backtop


Print 77 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Feb 11 at 7:44 AM


  (Source: Flickr/Tumblr)
Bush, Romney, and Obama all show some love to the bank bailouts, though -- who says we can't all get along

President George W. Bush (R) created strong divisions within the Republican party when he backed a $700B USD bailout of the struggling automotive and financial sectors.  Both he and current President Barack Obama (D) see eye to eye on this issue, though -- they felt that bailouts were the only thing keeping the nation from economic collapse.  

Public surveys during the height of the recession indicated that nearly 60 percent of Americans disapproved of the bailout.

I. Bush Defends Bailouts, Says he Did the Right Thing

Criticism from his party and the public has not swayed former President Bush's conviction that he made the right choice.  In a Q&A at an auto dealer convention in Las Vegas, President Bush is quoted as saying, "I'd do it again.  I didn't want there to be 21 percent unemployment."

As to the free market proponents that say that the companies should have been allowed to go through the traditional process of bankruptcy and liquidation, Mr. Bush disagrees.  He says that he would traditionally support that -- but that the cumulative impact of the recession required a more intimate approach.  He comments, "If you make a bad decision, you ought to pay.  [But] sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy."

He says he "had to" break with his rigid conservative roots and craft the bailout, in order to "safeguard American workers and families."  He takes credit for crafting the financial tools that President Obama would later use to slow the recession and set the nation back on more stable financial ground.  He comments, "[I expected to] kind of ride out to the sunset [in my last year of presidency].  [But] I didn't want to saddle my successor with an additional economic crisis."

He said his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke approached him, stating, "Are you willing to gamble [with the chance of depression]."

He recalls replying, "I don't want there to be a depression, no matter what the probability may be…"

Bush looking down
President Bush says he made a tough choice, but the right one. [Image Source: Getty Images]

The bailout will go down in American history as a controversial invasion of the private sector, which the American government has traditionally sought to play a limited regulatory role in.  But some economists and historians also credit the program for possibly preventing a depression [source], although such "what if" scenarios are indelibly open to debate.

II. The Results

For all the resentment, President Bush believes that inaction would have left his reputation far more tarnished.  He states, "I didn't want to gamble. I didn't want history to look back and say, 'Bush could have done something but chose not to do it.'"

Presidents Bush and Obama used the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to ease financial firms and automakers through a gentler process [1][2], which allowed them to consolidate their profitable segments and stay in business.  Laggard units were dumped off to the highest bidder in an attempt to pay the bailout loans and grants.

 Obama and Bush
Presidents Obama and Bush cumulatively archictected the bailout. [Image Source: AP]

The government even took a stake in many of the "bailed out" financial firms, as well as General Motors Comp. (GM) and Chrysler.  The government has recouped some of the money it loaned, but it will likely never be repayed some of the billions it poured into both sectors.  In fact, it's already forgiven some of the bailout recipients of substantial chunks of taxpayer debt, and given many of these struggling firms tax holidays, which will allow them to enjoy tax-free profits for years to come.

On the flip side of the coin, while the government isn't collecting any corporate taxes from these fortunate corporations, it has avoided a surge in unemployment.  GM and Chrysler today profitable [1][2] and hiring -- as are some of the rescued financial firms.

GM assembly line
Liquidation would have left tens of thousands of GM and Chrysler assembly line workers unemployed. [Image Source: Scott Olson/Getty Images]

Other nations also participated in the bailout of the automakers [1][2].

III. Republican Hopeful Romney Blasts, Bush, Bailouts

One person who is not a fan of President Bush or his bailouts is leading Republican 2012 presidentical candidate Mitt Romney.  He commented in September, "[Automakers] needed to move into a managed bankruptcy process rather than getting money up front by President Bush or President Obama.  They wasted a lot of money."

Mr. Romney stirred up controversy during the waning days of the Bush presidency, with an editorial in The New York Times,  "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt", which blasted the Bush bailouts. 

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

In the piece he wrote:
 
IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

Intriguingly, Mr. Romney has not been overly critical of the banking sector, which received far more money from TARP than the automotive sector.  One possible reason why?  According to Open Secrets, "bailout banks" such as JP Morgan Chase & Comp. (JPM), Bank of America Corp. (BAC), and Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) have been extremely generous Mr. Romney, donating millions to his presidential bid.

On the financial sector he comments, "I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses."

Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney has attacked the bailout to try to score points with conservative voters.
[Image Source: Emmanuel Dunand/Getty Images]

Judging as the average corporation or special interest group receives $222 USD in tax breaks per $1 USD spent [source], the $10M USD he received from the financial sector would put him on the hook for roughly $2.22B USD in "tax holidays", and similar taxpayer funded goodies, should he be elected.

Source: Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Imagine
By Ristogod on 2/7/2012 2:12:15 PM , Rating: 5
Imagine Romney saying whatever it takes to get elected. Does anyone actually believe him?




RE: Imagine
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/7/2012 2:23:54 PM , Rating: 5
To be fair, couldn't that be said about every politician?


RE: Imagine
By tigz1218 on 2/7/2012 2:49:52 PM , Rating: 5
Most of them, but I do know one politician who has been saying the same message for the past 30 years....


RE: Imagine
By Slyne on 2/7/2012 3:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
Did that get him elected to an executive position (congress is easier but it gives you far less power to make changes happen)?


RE: Imagine
By seamonkey79 on 2/7/2012 6:19:03 PM , Rating: 3
Excellent proof to the point :-)

There's one that has been saying the same thing, which is different than all the rest, and sadly no it has not resulted in him being elected.

Makes you wonder about what the people that keep voting for the people that keep changing their tune every couple of days are thinking, if they're thinking.


RE: Imagine
By OnyxNite on 2/8/2012 1:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
I've come to realize most people don't think about politics at all. Even those that claim to be politically active and DO vote regularly, with enthusiasm, seem to just look for the D or R and vote without any thought at all.


RE: Imagine
By NellyFromMA on 2/7/2012 4:38:14 PM , Rating: 1
Mitt Romney is actually an evil cyborg from the future created by mega corporations to travel back in time to advance corporate agendas. This perfectly explains his inhuman inability to care for average people and reference corporations as actual people as if they were alive. It also explains why mitt is so fake looking and why he hides his money over seas. Tell me not.


RE: Imagine
By FaaR on 2/7/12, Rating: -1
RE: Imagine
By steven975 on 2/8/2012 8:27:15 AM , Rating: 4
Gold is just one option. A commodity-backed currency (gold, silver, aluminum, moon rocks, stormtrooper armor, etc) has value, whereas a fiat currency has value as long as people believe it has value.

At the very least, the power to coin and print currency should reside with the government, and not a banking cartel with next to no oversight.


RE: Imagine
By Reclaimer77 on 2/8/12, Rating: 0
RE: Imagine
By HrilL on 2/8/2012 12:50:38 PM , Rating: 5
Really Reclaimer77? I used to have a little respect for what you would say but after what you just said... Lets just say you throw the baby out with the bath water.

The Federal Seserve is a group of 12 PRIVATE Banks that has a board of 7 memebers that are appointed by the president. There is not audit of their actions and there is no oversite to what they do. They are not part of the government at all. They do however control our money supply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act

Here is a graphic of what happens to a currency when corrupt private officals profit off of it. And why we need to go back to sound money.
http://investletters.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2...


RE: Imagine
By geddarkstorm on 2/8/2012 2:17:35 PM , Rating: 4
It is a little known fact, ironically. It's called the "Federal Reserve" but it is a private corporation as you point out, and has nothing to do with our actual government directly. Same with the IRS. All attempts to audit the Federal Reserve by our government have failed. Not a happy proposition for the force controlling our economic currency. Same thing with the bailout funds, no know but the Reserve knows where the majority of it all went, though we are slowly discovering more about TARP.


RE: Imagine
By Reclaimer77 on 2/8/12, Rating: -1
RE: Imagine
By geddarkstorm on 2/8/2012 3:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed, it is madness in my eyes that Congress forced the federal reserve act on the country. And what has that earned us? At the time it probably seemed like an interesting idea. But meddling government with the private and forming a pseudo organization that exists neither here nor there, and yet dictates our economy to us... that should be an ultimate sin in the eyes of both parties--as it hampers the function of both sides. The banking industry should deal with currency on its own, as competition will balance it out best for the economy, in my view. If the government wanted its own bank, it should have to compete against all other banks the same, not dictate to them the rules. Artificial, insulated standards pretty much never lead anywhere good; especially with an organization that has such absolute power like the Federal Reserve.

And you're completely right that the notion of the government being blameless and the "rich" all at fault is a nasty double standard. Though, I don't see the above poster arguing that.


RE: Imagine
By Reclaimer77 on 2/8/2012 4:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
The Reserve Act is proof that such a wide sweeping mandate, no matter how well intentioned, will always have major failings.

Also proof of how easy it is for elected officials to sweep aside the Constitution whenever they see fit.


RE: Imagine
By geddarkstorm on 2/8/2012 3:41:58 PM , Rating: 3
I guess it's easiest to say the Federal Reserve is a private entity which can use the full power of the government against all other private entities, at its choosing. The Federal Reserve can dictate the terms of the playing field to everyone else -through- the government; and it doesn't even have to answer for what it does. That's the way it seems to me from all the reading and watching of the going ons I've done. Couldn't ask for a more potent monopoly, or corruption!

Government shouldn't have this power, and a corporation working through the government directly, definitely should not.


RE: Imagine
By invidious on 2/7/2012 2:31:08 PM , Rating: 2
He is clearly the only politician to ever change his stance or throw anyone under the bus.


RE: Imagine
By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/12, Rating: 0
RE: Imagine
By EricMartello on 2/7/2012 4:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If GM goes under, you can just buy a different car. If the largest lending institutions go, well, the fallout from that would obviously be significant.


Yes, it would be significant in that the distribution of wealth would no longer be concentrated and controlled by a select few. Centralized banking is pure fail and is a bane on a free economy (which is what the US should have).

Never mind the fact that the banks that received bailouts were also among the top campaign contributors. Bush was a corporate puppet just as much as Obama and Romney are. They're all different flavors of kool-aid.


RE: Imagine
By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/12, Rating: -1
RE: Imagine
By slunkius on 2/8/2012 1:40:39 AM , Rating: 4
yada yada. you did not go extinct under Bush, i'm sure under Obama you will be just fine. not sure what will happen when Palin takes over though :)


RE: Imagine
By Reclaimer77 on 2/8/2012 12:40:42 PM , Rating: 3
Please. We had people like Alec Baldwin saying if Bush won his second term he was "going to leave the country". How quickly some of you forget the absolute "sky is falling" panic that was taking place under Bush. I'm well within my rights to say the same about Obama.


RE: Imagine
By topkill on 2/10/12, Rating: 0
RE: Imagine
By Ringold on 2/7/2012 8:49:00 PM , Rating: 1
Was that an attempt at a logical economic argument, or just expressing your preference for economic apocalypse if it manages to stick it to those you dislike for their success? Because, that's what would've happened. Most of the rich and powerful would've had their power stripped, a few (probably the government) would've become further entrenched, and everyone else from the bottom of the economic ladder up through the upper middle class would've had any and all savings annihilated. At least, if you'd had your way.


RE: Imagine
By Ringold on 2/7/2012 8:51:55 PM , Rating: 1
That brings up another point: it's almost useless trying to create an equal society. In history, I'm not aware of it ever being the case. Some lead, most follow. There's always someone "more equal" then the others. In China, 99% were equal, but Mao, he was more equal. Stalin, same thing. Chavez. Castro.

All any plan to remove the powerful simply replace them with someone else. Typically it's a change for the worse. At least in America, the majority of millionaires are in fact self-made, so that should be something to be proud of, even though they're objects of hate for most.


RE: Imagine
By Bubbacub on 2/7/2012 11:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
north western europe seems to have managed to deliver more equality (1)and more happiness (2) without creating evil communist dicatatorships.

there is a middle ground between extreme capitalism and communist dictatorships!

i think social mobility is the key to a healthy society based on meritocracy. meritocracy as i see it is the basis of the 'american dream'.

i think the US could benefit from a society with more social mobility.

if you are born poor, but are hard working and intelligent you should have a reasonable chance of going up the socio-economic ladder.

1: http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0,3343,en_2649_341...
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Lif...


RE: Imagine
By HrilL on 2/8/2012 1:00:46 PM , Rating: 2
All you have to do is look at our own history to see people go from very poor to mega rich. We don't need Government involvement for this to happen. Their involvement has actually hindered it by making it harder to be an entrepreneur and create new companies and build new markets. Over regulation is destroying the middle class by cutting out competition form small and medium sized businesses because the only companies that can survive the economic burden of these regulations are the very ones that promoted them. Those would be Mega Corporations...


RE: Imagine
By Reclaimer77 on 2/8/2012 3:19:06 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. The end result of socialist big-Government policies can be summed up in one word: mediocrity.


RE: Imagine
By Ringold on 2/8/2012 7:56:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
north western europe seems to have managed to deliver more equality (1)and more happiness (2) without creating evil communist dicatatorships.


Thanks for cherry picking a tiny corner of Europe, where the southern Mediterranean rim is burning down, where largely identical attitudes towards a generous welfare state exist.


RE: Imagine
By EricMartello on 2/8/2012 3:39:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Was that an attempt at a logical economic argument, or just expressing your preference for economic apocalypse if it manages to stick it to those you dislike for their success?


Success? Wow a little dense, are we? No, it's not success. It's the result of being able to exploit the system since they are the ones controlling the system. Success is earned - their wealth is based on exploitation, fraud and thievery.

quote:
Because, that's what would've happened. Most of the rich and powerful would've had their power stripped, a few (probably the government) would've become further entrenched, and everyone else from the bottom of the economic ladder up through the upper middle class would've had any and all savings annihilated. At least, if you'd had your way.


Considering that the "rich and powerful" who stood to lose were also the ones pulling the strings within the government, I'd be willing to wager that the bloated facist regime we have now would implode. How many congressmen are also raking in over a million a year? You think they get that money from "hard, dedicated public service" right? They're earning that money...no, they're privy to information about the companies they regulate and are able to use that to their own benefit.

quote:
That brings up another point: it's almost useless trying to create an equal society. In history, I'm not aware of it ever being the case. Some lead, most follow. There's always someone "more equal" then the others. In China, 99% were equal, but Mao, he was more equal. Stalin, same thing. Chavez. Castro.


Wait..who said anything about equality? I merely said the distribution of wealth would be more spread out...i.e. thrown back to a time when currency actually had value based on goods/services and not the volume of paper money being printed or the Fed's interest rate for banks.

Nice job citing other extremist regimes but failing to grasp the fact that the USA is an extremist capitalist country. Allowing too few to wield absolute power guarantees corruption...spreading the power around and preventing any one entity from consolidating it maintains a kind of balance.

quote:
All any plan to remove the powerful simply replace them with someone else. Typically it's a change for the worse. At least in America, the majority of millionaires are in fact self-made, so that should be something to be proud of, even though they're objects of hate for most.


Pretty sure that the leaders of the Mexican cartels would qualify as "self-made" millionaires and I'm sure they are proud of it.

If people expect a society to work effectively then it needs to be classless. I would never agree to welfare handouts, but I do believe that all people within a society should have more-less equal opportunities to find success as opposed to being under the collective thumb of the "ruling class".


RE: Imagine
By Reclaimer77 on 2/8/12, Rating: -1
RE: Imagine
By EricMartello on 2/11/2012 7:44:08 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is nothing but thinly veiled class warfare. The US Treasury created the problem that you're now blaming on a select few rich people. And it's the US Treasury that's going to always prevent any significant changes to the system.


No, it's the federal reserve bank - a non-government entity controlled by the government - that maintains the status quo, keeping rich people rich, middle class middle and poor people on the welfare treadmill though the manipulation of the dollar and the nations financial systems.

quote:
Your opinions are disgusting and divisive. And not at all accurate of the situation.


False, because I've only stated facts.

quote:
More proof that YOU'RE the extremist. We haven't been "extremist capitalist" in over half a century. No economist in his right mind would call us extremely capitalist anymore. We're as mixed as can be. Our country is capitalist with corporatist and socialist ingredients mixed in.


Do you even know what it means to be an extremist capitalist nation? It means that any individual can potentially horde a large share of resources without incurring any major restriction and without any compelling reason to reinvest into our economy...whereas an extremist communist country seeks to distribute the "governmental power" evenly across the entire 'working class'. Neither work because extremism does not allow much room for compromise and adaptation...and our system is NOT working for a lot of people. A balanced system somewhere between capitalism and communism would yield a much more satisfying life for many people.

Let me break this down for you into a real-world example. Let's say you have $100K to invest and $100,000K. It is very easy to devise a sustainable investment income from the larger investment without taking a large financial risk. At the same risk level, the $100K investment will not yield the same type of return.

What effect does this have? It enables individuals to cross a threshold where once they reach that point they can stop working and earn an income almost exclusively from capital gains on their investments...and if you have a rudimentary understanding of how investment works, for someone to WIN $1,000,000 someone has to LOSE an equal amount...but that amount that gets lost tends not to be recirculated since it is moved off-shore to avoid taxation. This results in a concentration of wealth distributed over a very small number of individuals in relation to the entire country's population, where the wealth is not used to benefit the country and only widens the gap between classes.

quote:
In an "extremely capitalist" country we wouldn't be having this discussion. Because bailouts and handouts wouldn't have happened in the first place.


The bailouts happened to maintain the system. If the current financial system fell apart it would largely be beneficial for Americans, especially the decentralization part and shifting away from a fiat currency. Having a welfare program to make sure poor people remain content to be poor - and in no way suggests that the USA is not an extremist capitalist country.


RE: Imagine
By Ringold on 2/8/2012 8:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, it's not success. It's the result of being able to exploit the system since they are the ones controlling the system.


Undisputed fact, noted in many sources: The vast majority of American millionaires came from modest or poor backgrounds. Only 9% of households with $10m or more in assets acquired them by way of inheritance. Further, many millionaires are self-employed, such as doctors. So unless you define coming from a modest home, working ones ass off in college or in the workforce, and building ones way to millions is manipulation, fraud or thievery, then you are wrong. It's just plain success. Facts are facts, feel free to google.

quote:
I'd be willing to wager that the bloated facist regime we have now would implode.


Congress controls the army. Congress controls the Treasury. Congress controls the Federal Reserve. So, they have all the money, the ability to print more money, and the men with all the guns. My money is on them.

quote:
Wait..who said anything about equality? I merely said the distribution of wealth would be more spread out...i.e. thrown back to a time when currency actually had value based on goods/services and not the volume of paper money being printed or the Fed's interest rate for banks.


Equality and currency values are two totally different things.

quote:
Allowing too few to wield absolute power guarantees corruption...spreading the power around and preventing any one entity from consolidating it maintains a kind of balance.


Now you sound like a small-government, constitution-loving Republican!

quote:
If people expect a society to work effectively then it needs to be classless.


I believe it is, to a degree, though exceptions have been created in the last couple decades. A cultural rift has opened again (not the first time in our history) between left and right, for one. Second, there's the middle and high income groups that work for a living, but now also this failed culture of poverty that keeps people stuck in ghettos. It's largely a black problem, and Herman Cain tries to talk about it, but if a white person talks about it then all hell breaks lose and too few blacks have moved past the 60s to be able to talk about it openly, so the problem festers.


RE: Imagine
By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/2012 3:38:40 PM , Rating: 2
He stated his opinion on this when Bush was still in office. How was he "saying whatever it takes to get elected."?

Being cynical about politicians is one thing. But in this case it's just a big slam on Romney.


RE: Imagine
By gunzac21 on 2/7/2012 5:28:57 PM , Rating: 4
"But 4 more years of Obama would be an extinction level event. "
hello pot


RE: Imagine
By weskurtz0081 on 2/7/2012 11:44:31 PM , Rating: 2
Worked for Obama didn't it? What's the difference?


RE: Imagine
By rich876 on 2/8/2012 9:38:22 AM , Rating: 2
He looks credible, but he's one hell of a liar.


come on mick
By invidious on 2/7/2012 2:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
1% technology
99% political he said she said

Get a job at CNN if you want to post crap like this. Its annoying as both an educated voter and a technology reader.




RE: come on mick
By fortiori on 2/7/12, Rating: 0
RE: come on mick
By Ringold on 2/7/2012 2:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
I want more leaks and pre-NDA benchies that used to pop up here. Donanim Haber seems to of been the source for that juicy tech drama as of late. Random Turkish website? We english-speaking sites can't one up Turkey?


RE: come on mick
By bupkus on 2/7/2012 3:44:57 PM , Rating: 1
You've been banned.

Oh, wait, that's what you want for Mick.


RE: come on mick
By fortiori on 2/7/2012 3:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
Eh, in truth i'd settle for him posting tech news exclusively. I don't actually have a problem with his crusade to expose corruption, heck, i'm all for it...

But this is a tech site, so i want, you know, tech news.


RE: come on mick
By bupkus on 2/8/2012 12:14:02 AM , Rating: 2
I dig it.


RE: come on mick
By geddarkstorm on 2/8/2012 2:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
A broader perspective is a good thing. All of this directly impacts the tech of now and tomorrow. Available and future tech for us to drool over is intrinsically tied into economics, and economics into politics.

If you wanted just straight talking about the workings of pieces of technology, focus your attention on a review site, like Anandtech.com. Dailytech is much more broad and always has been, and always should be. Otherwise, it'd just be an AnandTech/PcPer/ExtremeTech clone.


RE: come on mick
By geddarkstorm on 2/8/2012 2:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
Automotive is part of the tech of this site. The bailouts greatly affected that industry and the tech we care about. And thus, what current candidates say is also of importance from the tech standpoint. Listen closely if you want to make a vote based on what you feel is best for the tech field--if that's really what you're obsessed about.


TARP
By hiscross on 2/7/2012 6:00:29 PM , Rating: 3
1407 Financial institutions received TARP money. Almost 50% were overseas institutions. Not all US banks wanted TARP $$, but were forced to take it. The US Treasury has actually made a profit on the interested of those loans. Finally, the 2008 financial mess was man made. There is more to come.




RE: TARP
By fortiori on 2/7/12, Rating: 0
RE: TARP
By hiscross on 2/8/2012 8:55:33 AM , Rating: 2
"JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley " Plus Freddie, Fannie, and AIG (which still remains in trouble). The actual handouts where processed on the 5th floor of 1801L street NW, DC. That floor is now occupied by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.


RE: TARP
By fortiori on 2/8/2012 10:17:42 AM , Rating: 2
Take a look at the link in the post above this one. The one that says the fed actually handed out 7.7 trillion dollars in addition to the TARP funds.

Go ahead, have a look. I'll wait...

Ok, so from reading the FOIA request report above, it should be clear to you that TARP was a farce. It was the public face of the actual real behind the scenes bailout which was at least an order of magnitude bigger than TARP. To put that in perspective:

http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

Now multiply that last image by 8.


RE: TARP
By hiscross on 2/8/2012 11:27:25 AM , Rating: 2
Most of the 'accounting" was done on excel and stored on shared drives and later SharePoint. Actual funds were distributed by a 3rd party.


Then vote for someone else!
By Lochness22 on 2/7/2012 4:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
Ron Paul 2012!!




RE: Then vote for someone else!
By AEvangel on 2/7/2012 5:14:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
To be fair, couldn't that be said about every politician?


No, there are some that actually speak the truth no matter whom they are speaking to.

Ron Paul 2012


RE: Then vote for someone else!
By Ringold on 2/7/2012 8:59:57 PM , Rating: 3
Unless you bring up certain publications former colleagues have come forward to say he did in fact check off on but now he wishes to distance himself from. Then he shows that when you cut him he bleeds the same red blood as every other imperfect human.


RE: Then vote for someone else!
By The Raven on 2/9/2012 2:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
Ron Paul could have been a KKK member and I would still vote for him. Reason being that he believes that we should all be free from oppression of others regardless of their feeling toward us. And that includes him. He believes that his views on global warming, abortion, etc. are of little importance to his views on liberty because he doesn't want to push them on anyone else. Mitt, Newt and Rick (and Obama) all want to pick winners and losers so if you are voting for them then you better make sure that they are not racists, homophobes, etc. because they are all people who think that they should have more power and not less as the good Dr. believes.


There's a gold mine.
By rburnham on 2/8/2012 11:10:16 AM , Rating: 3
Am I the only one who came here because of the picture of the busty woman in the red shirt?




RE: There's a gold mine.
By derricker on 2/8/2012 4:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I would like to bail her out.


RE: There's a gold mine.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/8/2012 5:03:17 PM , Rating: 1
Looks like she already bailed out of a plane to get hair that frizzy!

OH SMACK! Ooohhhh thank you, thank you folks. I'll be here all week. Tip your waitress. And remember, don't drink if you're going to drive, and don't drive if you drink.


Protect American Families?
By The Raven on 2/9/2012 2:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He says he "had to" break with his rigid conservative roots and craft the bailout, in order to "safeguard American workers and families."
"In order to "safeguard American workers and families?"

Like when he needlessly sent them to Iraq to die?

No Bush is a moronic elite just like Obama who thinks that we are little pawns in their little R vs. D game. I am one of the lucky ones who has not lost a family service member to these wars, but Bush can still kiss my a$$.

And not to attack the man on a personal level...I mean I understand that he had a tough job. But that is what these people can expect when they try to control every aspect of our lives and every country on the map.




He feels for the banks, he does!
By The0ne on 2/9/2012 3:41:39 PM , Rating: 2
"Well, the banks aren't bad people. They're just overwhelmed right now."

Oh the pain Mick feels for the banks, you have to love him for that. Wait...somethings coming up *vomit*




By jarredskills on 2/10/2012 10:44:45 AM , Rating: 2
Very hot! At least for me :)




Just spit through my nose
By FITCamaro on 2/7/12, Rating: -1
RE: Just spit through my nose
By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/12, Rating: -1
RE: Just spit through my nose
By Etsp on 2/7/12, Rating: 0
RE: Just spit through my nose
By lightfoot on 2/7/2012 5:21:48 PM , Rating: 3
We've stopped hemorrhaging jobs only because the patient (the US Economy) is dead, not because it has been stabilized. NOTHING has gotten better since Obama has taken office. It has merely stopped getting worse.

But again, Obama considers that a victory.

To recover from this recession we need to be adding jobs at a rate at least four times greater than current rates. Simply keeping up with population growth isn't good enough. Let me know when we add a million jobs in a single month. Only then we can start talking about recovery.


RE: Just spit through my nose
By twhittet on 2/7/12, Rating: -1
RE: Just spit through my nose
By Ringold on 2/7/2012 8:58:16 PM , Rating: 1
Sounds like you think a million was too much? Reagan actually managed it during a single month if I recall, with a smaller population. A million a month in an economy coming back from such deep depths of recession would actually be not unexpected.

Between the millions of jobs lost, the millions who have immigrated or become older and tried to join the workforce and failed to do so and millions who have given up trying to be in the work force but once were, we could easily sustain job growth 4x the current rate for a year or longer in a true "recovery." A million a month during the peak of a strong recovery for a few months shouldn't be impossible, if conditions were perfect. At present, unemployment is only going down due to a dropping participation rate as people give up looking for work, not due to job growth.

If 500 or 750k jobs gained a month sounds unreasonably high that not because it is, only because things have been so incredibly shitty for so long now that we don't remember what being a strong nation feels like any more.


RE: Just spit through my nose
By bupkus on 2/8/2012 12:13:28 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Reagan actually managed it during a single month if I recall, with a smaller population.
Why, when I was a kid I could get into the theater for a dime. A dime!


RE: Just spit through my nose
By TSS on 2/8/2012 1:09:24 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/2011/680/image004....

You've forgotten what it is to be a great nation because you are constantly lied to which makes you forget who you really are.

The above chart is mearly your GDP, official figures, only something you don't see on regular news sites because it's not "news worthy". It's the GDP as it was reported in 2009, when it was recalculated in 2010 with more info, and recalculated again in 2011. Basically it's a correction in old figures rather then reporting of new ones. And as you'll notice in Q2 2009, there's a $250 billion gap between what your GDP was reported back then and what it actually was (for as far as we know if revised again i don't see that figure going any higher).

It's not reported because it doesn't matter "now". But you have to remember that every decision based at the time was based on the idea that GDP was $250 billion higher. To give you an idea how much money that actually is, that's the same amount of money you paid in fiscal 2009 on interest over national debt of ~$13 trillion.

That site is overflowing with charts that all say the same thing, what your told doesn't even come close to the truth.

A job gain of 750k a month is far more unreasonable then a job loss of a million a month would be at this point. Because this is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Remember your government couldn't even agree on $1,2 trillion in cuts over a decate. What you need to cut in order to have a fiscally sound budget, is $1,2 trillion worth of cuts (or tax increases) PER YEAR. Also you'd need to have a ACTUAL GDP growth of ~3% per year as well as paying down your debt to the tune of atleast $100 billion per year. Then you need to keep that up for 50 years.

That is what is required at this point to get out of this mess. Any delay will only make it worse. And yes. I know that sounds completly insane. It won't ever happen. What you need to understand is, that doesn't mean the above isn't a reality. It is. It just means there's no way out. Because, while mathematically there are still a few outs, your people will never stand for them. Raise taxes by 10% for everybody, that would help alot. It would also mean comitting political suicide. And the foks in washington get paid far, far too much to commit suicide.

If you're wondering how much worse it can get the above site also gives a nice figure. Because you work with non-farm payrolls, and in the great depression 20% of people worked on farms which is now 1-2%, the guy estimates current unemployment figures have to hit around 37% to be equal to how it was in the great depression. The highest his number has gone was 25% in 2009. So the awnser is, it can get hella alot worse.


RE: Just spit through my nose
By steven975 on 2/8/2012 8:32:53 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, yet many will parrot the current stats of GDP is growing X% per year, and patting themselves on the back for it.

As it stands now, deficit spending alone is about 8% of our GDP. Not sustainable, in any way.


RE: Just spit through my nose
By Ringold on 2/8/2012 8:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
I dont disagree with much of that, Republicans are also waving the flag on the debt and deficit and point at Greece as an example of what happens when issues aren't confronted, so not sure what you larger point is, unless its just to point out that, no, CNN doesn't pay attention to revised GDP figures.

As for the gap, the warning sign that the site has an agenda is that it overplays the delta by not starting its chart at zero. Being an economist myself, I'd of been surprised if it was accurate back then; it was an unprecedented event in the economy for modern models to work with. If you watched CNBC and listened to financial news though, many were suggesting things were worse then figures were showing and it was well known.


RE: Just spit through my nose
By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/2012 9:49:20 PM , Rating: 1
We're "stable"? Only if you buy in this low being the "new normal" garbage.


RE: Just spit through my nose
By Etsp on 2/7/2012 11:58:39 PM , Rating: 2
When did I say that the economy was good? Where did I imply that the current state of the economy was good? I didn't.

I simply said that things aren't as bad as they were, as in, we are more stable now than we were when Bush left office, and that indicators are that things are improving. Not as quickly as we would like, true, but they are getting better.


RE: Just spit through my nose
By Reclaimer77 on 2/8/12, Rating: 0
RE: Just spit through my nose
By BSMonitor on 2/8/2012 10:03:45 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
He extended EVERY Bush policy, even the tax cuts Liberals railed against, even things he campaigned on ending when running for office. He piled even more debt on top of those policies, astronomical amounts of it.


BS

Not even worth arguing, you are talking completely out of your ass.


RE: Just spit through my nose
By Reclaimer77 on 2/8/2012 10:38:54 AM , Rating: 2
Really?

Here's a list off the top of my head.

1. Wiretapping programs - maintained and extended
2. Bush tax cuts - renewed
3. Guantanamo Bay - promised to close, still open
4. Gas prices - ran on lowering them, hasn't
5. Bailouts - extended
6. War - continued and extended. He even started a new war against Libya

7. Renditions (torture) - extended under Obama. It even was used to get information on Bin Laden's location

8. Plutocracy - extended, at all time highs
9. Ethanol subsidies - bashed Bush for, extended when he got in office

10. Arms deals - Fast and Furious. Also made 605 billion dollar arms deal with Taiwan. Agreed to send 200 missiles to Taiwan. This has infuriated China further.

And that's just off the top of my head. All facts, 100%.

You know, for a "BS Monitor" you aren't very good. Maybe you're monitor gets too many false positives from your own brain. Do you have any proof to refute me besides random anger?


By geddarkstorm on 2/8/2012 2:23:29 PM , Rating: 1
Reclaimer is spot on. It's all been the same stuff under a different name, which is deliciously ironic for the whole "hope and change". It's like one of those shell games--keep your eye on the ball as they shuffle the cups around.


RE: Just spit through my nose
By The Raven on 2/9/2012 2:49:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah we were real stable there in 2007 too yo.


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki