USA Politics

bearfan said:
Certified idiot versus general incompetance .... there are no good choices in that matchup for sure.
Click to expand...
General incompetence thanks to an opposing congress... the beauty of separation of powers and I'm not being sarcastic.

Thanks for the link Foro.
 
He was fairly incompentant when he had the some of the largest Congressional majorities in the history of the US.
 
Perhaps, but when measured against expectations (in his first 12 o 18 months in office) and having everything he needed to enact a sweeping agenda in place (like what he proposed or not), he managed to pass a stimulus that did not achieve it's goal and a health care law that no one was really happy with (left or right). Like or hate George W, he pushed through as many (if not more) significant pieces of legislation that were much closer to his proposals with a divided Congress and coming off a very controversial election (pre-9/11)
 
True. As far as the "stimulus" goes, there is little if nothing at all presidents can do to have any effect on the economy. The economy is going to rise and fall of its own accord. Most economic policies outlive the presidents that put them in place. Incumbents get praise and blame for things previous presidents, whether it was the very last one or one 50 years ago, did. If the economy is doing well, "oh what a great president we have," if the economy is doing badly, "oh what a shitty president we have," when both statements are just as ridiculous.
 
I agree, but Obama ran on some Keynsian theory that the government was going to come in and lead the way to prosperity. We spent a ton of money and maybe got a few roads out of it at an incredibly high price ...
 
Speaking of politics, I woke up today to the following headline:

U.S. War Game Sees Perils of Israeli Strike Against Iran

By MARK MAZZETTI and THOM SHANKER

A classified war game held this month forecast that such an attack would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States, officials said.

Here's the full story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/w...?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120320

I've been dismissing the idea of a war with Iran because of the recent experiences the United States has had in the Middle East (see the Iraq and Afghanistan war debacles). And because GOP candidates generally seem to like the rhetoric of war (see Gingrich urging a war with Syria). Its extremely unfortunate that it looks like whether the US wants to or not, they'll be drawn in to this conflict between Israel and Iran. And just like the war simulation game predicted, I only foresee doom and gloom for the US if it does get involved.
What do you guys think?
 
WWIII, that's what I think. Iran obviously has allies too. If a war between them and Israel were to break out, the U.S sides with Israel while all the countries that have wanted Isreal dead from its inception will side with Iran.... Not pretty, at all.
 
Democrat or Republican President, any war between Israel and Iran will involve the US (same applies to North/South Korea).
 
Onhell said:
all the countries that have wanted Isreal dead from its inception will side with Iran....
Click to expand...

Not at all, and I think that's why Israel is wagering the risk now. None of the countries that have wanted Israel dead from its inception are ready to do anything right now, because they are all busy with themselves. Egypt has been through a revolution and needs to sort itself out. Not to mention there's been a peace treaty with Israel for over thirty years now. Saudi Arabia has secretly been pushing Israel to convince the US of striking against Iran, as the Wikileaks documents revealed. Iraq has to sort internal troubles out, and the US turning their back on them is the least thing they can use right now. Syria is a bit of a wild card, but Assad is busy aiming his guns at his own people right now, so he's very likely out of the game. The Hezbollah in Lebanon are dead cert to fire missiles on Israel, but Israel has shown in the past that they can handle that. In other words: Iran stands all alone right now, and there wouldn't be a better time for Israel to strike.
 
Exactly what Perun said. Which is why Ahmadinejad will be very, very careful. And if it comes to it, under Obama, look for precision strikes + spec ops, rather than a full-blown invasion. Mossad and the SEALs/Deltas are all that would really be needed to take care of the problem, and Iran can't actually stand up against the US on sea. The US has been pulling out of Afghanistan + Iraq for a very good reason, and it's in case Iran goes hot.
 
Forostar said:
So how'd you guys estimate this credible politician's chances in Michigan? Doesn't look good, eh?

Click to expand...

So the Democrats are suddenly "for" corporate welfare? Romney's position may not be popular in MI, but I think he was right. Tons of companies go through bankruptcy and if they do it right, emerge as an effective company (see every airline). Guess it makes for a good talking point.
 
Look at what happened to GM. They're the biggest again.

But you're trying to evade my point: Did you see how Romney tried to save his ass? Can't stress enough how credible that politician is. Amazing.
 
Now this is something else. Here's a man who had to clean the biggest pile of Rep dirt in years.
I can only agree with the top comment:

"It's amazing how people still don't give Obama the credit he deserves. We were hoodwinked for 8 years under an administration that constantly turned a blind eye as this country went to hell in a handbasket. I have seen the positive changes, unlike some who only wished for him to fail. Well doubters USA is on the rise, jobs are coming back, auto industry is #1 again, I have medical for my pre-existing condition. Thank you Obama!!!!"

The Road We've Traveled

 
Forostar said:
Look at what happened to GM. They're the biggest again.

But you're trying to evade my point: Did you see how Romney tried to save his ass? Can't stress enough how credible that politician is. Amazing.
Click to expand...

Not quite sure what you mean, you picked an anti-Romney ad that is certainly skewed. A bankruptcy would not have meant what the ad implied and in the long run probably these companies would have been better off going that route. GM has been gaining market share/lower profit per car with price reductions and incredibly low interest rates. Ford (who did not take a bailout) has seen similar increases in sales by doing the same thing.

They have also benefited by the totally unrelated fact that they have been making better car models over the past 5-7 years
 
I dunno. Normally, I believe that a company should go bankrupt if their business model fails, which is what happened to Chrysler and GM. I really don't have a problem with that.

The reason why I make an exception for companies like Chrysler and GM is very simple: the possibility that US automobile manufacturing would end up in the hands of foreign companies (which is the likely outcome of a GM or Chrysler full bankruptcy) or non-existent is completely frightening to US defense abilities. In otherwords: it is a prerequisite of a modern, industrialized, militarized nation to maintain a strong automobile industry.

The way the US structured the "bailout" was more of a structured bankruptcy, anyway, except the government bought the company temporarily. It worked. There's no way to deny that it did. I hope that it leads to better business practices compared to the Chrysler bailout/AMC merger of the 70s. I think it will, as it was far better structured, and I think there's positive reactions there.

Let's put it this way: for the first time in my mock portfolio in years I'm carrying GM and Chrysler again.
 
The advantage of bankruptcy is the ability to restructure debt and the company easier. I would look at what American Airlines current bankruptcy as a good model, they are making massive structural changes to the company and making some good strategic moves (repalcing the older MD-80s with newer 737s for domestic routes, that is a 300+ plane order for Boeing, that will let them increase passenger loads be 40-ish per plane while spending less on fuel), reworking out-moded labor contracts, etc. American will be in the tank for a year+ stock wise, but will most likely come out of this with a better overall business that can cope with the "new world"

I think the car company bailouts let them weather this storm, but I did not see the longer term fixes that may be needed.

In any case, I think the video was not really accurate, the car companies would not have folded if they went into bankruptcy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top