Romney Takes Credit for the Auto Bailout

[finnbow]

The same guy who wrote an Op-Ed piece in the NYTimes entitled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" was quoted yesterday as saying "I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy. And finally, when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet. So I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry's come back."

I suspect he'll now take credit for tomorrow's sunrise.:rolleyes:

[mezz]

The same guy who wrote an Op-Ed piece in the NYTimes entitled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" was quoted yesterday as saying "I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy. And finally, when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet. So I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry's come back."

I suspect he'll now take credit for tomorrow's sunrise.:rolleyes:

You really should read his op ed. In it he pushes for a managed bankruptcy: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

[finnbow]

You really should read his op ed. In it he pushes for a managed bankruptcy: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

Indeed he did. What's funny about it is that Obama took his own course with his own advisers (none of whom were Romney) and was very successful. Romney subsequently criticized him on numerous occasions about his management of the restructuring of the auto industry, but now is trying to lay claim for the credit now that it has been shown to be successful (and that success is being highlighted in campaign ads).

It's remarkably similar to his response after videotape shows up of him saying that he wouldn't go after Bin Laden during a 2007 debate. Now, he's saying he would have done exactly what Obama did.

Let's see. He would have done the auto industry restructuring just like Obama. He would have attacked Bin Laden just like Obama, and his MA healthcare plan formed the blueprint for Obamacare. Just how is it that he's claiming that he's so much more capable than Obama and that Obama's administration has been a failure? Color me confused and amused.:rolleyes:

[whell]

Its called politics Finn. Do you think he'd jump up and down and cheer for a future political opponent?

What I think is hilarious is that Obama flogs private equity firms and banks for political points, but had to turn to Steve Rattner, a product of those firms that he and the OWS crowd love to demonize, to manage the auto industry bankruptcy process. Then Obama wants to take full credit for it. Color me amused over that bit of hypocrisy.

[finnbow]

Its called politics Finn. Do you think he'd jump up and down and cheer for a future political opponent?

What I think is hilarious is that Obama flogs private equity firms and banks for political points, but had to turn to Steve Rattner, a product of those firms that he and the OWS crowd love to demonize, to manage the auto industry bankruptcy process. Then Obama wants to take full credit for it. Color me amused over that bit of hypocrisy.

I call this post "changing the subject.";)

[BlueStreak]

What an absolute joke. Does anyone here think the American auto industry would be where it is today if the right had their way three years ago?

Please.

[whell]

I call this post "changing the subject.";)

I'll call it: "meeting alleged hypocrisy (Romney) with actual hypocrisy (Obama)."

[finnbow]

What I think is hilarious is that Obama flogs private equity firms and banks for political points, but had to turn to Steve Rattner, a product of those firms that he and the OWS crowd love to demonize, to manage the auto industry bankruptcy process. Then Obama wants to take full credit for it. Color me amused over that bit of hypocrisy.

Isn't this thread about Romney taking credit for it?

[d-ray657]

I'll call it: "meeting alleged hypocrisy (Romney) with actual hypocrisy (Obama)."

How about hopeless partisanship? :eek: (In the interest of legitimate discussion, I described the conduct rather than engaging in name-calling - like "partisan hack." :rolleyes:)

Regards,

D-Ray

[bobabode]

How about hopeless partisanship? :eek: (In the interest of legitimate discussion, I described the conduct rather than engaging in name-calling - like "partisan hack." :rolleyes:)

Regards,

D-Ray

It's the new dance. Spin-pivot-flip-flop-do see do.:p

[whell]

Isn't this thread about Romney taking credit for it?

It's about politics and politicians. They want to take credit when things go right, and deflect when the poop hits the fan. Romney wants to position himself as being on the right side of the auto bail out while on his way to campaign in Michigan. Obama and company get pissed cuz they took the credit for it already. Whoopee.

They both wanna take credit for it? Great. Take it. It was a bonehead move that so far has taxpayers on the hook for over $20 billion and counting.

[d-ray657]

It's about politics and politicians. They want to take credit when things go right, and deflect when the poop hits the fan. Romney wants to position himself as being on the right side of the auto bail out while on his way to campaign in Michigan. Obama and company get pissed cuz they took the credit for it already. Whoopee.

They both wanna take credit for it? Great. Take it. It was a bonehead move that so far has taxpayers on the hook for over $20 billion and counting.

I assume that in that inflated figure, you're not accounting for the additional tax revenue that is derived from thousands and thousands of workers in decent paying jobs, and thousands and thousands fewer needing unemployment benefits and other social services.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

I assume that in that inflated figure, you're not accounting for the additional tax revenue that is derived from thousands and thousands of workers in decent paying jobs, and thousands and thousands fewer needing unemployment benefits and other social services.

Regards,

D-Ray

It ain't inflated. That's just the estimate for GM. A host of other companies got bailed out too, but that's another story.

The talk track on the auto bailouts has always been that if the government hadn't stepped in, all those workers would be unemployed. That's sophistry.

The demand for cars would not have gone away. GM's manufacturing capacity and cuurent sales would likely have allowed it to sustain operations - albeit at a reduced level - while it shed costs and debt in a traditional bankruptcy. Even with government intervention, the workforce was still reduced. That would likely have happened in a traditional bankruptcy. Pension and labor costs might have been reduced more effectively in a traditional bankruptcy as well. It also might have given GM greater flexibility to shift labor and productive capacity to plants that were producing product that was in higher demand.


I guess we'll never know, though...

[finnbow]

It's about politics and politicians. They want to take credit when things go right, and deflect when the poop hits the fan. Romney wants to position himself as being on the right side of the auto bail out while on his way to campaign in Michigan. Obama and company get pissed cuz they took the credit for it already. Whoopee.

However, Obama can justly claim some credit. He was, after all, President at the time and directly involved with the decision-making that led to where we are today (i.e., GM and Chrysler alive).

Romney had no role whatsoever in it. He was neither on Obama's team, nor on the Congressional Republican team opposing it. He was irrelevant on this issue. Period.

[bobabode]

It ain't inflated. That's just the estimate for GM. A host of other companies got bailed out too, but that's another story.

The talk track on the auto bailouts has always been that if the government hadn't stepped in, all those workers would be unemployed. That's sophistry.

The demand for cars would not have gone away. GM's manufacturing capacity and cuurent sales would likely have allowed it to sustain operations - albeit at a reduced level - while it shed costs and debt in a traditional bankruptcy. Even with government intervention, the workforce was still reduced. That would likely have happened in a traditional bankruptcy. Pension and labor costs might have been reduced more effectively in a traditional bankruptcy as well. It also might have given GM greater flexibility to shift labor and productive capacity to plants that were producing product that was in higher demand.

I guess we'll never know, though...

Just great your idea on welching on pensions and wages not to mention unfettering management to further erode the already weakened UAW. I guess that was an intended benefit of the bailout. Hadn't heard about that aspect. That is a win win my book. Sounds like a truly good course of action to take when a large employer decides to call it quits. They should never be allowed to play possum and shed their responsibility to the citizenry.

What is astounding to me is this cannibalistic mindset that unions are bad for the country. The country is it's citizenry not these corporations whose only purpose is profit. Without protection afforded by collective bargaining you end up with the citizenry reduced to wage slaves. It's such a simple concept.

No unions = no 40hr workweek, no unions = no five day workweek, no unions =no paid holidays, no unions = no child labor laws, no unions = no workplace safety standards, no unions =no paid sick leave, no unions= no liveable wages, no unions = no health insurance, no unions = no overtime.

So Whell, how many of these benefits do you enjoy in your place of employment?

More to the point why do you continue to accept these benefits in the face of your outspoken distaste for unions.

Why in the world would you accept blood money hard won by union workers and organizers of yesteryear? I'm truly curious as to your rationale cause it really escapes me.

[wgrr]

I am so glad mittens wrote an oped in the NY Times that single handedly saved the auto industry.

The only problem with his plan was it relied on private sector money. You want to tell me who would have provided the capital for the structured bankruptcy. No one was loaning money, in the private sector, at the time.

[BlueStreak]

It's about politics and politicians. They want to take credit when things go right, and deflect when the poop hits the fan. Romney wants to position himself as being on the right side of the auto bail out while on his way to campaign in Michigan. Obama and company get pissed cuz they took the credit for it already. Whoopee.

They both wanna take credit for it? Great. Take it. It was a bonehead move that so far has taxpayers on the hook for over $20 billion and counting.

The difference is that the Obama team deserves some credit. Romney had nothing to do with it. He's full of shit, as usual. Stealing credit for other peoples work is, most likely, a skill he picked up in the corporate world. We've all seen that crap in our careers, many a time.

[BlueStreak]

Just great your idea on welching on pensions and wages not to mention unfettering management to further erode the already weakened UAW. I guess that was an intended benefit of the bailout. Hadn't heard about that aspect. That is a win win my book. Sounds like a truly good course of action to take when a large employer decides to call it quits. They should never be allowed to play possum and shed their responsibility to the citizenry.

What is astounding to me is this cannibalistic mindset that unions are bad for the country. The country is it's citizenry not these corporations whose only purpose is profit. Without protection afforded by collective bargaining you end up with the citizenry reduced to wage slaves. It's such a simple concept.

No unions = no 40hr workweek, no unions = no five day workweek, no unions =no paid holidays, no unions = no child labor laws, no unions = no workplace safety standards, no unions =no paid sick leave, no unions= no liveable wages, no unions = no health insurance, no unions = no overtime.

So Whell, how many of these benefits do you enjoy in your place of employment?

More to the point why do you continue to accept these benefits in the face of your outspoken distaste for unions.

Why in the world would you accept blood money hard won by union workers and organizers of yesteryear? I'm truly curious as to your rationale cause it really escapes me.

Nice post, Bob.

[icenine]

Right on Bob,
Everyone is forgetting that Romney wanted private investment firms to bail out the industry at a time when there was no private credit to be had (Romney knew this too...was Bain Capital asked to participate?). Obama used the Federal Government because it worked and he had no other choice. Sort of like the difference between FDR (Obama) and Hoover (Romney)

google alf landon whell...and thomas dewy and wendell wilkie while your at it

[piece-itpete]

Obama = FDR?

Pete

[icenine]

People hated "that man in the White House" just like they hate Obama today....whether he is just a one term President or not, he is going down in history as one the most important Presidents of this century....just check back in 50 years or so...lol:D
Hoover failed because he was afraid to fully utilize the power of govenrnment when his nation needed it the most...Romney reminds me of someone afraid to do what it takes to get the job done. There is a really great book about Hoover called Hoover Forgotten Progressive

http://www.amazon.com/Herbert-Hoover-Joan-Hoff-Wilson/dp/0881337056

ok today's history class is adjourned

Of course if one's idea of a great nation is Calvin Cooldige's America ...you know the one without Wall Street regulation and no safety net for anyone...feel free to vote for Ryan....oops I meant Romney.

[piece-itpete]

I kinda got it :) From my reading the biggest difference between Hoover and FDR was, Hoover would not give money directly from the feds to the people, but to the respective States. Which fits when one considers what the founders were trying to set up. Who could foresee the radical changes society would make due to the industrial revolution?

Interestingly before he was hung with the Depression he was considered a great humanitarian and very good at bringing people together.

Heck even blaming the tacturn Coolidge is something of a stretch, as things really were different before the Depression....

Pete

[finnbow]

Right on Bob,
Everyone is forgetting that Romney wanted private investment firms to bail out the industry at a time when there was no private credit to be had (Romney knew this too...was Bain Capital asked to participate?). Obama used the Federal Government because it worked and he had no other choice. Sort of like the difference between FDR (Obama) and Hoover (Romney)

google alf landon whell...and thomas dewy and wendell wilkie while your at it

Indeed they were from what I read and they declined.

[icenine]

yeah....Coolidge did not really "know better" since he was living in a pre-Depression United States that had not embraced Keynesian economics (the idea of deficit spending to help stimulate an economy out of an economic slump or depression)...however I would not want to live in Coolidge's America as it were. I think the big thing about Hoover is that he failed to go all the way with massive intervention the way FDR did. Progressive yes but not enough for what was needed at the time, which was to fix a deflated economy with about 33 percent unemployment.
Even the New Deal did not end the Depression...World War II did with the massive re-industrialization of the economy brought about by the war effort did. FDR however was able to bring back some confidence in the economy and went way further than Hoover.

[piece-itpete]

And therein lies our biggest differences. The New Deal didn't work, but it did create the biggest expansion of government power since probably the Civil War, and once taken good luck getting it back.

We did need serious revisions in the Constitution (and probably still do) but allowing fiat power instead of the amendment process to revise it shows our unfitness for self rule.

Because man, I had a X 1/9, and it was way underpowered :D

Pete

[icenine]

When has big government hurt you? I can see if you were drafted and send to Vietnam how you might be angry...being a military man I can understand that. How has the Tennesee Valley Authority, Interstate Highway System, Medicare (and the medical establishment it underwrites) and Social Security hurt you? NASA hurt you? GI Bill bad?
School Loans bad? You know somebody paid taxes for you go to public (GOVERNMENT) school so someday you would be able to reply to internet posts lol. What do you want?
Some small government paradise where you get to keep all of your paycheck?

what is it you want? Pete I am just dying to hear what small government means....

[BlueStreak]

What an absolute joke. Does anyone here think the American auto industry would be where it is today if the right had their way three years ago?

Please.

I am so glad mittens wrote an oped in the NY Times that single handedly saved the auto industry.

The only problem with his plan was it relied on private sector money. You want to tell me who would have provided the capital for the structured bankruptcy. No one was loaning money, in the private sector, at the time.

The difference is that the Obama team deserves some credit. Romney had nothing to do with it. He's full of shit, as usual. Stealing credit for other peoples work is, most likely, a skill he picked up in the corporate world. We've all seen that crap in our careers, many a time.

Hello!

Dave

[finnbow]

When has big government hurt you? I can see if you were drafted and send to Vietnam how you might be angry...being a military man I can understand that. How has the Tennesee Valley Authority, Interstate Highway System, Medicare (and the medical establishment it underwrites) and Social Security hurt you? NASA hurt you? GI Bill bad?
School Loans bad? You know somebody paid taxes for you go to public (GOVERNMENT) school so someday you would be able to reply to internet posts lol. What do you want?
Some small government paradise where you get to keep all of your paycheck?

what is it you want? Pete I am just dying to here what small government means....

It seems to me that conservatives (even ultra-right teabagger types) want all the services of a big government (Social Security, Medicare, National Defense, good roads...) They just don't want to pay for it.

[BlueStreak]

Obama = FDR?

Pete

I wish. We wouldn't have to worry about the CEO of Waffle, Lie and Liquidate Inc. ending up in the Whitehouse.

[BlueStreak]

It seems to me that conservatives (even ultra-right teabagger types) want all the services of a big government (Social Security, Medicare, National Defense, good roads...) They just don't want to pay for it.

Well, it's just like everything else, Pat. Rightwingers always fancy themselves to have "earned" whatever they've embezzled and the rest of the world is just a bunch of parasites, living on their dime.:rolleyes: But, you're an observant guy. I'm sure you've noticed that.

[bobabode]

Because man, I had a X 1/9, and it was way underpowered :D

Pete

But the gas mileage was killer, wasn't it?;) I'm still waiting for Fiat pick up truck though....:rolleyes:

[bobabode]

It seems to me that conservatives (even ultra-right teabagger types) want all the services of a big government (Social Security, Medicare, National Defense, good roads...) They just don't want to pay for it.

I have to resist the urge to run em off the freeway here in Socal. How dare they use any interstate and lobby to not pay for it. Local control my ass...;)

[Charles]

When has big government hurt you? I can see if you were drafted and send to Vietnam how you might be angry...being a military man I can understand that. How has the Tennesee Valley Authority, Interstate Highway System, Medicare (and the medical establishment it underwrites) and Social Security hurt you? NASA hurt you? GI Bill bad?
School Loans bad? You know somebody paid taxes for you go to public (GOVERNMENT) school so someday you would be able to reply to internet posts lol. What do you want?
Some small government paradise where you get to keep all of your paycheck?

what is it you want? Pete I am just dying to here what small government means....

Can't speak for Pete, but I have certain worries about a government which has grown so large that it is reduced to funding it's operations with deficit spending to such an extent that it is quite possible that it will destroy the currency.

A government so big that it has created myriad regulations which have caused the private sector becomes so uncompetitive that they are reduced to moving their operations offshore.

A government which which has reached the point of largess that is can use it's devalued currency to enforce it's will on everyone, by first creating an atmosphere where the states can no longer function without federal funding, and then denying that funding unless they dance to the tune of their federal masters.

A government which has reached the size that it no longer serves the people, but rather the people serve it.

I think we could do with a little less government, and for sure a smarter and less corrupt government.

Chas

[whell]

Just great your idea on welching on pensions and wages not to mention unfettering management to further erode the already weakened UAW. I guess that was an intended benefit of the bailout. Hadn't heard about that aspect. That is a win win my book. Sounds like a truly good course of action to take when a large employer decides to call it quits. They should never be allowed to play possum and shed their responsibility to the citizenry.

What is astounding to me is this cannibalistic mindset that unions are bad for the country. The country is it's citizenry not these corporations whose only purpose is profit. Without protection afforded by collective bargaining you end up with the citizenry reduced to wage slaves. It's such a simple concept.

No unions = no 40hr workweek, no unions = no five day workweek, no unions =no paid holidays, no unions = no child labor laws, no unions = no workplace safety standards, no unions =no paid sick leave, no unions= no liveable wages, no unions = no health insurance, no unions = no overtime.

So Whell, how many of these benefits do you enjoy in your place of employment?

More to the point why do you continue to accept these benefits in the face of your outspoken distaste for unions.

Why in the world would you accept blood money hard won by union workers and organizers of yesteryear? I'm truly curious as to your rationale cause it really escapes me.

And what if the company implodes trying to sustain the unsustainable pension and employee benefit costs? Where would the employees be then?

And what makes you think that health care in the workplace was only made possible through collective bargaining? You're misinformed on that one. Also, Henry Ford instituted the shorter work week and more generous pay, prior to Ford being unionized.

[icenine]

Just imagine if Obama had let the Big Three go.. the Ford, GM and Chrysler trademarks would be held by companies that had no relationship to the original organizations just like the marques of Sansui,KLH and Akai are held today by businesses with no ties to the original products. Imagine ersatz cars being sold in China with the GM logo on them NOT made by GM but a Chinese car company. Imagine Obama running with that baggage. Oh he lost the big three would be the Tea Bagger mantra.

You know there is something wrong with anyone who wants the Big Three to go down...that is just not patriotic in any way if you ask me.

[bobabode]

And what if the company implodes trying to sustain the unsustainable pension and employee benefit costs? Where would the employees be then?

And what makes you think that health care in the workplace was only made possible through collective bargaining? You're misinformed on that one. Also, Henry Ford instituted the shorter work week and more generous pay, prior to Ford being unionized.

Last one first, Ford was trying to forestall the unionization by offering the shorter workweek and out compete his competitors by offering higher pay. He didn't want to keep losing his trained workforce.

Just stating that I'm misinformed about healthcare in the workplace doesn't make it so. What's the rationale?

The strange practice of feathering their own bed that the corporations tend towards and throwing up their hands when the profitablility they envisioned didn't materialize isn't a valid justification to welch on their obligations. Time after time the unions renegotiate wages down when times are tough and it's never enough leads me to believe that the corporate model that's being followed is not a partnership with labor.

Again, there is no corporation with out labor. Labor + capital = corporation. Since capital has shown that it's only interest is growing itself, labor must protect itself through collective bargaining. A contract is a contract and obligations can't be tossed through bankruptcy court unless the law is corrupted.

Back in the Gilded Age when a worker was used up he was shown the door with no consideration nor compensation. That was the impetus for labor organizing itself and forcing the powers that be to acknowledge the fact that this behavior towards a citizen could no longer stand as business as usual.

[BlueStreak]

And what if the company implodes trying to sustain the unsustainable pension and employee benefit costs? Where would the employees be then?

And what makes you think that health care in the workplace was only made possible through collective bargaining? You're misinformed on that one. Also, Henry Ford instituted the shorter work week and more generous pay, prior to Ford being unionized.

For a while. Until he (And others in the industry) realized it didn't bring the increases in productivity he expected, nor did it do much to curb interest in unionization. The plan wasn't working. Then what happened, Mike?

"....prior to Ford being unionized.", should be your first clue.
Your second clue should be the undeniable fact that employers rarely do anything substantial (willingly) unless they see some advantage to it, as we have all witnessed in real life experiences. Beyond that it is either job market conditions, contractual agreements or government mandate that influences wages, benefits and working conditions before any "goodness of the heart" kicks in.

I believe some time ago, I posted an entire thread on this subject, with references and all. (See; History forum, "Welfare Capitalism" thread.)

Spare us this "saintly benevolence" of employers nonsense. We're all adults here, nobody believes that fairytale. (Well, maybe some on YOUR side do.)

[BlueStreak]

Last one first, Ford was trying to forestall the unionization by offering the shorter workweek and out compete his competitors by offering higher pay. He didn't want to keep losing his trained workforce.

Just stating that I'm misinformed about healthcare in the workplace doesn't make it so. What's the rationale?

The strange practice of feathering their own bed that the corporations tend towards and throwing up their hands when the profitablility they envisioned didn't materialize isn't a valid justification to welch on their obligations. Time after time the unions renegotiate wages down when times are tough and it's never enough leads me to believe that the corporate model that's being followed is not a partnership with labor.

Again, there is no corporation with out labor. Labor + capital = corporation. Since capital has shown that it's only interest is growing itself, labor must protect itself through collective bargaining. A contract is a contract and obligations can't be tossed through bankruptcy court unless the law is corrupted.

Back in the Gilded Age when a worker was used up he was shown the door with no consideration nor compensation. That was the impetus for labor organizing itself and forcing the powers that be to acknowledge the fact that this behavior towards a citizen could no longer stand as business as usual.

100% correct, and I thank you for yet another excellent post.

[piece-itpete]

When has big government hurt you? I can see if you were drafted and send to Vietnam how you might be angry...being a military man I can understand that. How has the Tennesee Valley Authority, Interstate Highway System, Medicare (and the medical establishment it underwrites) and Social Security hurt you? NASA hurt you? GI Bill bad?
School Loans bad? You know somebody paid taxes for you go to public (GOVERNMENT) school so someday you would be able to reply to internet posts lol. What do you want?
Some small government paradise where you get to keep all of your paycheck?

what is it you want? Pete I am just dying to hear what small government means....

Yeah, someone paid for me to go to school alright - my dad. Through local taxes.

SS is the biggest govenment sanctioned ripoff of all time and puts private ripoffs to shame. Ask me again why I don't trust the Feds with my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

As a matter of fact, ALL those things you mention are paid by me and people like me. It's OUR money, not 'the governments'.

And as Chas says, it's completely out of control.

But the gas mileage was killer, wasn't it?;) I'm still waiting for Fiat pick up truck though....:rolleyes:

LOL! Really, I liked the X1/9, it was the closest thing to a 'real' sports car I've ever owned. Once you got the jewel of an engine revved up it could be entertaining too, all 78 horses? worth ;) Man, that thing handled like it was glued to the ground. You could turn people's hair white. But the seat didn't go back quite far enough, heat poured out of the dash, and I felt like if I bumbed into someone in a parking lot I'd be killed. Still, fun :D

.....

You know there is something wrong with anyone who wants the Big Three to go down...that is just not patriotic in any way if you ask me.

Come now Ice, the correct thing to do is buy a Prius. Maybe a Volvo... Saab?

Pete

[whell]

Last one first, Ford was trying to forestall the unionization by offering the shorter workweek and out compete his competitors by offering higher pay. He didn't want to keep losing his trained workforce.

No, that's not correct AT ALL. Ford was a proponent of higher wages and shorter work weeks as a business case. His plants were suffering from heavy turnover because the work was tough and monotonous. He did it to increase productivity and reduce turnover, and it turned out to be a tremendously profitable move for Ford. It resulted in an influx of talent to the Ford labor pool: not just assembly line workers but designers, engineers, etc. It also dated back to 1915, quite a bit in advance of the labor strife that would visit that auto industry 10 - 15 years or so later.

Just stating that I'm misinformed about healthcare in the workplace doesn't make it so. What's the rationale?

The rest of your post, to me, reads like a laundry list of your own prejudices or pre-conceptions against "big business" and "greedy corporate executives. Nothing I can do to address that, unless I can encourage you so source your information from multiple sources that might provide you with differing perspectives.

For example, on health insurance:

During the first half of the 20th century in the US, most health care service transactions were still "fee for service" and/or "direct pay" - the patient actually paid the doctor directly. It wasn't until the 1920's that some hospitals began offering services on a pre-paid basis. These arrangements ultimately lead to the creation and proliferation of the Blue Cross / Blue shield organizations nation-wide. However, the first comprehensive health insurance products go back as far as the 1890's.

The BCBS model was to negotiate discounts with medical service providers in exchange for creating a member organization that delivered a volume of customers to the medical service providers, along with an increased assurance of payment for services.

The rise of employer - sponsored plans was not directly due to unions or collective bargaining. It can be said that once health insurance became part of the employment/compensation landscape it also became a legitimate collective bargaining item. However, the rise of employer - sponsored plans in the 1940's was a combination of circumstances:

- the biggest factor was the wage controls enacted in 1942. Inflation was cooking the wartime economy and the Roosevelt administration took away wages as a tool for employers to use to compete for scarce workers. Expansion of benefit plans was allowed, however, and that's just what many employers decided to do to compete for and attract workers.

- Blue Cross / Blue Shield and other commercial insurance providers had products that had matured since their introduction 15 years or so earlier and the insurers were looking to expand their market share and product lines.

Also, since Roosevelt calculated that he probably couldn't get both Social Security AND universal health insurance, and instead prioritized the passage of Social Security, Roosevelt's administration left open the door for the proliferation of private medical insurance.

So, there you have it. Roosevelt, the father of the modern entitlement system, created the circumstances whereby the proliferation of employer - sponsored health plans have risen in the USA. Employers continue to expand their health benefit offerings throughout the post - WWII years, not able to foresee what the impact that increased demand for medical services (while shielding the consumer from the cost of those services) would have on the long term rise in health care service costs.

There's certainly other factors that are quite significant to the systematic delivery of health services. Also, the proliferation of pharmaceuticals, demographic changes, and the increase in unhealthy lifestyles have taken a significant on the delivery and cost of medical services. Those issues are relatively recent, however, and are laid over an already - entrenched system of employer - sponsored and government - sponsored health plans which are now viewed as 'entitlements", while their costs are becoming unsustainable.

[BlueStreak]

Really, Mike? FDRs actions brought about employer provided healthcare?

I thought angelic, do-gooder corporate executives went about on prancing unicorns throwing fat paychecks and expensive bennies at everyone out of love for their underlings and the goodness of their hearts?

Boy, am I disillusioned.:(

[whell]

For a while. Until he (And others in the industry) realized it didn't bring the increases in productivity he expected, nor did it do much to curb interest in unionization. The plan wasn't working. Then what happened, Mike?

"....prior to Ford being unionized.", should be your first clue.

Spare us this "saintly benevolence" of employers nonsense. We're all adults here, nobody believes that fairytale. (Well, maybe some on YOUR side do.)

No, its not a clue. You're suggesting that unions are immune from the same market forces that drive business to expand their balance sheets and their market share. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Spare me the bullshit that you love to spread with an excessively large brush about corporate greed. The history of unions greed and corruption should provide you with plenty of evidence that unions are not the white knights in the history or corporate - labor relations.

[whell]

Boy, am I disillusioned.:(

No doubt about it. :p

[djv8ga]

It's the new dance. Spin-pivot-flip-flop-do see do.:p
Gay marriage? :p

[whell]

Really, Mike? FDRs actions brought about employer provided healthcare?



By the way, I knew that sentence would bug you! :p

[merrylander]

And what if the company implodes trying to sustain the unsustainable pension and employee benefit costs? Where would the employees be then?



That does not need to be the case and is only a threat here because we allow competitive foriegn industries to operate the way they do here. Scab wages, poor benefits, etc.

Some countries realize the benefits of unions and have fair labour laws. Our labour laws are a farce, such ones as we have. But then with government of the corporations, for the corporations and by the corporations what else can we expect.

[BlueStreak]

No, its not a clue. You're suggesting that unions are immune from the same market forces that drive business to expand their balance sheets and their market share. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Spare me the bullshit that you love to spread with an excessively large brush about corporate greed. The history of unions greed and corruption should provide you with plenty of evidence that unions are not the white knights in the history or corporate - labor relations.

We all have our bullshit, my friend. And yours is every bit as deep and stinky as mine. I don't see "white knights" anywhere, that's your game. I recognize that people in general tend to seek to advance their own goals and ambitions. And, that those who fail to protect their interests will soon get taken advantage of and end up with the short end of the stick.

As I see it, our employers would rather we think of them as our caring benefactors. Because it puts them in the position to take what they want and do as they please whilst convincing us it's for our own good. But, is it?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Corporations,
Unions,
Government.

None should have the power to run amok. Ideally, they should all be kept in check, but each doing their part.

[whell]

That does not need to be the case and is only a threat here because we allow competitive foriegn industries to operate the way they do here. Scab wages, poor benefits, etc.


...and the workers are dragged their and work as slaves at gun-point... :rolleyes:

[whell]

We all have our bullshit, my friend. And yours is every bit as deep and stinky as mine. I don't see "white knights" anywhere, that's your game. I recognize that people in general tend to seek to advance their own goals and ambitions. And, that those who fail to protect their interests will soon get taken advantage of and end up with the short end of the stick.

As I see it, our employers would rather we think of them as our caring benefactors. Because it puts them in the position to take what they want and do as they please whilst convincing us it's for our own good. But, is it?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Corporations,
Unions,
Government.

None should have the power to run amok. Ideally, they should all be kept in check, but each doing their part.

Funny though how I offered a history and fact based explanation about the proliferation of employer - based health insurance that didn't rely on either the "bullshit" of "greedy corp execs" or "white - knight" unions, and you rejected it.

[BlueStreak]

...and the workers are dragged their and work as slaves at gun-point... :rolleyes:

In some instances, this is not far from the mark and you know it.

Years ago, I worked for a rug importer. My manager made frequent trips abroad to factories in Europe (Belgium and Germany), China, Turkey and India. He enjoyed going to Europe and, somewhat less so, Turkey. But, he told me the trips to India and China, "....make me sick. It's disgusting to see the way they treat their own people." China being the worst as the factory, at the time, was run by the Chinese Army.

"...slaves at gunpoint..."?

There you have it.

[BlueStreak]

Funny though how I offered a history and fact based explanation about the proliferation of employer - based health insurance that didn't rely on either the "bullshit" of "greedy corp execs" or "white - knight" unions, and you rejected it.

No, I didn't "reject it". I shed light on and concurred with your statement that it began out of actions taken by the Roosevelt administration.

[BlueStreak]

No doubt about it. :p

By the way, I knew that sentence would bug you! :p

Sarcasm. Bug me? Nope. You made a statement of fact.

[whell]

In some instances, this is not far from the mark and you know it.

Years ago, I worked for a rug importer. My manager made frequent trips abroad to factories in Europe (Belgium and Germany), China, Turkey and India. He enjoyed going to Europe and, somewhat less so, Turkey. But, he told me the trips to India and China, "....make me sick. It's disgusting to see the way they treat their own people." China being the worst as the factory, at the time, was run by the Chinese Army.

"...slaves at gunpoint..."?

There you have it.

Dave - you need to re-read Merrylander's post. Specifically:

"That does not need to be the case and is only a threat here because we allow competitive foriegn industries to operate the way they do here." (emphasis added)

[merrylander]

...and the workers are dragged their and work as slaves at gun-point... :rolleyes:

Not dragged in, it is just marginally better than picking cotton. But that is the joy of states rights. If Tenessee wants to give Toyota big tax breaks that is their "right". Just so they build their rice burners here. How such tax breaks are any different than bailouts I am damned if I see a difference.:rolleyes:

[merrylander]

Dave - you need to re-read Merrylander's post. Specifically:

"That does not need to be the case and is only a threat here because we allow competitive foriegn industries to operate the way they do here." (emphasis added)

I can guarantee you that they do not operate that way back home. Florence spent a number of years in Japan teaching rising corporate men English. Let's just say that if I was to come home with a rice burner she would set fire to it in the driveway.

The then Premier's grandson was one of those corporate men. He told here one day "We may have lost the shooting war but we will bury you in theeconomic war."

[icenine]

Yeah, someone paid for me to go to school alright - my dad. Through local taxes. It's OUR money, not 'the governments'.

That is my point your Dad God Bless Him paid for your education through taxes enforced by state and local governments.....he also paid for other kids who did not have dads or moms at all. Thank goodness
Pete I do not believe you have ever been hurt by big government ...speak in specifics. Paying taxes does not qualify.
I mean your going to get your Medicare and SS someday just like everyone else....unless Paul Ryan ( and the Tea Baggers) get their way. Then you can rely on your private ripoffs perhaps...and you will wish you had not voted for Ryan and Romney (if that is your intention).

Charles deficit spending is here to stay read some American and 20th Century history....it is not going anywhere. If we did not run deficits and if banks did not create money by loaning way beyond what they hold in reserves none of us would be able to own our own homes. It has to be properly regulated though.

It is sad that there is such anger about government in general....I can tell some people have never been out of the US and fail to appreciate what we have here in this nation. We have problems and big government debt that needs fixing. But destroying government is not the answer.

[BlueStreak]

Dave - you need to re-read Merrylander's post. Specifically:

"That does not need to be the case and is only a threat here because we allow competitive foriegn industries to operate the way they do here." (emphasis added)

Not dragged in, it is just marginally better than picking cotton. But that is the joy of states rights. If Tenessee wants to give Toyota big tax breaks that is their "right". Just so they build their rice burners here. How such tax breaks are any different than bailouts I am damned if I see a difference.:rolleyes:

I can guarantee you that they do not operate that way back home. Florence spent a number of years in Japan teaching rising corporate men English. Let's just say that if I was to come home with a rice burner she would set fire to it in the driveway.

The then Premier's grandson was one of those corporate men. He told here one day "We may have lost the shooting war but we will bury you in theeconomic war."

Right. We let them get away with far too much when they come here. We coddle foreign business with fat tax breaks and protection from unions, etc., but we howl when anyone even suggests financial assistance (Bailouts, if that's what you want to call it.) to our own domestic industries.

Then we wonder why they are taking over?

Do I have that right, Rob?

Dave

[BlueStreak]

That is my point your Dad God Bless Him paid for your education through taxes enforced by state and local governments.....he also paid for other kids who did not have dads or moms at all. Thank goodness
Pete I do not believe you have ever been hurt by big government ...speak in specifics. Paying taxes does not qualify.
I mean your going to get your Medicare and SS someday just like everyone else....unless Paul Ryan ( and the Tea Baggers) get their way. Then you can rely on your private ripoffs perhaps...and you will wish you had not voted for Ryan and Romney (if that is your intention).

Charles deficit spending is here to stay read some American and 20th Century history....it is not going anywhere. If we did not run deficits and if banks did not create money by loaning way beyond what they hold in reserves none of us would be able to own our own homes. It has to be properly regulated though.

It is sad that there is such anger about government in general....I can tell some people have never been out of the US and fail to appreciate what we have here in this nation. We have problems and big government debt that needs fixing. But destroying government is not the answer.

Good post.

[whell]

Right. We let them get away with far too much when they come here. We coddle foreign business with fat tax breaks and protection from unions, etc., but we howl when anyone even suggests financial assistance (Bailouts, if that's what you want to call it.) to our own domestic industries.

Then we wonder why they are taking over?

Do I have that right, Rob?

Dave

I thought you guys were screaming that domestic businesses got too many tax breaks. Big oil gets subsidized and you don't like that. Build an auto plant and the manufacturer gets tax assistance from the city and state and that's bad. Domestic businesses get skewered in this forum for not paying their fair share in taxes due to tax loop holes.

Can you guys please get your stories straight? :p

[whell]

Charles deficit spending is here to stay read some American and 20th Century history....it is not going anywhere. If we did not run deficits and if banks did not create money by loaning way beyond what they hold in reserves none of us would be able to own our own homes. It has to be properly regulated though.

It is sad that there is such anger about government in general....I can tell some people have never been out of the US and fail to appreciate what we have here in this nation. We have problems and big government debt that needs fixing. But destroying government is not the answer.

What in the world? Deficit spending is good now? Really?

OK, so all those posts that blasted Bush for screwing up the economy - can we please get those removed? Cuz if this post is right, then Obama would never have had a messed up economy to fix with all his deficit spending. If this post is right, then why bother with fiscal restraint at all? And thank you God for all those banks that you guys bashed in earlier posts for kicking their own underwriting rules to the curb and loaning way beyond their reserves and thus creating all those toxic assets.

Sheesh!

[BlueStreak]

What in the world? Deficit spending is good now? Really?

OK, so all those posts that blasted Bush for screwing up the economy - can we please get those removed? Cuz if this post is right, then Obama would never have had a messed up economy to fix with all his deficit spending. If this post is right, then why bother with fiscal restraint at all? And thank you God for all those banks that you guys bashed in earlier posts for kicking their own underwriting rules to the curb and loaning way beyond their reserves and thus creating all those toxic assets.

Sheesh!

So, you are finally admitting that Bush and the GOP majorities of 2001-2007 are what made the horrific mess that will take us the rest of our lives to recover from?

Geez, it's about time.

See, I figured following GOP advice in November of 2008 after what those asshats had done to us in the previous eight years would be kinda like sticking my head under a running lawnmower to see what cut my hand off.

[icenine]

What in the world? Deficit spending is good now? Really?

OK, so all those posts that blasted Bush for screwing up the economy - can we please get those removed? Cuz if this post is right, then Obama would never have had a messed up economy to fix with all his deficit spending. If this post is right, then why bother with fiscal restraint at all? And thank you God for all those banks that you guys bashed in earlier posts for kicking their own underwriting rules to the curb and loaning way beyond their reserves and thus creating all those toxic assets.

Sheesh!

You should read some history......America has been deficit spending with mostly good results since about 1933. It has been an effective fiscal tool in dealing with both the Great Depression and World War II ...we could not have defeated the Axis and brought out country out of the Depression without Keyesian economic policies.
Both Dems and Republican Presidents have used it. The thing is Bush did not have any revenues in place to offset the deficit he created with his tax cuts and wars. Most Presidents raised revenue in addition to deficit spending. Bush deficit spent on steroids and cut taxes on steroids at the same time. LBJ did sort of the same thing during Vietnam...that was one of the reasons for the inflation in the 70s if you were around then.
Obama inherited this mess....to save this county he had to do the only thing he could and stimulate it and save the banks with more of the same things Bush had done. It is sort of like Bush left the patient in the Emergency Room and then the patient coded and got delivered to Obama in the Operating Room.
Obama had to save the banks.... that is our economic system....he had no choice McCain would have done exactly the same thing.
Think in terms of macro economics Whell.

[BlueStreak]

You should read some history......America has been deficit spending with mostly good results since about 1933. It has been an effective fiscal tool in dealing with both the Great Depression and World War II ...we could not have defeated the Axis and brought out country out of the Depression without Keyesian economic policies.
Both Dems and Republican Presidents have used it. The thing is Bush did not have any revenues in place to offset the deficit he created with his tax cuts and wars. Most Presidents raised revenue in addition to deficit spending. Bush deficit spent on steroids and cut taxes on steroids at the same time. LBJ did sort of the same thing during Vietnam...that was one of the reasons for the inflation in the 70s if you were around then.
Obama inherited this mess....to save this county he had to do the only thing he could and stimulate it and save the banks with more of the same things Bush had done. It is sort of like Bush left the patient in the Emergency Room and then the patient coded and got delivered to Obama in the Operating Room.
Obama had to save the banks.... that is our economic system....he had no choice McCain would have done exactly the same thing.
Think in terms of macro economics Whell.

Yep. And long before that really. Study up on Hamilton. The system was designed around debt from the very beginning. But, today the GOP relies on history from Conservapedia and the Texas School Board. And we all know how pristine and unbiased those folks are............:rolleyes:

[finnbow]

You should read some history......America has been deficit spending with mostly good results since about 1933. It has been an effective fiscal tool in dealing with both the Great Depression and World War II ...we could not have defeated the Axis and brought out country out of the Depression without Keyesian economic policies.
Both Dems and Republican Presidents have used it. The thing is Bush did not have any revenues in place to offset the deficit he created with his tax cuts and wars. Most Presidents raised revenue in addition to deficit spending. Bush deficit spent on steroids and cut taxes on steroids at the same time. LBJ did sort of the same thing during Vietnam...that was one of the reasons for the inflation in the 70s if you were around then.
Obama inherited this mess....to save this county he had to do the only thing he could and stimulate it and save the banks with more of the same things Bush had done. It is sort of like Bush left the patient in the Emergency Room and then the patient coded and got delivered to Obama in the Operating Room.
Obama had to save the banks.... that is our economic system....he had no choice McCain would have done exactly the same thing.
Think in terms of macro economics Whell.

Good and accurate post, Ice.

Hey Whell!!! Do you have a mortgage on your house or have you financed a car or a college education? If so, you engaged in deficit spending.

[icenine]

Thanks Finnbow .......the ability to buy a house on credit is the American Dream. I do not think any American wants that to do disappear....one has to remember this when people complain about bailouts....

[merrylander]

Right. We let them get away with far too much when they come here. We coddle foreign business with fat tax breaks and protection from unions, etc., but we howl when anyone even suggests financial assistance (Bailouts, if that's what you want to call it.) to our own domestic industries.

Then we wonder why they are taking over?

Do I have that right, Rob?

Dave

Right on!

[merrylander]

Thanks Finnbow .......the ability to buy a house on credit is the American Dream. I do not think any American wants that to do disappear....one has to remember this when people complain about bailouts....

Now if you take the middlemen out of the system and remove that moral hazard we will be all set. Are y'all aware that Canada has no title companies, no mortgage brokers, the bank issues a mortgage and stays with that borrower for the life of the mortgage? No Freddies or Fannies either.

BTW on a population basis home ownership is marginally higher than here and foreclosures are rare.

What will it take to get the system changed here?

[merrylander]

What in the world? Deficit spending is good now? Really?

OK, so all those posts that blasted Bush for screwing up the economy - can we please get those removed? Cuz if this post is right, then Obama would never have had a messed up economy to fix with all his deficit spending. If this post is right, then why bother with fiscal restraint at all? And thank you God for all those banks that you guys bashed in earlier posts for kicking their own underwriting rules to the curb and loaning way beyond their reserves and thus creating all those toxic assets.

Sheesh!

It was Derivatives and Credit Default Swaps that did the banks in. That and mortgage brokers padding borrowers incomes and banks loaning to them knowing full well that they could bundle those subprime mortgages and sell them that did us in. If ever a system was designed to encourage thievery it is the US mortgage system. That and the ability to create all sorts of financial instruments with no regulation, might just as well sign a blank check.

[piece-itpete]

That is my point your Dad God Bless Him paid for your education through taxes enforced by state and local governments.....he also paid for other kids who did not have dads or moms at all. Thank goodness
Pete I do not believe you have ever been hurt by big government ...speak in specifics. Paying taxes does not qualify.
I mean your going to get your Medicare and SS someday just like everyone else....unless Paul Ryan ( and the Tea Baggers) get their way. Then you can rely on your private ripoffs perhaps...and you will wish you had not voted for Ryan and Romney (if that is your intention).

Charles deficit spending is here to stay read some American and 20th Century history....it is not going anywhere. If we did not run deficits and if banks did not create money by loaning way beyond what they hold in reserves none of us would be able to own our own homes. It has to be properly regulated though.

It is sad that there is such anger about government in general....I can tell some people have never been out of the US and fail to appreciate what we have here in this nation. We have problems and big government debt that needs fixing. But destroying government is not the answer.

Yeah I'll get some sort of pittance of SS at 75 or whatever it'll be if I live that long... and I'll have paid for it twice. Nice thing about government power - they can steal the money, turn around, and steal it again. At the point of a gun.

Never been out of the US? You mean to India, Mexico, Somolia, Canada, what? Does California count? lol

....we could not have defeated the Axis and brought out country out of the Depression without Keyesian economic policies.
.......

Deficit spending, in wartime, yes. Keyesian policies, no.

.... Obama had to save the banks....
.

That would be Bush ;)

There's a forest for the trees thing going on here. Power centers calcify, and move. The more power centers can do to hold on to their calcifying grip the harder the crash, the more damage they do. The Founders understood this and attempted to create a fluid system. However their greatest fear was true - people are not vigilant, and power centers are insidious.

Pete

[noonereal]

That would be Bush ;)



Pete

True, Bush saved the wealthy bankers and Obama saved the working man.

I hope everyone remembers this at election time.

[icenine]

Never been out of the US? You mean to India, Mexico, Somolia, Canada, what? Does California count? lolDeficit spending, in wartime, yes. Keyesian policies, no.Pete

Keynes was the intellectual force that advocated deficit spending in economic downturns....
California counts about as much as Cleveland, and from what it looks like Cleveland seems to be just as wacky:D

[piece-itpete]

We need Keynesian help? :D

Pete

[icenine]

We need Keynesian help? :D

Pete

You are telling me the infrastructure in your area of Ohio does not need improvement...one drive around my old neighborhood was bouncier than the Blue Streak rollercoaster and not nearly as fun...the roads are so bad. When I was a kid they kept them up all the time.

Downtown Lorain is so sad looking

[piece-itpete]

No, it's much more important to get Machine supporters on the government payroll ;)

Or perhaps a good retirement at 50 for the priviledged few.

Lorain looks pretty bad for sure. My dad lives near 57 and Elyria, been there for years now, he says the residents will not raise taxes to pay for roads.

Cleveland, well, since they threw 1/2 the Machine in jail (but promptly replaced them with the other 1/2!) seems to have bounced back a little. Dead cat? :D Heck we've already been the comeback city, it didn't stick around very long though.

We've replaced the manufacturing with... drum roll... gambling! lol. That'll turn us back into the powerhouse we were :rolleyes: But at least it's cleaning up downtown a bit, putting some shine on those old glorious buildings.

Pete

[icenine]

Gambling will bring back some business and is a draw...but the jobs created are service and ususally low paying. My wife works at a casino in Riverside county as a cleaner....for less than $10 bucks an hour. At least is it is a job.

I used to go to the Elyria Midway Mall all the time Pete so I know the area where your Dad is. My dad worked at the Lorain Assembly plant for 43 years...I guess my liberal upbring has to do with the UAW being so good for me when I was a kid, although I didn't know it at the time. I was hospitalized for various surgeries and fractures via Blue Shield, curtesy of the UAW and Ford. The people in my little town had great middle class lives because of that factory just off of lake there on Route 611.

[BlueStreak]

Gambling will bring back some business and is a draw...but the jobs created are service and ususally low paying. My wife works at a casino in Riverside county as a cleaner....for less than $10 bucks an hour. At least is it is a job.

I used to go to the Elyria Midway Mall all the time Pete so I know the area where your Dad is. My dad worked at the Lorain Assembly plant for 43 years...I guess my liberal upbring has to do with the UAW being so good for me when I was a kid, although I didn't know it at the time. I was hospitalized for various surgeries and fractures via Blue Shield, curtesy of the UAW and Ford. The people in my little town had great middle class lives because of that factory just off of lake there on Route 611.

My Dad worked at Chrysler Twinsburg Metal Stamping (UAW) and Republic Steel (USW) before that. That generation stood up, protected their interests and had it WAY better than we do. And the nation was all the stronger for it. It's a damn shame how far this country has fallen. "Divided we Fall", indeed.

[icenine]

Yes Dave....and alot of those guys were people who voted for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan as well as Democrats.....was not a "us verses you" world back then....

[piece-itpete]

I was being tongue and cheek about gambling :) Agreed, I think it's a zero sum.

Midway is still open. I've got nothing against the UAW, I drive domestic, and have friends that belong (less now that the Twinsburg plant is closed). It seems like a dream.

My issue is, there's nothing if the company goes under. I see now that the car mfgers are making money thay are indeed upping pay and benifits again. Maybe I should've applied, so long ago.

Pete

[icenine]

Well those were not the easiest jobs back then either....you had to do 8-10 years on the line before you could get an easier position that was less "robotic". I am sure it is way more efficient now than then...after his time on the line my dad did stuff like pushing brooms....he ended up having some job where he rode a cart and "oiled" the assembly line. I am sure it was inefficient and bloated, but the car industry was good for the mid-west.
My older brother got on at Lorain Ford in the 70s but quit... he could not handle the line. He was more the truck driver type...that is what he ended up doing.
Even if you did not work at one of the plants those factories were the local economy, along with the steel factories.

[whell]

We've replaced the manufacturing with... drum roll... gambling! lol. That'll turn us back into the powerhouse we were :rolleyes: But at least it's cleaning up downtown a bit, putting some shine on those old glorious buildings.

Pete

Yes, you can see the financial boon that gambling has been to the city of Detroit. :rolleyes:

More like boon.....doggle!

[bobabode]

Yes, you can see the financial boon that gambling has been to the city of Detroit. :rolleyes:

More like boon.....doggle!

I'm curious about the casinos in Detroit. Are they Indian tribe run like the ones here in California?

[wgrr]

Indeed he did. What's funny about it is that Obama took his own course with his own advisers (none of whom were Romney) and was very successful. Romney subsequently criticized him on numerous occasions about his management of the restructuring of the auto industry, but now is trying to lay claim for the credit now that it has been shown to be successful (and that success is being highlighted in campaign ads).

It's remarkably similar to his response after videotape shows up of him saying that he wouldn't go after Bin Laden during a 2007 debate. Now, he's saying he would have done exactly what Obama did.

Let's see. He would have done the auto industry restructuring just like Obama. He would have attacked Bin Laden just like Obama, and his MA healthcare plan formed the blueprint for Obamacare. Just how is it that he's claiming that he's so much more capable than Obama and that Obama's administration has been a failure? Color me confused and amused.:rolleyes:

In the first debate between Mittens and Obama the first thing Obama should do is turn to Mitt and ask him, "Why are you running on my record?".

[whell]

I'm curious about the casinos in Detroit. Are they Indian tribe run like the ones here in California?

One has native American ownership, the other two are not.

[Zeke]

In the first debate between Mittens and Obama the first thing Obama should do is turn to Mitt and ask him, "Why are you running on my record?".

I truly believe a Romney/Obama debate will be a bloodletting.

If Obama can go toe-to-toe with Hillary (a brilliant political tactician) he'll eat Romney alive.

[bobabode]

I hope that it is sponsored by the League of Women Voters instead of the commercial enriched shit that passes for debates lately.

[bobabode]

One has native American ownership, the other two are not.

I'm not up on how Michigan works it but the tribal casinos have certainly taken up most if not all the slack in tribal funding that used to be the taxpayers expense (deservedly so IMO, how many broken treaties does it take to see that?) But that's for another thread.

As much as gambling tends to attract the unscrupulous, I don't have a problem with casinos per se. Making it above board and taxed is far better than the other choice but then I feel the same way about grass. Take the business above ground and you take the criminal element out of it for the most part.

Legislating morality always funds the criminals who don't have any scruples or morales for that matter.

Just saw a headline about a slew of decapitated bodies in Mexico if anyone needs to look any further on that subject.

[whell]

We also have plenty of casinos that are tribal owned/operated outside Detroit, mostly in more rural or tourist areas. The Detroit casinos are a very different deal that have their own history and trajectory.

The casino issue over the years went to the city voters multiple times, since operating casinos in the city would require a change to the city charter. I guess the city kept asking and asking via the ballot box until the voters finally said yes.

The promise of the casinos - and this was how it was sold to the voters - was the nearly immediate influx of tax revenue that would offset the loss of tax revenue departed businesses and residents, and help rejuvenate the city. It has done none of the above, and the city is now subject to state financial oversight, and may still go bankrupt in the near term.

[whell]

I truly believe a Romney/Obama debate will be a bloodletting.

If Obama can go toe-to-toe with Hillary (a brilliant political tactician) he'll eat Romney alive.

Hillary was not a great debater, and you over-estimate Obama's chances against Romney.

[piece-itpete]

Well those were not the easiest jobs back then either....you had to do 8-10 years on the line before you could get an easier position that was less "robotic". I am sure it is way more efficient now than then...after his time on the line my dad did stuff like pushing brooms....he ended up having some job where he rode a cart and "oiled" the assembly line. I am sure it was inefficient and bloated, but the car industry was good for the mid-west.
My older brother got on at Lorain Ford in the 70s but quit... he could not handle the line. He was more the truck driver type...that is what he ended up doing.
Even if you did not work at one of the plants those factories were the local economy, along with the steel factories.

My uncle worked for Ford in St Louis, some days he said he could work up the line all the way to where they came down from the next floor up, then either break and read the paper or help someone else, or, he'd get a tough task and end up busting ass right at the hole where they'd go down to the next.

Yes, you can see the financial boon that gambling has been to the city of Detroit. :rolleyes:

More like boon.....doggle!

LOL!

Pete

[Zeke]

Hillary was not a great debater, and you over-estimate Obama's chances against Romney.

I'm not estimating Obama at all, I've just seen Romney "debate."

Anyone want to bet $10K? :D

It's just that sort of thing that will get him nuked on a truly national stage.

I guess my point is that Obama, or anyone, doesn't even have to be good as I believe marginal will eradicate Romney's standing n about ten minutes.

[piece-itpete]

$10k? That's big big wampum! :)

Pete

[Zeke]

$10k? That's big big wampum! :)

Pete

Concur.

And it rolled off Romney's tongue like you or I would say "$20."

Bottom line? He's not one of us.

In a debate, that will come out.

[BlueStreak]

Concur.

And it rolled off Romney's tongue like you or I would say "$20."

Bottom line? He's not one of us.

In a debate, that will come out.

Yep, he is one the clueless detached, living in Rich Man Xanadu.