Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why did Mr. Romney make it an issue? Does he really believe that it is all a numbers game and that we are not as capable as we were in 1916?
All of our advanced weaponry and technology and all he can do is bemoan the number of ships vs. almost 100 years ago.
It was, and is, insulting to our military and deserved the answer the President gave.
Agreed, but Mitt DOES have a deeper rational reason for it. Neocons have a vision of America militarily dominating the globe and making everybody do what America wants. They have a view of American global domination, which is why, by the way, the mere THOUGHT of China beefing up it's military, even though we spend 6 times as much as them, sends shudders up the spines of neocons. ANYBODY beefing up their military makes it that much tougher for American military numbers (of ships, planes, etc.) to stay vastly greater than the rest of the world's numbers. So Romney will make ANY argument that he can think of to dupe Americans into one conclusion- America needs to keep building up it's military by leaps and bounds for years and years and decades. THIS argument tries to make Americans think we have very low capability so that they will sanction his $2 trillion increase in defense spending. It is $2 trillion now. Later it would keep growing and growing and growing. It doesn't matter to Mitt that it's a bogus argument. What matters is if Americans are gullible enough to believe it. A snake oil salesman will use the absurd if it will convince you to buy his oil.
THINKING people recognize that his argument is ridiculous, but think about this- how many people hear him say that in his government he will create 12 million jobs and at the same time say government DOESN'T create jobs- and STILL think he's shooting straight and STILL support him? Unfortunately, it's all too easy to dupe many Americans. And Mitt knows this because when politicians start talking facts and numbers in detail, voters' eyes glaze over.
Romney made it an issue because of the neocon goal- American world domination through American military presence everywhere at all times. And to get to that you have to spend and spend and spend in excess, spend more than you need to handle current issues, and get the American voter to AGREE to foot the bill for it. To get folks to accept that raw of a deal, you have to trick them. So you make them think our military hasn't really advanced in almost 100 years and see how many take the bait. At the same time you slam Ron Paul because although he is a conservative Republican, he is the ENEMY of that neocon goal of world domination. At the same time you shut Paul Ryan up about cutting Pentagon waste, because cutting ANY defense spending goes against that neocon goal of world domination.
Mitt Romney isn't stupid or uninformed. He's just slick like an eel. And beholden to the neocon power base in the Republican Party.
What he did was not clearly separate government GUARANTEE of bank loans from GOVERNMENT loans. The former is what Mitt supported, and what the industry said would have failed and would have resulted in the industry folding. The latter is what Bush started, and Obama amped up, what Mitt opposed, and what was the only thing that could have saved the industry and did save the industry. Government can't guarantee loans that BANKS WON'T MAKE.
But Mitt is slick enough to make that failed government guarantee of bank loans idea come across as "agreeing with government helping to save the industry." The truth is Romney's idea WOULD have folded the industry because banks refused to lend, so government had nothing to guarantee, and if government had ALSO refused to lend as Mitt advocated, NOBODY would have been there to lend and the industry would have folded. That is the core truth, but Mitt is shrewd enough to twist semantics to obscure that core truth.
That's the one thing I have the most against him- he tries to obscure HIS OWN POSITIONS, HIS OWN STANCES with generic wording and specifics-dodging that is intended to dupe the public and steer them away from the real truth about his positions. That's why he had a tax cut when speaking to the Republican base but after getting the nomination said don't expect a tax cut due to eliminating deductions. That's why he proposed a 20% tax rate cut that = $5 trillion dollars, but since the NET CUT after eliminating deductions is much less than that, when Obama referred TO the $5 trillion cut in the debate, he said he doesn't have a $5 trillion cut. He didn't want to distinguish that he DOES have a $5 trillion rate cut just not a $5 trillion net cut after deductions and loopholes- he wanted to TRICK the public into believing Obama was completely wrong in giving the $5 trillion number. Mitt keeps trying to trick the public about his own policies, but I'm enough of a thinker and analyzer to see the tricks for what they are and be offended by them. At least when McCain ran, you got the straight talk express. I can respect that, even if I disageed with him on specific policies. I can't at all respect Mitt the Intentional Obscurer of His Own Policies.
I'm not exactly on the same page, Fiddle, but I heard John Boehner say the other day that the President had not spoken to him for four months about the fiscal cliff, our most pressing challenge. It distresses me to no end that Boehner is not able to say "I called the White House last Saturday, told them I was coming at 2 PM on Sunday to talk about the fiscal cliff, and if that wasn't convenient I would be back every Monday, Wednesday and Friday until we hammered out a path through this." It also distresses me no end that the President is unable to say, "I called the congressional leadership of both parties to get together and hammer out a path through this, and I will repeat the call three times a week until they sit down with me and we get through this."
We've been poorly served by the leadership situation, a bipartisan criticism. We're in earnings season on Wall Street, and company after company is reporting poor revenues and a lousy outlook--most of them citing the fiscal cliff. A parade of CEO's of both persuasions have been on CNBC, saying things like "we all know what needs to be done, they just need to get together and do it." Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles are both saying we need leadership.
And that's just the most pressing issue, among many.
This thread, especially SLCPUNK's opening post, gets to my outrage with the current GOP and my reluctance to reward them with the presidency.
I'm not exactly on the same page, Fiddle, but I heard John Boehner say the other day that the President had not spoken to him for four months about the fiscal cliff, our most pressing challenge. It distresses me to no end that Boehner is not able to say "I called the White House last Saturday, told them I was coming at 2 PM on Sunday to talk about the fiscal cliff, and if that wasn't convenient I would be back every Monday, Wednesday and Friday until we hammered out a path through this." It also distresses me no end that the President is unable to say, "I called the congressional leadership of both parties to get together and hammer out a path through this, and I will repeat the call three times a week until they sit down with me and we get through this."
We've been poorly served by the leadership situation, a bipartisan criticism. We're in earnings season on Wall Street, and company after company is reporting poor revenues and a lousy outlook--most of them citing the fiscal cliff. A parade of CEO's of both persuasions have been on CNBC, saying things like "we all know what needs to be done, they just need to get together and do it." Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles are both saying we need leadership.
And that's just the most pressing issue, among many.
The GOP has adopted an untenable position. This stance of no revenue on the table no matter what is proposed - Zero, is absolutely insane.
Should the President win the election, this will be the first time the GOP will be forced to address the to issue from a position of weakness. All parties will have to negotiate. I highly doubt the Nation will accept tax cuts for the top 2% at the expense of the 98% and I'm guessing that's what it will come down to.
Romney's not talking about Libya anymore. He agrees with the President.
I know this has to be sarcasm, at this point no rational person could agree with the blatant dishonesty and bungling (that got 4 people killed) that's come to light and it's disingenuous to infer that Romney agrees with that.
What he did was not clearly separate government GUARANTEE of bank loans from GOVERNMENT loans. The former is what Mitt supported, and what the industry said would have failed and would have resulted in the industry folding. The latter is what Bush started, and Obama amped up, what Mitt opposed, and what was the only thing that could have saved the industry and did save the industry. Government can't guarantee loans that BANKS WON'T MAKE.
But Mitt is slick enough to make that failed government guarantee of bank loans idea come across as "agreeing with government helping to save the industry." The truth is Romney's idea WOULD have folded the industry because banks refused to lend, so government had nothing to guarantee, and if government had ALSO refused to lend as Mitt advocated, NOBODY would have been there to lend and the industry would have folded. That is the core truth, but Mitt is shrewd enough to twist semantics to obscure that core truth.
That's the one thing I have the most against him- he tries to obscure HIS OWN POSITIONS, HIS OWN STANCES with generic wording and specifics-dodging that is intended to dupe the public and steer them away from the real truth about his positions. That's why he had a tax cut when speaking to the Republican base but after getting the nomination said don't expect a tax cut due to eliminating deductions. That's why he proposed a 20% tax rate cut that = $5 trillion dollars, but since the NET CUT after eliminating deductions is much less than that, when Obama referred TO the $5 trillion cut in the debate, he said he doesn't have a $5 trillion cut. He didn't want to distinguish that he DOES have a $5 trillion rate cut just not a $5 trillion net cut after deductions and loopholes- he wanted to TRICK the public into believing Obama was completely wrong in giving the $5 trillion number. Mitt keeps trying to trick the public about his own policies, but I'm enough of a thinker and analyzer to see the tricks for what they are and be offended by them. At least when McCain ran, you got the straight talk express. I can respect that, even if I disageed with him on specific policies. I can't at all respect Mitt the Intentional Obscurer of His Own Policies.
So you're ok with the bankruptcy that Obama led GM and Chrysler through? You do realize they went bankrupt right? They were in front of a BK judge and everything so the assertion that Obama "saved them" from BK is patently untrue.
Here's the thing you need to understand and the difference between these two men. Mitt would have let them go through a natural BK process with government loans to help them come out at the end of the reorg. Obama completely changed the BK process and ignored laws and process' in place for the last 200 years. Obama took the people who had a SECURED interest in these companies and literally tossed them off the cliff, in fact that tossing grandma off the cliff commercial fits Obama and what was done here.
Obama "stole" the secured positions that retired auto workers,retired grandma's and grandpa's had and handed it to the UAW forcing many retired people back to work.
A normal BK would have also forced GM to reorganize instead of just shuffling the deck chairs on the titanic leaving in place the same culture that drove 'em into the dumper in the first place. Why do you think the stock price is staying so low, so low in fact it will have to double for the government to just break even!
Being one of the secured investors that got shafted (I was rooting for a normal BK btw) I do know a bit about this situation and how it played out, not just the administration "spin" on what they did unlike many on here. I was not happy at the idea of any type of BK and obviously would've preferred that they were healthy and profitable but these are the calculated risks one takes when in the market and the risks of a major loss were very,very low IF normal process' in place for 200 years or more were followed. That's why one buys bonds and why they used to be considered a safe investment for retirement.
So let's at least be honest about this one thing, the bailout and government controlled/altered BK benefitted one group and one group only and y'all know who that was/is and why.
So you're ok with the bankruptcy that Obama led GM and Chrysler through? You do realize they went bankrupt right? They were in front of a BK judge and everything so the assertion that Obama "saved them" from BK is patently untrue.
Here's the thing you need to understand and the difference between these two men. Mitt would have let them go through a natural BK process with government loans to help them come out at the end of the reorg. Obama completely changed the BK process and ignored laws and process' in place for the last 200 years. Obama took the people who had a SECURED interest in these companies and literally tossed them off the cliff, in fact that tossing grandma off the cliff commercial fits Obama and what was done here.
Obama "stole" the secured positions that retired auto workers,retired grandma's and grandpa's had and handed it to the UAW forcing many retired people back to work.
A normal BK would have also forced GM to reorganize instead of just shuffling the deck chairs on the titanic leaving in place the same culture that drove 'em into the dumper in the first place. Why do you think the stock price is staying so low, so low in fact it will have to double for the government to just break even!
Being one of the secured investors that got shafted (I was rooting for a normal BK btw) I do know a bit about this situation and how it played out, not just the administration "spin" on what they did unlike many on here. I was not happy at the idea of any type of BK and obviously would've preferred that they were healthy and profitable but these are the calculated risks one takes when in the market and the risks of a major loss were very,very low IF normal process' in place for 200 years or more were followed. That's why one buys bonds and why they used to be considered a safe investment for retirement.
So let's at least be honest about this one thing, the bailout and government controlled/altered BK benefitted one group and one group only and y'all know who that was/is and why.
Geeze!
How many times does it have to be said?
"There would have been NO normal bankruptcy"
A normal BK requires that someone - anyone - steps forward to buy up shed assets so that the remaining (ie reorganized) parts of the company can continue to operate - but NO ONE in the private sector was willing or able to do that - NO ONE - and if NO ONE steps up to the plate to do that, then there is NO OTHER OPTION but for the entire company to shut down. What part of that do you not understand?
The problem with your scenario is that when all this was happening the banking industry was LOCKED UP. Why do you think GW Bush stepped into to begin with? Because he wanted to?
So you're ok with the bankruptcy that Obama led GM and Chrysler through? You do realize they went bankrupt right? They were in front of a BK judge and everything so the assertion that Obama "saved them" from BK is patently untrue.
I'm ok with that bankruptcy. And it's not ABOUT Obama or anybody else saving them from bankruptcy. It's about somebody saving THE INDUSTY FROM FOLDING. Saying that only the banks should have provided the loans and government should have guaranteed the loans (as Mitt said) and that government should NOT have provided the loans (as Mitt also said) would have made the industry fold because there WERE NO banks to lend. If the banks wouldn't lend and the government also wouldn't lend because a President Romney stands for government not lending, then there was NOBODY to lend, and the industry would have folded.
Bankruptcy is just a legal proceeding and is beside the point. Having the money/capital to SURVIVE the crisis, that IS the point. And nobody was going to lend the industry that money if the government didn't. So Romney's plan would have killed the American auto industry (even Ford because it's auto parts makers would have folded), whereas Obama's plan saved the American auto industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj
Here's the thing you need to understand and the difference between these two men. Mitt would have let them go through a natural BK process with government loans
False. That is not what he stood for, that is not what his op-ed piece in the NY Times said. He stood AGAINST government loans. He stood for BANK loans, with the government merely guaranteeing those loans so that if the automakers folded anyway and couldn't pay the loan back, the banks would still get paid back. (like the FDIC does with your money in the bank- if your bank folds, you get your money back anyway up to a cap) He was against government loans, and government loans were the only thing that was going to save the industry. It wasn't about bankruptcy, it was about who lends the money. Mitt's stance was banks should lend, government should not. Obama's stance was banks WON'T/CAN'T lend, so government MUST.
So you're ok with the bankruptcy that Obama led GM and Chrysler through? You do realize they went bankrupt right? They were in front of a BK judge and everything so the assertion that Obama "saved them" from BK is patently untrue.
Here's the thing you need to understand and the difference between these two men. Mitt would have let them go through a natural BK process with government loans to help them come out at the end of the reorg. Obama completely changed the BK process and ignored laws and process' in place for the last 200 years. Obama took the people who had a SECURED interest in these companies and literally tossed them off the cliff, in fact that tossing grandma off the cliff commercial fits Obama and what was done here.
Obama "stole" the secured positions that retired auto workers,retired grandma's and grandpa's had and handed it to the UAW forcing many retired people back to work.
A normal BK would have also forced GM to reorganize instead of just shuffling the deck chairs on the titanic leaving in place the same culture that drove 'em into the dumper in the first place. Why do you think the stock price is staying so low, so low in fact it will have to double for the government to just break even!
Being one of the secured investors that got shafted (I was rooting for a normal BK btw) I do know a bit about this situation and how it played out, not just the administration "spin" on what they did unlike many on here. I was not happy at the idea of any type of BK and obviously would've preferred that they were healthy and profitable but these are the calculated risks one takes when in the market and the risks of a major loss were very,very low IF normal process' in place for 200 years or more were followed. That's why one buys bonds and why they used to be considered a safe investment for retirement.
So let's at least be honest about this one thing, the bailout and government controlled/altered BK benefitted one group and one group only and y'all know who that was/is and why.
George Bush HIMSELF laid out the automakers' situation HERE:
As GW himself said - normal bankruptcy was NOT an option.
Text of the announcement:
"Statement by the President on the Administration's Plan to Assist the Automakers
Contact: White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 202-456-2580
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 /Standard Newswire/ -- The following text is a statement by the President:
Roosevelt Room
9:01 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. For years, America's automakers have faced serious challenges –- burdensome costs, a shrinking share of the market, and declining profits. In recent months, the global financial crisis has made these challenges even more severe. Now some U.S. auto executives say that their companies are nearing collapse –- and that the only way they can buy time to restructure is with help from the federal government.
This is a difficult situation that involves fundamental questions about the proper role of government. On the one hand, government has a responsibility not to undermine the private enterprise system. On the other hand, government has a responsibility to safeguard the broader health and stability of our economy.
Addressing the challenges in the auto industry requires us to balance these two responsibilities. If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy and liquidation for the automakers. Under ordinary economic circumstances, I would say this is the price that failed companies must pay –- and I would not favor intervening to prevent the automakers from going out of business.
But these are not ordinary circumstances. In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action. The question is how we can best give it a chance to succeed. Some argue the wisest path is to allow the auto companies to reorganize through Chapter 11 provisions of our bankruptcy laws -– and provide federal loans to keep them operating while they try to restructure under the supervision of a bankruptcy court. But given the current state of the auto industry and the economy, Chapter 11 is unlikely to work for American automakers at this time.
American consumers understand why: If you hear that a car company is suddenly going into bankruptcy, you worry that parts and servicing will not be available, and you question the value of your warranty. And with consumers hesitant to buy new cars from struggling automakers, it would be more difficult for auto companies to recover.
Additionally, the financial crisis brought the auto companies to the brink of bankruptcy much faster than they could have anticipated –- and they have not made the legal and financial preparations necessary to carry out an orderly bankruptcy proceeding that could lead to a successful restructuring.
The convergence of these factors means there's too great a risk that bankruptcy now would lead to a disorderly liquidation of American auto companies. My economic advisors believe that such a collapse would deal an unacceptably painful blow to hardworking Americans far beyond the auto industry. It would worsen a weak job market and exacerbate the financial crisis. It could send our suffering economy into a deeper and longer recession. And it would leave the next President to confront the demise of a major American industry in his first days of office.
A more responsible option is to give the auto companies an incentive to restructure outside of bankruptcy -– and a brief window in which to do it. And that is why my administration worked with Congress on a bill to provide automakers with loans to stave off bankruptcy while they develop plans for viability. This legislation earned bipartisan support from majorities in both houses of Congress.
Unfortunately, despite extensive debate and agreement that we should prevent disorderly bankruptcies in the American auto industry, Congress was unable to get a bill to my desk before adjourning this year.
This means the only way to avoid a collapse of the U.S. auto industry is for the executive branch to step in. The American people want the auto companies to succeed, and so do I. So today, I'm announcing that the federal government will grant loans to auto companies under conditions similar to those Congress considered last week.
These loans will provide help in two ways. First, they will give automakers three months to put in place plans to restructure into viable companies -– which we believe they are capable of doing. Second, if restructuring cannot be accomplished outside of bankruptcy, the loans will provide time for companies to make the legal and financial preparations necessary for an orderly Chapter 11 process that offers a better prospect of long-term success –- and gives consumers confidence that they can continue to buy American cars.
Because Congress failed to make funds available for these loans, the plan I'm announcing today will be drawn from the financial rescue package Congress approved earlier this fall. The terms of the loans will require auto companies to demonstrate how they would become viable. They must pay back all their loans to the government, and show that their firms can earn a profit and achieve a positive net worth. This restructuring will require meaningful concessions from all involved in the auto industry –- management, labor unions, creditors, bondholders, dealers, and suppliers.
In particular, automakers must meet conditions that experts agree are necessary for long-term viability –- including putting their retirement plans on a sustainable footing, persuading bondholders to convert their debt into capital the companies need to address immediate financial shortfalls, and making their compensation competitive with foreign automakers who have major operations in the United States. If a company fails to come up with a viable plan by March 31st, it will be required to repay its federal loans.
The automakers and unions must understand what is at stake, and make hard decisions necessary to reform, These conditions send a clear message to everyone involved in the future of American automakers: The time to make the hard decisions to become viable is now -– or the only option will be bankruptcy.
The actions I'm announcing today represent a step that we wish were not necessary. But given the situation, it is the most effective and responsible way to address this challenge facing our nation. By giving the auto companies a chance to restructure, we will shield the American people from a harsh economic blow at a vulnerable time. And we will give American workers an opportunity to show the world once again they can meet challenges with ingenuity and determination, and bounce back from tough times, and emerge stronger than before.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
hmm...
You do realize they went bankrupt right? They were in front of a BK judge and everything so the assertion that Obama "saved them" from BK is patently untrue.
