111th Congress the most productive in decades

[bobc2]

This right-wing mud-slinging is getting out of control!

I'm puzzled why you should consider references to Obama's interaction with Socialists as somehow constituting mud-slinging. I'm not using socialism as a kind of insulting label. Certainly there is no law against having socialist views in this country. Rather, you should feel good about Obama's relationships with socialists who have contributed significantly to his success as a career politician. Certainly, Obama has expressed his appreciation to various Socialist organizations in speeches and meetings with them, and I don't think he would consider it mud-slinging for me to recount some of those interactions. In spite of my discust with some of my old SDS friends there were also some very compasionate and concerned members who just thought they knew a way to replace a bad system with a more fair utopian system. I had dinner on one occasion with just my Marxist friend and his wife and Angela Davis (a nationally prominent radical left winger), and she was very poised and civil throughout our discussions, even though I carried very strong personal feelings in opposition to everything she was about at the time. I think she is now a respected University Professor, a career path settled on by many of the old radicals. Again, I did not intend to sling mud or insults.

I'm just interested in clarifying the distinctions between the two dramatically opposed visions of what our country should be. The conservatives have made it fairly clear that they would like to conserve the traditional Capitalistic Free Enterprise system and maintain the minimum size federal government necessary to fullfil responsibilities outlined in the Constitution. Marxists, Socialists, Progressives, or Liberals certainly have a right to lay out a new course for America and make their case to the American people. The courses open to the American people should be made clear, and ideally we should engage in civil discourse.

So, if I've stepped out of the bounds of Civil discourse, then please accept my appologies. Back on original thread point: I think Obama has made astonishingly successful strides in advancing his vision of America. I personally do not think that the larger public understands Obama's vision for America, and of course there is the possibility that I've misread it (but I don't think so). But, in any case there is still much discourse to be had. May the American people make their final choice as fully informed citizens.

 

[OmCheeto]

I sure hope the healthcare problems are solvable.

Well, if there isn't a thread addressing the solutions to healthcare in America, there should be. This forum is rife with problem solvers.

 

[turbo]

Well, if there isn't a thread addressing the solutions to healthcare in America, there should be. This forum is rife with problem solvers.

And rife with problem-perpetuators, unfortunately. It is not more productive to hang "socialist" or "Marxist" labels on Obama than it was to call Bush-Cheney "Nazis", though the former seems to be more tolerated on this forum than the latter.

It would be more productive to look at US revenues, and expenditures, and see how we can achieve balance. That is hindered by party-line rhetoric and ideology, though. I think it is fairly well-established that some people who follow politics closely are loathe to register with either major political party (Ivan and myself among them) because the parties have abandoned core principles and have locked into a pattern of self-preservation instead of serving the common good. So was the 111th congress "productive"? It depends largely on whose ox was gored, IMO.

 

[bobc2]

It is not more productive to hang "socialist" or "Marxist" labels on Obama than it was to call Bush-Cheney "Nazis", though the former seems to be more tolerated on this forum than the latter.

Please don't imply anything negative or disrespectful about terms like "socialist", "Marxist", "Progressive", or "Liberal." Disagree with the concepts of these movements, reject them, but they are no more than concepts to be embraced or rejected. If someone says, "I think we should tax people making over one million dollars at a 80% tax rate", you wouldn't automatically assign to him some derogatory label--it's just his concept of how to achieve equity in our society. You may understand lots of reasons why that's a bad idea and there can be civil discourse about that, leading to some consensus within the population.

Again, one should not take the use of "socialist" or "Marxist" labels as derogatory or insulting. Those are simply labels used to help convey ones position when having discussions about approaches to governing and implementing the economic and social activity of the nation.

Socialistic principles of larger government, redistibution of income, etc., are principles that are embraced by many countries throughout the world and by many peoople in our population. These concepts can be reasonably discussed as candidates for the future of the U.S. We as citizens need to confront these options openly and choose our path for the future. There should be no stigma attached to "Socialist", "Marxist", "Progressive", or "Liberal", or "Conservative." (Nazi is something else)

 

[WhoWee]

Socialistic principles of larger government, redistibution of income, etc., are principles that are embraced by many countries throughout the world and by many peoople in our population. These concepts can be reasonably discussed as candidates for the future of the U.S. We as citizens need to confront these options openly and choose our path for the future. There should be no stigma attached to "Socialist", "Marxist", "Progressive", or "Liberal", or "Conservative." (Nazi is something else)

I could not agree more!

We do need to have an open and honest discussion of our future path as a country. There should be no stigma attached. If an elected official believes in "Socialist", "Marxist", "Progressive", "Liberal", or "Conservative" ideals - they should be honest enough to declare themselves - it's called leadership.

Otherwise, I'm afraid this rudderless ship we call the US - is headed toward the rocks.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Please don't imply anything negative or disrespectful about terms like "socialist", "Marxist", "Progressive", or "Liberal."

The problem for me is that those terms were applied inappropriately. Obama didn't bailout the banks or the car companies because he's a socialist. He did it because he's a pragmatist. He did what was necessary to minimize the damage to the economy.

Neither Bush or Paulson were socialists, but they were the first to use socialist principles to save the economy when things started to collapse. It was probably one of the hardest things that Paulson ever had to do. He had to reject the principles that framed a lifetime as a dedicated free-marketeer, in order to save the country.

There is a difference between a philosophy, and a strategy. Obama detractors incorrectly claim that Obama took these actions as a result of his philosophy, when it was just a strategy, as it was with Bush and Paulson. This isn't a matter of black and white choices. Pure socialism and pure capitalism are abstract concepts that do not exist in fact.

 

[WhoWee]

The problem for me is that those terms were applied inappropriately. Obama didn't bailout the banks or the car companies because he's a socialist. He did it because he's a pragmatist. He did what was necessary to minimize the damage to the economy.

How practical was Obama's handling of the GM bondholders? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-02/gm-predecessor-s-bonds-decline-as-10-6-billion-ipo-plan-shows-valuation.html

Obama is a lawyer. This move has eroded confidence in our markets and created a sense of insecurity for investors - IMO.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How practical was Obama's handling of the GM bondholders? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-02/gm-predecessor-s-bonds-decline-as-10-6-billion-ipo-plan-shows-valuation.html

Obama is a lawyer. This move has eroded confidence in our markets and created a sense of insecurity for investors - IMO.

Well, not imo, but in fact, we are far better off than we were when the Republicans lost control and Obama took over. One can criticize and analyze ad infinitum without ever reaching an undeniable conclusion. In the end, one has to judge by the results. In Jan of 2009, we were losing 600,000 jobs a month, the Dow was in freefall and Wall Street was in crisis, the banking systems were failing, the auto companies were soon to be failing, we were into an official recession with two consecutive quarters of negative growth, the global economy was in jeopardy, and the best minds in economics were saying that we faced perhaps the greatest economic disaster in US history.

Today, the Dow has recovered over half of what it lost, employment is at least holding steady and never did hit double-digits, the banks are mostly stabilized, we have positive growth, inventories are depleted, and judging by Christmas sales which were the second best in history, consumer confidence is finally returning, which is highly siginificant. In the mean time, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid dared to take on one of the greatest challenges we face - the skyrocketing cost of health care and the burden it will put on the nation if left unchecked - and managed to take the first significant step in a century.

Frankly, given what the Republicans handed Obama - perhaps the biggest financial mess since the great depression, perhaps worse had Obama not acted, plus two wars - I think he's done a fantastic job.

 

[Al68]

Then why do you speak like this?

You mean why do I speak plain (non-fraudulent) English that no one is misled by, or doesn't know exactly what I mean? That I pointed out that Communists and Democrats routinely use transparently fraudulent language? Or that I used the word "Commiespeak" to refer to that fraudulent language? Would "fraudspeak" be better?

Or should I just ignore such fraudulent language, and not point it out? That's hard to do, as often as it is used on this forum, and since it comprises the entirety of the Democrats' "message" about tax policy.

I have to ask, what part of my post are you agreeing with? The frustration of dealing with stupidity?

Yes. For example, the stupidity of anyone who would fall for the transparent (and juvenile) fraud of using the words "give to" to refer to "failure to confiscate as much as desired."

It's like a school bully taking half of a kids lunch money, then referring to half he didn't take as a "gift" that the victim should be thankful for. Sure the mentally retarded kids might fall for such verbal trickery, but all the kids with an IQ over 70 will know better.

 

[CAC1001]

Today, the Dow has recovered over half of what it lost, employment is at least holding steady and never did hit double-digits, the banks are mostly stabilized, we have positive growth, inventories are depleted, and judging by Christmas sales which were the second best in history, consumer confidence is finally returning, which is highly siginificant.

Obama saved the auto industry, but that was also partially a bailout for the unions; the Republicans said to let the auto companies go into bankruptcy, and in the end, that's what happened.

In terms of the current economy, one could also say that the President and the Congress had next to nothing to do with the recovery thus far, and if anything, hamstrung the economic recovery in their quest for healthcare and with massive stimulus. The economy heals itself (although I would give a lot of credit to Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve as well). The stimulus was not designed to be stimulative (very little infrastructure work) and was more of a wishlist of spending on programs Democrats have wanted.

In the mean time, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid dared to take on one of the greatest challenges we face - the skyrocketing cost of health care and the burden it will put on the nation if left unchecked - and managed to take the first significant step in a century.

It was a combination of three reasons:

1) Try and provide healthcare for everyone
2) Bring costs down
3) The Democrats have been pushing for government control of healthcare for sixty years and knew this was likely their only chance

The problem is that one cannot increase coverage for everyone, bring down costs, and retain freedom of choice. Whenever Republicans brought up people losing freedom of choice, or rationing, or skyrocketing costs, they were criticized for scaremongering and twisting the facts. But the reality is one (or even more than one) of those will occur; the only alternative will be that the system simply will not cover everyone.

Frankly, given what the Republicans handed Obama - perhaps the biggest financial mess since the great depression, perhaps worse had Obama not acted, plus two wars - I think he's done a fantastic job.

Repeatedly putting the blame on the Republicans doesn't make it anymore true Ivan. The fact is the Congress was under Democratic control when this crisis occurred; if one wants to try the, "It happened on their watch" argument, well the financial system nearly collapsed on their (the Democrats') watch (although I wouldn't blame the Democrats either).

As for President Bush, well one can also try the, "It happened under his watch" claim as well, but that is assuming near God-like powers for any President to be able to spot when the financial system is about the collapse.

You had Barney Frank who said in 2007 that there was no housing bubble. In 2006, Ben Bernanke had given a speech talking about how the economy and markets had likely entered a new era.

Most of the economics establishment, the folks who study the economy and markets for a living, didn't see the crisis coming (although now that it happened, it seems everyone and their grandmother is claiming they saw it coming )

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Obama saved the auto industry, but that was also partially a bailout for the unions; the Republicans said to let the auto companies go into bankruptcy, and in the end, that's what happened.

No one liquidated and we didn't lose another 50,000 jobs, plus the tens of thousands of jobs for suppliers, at the height of the crisis, which is what was on the horizon.

In terms of the current economy, one could also say that the President and the Congress had next to nothing to do with the recovery thus far, and if anything, hamstrung the economic recovery in their quest for healthcare and with massive stimulus. The economy heals itself (although I would give a lot of credit to Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve as well). The stimulus was not designed to be stimulative (very little infrastructure work) and was more of a wishlist of spending on programs Democrats have wanted.

Bernanke by no means believed the economy would heal itself. Being one of the foremost experts on the Depression, he feared that we were entering an unrecoverable depressionary spiral. Beyond that, capital injections are not going to hamstring an economic recovery. That is just silly. And health care couldn't derail anything given that it hadn't even passed until the recovery was well under way.

It was a combination of three reasons:

1) Try and provide healthcare for everyone
2) Bring costs down
3) The Democrats have been pushing for government control of healthcare for sixty years and knew this was likely their only chance

The problem is that one cannot increase coverage for everyone, bring down costs, and retain freedom of choice. Whenever Republicans brought up people losing freedom of choice, or rationing, or skyrocketing costs, they were criticized for scaremongering and twisting the facts. But the reality is one (or even more than one) of those will occur; the only alternative will be that the system simply will not cover everyone.

The Republicans were accused of fear mongering for their claims of a socialist agenda and a Government takeover of health care; pulling the plug on grandma and death panels, and claims of cutting benefits for the elderly, that were not being cut. Beyond that, we already have rationing in the form of denials and unaffordable insurance, many people already have no choice for any form of health care, and we already see skyrocketing costs, much of which results from the lack of a single-payer system. Health care can be streamlined and the cost reduced but the free market has simply not led to that end. There are excessive expenditures for unnecessary technology, a ridiculous amount of paperwork that could easily be streamlined using modern electronics [what a concept!] for dozens of different payers, poor tracking of drugs and patient information that result in malpractice suits and human misery, and worst of all, too many people who don't participate in the system at all until they become a liablity.

Repeatedly putting the blame on the Republicans doesn't make it anymore true Ivan. The fact is the Congress was under Democratic control when this crisis occurred; if one wants to try the, "It happened on their watch" argument, well the financial system nearly collapsed on their (the Democrats') watch (although I wouldn't blame the Democrats either).

As for President Bush, well one can also try the, "It happened under his watch" claim as well, but that is assuming near God-like powers for any President to be able to spot when the financial system is about the collapse.

You had Barney Frank who said in 2007 that there was no housing bubble. In 2006, Ben Bernanke had given a speech talking about how the economy and markets had likely entered a new era.

Most of the economics establishment, the folks who study the economy and markets for a living, didn't see the crisis coming (although now that it happened, it seems everyone and their grandmother is claiming they saw it coming )

The housing bubble was only the tip of the iceberg. The real killer was relentless drive towards deregulation of the financial sector. That is what ultimately did us in. Clinton was guilty of being the best Republican the Democrats ever produced, and it was he and GWB that stripped the regulations that helped to create this disaster. Moreover, at the heart of this are Republican, free-market principles. In fact, looking back at the debt to GDP ratio, we see the long slide into debt, and the loss of the middle class for that matter, all started with Reagonomics.

Even when the financial systems were collapsing, we still saw the unwaivering conservative ideology of non-intervention, even if it meant letting the country, if not he global economy, fail. It seemed the ideology was more important than the country! Recall that the Republicans blocked the first effort to bail out the banks. The next day, in fact, in the next minutes, the market was in near freefall.

Yes indeed, this crisis lands squarely in the laps of Republicans. More specifically, it is the result of Republican ideology and free-market principles.

 

[WhoWee]

In the end, one has to judge by the results. In Jan of 2009, we were losing 600,000 jobs a month, the Dow was in freefall and Wall Street was in crisis, the banking systems were failing, the auto companies were soon to be failing, we were into an official recession with two consecutive quarters of negative growth, the global economy was in jeopardy, and the best minds in economics were saying that we faced perhaps the greatest economic disaster in US history.

Today, the Dow has recovered over half of what it lost, employment is at least holding steady and never did hit double-digits, the banks are mostly stabilized, we have positive growth, inventories are depleted, and judging by Christmas sales which were the second best in history, consumer confidence is finally returning, which is highly siginificant.

You can't be serious about unemployment - can you?http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm
"UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending Dec. 18, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 420,000, a decrease of 3,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 423,000. The 4-week moving average was 426,000, an increase of 2,500 from the previous week's revised average of 423,500.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 3.2 percent for the week ending Dec. 11, a decrease of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week's unrevised rate of 3.3 percent.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending Dec.11 was 4,064,000, a decrease of 103,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 4,167,000. The 4-week moving average was 4,155,500, a decrease of 38,250 from the preceding week's revised average of 4,193,750.

UNADJUSTED DATA

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 495,587 in the week ending Dec. 18, an increase of 5,311 from the previous week. There were 565,243 initial claims in the comparable week in 2009.

The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 3.3 percent during the week ending Dec. 11, an increase of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 4,173,407, an increase of 110,889 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 4.1 percent and the volume was 5,345,467.


The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending Dec. 4 was 8,883,578."

There were 8,883,578 people receiving unemployment benefits on December 4.

Granted, the Wall Street banks seemed to have been saved (by Bush) but the Main Street banks don't seem to be doing so well under Obama.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/28/AR2010122803649.html
""More banks failed in the United States this year than in any year since 1992, during the savings-and-loan crisis, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

This Story
2010 worst year for bank failures since 1992
Amid high unemployment, a struggling economy and a still-devastated real estate market, the nation is closing out the year with 157 bank failures, up from 140 in 2009. As recently as 2006, before the bubble burst, there were none.

Now, there are more on the horizon.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is it fair to ask yourself if we are better off than we were two years ago? Perhaps it would be wise to seek guidance from the greatest Republican of them all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loBe0WXtts8

 

[bobc2]

The problem for me is that those terms were applied inappropriately. Obama didn't bailout the banks or the car companies because he's a socialist. He did it because he's a pragmatist. He did what was necessary to minimize the damage to the economy.

That's a fair position to take, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Neither Bush or Paulson were socialists, but they were the first to use socialist principles to save the economy when things started to collapse. It was probably one of the hardest things that Paulson ever had to do. He had to reject the principles that framed a lifetime as a dedicated free-marketeer, in order to save the country.

There is a huge difference in what Bush did compared to what Obama did. Bush recognized a responsibility to do something about the banking system. Obama went far beyond addressing the banking system. And Bush would never have allowed the debt level to skyrocket to the present levels and certainly would not redistributed the money with the types of allocations made by the democrats.

 

[WhoWee]

Is it fair to ask yourself if we are better off than we were two years ago? Perhaps it would be wise to seek guidance from the greatest Republican of them all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loBe0WXtts8

Reagan asked "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" - the answer is clearly NO, NO I'm not better off now than I was 4 years ago.

As to your question of 2 years ago - again, NO, NO I'm not better off now than I was 2 years ago. My revenues are down, my income is down, and my ability to borrow has been restricted. While my contract re-negotiations have yielded lower future cash flows (to me for the same work), my operating costs such as labor, wholesale prices, fuel costs (paid $3.19/gal for Regular last evening), and utilities have increased. On a personal note, tuition costs, food costs, and health insurance costs are increasing. To add salt to the wound, my dentist closed 2 offices and can't see me about my infected tooth until after Jan 10.

So NO, I'm not better off now than I was 4 years ago, or 3 years ago, or 2 years ago, or even 1 year ago. Worse yet, 2011 is looking to be - even worse.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Is it fair to ask yourself if we are better off than we were two years ago? Perhaps it would be wise to seek guidance from the greatest Republican of them all

Good post, and the answer would be no. I did feel a small glimmer of hope when there was at least some cooperation in the gov't to pass the tax legislation, but I'm afraid we're not going to see any real recovery until stability returns to government regulations...

 

[OmCheeto]

bolding mine

You mean why do I speak plain (non-fraudulent) English that no one is misled by, or doesn't know exactly what I mean? That I pointed out that Communists and Democrats routinely use transparently fraudulent language? Or that I used the word "Commiespeak" to refer to that fraudulent language? Would "fraudspeak" be better?

I can only think of a few of people that speak the way you do, so I would not characterize your speech as "Plain English".

And I see you've honored my request that in order to solve problems, questions and answers must be presented. Unfortunately, your questions are rhetorical, and I don't think anyone can answer them.

Also, your use of your new word; "Fraudspeak", that you attribute to "Communists" and "Democrats", somewhat contradicts your assertion that your use of the terms Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Democrats, etc, are not insults.

When you ascribe such adjectives to the labels, we can only take them as insults.

Would "fraudspeak" be better?
Or should I just ignore such fraudulent language, and not point it out? That's hard to do, as often as it is used on this forum, and since it comprises the entirety of the Democrats' "message" about tax policy.

Sorry, but that looks like fraudspeak to me.

 

[FlexGunship]

I just read this whole thread and I guess I don't want to reply to anyone, I just want to share some thoughts:

1. The purpose of the legislative branch of government is to limit freedoms; by definition. When you write a law that wasn't there before (even for the purpose of protecting one group's freedoms) you impinge on a freedom somewhere. So, perhaps "productive" is not a compliment.
2. I'd like to propose that Democrats honestly have the best possible intentions, but always manage to get the worst results. Democats will be the ones to try to make everything fair and even for everyone at the cost of everyone. They often act on short-sighted "positive" goals, and the results in the long term always seem to be negative.
3. I'd also like to propose that Republicans are almost crazy sometimes. The will often say one thing (something intelligent and admirable) and then completely fail to follow-through. Yes, some Republicans seem to be totally warped by their religious constituents, but in the grand scheme of things, they seem to have the right idea: non-intervention.

Socially, any law can only serve to limit the freedoms of an individual. Most social laws take the form of "uh, you can't do that." Even laws that have the noble intention of "leveling the playing field" always do so at the expense of someone else. It's a zero sum game, socially. (Please understand, I'm not advocating anarchy, just making a point... I don't mind if congress abridges my right to murder.)

Economically, any law can only serve to compromise the natural tendency of a free market to fix itself. Yes, economies fail over and over and over and always in new and unexpected ways. That's not something to fix, it's something to expect. Trying to legislate those problems away is like trying to legislate the tide from coming in (without the appropriate budget).

 

[WhoWee]

I just read this whole thread and I guess I don't want to reply to anyone, I just want to share some thoughts:

Care to provide an equally honest response to Ivan/Reagan's question?

 

[OmCheeto]

Is it fair to ask yourself if we are better off than we were two years ago? Perhaps it would be wise to seek guidance from the greatest Republican of them all

I don't know about we, but I'm better off.
I heard the other day that I'm getting a tax break that I don't need, my portfolio is up 63% from a year ago, the new truck I bought last year is still running great, and I guess I'm really lucky to be one of those rare http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm" who still has a job.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't know about we, but I'm better off.
I heard the other day that I'm getting a tax break that I don't need, my portfolio is up 63% from a year ago, the new truck I bought last year is still running great, and I guess I'm really lucky to be one of those rare http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm" who still has a job.

That was a good link - the unemployment graph from 2006 - 2010 certainly answers the question for "we" - doesn't it?
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

 

[FlexGunship]

Care to provide an equally honest response to Ivan/Reagan's question?

I happen to be better off actually, than I was two years ago, and much better off than four years ago.

However, I strongly believe I am an exception to the rule and wouldn't use my experience as a metric.

 

[FlexGunship]

...my portfolio is up 63% from a year ago...

Careful... how much is it up from 2 years ago? Or 4 years ago? My Enerplus Resources stock is up a gajillion percent from a year ago. But if I had bought it four years ago, it would be way down.

 

[mheslep]

Obama saved the auto industry, ...

All that can be factually said on the subject is that Obama saved the legal entity called General Motors, and probably Chrysler, but not the "auto industry". He certainly didn't "save" Ford or the dozens of foreign auto factories in the US. http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/fortune/0905/gallery.largest_bankruptcies.fortune/3.html" ( ~$100B, larger than GM) and Enron were allowed to fail back in '02 yet the government was not required to step in and rescue the telecom or energy industries, though if the government had I'm sure we'd be seeing some history about how Bush saved the telecom industry.

 

[OmCheeto]

Careful... how much is it up from 2 years ago? Or 4 years ago? My Enerplus Resources stock is up a gajillion percent from a year ago. But if I had bought it four years ago, it would be way down.

I didn't start investing until December of '08.
The market struck me as way overvalued before then, kind of like the housing market.
But by March '09 the market struck me as way undervalued.
All I've been doing is buying.

And who's fault is it that my capitol gains tax is remaining so low?
Congress?

(Cha-Ching!)

 

[WhoWee]

All that can be factually said on the subject is that Obama saved the legal entity called General Motors, and probably Chrysler, but not the "auto industry". He certainly didn't "save" Ford or the dozens of foreign auto factories in the US. http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/fortune/0905/gallery.largest_bankruptcies.fortune/3.html" was allowed to fail back ( ~$100B, larger than GM) in '02 yet the government was required to step in and rescue the telecom industry, though if the government had I'm sure we'd be seeing some history about how Bush saved the telecom industry.

On the other hand, I do think it's fair to say that Obama saved the United Auto Workers Union (didn't do much for the bondholders though).

 

[WhoWee]

I didn't start investing until December of '08.
The market struck me as way overvalued before then, kind of like the housing market.
But by March '09 the market struck me as way undervalued.
All I've been doing is buying.

And who's fault is it that my capitol gains tax is remaining so low?
Congress?

(Cha-Ching!)

I hear GM is a good investment...

 

[mheslep]

On the other hand, I do think it's fair to say that Obama saved the United Auto Workers Union (didn't do much for the bondholders though).

We know, from GM's cash flow and debt schedule, that a traditional bankruptcy was imminent, and a traditional bankruptcy would have destroyed the existing union contracts. Beyond that, we don't know how the union's would have ended up, or what kind of new contracts could be negotiated with new management or the court.

 

[WhoWee]

We know, from GM's cash flow and debt schedule, that a traditional bankruptcy was imminent, and a traditional bankruptcy would have destroyed the existing union contracts. Beyond that, we don't know how the union's would have ended up, or what kind of new contracts could be negotiated with new management or the court.

Ahh - the heart of the matter - Obama is a lawyer, with no bankruptcy experience(?), or auto industry xperience, or ANY business experience(?) - yet he chose to not trust the US Federal Court system to handle the imminent filing. I think it's fair to question "why" - was it to protect the UAW? Was it to protect the auto industry? Isn't Toyota part of the auto industry also?

BTW - a Chapter 11 filing by GM would have protected the bondholders.

 

[FlexGunship]

Ahh - the heart of the matter - Obama is a lawyer, with no bankruptcy experience(?), or auto industry xperience, or ANY business experience(?) - yet he chose to not trust the US Federal Court system to handle the imminent filing. I think it's fair to question "why" - was it to protect the UAW? Was it to protect the auto industry? Isn't Toyota part of the auto industry also?

BTW - a Chapter 11 filing by GM would have protected the bondholders.

I'm totally on the wrong side of this: I'm a very libertarian individual and I voted for McCain in this past election, however, I might be the only person who will admit that Obama is doing a bit better than I expected (this congress was a total failure, though).

That being said, when looking for ways to help the auto industry, Obama DID consult with a lot of top business leaders. Many of his ideas were actually suggested by private sector leaders (Sam Palmisano, for example... no one could argue he is a social stooge).

I happen to strongly disagree with the efforts to save GM and Chrysler. A failure of such major companies would spur small business growth and would've showered the U.S. economy with new ideas and innovation. Furthermore, it might have finally helped end the union plague on the industry.

But, I dunno... it could've gone worse.

 

[turbo]

I happen to strongly disagree with the efforts to save GM and Chrysler. A failure of such major companies would spur small business growth and would've showered the U.S. economy with new ideas and innovation. Furthermore, it might have finally helped end the union plague on the industry.

But, I dunno... it could've gone worse.

Allowing those companies to fail would have ruined thousands of small businesses that supply them with parts, trim, accessories, electrical components etc. That's a much bigger deal than shutting down the big assembly plants that most people associate with the "auto industry". I don't think Obama had as much of a choice as many people ascribe to him.

 

[WhoWee]

That being said, when looking for ways to help the auto industry, Obama DID consult with a lot of top business leaders. Many of his ideas were actually suggested by private sector leaders (Sam Palmisano, for example... no one could argue he is a social stooge).

I happen to strongly disagree with the efforts to save GM and Chrysler. A failure of such major companies would spur small business growth and would've showered the U.S. economy with new ideas and innovation. Furthermore, it might have finally helped end the union plague on the industry.

But, I dunno... it could've gone worse.

Maybe he should have trusted the experts in these matters -specifically the US Bankruptcy courts?

Here's a quick list of some of their experience:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_that_have_filed_for_Chapter_11_bankruptcy

Their specific experience includes auto manufacturers and suppliers (one of GM's companies Delphi as well)- a few union and bondholder issues as well.

This man (President Obama) took it upon himself to pick the winners and the losers - rather than trust (his profession - Law) the experts - that is an over-reach of power (IMO).

 

[WhoWee]

Allowing those companies to fail would have ruined thousands of small businesses that supply them with parts, trim, accessories, electrical components etc. That's a much bigger deal than shutting down the big assembly plants that most people associate with the "auto industry". I don't think Obama had as much of a choice as many people ascribe to him.

Not so fast my friend, do you have any support for your assessment? Specifically, how many companies that supply GM are still in business (with GM)? How many of these companies failed?

Better yet, how many jobs have been lost due to Obama's re-organization of the dealer networks? How many dealers lost all or part of their investment because of Obama's actions?

How many non-union jobs were NOT saved or created on the fringes of the auto industry?

When you see first time unemployment claims of 400,000+ 2 years later - who do you think is filing?

 

[FlexGunship]

Allowing those companies to fail would have ruined thousands of small businesses that supply them with parts, trim, accessories, electrical components etc. That's a much bigger deal than shutting down the big assembly plants that most people associate with the "auto industry". I don't think Obama had as much of a choice as many people ascribe to him.

When companies fail, the demand for their products does not implicitly vanish; only the supply.

I'm not pretending that the immediate situation would've have gotten worse; in fact, I indicated in the post you quoted that "things could've been worse." Doesn't anyone remember Daewoo? They were the second largest company on the Korean peninsula after Hyundai (larger than Samsung!).

When huge companies fail, the jobs don't just disappear. Things don't just fall apart. People don't just forget about automobiles. Yes, it totally would've been a rough time. But, right now, we would be reading about the top ten new car companies in the U.S. if GM had been allowed to fall apart.

EDIT: How about Studebaker? We might have a better historical perspective on that particular failure now. Sales were bad, production quality suffered. Tens of thousands of people lost jobs. But no one looks back and says: "if only we had bailed out Studebaker."

 

[turbo]

Not so fast my friend, do you have any support for your assessment? Specifically, how many companies that supply GM are still in business (with GM)? How many of these companies failed?

Here you go - reasons to save GM as explained by "W", including an estimated 1.1 million jobs lost if it had been allowed to go under.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/economy/