Republicans & Conservatives Archives

So much for the socialist takeover.

Rocky

Scratch one for daddy’s little car boy, Mitt.

Not quite. GM still owes approx. $65 million to the govt. Their forthcoming IPO will result in only big banks and institutional investors being able to buy the initial stock offering (even though it was the American taxpayers who footed the bill).

Also, GM and Chrysler’s ‘bailouts’ essentially gave them an unfair advantage over all of the other automakers who survived on their own (Ford, Honda, Toyota, VW, Nissan, Mercedes Benz, BMW, Kia, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Fiat, Subaru, etc). I worked at GM for 23 years and know the business (supply chain, dealers and vendors) intimately. Btw, the reason some of the auto plants are ‘hiring’ some shifts now is because of the 440,000 jobs cut in that industry in the last 3 years.

When one cuts to the bone (nears bankruptcy), one has to eventual hire some new workers back (although all of these new workers are now being hired on as Tier2 workers; they make approx. $15/hr. vs. the $28/hr that the other workers receive. These T2 workers also get lower benefits, vacation, and job security promises). In a ‘good’ year, auto sales generally fall between 15 - 16 million vehicles; during the recession, this yearly sales figure has been at about 9 - 10 million vehicles. Supply is down, rental car and fleet inventories are down and many people need to buy a new vehicle, but have ‘waited it out’ due to uncertainty and high unemployment. Thus, the automakers are simply filling some of this pent up demand (e.g, 3-plus years of lackluster vehicle sales).

What is remarkable about this article is that it is written by a Republican supporter. In these days of media coverage of all things war-like between Dems and Reps, C&J’s article represents a throng of voters who may vote Dem or Rep, but, who are rational and sane Americans, capable of acknowledging reality without the distortions of party created lenses.

I tip my hat, C&J. It is not common today for party supporters to objectively assess the actions of opposition party members, in public.

Of course, it is not rational today, to be a party voter. But, that is a whole other topic best discussed face to face over a beer or two with all weapons checked at the door. :-)

Bravo on judging the facts first, then speaking of the politics. That, to me, is the proper order.

For my money, the best strategy is to structure the rules of the market so crisises are rare, but to be willing, as a government, to intervene when the markets fail.

I don’t want government constantly fiddling with things. I want individual businesses making those adjustments. What I want out of government is responsiveness to overall issues that pose systemic risks.

I believe the Domestic Car Industry was not going to be something easily replaced if we let it go under, and we cannot let that happen again. To that end, we should do the following:

1) Set high gas mileage standards, so that American vehicles are in demand on a consistent basis, and people aren’t rushing to imports to fulfill their demand for efficient cars, trucks and other vehicles. For the same reason, invest in new energy sources for vehicles, so we can kick the restrictive supply problem of fossil fuels.

I don’t know why we let this happen again. We can remember this happening before in the 1970’s.

2) Do not protect the big three from domestic competition. Bring in anti-trust regulators when they start trying to impinge on smaller makers and start-ups.

3) Make sure the financing divisions of these companies are reformed. It’s no coincidence that automakers who had been struggling before the crash lost their shirts in the crash. They were pushing around debts and turning them into derivatives the same way everybody else in the market was.

One sign of a great president is pissin’ off folks from the left, the center, and the right, all in the same presidency marked by accomplishments through pragmatic actions.

Obama ran as a pragmatist for the office, and he has governed as a pragmatist, accomplishing more than his predecessors dared try. Now the ideological lefties are demanding Obama answer the question of what his governing philosophy really is. As if pragmatism weren’t a governing philosophy, which of course, it is.

The irony is those critics from the left, center, and right, want the impossible, an ideologue whose ideals won’t pass, along side a pragmatist who gets things accomplished. I freely admit to being of these critics, who criticize Obama for failing to push the Public Option, while applauding him for bringing relief to 30 million Americans without health insurance, for example.

To paraphrase Lincoln, I think, “You can please some of the people all of the time, and you can please all of the people some of the time, but, you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”

Seems Americans want a messiah for president, who can channel miracles from the almighty to save their lazy, ignorant, and complacent asses from themselves. The political parties have the people right where they want them. And to hell in a hand basket, we run together as a people, unless we start voting on the results, instead of empty ideological campaign promises fed to party nominees.

I wanted a pragmatist for president when I voted for Obama. Overall, so far, that is precisely what I got. Am I happy with pragmatic results? Absolutely not. Do I see a better candidate for the job on the horizon? Absolutely not.

Kevin,

“Btw, the reason some of the auto plants are ‘hiring’ some shifts now is because of the 440,000 jobs cut in that industry in the last 3 years.”

Gee, wouldn’t that affect the unemployment figures?

Rocky

Mr. Remer wrote; “I freely admit to being of these critics, who criticize Obama for failing to push the Public Option, while applauding him for bringing relief to 30 million Americans without health insurance, for example.”

Mr. Remer calls it “relief” to 30 million Americans w/o health insurance.

Here are some interesting tax increases to pay for it. No relief for working Americans.

Six Months to Go Until
The Largest Tax Hikes in History including 20 new or higher taxes in Obamacare.

Read more: http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171##ixzz0xRmzw200

Royal Flush wrote: “Here are some interesting tax increases to pay for it. No relief for working Americans.”

Sorry RF, but, the highest tax increases in history were locked in under Republican’s $5.4 Trillion dollar increase to the national debt between 2001 and 2009.

Debts have to be repaid or financial ruin follows. Unlike Republicans, Obama and Democrats are paying for those newly insured Americans and not adding the costs to the national debt like Republicans did with the Medicare Rx drug expansion of entitlement spending.

And I am certain Mr. Remer that working Americans won’t notice or mind all the new taxes being levied to pay for these “newly insured Americans”.

But wait, many Americans who are paying attention to these 20 new or higher taxes are among the 56% that want Obmamcare replealed. The November election may result in electing those who may bring us back to fiscal sanity.

Mr. Remer suggests that an increase of $5.4 trillion in national debt between 2001 and 2009 was entirely creditable to Reps. He should revisit and revise this statement. But, what is unfathomable is the dem/lib insistence that the obama planned and current trillions more in spending are somehow different. These trillions in spending, they say, will somehow be paid for and not be added to the national debt.

How does that work…exactly?

Royal Flush-
If they are the biggest tax hikes in history, then your party only has itself to blame, because you wrote the damn law that way yourselves, in order to fit the Reconciliation method you used to pass it.

As for how Obama’s spending works? Well, damn, somebody shouldn’t have to explain this to you. It’s simple addition and subtraction. We add taxes to increase revenues. We subtract money from other programs, and add that money to the new ones.

As for fiscal sanity? Republicans claim fiscal sanity, but can you tell me why it is they keep on trying to increase revenues by lowering taxes, when that approach hasn’t ever broken even?

Anybody who assumes Republicans are fiscally sane should go take a look at actual budget deficits and debt levels after Republican administrations.

The simple truth is, Republicans think they can get away with it, while Democrats don’t. Democrats, though, end up getting crap from the Republicans about being spendthrifts after they’re handed the job of trying to figure how to bring back the GOP’s spending and tax policies back down to earth.

Royal Flush replied: “And I am certain Mr. Remer that working Americans won’t notice or mind all the new taxes being levied to pay for these “newly insured Americans”. “

And specifically what new taxes are you referring to, as if you even know. The tax increases to pay for only a part of the health care coverage (the rest paid for by cuts and savings in spending elsewhere), if they were known to the general public, would not be a problem, except for those who simply hate the idea of paying for government services and protections at all.

It was a Republican President with VETO power who signed the largest expansion in entitlement spending since the 1960’s. It was a Republican president with VETO power who signed every spending bill that created the 5.4 Trillion dollar deficit during his reign of fiscal terror.

Don’t give me that dodge the finger-pointing crap that it was Democrat’s fault. The Republicans had the power to act fiscally responsible, and CHOSE OTHERWISE, REPEATEDLY! And handed a trashed economy to Democrats when the public became thoroughly FED UP with Republican lying BullShit. Not very bright of Republicans, that! Americans may have a short political memory, but, it ain’t that short. They still remember from whose administration those present and future tax hikes on their kids HAVE to come from.

Mr. Remer asks…”And specifically what new taxes are you referring to, as if you even know.”

Read the article I linked to please.

Royal Flush-
Read this:

The massive stimulus package boosted real GDP by up to 4.5 percent in the second quarter of 2010 and put up to 3.3 million people to work, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday.

SD, gotta watch out for them there cherry pickers of data. They absolutely do not want to see the big picture. Perfect example is Boehner saying a Republican majority will cut spending and generate economic growth. What an IDIOT!

What part of cutting government spending, which reduces consumer spending, and slows economic growth in an anemic economy, do Republicans REFUSE to get? All of it. Boehner can add and subtract, which makes him a liar and a fool. And makes his supporters ignorant of economics.

Unless Republicans intend to cut Soc. Sec. and Medicare, whatever spending cuts they make will be offset by the continued loss of revenues by the Bush tax cuts and then some, INCREASING the deficit and debt, even further.

Big picture? Republicans just don’t want any part of it. They proved this last decade what they really want is to represent the wealthiest at enormous cost to the Middle Class, grow deficits by slight of hand and off book spending, and completely disregard any national debt limits, (Debt doesn’t matter, remember?) all in the name of repaying their wealthy and corporate campaign contributors for their support.

Unfortunately, Democrats have proved to be only slightly more inclined to wrestle with national debt and deficits, than Republicans. They still can’t veto pork, won’t address Medicare bankrupting the future, and completely blew the opportunity to reduce health costs, the single greatest threat to nation going forward.

David R. Remer-
You have to careful when some folks talk about pork. I won’t deny that there are plenty of of Democrats who go for the old center-cut chop, but sometimes when Republicans accuse folks of pork, it’s that same sort of cherry-picking you describe. They’ll call replacing part of the government fleet with hybrids pork.

Here’s an example from Factcheck.org about some mistatements of truth.

Look over this list, too.

You ought to consider that perhaps Republicans are aiming more to push people’s buttons than be honest with them about what’s truly wasteful.

Very interesting comments by SD and DR. I wonder why they don’t respond to the link clearly identifying the tax increases I spoke about. Oh well, guess they wanted to hype something with their comments.

Flushed I can tell you why. Because it’s B.S. Just another tea bagger site.

TY Jeff, just luv it when folks make stupid comments. Obvioulsy, by his comment, Jeff can’t refute any of the tax increases that were cited but can only thrash the messenger.

Let me dumb this down. The cuts lowered tax rates across the board on income, dividends and capital gains; eventually eliminated the estate tax; further lowered burdens on married couples, parents and the working poor; and increased tax credits for education and retirement savings. Obama’s proposal would extend most of these reductions, allowing only those for individuals making more than $200,000 and families making more than $250,000 to expire.

Dumbed down all right…pathetic, can’t even read.

TY Jeff, just luv it when folks make stupid comments. No thank you.

Must be recess time at the day care.

LOL weak

Jeff…do you recognize the “I know you are, but what am I” logic that is being “Flushed” around in here?
You will not get an acceptance of fact, or any kind of concession to the truth.

Royal Flush-
The Republican Party in control of Congress wrote the expiration in. Why? Because they had to make it fit a law whose main purpose was to reduce, not increase deficits.

See, if they had made those tax cuts permanent to begin with, they would have violated the letter of the law concerning reconciliation measure.

The bill had to sunset to qualify. The Republicans wrote it so that it did. All Obama has to do to make it go away…

…is just let it go away, as the original authors of the law designed it to.

If you’re going to claim the end of the Bush Tax Cut as a tax hike, you might as well blame yourselfs for raising taxes. Don’t point your finger at us, we’re actually going to write policies that cut taxes, if you call keeping current levels a tax cut. We’re just not going to do them for the Rich, who will now have to make do with getting richer at a 90s rate.

So sad that SD, and the others didn’t read the link which pointed out new taxes pertaining to the medical health care bill. That’s what I am talking about. If you are working, you will pay more in taxes.

Since the birth of the agrarian society, about ten or so thousand years ago, there has been taxation. Royalty brought taxation to a perfect storm form. Taxation is a necessary function of any governing body. Taxation is not evil, and in many cases is good. If raising taxes is required to fend of a depression, well so be it. Some here will try selling the pig-in-a-poke that all government is bad and all taxation is evil. They know not what they do. Apparently ignorance really IS bliss.