The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

Really Kap? You feel like you have the right to lecture us about the tone of things?

[kapkomet]

Really Kap? You feel like you have the right to lecture us about the tone of things?

 

 

Yes, I do, but no one can tell you anything anyway. So since I said, A, did you mean Asub1? Cause I really read that over here, and that has to be it. That's really what you meant because you cannot be that stupid after working in the field for 15 years. The NYTimes reporter has to be right!

 

There's a difference between Harry Reid is an asshole, and I'm just a bucktoothed, unedumacated southern bumpkin who doesn't believe in fairy tale land.

 

Or, because there's a fallacy of "scientific research" because over 1.5 million years now all of a sudden equals 10 years. Man, I can go on forever here.

[bmags]

I don't recall calling you a bucktoothed unedumacated southern bumpkin. Those words are beneath me.

 

Sadly, you can't refute anything. Party of torture. Party of fiscal irresponsibility.

[kapkomet]

I don't recall calling you a bucktoothed unedumacated southern bumpkin. Those words are beneath me.

 

Sadly, you can't refute anything. Party of torture. Party of fiscal irresponsibility.

 

 

Compared to who? The Demys, who hold the same policies, only are more fiscally irresponsible? Republicans = torture? Really? GMAFB. That's ignorant, nevermind the definition of torture, but that's a totally different argument and not the point.

 

And bmags, yes, you implied the whole "southern-ignoramous" thing in two ways, not just one.

 

But I guess at least I'm not a "bucktoothed unedumacated southern bumpkin" like the rest of my "southern" counterparts. Or something.

 

I'll go away now for a couple of days. Oui, Oui - going to Montreal, if I can get out of snowy Dallas.

[bmags]

Oh, no i full support my statement that the southern people offer nothing productive to this country besides anti-muslim, anti-mexican rhetoric.

 

And, yeah so where do the republicans disagree on torture? Show me where they don't want to torture?

[kapkomet]

Oh, no i full support my statement that the southern people offer nothing productive to this country besides anti-muslim, anti-mexican rhetoric.

 

And, yeah so where do the republicans disagree on torture? Show me where they don't want to torture?

 

 

Ok, so I'm anti-muslim, anti-mexican?

 

And show me where they do.

 

It's Kraptacular ™, you know, to label a whole lot of people that way.

 

Just like it's Kraptacular ™ for me to label all Dems as dope smoking long haired hippee people who want to contract AIDS through free love events. Yea.

 

Ok, ok. I really will leave now.

[bmags]

Kap you take up the positions of people you also disagree with often.

[kapkomet]

Kap you take up the positions of people you also disagree with often.

 

 

I do? Then that would mean that I don't know what to think. I'm "Independant!" Or "Moderate!". I like that better. It suggests I can be bought.

[Texsox]

as long as poor, subsidized, welfare southern and mid-mountain west states get representation in our society, we are going to be worse off.

 

What does geography have to do with it?

[Texsox]

Oh, no i full support my statement that the southern people offer nothing productive to this country besides anti-muslim, anti-mexican rhetoric.

 

And, yeah so where do the republicans disagree on torture? Show me where they don't want to torture?

 

Anti-Mexican from the south!? Yeah right. For a couple seconds I thought you were serious in this thread.

[Balta1701]

What does geography have to do with it?

It turns out that since the south tends to be on average poorer than the north and the west coast, most of the southern, Republican voting states receive more from the government in taxes than they send in ($1.10 to $1.60 on the dollar) while Northern and Pacific Coast states wind up sending in more than they receive ($.70 to $.90 on the dollar). The underlying causes I won't comment on with this post, but the data is pretty simple.

[Balta1701]

The Dean of the Washington Press Corps, the guy who supposedly defines mainstream thought in the media, is in love.

Palin's final answer to Wallace showed how perfectly she has come to inhabit that part. When he asked her what role she wants to play in the country's future, she said:

 

"First and foremost, I want to be a good mom, and I want to raise happy, healthy, independent children. And I want them to be good citizens of this great country.

 

"And then I do want to be a voice for some common-sense solutions. I'm never going to pretend like I know more than the next person. I'm not going to pretend to be an elitist. In fact, I'm going to fight the elitist, because for too often and for too long now, I think the elitists have tried to make people like me and people in the heartland of America feel like we just don't get it, and big government's just going to have to take care of us.

 

"I want to speak up for the American people and say: No, we really do have some good common-sense solutions. I can be a messenger for that. Don't have to have a title to do it."

 

This is a pitch-perfect recital of the populist message that has worked in campaigns past. There are times when the American people are looking for something more: for an Eisenhower, who liberated Europe; an FDR or a Kennedy or a Bush, all unashamed aristocrats; or an Obama, with eloquence and brains.

 

But in the present mood of the country, Palin is by all odds a threat to the more uptight Republican aspirants such as Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty -- and potentially, to Obama as well.

 

Palin did not wear well in the last campaign, especially in the suburbs where populism has a limited appeal. But when Wallace asked her about resigning the governorship with 17 months left in her term and whether she let her opponents drive her from office, she said, "Hell, no."

 

Those who want to stop her will need more ammunition than deriding her habit of writing on her hand. The lady is good.

[StrangeSox]

I really hope you're joking about them trying. This Congress, with a majority, and a President, hasn't done JACK s*** in THREE plus years. How are they TRYING to govern right now? They should have been able to pass ANYTHING they wanted WITHOUT OPPOSITION until 2 weeks ago. They went through TWO election cycles where they CREAMED the Repubs because the country wanted CHANGE. But they didn't. Any why not? Because they don't give a f*** all about any one of us. They want votes. They want reelection. They want a nice ass pension so they can retire next to a bridge they built in their district.

 

I don't want to bash any specific party, because they both suck big donkey balls (for lack of a better phrase), and if you can't see that, then there's no helping you. The entire system is a failure right now because no one governs for anyone but the people that paid for the fancy plate at campaign dinners.

 

And this squabble right now is EXACTLY what both parties want. Because then we have no choice but to choose between a douche and a turd sandwich.

 

I have to agree with the general idea here. The Democrats could have passed something if they weren't such cowards, Reid in particular.

[Cknolls]

This is just kind of a throwaway statement. The point is about one party not really care about governing, is when the republicans had their turn at a health care initiative, they passed medicare part D, a COMPLETELy unfunded bill to gain favor with old people.

 

Now the dems take on a bill that will provide for 30 million, though many in southern states that refuse to acknowledge how federally subsidized they are, and they not only take on the trying to provide health insurance, but made cuts in medicare to make it a bill to bend the cost curve.

 

And meanwhile? The repubs offer a bill with the soundbites "COSTS LESS" but does nothing, say that the other bill is full of death panels and other outrageous s***...and what is their platform right now?

 

Tax cuts.

Cutting discretionary spending.

Torture.

 

i.e. elect us, we won't make you think.

 

 

Did the Dems want a bigger Medicare bill or smaller one, or none at all? And would that have been paid for?

[Cknolls]

If they wanted to take over you and your property, I'd fully support it. I truly hate how they could have extended unemployment benefits, that truly must have hurt you and yours.

 

And since they SO WANTED SOOOO BADLY to take over the health care system, the bill proposed pushes 30 million new customers on to them as long as they don't deny.

 

But that doesn't matter kap, everything is equal. If the dems want to (SHOCK!) raise taxes to help raise for the programs the country wants (Medicare, Medicaid) and the the country needs (War Funding) = taking over your property.

 

You really think they won't sell off their interest in GM any taken over company as soon as they can? No you don't. But hey, work hard for those great republicans to go cut taxes and raise defense spending and don't do anything else (except maybe anything the christian base finds immoral). That will solve soooo many problems.

 

 

Well we know they cannot sell their interest in GM for a profit because GM would have to have an all time high mkt cap in order for that to come to fruition, and methinks if it didn't happen in the boom years for GM, it will not happen now. Unless we get the CBO to do their analysys and maybe the WH budget office to give their take, then we'll probably make $50 billion on the deal.

[Cknolls]

I don't recall calling you a bucktoothed unedumacated southern bumpkin. Those words are beneath me.

 

Sadly, you can't refute anything. Party of torture. Party of fiscal irresponsibility.

 

 

Well the 2 largest budget deficits did occur with a Democratic Congress.

[bmags]

Well the 2 largest budget deficits did occur with a Democratic Congress.

 

and why would that be CK? Pray tell, if Obama came in under a budget surplus of bush (and also without 2 wars), instead of a crippling recession, do you think it would have been the biggest deficit ever? Could it possibly be that revenues are much lower than they would be? You are good with money, you should be able to figure it out.

[Balta1701]

Well we know they cannot sell their interest in GM for a profit because GM would have to have an all time high mkt cap in order for that to come to fruition, and methinks if it didn't happen in the boom years for GM, it will not happen now. Unless we get the CBO to do their analysys and maybe the WH budget office to give their take, then we'll probably make $50 billion on the deal.

Or you bother adjusting for inflation. Since this is the Dem thread, I'm allowed to quote a blog for the math and demand that instead of attacking the source as a lazy pajamas wearing blogger you actually tell me where the math is incorrect.

The logic is that we are owed close to $50 billion. This gives the government claim to 61 percent of the company's stock. However, the piece tells us that even at GM's peak, its stock was only worth $57 billion, so GM's stock price would have to go even higher than its previous peak in order for the government to get back its money.

 

It sounds like someone here forget to adjust for inflation. A more serious analysis would have calculated a reasonable earnings target (the piece refers to $10 billion a year -- a reasonable target) and then took a price to earnings ratio of say 15 to 1. At that level of earnings and with a 15 to 1 PE, GM stock would be worth $150 billion. The government's share would be worth $92 billion.

 

Is that the best guess of what will happen, perhaps not. It requires some serious analysis of GM's ability to reclaim market share. But, the prospect that the government will recover its money is not absurd.

Just to back up that data, here's what GM's profits looked like 10-15 years ago. On the order of $5 billion/year in 1990's dollars.

[bmags]

Well we know they cannot sell their interest in GM for a profit because GM would have to have an all time high mkt cap in order for that to come to fruition, and methinks if it didn't happen in the boom years for GM, it will not happen now. Unless we get the CBO to do their analysys and maybe the WH budget office to give their take, then we'll probably make $50 billion on the deal.

 

Ahh, yes. The CBO is of course a democrat institution now. the whole world is against you all. The whole world. You have no power. You poor blokes.

[Balta1701]

and why would that be CK?

Because he doesn't like adjusting for inflation is my guess.

[Cknolls]

Ahh, yes. The CBO is of course a democrat institution now. the whole world is against you all. The whole world. You have no power. You poor blokes.

 

 

It is proven fact that GM would have to have a record mkt cap in order for the gov't to make a profit.

[Balta1701]

It is proven fact that GM would have to have a record mkt cap in order for the gov't to make a profit.

Yes. 100% true. However, if you adjust for inflation, the story changes a lot.

[southsider2k5]

Or you bother adjusting for inflation. Since this is the Dem thread, I'm allowed to quote a blog for the math and demand that instead of attacking the source as a lazy pajamas wearing blogger you actually tell me where the math is incorrect.

Just to back up that data, here's what GM's profits looked like 10-15 years ago. On the order of $5 billion/year in 1990's dollars.

 

If you want to adjust for inflation on one side, then you need to adjust for loss of earnings power on the other end. How much money could that $50 billion have been making while we sit and wait for the inflation adjusted dollars to start showing up?

 

There is also on consideration for the massive fall in market share that took place since the times you are quoted as well. The estimated share of the market then was 29.2%. The numbers being quoted now are anywhere between 15-20%. Factor in the gigantic fall in sales for their most profitable vehicles over the course of that time, not to mention the closing of multiple name plates over that time, and it doesn't take much to realize exactly how pie in the sky that analysis is exactly. Lazy is actually a pretty good way to describe that column for as much critical information as he left out, if you wanted to think like an actual analyst.

 

The sad thing is that the best hope for GM is happening now with the problems Toyota is having, and they are totally unequipped to respond to it right now.

 

 

[Balta1701]

The sad thing is that the best hope for GM is happening now with the problems Toyota is having, and they are totally unequipped to respond to it right now.

2nd best hope. The best hope is, IMO, the Volt.

 

Yeah, there are a fair number of issues to getting back to it. The key question though is...why did GM lose its ground in market share to Toyota? The real answer is the type of vehicles they chose to make, and no matter how much people try to blame "Legacy costs", the reality is that GM wasn't making the type of cars people wanted to buy, in terms of the variety of car, the fuel efficiency, and the quality.

[southsider2k5]

2nd best hope. The best hope is, IMO, the Volt.

 

Yeah, there are a fair number of issues to getting back to it. The key question though is...why did GM lose its ground in market share to Toyota? The real answer is the type of vehicles they chose to make, and no matter how much people try to blame "Legacy costs", the reality is that GM wasn't making the type of cars people wanted to buy, in terms of the variety of car, the fuel efficiency, and the quality.

 

Except that legacy costs were the biggest single determining factor in the direction that management felt that had to go to maintain profitability. Instead of anticipating changes, they were pretty much stuck into staying with the most profitable lines to maintain their existence. They couldn't afford to get into lines of product that didn't afford them those same margins.