Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

956724 Posts in 63208 Topics- by 15426 Members - Latest Member: conn8hspecial
Jump to:  
The Trombone ForumPractice BreakChit-ChatPurely Politics(Moderators: bhcordova, RedHotMama, BFW) It's telling to whom this is perceived as a pro-Obama ad
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: It's telling to whom this is perceived as a pro-Obama ad  (Read 3528 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 16320
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« on: Feb 07, 2012, 06:58AM »

It's Halftime In America
 
What does this tell you? Is it feeling picked on because you know the shoe fits, and you're an intellectual and moral coward ...
Quote
... or is it just what you do when you're used to cynically using reality--historical and current events--merely as the thread out of which to weave a tapestry to suit your own agenda?
Logged

- Reason is to understanding as theory is to music, and critical thinking is as mastery of theory.
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves. -Richard Feynman
Russ White

*
Offline Offline

Location: Orange City, Fl
Joined: Feb 27, 2007
Posts: 3905

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: Feb 07, 2012, 08:26AM »

Anything that offends "Turd Blossom" (I realize that's an insult to turds) can't be all bad.
Logged

Better than yesterday, better yet tomorrow.
Andrew Meronek

*
Offline Offline

Location: Almont, MI
Joined: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 6490
"Justly Intoned"


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: Feb 07, 2012, 12:13PM »

I find it ironic that by feigning offense at that commercial, Mr. Rove is doing the exact politicing that he's claiming offense at.
Logged

"All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians."

- Thelonious Monk
SensitiveJohn
*
Offline Offline

Location: Boston
Joined: Nov 23, 2001
Posts: 10390

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: Feb 07, 2012, 12:33PM »

Chrysler would be out of business if the Republicans had there way.  They were against the auto bailout, but were for the wall street bailout.  That shows us whose interests they look out for.
Logged
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: Feb 07, 2012, 12:37PM »

Chrysler would be out of business if the Republicans had there way.  They were against the auto bailout, but were for the wall street bailout.  That shows us whose interests they look out for.
Chrysler may have gone bankrupt but they may have survived under restructuring.  Just like many businesses do every day.
Not all Republicans supported bailing out Wall Street.
"The revised HR1424 was received from the Senate by the House, and on October 3, it voted 263-171 to enact the bill into law. Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it; overall, 33 Democrats and 24 Republicans who had previously voted against the bill supported it on the second vote."
Get your facts straight.
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
Piano man
*
Online Online

Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 7523

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: Feb 08, 2012, 10:49AM »

As long as we're getting our facts straight, Clint's a libertarian who opposed and opposes the auto bailout.

I don't see how that ad is pro-Obama. Talking about working together to rebuild our economy and our nation would give offense only to those from both parties who have hampered our recovery with the politics of division for narrow, partisan gain. As BvB says, it's telling to notice who takes umbrage at such a positive message.

It doesn't make sense that Chrysler would deliberately create a pro-Obama ad, because around half of the country opposes him, and Chrysler wants to sell them cars.

I don't really care about Rove's crocodile tears over the ad, because nothing he says ever means anything. 'Chicago-style politics', indeed.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 7338

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: Feb 08, 2012, 10:52AM »

As long as we're getting our facts straight, Clint's a libertarian who opposed and opposes the auto bailout.


Clint in an actor.
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 42893
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: Feb 08, 2012, 10:54AM »

Clint in an actor.

So was Ronnie Reagan.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 7338

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: Feb 08, 2012, 10:56AM »

So was Ronnie Reagan.

So? He didn't make the ad in question.
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: Feb 08, 2012, 11:10AM »

As long as we're getting our facts straight, Clint's a libertarian who opposed and opposes the auto bailout.

I don't see how that ad is pro-Obama. Talking about working together to rebuild our economy and our nation would give offense only to those from both parties who have hampered our recovery with the politics of division for narrow, partisan gain. As BvB says, it's telling to notice who takes umbrage at such a positive message.

It doesn't make sense that Chrysler would deliberately create a pro-Obama ad, because around half of the country opposes him, and Chrysler wants to sell them cars.

I don't really care about Rove's crocodile tears over the ad, because nothing he says ever means anything. 'Chicago-style politics', indeed.
I don't see this ad as pro Obama but I see how some could construe it that way.  Clint's a strong libertarian/Republican.  This issue is silly.
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
Piano man
*
Online Online

Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 7523

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: Feb 08, 2012, 11:16AM »

Clint is also a politician who was a Republican most of his life and now describes himself as a libertarian independent.

He may be an actor, but he wasn't hired as anonymous voice talent or a pretty face, and he probably doesn't need the money. The ad had a message he liked, obviously.

1)If you believe that Obama's a socialist (Ronkny calls him 'Mao-bama'), why would a libertarian make a plug for a socialist candidate?
2)Why would Chrysler deliberately run a pro-Obama ad?
3) Why is an pep talk on the strength of America and our ability to work together considered pro-Obama?

Haven't heard an answer to any of those. My answer is that the ad's message of working together is contrary to current GOP political strategy. But it shouldn't be, if they're working for us.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Piano man
*
Online Online

Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 7523

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: Feb 08, 2012, 11:18AM »

I don't see this ad as pro Obama but I see how some could construe it that way.  Clint's a strong libertarian/Republican.  This issue is silly.

We agree. What this illustrates is the mania for creating false issues (Sharia Law, anchor babies, etc.) in a dangerous world where we have issues like Pakistan and Iran that threaten our very existence.

Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Stretch Longarm
old enough to know better

*
Offline Offline

Location: Washington
Joined: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 3790

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: Feb 08, 2012, 05:19PM »

We agree. What this illustrates is the mania for creating false issues (Sharia Law, anchor babies, etc.) in a dangerous world where we have issues like Pakistan and Iran that threaten our very existence.



Actually you could summarize and say that WE threaten our very existence. We (humans) are our own worst enemies. But I digress...
Logged

trombone airflow is 360 degrees. Think about it.
actikid
*
Offline Offline

Location: Indianapolis
Joined: Dec 30, 2001
Posts: 10562

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: Feb 08, 2012, 05:55PM »

1)If you believe that Obama's a socialist (Ronkny calls him 'Mao-bama'), why would a libertarian make a plug for a socialist candidate?
2)Why would Chrysler deliberately run a pro-Obama ad?
3) Why is an pep talk on the strength of America and our ability to work together considered pro-Obama?
Those are great questions, and the ad said nothing at all about Obama -- not even a vague reference to leadership.  It didn't even mention government.

So why are the Republicans coming ungluead about this?  Because every single one of them was wishing for Detroit's failure -- not just wishing, but actively campaigning for Detroit's failure.  They actively, aggressively opposed Obama, and most Americans know that. 

They was voiding bricks now because it is only a teeny step from what they did to wishing for AMERICA to fail.  And frankly, that is exactly what Republicans have come to be seen as.  When McConnell said the most important thing -- over all else -- was to make sure Obama was a one-term President, Americans got the message.  So Detroit is succeeding despite all sorts of Republican fingerprints on the daggers, ice picks and blunt objects they tried to use to kill it.

That is why they see what is in fact, a very apolitical ad, as their undoing.
Logged

Where was Blackwater on the morning of September 11, 2001?
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: Feb 08, 2012, 06:12PM »

Those are great questions, and the ad said nothing at all about Obama -- not even a vague reference to leadership.  It didn't even mention government.

So why are the Republicans coming ungluead about this?  Because every single one of them was wishing for Detroit's failure -- not just wishing, but actively campaigning for Detroit's failure.  They actively, aggressively opposed Obama, and most Americans know that. 

They was voiding bricks now because it is only a teeny step from what they did to wishing for AMERICA to fail.  And frankly, that is exactly what Republicans have come to be seen as.  When McConnell said the most important thing -- over all else -- was to make sure Obama was a one-term President, Americans got the message.  So Detroit is succeeding despite all sorts of Republican fingerprints on the daggers, ice picks and blunt objects they tried to use to kill it.

That is why they see what is in fact, a very apolitical ad, as their undoing.
BS
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
badger

*
Offline Offline

Location: Permian Basin
Joined: Sep 27, 2010
Posts: 806

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: Feb 08, 2012, 07:39PM »

Fiat owns 58% of Chrysler...Greece is a basket case and Italy may not be far behind.
Logged
Russ White

*
Offline Offline

Location: Orange City, Fl
Joined: Feb 27, 2007
Posts: 3905

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: Feb 08, 2012, 08:18PM »

Those are great questions, and the ad said nothing at all about Obama -- not even a vague reference to leadership.  It didn't even mention government.

So why are the Republicans coming ungluead about this?  Because every single one of them was wishing for Detroit's failure -- not just wishing, but actively campaigning for Detroit's failure.  They actively, aggressively opposed Obama, and most Americans know that. 

They was voiding bricks now because it is only a teeny step from what they did to wishing for AMERICA to fail.  And frankly, that is exactly what Republicans have come to be seen as.  When McConnell said the most important thing -- over all else -- was to make sure Obama was a one-term President, Americans got the message.  So Detroit is succeeding despite all sorts of Republican fingerprints on the daggers, ice picks and blunt objects they tried to use to kill it.

That is why they see what is in fact, a very apolitical ad, as their undoing.



BS

Yep, Brilliant Summary!,
Logged

Better than yesterday, better yet tomorrow.
actikid
*
Offline Offline

Location: Indianapolis
Joined: Dec 30, 2001
Posts: 10562

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: Feb 08, 2012, 08:33PM »

Yep, Brilliant Summary!,
A very persuasive counter-argument, I must say.
Logged

Where was Blackwater on the morning of September 11, 2001?
actikid
*
Offline Offline

Location: Indianapolis
Joined: Dec 30, 2001
Posts: 10562

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: Feb 08, 2012, 08:42PM »

Fiat owns 58% of Chrysler...Greece is a basket case and Italy may not be far behind.
Greece is a red herring. Italy may or may not be relevant.

But the fact is that Chrysler has repaid every dollar invested by the US government, AND they ave continued to employ a LARGE work force of AMERICANS here in AMERICA. And they have continued to produce a lot of vehicle that need lots of parts made by AMERICANS at AMERICAN supply houses.  And absolutely none of this would have happened if any Republican anywhere in the leadership would have had their say.  Show me a single Republican leader who was in favor of trying to keep the American car industry alive.

(Of course there are plenty of Republicans in the "right to work cheap" states that were hoping for Detroit to fail because they thought that would help them in their alliances with Honda, Toyota, Nissan and other offshore companies looking.  They are happy to provide the cheapest possible labor to foreign companies.  That is not the same thing as maintaining a strong domestic industry.)

The simple truth is that Republicans hate Obama so much that they were hoping for a complete collapse of our system -- and doing everything in their power to achieve that goal.

I should also point out that there is only one Fiat model being imported today -- and that is the 500, a niche product that doesn't overlap with the Chrysler/Dodge line at all.  I have been driving a 500 for the past 3 weeks, by the way, and it is a very nice piece of work.  If Italy gets into the deep weeds, it will not be because of the Fiat 500.

Today I switched to a Ford Flex, another great product made by an AMERICAN company by AMERICAN workers.
Logged

Where was Blackwater on the morning of September 11, 2001?
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: Feb 08, 2012, 08:51PM »

Greece is a red herring. Italy may or may not be relevant.

But the fact is that Chrysler has repaid every dollar invested by the US government, AND they ave continued to employ a LARGE work force of AMERICANS here in AMERICA. And they have continued to produce a lot of vehicle that need lots of parts made by AMERICANS at AMERICAN supply houses.  And absolutely none of this would have happened if any Republican anywhere in the leadership would have had their say.  Show me a single Republican leader who was in favor of trying to keep the American car industry alive.

(Of course there are plenty of Republicans in the "right to work cheap" states that were hoping for Detroit to fail because they thought that would help them in their alliances with Honda, Toyota, Nissan and other offshore companies looking.  They are happy to provide the cheapest possible labor to foreign companies.  That is not the same thing as maintaining a strong domestic industry.)

The simple truth is that Republicans hate Obama so much that they were hoping for a complete collapse of our system -- and doing everything in their power to achieve that goal.

I should also point out that there is only one Fiat model being imported today -- and that is the 500, a niche product that doesn't overlap with the Chrysler/Dodge line at all.  I have been driving a 500 for the past 3 weeks, by the way, and it is a very nice piece of work.  If Italy gets into the deep weeds, it will not be because of the Fiat 500.

Today I switched to a Ford Flex, another great product made by an AMERICAN company by AMERICAN workers.
I'll make it more clear, ********!  Youre the hyperbole master.  Everything you  post is your opinion that you post as fact. 
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
actikid
*
Offline Offline

Location: Indianapolis
Joined: Dec 30, 2001
Posts: 10562

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: Feb 08, 2012, 08:59PM »

I'll make it more clear, ********!  Youre the hyperbole master.  Everything you  post is your opinion that you post as fact. 
If that is true, then you should have no difficulty showing us clear evidence of a national Republican leader who publicly supported Obama in his efforts to rescue the domestic car industry.

Please don't keep us in suspense.
Logged

Where was Blackwater on the morning of September 11, 2001?
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: Feb 08, 2012, 09:10PM »

If that is true, then you should have no difficulty showing us clear evidence of a national Republican leader who publicly supported Obama in his efforts to rescue the domestic car industry.

Please don't keep us in suspense.
Where is your evidence to prove this

"But the fact is that Chrysler has repaid every dollar invested by the US government, AND they ave continued to employ a LARGE work force of AMERICANS here in AMERICA. And they have continued to produce a lot of vehicle that need lots of parts made by AMERICANS at AMERICAN supply houses.  And absolutely none of this would have happened if any Republican anywhere in the leadership would have had their say.  Show me a single Republican leader who was in favor of trying to keep the American car industry alive.

(Of course there are plenty of Republicans in the "right to work cheap" states that were hoping for Detroit to fail because they thought that would help them in their alliances with Honda, Toyota, Nissan and other offshore companies looking.  They are happy to provide the cheapest possible labor to foreign companies.  That is not the same thing as maintaining a strong domestic industry.)"

Doug Chrysler had gone into bankruptcy like most business do if they are in trouble, they would not have restructured and come out of it?  Any proof this would not have happened?
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
Piano man
*
Online Online

Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 7523

View Profile
« Reply #22 on: Feb 08, 2012, 09:29PM »

Ronkny, you can't rule out any possibility.

It's possible that Chrysler would have successfully reorganized without any help other than bankruptcy protection. Not likely, but possible.

The auto bailouts were strongly opposed by many on the hard left and the hard right, and there are principled arguments to be made against them.

But the reality was that we weren't just talking about the risk of losing the 'Big Three'; we were talking about losing the huge supply chains behind them. This would potentially bankrupt other businesses and even municipal and state governments in areas where these businesses exist.

So the people voting wouldn't have been wise to say, "Well, maybe if we don't help, this other thing will happen. Let's see if it works."  They were required to make an actual decision based on the very real possibility of economic catastrophe. By all appearances, they made the right one.

So asking, "Why can't you prove that automakers wouldn't have survived without the bailout" isn't the right question. It's not the way that decisions like that are made.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #23 on: Feb 08, 2012, 09:34PM »

Ronkny, you can't rule out any possibility.

It's possible that Chrysler would have successfully reorganized without any help other than bankruptcy protection. Not likely, but possible.

The auto bailouts were strongly opposed by many on the hard left and the hard right, and there are principled arguments to be made against them.

But the reality was that we weren't just talking about the risk of losing the 'Big Three'; we were talking about losing the huge supply chains behind them. This would potentially bankrupt other businesses and even municipal and state governments in areas where these businesses exist.

So the people voting wouldn't have been wise to say, "Well, maybe if we don't help, this other thing will happen. Let's see if it works."  They were required to make an actual decision based on the very real possibility of economic catastrophe. By all appearances, they made the right one.

So asking, "Why can't you prove that automakers wouldn't have survived without the bailout" isn't the right question. It's not the way that decisions like that are made.
Exactly my point.  I didn't state that they would have go bankrupt and reorganized successfully, I did say it could happen, however someone stated that the Repubs "wanted" Chrysler to fail as a fact.
Why "not likely"?  Businesses do it all the time.
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
SensitiveJohn
*
Offline Offline

Location: Boston
Joined: Nov 23, 2001
Posts: 10390

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: Feb 08, 2012, 09:51PM »

Another thing to Remember is that the union, the United Auto Workers Union. put its money where its mouth is, and they helped bailout GM and Chrysler.  Something tells me that the people that work for GM and Chrysler are getting better wages and benefits than the workers for Nissan and Toyota in the slave states.
Logged
Piano man
*
Online Online

Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 7523

View Profile
« Reply #25 on: Feb 08, 2012, 10:05PM »

Exactly my point.  I didn't state that they would have go bankrupt and reorganized successfully, I did say it could happen, however someone stated that the Repubs "wanted" Chrysler to fail as a fact.
Why "not likely"?  Businesses do it all the time.

Sure they do. Name all of the businesses of comparable size to Chrysler and GM that have successfully reorganized under Chapter 11.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: Feb 08, 2012, 10:20PM »

Sure they do. Name all of the businesses of comparable size to Chrysler and GM that have successfully reorganized under Chapter 11.
Delta Airlines.  American is in the midst now.
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
Piano man
*
Online Online

Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 7523

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: Feb 08, 2012, 10:36PM »

Delta Airlines.  American is in the midst now.

Airlines are a bad example. A lot of them have gone bankrupt and disappeared. Being 'in the midst' of bankruptcy isn't a good example, either.

The point is, we can list dozens of venerable companies that simply disappeared, and a tiny handful where reorganization worked. The congressmen who supported the auto bailout simply weren't willing to apply those long odds to an industry that was deeply embedded in the economy. So far, it's worked.

I'm guessing that if you or I were in the position to make the decision and roll the dice, we would have gone the same way. If so, we would have been right.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Russ White

*
Offline Offline

Location: Orange City, Fl
Joined: Feb 27, 2007
Posts: 3905

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: Feb 09, 2012, 04:42AM »

Chapter 11
This is a list of airlines that have filed for bankruptcy protection via Chapter 11 in the United States.[1]
Airline   Date Bankruptcy filed   Date Exited Bankruptcy   Notes
New York Airways   1979-05-18      Ceased operations (see wiki page)
Aeroamerica   1979-11-19      Ceased operations (see wiki page)
Florida Airlines   1980-01-24      Death by deregulation (see wiki page)
Indiana Airlines   1980-03-03      
Air Bahia   1980-12-15      
Tejas Airlines   1980-12-31      
Mountain West Airlines-Idaho   1981-03-06      Ceased operations
LANICA   1981-03-16      
Coral Air   1981-07-13      
Pacific Coast   1981-09-11      
Swift Air Line   1981-09-18      
Golden Gate (Airline)   1981-10-09      
Pinehurst Airlines   1982-01-26      
Silver State Airlines   1982-03-03      
Air Pennsylvania   1982-03-26      
Air South   1982-04-02      
Cochise Airlines   1982-04-16      
Braniff International   1982-05-13      
Astec Air East   1982-07-08      
Will's Air   1982-08-19      
Aero Sun International   1982-10-15      
Aero Virgin Islands   1982-10-19      
Altair Airlines   1982-11-09      
Partnair   1989-10-01      Filed for bankruptcy sometime in October; day unknown.
Pan American World Airways   1991-01-08      
Trans World Airlines   2001-01-10      Filed as part of an acquisition by American Airlines
US Airways   2002-08-11   2003-03-31   
United Airlines   2002-12-09   2006-02-01   
Air Canada   2003-04-01   2004-09-30   
Flash Airlines   2004-03-01      
US Airways   2004-09-12   2005-09-27   Second filing, emerges in conjunction with its acquisition by America West
Aloha Airlines   2004-12-30   2006-02-17
Northwest Airlines   2005-09-14   2007-05-31   Acquired by Delta in 2008
Delta Air Lines   2005-09-14   2007-04-30   Filed, putting 4 of the top 7 carriers in the United States under bankruptcy protection
Maxjet Airways   2007-12-26      Filed and discontinues operations
Aloha Airlines   2008-03-31      Filed and discontinues passenger transporting operations
ATA Airlines   2008-04-03      Filed and discontinues operations
Skybus Airlines   2008-04-05      Filed and discontinues operations
Frontier Airlines   2008-04-10   2009-10-01   
Eos Airlines   2008-04-26      Filed and discontinues operations
Sun Country Airlines   2008-10-06      Filed
Primaris Airlines   2008-10-15      Filed and discontinues operations
Japan Airlines   2010-01-19   2011-03-28   
Arrow Air   2010-07-01      Filed, discontinued, and undergoing liquidation
Mexicana   2010-08-28      Filed and suspends operations
American Airlines   2011-11-29      Filed and continues operations - Includes AMR parent company, Current CEO steps down


Not a lot of these show an "exited from bankruptcy" date. Nor, do they support nearly as large an ancillary group of industries, employing anywhere near the number of American employees. IT would have been an enormous mistake not to have intervened.
Logged

Better than yesterday, better yet tomorrow.
actikid
*
Offline Offline

Location: Indianapolis
Joined: Dec 30, 2001
Posts: 10562

View Profile
« Reply #29 on: Feb 09, 2012, 05:50AM »

The auto bailouts were strongly opposed by many on the hard left and the hard right, and there are principled arguments to be made against them.
Definitely.  They were opposed by far more than who supported it.  I don't recall a single prominent voice from the Republican Party supporting this.  There were certainly a lot of Democrats who supported Obama in this.

And the bottom line is that Obama was right and those who opposed him were flat out wrong, regardless of how principled their arguments might have been.  The results are in.  There is nothing to debate.  Obama showed strong leadership and in the process saves roughly 1,000,000 really good jobs in the industry.  The gross cost to the taxpayer is zero for Chrysler, zero for Ford, and TBD for GM, but probably around $15-20B.  And that makes it a huge net GAIN for the taxpayers because the additional taxes paid by these EMPLOYED 1,000,000, as opposed to most of them being on assistance, dwarfs any loss we take on the rescue.

Those economics were obvious all along.  The only possible reason for opposing this was because of a doubt that the rescue could ultimately be successful, and that is the principled part of the argument.  That was a fair question, and we now know that those who took that argument were as wrong as wrong could be.

And that is a lesson.  We should not be taking ANY economic or business advice from the right wingers.  They just don't know much about these things, it turns out.  They need to show us some economic policies that actually work before we try any more of their crazy stuff.

And here's something the right-wingers refuse to understand on this issue.  it is AN INDUSTRY, not just a bunch of separate companies.  Ford did not require any assistance, to their great credit.  However, if GM and Chrysler would have gone under, they could have taken Ford with them because Ford depends on the same set of suppliers, Federal Mogul et al.  That is why Toyota was vocally in favor of the rescue. 

This is a basic difference we have.  Modern conservatives have an every-man-for-himself mentality.  Liberals understand we are all connected.
Logged

Where was Blackwater on the morning of September 11, 2001?
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #30 on: Feb 09, 2012, 01:39PM »

Definitely.  They were opposed by far more than who supported it.  I don't recall a single prominent voice from the Republican Party supporting this.  There were certainly a lot of Democrats who supported Obama in this.

And the bottom line is that Obama was right and those who opposed him were flat out wrong, regardless of how principled their arguments might have been.  The results are in.  There is nothing to debate.  Obama showed strong leadership and in the process saves roughly 1,000,000 really good jobs in the industry.  The gross cost to the taxpayer is zero for Chrysler, zero for Ford, and TBD for GM, but probably around $15-20B.  And that makes it a huge net GAIN for the taxpayers because the additional taxes paid by these EMPLOYED 1,000,000, as opposed to most of them being on assistance, dwarfs any loss we take on the rescue.

Those economics were obvious all along.  The only possible reason for opposing this was because of a doubt that the rescue could ultimately be successful, and that is the principled part of the argument.  That was a fair question, and we now know that those who took that argument were as wrong as wrong could be.

And that is a lesson.  We should not be taking ANY economic or business advice from the right wingers.  They just don't know much about these things, it turns out.  They need to show us some economic policies that actually work before we try any more of their crazy stuff.

And here's something the right-wingers refuse to understand on this issue.  it is AN INDUSTRY, not just a bunch of separate companies.  Ford did not require any assistance, to their great credit.  However, if GM and Chrysler would have gone under, they could have taken Ford with them because Ford depends on the same set of suppliers, Federal Mogul et al.  That is why Toyota was vocally in favor of the rescue. 

This is a basic difference we have.  Modern conservatives have an every-man-for-himself mentality.  Liberals understand we are all connected.
Ford did it why didn't Chrysler and GM?
So you admit it can be done but Ford got lucky?
You present as fact that had GM and Chrysler not received help, they would have gone under.  That's a guess.   Did you say that about Ford too before the handouts?
I'm saying they may have survived and you're saying they would not have survived.
I don't have a crystal ball or a time machine.  Maybe you do
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
sly fox
love old trombones' engravings

*
Offline Offline

Location: here, there, anywhere but mostly Topeka KS
Joined: Oct 25, 2008
Posts: 15292
"trombone enthusiast, photos of trombones - gallery"


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: Feb 09, 2012, 01:58PM »

as was noted before, Ford benefited from the bail out by having the suppliers, common to all three, survive.  without the bail out, some if not all of those suppliers were going out of business and thus causing problems for Ford.

the bail out worked, why argue about the facts???

or do some of you just want to argue?
Logged

Allen
First and foremost I'm a proud Dad & lucky Husband.  They say great minds can differ (not that I claim to have a great mind).  Remember that $ and my opinion buys coffee at the diner.
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: Feb 09, 2012, 02:10PM »

as was noted before, Ford benefited from the bail out by having the suppliers, common to all three, survive.  without the bail out, some if not all of those suppliers were going out of business and thus causing problems for Ford.

the bail out worked, why argue about the facts???

or do some of you just want to argue?
Read this slower.  I never said the bail out didn't work.  Could it have worked without the bailout?  Perhaps.  You cannot say that without the bailout the big three would have gone under.

"without the bail out, some if not all of those suppliers were going out of business and thus causing problems for Ford."
More crystal ball predictions?

Is that clear?
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
actikid
*
Offline Offline

Location: Indianapolis
Joined: Dec 30, 2001
Posts: 10562

View Profile
« Reply #33 on: Feb 09, 2012, 02:16PM »

Ford did it why didn't Chrysler and GM?
So you admit it can be done but Ford got lucky?
You present as fact that had GM and Chrysler not received help, they would have gone under.  That's a guess.   Did you say that about Ford too before the handouts?
I'm saying they may have survived and you're saying they would not have survived.
I don't have a crystal ball or a time machine.  Maybe you do
I never said Ford was lucky.  The fact is that Ford was in better financial health when the Bush economy exploded.  They were at a better place in their product cycles and they were in a better cash position.  But none of these companies would have been on the brink if Bush and Mitch Daniels hadn't driven this economy right into a solid wall.  Huge unfunded tax cuts, a huge unfunded drug benefit and two huge unfunded wars will do that.

And let us not forget that between the TARP and the under-the-table Fed money, Bush and Paulson grooved over $8 trillion dollars to their friends in the banking industry -- you know, the ones who CAUSED this meltdown.  They did that virtually overnight, with practically no debate and certainly no meaningful public discussion.  Meanwhile Republicans are complaining about $20 billion (1/400 as much money) to preserve a million jobs.  That is really twisted.

I seriously hops and trust you are better with a drill than you are with economics.
Logged

Where was Blackwater on the morning of September 11, 2001?
Piano man
*
Online Online

Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 7523

View Profile
« Reply #34 on: Feb 09, 2012, 02:17PM »

Ronkny, I do understand your point, to wit:

No one can say with certainty that Chrysler and GM would have folded if they relied solely on bankruptcy protection rather than the bailout. That is speculation.

I don't disagree with that, but it's like saying, There's no proof that Piano Man couldn't make three baskets in a row from the half court line.

The strong evidence (not proof) was that GM and Chrysler would have folded without the bailout. Obviously, anything's possible. The consequences were too great to take that risk, and the decision seems to have paid off, at least in the short run.

One reason Ford weathered the crash better than Chrysler and GM was that one of the Ford scions headed the company and decided to go with a more 'green' agenda. This was a bit controversial at the time (because the most profitable products were large SUVs and trucks), but it paid off.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #35 on: Feb 09, 2012, 03:15PM »

I never said Ford was lucky.  The fact is that Ford was in better financial health when the Bush economy exploded.  They were at a better place in their product cycles and they were in a better cash position.  But none of these companies would have been on the brink if Bush and Mitch Daniels hadn't driven this economy right into a solid wall.  Huge unfunded tax cuts, a huge unfunded drug benefit and two huge unfunded wars will do that.

And let us not forget that between the TARP and the under-the-table Fed money, Bush and Paulson grooved over $8 trillion dollars to their friends in the banking industry -- you know, the ones who CAUSED this meltdown.  They did that virtually overnight, with practically no debate and certainly no meaningful public discussion.  Meanwhile Republicans are complaining about $20 billion (1/400 as much money) to preserve a million jobs.  That is really twisted.

I seriously hops and trust you are better with a drill than you are with economics.
TARP went to financial institutions, GM, chrysler.  All have paid it all back except AIG and GM.
TARP passed 74-25 Bipartisan in the Senate.  Harry Reid majority leader.  Passed House 263-171 Mostly dems.
Under the table fed money?  Did Blackwater get that?  What under the table fed money? Are you the only one privy to that info?
Barney Frank and CO. caused the mortgage mess.  Subprime mortgages? to people who couldn't afford a house?  remember?
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article1983.html
and wiki;
Government policies
Main article: Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis


U.S. Subprime lending expanded dramatically 2004–2006
Government over-regulation, failed regulation and deregulation have all been claimed as causes of the crisis. In testimony before Congress both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Alan Greenspan claimed failure in allowing the self-regulation of investment banks.[117][118]
In 1982, Congress passed the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act (AMTPA), which allowed non-federally chartered housing creditors to write adjustable-rate mortgages. Among the new mortgage loan types created and gaining in popularity in the early 1980s were adjustable-rate, option adjustable-rate, balloon-payment and interest-only mortgages. These new loan types are credited with replacing the long standing practice of banks making conventional fixed-rate, amortizing mortgages. Among the criticisms of banking industry deregulation that contributed to the savings and loan crisis was that Congress failed to enact regulations that would have prevented exploitations by these loan types. Subsequent widespread abuses of predatory lending occurred with the use of adjustable-rate mortgages.[43][119] Approximately 90% of subprime mortgages issued in 2006 were adjustable-rate mortgages.[3]
Although a number of politicians, pundits, and financial industry-funded think tanks have claimed that government policies designed to promote affordable housing were an important cause of the financial crisis, detailed analyses of mortgage data by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Federal Reserve Economists, and independent academic researchers suggest that this claim is probably not correct. [1] Community Reinvestment Act loans outperformed other "subprime" mortgages, and GSE mortgages performed better than private label securitizations. [1]
Increasing home ownership has been the goal of several presidents including Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush.[120]In 1995, the GSEs like Fannie Mae began receiving government tax incentives for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. .[121] In 1996, HUD set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.[122] From 2002 to 2006, as the U.S. subprime market grew 292% over previous years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined purchases of subprime securities rose from $38 billion to around $175 billion per year before dropping to $90 billion per year, which included $350 billion of Alt-A securities. Fannie Mae had stopped buying Alt-A products in the early 1990s because of the high risk of default. By 2008, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned, either directly or through mortgage pools they sponsored, $5.1 trillion in residential mortgages, about half the total U.S. mortgage market.[123] The GSE have always been highly leveraged, their net worth as of 30 June 2008 being a mere US$114 billion.[124] When concerns arose in September 2008 regarding the ability of the GSE to make good on their guarantees, the Federal government was forced to place the companies into a conservatorship, effectively nationalizing them at the taxpayers' expense.[125][126]
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in 2011 that Fannie & Freddie "contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause." GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses that were central to the financial crisis. The GSEs participated in the expansion of subprime and other risky mortgages, but they followed rather than led Wall Street and other lenders into subprime lending.[96]
The Glass-Steagall Act was enacted after the Great Depression. It separated commercial banks and investment banks, in part to avoid potential conflicts of interest between the lending activities of the former and rating activities of the latter. Economist Joseph Stiglitz criticized the repeal of the Act. He called its repeal the "culmination of a $300 million lobbying effort by the banking and financial services industries...spearheaded in Congress by Senator Phil Gramm." He believes it contributed to this crisis because the risk-taking culture of investment banking dominated the more conservative commercial banking culture, leading to increased levels of risk-taking and leverage during the boom period.[127]
Conservatives and Libertarians have also debated the possible effects of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), with detractors claiming that the Act encouraged lending to uncreditworthy borrowers,[128][129][130][131] and defenders claiming a thirty year history of lending without increased risk.[132][133][134][135] Detractors also claim that amendments to the CRA in the mid-1990s, raised the amount of mortgages issued to otherwise unqualified low-income borrowers, and allowed the securitization of CRA-regulated mortgages, even though a fair number of them were subprime.[136][137]
Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Sheila Bair have stated their belief that the CRA was not to blame for the crisis.[138][139]
Economist Paul Krugman argued in January 2010 that the simultaneous growth of the residential and commercial real estate pricing bubbles undermines the case made by those who argue that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, CRA, or predatory lending were primary causes of the crisis. In other words, bubbles in both markets developed even though only the residential market was affected by these potential causes.[140]
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in January 2011 that "the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans—a proxy for subprime loans—had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law."[96]
The George W. Bush administration was accused of blocking ongoing state investigations into predatory lending practices as the bubble continued to grow.[141] However,in 2003 when George W. Bush called for an investigation and more controls on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Congressman Barney Frank vocally objected, saying "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing" [142]
On December 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged the former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives, accusing them of misleading investors about risks of subprime-mortgage loans.[143] According to one analyst, "The SEC’s facts paint a picture in which it wasn’t high-minded government mandates that did the GSEs wrong, but rather the monomaniacal focus of top management on marketshare. With marketshare came bonuses and with bonuses came risk-taking, understood or not."[144]
I certainly am better backing up my statements with facts.  See above.  Go to govtrack.us  Where are your facts referenced to?
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
actikid
*
Offline Offline

Location: Indianapolis
Joined: Dec 30, 2001
Posts: 10562

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: Feb 09, 2012, 07:20PM »

One reason Ford weathered the crash better than Chrysler and GM was that one of the Ford scions headed the company and decided to go with a more 'green' agenda. This was a bit controversial at the time (because the most profitable products were large SUVs and trucks), but it paid off.
And this is also a big factor in GM's rise from the ashes.  The Volt is not expected to generate huge profits, but it creates what is called a "halo effect" in marketing circles.  It is the same reason that Chevy produced the Corvette all these years.  It was totally insignificant to P&L, the halo effect is very real.

This concept is totally lost on right-wingers.  I bet I have 250 emails in my junk files from right-wingers who are continuously screaming about "Government Motors" and the Volt.  They simply have no clue about marketing.  The Volt is a great thing, never mind the fact the Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it.  That is just another one of the basic facts that these people do not get.  Seriously, it is like talking to reptiles.  You just cannot have an intelligent conversation.
Logged

Where was Blackwater on the morning of September 11, 2001?
actikid
*
Offline Offline

Location: Indianapolis
Joined: Dec 30, 2001
Posts: 10562

View Profile
« Reply #37 on: Feb 09, 2012, 07:25PM »

What under the table fed money? Are you the only one privy to that info?
Fed secretly handed out $8 trillion

I don't blame you for not being aware of this.  It was, after all, a SECRET operation by the FED that was only exposed YEARS later.

Do you have any idea how much money was made by banks using $8 TRILLION interest free?  It was mostly paid back, but in the meantime, Paulsen's henchmen were able to profit by billions.  Let me have  trillion bucks for a few months.  I'll be happy to pay it back in the end.
Logged

Where was Blackwater on the morning of September 11, 2001?
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: Feb 09, 2012, 08:35PM »

Fed secretly handed out $8 trillion

I don't blame you for not being aware of this.  It was, after all, a SECRET operation by the FED that was only exposed YEARS later.

Do you have any idea how much money was made by banks using $8 TRILLION interest free?  It was mostly paid back, but in the meantime, Paulsen's henchmen were able to profit by billions.  Let me have  trillion bucks for a few months.  I'll be happy to pay it back in the end.
Everything was paid back except AIG and GM. Any references?
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: Feb 09, 2012, 08:49PM »

And this is also a big factor in GM's rise from the ashes.  The Volt is not expected to generate huge profits, but it creates what is called a "halo effect" in marketing circles.  It is the same reason that Chevy produced the Corvette all these years.  It was totally insignificant to P&L, the halo effect is very real.

This concept is totally lost on right-wingers.  I bet I have 250 emails in my junk files from right-wingers who are continuously screaming about "Government Motors" and the Volt.  They simply have no clue about marketing.  The Volt is a great thing, never mind the fact the Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it.  That is just another one of the basic facts that these people do not get.  Seriously, it is like talking to reptiles.  You just cannot have an intelligent conversation.
So your mailbox of 200 emails from whom you label as repubs, represent all repubs? Is that your scientific method you invented?
And you never give any references to anything you  post leading me to believe that it comes from your creative mind.   Don't know
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
actikid
*
Offline Offline

Location: Indianapolis
Joined: Dec 30, 2001
Posts: 10562

View Profile
« Reply #40 on: Feb 09, 2012, 08:49PM »

Everything was paid back except AIG and GM. Any references?
You are talking about TARP, which was a "mere" $700,000,000,000.  It was done with a public debate.  

I am talking about the SECRET loans the Fed gave to all of Paulsen's friends in the amount of $8,000,000,000,000.  The Fed used the smokescreen of the TARP debate to SECRETLY hand out 11 times as much money with no Congressional review, no accountability whatsoever.
Logged

Where was Blackwater on the morning of September 11, 2001?
actikid
*
Offline Offline

Location: Indianapolis
Joined: Dec 30, 2001
Posts: 10562

View Profile
« Reply #41 on: Feb 09, 2012, 08:51PM »

And you never give any references to anything you  post leading me to believe that it comes from your creative mind.
It is easy to fact-check me.  Have at it, Hoss.

The reason what I say sounds so unfamiliar to you is because you get your news from Faux and they have never covered any of this stuff, at least not factually and objectively.
Logged

Where was Blackwater on the morning of September 11, 2001?
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #42 on: Feb 09, 2012, 08:57PM »

It is easy to fact-check me.  Have at it, Hoss.

The reason what I say sounds so unfamiliar to you is because you get your news from Faux and they have never covered any of this stuff, at least not factually and objectively.
And you get your news from the Jedi Bible. World Daily News?   I gave you my references.  Do you see fox news referenced anywhere?  .gov not good enough for you? 
What do I do?  Google $ 8,000,000,000,000 or actikids SECRET?   Don't know
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
actikid
*
Offline Offline

Location: Indianapolis
Joined: Dec 30, 2001
Posts: 10562

View Profile
« Reply #43 on: Feb 09, 2012, 09:18PM »

And you get your news from the Jedi Bible.  I gave you my references.  Do you see fox news referenced anywhere?  .gov not good enough for you? 
What do I do?  Google 8,000,000,000,000 or actikids SECRET?   Don't know
What are you talking about?  I provided a link in post #37, the post where I introduced you to that SECRET Fed insider's loan of $8 trillion.  It is evident you weren't aware of that, and still are not, despite the fact that I put it right there for you.  I don't know what else I can do.  I came up with 30 credible references to that in under 10 seconds.
Logged

Where was Blackwater on the morning of September 11, 2001?
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #44 on: Feb 09, 2012, 10:27PM »

What are you talking about?  I provided a link in post #37, the post where I introduced you to that SECRET Fed insider's loan of $8 trillion.  It is evident you weren't aware of that, and still are not, despite the fact that I put it right there for you.  I don't know what else I can do.  I came up with 30 credible references to that in under 10 seconds.
Wow!  You are using the Jedi Bible. Amazed
You did save"grooved over 8 million dollars to the banks". Grooved?
No you say loaned? 
Is there a credible news source that you have?
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
SensitiveJohn
*
Offline Offline

Location: Boston
Joined: Nov 23, 2001
Posts: 10390

View Profile
« Reply #45 on: Feb 10, 2012, 04:47AM »

You can lead a horse to water...
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 16320
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: Feb 10, 2012, 04:55AM »

You can lead a horse to water...

But you just can't drown it if you don't have a tranquilizer gun--they're too damn strong.
Logged

- Reason is to understanding as theory is to music, and critical thinking is as mastery of theory.
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves. -Richard Feynman
actikid
*
Offline Offline

Location: Indianapolis
Joined: Dec 30, 2001
Posts: 10562

View Profile
« Reply #47 on: Feb 10, 2012, 05:53AM »

Wow!  You are using the Jedi Bible. Amazed
You did save"grooved over 8 million dollars to the banks". Grooved?
No you say loaned? 
Is there a credible news source that you have?
"Loaned" is what they called it.  "Grooved" is what it was.  It was a bunch of rich guys playing games with our money system, taking advantage of a fog they created by precipitating a meltdown of our financial system.  "Here, folks.  Argue about this $700 billion while we secretly take 8 trillion"  ABC news said it was 8 trillion.  Bloomberg said it was 13 trillion.  I consider both of those credible news sources.  The FED has fought disclosure tooth and nail.  We can thank Ron Paul and others for putting the pressure on them to disclose this monkey business, even if there still is no real accountability.

And I will not provide you a link because it is so easy to find on your own.  A person with some sense would have done that simple search before posting nonsense.
Logged

Where was Blackwater on the morning of September 11, 2001?
actikid
*
Offline Offline

Location: Indianapolis
Joined: Dec 30, 2001
Posts: 10562

View Profile
« Reply #48 on: Feb 10, 2012, 05:54AM »


But you just can't drown it if you don't have a tranquilizer gun--they're too damn strong.
Would Novocaine work?
Logged

Where was Blackwater on the morning of September 11, 2001?
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #49 on: Feb 10, 2012, 08:10AM »

"Loaned" is what they called it.  "Grooved" is what it was.  It was a bunch of rich guys playing games with our money system, taking advantage of a fog they created by precipitating a meltdown of our financial system.  "Here, folks.  Argue about this $700 billion while we secretly take 8 trillion"  ABC news said it was 8 trillion.  Bloomberg said it was 13 trillion.  I consider both of those credible news sources.  The FED has fought disclosure tooth and nail.  We can thank Ron Paul and others for putting the pressure on them to disclose this monkey business, even if there still is no real accountability.

And I will not provide you a link because it is so easy to find on your own.  A person with some sense would have done that simple search before posting nonsense.
Sense?  Is n't your signature something about Blackwater on 9/11?   Yeah, RIGHT.
So your contention is that the bailout of banks was unnecessary and the bailout of GM and Chrysler was necessary.   Yeah, RIGHT.
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
actikid
*
Offline Offline

Location: Indianapolis
Joined: Dec 30, 2001
Posts: 10562

View Profile
« Reply #50 on: Feb 10, 2012, 08:21AM »

So your contention is that the bailout of banks was unnecessary and the bailout of GM and Chrysler was necessary.   Yeah, RIGHT.
First off, the banking industry received 100+ times as much money as the auto industry.
Second, it was the financial industry that CAUSED this "crisis", and then became the main beneficiary.
Third, the main beneficiary was Goldman-Sachs, and they most definitely did not need a bailout.  They MANUFACTURED this crisis as a way to weaken their competitors and they executed a strategy, with close cooperation from Geithner and Paulsen that pushed G-S's toxic waste onto other companies like AIG and then convinced everyone that we had to bail out AIG and the other companies that drank G-S's toxic brew.

I will not give you a binary answer.  You may be comfortable reducing everything to a simple good versus evil dichotomy, but that is not the way the world actually is.
Logged

Where was Blackwater on the morning of September 11, 2001?
Russ White

*
Offline Offline

Location: Orange City, Fl
Joined: Feb 27, 2007
Posts: 3905

View Profile
« Reply #51 on: Feb 10, 2012, 08:25AM »

Let's see, $8 trillion to save a few hundred "financial engineering" jobs vs. a few $ billion to save over a million everyday Americans jobs. I'd say the second was far more important, although, that's a way over simplistic way to look at it. Not saving the banks would have been catastrophic for economies all over the world. It was bad enough as it were.
Logged

Better than yesterday, better yet tomorrow.
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #52 on: Feb 10, 2012, 09:06AM »

First off, the banking industry received 100+ times as much money as the auto industry.
Second, it was the financial industry that CAUSED this "crisis", and then became the main beneficiary.
Third, the main beneficiary was Goldman-Sachs, and they most definitely did not need a bailout.  They MANUFACTURED this crisis as a way to weaken their competitors and they executed a strategy, with close cooperation from Geithner and Paulsen that pushed G-S's toxic waste onto other companies like AIG and then convinced everyone that we had to bail out AIG and the other companies that drank G-S's toxic brew.

I will not give you a binary answer.  You may be comfortable reducing everything to a simple good versus evil dichotomy, but that is not the way the world actually is.

The US government caused the crisis.  The banks mucked it up too. If the banks weren't bailed out , what would have happened?  Use your crystal ball if you like.
More unsubstantiated conspiracy theories?
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #53 on: Feb 10, 2012, 09:08AM »

Let's see, $8 trillion to save a few hundred "financial engineering" jobs vs. a few $ billion to save over a million everyday Americans jobs. I'd say the second was far more important, although, that's a way over simplistic way to look at it. Not saving the banks would have been catastrophic for economies all over the world. It was bad enough as it were.
So which is it?  You just successfully spoke from both sides of your mouth.
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
Russ White

*
Offline Offline

Location: Orange City, Fl
Joined: Feb 27, 2007
Posts: 3905

View Profile
« Reply #54 on: Feb 10, 2012, 01:09PM »

So which is it?  You just successfully spoke from both sides of your mouth.

Neither/ Both. Sorry, I can't make something this complex simple enough to fit the average conservative understanding curve. It ain't black and whit.
Logged

Better than yesterday, better yet tomorrow.
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #55 on: Feb 10, 2012, 01:17PM »

Neither/ Both. Sorry, I can't make something this complex simple enough to fit the average conservative understanding curve. It ain't black and whit.
So the bank bailout was only to "save a few financial engineering jobs"?  You stand by that statement? And that not saving banks would have "catastrophic effects all over the world"?  And the saving of GM and Chrysler was more important?  Perfectly clear now.  Yeah, RIGHT.
Having dentistry done in Costa Rica, not because it was less expensive, but because you could stick it to capitaist dentists and suppliers and manufacturers in the US.  The same ones who supply dental supplies and tools and instruments all over the world.  I'm starting to understand the liberal mind.   Yeah, RIGHT.
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
actikid
*
Offline Offline

Location: Indianapolis
Joined: Dec 30, 2001
Posts: 10562

View Profile
« Reply #56 on: Feb 10, 2012, 01:34PM »

So the bank bailout was only to "save a few financial engineering jobs"?  You stand by that statement? And that not saving banks would have "catastrophic effects all over the world"?  And the saving of GM and Chrysler was more important?  Perfectly clear now.  Yeah, RIGHT.
Read this book

And maybe you will understand the world around you a little better.  It was a hostage-taking situation.  Goldman put a gun to America's head, knowing that
1) Nobody would be willing to take the chance that they would pull the trigger; and
2) Bush was fully supportive of the hostage-takers in the first place.  It was Bush's little parting gift to his partners on the way out the door.  And there was a chance that, if they played those cards right, this shock could be enough to allow McCain to beat out Obama.  Fortunately that didn't work, but we are all still paying a dear price for this manufactured meltdown.
Logged

Where was Blackwater on the morning of September 11, 2001?
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #57 on: Feb 10, 2012, 01:44PM »

Read this book

And maybe you will understand the world around you a little better.  It was a hostage-taking situation.  Goldman put a gun to America's head, knowing that
1) Nobody would be willing to take the chance that they would pull the trigger; and
2) Bush was fully supportive of the hostage-takers in the first place.  It was Bush's little parting gift to his partners on the way out the door.  And there was a chance that, if they played those cards right, this shock could be enough to allow McCain to beat out Obama.  Fortunately that didn't work, but we are all still paying a dear price for this manufactured meltdown.
I will read it but I don't expect to believe much of what I read.  Books like this from the left or right are used to stir up the base.  Basically fiction or at the very least exaggerated non fictionish. 
Just looked at web site.  Rachel Maddow is a huge fan.  Must be a great non biased truthful book. Likely to be recommended by the Heritage Foundation. 
And  you guys bash the right for watching Fox news?
I suspect the book will be entertainment at best
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #58 on: Feb 10, 2012, 02:38PM »

I'm up to page 33. On my I phone.  Wow does she have a bias.  Against charter schools, associates Milton Friemans economics with Pinochets reasons to torture.  So far it's what I would expect from a lefty.
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
actikid
*
Offline Offline

Location: Indianapolis
Joined: Dec 30, 2001
Posts: 10562

View Profile
« Reply #59 on: Feb 10, 2012, 02:38PM »

I will read it but I don't expect to believe much of what I read.  Books like this from the left or right are used to stir up the base.  Basically fiction or at the very least exaggerated non fictionish. 
Just looked at web site.  Rachel Maddow is a huge fan.  Must be a great non biased truthful book. Likely to be recommended by the Heritage Foundation. 
And  you guys bash the right for watching Fox news?
I suspect the book will be entertainment at best
I don't expect you to accept every word.  Some of it is extrapolation that I find logical and convincing, but you may prefer other explanations.  However, most of it is highly factual in nature.

Her premise is not really a complicated one.  It says that, from time to time, there are shocks that occur, and this causes brief periods of chaos.  These can be manufactured crises, like the financial meltdown, or not, like Katrina.  It doesn't really matter.  The point is that these shocks happen regularly, and the momentary chaos creates opportunities to make changes that would never be possible without the help of the shock.  She gives many, many examples of this.

The thesis goes on to say that those who are advancing fundamentally unpopular policies have come to depend on these shocks.  They simply wait for the next shock to happen and then they bust out into the open trying to ram through their change in the aftermath.  This tactic is well known in the halls of power and can be used by either side.  She gives examples of both.  However, the right (mainly representing a tight-knit cabal of corporations and aristocrats who are very well funded and very well organized) are generally much better at this than those from the left (who mainly represent a diverse, disorganized, mostly powerless base.)

Nonetheless, once you clearly understand the doctrine, I think you will be able to identify at least a couple of "yellow belt" examples of Obama trying to use the tactic.  But it is hard to stand those up against the 911 shock that gave us the Patriot Act plus the two longest wars in American history and the financial shock that gave us a "new world order" in the financial community, dominated by G-S.
Logged

Where was Blackwater on the morning of September 11, 2001?
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #60 on: Feb 10, 2012, 02:50PM »

I don't expect you to accept every word.  Some of it is extrapolation that I find logical and convincing, but you may prefer other explanations.  However, most of it is highly factual in nature.

Her premise is not really a complicated one.  It says that, from time to time, there are shocks that occur, and this causes brief periods of chaos.  These can be manufactured crises, like the financial meltdown, or no (like Katrina.  It doesn't really matter.  The point is that these shock happen regularly, and the momentary chaos creates opportunities to make changes that would never be possible with the help of the shock.  She gives many, many examples of this.

The thesis goes on to say that those who are advancing fundamentally unpopular policies have come to depend on these shocks.  They simply wait for the next shock to happen and then they bust out into the open trying to ram through their chance in the aftermath.  This tactic is well known in the halls of power and can be used by either side.  She gives examples of both.  However, the right (mainly representing a tight-knit cabal of corporations and aristocrats who are very well funded and very well organized) are generally much better at this than those from the left (who mainly represent a diverse, disorganized, mostly powerless base.)

Nonetheless, once you clearly understand the doctrine, I think you will be able to identify at least a couple of "yellow belt" examples of Obama trying to use the tactic.  But it is hard to stand those up against the 911 shock that gave us the Patriot Act and the two longest wars in American history and the financial shock that gave us a "new world order" in the financial community, dominated by G-S.
G-S?  George Strait? GAS?   Don't know
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 42893
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: Feb 10, 2012, 03:08PM »

G-S?  George Strait? GAS?   Don't know

Gold Man with Sacks ;-)

Actually it probably is gas: nitrous oxide.  Get the people to breathe it and you can do anything to them Evil

I wonder if you've been drinking too much DHMO... :-P
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
SensitiveJohn
*
Offline Offline

Location: Boston
Joined: Nov 23, 2001
Posts: 10390

View Profile
« Reply #62 on: Feb 10, 2012, 09:16PM »

It seems like Obama has morphed into Santorum.
Logged
ronkny

*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 9669

View Profile
« Reply #63 on: Feb 10, 2012, 09:25PM »

It seems like Obama has morphed into Santorum.
Ok John.
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: