Financial News

[StrangeSox]

You have a bizarre definition of "double-speak."

[Y2HH]

You have a bizarre definition of "double-speak."

 

Semantics.

 

I call it double speak because, for example, someone will say Obama took credit for the auto bailout...and you'll respond with, no Obama didn't...his campaign did.

 

It's all some form of bulls***...call it what you will, political double speak, having your cake and eating it too...whatever you want.

 

Point is, it's all bulls***...and it's a game you love to play.

[StrangeSox]

I didn't respond by saying Obama didn't take credit for the bailout. I said he did but I'm unaware of him or his campaign claiming credit for Bush's loans to the auto industry.

[Y2HH]

I didn't respond by saying Obama didn't take credit for the bailout. I said he did but I'm unaware of him or his campaign claiming credit for Bush's loans to the auto industry.

 

I notice and highlight the slight tweak you made here by changing the key word of "rescue" to "Obama didn't claim credit for Bush's loans to the auto industry". Underlined for the subtle change of how we perceive this. Ok, so Bush didn't "rescue" the auto-industry, he just lent them money. So it must have been Obama that rescued them then? Is that what your minor change is claiming here?

 

This is again, highlights what I spoke of earlier...having your cake and eating it too. This way you can credit Bush for lending out money to rich people that didn't deserve it...and credit Obama for their eventual rescue.

 

Obama said this in his State of the Union Address:

"On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs."

 

"We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back."

 

---

 

That, right there, is Obama and his administration staking credit for the auto rescue.

 

There was a good article written about this: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-preside...-auto-industry/

[Jenksismyhero]

He also has new ad campaigns claiming that he brought the industry back.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/o..._n_1506105.html

 

 

[Cknolls]

He also has new ad campaigns claiming that he brought the industry back.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/o..._n_1506105.html

 

 

He is really amazing isn't he. He butt f***s all the bond holders in an unprecedented way and then for good measure gives the equity to the teat sucking unions. they call it a success knowing full well they will never see the almost $40 billion still owed the gov't. And last but not least let.'s throw in some tax loss carry forwards in another unprecedented show of good will to the tax payers.

[kapkomet]

You're right, if you include January 2009 for Obama, unemployment has gotten "worse" under his Presidency. If you use February 2009, it's improved ever-so-slightly.

 

Do you think there's anything that anyone could have done starting on 1/2/09 to prevent U3 from reaching 10% in late 2009?

 

 

By your jackass, er I mean, president's own words, May 2012 unemployment with his original stimulus was to be 5.7%. WTF? I mean, it's gotten better!!!!!!!!!!

 

Give it a rest. The guy is a complete failure, by his own goalposts.

[StrangeSox]

Pensions that workers earned for decades of service per contractual obligations=teat sucking unions.

[StrangeSox]

By your jackass, er I mean, president's own words, May 2012 unemployment with his original stimulus was to be 5.7%. WTF? I mean, it's gotten better!!!!!!!!!!

 

Give it a rest. The guy is a complete failure, by his own goalposts.

 

Obama is a failure. His policies failed.

 

Not for the same reason you or jenks think.

[kapkomet]

Obama is a failure. His policies failed.

 

Not for the same reason you or jenks think.

 

 

Yea, he's a centrist. Good lord help us.

[StrangeSox]

He's a corporatist stooge with a never-ending desire to appear as some great post-partisan compromiser to cement his legacy\.

[Cknolls]

Pensions that workers earned for decades of service per contractual obligations=teat sucking unions.

 

Yes. Contractual obligations. That is funny. That is what you call it. Ponzi is more like it. You keep believing the payouts are justified. You keep believing the taxpayers should make up the losses that pension funds lose. That's fair, right? It's an obligation. Where is the fiscal obligation of the assholes voting for this nonsense. You keep on believing 3% compounded colas are sound fiscal policy. You keep n believing healthcare for life is fiscally sound and honest to all the other working people who have to pay for these stiffs.

[Balta1701]

Did you just argue that "Healthcare for life" is a bad idea?

[StrangeSox]

Yes. Contractual obligations. That is funny. That is what you call it. Ponzi is more like it. You keep believing the payouts are justified. You keep believing the taxpayers should make up the losses that pension funds lose. That's fair, right? It's an obligation. Where is the fiscal obligation of the assholes voting for this nonsense. You keep on believing 3% compounded colas are sound fiscal policy. You keep n believing healthcare for life is fiscally sound and honest to all the other working people who have to pay for these stiffs.

Sanctity of the contract is only important for the bond holders, not the workers who gave a lifetime of labor partially in return for promised pensions contractually agreed to by their employers.

[southsider2k5]

Sanctity of the contract is only important for the bond holders, not the workers who gave a lifetime of labor partially in return for promised pensions contractually agreed to by their employers.

 

Bond holders are funding capital. Pensioners aren't.

[StrangeSox]

Bond holders are funding capital. Pensioners aren't.

It can also get a little messy because other pension funds might be bondholders as well. Still, it's pretty sad that people see retirees getting what they are legally owed at the expense of investors as such a terrible thing.

[southsider2k5]

It can also get a little messy because other pension funds might be bondholders as well. Still, it's pretty sad that people see retirees getting what they are legally owed at the expense of investors as such a terrible thing.

 

That's just it, I think people are catching on that they are paying for other people's retirement, especially when you see the fraud and the games being played in Illinois.

[Y2HH]

That's just it, I think people are catching on that they are paying for other people's retirement, especially when you see the fraud and the games being played in Illinois.

 

You mean because of people like Daley collecting 3 pensions at once by using loopholes?

 

The problem was the Unions oversight of these pensions didn't exist...while their employees were putting money into the pensions, the states/cities weren't matching on their end, if at all, not to mention they were being allowed to borrow pension funds and never paying them back. ALL of that was ALLOWED by the unions...otherwise it couldn't have happened.

 

So...so it all collapsed around them, and the politicians couldn't pay back the money they borrowed, not to mention pay in the money they promised, the Unions tried to turn to the people and blame the politicians for it...problem is, they were involved, too...and everyone involved should be in put in jail.

 

Now, what we have is the private citizen paying for these pensions we have nothing to do with. I'm absolutely on the side of the union WORKER that paid their pension without a 401k or Social Security to fall back on, all they had were these pensions...but the union chiefs, and the politicians that gutted these pensions are now leaning on private citizens to fix it.

[Jenksismyhero]

This is why I'm in favor of civil penalties for making terrible business decisions. Why do we hold doctors and lawyers to a different standard of responsibility than CEO's and CFO's or Union Chiefs or politicians. If you can show that X person did something outside of the reasonable standard of care in his/her industry, and you were damaged because of it, sue their asses for $.

[Balta1701]

This is why I'm in favor of civil penalties for making terrible business decisions. Why do we hold doctors and lawyers to a different standard of responsibility than CEO's and CFO's or Union Chiefs or politicians. If you can show that X person did something outside of the reasonable standard of care in his/her industry, and you were damaged because of it, sue their asses for $.

If it were easy to prove malfeasance I think people already get sued. I believe I read a note about potential lawsuits against Corzine this morning, for example. Since no one from MF Global is going to jail despite $2 billion+ being stolen, some civil penalties might at the least be nice.

[Jenksismyhero]

If it were easy to prove malfeasance I think people already get sued. I believe I read a note about potential lawsuits against Corzine this morning, for example. Since no one from MF Global is going to jail despite $2 billion+ being stolen, some civil penalties might at the least be nice.

 

Yes but generally those guys are smart enough to act through X corporation, so in the end if they run a Ponzi scheme or something and use up all of the money the victims are screwed. You can't go after them personally (usually, there are exceptions). If Corzine is worth 50 million, guess what, he should be broke after the civil suits are over. That doesn't happen in every case like it should.

 

Union bosses collecting 3 pensions should have to give that up and if they've screwed over their union members they should be made to pay out of their own pockets. Especially when these guys are lining their own pockets with money by doing their fraudulent/negligent acts. We hold doctors and lawyers to an incredibly high standard, but I feel like business execs are not.

[southsider2k5]

Yes but generally those guys are smart enough to act through X corporation, so in the end if they run a Ponzi scheme or something and use up all of the money the victims are screwed. You can't go after them personally (usually, there are exceptions). If Corzine is worth 50 million, guess what, he should be broke after the civil suits are over. That doesn't happen in every case like it should.

 

Union bosses collecting 3 pensions should have to give that up and if they've screwed over their union members they should be made to pay out of their own pockets. Especially when these guys are lining their own pockets with money by doing their fraudulent/negligent acts. We hold doctors and lawyers to an incredibly high standard, but I feel like business execs are not.

 

They will go after Corzine personally.

[StrangeSox]

That's just it, I think people are catching on that they are paying for other people's retirement, especially when you see the fraud and the games being played in Illinois.

 

On the other hand, we have companies like Verizon and Caterpillar laying off workers and fighting to slash wages and benefits while paying out hundreds of millions of dollars collectively to a handful of top executives over the past several years.

[southsider2k5]

On the other hand, we have companies like Verizon and Caterpillar laying off workers and fighting to slash wages and benefits while paying out hundreds of millions of dollars collectively to a handful of top executives over the past several years.

 

People are free to not use Verizon or buy from Caterpillar.

[StrangeSox]

They're free to not buy from GM if they have a problem with pensions for labor but no problem for obscene wealth for executives.