D.R.I.V.E

bluehdmc

Well-Known Member
Pobre Carlos,

The economy floundered in the previous administration, (the worst recession since the Great Depression). At least people are not selling apples on the street for $.05. Fannie and Freddie were created years before the Obama administration. The questionable lending practices, were all put in place well long before the crash. The crash didn't come overnite and the recovery won't happen overnite either. As far as people owing more than their house is worth, that's happened before. I remember in the mid 80's people were walking away from homes in the Houston area because there was a downturn in the oil industry and the market tanked. In my area (north NJ) people who bought condo's in the late 80's early 90's saw the prices go down and it took until around 2000 before they recovered. They've since gone up and back down again, although it's not really a loss unless your forced to sell.

Time Magazine had a list of "Who was to blame for the Economic crisis", I don't recall Barack Obama as being on the list, Realtors, Countrywide Finance, Lehman Brothers, Ronald Reagan, (who first started deregulating the banks), Bill Clinton, (for more deregulation), George W Bush (in there words, "It happened on his watch.") and others were on it though.

As far as the auto industry, their troubles started back in the 60's. (Remember the Corvair?)
Safety innovations like seatbelts, sidemarker lites, energy absorbing components became mandatory in 1968. Before that American automakers built and sold whatever they wanted. For a cost savings of about $5, Ford designed a Pinto that would explode when struck in the rear.
There used to be a saying, "What's good for GM is good for the US."
GM had an income larger than the GDP of France. Mismanagement, short sightedness and lousy customer service, and the gas shortage of the 70's gave imports the toehold they needed. The imports were in general quality cars that got 20+ mpg when you could only get gas on odd and even days and most domestic brands were getting 10-12mpg.
The import makers that have plants here may be non-union, but there home country plants are all unionized. Hundyai is actually one of the largest manufacturers in the world and there unionized in South Korea.

As far as appointments Obama pulled a fast one, maybe because the "Party of NO" was blocking everything he has tried to do.

The "Party of NO" tried to block everything the Clinton administration did, spent almost 8 yrs and how many millions of dollars over Whitewater and turned that into a discussion of a blue dress. (Information obtained from an illegally recorded phone conversation.)
 

PobreCarlos

Well-Known Member
bluehdmc;

Just a couple of quick interjections here. In the "Party of No"s blocking "everything the Clinton administration did", it gave that administration a balanced budget which Democrats now look back on and BRAG about...and it most assuredly wasn't their doing! If Congress had left things up to Clinton, he would have spent into debt as rapidly as Obama.

"Yes", the economy "floundered in the previous administration"....IF you term the "previous administration" as represented by the executive in office. However, again, it began "floundering" after a Democrat congress took over. And, of course, it REALLY went south when it became apparent that Obama was going to be elected. Would it if there HADN'T been a party change taking place? Given Bush's position on the war, probably...but one really can't say. In truth, the Democrats were in control of the financials strings at the time the crisis came about. If the Republican are to be tinted by being "the no's" now, then the Democrats have to be stained by the same allegation when THEY had the ropes.

As for Time magazines list, that would seem to be Time magazine's list. I'm not sure I understand; is my (or any other responsible person's) opinion and/or the facts supposed to be dictated by what a MAGAZINE says now?????

I'll be the first to admit that the domestic "Big Three" auto industry's troubles are of long standing. That, however, isn't the issue. The "issue", from my perspective, is that Obama (and, admittedly, others) wasted taxpayer funds in bailing the UNIONS who's workers were employed by them - or at least GM and Chrysler - out. And while the efficient car makers may be "union" in their home countries ("yes", I've read "The Reckoning" as well), the fact is that they're NOT here...and it's "here" where they're building plants, and it's the "here" where they're making a go of it that we're concerned about. In any case, it isn't who caused the bankruptcy that matters, but the fact that there WAS a bankruptcy, and that the administration chose to bail the UNION out...at the expense of the LEGITIMATE residual owners; i.e. - those who held secured debt. In that, he was acting about as "presidential" as he was in ignoring the immigration law he was sworn to uphold, or the requirements of appointment approval which were also part 'n' parcel of his taking the oath of office.

Lastly, if you can recall a similar NATIONAL downturn in real estate beyond the Great Depression before the current one - one which justify the previous poster's claim that.......

"Freddie and Fannie have created more household wealth since there inception than any other quasi-government agency in US history."

...then please point it out - and don't claim that a localized market drop in Houston, or NJ, or California or whatever constitute such a justification. (I'm not even going to get into the apparent assumption that "quasi-government" agencies have "created wealth" over the years, or whether that's their function or not)

No, "the crash didn't come overnite and the recovery won't happen overnite either"....but after more than three years, I would expect at least some MOVEMENT in that direction! So far, I've seen none. And, to be honest, that's completely understandable. Why should one expect any positive movement coming from an individual like Obama? Again, while he seems like a personable individual, he lacks even the elemental talent and experience that would enable him to serve as an effective executive. What's he done? In terms of "real world" experience, virtually nothing. I'm not saying he's a "bad man"; I'm simply saying he's ineffective. Now Romney may not be any better....but at least there's a chance of improvement with him. Meanwhile, one KNOWS that Obama has failed to bring things around..so why keep beating a dead horse? Why not let him lie in peace and at least allow an opportunity for improvement?

 

bluehdmc

Well-Known Member
The administration DID NOT bail out the Unions. The administration bailed out GM, banks, brokerage houses, etc. The unions made CONCESSIONS, so their members kept their JOBS. It also wasn't just the workers in the GM plants. It's the people who work for "Joes Machine Shop" maybe 3 or 4 of them that make widgets for window mechanisms. They don't work in a large plant, just a little 2000sq ft building in Ohio, or Indiana, wherever. There are a lot of little places that make small parts for automakers. If GM went down they'd all go down. The banks took the bailout money and turned around and gave the same people who helped get the economy into this mess multi-million dollar bonuses!
They said they have to do that to retain "good" people. Must be nice, put your company into the red and get a bonus.

Not sure if it was "national" but around 1987, the stock market had a "correction" and real estate tumbled on the east and west coasts. Not to the extent of the past 3 or 4 yrs but markets were pretty stagnant.

As far as "balancing the budget", Washingtons claim of balancing the budget seems to be when they are spending as much as they are taking in.
The National Debt was created as a result of WW2, and was on pace to be paid off around 1992, then Ronald Reagan took office with "supply side" and "trickledown" economics. (Referred to by Bush senior as "voodoo" economics.) During Reagan's administration the budget went up by the largest percentage increase. (Google "historic national debt").

There has been "some movement" in the direction of recovery. The stock market seems to have recovered to levels from 2006, UPS stock is actually a little higher than it was in 2006 and the dividend has increased.

For anyone interested in Time's list here's the web address. Angelo Mozilo - 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - TIME
 
L

Loufan

Guest
Obviously, surviving, and thriving are as about as far as you can be from each other. You guys who vote for candidates who have a record of destroying jobs kill me, Obama perfect? Of course not. I'm a true blue democrat, and I don't like Obama, but I will NEVER vote for a Republican. A vote for a Republican is a vote for UPS management. I guess that's where your loyalty lies.

Ha Sorry i don't choose sides in these elections, I don't stick with 1 party. I vote for who I think is best for the country. 4 years ago I thought Obama was the right choice but now i don't anymore. But thanks for letting me know where my loyalty lies. My loyalty lies with UPS and America, and if our economy collapses then what do we have?
 

PobreCarlos

Well-Known Member
bluhdmc;

The administration did NOT (got that? *NOT*) "bail out GM, banks brokerage houses, etc." Using "GM" as an example, THE COMPANY WENT OUT OF BUSINESS!!!! What remains of it is zip, nada, nothing. Instead, what exists today is an entirely new entity; "New GM" as it's called. The company - meaning the shareholders - were left with absolutely nothing. Not only that, the secured debt holders - those who legally and historically had first dibs on ANYTHING of value that remained of the company until their debt was satisfied - got the shaft as well. So who DID profit...or at least break even? Well, it wasn't the company; again, it went out of existence and lost everything. And it wasn't the debt holders; they ended-up with virtually nothing as well. Was it workers generally? I suspect that if you put it to those employed by entities that DIDN'T receive a handout, they'd say "no"; in fact, their competitive bargaining position was diminished. So who made out? I submit that IT WAS THE UNION! Union members retained jobs that they deserved to lose. The union ended up with ownership of entities that were the spawn of companies they put out of business.

You equate the "automakers" going down with the INDUSTRY as a WHOLE going down. Nothing could be farther from reality. In fact, vast parts of the industry were thriving; look at all those plants of manufacturers who DIDN'T receive a subsidy who kept pumping-out cars...and stood ready, willing, and able to absorb the production of the bankrupt companies. Why weren't THEY allowed to buy the bankrupted facilities? (allowing that Fiat WAS able to!...but only because Chrysler had been "bailed out" of bankruptcy TWICE, and it was getting a little two obvious for even the government!) Why weren't THEY permitted to show how to operate in an efficient NON-subsidized manner instead of having the business handed over to those who had already PROVEN that they were incapable of maintaining it?

As for the banks, I didn't support their bail-out as well. But at least the government hasn't lost significant amounts of money on them (not all that surprising, since for the most part it was simply advancement of credit, not actual deposits of fund). "GM" on the other hand? I doubt if the nation's taxpayers will EVER see that money again. It's been squandered on the very people who created the crisis to begin with. BTW, in terms of the people who "work" for the industry "in Ohio, or Indiana, wherever", I'm reminded of the "old GM" (Chevy, I believe) plant in Indianapolis, in which, under "New GM" the UAW old-timers there voted AGAINST approving a contract as part of a sale of the plant which would have kept it open. They PREFERRED it to be closed down - and the younger workers being deprived of their jobs - if it meant their not being able to squander THEIR "share" of the subsidy available to the UAW. Result? The plant DID shut down, and those younger workers (virtually ALL the "local" work force of the plant; the "seniority" people originated in at other closed plants primarily out-of-state) all LOST THEIR JOBS! That's the "concession" the UAW made in that instance.

Which brings us to the topic of "the concessions the unions made". Pray tell; just WHAT "concessions" did they make? Just what did they have to concede to begin with? The companies were bankrupt. On that basis, the union members were out of jobs. So what did they "concede"? Heck, as far as I can tell, they didn't "concede" a darn thing; by way of vote buying, they simply had things HANDED to them on a virtual silver platter. Everyone ought to have the chance to make such "concessions" in their life. Unfortunately, few do...particularly those who think the ought to deserve their existence.

Lastly, I was around in 1987, and was invested in the stock market at that time. I bought and sold houses in that year as well....and I'll tell you flat-out that the situation then - at least in the real estate market - it wasn't ANYTHING like it's been over the past four years. And if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have "created" a lot of wealth, then I'd sure as the Devil like to see just WHERE they "created" it, because all I've seen of their "creation" of late is a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth.
 

DorkHead

Well-Known Member
PobreCarlos,
I respect your opinion but I don`t agree with it at all. I look at both candidates and decide which one is going to benefit ME the most. Not the Party or the Country or the World. There is NO loyalty anymore. I know what Romney stands for and Ryan`s voting record speaks for itself. I`m sure most Teamsters and their families will be voting for the pro union candidate, Barack Obama. I know I and my family will.

Peace:peaceful:
 

OVERBOARD

Don't believe everything you think
Elections matter period. There are two parties. One fights for the wealthiest and one for the working persons. \
You mean one fights for the wealthiest and one for the non worker. This is not the democratic party of my father. If JFK was running for president in 2012 he wouldn't make out of the democratic primaries. In todays world John friend Kennedy would be consider a Republican

John friend. Kennedy. In a speech before the Economic Club of New York on Dec. 14, 1962, on tax rates.
He said:
''Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that, no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget - just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.
''In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now.

In my opinion The Democratic party no Longer represents the middle class they Represents the non working class. Neither party cares about the middle class.

The Democratic President Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement. Democratic President Barack Obama signed the latest free-trade deals with Vietnam and two other countries with which we cannot compete.

Republican President George W. Bush was terrible to the middle class, but equally as bad are Democrats. These trade deals have and will cost many jobs.



.''
 

upsset

Well-Known Member
Hello!!!!!! How do we have so many uninformed, union hating teamsters? Did any of you anti Obama, anti DRIVE, anti Teamster, Me-sters even watch the Republican Convention?

Did you listen to the Keynote speaker (Chris Christie) brag about attacking the Unions in New Jersey? Did you listen to Gov. Walker ( the guy who pushed through ledgislation to outlaw your bargaining unit rights)?

Are you watching the Democratic Convention now? You should be. You should be listening to both sides of the arguement, gathering information so you can make an informed decision.


As for DRIVE, this is a political action comittee representing the interests of Labor (that is you, if you didn't know that) whos sole purpose is to identify and support politicians who help the working class.


Did you accept all the raises you have gotten over the last four years? Do you have better medical benifits than most other people you know? Do you have a better retirement plan than most people you know? You are better off then you were four years ago!


You enjoy these things because you belong to a Union that has the legal right to bargain with your employer to secure them. If the Republicians have their way, they will continue their open attack on unions and our way of life.

You don't have to take my word for it, just listen to what they are saying!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

UnconTROLLed

perfection
Hello!!!!!! How do we have so many uninformed, union hating teamsters? Did any of you anti Obama, anti DRIVE, anti Teamster, Me-sters even watch the Republican Convention?

Did you listen to the Keynote speaker (Chris Christie) brag about attacking the Unions in New Jersey? Did you listen to Gov. Walker ( the guy who pushed through ledgislation to outlaw your bargaining unit rights)?

Are you watching the Democratic Convention now? You should be. You should be listening to both sides of the arguement, gathering information so you can make an informed decision.


As for DRIVE, this is a political action comittee representing the interests of Labor (that is you, if you didn't know that) whos sole purpose is to identify and support politicians who help the working class.


Did you accept all the raises you have gotten over the last four years? Do you have better medical benifits than most other people you know? Do you have a better retirement plan than most people you know? You are better off then you were four years ago!


You enjoy these things because you belong to a Union that has the legal right to bargain with your employer to secure them. If the Republicians have their way, they will continue their open attack on unions and our way of life.

You don't have to take my word for it, just listen to what they are saying!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Teamsters have supported many Republicans and have been more pro-Republican, than Democrat, in the past century. At best it is a wash.

Neither party gives a damn for the average person. The wealthy are catered to by both parties, and the middle working and poor class are simply pawns.
 

BrownArmy

Well-Known Member
Bubblehead; BLA BLA BLA.

Look, guy, we've gone down this road with you.

Yes, you don't like Unions, etc! LULZ!

Turns out, you don't like Obama; might have guessed that, but...LAWLRUS!

Great.

What do you think about Mittens, the great prevaricator?

Inquiring minds want to know.
 

TechGrrl

Space Cadet
That worked out real well when we tried to convince congress to reclassify FedEx. They sure did what the people wanted there, didn't they?

Fred owns more Senators than we do. We can't even get Mitch McConnell to support UPS, and UPS is the largest private employer in the state of Kentucky. I wrote him a letter calling out FedEx for that "Brown Bailout" BS, and he wrote back supporting them. That's the GOP for you. By the way, Kentucky takes in $1.50 in Federal money for every dollar they send to Washington, so...Mitch knows earmarks.
 

TechGrrl

Space Cadet
Hello!!!!!! How do we have so many uninformed, union hating teamsters? Did any of you anti Obama, anti DRIVE, anti Teamster, Me-sters even watch the Republican Convention?

Did you listen to the Keynote speaker (Chris Christie) brag about attacking the Unions in New Jersey? Did you listen to Gov. Walker ( the guy who pushed through ledgislation to outlaw your bargaining unit rights)?

Are you watching the Democratic Convention now? You should be. You should be listening to both sides of the arguement, gathering information so you can make an informed decision.


As for DRIVE, this is a political action comittee representing the interests of Labor (that is you, if you didn't know that) whos sole purpose is to identify and support politicians who help the working class.


Did you accept all the raises you have gotten over the last four years? Do you have better medical benifits than most other people you know? Do you have a better retirement plan than most people you know? You are better off then you were four years ago!


You enjoy these things because you belong to a Union that has the legal right to bargain with your employer to secure them. If the Republicians have their way, they will continue their open attack on unions and our way of life.

You don't have to take my word for it, just listen to what they are saying!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at what they are actually doing: every state that went RED in the 2010 elections (Gov + both houses of state legislatures) pulled out the ALEC playbook and started right in. Indiana went Right-to-Work. Other states did too.

We don't have to guess at how they will govern. It is right there in front of our eyes.
 

TechGrrl

Space Cadet
You mean one fights for the wealthiest and one for the non worker. This is not the democratic party of my father. If JFK was running for president in 2012 he wouldn't make out of the democratic primaries. In todays world John friend Kennedy would be consider a Republican

John friend. Kennedy. In a speech before the Economic Club of New York on Dec. 14, 1962, on tax rates.
He said:
''Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that, no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget - just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.
In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now."

In my opinion The Democratic party no Longer represents the middle class they Represents the non working class. Neither party cares about the middle class.

The Democratic President Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement. Democratic President Barack Obama signed the latest free-trade deals with Vietnam and two other countries with which we cannot compete.

Republican President George W. Bush was terrible to the middle class, but equally as bad are Democrats. These trade deals have and will cost many jobs.

When Kennedy wrote those words, the top marginal tax rate was 90%. He lowered it to 70%. The corporate tax rate was lowered from 52% to 48% in the Kennedy tax cuts of 1964.

Tax rates and tax revenues under President Obama are the lowest they have been in 35 years; lower than under Ronald Reagan. Let's go back to the Reagan tax rates, by all means. I would settle for the rates under President Clinton.

Let's recap briefly:
January 2009: Dow bottoms at 6595 in early March. Yesterday's close: 13,035
It is too wonky to go into detail about corporate profits, but I refer you to this article:
The Wageless, Profitable Recovery - NYTimes.com

The article, by the way, pretty much puts paid to the notion of "trickle down" economics. Corporate profits last quarter were at an all time high, but wages are stagnant, and jobs are pfffft.

I agree that both parties are beholden to big money, but only ONE party has the ALEC playbook where paragraph 1 is RIGHT TO WORK. Go look at what the GOP has done in those states they captured in the 2010 elections.

It is sometimes hard to choose between good and better, but it is pretty easy to pick between mediocre and rotten in this case. Unless you are one of the 1/10th of 1%.
 

PobreCarlos

Well-Known Member
TechGrrl;

What's utterly despicable, though, is how those "right to work" states are doing [relatively] so well economically. Has to really tee a union member off to read how Oklahoma City - situated in the second-to-last state to go "rtw" - now leads the nation in job growth. Or how Indiana, the most recent "rtw" state, is attracting plants that have been closed-down in other locales. But, of course, union members really don't want or need jobs, do they? [he questions sarcastically]

"Yes", how they will govern IS "right there in front of our eyes". "They" look out for workers - and workers jobs - because THEY are the ones who create, maintain, and provide the jobs workers depend on. Romney, for all his perceived faults (and I'll admit that I'm far from a big fan!), at least has EMPLOYED workers using his OWN wealth which HE generated....tons of them, in fact. What has Obama done along those lines? Hired and paid a personal maid or two perhaps? Maybe a chauffeur or bodyguard? Beyond that, what has he done for the economy over his term of office?

As I see it, he's now a "known quantity". He has absolutely no experience in the provision of jobs, very little experience in any other form of productive endeavor (look at his academic, job, and personal history), and has utterly failed in what he said he was going to do during his term of office. You KNOW he can't cut it!

Now maybe Romney can't either; in that sense, he's an "unknown". But at least he HAS provided workers with jobs. He DOES know how the economy works from past experience, and there's at least a CHANCE he could bring things around. So what's "labor's" choice? Someone like Obama who has demonstrated that he can't do anything for them? Or the guy who COULD change things? Personally, I'd take a "maybe" over a "nope" any day of the week.

I kinda' think of this election as involving the process I used when switching TV providers recently. I.e. - I'm not sure if my new one (put company name here) will be any better than my old one (put other company here)...but it sure as heck can't be any worse.
 
Last edited:

DorkHead

Well-Known Member
TechGrrl;

What's utterly despicable, though, is how those "right to work" states are doing [relatively] so well economically. Has to really tee a union member off to read how Oklahoma City - situated in the second-to-last state to go "rtw" - now leads the nation in job growth. Or how Indiana, the most recent "rtw" state, is attracting plants that have been closed-down in other locales. But, of course, union members really don't want or need jobs, do they? [he questions sarcastically]

"Yes", how they will govern IS "right there in front of our eyes". "They" look out for workers - and workers jobs - because THEY are the ones who create, maintain, and provide the jobs workers depend on. Romney, for all his perceived faults (and I'll admit that I'm far from a big fan!), at least has EMPLOYED workers using his OWN wealth which HE generated....tons of them, in fact. What has Obama done along those lines? Hired and paid a personal maid or two perhaps? Maybe a chauffeur or bodyguard? Beyond that, what has he done for the economy over his term of office?

As I see it, he's now a "known quantity". He has absolutely no experience in the provision of jobs, very little experience in any other form of productive endeavor (look at his academic, job, and personal history), and has utterly failed in what he said he was going to do during his term of office. You KNOW he can't cut it!

Now maybe Romney can't either; in that sense, he's an "unknown". But at least he HAS provided workers with jobs. He DOES know how the economy works from past experience, and there's at least a CHANCE he could bring things around. So what's "labor's" choice? Someone like Obama who has demonstrated that he can't do anything for them? Or the guy who COULD change things? Personally, I'd take a "maybe" over a "nope" any day of the week.

I kinda' think of this election as involving the process I used when switching TV providers recently. I.e. - I'm not sure if my new one (put company name here) will be any better than my old one (put other company here)...but it sure as heck can't be any worse.


Wrong. It will be worse for Seniors, Union members, and Women. That`s a fact.
 

UnconTROLLed

perfection
How can someone claim Romney "created jobs with his own wealth"

LOL

He was born with a silver spoon, but worse off, most of his wealth was made piggy-backing Bain in the early 90s, where he was given was much wealth as needed to play with.
 

PobreCarlos

Well-Known Member
Sleeve_meet_heart and menotyou;

Sleeve: I'm sure you're aware that Romney was one of the founding partners of Bain Capital and, as such, it's extremely difficult to say that he was "piggy-backing" off an entity that he not only owned, but created; I'm not aware that, in the context of Bain, he was "given much wealth" in any sense of the words by ANYONE. Rather, individuals and groups trusted him to invest their money, and he returned that trust by generally investing it wisely and providing them with a profit. If that's a "gift", then it's a "gift" that's available to you as well; all you have to do is convince others that YOU can provide a similar service, then follow through on it. Simple as that....at least in the saying. It's the "follow through" part that makes things a bit difficult. But if you want to have a go at it, then be my guest. No one is standing in your way.

menot: Yep, "Rolling Stone" has a well-deserved reputation for it's ability to understand and expose economic matters, doesn't it? About on par, no doubt, with that of the character Maynard G. Krebs speaking on the topic of "The Validity Of Work".
 
Top