The 3rd Presidential Debate

[johnsonma]

No but if you read the books with a perspective that was already perverse to Obama then yes.

 

[riser]

What if the end was to save thousands of jobs by keeping two business's afloat? Which by extension saved thousands more jobs by keep suppliers in business? Which in turn saved more jobs by keep secondary markets alive?

If that's the case, why not just cut a check directly to the employee for a lot of money? Why save the business when you could support more individuals for a lifetime.

 

[chunkymonster]

A social democracy is a form of government that advocates policies of universal social rights, universal access to public services like education, health care, and workers compensation. A social democracy works directly with labor unions and supports collective bargaining rights.

These United States were formed as and remain a republic with a free market economy.

The first thing any business has to do with a chapter 11 bankruptcy is file a plan for how they will pay their employees. In fact in just about any bankruptcy the employees always get paid.

By stating this you are only making my argument for me. Obama's Treasury Dept oversaw negotiations between GM and the UAW outside bankruptcy law. As a result, the UAW ended up getting a much better deal than if bankruptcy law had had been followed. For example, it was Obama's Treasure Dept that forced GM to make the Delphi sites direct subsidiaries so the loss of UAW jobs by closing 16 sites in the U.S. would be mitigated by GM having to hire the UAW workers at the Delphi sites. At what time in American history has the government ever dictated that a company must purchase a subsidiary in order to mititage a loss of union jobs? This is what a social democracy does for union workers and is not within the landscape of American business history and is direct contradiction to a free market economy.

Also, bondholders get paid second to last and stocker holders get paid last if at all. The reason stock holders get paid last is because they are "owners" and assume the most risk.

Again, you're making my argument for me. The UAW retirement fund was a minor stockholder and Obama circumvented bankruptcy law by giving the trust fund preference for sales of stock at specified rates of return. The bottom line is, because of Obama giving preference to the UAW and making sure they got paid off as part of the GM bail-out, all remaining stock and bond holders were left with next to nothing. Again, this is how a social democracy operates in conjunction with labor unions, which is a direct contradiction to republicanism and a free market system.

Nothing wrong with employees owning a piece their company either. That is the exact opposite of state owned business.

I agree, nothing wrong with it at all if the UAW bought enough shares to achieve 1/5 ownership on the stock exchange just like another trust or institution. But it is totally wrong when the government gives the ownership to the Union as part of a "concession deal" without having to buy the stock on the free market. Since when has the federal government ever forced a company to give up 17.5% ownership to a Union with no strings attached? This is another example of Obama implementing a social democracy.

You are also correct when you say that employee ownership is not "state owned business", but that's because there is a significant difference between a "state owned business" (communism, like in China) and a social democracy.

What if the end was to save thousands of jobs by keeping two business's afloat? Which by extension saved thousands more jobs by keep suppliers in business? Which in turn saved more jobs by keep secondary markets alive?

I do not care about "what if". What if GM went out of business and another car company was able to purchase their assets, rehire the the same auto workers but without the UAW overhead, and then create an EV that went on to to be the most sold vehicle in the world? What if? What if? What if? Knowing the "what is" about the GM bail-out and Obama's egregious disregard for republicanism and the free market is more than enough.

I will debate statistics and numbers over conspiracy theories.

Obama's ideology and his belief in fundamentally transforming America into a social democracy is not a conspiracy theory; Obama has proven it by his actions, with the GM bail out just being one example.

 

[musical marv]

And the President is powerless to change that...

I am sick and tired of you whiners blaming Obama on everything he did in his presidency in the first 4 years.Look at the pros instead of the cons for once in your life! Romney is a plastic person who will strengthen the rich and let the middle class and seniors and poor perish under him.He is a man of no scruples at all.He is a business man that is it! Not a leader.

 

[wanamingo]

One thing about the UAW ownership of GM.

I thought that the UAW didnt own GM, that 10.5% (Now, I think it was 17.5) was put into a VEBA trust for UAW retirement, a 3rd party trust. And that another 4% was put away into funds.

Its also noteworthy that the UAW cant initiate a strike since 2009, that may have expired.

 

[riser]

I am sick and tired of you whiners blaming Obama on everything he did in his presidency in the first 4 years.Look at the pros instead of the cons for once in your life! Romney is a plastic person who will strengthen the rich and let the middle class and seniors and poor perish under him.He is a man of no scruples at all.He is a business man that is it! Not a leader.

The only pro that comes to mind from his 4 years is something with the mortgage crisis which only a few hundred thousand even qualified for.

 

[chunkymonster]

I am sick and tired of you whiners blaming Obama on everything he did in his presidency in the first 4 years.Look at the pros instead of the cons for once in your life! Romney is a plastic person who will strengthen the rich and let the middle class and seniors and poor perish under him.He is a man of no scruples at all.He is a business man that is it! Not a leader.

So, Obama should get a pass and not have to accpet responsibility for the actions He and His Administration took during those four years? Is that what you are advocating?

I would gladly love to look at the positives from the past four years of Obama, but the negatives outweigh (especially the final costs to tax payers) the positives...starting with Cash for Clunkers!

So to be fair, the positive from Cash for Clunkers was that it took 690,000 cars off the road and the cars that replaced the 690K gained an overall average of 9.2 mpg. But the downside to that is the 690K is insignificant (2.7%) when compared to the 254,000,000 passenger vehicles driven in the United States AND the program cost the tax payers an average of $24,000 per car! So, in the end, only 690,000 people benefited from a program that cost each tax payer, and there were a total of 30 million individual tax payers in 2009, an average of $24,000 each. Based on those numbers, Obama could have bought every individual tax payer in 2009 a brand new Toyota Prius or other hybrid and accomplished far better results towards increasing mpg and reducing emissions than Cash for Clunkers could have ever done.

See what I'm saying Marv, when you read the details, analyze the results, and apply some critical thinking skills to Obama's programs, pretty much everything Obama has done has cost the middle class and ended up being a failure.

Sorry, I know the truth hurts...

I just wish people realized what Obama meant when he said he wanted to "fundamentally transform America"...he has proven he wants to fundamentally transform America into a social democracy, Cash for Clunkers is just one example.

I will take my chances with a business man who might weaken the middle class when my other choice is an incumbent President with a proven record of destroying the middle class.

 

[johnsonma]

By stating this you are only making my argument for me. Obama's Treasury Dept oversaw negotiations between GM and the UAW outside bankruptcy law. As a result, the UAW ended up getting a much better deal than if bankruptcy law had had been followed. For example, it was Obama's Treasure Dept that forced GM to make the Delphi sites direct subsidiaries so the loss of UAW jobs by closing 16 sites in the U.S. would be mitigated by GM having to hire the UAW workers at the Delphi sites. At what time in American history has the government ever dictated that a company must purchase a subsidiary in order to mititage a loss of union jobs? This is what a social democracy does for union workers and is not within the landscape of American business history and is direct contradiction to a free market economy.

Again, you're making my argument for me. The UAW retirement fund was a minor stockholder and Obama circumvented bankruptcy law by giving the trust fund preference for sales of stock at specified rates of return. The bottom line is, because of Obama giving preference to the UAW and making sure they got paid off as part of the GM bail-out, all remaining stock and bond holders were left with next to nothing. Again, this is how a social democracy operates in conjunction with labor unions, which is a direct contradiction to republicanism and a free market system.

We have been a mixed economy since the great depression, this free market idea has been proven to be fundamentally flawed. A truly free market has no regulations what so ever and we have seen what happens when regulations are loosened up. Greed takes over and common sense goes down the drain.

On the Delphi subject - http://www.thenation.com/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza#

Great article

 

[johnsonma]

So, according to your view greed can not possibly exist in government, just the private sector?

K

No, obviously there is corruption in all facets of human existence. A free market is just more susceptible to it.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

So, some choose to accumulate greed in forms of union and an ever growing (surprised?) government?

Government has its place, both in admin and regulations, see JP Morgan

 

[chunkymonster]

We have been a mixed economy since the great depression, this free market idea has been proven to be fundamentally flawed. A truly free market has no regulations what so ever and we have seen what happens when regulations are loosened up. Greed takes over and common sense goes down the drain.

What I notice is missing from your reply is any rebuke to Obama's moves to have the government take a lead role in deciding what companies succeed and fail. What is also missing is any rebuke to Obama introducing social democracy into American industry. These omissions are as telling as they are undeniable.

The notion of greed being a reason why the free market is flawed is just plain laughable. A fundamental tenet of communism is, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", and was intended to remove greed from society. But history has proven the Leaders of Communist Russia enjoyed a greater standard of living than the citizens, the ruling class in China enjoys a greater standard of living that the Chinese people. Greed does not care about economic systems. Greed is a base human instinct. Of course, anything taken to the extreme becomes a bad thing. But greed should not be viewed as a bad thing. Truly, I will never understand the narrative that wealth is bad, greed is a sin, and aspiring to move up the socio-economic ladder makes you part of the 1%. Thomas Edison was one of America's greediest industrialists, but yet we celebrate him for inventing the telephone, the light bulb, developing the electrical power grid, the phonograph, and the stock ticker to name a few. Heck, if anything, greed is a great motivator for people who believe in their individuality and personal ability to provide a skill or service that can be marketed and sold. Greed is what motivates them to make money so they can buy a home, buy a car, raise a family, and so on.

The notion that the free market in America being a failure is a false narrative. Yes, a true free market, i.e.; a laissez-faire economy has no regulations, but that is only because that is the definition of a laissez-faire economy. The reason the free market being a failure is a false narrative is because America does not have a laissez-faire economy but a free market that is unique and that was born as a result of a balance between government regulation and free market economic principles. It is a false narrative because because the American free market system is and has been the economic engine that has lead the world for the past 120 years. It is a false narrative because the American style free market economy has been the example looked at by other nations as they transitioned from Communism to a free/semi-free market.

 

[riser]

No, obviously there is corruption in all facets of human existence. A free market is just more susceptible to it.

Stop and think about what you just wrote. You're saying that a government controlled sector would be less likely to be greedy? 535 people controlling the US population, as opposed to allowing everyone in the population at least the same common opportunity?

Look around at all the government run things this world. The government ones are by far the most corrupt! Russia, Middle East, Africa, South America, some countries in Europe.

North Korea.. the gov't people are taken care of, everyone else is a slave.

Show me one country where the Gov't run sector is doing better than the private with LESS greed? Spoiler: There are dozens of countries that are horribly corrupt that do not have a private sector.

 

[musical marv]

The only pro that comes to mind from his 4 years is something with the mortgage crisis which only a few hundred thousand even qualified for.

Vote for a smuck like Romney and you suffer under his regime for 4 years. This man is a liar constantly bullshitting us with his falsehoods and never ever once revealing where he lead this country in his office if he is elected president.Taking us down the road to no where.

 

[dogman_1234]

Is this another: "you're a tooty faced poo-poo!" debate, again?

In all honesty, if this is how our country compromises, and gets things done...well, I am scared for me and my family.

 

[johnsonma]

Stop and think about what you just wrote. You're saying that a government controlled sector would be less likely to be greedy? 535 people controlling the US population, as opposed to allowing everyone in the population at least the same common opportunity?

Look around at all the government run things this world. The government ones are by far the most corrupt! Russia, Middle East, Africa, South America, some countries in Europe.

North Korea.. the gov't people are taken care of, everyone else is a slave.

Show me one country where the Gov't run sector is doing better than the private with LESS greed? Spoiler: There are dozens of countries that are horribly corrupt that do not have a private sector.

I never said a government controlled sector would be less greedy. You and OMG keep jumping to these illogical conclusions about my statements. Makes me wonder if your even reading the whole sentence. I am talking about the market as a whole. A free "market" economy is prone to greed because there is literally no forces opposing such actions. Now a mixed economy(which is what the U.S. is by the way) is a more reliable option because you have other factors in play. Obviously there is still corruption, both in the private and government sectors. The mixed economy has proven to be the best option regardless.

 

[johnsonma]

Shill alert! woop woop woop

Such an insightful comment, by the way hating someone doesn't make them a shill. Marv just really hates Romney, I can't blame him.

 

[johnsonma]

What I notice is missing from your reply is any rebuke to Obama's moves to have the government take a lead role in deciding what companies succeed and fail. What is also missing is any rebuke to Obama introducing social democracy into American industry. These omissions are as telling as they are undeniable.

The notion of greed being a reason why the free market is flawed is just plain laughable. A fundamental tenet of communism is, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", and was intended to remove greed from society. But history has proven the Leaders of Communist Russia enjoyed a greater standard of living than the citizens, the ruling class in China enjoys a greater standard of living that the Chinese people. Greed does not care about economic systems. Greed is a base human instinct. Of course, anything taken to the extreme becomes a bad thing. But greed should not be viewed as a bad thing. Truly, I will never understand the narrative that wealth is bad, greed is a sin, and aspiring to move up the socio-economic ladder makes you part of the 1%. Thomas Edison was one of America's greediest industrialists, but yet we celebrate him for inventing the telephone, the light bulb, developing the electrical power grid, the phonograph, and the stock ticker to name a few. Heck, if anything, greed is a great motivator for people who believe in their individuality and personal ability to provide a skill or service that can be marketed and sold. Greed is what motivates them to make money so they can buy a home, buy a car, raise a family, and so on.

Why did we just go through a recession chunky? Answer that simple question and you will know what point I am trying to make. Quite of a few socialists think that a completely free "market" economy is the way to go, I know this doesn't jive with your perception of communist-socialist bad and democracy good but it's true. Our government decides all the time when companies succeed and fail, one prime example is the fact that mergers of all big corporations have to be approved and all the anti-trust legislation out there. Whether you like it or not chunky this example by itself means we have a mixed economy, if the said corporations operated in a free "market" economy then they would be free to merge whenever they felt like it. One of the reasons a free "market" economy is flawed is because companies can grow big enough to overcome market forces. We do not have a free "market" economy here in the U.S.

The notion that the free market in America being a failure is a false narrative. Yes, a true free market, i.e.; a laissez-faire economy has no regulations, but that is only because that is the definition of a laissez-faire economy. The reason the free market being a failure is a false narrative is because America does not have a laissez-faire economy but a free market that is unique and that was born as a result of a balance between government regulation and free market economic principles. It is a false narrative because because the American free market system is and has been the economic engine that has lead the world for the past 120 years. It is a false narrative because the American style free market economy has been the example looked at by other nations as they transitioned from Communism to a free/semi-free market.

I think you're trying to make the point that we have a "market" economy, that is false. WE have a mixed economy. This is an undeniable truth.

 

[chunkymonster]

Why did we just go through a recession chunky? Answer that simple question and you will know what point I am trying to make.

That is far from a simple question as we could blame the recession on anything from Clinton's policies which eventually allowed sub-prime housing loans, to the attack on 9/11, to Bush for getting the bail-out ball rolling with TARP, to Obama's 2009 stimulus. Regardless, how about you just state your point.

Quite of a few socialists think that a completely free "market" economy is the way to go, I know this doesn't jive with your perception of communist-socialist bad and democracy good but it's true.

You're right, it doesn't jive! Do you mean "free market socialism" like what was implemented by Soviet Union in 1920 as part of their New Economic Policy? Or do you mean the "free market socialism" implemented and practiced by China, i.e.; state capitalism? You show me a socialist who believes in a free market economy, a laissez-faire economy, or even a regulated economy and I will show you a socialist that has abandoned the core principles of socialism and is one step closer to being a capitalist.

Our government decides all the time when companies succeed and fail, one prime example is the fact that mergers of all big corporations have to be approved and all the anti-trust legislation out there. Whether you like it or not chunky this example by itself means we have a mixed economy, if the said corporations operated in a free "market" economy then they would be free to merge whenever they felt like it. One of the reasons a free "market" economy is flawed is because companies can grow big enough to overcome market forces. We do not have a free "market" economy here in the U.S.

I think you're trying to make the point that we have a "market" economy, that is false. WE have a mixed economy. This is an undeniable truth.

On one hand, we are on the same page, but on the other, I think there is an issue with semantics. I agree that America does not operate in a true free market, which was expressed when I wrote...

America does not have a laissez-faire economy but a free market that is unique and that was born as a result of a balance between government regulation and free market economic principles.

...the balance I refer to is the semantic equivalent of you saying America has a mixed market. And with that, I agree that America has a mixed economy, it is undeniable, even wikipedia says so. :lol: I was mostly replying to the notion that greed is the evil of evils and the negative connotation given to a free market as a result of greed.

 

[musical marv]

Is this another: "you're a tooty faced poo-poo!" debate, again?

In all honesty, if this is how our country compromises, and gets things done...well, I am scared for me and my family.

You better go toCuba than it is far more better for you there.Forgot the states.

 

[dogman_1234]

Why the heck would I go to cuba? Cigars?

 

[ctbaars]

I hear they may need a new dictator soon

 

[chunkymonster]

As if folks needed another reason to not vote for Obama on November 6th, how about the (lack of) transparency in the Obama Administration and proposed federal regulations.

From the Heritage Foundation, "Obama’s Regulatory Agenda: Calm Before the Superstorm"

Congress mandated a regulatory agenda from each agency in 1980 under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The statute calls for release every April and October of a description of all rules likely to have a “significant economic impact” on a substantial number of small entities...President Obama has ignored both the April 2012 and October 2012 agenda deadlines. The last agenda released by the Administration, in fall 2011, included a total of 2,676 regulations...The President’s neglect of the law contrasts sharply with his promise of an “unprecedented level of openness in government transparency.”...The stakes are especially high now because of the hundreds of rules related to Obamacare and the Dodd–Frank financial regulation statute that are yet to be finalized...According to OIRA data, a whopping 78 percent of the 151 regulations awaiting review have been pending at the office for more than 90 days, thus exceeding the maximum time allotted under Executive Order 12866. Another 11 percent have been pending for more than 60 days (but fewer than 90 days)...The EPA is the single largest source of the regulations currently pending at OIRA, with a total of 29. Of those, 27 are designated as “economically significant,” meaning that costs will exceed $100 million or more annually. Runner-up is Health and Human Services (16), followed by the Department of Labor (11) and the Departments of Energy and Transportation (10)...This flouting of the law is disturbing enough, but it is made worse by the mounting regulatory uncertainty it has caused

The implication here is that the Obama Administration is intentionally with holding the regulatory rules from review as the law requires for fear that the financial impact of the proposed regulations would hurt Obama's chances at re-election.

Just another example of Obama willfully ignoring or refusing to perform the duties of the Executive Office.

 

[musical marv]

As if folks needed another reason to not vote for Obama on November 6th, how about the (lack of) transparency in the Obama Administration and proposed federal regulations.

From the Heritage Foundation, "Obama’s Regulatory Agenda: Calm Before the Superstorm"

Congress mandated a regulatory agenda from each agency in 1980 under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The statute calls for release every April and October of a description of all rules likely to have a “significant economic impact” on a substantial number of small entities...President Obama has ignored both the April 2012 and October 2012 agenda deadlines. The last agenda released by the Administration, in fall 2011, included a total of 2,676 regulations...The President’s neglect of the law contrasts sharply with his promise of an “unprecedented level of openness in government transparency.”...The stakes are especially high now because of the hundreds of rules related to Obamacare and the Dodd–Frank financial regulation statute that are yet to be finalized...According to OIRA data, a whopping 78 percent of the 151 regulations awaiting review have been pending at the office for more than 90 days, thus exceeding the maximum time allotted under Executive Order 12866. Another 11 percent have been pending for more than 60 days (but fewer than 90 days)...The EPA is the single largest source of the regulations currently pending at OIRA, with a total of 29. Of those, 27 are designated as “economically significant,” meaning that costs will exceed $100 million or more annually. Runner-up is Health and Human Services (16), followed by the Department of Labor (11) and the Departments of Energy and Transportation (10)...This flouting of the law is disturbing enough, but it is made worse by the mounting regulatory uncertainty it has caused

The implication here is that the Obama Administration is intentionally with holding the regulatory rules from review as the law requires for fear that the financial impact of the proposed regulations would hurt Obama's chances at re-election.Vote for Romney on Tuesday and you will your life will be heading.

Just another example of Obama willfully ignoring or refusing to perform the duties of the Executive Office.

 

[musical marv]

Why the heck would I go to cuba? Cigars?

No cause you complain to much about the government and what they are doing.

 

[dogman_1234]

No cause you complain to much about the government and what they are doing.

Marv, I am an American citizen. I have the right to say what is on my mind about my elected officials. I also reserve the right to vote them out as I wish. I may not get my way, but at least I tried to the best of my capacity to change the US for a better.

Oh, and BTW, I was referring to all of you and your continuous attacks on each others ideas... a sort of demonizing of the other side.

Why can we not compromise like we are to do?

However, I must respect your ideas as you should respect mine...or not...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not believe in totalitarian regimes at all. I would hate cuba and dictatorship is a dangerous thing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To inform you all, I am an Independent voter who is not tied to any party/agenda....but to the will of the American person.

I voted Johnson this year.

I wish all candidates the best, I wish voters their best for who they vote, and let the best man win.

God Bless.