do you seriously believe this? they just categorize and re-categorize expenses to suit the require ratio. Out of a 2T budget only 85B goes towards unemployment benefits, Food stamps and Affordable Housing . I am quoting these as we are talking about helping the needy. That is 85B out 2863B = <3%. even the entirity of Medicare is under 400B!
I hope my point is coming out clearly now - If you goal is to help the unfortunate, then giving the money to the government is NOT the way to do it. Because they simply use most of it for other things.
Now the other things are to hire govt employees in very large numbers. And that further exacerbate salary, pension and interest expenses thus further progressively reducing what is available for helping the poor.
And so they borrow from the social security trust fund. Meaning we are screwed not only now when working and paying exorbitant taxes but even after paying 16% premiums year after after, when we retire, they have started telling us that my retirement income (social security) will be 35% less than what I paid for!!!
And the fact that AMR chose Bain (from all the other companies out there) to do this dirty work tells me a lot about Bain and Romney. I hope more people would vote their interests.
Bain is a private equity investment company. It invests in a lot of companies. They takes risks - some investments pay off; many don’t - here is a study:
“Much of the firm’s profits was earned from a relatively small number of deals, with Bain Capital’s overall success and failure rate being about even. One study of 68 deals that Bain Capital made up through the 1990s found that the firm lost money or broke even on 33 of them.[SUP][40]](Bain Capital - Wikipedia)[/SUP] Another study that looked at the eight-year period following 77 deals during the same time found that in 17 cases the company went bankrupt or out of business, and in 6 cases Bain Capital lost all its investment. But 10 deals were very successful and represented 70 percent of the total profits.[SUP][41]](Bain Capital - Wikipedia)”[/SUP]
And the fact that AMR chose Bain (from all the other companies out there) to do this dirty work tells me a lot about Bain and Romney. I hope more people would vote their interests.
so would you prefer a government takeover of AMR such as attempted with GM and tax the public further to make good the mis-managemement of GM and the low-quality work done by GM workers over decades?
I am not begrudging Bain Capital making money through risk taking. I dont have the smarts to do that. However, in my opinion, there is no risk taking involved in this particular endeavor.
Just read in todays WSJ, Caterpillar has closed a plant in London Ontario (paying union workers 35$/hr) to move it to Indiana (15-18$/hr). Indiana is mostly non-union.
I agree with one of your posts where you had talked abt pension benefits ballooning out of control. The right wing attacks Unions at every chance. Every single measure we now take for granted has been thanks to liberals/progressives - better working conditions, clean air, clean water, equal rights for women/minorities, etc.
Apple making it s IPODS, IPADS, Iphones (or whatever gadget) in China where a worker died after 34 hours of continuous shift - deplorable. They have $100B in their war chest - at whose expense? the working stiff.
So yes, I do pay attention when someone tries to stiff a hard working person.
so would you prefer a government takeover of AMR such as attempted with GM and tax the public further to make good the mis-managemement of GM and the low-quality work done by GM workers over decades?
This is a false choice. There was $14M available that AMR chose to give Bain Capital. They could have provided that to the oension funds.
When the right wing makes it only about workers wages and pension and wages, and does not look at the soaring CEO pay, that kinds of says a lot.
I am not begrudging Bain Capital making money through risk taking. I dont have the smarts to do that. However, in my opinion, there is no risk taking involved in this particular endeavor.
Just read in todays WSJ, Caterpillar has closed a plant in London Ontario (paying union workers 35$/hr) to move it to Indiana (15-18$/hr). Indiana is mostly non-union.
I agree with one of your posts where you had talked abt pension benefits ballooning out of control. The right wing attacks Unions at every chance. Every single measure we now take for granted has been thanks to liberals/progressives - better working conditions, clean air, clean water, equal rights for women/minorities, etc.
Apple making it s IPODS, IPADS, Iphones (or whatever gadget) in China where a worker died after 34 hours of continuous shift - deplorable. They have $100B in their war chest - at whose expense? the working stiff.
So yes, I do pay attention when someone tries to stiff a hard working person.
I am not supporting exploitation of workers. I am a worker too!
I am simply objecting to criticizing Romney for succeeding in his business. If you are not begrudging Bain Capital then I am lost as to why you would begrudge Romney since he and a handfull of others make up Bain Capital?
I am not supporting exploitation of workers. I am a worker too!
I am simply objecting to criticizing Romney for succeeding in his business. If you are not begrudging Bain Capital then I am lost as to why you would begrudge Romney since he and a handfull of others make up Bain Capital?
I will repeat - I am against this particular endeavor where Bain Capital accepted 14M to enable AMR to avoid paying their pension obligations.
Again - if AMR does that, you blame AMR. Why blame Bain?
Let me repeat - how a company does business is important to me - especially in this case where Romney still receiveds money from the company. Taali do haath say bajthee hai. Some business may be better to let go of. Unless money making is the only objective.
When I have to decide on a President, his sense of what is right or wrong (and not just what is legal) plays a big role in my decision making.
he was not voted in by the base. the base is only around 30% of the country but he received 53% of the votes. the base is not automatically entitled to a genuine leftist president just because they chose the nominee. independents did not vote for him because they wanted legalized gay marriage and the public option. they just wanted a fresh start with a different party.
you can't teach the left a lesson by voting out an incumbent democrat and empowering the right. all you can do is reward the leftist candidate in the next democratic primary (was theoretically possible for 2012 as well). but even then, the base would not suddenly elect dennis kucinich as a rebuke to obama's centrism because that would be suicidal given the virtually 50/50 polarization of the country. this polarization necessitates centrism. that is just something you have to grudgingly accept unless you reject the idea of representative democracy.
He wasn't voted in by progressives, nor does he owe them anything. But would it be accurate to say he won by projecting progressive stances, namely the semblance of being anti-war (for those who weren't paying attention to his congressional voting record)? That his campaign promised a departure from realpolitik as usual?
Is there a (symbolic) alternative that doesn't include punishing liberals or rewarding Republicans (the reasoning that Nader cost Gore the election is getting tiresome). That our electoral system is hostage to corporate money aside, that voting in the U.S. is essentially futile, grudging acceptance isn't an option for some anymore.
[QUOTE]
do you think a leftist who is disullisioned by obama's lack of overt liberalism would conclude that his interests would be better served by newt gingrich? obviously not.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe this isn't even about Obama, or one President who has little clout in the grand scheme of the military-industrial-corporate complex. Your posts are valuable as far as pragmatic political strategy is concerned, but after the Wall Street Swindle this dialogue has to include a moral/ethical angle. Many realize this is no longer about Democrats and Republicans, but a war between average citizens and the corporate/financial elite.
Under pursuing is fine, and is a viable strategy, but the issue here is how in some cases, Obama has taken a more right wing stance than even the Republicans (detention act).
He went beyond obligatory AIPAC genuflection and did what even Bush and the EU didn't - called Jerusalem Israeli property. His VP choice is what many called the single most important congressional authorizer of the war.
[QUOTE]
Until corporate/lobbying influence is ended, Washington is merely a playground for political posturing, where any significant changes will have to be approved by AIPAC, Wall Street, and the defense contractors.
[/QUOTE]
Ditto.
[QUOTE]
Centrist in America is right wing in many other countries. There was an article on a politician in Reagan's administration whose policies were compared to today's spectrum, and it turns out he was more in line with the Democrats. And Reagan is the poster boy for the Neo Cons. I agree with you that Obama should be "punished" but in the end, it makes no difference. He'll put a nicer spin on it than a GOP candidate, but they will both end up doing what they've always done: pursue an aggressive foreign policy, and cater to the upper class (who fund their campaigns and provide them with employment after their political careers).
[/QUOTE]
Raising the cost of state violence - whether that's the war in Iraq/Afghanistan or the war on the middle class - includes punishing the Left, or whatever's left of it, and civil disobedience. I agree, things won't change with one election cycle, they never do, but I don't fancy being force fed any more Kool Aid. What was "practical" is now reckless, even immoral. Voting for so called lesser evils = complicity.
He wasn't voted in by progressives, nor does he owe them anything. But would it be accurate to say he won by projecting progressive stances, namely the semblance of being anti-war (for those who weren't paying attention to his congressional voting record)? That his campaign promised a departure from realpolitik as usual?
no, i don't think that's accurate. obama's stated position was anti-"dumb war", not anti-war. he openly subscribed to the good war/bad war view re: afghanistan and iraq. he ran on the prescription of intensifying efforts in the good war and putting an end to the bad war.
as i mentioned earlier, although he openly criticized the neocon hawks and rejected their worldview, he never ran as a dove. in fact he was the one who took heat for saying he would authorize military action inside pakistan to kill bin laden if there was actionable intelligence.
[quote]
Is there a (symbolic) alternative that doesn't include punishing liberals or rewarding Republicans (the reasoning that Nader cost Gore the election is getting tiresome). That our electoral system is hostage to corporate money aside, that voting in the U.S. is essentially futile, grudging acceptance isn't an option for some anymore.
[/quote]
the sad fact is that the numbers are simply not on the side of liberals/progressives. many people like yourself are frustrated because you have not reconciled this fact. it's not much different for conservatives who would also be extremely disappointed by a barely-conservative romney presidency.
the alternative is to persuade the electorate's fence-sitters (anywhere between 20-30%) that liberal/progressive views are superior. this task speaks to a much larger and more fundamental issue than political strategy. it requires a large scale societal reexamination of political identity vis a vis socioeconomic, racial, and religious identity. i'm not holding my breath.
[quote]
Maybe this isn't even about Obama, or one President who has little clout in the grand scheme of the military-industrial-corporate complex. Your posts are valuable as far as pragmatic political strategy is concerned, but after the Wall Street Swindle this dialogue has to include a moral/ethical angle. Many realize this is no longer about Democrats and Republicans, but a war between average citizens and the corporate/financial elite.
[/QUOTE]
i don't really buy this. i don't even consider the financial crisis a "wall street swindle". that narrative is tailor-made for main street consumption but it's very weak, fundamentally. the reality is that unemployment is the ultimate driver of phenomena like occupy wall street and the causes of unemployment are manifold. congress's susceptibility to lobbyist influence is a major problem but it's really not the main problem.
the reality is that these are hard times and americans are simply not used to hard times. i wouldn't read too much into it.
He is a businessman from Wall Street - created no value. We have seen Wall Street in action- we dont need such "good businessmen" thank you.
"businessman from wall street" can mean many things. since the 2008 crisis, the layman's perception of wall street is a greedy trader making risky bets and earning a huge bonus. that caricature represents less than 1% of all employees on wall street.
as for romney, firstly it's easy to forget that bain capital is first a company, then a private equity company. that makes romney first an entrepreneur and then a private equity investor. these are two separate pillars of his businessman credentials.
further, private equity is not trading. not many will argue that private equity doesn't add value to industry and the economy. romney founded a company that has provided billions of dollars in growth capital to hundreds of companies across sectors and sizes. and by doing so it has generated phenomenal returns for a variety of investors including pension funds and other savings vehicles of the american public.
^ Points conceded. His transferring monet to Cayman(spelling?) Islands, paying < 15 in tax, Bain Capital taking $14M from AMR to re-structure pension plan to stiff the pilots/stewardess, his taking 2 opposite stances time and again to suit the situation - all of them paint an ugly picture - so while as I have conceded he did not do anything illegal, he also has not shown he cares about anyone except himself and his immediate family.
the alternative is to persuade the electorate's fence-sitters (anywhere between 20-30%) that liberal/progressive views are superior. this task speaks to a much larger and more fundamental issue than political strategy. it requires a large scale societal reexamination of political identity vis a vis socioeconomic, racial, and religious identity. i'm not holding my breath.
i don't really buy this. i don't even consider the financial crisis a "wall street swindle". that narrative is tailor-made for main street consumption but it's very weak, fundamentally. the reality is that unemployment is the ultimate driver of phenomena like occupy wall street and the causes of unemployment are manifold. *congress's susceptibility to lobbyist influence is a major problem but it's really not the main problem.
*
the reality is that these are hard times and americans are simply not used to hard times. i wouldn't read too much into it.
I disagree with the bold part. Of course it's the main problem. How else could you explain that almost 70% of Americans want higher taxes (not excessively higher) on the rich, but this doesn't happen? There should be increased regulation of Wall Street, hasn't happened.
If the government won't come to bat for the middle class, then who will? I find it ironic how anti-tax the neo-cons are yet it was Republican president, Hoover, who raised taxes, despite protests from his contemporary Republicans. Why? Because it was good for the country.
The hold that the media has on their respective audiences, especially Fox News and the right wing radio circuit, is also troublesome. However, if the country is in better shape financially, then these outlets lose their listeners, most of whom are angry about their current financial outlook. But the government does nothing to rectify said situations, because they are more interested in appeasing lobbyists.