2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)

So who's going to give in first and vote for the other person? Personally I think most people know who they are going to vote for and all this back and forth is pretty much not going to change anyones mind. The people who claim to be undecided probably will go to the voting booth and vote for whoever happens to be on their mind that day. The undecides try to act like they are waiting to make the choice but how can you at this point not know who your going to vote for if you keep up with the politics in any way.

As opposed to letting the UAW be treated as any other creditor in a bankruptcy and not getting $ 23B is taxpayer bailout. BTW that $ 23B is the gov't estimate on the taxpayers' backs after all is said and done. An GM still has higher labor costs than it's competitors.

So you want to let the life savings of their employees' vanish and tell them to hit the unemployment line with their hand out asking Uncle Sam for change? Do you have cost benefit analysis on different scenarios? I'm betting it's cheaper to let people keep their retirement money and continue to be employed than paying investors first at the expense of gutting an industry and having people join the unemployment line. Even worse, cut of unemployment all together and have people go hungry.



Initial development of internet, yes. Expansion to citizens was done by private investments. You don't find "social ownership and cooperative management" by the Fed disturbing. I'm not up for a China-like internet, thank you.

What is really disturbing is that you want tax payers to bankroll the creation of the internet, turn it over to private companies, give these companies monopolies and free access to public land to lay down lines and finally allow them to charge them for both packet requests and responses.

...fck that!



ISP: You want to go visit google.com? Sorry, we have a deal with Microsoft and it's bing.com search engine? Maybe we can get something worked out where you pay us more to visit google.com?

Consumer: You are one of two ISPs allowed in my neighborhood? Am I paying to connect to the "internet" on your intranet?


...pragmatism is truly lost.

So who's going to give in first and vote for the other person?

I'm voting for neither as I've said all along. If those were the only two candidates on the ballot, I would skip the that particular vote. **** voting for the lesser of the two evils. That said, Romney is still worse than Obama by a long shot. Almost sad when you long for the days when McCain was actually running...lol

So you want to let the life savings of their employees' vanish and tell them to hit the unemployment line with their hand out asking Uncle Sam for change? Do you have cost benefit analysis on different scenarios? I'm betting it's cheaper to let people keep their retirement money and continue to be employed than paying investors first at the expense of gutting an industry and having people join the unemployment line. Even worse, cut of unemployment all together and have people go hungry. no one said their "life savings" would vanish, but the gold-plated, retire at 55 with benefits far above the standard for other auto-workers plan is BS. UAW and the contributions to the retirement fund should have been handled as any other creditor. As it was they received better treatment than SECURED creditors.

Auto Bailout or UAW Bailout? - By James Sherk & Todd Zywicki - The Corner - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/302888/auto-bailout-or-uaw-bailout-james-sherk)


What is really disturbing is that you want tax payers to bankroll the creation of the internet, turn it over to private companies, give these companies monopolies and free access to public land to lay down lines and finally allow them to charge them for both packet requests and responses.

...fck that!The fed isn't giving the ISPs access to "free gov't land", they have to pay for cable right-of-way. And if there are any special deals they are at the state or local level. The fed isn't paying to lay down lines....unless it's done by some Obama stimulus program.

I'd rather the internet be regulated by the free market rather than gov't bureaucrats. If a local ISP is price gauging, someone will step in to fill the void with a more competitive solution.

So you want to let the life savings of their employees' vanish and tell them to hit the unemployment line with their hand out asking Uncle Sam for change? Do you have cost benefit analysis on different scenarios? I'm betting it's cheaper to let people keep their retirement money and continue to be employed than paying investors first at the expense of gutting an industry and having people join the unemployment line. Even worse, cut of unemployment all together and have people go hungry.




What is really disturbing is that you want tax payers to bankroll the creation of the internet, turn it over to private companies, give these companies monopolies and free access to public land to lay down lines and finally allow them to charge them for both packet requests and responses.

...fck that!



ISP: You want to go visit google.com? Sorry, we have a deal with Microsoft and it's bing.com search engine? Maybe we can get something worked out where you pay us more to visit google.com?

Consumer: You are one of two ISPs allowed in my neighborhood? Am I paying to connect to the "internet" on your intranet?


...pragmatism is truly lost.


Your also assuming GM would have gone under. The bailout only made it easier on GM I don't think they would have gone belly up without gov aid.

Your also assuming GM would have gone under. The bailout only made it easier on GM I don't think they would have gone belly up without gov aid.

They would have most certainly gone under.

They would have most certainly gone under.No, they would've restructured under existing bankruptcy laws. With the ability to completely rework the union contracts they'd be in a stronger position than they are today.

why do the republicans insist on attacking unions every chance they get?

No, they would've restructured under existing bankruptcy laws. With the ability to completely rework the union contracts they'd be in a stronger position than they are today.

The Unions had already made offers of help in any way they could.



UAW members approve General Motors concessions - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-05-29-gm-uaw_N.htm)

No, they would've restructured under existing bankruptcy laws. With the ability to completely rework the union contracts they'd be in a stronger position than they are today.

No, they needed a huge injection of capital as well and no one -- I mean no one -- was giving GM money. Credit was tight as you recall.

In the end the company did undergo a restructuring and the unions made huge concessions in the process. That's how the whole thing managed to work.