TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Alright Barack just went too far....
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Alright Barack just went too far....

quote:

Obama pledges support to get aid for Detroit 3 Mich. Dems push for $4-billion plan BY JUSTIN HYDE � FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF � July 19, 2008 WASHINGTON -- Michigan's congressional Democrats are pushing for $4 billion in aid to the U.S. auto industry as part of a second economic stimulus bill, one that Sen. Barack Obama endorsed to UAW workers Friday. While Republican presidential contender Sen. John McCain held a town hall talk in Warren focusing on the industry, Obama pledged support for low-interest loans to automakers, saying, "America cannot truly prosper unless Michigan prospers." "By providing tax credits and loan guarantees for our automakers and by expanding consumer tax incentives for ultraefficient vehicles, I will provide real solutions necessary to help this industry compete and win in the global economy," Obama said in the letter to UAW members released by his campaign. Obama and other congressional Democrats have said they would push for a second stimulus plan in September that could reach $50 billion, an idea that the Bush administration has not favored so far. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Michigan's two Democratic senators urged Reid to include $3.75 billion in funding for loans, which could provide up to $25 billion that automakers and parts suppliers could use for revamping old factories and engineering new models. The loans would be made directly from the U.S. Treasury to automakers at below-market interest rates. The funding would cover the government's borrowing costs. Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin also asked Reid to include $250 million for research into advanced batteries. McCain opposes the loan program, as his campaign says his proposals -- a $5,000 consumer tax credit for buying efficient vehicles, a $300-million prize for electric vehicle batteries and strict goals for building flexible-fuel models -- would accomplish the same thing. The UAW, which has endorsed Obama, has pushed the loan program for some time as a way to give Detroit automakers aid without the specter of a government bailout. Last year's energy bill authorized the loans, but provided no funding for them after Republicans blocked a tax measure that would have paid for the program. Automakers have been lukewarm to the idea in the past, but as all three face the worst market in decades, they've warmed to the idea. U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., said Friday he would work with Obama and other Democrats "to see to it something of this kind is included in the economic stimulus package." "The prospects for this are getting better as the economic news gets worse," Dingell said.

Source

c0r version: Barack supports bailing out the automakers with our money.

While I see this as something that could actually help the economy in a small few ways, I am not a fan of this at all. It is just shouldering more debt on the US tax payers that we can't afford. We need to stop this kind of shit.

a newer deal

lol

Under the current administration, over $100 billion has been used for things such as the Bear Sterns bailout, and now the $25 billion Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bailouts. $4 billion low interest loans to GM, Ford, and Chrysler? Hardly a drop in the bucket. And I would think the loans would be repaid with interest.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Under the current administration, over $100 billion has been used for things such as the Bear Sterns bailout, and now the $25 billion Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bailouts. $4 billion low interest loans to GM, Ford, and Chrysler? Hardly a drop in the bucket. And I would think the loans would be repaid with interest.

Bailing out Bear Stearns and Fannie and Freddie are not only necessary but they are imminently dangerous if we did not. Why?? Fannie and Freddie are the 2 largest lenders in the US and if we allowed them to fail, we would have an even worse market collapse than the great depression. Bear Stearns, being one of the largest investment banks in the US, collapsing and faltering on all would have just sank us even further. Seriously, those are necessary. Bailing out GM and potentially Ford, is not.

Subsidizing economic inefficiency = fail.

Obama is probably smart enough to understand the foolishness of artificially allocating funds to failing companies, so I assume he's just pandering with this kind of talk.

Let's just bring on the Socialism and get it over with already. The people are clearly begging for it. No one wants to be responsible for his/her own self/family any more. The government should do ______ and take care of _______ for me. Waaaaah, waaaaaah, waaaaaaah. Entitlements for everyone!

I am glad i am getting out of this country

Bailoutpalooza!!! If my business fucks up and goes in the tank, I'm calling Barack for some assistance! The great healer will bring me salvation!

Edit: Slippery slope, here we come

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Subsidizing economic inefficiency = fail. Obama is probably smart enough to understand the foolishness of artificially allocating funds to failing companies, so I assume he's just pandering with this kind of talk.

He needs those auto-worker votes in places like Michigan. Smart move imo. He can flip flop all he wants until he's elected imo.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Subsidizing economic inefficiency = fail. Obama is probably smart enough to understand the foolishness of artificially allocating funds to failing companies, so I assume he's just pandering with this kind of talk.

We will see. I really hope that is the case, but it is hard to tell.

quote:

Originally posted by Zoso Let's just bring on the Socialism and get it over with already. The people are clearly begging for it. No one wants to be responsible for his/her own self/family any more. The government should do ______ and take care of _______ for me. Waaaaah, waaaaaah, waaaaaaah. Entitlements for everyone!

lol yeah. Fucking stupid.

By the way, Bear Stearns failed in spite of the attempted "bailout" and was sold off to JP Morgan Chase.

quote:

Originally posted by Zoso Let's just bring on the Socialism and get it over with already. The people are clearly begging for it. No one wants to be responsible for his/her own self/family any more. The government should do ______ and take care of _______ for me. Waaaaah, waaaaaah, waaaaaaah. Entitlements for everyone!

No kidding... I smell a nanny state on the horizon. Fucking people just want handouts. It's not the government's job to take care of us. "It's my right to have free healthcare, paid for by others!" No, it isn't.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel Bailing out Bear Stearns and Fannie and Freddie are not only necessary but they are imminently dangerous if we did not. Why?? Fannie and Freddie are the 2 largest lenders in the US and if we allowed them to fail, we would have an even worse market collapse than the great depression. Bear Stearns, being one of the largest investment banks in the US, collapsing and faltering on all would have just sank us even further. Seriously, those are necessary. Bailing out GM and potentially Ford, is not.

Well then, we can thank former Republican senator Phil Gramm for deregulating the banking and energy sector. The reason the administration has to do these bailouts is because of their own deregulation of the industries.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Well then, we can thank former Republican senator Phil Gramm for deregulating the banking and energy sector. The reason the administration has to do these bailouts is because of their own deregulation of the industries.

Deregulation as a whole is good, but you also have to keep both parties in check. Meaning that there will still need to be some sort of regulation, but the limits of regulation should be watched very carefully to prevent a full scale government run lender or energy company. Look at the telecom sector. They have done fine with deregulation. Energy and banking can be the same.

I work in a small community bank, and we're regulated by the FDIC and the state. Additionally, we are required to have independent third parties audit all those areas the FDIC and the state are auditing. We're audit fee poor!

All the drama that can come with audits aside, I really do feel that it is in the best interest of our bank and our community.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel Deregulation as a whole is good, but you also have to keep both parties in check. Meaning that there will still need to be some sort of regulation, but the limits of regulation should be watched very carefully to prevent a full scale government run lender or energy company. Look at the telecom sector. They have done fine with deregulation. Energy and banking can be the same.

LOL! Nonsense! The deregulation these idiots carried out was akin to taking street lights and speed limits off major intersections! Why did the banks take on so much risk??? Take a guess....I'll tell you, because of deregulation! You could borrow hundreds of times more capital than you have in principle, and bet on market. I could take my $1, get $60 in financing, and bet on subprime mortgage derivatives! Listen, free market are good. But even free markets need rules. We live in a supposed "free" society, right? We still need cops on the street don't we? Same thing goes for the financial laws of this country.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis He needs those auto-worker votes in places like Michigan. Smart move imo. He can flip flop all he wants until he's elected imo.

You must really think he's the second coming of Christ if you can allow and look entirely past his vote-buying

I have it on good authority from Talk Radio (TM) that he is, indeed, the Anti-Christ.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton LOL! Nonsense! The deregulation these idiots carried out was akin to taking street lights and speed limits off major intersections! Why did the banks take on so much risk??? Take a guess....I'll tell you, because of deregulation! You could borrow hundreds of times more capital than you have in principle, and bet on market. I could take my $1, get $60 in financing, and bet on subprime mortgage derivatives! Listen, free market are good. But even free markets need rules. We live in a supposed "free" society, right? We still need cops on the street don't we? Same thing goes for the financial laws of this country.

Wow, did you take what I said too literally? Did I say NO regulation? No. I said AS A WHOLE, deregulation is good. I didn't say that the deregulation that happened in the energy and banking sectors was good or bad. I just said that on a whole, as in generally, it is good. Do I think that there should be regulation? Of course. We can't have Standard Oil back and bullying and bankrupting (Although Wal-Mart already does) all the companies it wants to fuck over.

quote:

Originally posted by Zoso I have it on good authority from Talk Radio (TM) that he is, indeed, the Anti-Christ.

I just find it funny how all the other candidates aren't allowed to "buy votes" without facing extreme criticism and abasing, but when Barack does it everyone can look the other way. He may consider himself the purveyor of "not the same Washington politics" or whatever, but he'll sure as hell engage in it from time to time if he reaps benefit, knowing his unabashed fanbase will look the other way. It's completely able

If he is allowed to flipflop on this, then he essentially could flipflop on absolutely every position he has campaigned on. Unlikely, yes, but in the end feasible. He can get away with it though, because he's Barack.

quote:

Originally posted by Ted Promo You must really think he's the second coming of Christ if you can allow and look entirely past his vote-buying

BARRACK THE MAGIC NEGRO

quote:

Originally posted by Ted Promo You must really think he's the second coming of Christ if you can allow and look entirely past his vote-buying

No I just think vote-buying to defeat the second coming of George Bush is perfectly fine.

quote:

Originally posted by Ted Promo I just find it funny how all the other candidates aren't allowed to "buy votes" without facing extreme criticism and abasing, but when Barack does it everyone can look the other way. He may consider himself the purveyor of "not the same Washington politics" or whatever, but he'll sure as hell engage in it from time to time if he reaps benefit, knowing his unabashed fanbase will look the other way. It's completely able If he is allowed to flipflop on this, then he essentially could flipflop on absolutely every position he has campaigned on. Unlikely, yes, but in the end feasible. He can get away with it though, because he's Barack.

lol I saw an article about this saying the exact thing.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel Wow, did you take what I said too literally? Did I say NO regulation? No. I said AS A WHOLE, deregulation is good. I didn't say that the deregulation that happened in the energy and banking sectors was good or bad. I just said that on a whole, as in generally, it is good. Do I think that there should be regulation? Of course. We can't have Standard Oil back and bullying and bankrupting (Although Wal-Mart already does) all the companies it wants to fuck over.

My bad..

Yes, there should a certain amount of freedom, just like in how government regulates society. We still have freedom of press, speech, etc. The financial sector should have that sort of freedom, but of course, with rules that prevent banks running amok. One thing I want is more regulation of oil futures contracts.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.