An honest question for Republicans/Obama bashers...

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3028329
Believe it or not there are a few honest politicians. A couple of those are democrats even.

My tendency is to vote for the opposite party in Congress from that which occupies the White House. It's not a very effective check and balance, but it's, practically speaking, all I've got, and to my mind better than nothing. (We're certainly not gonna get it from the Supreme Court.) My thought process is that if they're fighting with each other, there's less time to screw us.
I see R&D as two sides of the same coin. If the R's were that much better, we'd have no reason to be afraid of Obama, as they should've left the White House in good enough shape to withstand any Obama onslaught. They have held the office for 22 of the last 30 years, after all. Surely we can't blame the state of the Nation solely on 8 years of Clinton and 100 days of Obama.
(NAFTA, as a single example - and there plenty more, was a Bush 41 fiasco. Yes - Clinton signed it - but the bill was waiting for him on his desk when he moved into the office.)
When it comes to the electorate in general, I subscribe to Einstein's definition of insanity. We keep voting the same people in and expect a different result.
actually you can pretty much hold dems accountable for the entire economic situation.
But we haven't had a good conservative president since Reagan.
And clinton did renegotiate some of Nafta. (Not that I have much of a problem with it)
imo the problem with Republicans is that they are too liberal. (see Bush's spending record, No Child Left behind, McCain) Same side of the coin, and the wrong side.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3028359
actually you can pretty much hold dems accountable for the entire economic situation.
It takes two to tango. They didn't do it in on their own. There has not been a substantial enough D majority in the last 30 years to have done so.
But we haven't had a good conservative president since Reagan.
Agreed. Unfortunately, his Secretary of State, George Pratt Shultz, was an internationalist in ways Clinton only dreamed of. In Reagan's 2nd term, it was Shultz' agenda that won out.
And clinton did renegotiate some of Nafta. (Not that I have much of a problem with it)
You haven't been to Detroit recently have you?
As a result of NAFTA there is no more domestic furniture industry.
Tell that as well to the trucking industry now that trucks from Mexico are being allowed into the US. They don't meet US safety standards, and they're putting the American trucking industry out of business. These particular renegotiations of the treaty were Bush 43.
Here in CA the unemployment rate is 11.2%. It is estimated that 10% of our jobs are currently held by illegal immigrants. Where was 43 on that?
Tell that to US tomato farmers whose livelyhood was ruined by the E-coli breakout last year because the Bush administration was too afraid to point the finger at Mexico, where the outbreak originated, not with tomatoes, but Jalapeńos.
imo the problem with Republicans is that they are too liberal. (see Bush's spending record, No Child Left behind, McCain) Same side of the coin, and the wrong side.
I agree. They've become the same Corporate Internationalists that the D's have, to only a slightly lesser degree. We're spending ourselves into oblivion on both sides of the aisle, and it's silly to say this is all Obama. Bush spent at least half of the 2+ trillion we've run up in the last year between last year's tax incentive, the Bear Stearns bailout, AIG, various banks, and round 1 of the Auto Industry bailouts.
Historically, nations do not collapse as a result of external conquest, but under the burden of their accrued debt.
I don't ask the question facetiously, because I agree. How do you propose to solve that problem?
Krikey - I'm starting to sound like a conservative. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3028369
It takes two to tango. They didn't do it in on their own. There has not been a substantial enough D majority in the last 30 years to have done so.
Agreed. Unfortunately, his Secretary of State, George Pratt Shultz, was an internationalist in ways Clinton only dreamed of. In Reagan's 2nd term, it was Shultz' agenda that won out.
You haven't been to Detroit recently have you?
Tell that as well to the trucking industry now that trucks from Mexico are being allowed into the US. They don't meet US safety standards, and they're putting the American trucking industry out of business. These particular renegotiations of the treaty were Bush 43.
Here in CA the unemployment rate is 11.2%. It is estimated that 10% of our jobs are currently held by illegal immigrants. Where was 43 on that?
Tell that to US tomato farmers whose livelyhood was ruined by the E-coli breakout last year because the Bush administration was too afraid to point the finger at Mexico, where the outbreak originated, not with tomatoes, but Jalapeńos.
I agree. They've become the same Corporate Internationalists that the D's have, to only a slightly lesser degree. We're spending ourselves into oblivion on both sides of the aisle, and it's silly to say this is all Obama. Bush spent at least half of the 2+ trillion we've run up in the last year between last year's tax incentive, the Bear Stearns bailout, AIG, various banks, and round 1 of the Auto Industry bailouts.
Historically, nations do not collapse as a result of external conquest, but under the burden of their accrued debt.
I don't ask the question facetiously, because I agree. How do you propose to solve that problem?
Krikey - I'm starting to sound like a conservative. Sorry 'bout that.

They've raised a huge stink about the trucks here. But the safety issue is overblown imo. I've seen studies (local colleges in the area I don't think they got published.) where they've found that local trucks (I live in south texas) actually were less safe.
As for this current issues in the economy. I'll post below.
You want to solve this problem? It is easily said. We need to get government out of the business of absorbing the people's risk. And back into ensuring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The whole concept conservatives have of government is that government is here to create a framework so people can pursue the goals, dreams, aspiration and faith with as little intervention as possible. This, not government micromanaging our daily lives will allow for (as a whole) clearer environment, prosperity, and a better country as a whole.
I find it absolutely hilarious that you blame nafta for detriot. There are hundreds of other reasons to the problems of the big 3 other than more competition.

 

[stdreb27]

This is a repost, I couldn't find it however.
It isn't in that bad of shape. And it is not one of the options above. Second, take a little gambit through history. We today are no where near the the numbers we had during the depression with 25% unemployment. Or during the 70's with double digit inflation and unemployment.
There is no immediate magic solution. What you are starting to see is government involvement in industry starting to take its toll. For instance in the home lending industry. The federal government created two "companies" that purchased high risk home loans. They didn't pay a whole lot as far as interest. But basically guaranteed they'd buy them. So brokers and lenders made the loans. Since they didn't get a whole lot for them interest wise and there was lots of competition likewise almost no risk for them. They made the loans. The problem was, since they had almost no risk they priced it accordingly. While these two quazi-government entities bought more and more. Congress and other regulatory bodies turned a blind eye to the accounting practices of these two companies not in the business of making money for the company. Then these 2 companies started selling securities bundling these high risk loans and calling it a risk less investment. And priced it accordingly. They cooked their books so it looked like they were worth more than they were. Banks bought the risk less investment. Insurance companies insured the loans. The problem was the "homeowners" couldn't pay their loans. So these risk less securities where worth nothing. Banks were left holding nothing but paper. And these two quazi-government companies got billions in bailout money. Their CEO's walked out of there with their golden parachutes, their board members have been appointed to high levels of government, advised presidential candidates.
All the while doing almost the exact same thing as Ken Lay. Only Enron was small fish compared to this.
Then you get a culmination of the media complaining about the economy for the last 8 years. The banks won't lend money. There won't be any credit. This will destroy retailer. So the average American says well I'm not going to even try. (perception of a shortage will make people hoard)
There is no magic bullet the free market must be allowed to correct the market failure caused by artificially changing risk in the market. And not pricing the product to allow for failure. It takes some time.

 

[reefraff]

Aren't the Mexicans raising hell because we locked their trucks out again?

 

[uneverno]

Yep to all the above.
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3028388
I find it absolutely hilarious that you blame nafta for detriot. There are hundreds of other reasons to the problems of the big 3 other than more competition.
I don't blame NAFTA for detroit's problems. The big 3's executives fought tooth and nail to outsource their labor. What I'm saying is that NAFTA is one of the bigger contributing factors to Michigan's unemployment rate.
In the meantime, these same executives signed unsustainable salary and benefit agreements with an irascible and self serving Union leadership. Both were feathering their own nests at the expense of the workers.
It is a boon for the tool industry, however. We now need both English and Metric tool kits to work on "American" cars.
Where we may differ in opinion is with regard to what defines a free market. I am by no means a Laissez Faire capitalist. I don't think that there is, or ever has been, a truly free market, nor do I think that it would be a good thing to achieve that.
I think that government should play a role in preventing abuse of the people at the hands of Capitalism because at its logical extreme (the industries of George Pullman, child labor, Three Mile Island, Bhopal, Exxon Valdez, the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, etc. to cite a few examples), business has no financial motivation to police itself.
The trouble I have now, is that Gov't and business are so inextricably tied that there is no avoiding a conflict of interest. This usually gets worked out in favor of the more powerful entity, which is the Corporations. They provide the largest checks our politicians rely upon to get elected and own the media outlets which report, supposedly objectively, on them.
It is no surprise to me that, despite their (I think legitimate) clamoring, the D's have not pursued any criminal investigation of the Bush administration. In doing so, they would have to expose their own com/du-plicity.
The least they could do is put on a show and waste a good deal of taxpayer money like the R's did w/ Kenneth Star.

The biggest trouble I have with my fellow liberals is they have no sense of humor.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3028443
Aren't the Mexicans raising hell because we locked their trucks out again?
How dare we. What are all those immigrants supposed to do if they don't have trucks to drive?

 

[mantisman51]

I owned/drove a big truck, hauling produce in/out of Nogales, Az and Brownsville, Tx. I am both a certified heavy mechanic and truck driver. No the Mexican trucks are not safe. 1) I saw wheels fall off, both bearing failure and cracked wheels giving way. I have seen trailer axle u-bolts break and send the axles bouncing down the freeway behind them. Not the rare occurence like US trucks, but nearly every day I was down there. 2) They have no hours of service rules in Mexico. While they would be forced to keep a log book in the US, they could be up for a week in Mexico and drive for another 10 hours after driving across the border. 3) Mexico's DMV is so corrupt, $50 in a testers hand gets you a CDL if you've ever driven a truck or not, or even taken or passed the written test. 4) Already, several Mexican insurance companies have simply gone out of business under one name and reopened under another name after Mexican company trucks were in horrific crashes that killed and maimed Americans, to avoid paying claims. Due to being Mexican based companies, the Americans who were affected have no recourse but to go to Mexico to sue, and that has 0% chance of succeeding. So, other than Mexican truck drivers, trucking companies and insurers have no accountability and can slither back across the border with impunity when they screw up, there's no problem at all with Mexican trucks in the US.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3028461
I owned/drove a big truck, hauling produce in/out of Nogales, Az and Brownsville, Tx. I am both a certified heavy mechanic and truck driver. No the Mexican trucks are not safe. 1) I saw wheels fall off, both bearing failure and cracked wheels giving way. I have seen trailer axle u-bolts break and send the axles bouncing down the freeway behind them. Not the rare occurence like US trucks, but nearly every day I was down there. 2) They have no hours of service rules in Mexico. While they would be forced to keep a log book in the US, they could be up for a week in Mexico and drive for another 10 hours after driving across the border. 3) Mexico's DMV is so corrupt, $50 in a testers hand gets you a CDL if you've ever driven a truck or not, or even taken or passed the written test. 4) Already, several Mexican insurance companies have simply gone out of business under one name and reopened under another name after Mexican company trucks were in horrific crashes that killed and maimed Americans, to avoid paying claims. Due to being Mexican based companies, the Americans who were affected have no recourse but to go to Mexico to sue, and that has 0% chance of succeeding. So, other than Mexican truck drivers, trucking companies and insurers have no accountability and can slither back across the border with impunity when they screw up, there's no problem at all with Mexican trucks in the US.
I'm not in support of Mexican trucks being up here. However, I've seen some wrecks from American trucks due to mechanical failures from negligence.
What REALLY peeves me, is that they'll just run their tires till they blow.

 

[uneverno]

Usually while you're riding behind them on your bike.
You know how hot blown rubber is when it flies down your shirt?
I'd rather swallow a wasp...

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3028450
Yep to all the above.
I don't blame NAFTA for detroit's problems. The big 3's executives fought tooth and nail to outsource their labor. What I'm saying is that NAFTA is one of the bigger contributing factors to Michigan's unemployment rate.
In the meantime, these same executives signed unsustainable salary and benefit agreements with an irascible and self serving Union leadership. Both were feathering their own nests at the expense of the workers.
It is a boon for the tool industry, however. We now need both English and Metric tool kits to work on "American" cars.
Where we may differ in opinion is with regard to what defines a free market. I am by no means a Laissez Faire capitalist. I don't think that there is, or ever has been, a truly free market, nor do I think that it would be a good thing to achieve that.
I think that government should play a role in preventing abuse of the people at the hands of Capitalism because at its logical extreme (the industries of George Pullman, child labor, Three Mile Island, Bhopal, Exxon Valdez, the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, etc. to cite a few examples), business has no financial motivation to police itself.
The trouble I have now, is that Gov't and business are so inextricably tied that there is no avoiding a conflict of interest. This usually gets worked out in favor of the more powerful entity, which is the Corporations. They provide the largest checks our politicians rely upon to get elected and own the media outlets which report, supposedly objectively, on them.
It is no surprise to me that, despite their (I think legitimate) clamoring, the D's have not pursued any criminal investigation of the Bush administration. In doing so, they would have to expose their own com/du-plicity.
The least they could do is put on a show and waste a good deal of taxpayer money like the R's did w/ Kenneth Star.

The biggest trouble I have with my fellow liberals is they have no sense of humor.

Yeah, the organizations that employee the vast majority of Americans and pay them quite well (come on look at other countries standard of living) are the bad guys.
Look the majority of these corporations are run and owned by Americans. We can't villify them. And you really think at this point corporations are more powerful? We wouldn't have a "green" movement nor would politicians be proposing these rediculous "green" bills. Ever heard of the IRS?
The real danger I see is what is happening in Europe, where they have "corporations" that are really government run organizations that aren't self sustainable and have to be subsidized.
Do you really think that paying a few CEO's a few million bucks to run a multi billion dollar organizations is what ran them into the ground?

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3028500
Yeah, the organizations that employee the vast majority of Americans and pay them quite well (come on look at other countries standard of living) are the bad guys.
I don't think I painted with quite that broad a brush. We could go on and on about standards of living, however. The US does not rank at the top of any commonly accepted scale you choose to measure it by. Pick one, and I'll discuss.
Look the majority of these corporations are run and owned by Americans. We can't villify them.
If you consider the global stockmarket, and the British (former) CEO of AIG, and the German CEO of recently broken up Daimler/Chrysler, and the Australian CEO of KFC and the Chinese Gov't holders of our bonds to be Americans...
And why can't we vilify them?
And you really think at this point corporations are more powerful? We wouldn't have a "green" movement nor would politicians be proposing these rediculous "green" bills. Ever heard of the IRS?
I'm saying that the government is, for all practical purposes, of, by and for the corporations, not the people any longer. The RNC and the DNC are both corporations and both beholden to their shareholders. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the same corporations contribute almost equally to both parties?
The "Green" movement is equally corporate. I have as many issues with them as I do with the Republicans and Democrats.
I fail to see what the IRS has to do with it? (Unless you're trying to point out the ONE department of gov't that's actually efficient.)
The real danger I see is what is happening in Europe, where they have "corporations" that are really government run organizations that aren't self sustainable and have to be subsidized.
Like the US airlines, the US auto industry, the US insurance industry, the US banking industry, Amtrack, Walmart, the dairy industry, the tobacco industry - shall I go on? Please - name me a large corporation that doesn't receive tax breaks (i.e. gov't subsidies) of some sort.
Do you really think that paying a few CEO's a few million bucks to run a multi billion dollar organizations is what ran them into the ground?
Not at all. Executive pay scale is seldom an indication of the executive's actual value. It's all relative. The former CEO of HP was doing a fairly good job and got thrown out on her ear by disappointed stockholders. The CEO of AIG sold his stock at a substantial profit (some think there was insider information available to him) and bailed 6 months prior to the collapse (which I'm sure he didn't know was imminent - that's not his job after all...), and the present CEO has no problems taking our tax money and spending it on bonuses and retreats for managers who essentially destroyed his company, and also claimed ignorance of the situation before Congress.
AIG was quite the entertaining Congressional hearing. Did you watch it? I did.
You yourself pointed out the abuses that took place at the hands of Fannie and Freddie's executives...
In the European system which you seem to revile, those guys would be in jail, not on the lecture circuit.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3028555

Like the US airlines, the US auto industry, the US insurance industry, the US banking industry, Amtrack, Walmart, the dairy industry, the tobacco industry - shall I go on? Please - name me a large corporation that doesn't receive tax breaks (i.e. gov't subsidies) of some sort.
Tax breaks aren't subsidies. That the their money that the government agreed to not take. (and they say supply side economics don't work)
(and don't get me started on amtrack)
And also I point out that Fanny and Freddy are not private organizations nor were they. That was simply an extension of government disguised as a private corporation.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3028568
Tax breaks aren't subsidies. That the their money that the government agreed to not take.
I beg to differ. The government has no money. It's not theirs - it's ours. It's at very best a zero sum game to government officials. They don't give from one hand without taking with the other. Believe me - they make up the difference at our expense. That's the very definition of subsidy.
Walmart, for example, hires employees at less than full time so they don't have to pay health care benefits. Then they hand out pamphlets to their employees on how to apply for state benefits. I'd call that a subsidy, 'cuz I pay for those benefits w/ my taxes.
(and don't get me started on amtrack)
Fair enough

And also I point out that Fanny and Freddy are not private organizations nor were they. That was simply an extension of government disguised as a private corporation.
I think we're making the same point on that one, just approaching it from different perspectives.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3028581
I beg to differ. The government has no money. It's not theirs - it's ours. It's at very best a zero sum game to government officials. They don't give from one hand without taking with the other. Believe me - they make up the difference at our expense. That's the very definition of subsidy.
Walmart, for example, hires employees at less than full time so they don't have to pay health care benefits. Then they hand out pamphlets to their employees on how to apply for state benefits. I'd call that a subsidy, 'cuz I pay for those benefits w/ my taxes.
Well of course ultimately after the wash, everything comes out of my and your pocket. I'd just prefer it not be laundered by the most inefficient organization in the U.S.A. Because one way or another those costs are passed along at the checkout counter, or what we pay on April 15th.
But I ask you this, who is wrong a corporation who is teaching people how to work the system, or the government that shouldn't be extending those benefits anyway after all the worker (along with walmart) is paying for it.
(remember this goes back to my point about creating a framework where the government creates a system where people are free to pursue life liberty and happiness, and not absorbing risk...)

 

[darthtang aw]

First off this has turned into the best/civil debate I have seen on here in along time and would like to thank you guys for that. There, my nice post of the year is out of the way.
To interject I must propose a question.
Regarding walmart and the part-time helthcare issue. If the government funded health programs weren't in place do you think Wal-mart would be able to get away with this practice.? As more and more companies will be forced to pay higher taxes on their profits I feel you will see more and more companies follow this practice. Now, is this the fault of the companies or the Governments?Cause and effect. Is the cause the greed, or the over taxation. Is the effect the "greed" or the program in place by the government? which was originally not meant to be used in this manner, but has been turned into this by the government.
It is late, not sure if I am getting my thought across.

 

[stdreb27]

Do you think that somehow magically that government (and its officials) are some how magically insulated from the greed that the left has tried to characterize the CEO's with?

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3028461
I owned/drove a big truck, hauling produce in/out of Nogales, Az and Brownsville, Tx. I am both a certified heavy mechanic and truck driver. No the Mexican trucks are not safe. 1) I saw wheels fall off, both bearing failure and cracked wheels giving way. I have seen trailer axle u-bolts break and send the axles bouncing down the freeway behind them. Not the rare occurence like US trucks, but nearly every day I was down there. 2) They have no hours of service rules in Mexico. While they would be forced to keep a log book in the US, they could be up for a week in Mexico and drive for another 10 hours after driving across the border. 3) Mexico's DMV is so corrupt, $50 in a testers hand gets you a CDL if you've ever driven a truck or not, or even taken or passed the written test. 4) Already, several Mexican insurance companies have simply gone out of business under one name and reopened under another name after Mexican company trucks were in horrific crashes that killed and maimed Americans, to avoid paying claims. Due to being Mexican based companies, the Americans who were affected have no recourse but to go to Mexico to sue, and that has 0% chance of succeeding. So, other than Mexican truck drivers, trucking companies and insurers have no accountability and can slither back across the border with impunity when they screw up, there's no problem at all with Mexican trucks in the US.

I took my car in for a lube oil filter tire rotation. Drove out, I got a shimmy in my L front wheel, and the wheel departed the vehicle. They did not tighten the lugs.
I'd say keep 'em out unless thay follow the same rules as our truckers. Let the trucks be inspected and the drivers certified by the US. Let tham have US insurance. Keep the playing field level then the pros on both sides win.

 

[acrylics]

Re: Walmart. "We" complain about their employment practices but we don't complain about their low prices. Can't have it both ways folks; either you enjoy the low pricing *and* accept the accompanying (legal and sound BTW) business practices, or you pay higher prices to companies that offer more of the "living wage" that some want. Take your pick.
If "we" cared that much, we would boycott Walmart until they were forced to give full time employment and benefits to employees and had to raise their prices to afford this (which, in turn, would make them less competitive,) or they would be run out of business. Either way, you lose the low prices.
Bottom line is "we" really must not care that much 'cuz they continue to exist and prosper. Kind of ironic that the very people who complain about the way they do business are the very same who shop there regularly because of the low prices, and these prices are exactly due to the way they run their business.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3027920
I didn't ask any such thing. Go back and read who posed the question to begin with.
I have no argument with your response. It is historically accurate. I was not debating it, I was seeking clarification.
Bringing up the Branch Davidians is clarification?
All religions are protected by our Constitution, yet there are certain laws that make common sence. No human sacrifice, etc.