Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2010 13:48:49 GMT -8
It would have been a whole lot worse if govt. did not bail out GM and the US banking industry. We would have been in another great depression. I am sure Obama did not want to bail out these industries but he was in a lose- lose situation. I am 100% sure the same thing would have been done if McCain won. It was the right thing to do even if it was unpopular. All counrties around the workd had to do the same thing too. Stimulus packages were provided in all 1st world countries. Republicans are just sore losers and they themselves said the only thing they need to do is make Obama lose. That is why they are the party of NO and provide no alternative solutions. Even the democrats in congress gave Bush everything he needed until he screwed things up so badly. Point is govt needs to involve itself in regulation and you cannot let big business run amuck. Look at the BP situation that is currently killing our gulf. Another present from the past Bush administration and the laws they past to deregulate this industry. Also, if you do not like govt. involvement in industry why are you a SDSU fan? SDSU is run by the state govt! You should be a USC fan/student if you don't believe in govt. involvement!! Exactly what school of economic theory states that business that are losing money are needed in order to save the economy? We have a tried and true method of dealing with failing businesses, it's called bankruptcy. You cannot with any intellectual honesty conflate the liquidity crisis with the GM/Chrysler bailouts and the stimulus. These are three distinct acts. Two of the three had nothing whatever to do with the other. TARP was the attempt to solve the liquidity issue. The bailout was meant as a payoff to UAW thugs and the "stimulus" was nothing more than a vehicle to keep state and local municipalities from going under due to the burden of guess what? Union salaries and benefits! What little remained went into the pockets of unproductive and money losing private entities otherwise known as the "green" economy. McCain would have no doubt advocated the first (TARP). That he would have suddenly turned into a corporatist or Keynesian overnight and done the other two is a highly dubious proposition. Nobody here that I've seen has argued that the government shouldn't be involved in regulation. It should not however be involved in picking winners and losers and it damn sure shouldn't own ANY ostensibly private enterprise for the purpose of competing in the marketplace against companies without the advantage of government largess. The problem wasn't the lack of regulation; finance, automotive and oil are three of the most heavily regulated industries on the planet. The problem was either the regulations weren't enforced (a GOVERNMENT problem) or the regulations imposed were insufficient (again a GOVERNMENT problem). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2010 14:18:46 GMT -8
Invest in Green: Check out this new "Green Silicon Valley" emerging in the Bay Area: www.betterplace.com/www.teslamotors.com/www.solyndra.com/All leading to new job creation in the Bay Area. These are the leaders but there are a lot of other start ups here due to investments made by Obama and Schwarzenegger. Too bad palin thinks this is a socialist program... Also, you were right about Palin and not wanting to regulate the oil companies. Actually I don't thnk she knows what regulation means. She will have to research that word. Here it is on a clip: Actually this is pretty funny!!! www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpb7z_PjbAsInteresting read on how nationalizing this oil monopoly helped Brazil become a world leader with hosting the soccer world cup and now the Olympics: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PetrobrasHave a good Sunday you all! Just out of curiosity; what makes an electric car "green". "Green" is nothing more than a marketing slogan. BP advertised itself as a "green" oil company. How's that workin' out for you? Solar, wind and EV's are OLD, antiquated technologies. They've been around forever and have never been successful in the market place for some very good reasons. They don't work for the most part. It takes a particularly skewed view of reality to think these goofball ideas will ever be viable or valuable in any meaningful sense without the heavy hand of government forcing them down our throats....for our own good of course...cuz da' peeples iz stoopid. |
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Jun 8, 2010 15:30:54 GMT -8
Well Afan, You are correct. Corporations do own America and that influence does hold back regulations. That is why when people call Obama a socialist it is pretty funny since he and the USA are far from socialistic. Palin uses that word because she can only communicate in 3 words or less.
Only thing green about BP is its corporate colors. You are wrong there. You should readress this as Drill Baby Drill: How's that working for you. That would be more accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 8, 2010 15:31:26 GMT -8
Invest in Green: Check out this new "Green Silicon Valley" emerging in the Bay Area: www.betterplace.com/www.teslamotors.com/www.solyndra.com/All leading to new job creation in the Bay Area. These are the leaders but there are a lot of other start ups here due to investments made by Obama and Schwarzenegger. Too bad palin thinks this is a socialist program... Also, you were right about Palin and not wanting to regulate the oil companies. Actually I don't thnk she knows what regulation means. She will have to research that word. Here it is on a clip: Actually this is pretty funny!!! www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpb7z_PjbAsInteresting read on how nationalizing this oil monopoly helped Brazil become a world leader with hosting the soccer world cup and now the Olympics: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PetrobrasHave a good Sunday you all! Just out of curiosity; what makes an electric car "green". "Green" is nothing more than a marketing slogan. BP advertised itself as a "green" oil company. How's that workin' out for you? Solar, wind and EV's are OLD, antiquated technologies. They've been around forever and have never been successful in the market place for some very good reasons. They don't work for the most part. It takes a particularly skewed view of reality to think these goofball ideas will ever be viable or valuable in any meaningful sense without the heavy hand of government forcing them down our throats....for our own good of course...cuz da' peeples iz stoopid. In my view, although I was not asked, an electric car would be green if it was a plug in electric only car that was recharged with solar photovoltaic panels only. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2010 16:02:17 GMT -8
Just out of curiosity; what makes an electric car "green". "Green" is nothing more than a marketing slogan. BP advertised itself as a "green" oil company. How's that workin' out for you? Solar, wind and EV's are OLD, antiquated technologies. They've been around forever and have never been successful in the market place for some very good reasons. They don't work for the most part. It takes a particularly skewed view of reality to think these goofball ideas will ever be viable or valuable in any meaningful sense without the heavy hand of government forcing them down our throats....for our own good of course...cuz da' peeples iz stoopid. In my view, although I was not asked, an electric car would be green if it was a plug in electric only car that was recharged with solar photovoltaic panels only. The sun doesn't always shine, the wind doesn't always blow between 8 and 32 mph and some of your trips will be beyond the 200 or so miles you can get in a golf cart so you'll pretty much always be generating CO2. What do you do with the 100's of pounds of toxic waste in the form of batteries when they reach End of Life? What will the interior be comprised of if not oil based plastics? Brake dust? Lubricants? Manufacturing plant energy? Asphalt for the roads you'll be driving on? |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jun 8, 2010 16:13:15 GMT -8
so·cial·ism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (See Obama care, Government Motors, Too Big to Fail, etc).
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state (See above)
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done (See Redistribution).
cap·i·tal·ism
an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
Now if Palin called Obama a Capitalist, It actually would be reason to question her intellect. When she does call Obama a Socialist, she is actually right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2010 17:17:15 GMT -8
Well Afan, You are correct. Corporations do own America and that influence does hold back regulations. That is why when people call Obama a socialist it is pretty funny since he and the USA are far from socialistic. Palin uses that word because she can only communicate in 3 words or less. Only thing green about BP is its corporate colors. You are wrong there. You should readress this as Drill Baby Drill: How's that working for you. That would be more accurate. You've never seen me call Obama a socialist. I don't think he is. If I was to pick an "ist" that best describes his economic views it would be Fasc ist. But these are terms that don't really apply in 21st century America. The dividing line falls between those that think BIG government is good but BIG retail, BIG oil, BIG pharma and pretty much every other BIG is is somehow a threat. I've have never understood this and never will. The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen. Only government, which monopolizes the use of force, can deprive you of your life and your liberty. Walmart just wants me to buy stuff. And you're right, corporations "own" America. That's the central idea this country is founded upon. The capitalist structure is devised to aggregate capital such that it can be put to use in the most productive manner possible based upon market dynamics. John Jay and Alexander Hamilton both referred to the form of government intended by the Constitution as a Commercial Republic "The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged by all enlightened statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth, and has accordingly become a primary object of their political cares. By multipying the means of gratification, by promoting the introduction and circulation of the precious metals, those darling objects of human avarice and enterprise, it serves to vivify and invigorate the channels of industry, and to make them flow with greater activity and copiousness. The assiduous merchant, the laborious husbandman, the active mechanic, and the industrious manufacturer, -- all orders of men, look forward with eager expectation and growing alacrity to this pleasing reward of their toils"Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #12 |
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Jun 8, 2010 21:23:59 GMT -8
Wal Mart may want you to buy stuff but they demand their suppliers take the cost out of goods which means moving manufacturing to China. China is now booming...
BP a top 5 company in the world ruins the gulf and faces fines of $35,000 a day while making $5B a qtr in profits.
You need big govt to fight big business. If not then we will have the BP President dictate our gulf policy.
1776 is not 2010...Adjustments need to be made. If not, then we will be like the middle east living back in the stone age.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2010 9:56:36 GMT -8
Wal Mart may want you to buy stuff but they demand their suppliers take the cost out of goods which means moving manufacturing to China. China is now booming... BP a top 5 company in the world ruins the gulf and faces fines of $35,000 a day while making $5B a qtr in profits. You need big govt to fight big business. If not then we will have the BP President dictate our gulf policy. 1776 is not 2010...Adjustments need to be made. If not, then we will be like the middle east living back in the stone age. Walmart "demands"? How exactly do they "demand" anything? What's the penalty for failure to meet these "demands"? Do they kill all the hostages? And...what's wrong with China "booming" ? What do you have against the Chinese? Should they have continued to starve in Mao's socialist paradise? I think you hate people that look different than you. So GOVERNMENT sets a fine you think is too low and somehow that's BP's problem? What color is the sky in your world? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 9, 2010 10:15:02 GMT -8
For better or for worse, we now have a global market. That is not going to change. One of the consequences of that fact is that countries with workers willing to work for lower wages are going to have an advantage . . BUT ONLY IN INDUSTRIES THAT ARE LABOR INTENSIVE!
Nations whose young people are willing to work hard enough to get the advanced education and training needed to work in the high tech fields will prosper. Nations whose young people think that they are always going to be adolescents with indulgent parents willing to subsidize their slothful ways will decline.
Based on the students I have encountered recently during my substitute teaching jobs, I would not bet that the U.S. will be in the former category.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Jun 9, 2010 11:41:59 GMT -8
You don't meet Wal Mart demands you then don't sell to Wal Mart stores. That eliminates 50% of your business. You have to meet the demands or risk going out of business since the cost of goods will increase to your other customers.
Another example Banks to big to fail. They failed and that hurt the US economy.
Big unregulated can cause problems.
Those who want smaller govt without regulation then have to cope that they have to give in to big business policies. Nice thing about government is you can vote in leaders if you want change. In corporations you cannot vote in leaders. See BP President still having a job and fighting for BP instead of the Gulf.
Aztecwilliam: you are correct: Education and innovation is key to survive. We must fully fund education and look at ways to improve it as well. Cal now accepts more foreign students since they need the tuition that brings. Less CA residents are accepted at Cal now. We must invest in new technologies (Stem Cell, Green, etc.) to make these huge industries like technology.
We can all win here if we play smart!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2010 11:54:22 GMT -8
You don't meet Wal Mart demands you then don't sell to Wal Mart stores. That eliminates 50% of your business. You have to meet the demands or risk going out of business since the cost of goods will increase to your other customers. Another example Banks to big to fail. They failed and that hurt the US economy. Big unregulated can cause problems. Those who want smaller govt without regulation then have to cope that they have to give in to big business policies. Nice thing about government is you can vote in leaders if you want change. In corporations you cannot vote in leaders. See BP President still having a job and fighting for BP instead of the Gulf. Aztecwilliam: you are correct: Education and innovation is key to survive. We must fully fund education and look at ways to improve it as well. Cal now accepts more foreign students since they need the tuition that brings. Less CA residents are accepted at Cal now. We must invest in new technologies (Stem Cell, Green, etc.) to make these huge industries like technology. We can all win here if we play smart! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2010 12:12:05 GMT -8
So meeting Walmart's "demands" is good for business? That's your complaint? Let's see; we learned from you in your last few posts that the government intervening in order to keep money losing businesses in business at the expense of the taxpayer is a good thing for the economy but being "forced" to meet the "demands" of Walmart in order to turn a profit is a bad thing. Do I have it right? I'm just asking cuz' this is a new economic theory I never been exposed to.
Walmart operates in an environment of contracts freely entered into by all parties. Nobody is forced to sell to or buy from Walmart. They do so out of self-interest. If their business model fails, they'll go out of business, just like GM and Chrysler should have gone out of business.
Let me ask you this; Walmart has 1.4 MILLION employees. More than GM and Chrysler combined. If they should begin to lose money and are seriously threatened with bankruptcy, should Barry buy us a retail chain to go along with our car companies, banks and insurance companies to, you know, to sort of balance out our portfolio? If not, why not? Are they not "too big to fail"?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 9, 2010 13:24:31 GMT -8
We are getting way off subject, but since the liberals do not seem to be able to keep a train of thought going or have the energy to start a thread about what they care to discuss, I guess that I will join in.
I just heard an interview on Cavuto with Congressmen Peter Welsh of Vermont. This kind of fits in with the current way this thread has wandered. Welch says that business should not be allowed to pay dividends. He used phrasing like a dividend was excess profit and should not be allowed. It was implied that they should not be able to reinvest in their business because that was also excess profit. Now his idea was that dividends and profit were due to too high of a price. Cavuto finally just shut him down in frustration and went on to something else.
How do people like that get elected to Congress? Where did they go to school? Why do we let them breed?
I can understand being a caring liberal like sdtosf and some others, but this guy did not seem to be putting Cavuto on. He is just plain stupid. Just what do they think the incentive is to be in business? Just why would you put your money to work if the best you could do was break even? What would be the value of that business be in terms of stock price if you could never have earnings? What would be the value of your capital equipment if at it's highest and best use it could not turn a profit?
Now I realize that this Congressman might not have understood the gist of the discussion, but it is hard to believe that over those couple minutes that he could not have gotten at least one clue.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Jun 9, 2010 21:07:23 GMT -8
AFAN: Cannot understand what you are trying to say. Business is complex and there are a lot of things that go on that you may not understand. Believe me I work in the industry.
I am all for making profits. Problem is Bush give corporations everything they wanted and many corporations almost went bankrupt and took this country down with them. I just hope that never happens again. But when you watch Fox News and listen to the Teabaggers it is like they just don't get what the root of the problem is.
At least when Reagan was President if something he was behind was not working he changed it. Like when he lowered taxes and then raised them because of the deficit spending. He cut and ran out of Lebanon when our Marines were attacked because he knew it would be a never ending war. He granted Amnesty to undocumented workers because he knew that America needed the cheap labor and they could supply it. Then they would build their own wealth and raise the standard f living here in the USA.
He also pushed his agenda of Supply Side economics which the trickle down theory never really worked. However he was able to look at things and make changes if needed. Now republicans get attacked by other republicans if they even think of working with the other side. Sad state of affairs on that side and that is why they must be defeated in 2010 and 2012.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 10, 2010 12:22:49 GMT -8
AFAN: Cannot understand what you are trying to say. Business is complex and there are a lot of things that go on that you may not understand. Believe me I work in the industry. I am all for making profits. Problem is Bush give corporations everything they wanted and many corporations almost went bankrupt and took this country down with them. I just hope that never happens again. But when you watch Fox News and listen to the Teabaggers it is like they just don't get what the root of the problem is. At least when Reagan was President if something he was behind was not working he changed it. Like when he lowered taxes and then raised them because of the deficit spending. He cut and ran out of Lebanon when our Marines were attacked because he knew it would be a never ending war. He granted Amnesty to undocumented workers because he knew that America needed the cheap labor and they could supply it. Then they would build their own wealth and raise the standard f living here in the USA. He also pushed his agenda of Supply Side economics which the trickle down theory never really worked. However he was able to look at things and make changes if needed. Now republicans get attacked by other republicans if they even think of working with the other side. Sad state of affairs on that side and that is why they must be defeated in 2010 and 2012. That is the kind of mish mash thinking and blurring of facts that make the situations so maddening. Reagan really had just about everything right as did Bush II. They just could not control the spending by the Congress. Supply Side thinking increases revenue but it does not a bit good if you can't control spending. Repubs are almost as bad as Democrats as far as spending is concerned, it is just that they see how to grow revenue. You can not speak about the deficit in terms of cash accounting and be anywhere near sensible. You need to think in terms of accrual and what the effect of creating unfunded liability is on the future. We are up the creek unless we start throwing liberals out of office along with some Republicans and replace them with fiscal Conservatives. You must have people who know the value of money and not think in just abstract terms like those who have never held real jobs or had to make a payroll from current receipts. Obama has no clue and seems comfortable only when surrounded by people equally clueless. |
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Jun 10, 2010 14:03:00 GMT -8
To cut spending you would then have to cut Social Security, Medicare and Defense. Three things most Americans do not want cut. Tough situation to be in for any President.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 10, 2010 15:10:01 GMT -8
To cut spending you would then have to cut Social Security, Medicare and Defense. Three things most Americans do not want cut. Tough situation to be in for any President. That again is a flawed statement meant only to try to get people to think that you would have to cut "Sacred Cows" so to speak to make any progress. Have you ever thought of the honest approach to what you said? Have you ever recognized that you can cut Defense for instance by cutting out fraud waste and abuse along with programs that the individual services do not want or need? Why not say that Social Security could be fixed by raising retirement age, applying some sort of means testing and taking it gradually private? Why not spend time and effort rooting out the fraud in Medicare and finding economies in other parts of the program like encouraging drug companies to look into multi-tiered pricing systems? These programs that you point to care all be made more efficient along with many others. You could eliminate the Dept of Education in its entirety and make education better run at the local level. Plenty of more ideas could be hatched and fleshed out if people were willing to put their mind and will to the task. We try with our Senator for instance and what you hear from Boxer's staffers is a non-committal "I will pass your concerns on the the Senator" or the response from a letter is a form letter answer that does not even address the subject that you have tried to bring to her attention. |
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Jun 10, 2010 21:08:41 GMT -8
When I say cut I meant cuts. Make it 67 to retire from SS and increase the tax level to $1MM a year. I stop paying SS taxes in July. This is something I can use when I retire so I don't mind upping the age and paying a little more to keep SS. I would not make it go private. That is what my 401K is for. If it goes away due to the market crashing at least there is some back up available. Republicans would never let the US negotiate with drug companies to lower their price. They sold out to that industry so we will never see low drug prices here like they have in Canada. Medicare fraud is only 5% so not much cost cutting there. Military spending. We should make major cuts there. It is a total welfare program to states that make fighting arms we will never use. Bill Maher says it best: www.youtube.com/watch?v=if88PgI-vfU&feature=relatedAnother subject: Talking about big business. Looks like the big conferences will kill SDSU football. So Sad... |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 11, 2010 12:55:59 GMT -8
When I say cut I meant cuts. Make it 67 to retire from SS and increase the tax level to $1MM a year. I stop paying SS taxes in July. This is something I can use when I retire so I don't mind upping the age and paying a little more to keep SS. I would not make it go private. That is what my 401K is for. If it goes away due to the market crashing at least there is some back up available. Republicans would never let the US negotiate with drug companies to lower their price. They sold out to that industry so we will never see low drug prices here like they have in Canada. Medicare fraud is only 5% so not much cost cutting there. Military spending. We should make major cuts there. It is a total welfare program to states that make fighting arms we will never use. Bill Maher says it best: www.youtube.com/watch?v=if88PgI-vfU&feature=relatedAnother subject: Talking about big business. Looks like the big conferences will kill SDSU football. So Sad... You are making much more sense with that kind of approach. I would argue a couple points and I think I would be able to show you how make SS safer for you and make it less of a burden on the tax payer by taking it private. I also would think that your view of the Dept of Defense could be bent a little if you would recognize that Defense is one of the few really legit functions of the Federal Government. It could use massive overhaul and decrease it's cost by cutting programs not needed or wanted by Defense. You see when you are willing to consider new ideas even from Conservatives things look a little different. Most of us have the same goals for the country but differ on what is wrong and how to make things better. |
|
