[Carter78]

(Original post by rippedbanana)
romney is a business man, extremely successful one. you wouldnt want the businessman to run the country. if you had to play a russian roulette with obama or romney, which one would you pick.

He was against the Car Industry bailout which has saved GM (and hundreds of thousands of jobs).

Plus, whilst a businessman may sound like the smart choice. It would be a step-backwards for Stem Cell research and Gay rights in the US. Let alone a worrying prospect for dealings with Iran.

[Made in the USA]

(Original post by Carter78)
He was against the Car Industry bailout which has saved GM (and hundreds of thousands of jobs).

You think no jobs were lost in Obama's quest to make GM/Chrysler more efficient?

The car industry bailout cost a tens of thousands of jobs in this country. After the government took over GM and Chrysler, hundreds of dealerships were forced to close and they were not even owned by GM and Chrysler, they were privately held companies that the car companies forced out of business and the Obama administration did nothing to save those jobs that are still gone forever. The Pontiac line and other lines were shut down.

Romney has said that he pushed the idea of a managed, private, bankruptcy. This would have been A MUCH BETTER SOLUTION for GM/Chrysler because, under the restructuring, the autoworkers union would have taken a bigger hit on its salary and pension packages, which is the reason these companies went bankrupt in the first place.

Obama's interference in GM put the unions in an even stronger position than they had before and now, they are much likely to have very serious problems down the road. Obama's car industry restructuring didn't "save" the car industry, it guaranteed its eventual demise

[Carter78]

(Original post by Made in the USA)
You think no jobs were lost in Obama's quest to make GM/Chrysler more efficient?

The car industry bailout cost a tens of thousands of jobs in this country. After the government took over GM and Chrysler, hundreds of dealerships were forced to close and they were not even owned by GM and Chrysler, they were privately held companies that the car companies forced out of business and the Obama administration did nothing to save those jobs that are still gone forever. The Pontiac line and other lines were shut down.

Romney has said that he pushed the idea of a managed, private, bankruptcy. This would have been A MUCH BETTER SOLUTION for GM/Chrysler because, under the restructuring, the autoworkers union would have taken a bigger hit on its salary and pension packages, which is the reason these companies went bankrupt in the first place.

Obama's interference in GM put the unions in an even stronger position than they had before and now, they are much likely to have very serious problems down the road. Obama's car industry restructuring didn't "save" the car industry, it guaranteed its eventual demise

I will fully and openly say that my knowledge on this subject is inadequate. However the companies in question have no doubt suffered a reversal in fortunes, although I'm not an economist so won't make any prediction as to what extent the auto-bailout is responsible for this.

However the bailout was hardly a blank checque. I'm quite sure that reforms and changes in practice were part of the package - you said yourself that it was as much an efficiency drive as it was a simple cash injection.

But lets not forget, the bailout came after the drop in fortunes for the companies. If production had ceased on ALL lines, the car dealerships you mentioned as closing would've certainly had to close if these companies had failed.

Your argument about pension packages and employee benefits is the same argument fielded by British Airways in the UK. Generous pension schemes are bad for business, sure. But then how else can you compensate individuals who have in many cases dedicated their entire working life to the production of these company's cars? Morally, they should be rewarded.

If the cost of living increases and Unions push for high pension funds, then this must reward the company in the long run. As their ex-employees will actually have the money to buy their products. The more money that people have in their pockets, the higher their spending power will be.

[R.P.Everything.]

(Original post by Made in the USA)
This is going to be an absolute massacre for the democrats, maybe an even bigger bloodbath than the 2010 elections. I really see no way this is winnable for Obama.

Considering the fact that speaker of the house Joe Boehner said 'We have a 1 in 3 chance of losing the house', I doubt this is going to be anything but a close race. With Obama on the top of the ballot, voter turn out will be high, unlike during mid term elections, which will boost Dem gains in the house.

Also, safe dem states far outnumber safe republican states. Even the swing states would need a huge flip from Obama's double digit lead, which he held in 2008. Obama only needs to win one or two of the major swing states, and he's through again - Romney needs to take nearly all of them.

And when you cited Carter, you forget that his approval ratings were dismal, whilst Obama's match G.W.Bush's approval ratings at this time in 2004. Also, Obama has no strong challengers from the left or the centre, which came in the form of Ted Kennedy and John Anderson. Obama will carry every state in the Democrat primaries, whilst Carter only carried 37. Obama will carry all this liberals, unlike in 1980, when Anderson split them. It's going to be close, but it's going to be Obama.

[Alpharius]

Mormonism has a history of racism. He was heavily involved in it before his political career, and how can you take any Mormon seriously? The founder was a covicted fraud, how stupid can people be to believe that rubbish.

Obama is the one I'll be rooting for, I take him seriously, and as an outsider I think he's doing a good job. Going backwards to bring in Romney.

[Maker]

The more right wing reps hate Romney so they would not vote for him anyway.

Obama is going to get his second term.

[gateshipone]

Considering the Romney campaign doesn't even know how to spell America, I think Obama is pretty likely to win.

[TimHuak]

lol at you jokers. It doesnt matter which one gets in because it will just be another 4 years of the same thing.

To any Obama supporters have you seen his "julia" campaign? Do you like the fact he signed the NDAA? All I ever from Obama supporters is "oh, well that was inherited from bush".

Gary Johnson 2012

Hopefully Ron Paul will endorse him after the republican convention or sooner.

[Made in the USA]

(Original post by Carter78)
I will fully and openly say that my knowledge on this subject is inadequate. However the companies in question have no doubt suffered a reversal in fortunes, although I'm not an economist so won't make any prediction as to what extent the auto-bailout is responsible for this.

Again, I feel Romney's idea of a managed private bankruptcy would have been better. They would have been able to renegotiate the outrageous union contracts and come out a lot more profitable and a lot more competitive than they are now. Yes, they are doing better now, but I believe they would be doing even better if Obama had just stepped back and taken a hands-off approach.

Anyway, looking at the sales of the companies is a very poor way of assessing the success of the bailouts. Japan was hit with a devastating tsunami and was not able to ship new cars to the US market to meet the demand of US consumers. So of course the US automakers were able to take advantage of that situation and sell more cars. Chrysler has paid off it's debt and now can sell cars without the stigma of owing money, but there is still a huge 2 billion dollar hole of lost money that was the "old chrysler" which is still being liquidated. I don't think we'll ever see any of that money. $14 billion is still owed to washington by GM and that doesn't even include the financing arm of GM, called GMAC. GMAC (now known as Ally Financial) accounts for at least another $12 billion of blown taxpayer money.

I'm really finding it hard to imagine how Obama can tout this as some kind of success.

(Original post by Carter78)
However the bailout was hardly a blank checque. I'm quite sure that reforms and changes in practice were part of the package - you said yourself that it was as much an efficiency drive as it was a simple cash injection.

No there were all kinds of requirements on what kinds of cars they could or couldn't build, which is another big problem. The US market should decide what kind of car they want to buy, not washington bureaucrats. What if the market rejects the econoboxes the government is forcing the US auto industry to sell? Then what? Another bailout?

(Original post by Carter78)
But lets not forget, the bailout came after the drop in fortunes for the companies. If production had ceased on ALL lines, the car dealerships you mentioned as closing would've certainly had to close if these companies had failed.

No one really knows if production wouldn't have ceased or no. I don't know why everyone thinks the only choices are bailouts or going out of business. They would have gone into a managed bankruptcy and come out a heck of a lot stronger than they are now. American Airlines is currently in the bankruptcy process and it hasn't ceased operations.

(Original post by Carter78)
Your argument about pension packages and employee benefits is the same argument fielded by British Airways in the UK. Generous pension schemes are bad for business, sure. But then how else can you compensate individuals who have in many cases dedicated their entire working life to the production of these company's cars? Morally, they should be rewarded.

If the cost of living increases and Unions push for high pension funds, then this must reward the company in the long run. As their ex-employees will actually have the money to buy their products. The more money that people have in their pockets, the higher their spending power will be.

I really doubt that British Airways in the UK was paying the obscenely extravagant salaries and benefits UAW workers were getting. There are limits to how generous a company can be before it goes under. For example, in 2005, the number of people GM was paying benefits for was three times greater than their active workforce!

[ApresAlkan]

Not only does Romney have a chance of winning, it actually seems that there is a tangible likelihood of his premiership?

The Hitch would never have allowed it...

[Baltimoron]

(Original post by Made in the USA)
Why are over 80 percent of TSR members thinking Obama will win?

If the election were held today, Mitt Romney would win by a landslide. I have a feeling you Britons are looking at the polls that survey only registered voters, not likely voters. Rasmussen seems to be the only pollster who tests likely voters, and his latest tracking poll has Romney ahead by 48-43.

Making things even worse for Obama is that studies consistently show undecided voters always go for the challenger when incumbents are seeking a second term as president

It doesn't matter if you are looking at Johnson in ’64, Nixon in ’72, Ford in ’76, Carter in ’80, Reagan in ’84, Bush in ’92 and Clinton in ’96. All failed to pick up the undecided vote. The only exception was Bush 43, who was able to get SOME of the undecided voters.

Taking into account how the undecided vote is going to break and also how likely someone is to vote and you are looking at 55-45 Romney victory at least!

This is going to be an absolute massacre for the democrats, maybe an even bigger bloodbath than the 2010 elections. I really see no way this is winnable for Obama.

Jesus, do you just pull stuff out of your ass? Where do you come up with this crap? Mitt Romney would win by a landslide if the election was held today? This has got to be a joke. There is absolutely no factual basis for that statement. I'm not saying Obama is going to win, but barring some unforeseen, catastrophic, economic meltdown beyond what we've already seen, this race is going to be extremely close. Virtually every political expert/analyst/pollster/etc. believes this. Seriously, don't just make stuff up.

[patrickinator]

(Original post by Baltimoron)
Jesus, do you just pull stuff out of your ass? Where do you come up with this crap? Mitt Romney would win by a landslide if the election was held today? This has got to be a joke. There is absolutely no factual basis for that statement. I'm not saying Obama is going to win, but barring some unforeseen, catastrophic, economic meltdown beyond what we've already seen, this race is going to be extremely close. Virtually every political expert/analyst/pollster/etc. believes this. Seriously, don't just make stuff up.

This

[tc92]

(Original post by Baltimoron)
Jesus, do you just pull stuff out of your ass? Where do you come up with this crap? Mitt Romney would win by a landslide if the election was held today? This has got to be a joke. There is absolutely no factual basis for that statement. I'm not saying Obama is going to win, but barring some unforeseen, catastrophic, economic meltdown beyond what we've already seen, this race is going to be extremely close. Virtually every political expert/analyst/pollster/etc. believes this. Seriously, don't just make stuff up.

Whilst I wouldn't agree with him that it'd be a Romney landslide, there is a strong case that the undecided voters will likely vote against the incumbent; in which case, that very close election could swing cleanly to Romney.

[Carter78]

(Original post by Made in the USA)
Again, I feel Romney's idea of a managed private bankruptcy would have been better. They would have been able to renegotiate the outrageous union contracts and come out a lot more profitable and a lot more competitive than they are now. Yes, they are doing better now, but I believe they would be doing even better if Obama had just stepped back and taken a hands-off approach.

I guess we'll never know either way, of course I would agree with you that Obama shouldn't tout it that his policy of a bailout was the only way the car industry would've been saved. However it did work in the short-term. You could be completely right that 15 years down the line the situation could be even worse.

(Original post by Made in the USA)
Anyway, looking at the sales of the companies is a very poor way of assessing the success of the bailouts. Japan was hit with a devastating tsunami and was not able to ship new cars to the US market to meet the demand of US consumers. So of course the US automakers were able to take advantage of that situation and sell more cars. Chrysler has paid off it's debt and now can sell cars without the stigma of owing money, but there is still a huge 2 billion dollar hole of lost money that was the "old chrysler" which is still being liquidated. I don't think we'll ever see any of that money. $14 billion is still owed to washington by GM and that doesn't even include the financing arm of GM, called GMAC. GMAC (now known as Ally Financial) accounts for at least another $12 billion of blown taxpayer money.

Ahh the lost money of financial bailouts....you hear a lot of this in the UK concerning the money that we poured into the banks. Personally I'd love to have let failing companies fail, but then the President cannot play chicken with the economy and simply "wait and see" to see if a private bankruptcy could A, be organised or B, would succeed. Do you want a President who does nothing?

(Original post by Made in the USA)
No there were all kinds of requirements on what kinds of cars they could or couldn't build, which is another big problem. The US market should decide what kind of car they want to buy, not washington bureaucrats. What if the market rejects the econoboxes the government is forcing the US auto industry to sell? Then what? Another bailout?

I know it sounds silly that the government would tell them which cars to produce (I too believe in the free market). However the US market had clearly decided which cars it wanted to buy - Japanese imports. In fact, as you said, they only bought American cars again due to the effects of the Japanese Tsunami. Clearly, structural changes were needed to the car companies. And I don't think that the Government should just sit on the sidelines here.

If the companies go bankrupt and employees lose their jobs then the government will end up covering their unemployment benefits and other social security net factors.

(Original post by Made in the USA)
I really doubt that British Airways in the UK was paying the obscenely extravagant salaries and benefits UAW workers were getting. There are limits to how generous a company can be before it goes under. For example, in 2005, the number of people GM was paying benefits for was three times greater than their active workforce!

I don't have the numbers to mind, but I can assure you that the rhetoric is strikingly similar.

[M4LLY]

Obama

[ScheduleII]

Come on Mitt!
Capital punishment > abortion, Paul's extreme non-interventionism won't work and BO is waging war on the Catholic Church and on unborn children.
I was initially a Santorum fan, but Romney is better than Obama by any account.

[Maker]

(Original post by Made in the USA)
Again, I feel Romney's idea of a managed private bankruptcy would have been better. They would have been able to renegotiate the outrageous union contracts and come out a lot more profitable and a lot more competitive than they are now. Yes, they are doing better now, but I believe they would be doing even better if Obama had just stepped back and taken a hands-off approach.

Anyway, looking at the sales of the companies is a very poor way of assessing the success of the bailouts. Japan was hit with a devastating tsunami and was not able to ship new cars to the US market to meet the demand of US consumers. So of course the US automakers were able to take advantage of that situation and sell more cars. Chrysler has paid off it's debt and now can sell cars without the stigma of owing money, but there is still a huge 2 billion dollar hole of lost money that was the "old chrysler" which is still being liquidated. I don't think we'll ever see any of that money. $14 billion is still owed to washington by GM and that doesn't even include the financing arm of GM, called GMAC. GMAC (now known as Ally Financial) accounts for at least another $12 billion of blown taxpayer money.

I'm really finding it hard to imagine how Obama can tout this as some kind of success.



No there were all kinds of requirements on what kinds of cars they could or couldn't build, which is another big problem. The US market should decide what kind of car they want to buy, not washington bureaucrats. What if the market rejects the econoboxes the government is forcing the US auto industry to sell? Then what? Another bailout?



No one really knows if production wouldn't have ceased or no. I don't know why everyone thinks the only choices are bailouts or going out of business. They would have gone into a managed bankruptcy and come out a heck of a lot stronger than they are now. American Airlines is currently in the bankruptcy process and it hasn't ceased operations.



I really doubt that British Airways in the UK was paying the obscenely extravagant salaries and benefits UAW workers were getting. There are limits to how generous a company can be before it goes under. For example, in 2005, the number of people GM was paying benefits for was three times greater than their active workforce!

I think one of the reasons why GM got into trouble was its didn't make the cars people wanted to buy so it makes sense for someone other than GM to tell them want to make so they can sell them for a profit.

[CandyFlipper]

I too wish that Ron Paul was the Republican nominee. If I were American, I'd now be voting Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate.

Who cares who wins between Obama and Romney? They're both in the pockets of major investment banks such as Goldman Sachs and they're also both puppets of the military industrial complex.

As for who I think will win, rather than who I want to - I think it'll be close, but Obama will do it. I kind of hope he does so that the public are ready to vote Republican again by 2016, by which point there may be a more libertarian leader of the party.

(Original post by Carter78)
Here here. I always imagined Ron Paul to like the honest, liberal-leaning Senator Viddick from the West Wing, until I learned about his views on Abortion and Capital Punishment.

Where is the real-life Vinnick anyway? McCain looked to be him for a while until he shot himself in the foot and agreed to Palin as his running matess...

Ron Paul is opposed to capital punishment, so I don't see how his position there is offensive to liberals.

[CandyFlipper]

(Original post by TimHuak)
lol at you jokers. It doesnt matter which one gets in because it will just be another 4 years of the same thing.

To any Obama supporters have you seen his "julia" campaign? Do you like the fact he signed the NDAA? All I ever from Obama supporters is "oh, well that was inherited from bush".

Gary Johnson 2012

Hopefully Ron Paul will endorse him after the republican convention or sooner.

I agree with all of your post except for the last line. Everything Ron Paul has done between 2008 and now has helped shift the Republican Party in a more libertarian direction. If he endorses the Libertarian Party candidate he would burn his bridges with the Republican Party and it would make the Republican establishment much less likely to ever let Rand Paul have some power. Rand has just endorsed Romney by the way, which just goes to prove my point.

[SnoochToTheBooch]

****ing mindblowing that it's 2012 and a "mormon" is even being given a chance at becoming boss of the world.