limit deal as can-kicking.

The flip-flop is transparently political. A short-term deal means another debt-ceiling fight before Election Day, a debate that would put Obama on the defensive and distract from the Mediscare campaign to which the Democrats are clinging to save them in 2012. [/i]

* * * * *

[i]And what have been Obama's own debt-reduction ideas? In last week's news conference, he railed against the tax break for corporate jet owners — six times.

I did the math. If you collect that tax for the next 5, 000 years — that is not a typo — it would equal the new debt Obama racked up last year alone. To put it another way, if we had levied this tax at the time of John the Baptist and collected it every year since — first in shekels, then in dollars — we would have 500 years to go before we could offset half of the debt added by Obama last year alone.

Obama's other favorite debt-reduction refrain is canceling an oil-company tax break. Well, if you collect that oil tax and the corporate jet tax for the next 50 years — you will not yet have offset Obama's deficit spending for February 2011. [/i]

Full article here:

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-elmendorf-rule/2011/07/07/gIQAPagk2H_story.html?hpid=z3[/url]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Well, maybe I could. He could have added that the corporate jet tax break O rails against is the same one he proposed. [url]http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/29/obama-blasts-private-jet-tax-breaks-created-by-his-own-stimulus/[/url] The guy is a piece of work.

Michele Obama (la gordita) has just posted her recipe for obese delinquentes. This recipe may also apply to Barack's homemade instant job stimulation program.

Pumped Waffles.

- Prepare instant waffle batter that promises homemade taste (I. E. Instant jobs)

- Pour a small amount of batter onto waffle iron.

- While it's cooking tell yourself how big it's going to be.

- Remove the puny, burnt waffle and swear the next one will be big and fluffy.

- Close waffle iron without pouring any batter.

- Wait two minutes.

- Open waffle iron, act surprised when nothing is there.

- Blame your neighbor I. E. Republicans for ruining your breakfast

Who is bluffing and who is going to blink first. The pot is the 2012 elections.