DescentBB

What's wrong with favoring working people, he's a Democrat after all and the working stiff heard his promises and voted for him. These are PEOPLE who have given up quite a bit already and may be losing their jobs, pensions and health care if GM and Chrysler go bankrupt, not to mention the loss of valuable manufacturing assets for our nation. Who do you think built all our war machines during WW II with the already existing manufacturing plants? The investors don't have that worry, do they? GM and Chrysler weren't turning out inferior products, they were building what Americans wanted! In fact, Ford has worse quality control than either of the other 2 companies, but they're in better shape.

They just didn't have the foresight of seeing the rampant fuel speculation by UNREGULATED derivative traders and the resulting high prices at the pump last year. You can't fault them for that! They also have no control over our burgeoning health care cost mess, which the unions are treating as a non-negotiable gold and I don't blame them. However, I will agree with you that they will eventually have to join the rest of us with the health care pain.

As for the Chrysler/Fiat deal, well....

ON HOLD

tunnelcat wrote:What's wrong with favoring working people,

lets put what he did into perspective for you TC. I'm assuming you own a car. one that you invested in and worked hard for the money to purchase. well how about Obama takes that car away from you and gives it to the local mechanic where you have it serviced because he promised to vote for him. and you get to walk home without even a bus ticket and get told by the President too F'n bad. that's what he did in Detroit. and he did it all in the name of Guaranteeing himself Votes in the next election.

If Kennedy gets his way, we will all be forced to buy health insurance, yea, that’s Fascism if you ask me. And when they pass a law requiring me to provide health insurance at my business, the unemployment numbers will rise.

I think if that happens, all business should lay off their entire workforce in protest. Then we can all work for the gubmint.

tunnelcat wrote:What's wrong with favoring working people,...

You are buying into the false premise that giving the Union Bosses control of a share is the same as handing out shares of the company to the people!

GM and Chrysler weren't turning out inferior products, they were building what Americans wanted!

Right...that's why I see the roads full of so many Honda's and Toyota's and Mazda's and BMW's and Hyundai etc. etc. all built by companies that don't build what americans want apparently and they aren't going bankrupt...I guess those foriegn cars must run on different fuel that wasn't speculated on or something

You can't fault them for that! They also have no control over our burgeoning health care cost mess, which the unions are treating as a non-negotiable gold and I don't blame them. However, I will agree with you that they will eventually have to join the rest of us with the health care pain.

No. Even though you seem to be willing to admit the outrageous lifetime benefits the american companies have to pay is killing them Obama won't let the market sort it out because he thinks he can artificially prop up the unions by taking from the investors who have a legal right to their share and giving to the union.

And do you really think the 'workers' are the ones who deserve all the credit for WWII production?!? Like a bunch of guys got together and said 'Hey Bob! Lets get together with the boys down in my basement and start making tanks and ships and stuff to help the war effort!!'
I think the investors/corporations/banks etc. had just a little something to do with that! All across America companies large and small tore down assembly lines and slapped together war machinery at a cost to all of them not just the sweat of the workers was expended, everybody gave alot!

That is a such a typical democrat party bull feces line. 'Only the workers work, only the workers matter and only the democrats care about the workers'. BS!!! Under the Obama plan the workers are all losing their jobs the only difference is the labor union is getting a big fat, undeserved payoff check!!

Comon Will, start thinking like a Fascist and it will all make sense

I would like TC to tell me why the rich shouldn't make more money. I know TC would like to make more money IE get richer if she could,
and I can GuaranDamntee you if she was invested in the stock of either of these companies, she'd be whinning like a stuck pig about now on how the Obamanation is stealing her blind. but like a good Fascist, its ok to have that Robin Hood mentality.

America is no longer the "The Land of Opportunity"
it has now become "The Land of Entitlements"

The Book of Obama 4:19 wrote:But my Government will supply all your need according to it's riches in glory in our wealthy, as long as it lasts.

Obama is using behavioral economics. He and his cohorts believe that as an individual we are incapable of making a rational economic decisions for our own well being there for the governemnt must step in and make the decisions for you.

Well I'll have to say no thank you. So far I have made some good decisions for my self. Not so when I was younger.

Time wrote:Economics for the Real World
Obama has pledged that his bank-regulation overhaul would be based "not on abstract models ... but on actual data on how actual people make financial decisions." That's a plain-English way of saying it will be guided by behavioral economics, not neoclassical economics.

Neoclassical economics — another University of Chicago specialty — has ruled our world for decades. It's the doctrine that markets know best: when government keeps its hands off free enterprise, capital migrates to its most productive uses and society prospers. But its elegant models rely on a bold assumption: rational decisions by self-interested individuals create efficient markets. Behavioral economics challenged this assumption, and the financial meltdown has just about shattered it; even former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan confessed his Chicago School worldview has been shaken. "We couldn't have planned a better marketing campaign for behavioral economics," MIT's Ariely quips. (See the best business deals of 2008.)

Behavioral economics doesn't ignore the market forces that were all-powerful in Econ 101, but it harnesses forces traditionally consigned to Psych 101. Behaviorists have always known we don't really act like the superrational Homo economicus of the neoclassical-model world. Years of studies of patients who don't take their meds, grownups who have unsafe sex, and other flawed decision makers have chronicled the irrationality of Homo sapiens. Some of our foibles are quite specific, like overvaluing things we have, overeating food in larger containers and overestimating the probability of improbable events — the quirk that made the Meet Barack Obama fundraising lottery such a smart idea. But in general, we're ignorant, shortsighted and biased toward the status quo. We're not as smart as Larry Summers. We procrastinate. Our impulsive ids overwhelm our logical superegos. We plan to lose weight, but ooh — a cupcake! We're especially irrational about money; we'll pay more for the same thing if we can use a credit card, if we think it's on sale, if it's marketed with photos of attractive women. No wonder we apply for mortgages we can't afford. No wonder our bankers approve them.

"We truly want to make better choices," explains Yale economist Dean Karlan. He's a co-founder of stickK.com, where users make binding "commitment contracts" to forfeit money to friends or charities — or even "anti-charities" they despise — if they fail to quit smoking, lose weight or meet other goals they set for themselves. "But we need help to get us there."

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,881 ... 53,00.html

Insurrectionist wrote:[Obama] and his cohorts believe that as an individual we are incapable of making a rational economic decisions for our own well being there for the governemnt must step in and make the decisions for you.

Unplug.

Alas:

\"The Supreme Court has cleared the way for Chrysler's sale to Fiat, turning down a last-ditch bid by opponents of the deal.\"

Gooberman wrote:

Insurrectionist wrote:[Obama] and his cohorts believe that as an individual we are incapable of making a rational economic decisions for our own well being there for the governemnt must step in and make the decisions for you.

Unplug.

Better plug back in, 'cause there is a way for the guv to make those decisions for you - it's called taxes; and they may be a comin' ...
Next Great Crisis: America's Debt

...The bill is far too big for only the rich to pick up. There aren't enough of them. America will have to lean on citizens far below the $250,000 income threshold: nurses, electricians, secretaries, and factory workers. Within a decade the average household that pays income tax will owe the equivalent of $155,000 in federal debt, about $90,000 more than last year. What the Obama administration isn't telling Americans is that the only practical solution is a giant tax increase aimed squarely at the middle class. The alternative, big cuts in spending, aren't part of the President's agenda. To keep the debt from wrecking the economy, the U.S. would need to raise annual federal income taxes an average of $11,000 in 2019 for all families that pay them, an increase of about 55%. "The revenues needed are far too big to raise from high earners," says Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley. "The government will have to go where the money is, to the middle class." The most likely levy: a European-style value-added tax (VAT) that would substantially raise the price of everything from autos to restaurant meals.

I read somewhere, would need to find it again. that it you taxed the top 2% of wage earners, those making over 250K a year. 100% of their income it would only cover about 20% of the debt.

We as middle class Americans WILL be taxed and taxed hard. those that deny it are just lying to themselves.

It may be time for a 2nd American Revolution.

CUDA wrote:It may be time for a 2nd American Revolution.

If we cannot have a revolution within the System, an insurrection may be inevitable.

But, but...Obama IS revolutionizing America.

Thankfully, for the immediate future, we still get to have a bloodless revolution of sorts every couple of years by voting for the House. If enough people get fed up and vote out a large majority of incumbents it will send a message...filtered through the media though...like in 1994:

Remember these wonderfully objective moments in journalism?!?

partisan hacks pretending to be journalists wrote:Sore Losers Award
(for Midterm Election Reporting)

First Place
"Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It's clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It's the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week....Parenting and governing don't have to be dirty words: the nation can't be run by an angry two-year-old."
-- ABC World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings in his daily ABC Radio commentary, November 14.
Runners-up:


"They are not voting Republican tonight, Mary. They are voting against a lot of unhappiness in their own lives....I think that it's very easy for the Republicans to make the same mistake that the Democrats made in thinking that somehow we've been given this great mandate....They have got to be practical. They have got to compromise. They have got to meet the real needs of people. This is not an anti-government vote tonight."
-- U.S. News & World Report Senior Writer Steven Roberts on CNBC's Equal Time, election night.

"What this Contract [with America] says is you can have hot fudge sundae for every meal and still lose weight. It's a fraud and there's a whole lot of Republicans who already are starting to forget where they were September 27."
-- Wall Street Journal Executive Washington Editor Al Hunt on CNN's Capital Gang, Oct. 1


"This is a rotten time to be black. Blacks are just going to take it in the chops....Their programs are going to get eviscerated and affirmative action is going to go right down the tubes...Politics have moved right because a lot of middle-class people thought they were taking my money and giving it to poor black people, and they didn't like it and they want their money back."
-- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, November 12.


"The Republicans have resorted to demagoguery and transparent bribes (like lower taxes). The legislature they promise seems a blustery, selfish, self-righteous desert."
-- Newsweek Senior Editor Joe Klein, October 31 news story.

I particularly love that last one! Apparently, to what passes for a journalist, money not confiscated by taxation is a bribe!?!?!

Yes Will, that’s brainwashing at its best. (the journalist)

Well maybe there is some hope…many of the banks that took TARP money are repaying, for the very reason of not having the government dictating to them.

Spidey wrote:…many of the banks that took TARP money are repaying, for the very reason of not having the government dictating to them.

Yep. They're just not happy with the limits TARP placed on high executive pay, big bonuses, private jets, extravagant parties, and golden parachutes....among other things.

Bettina

Will Robinson wrote:we still get to have a bloodless revolution

So we can give them one of these.

ok

Insurrectionist wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:we still get to have a bloodless revolution

LOL

That's a good one. It would be hilarious to vote out my senator or representative and when the results come out, to mail them that pink slip. I am really not liking what Congress is doing.

But Will, you say that if the majority votes out the government officers that are not acting in the interest of the people, who to vote for then? I'm sick and tired of choosing the lesser of two evils!

Zantor wrote:...But Will, you say that if the majority votes out the government officers that are not acting in the interest of the people, who to vote for then? I'm sick and tired of choosing the lesser of two evils!

I know the feeling. The reason I brought up the media's role in this is because if we did vote them out and if the media acurately reported why we did it...as in do some investigation as to why then it really wouldn't matter who you voted for because they would hear your voice loud and clear by the reporting the results of their investigating our motives.
So if the majority of voters were reported to have concerns over high taxes or runaway spending etc. then whoever was voted in would know that they have a short time to do what we want or we will vote them out too!
The problem, obviously, is when the media decides they will ridicule the election results instead of report the actual cause of the result then the politicians don't fear the next election will have them thrown out like the bums they replaced!
The whole concept of a national conversation/debate depends heavily on a media that wants to give the voters a voice instead of one that wants to tell the voters who they should have picked....

The biggest danger to our form of representation isn't the chance we'll end up with bums in office, it's that we'll end up with bums in the free press!

We can expect people to be people when they get in power and have to be thrown out from time to time but the media becoming an elite entity that prefers to impose it's group think onto the voters and/or becomes a tool of one party, both of which the media has been doing for some time now, well that is very hard to survive.

I recommend voting for a third party, any third party because it sends the clear message that the status quo is unacceptable. The political advisers will have no choice but to tell their bosses that the people won't put up with their past methods. If you just switch from R to D or D to R then the status quo is still a viable place for them to hide.

If there was a large shift towards neither of them then they would be forced to find out what we want instead of trying to feed us the same old bull★■◆● excuses and doublespeak.

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:What's wrong with favoring working people,

lets put what he did into perspective for you TC. I'm assuming you own a car. one that you invested in and worked hard for the money to purchase. well how about Obama takes that car away from you and gives it to the local mechanic where you have it serviced because he promised to vote for him. and you get to walk home without even a bus ticket and get told by the President too F'n bad. that's what he did in Detroit. and he did it all in the name of Guaranteeing himself Votes in the next election.

Well, unfortunately, I own a Chrysler car and a Jeep, so I have to worry about just getting parts and future repairs because of the bankruptcy. My 2 cars I paid my hard earned money for just might be absolutely worthless by now ANYWAY! By the way, I don't get your example of Obama taking my cars away and giving them to a mechanic??????????? is the result of favoring working people. How does that work? The Unions have given up a lot in this mess, why doesn't upper management give up some of their salary and health/retirement benefits as well to save the company too? You can bet THEY have cushy health bennies too and that's what it's come down to now, escalating health costs! I see how our bloated for profit health system is slowly eating away at our country, company by company, individual by individual! You can bet that retirement health costs are what bankrupting these corporations and the main reason unions are fighting to keep what they negotiated for at one time. Wouldn't you if you were retired and old and saw health costs going up every year?

However, I will concede that Unions have become corrupt and resistant to change and that's their own fault for not adapting. That doesn't mean that they should be eliminated totally. Working stiffs need the ability to have a say in their working conditions and pay and unions are the one of the ways to accomplish that in a large, impersonal corporation. Most businesses or corporations are concerned with getting the cheapest labor possible and maximizing profits, not maintaining good wages and working conditions. Workers are people, human beings, not just assets on a balance sheet to be dumped or found elsewhere when cheaper alternatives can be had.

I guess what I'm concerned about with this country is the lack of 'ownership' we have invested in it anymore. We've lost our manufacturing infrastructure and that may impact us in the future if we need it back in a hurry. Manufacturing plants are GOLD for any country and when we've lost them, we've lost the ability to be self-sufficient and self-sustainable. All in the name of profit, cheap labor, no health care burdened pensions and globalization. We've reaped what we've sown and we will become a second or third-rate nation. All of you that are young now will pay the price when you get older, want to retire because you are tired, sick or burned out and you can't do it because you have no savings or pension because the company didn't contribute, the Stock Market went nowhere or gambled it away and the banks paid diddly-squat in interest on your paltry savings you stashed there and our bought-off government enabled the whole mess! God help you if you get sick, and I guarantee that you will as you get older, because you'll probably end up bankrupt with our wonderful health-care-for-profit system in this country that continues to rise at 40% a year! Have fun in your futures youngsters!