Trump

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

Free said:

I have nothing with you personally Halifax. Just trying to figure out the need of being a political apologist. If you don't want to answer, that's fine, I didn't really aim it at you personally but the apologists here. (You. As in "all of you" here).

Glenn Greenwald was on Democracy Now yesterday talking about how Clinton's main opponent is an untenable candidate, which is leaving her in a position where people are reticent to address some serious issues, and to be honest, I agree. Her hawkish tendencies will perpetuate the same "invade until they behave like us or in ways that benefit us", as they have historically in her political tenure (i.e. her support of several military coups in South America, as well as her silence on the topic of the current quasi-coup with the impeachment of Rousseff in Brazil). Her commitment to government bailouts, to perpetuating (or growing) the delta between the richest and the poorest in America, and yes, her flat-out denial of any wrongdoings on the topic of her private servers in the White House. Free, I'm doing an about face, and I agree with you. It's time to hold Clinton accountable for her actions - even when her opponent is a cross between mummified foreskin and cotton candy.

Benjs - I'm going to challenge a few statements here. I will cherry pick a few because others I can agree with, so don't read it wrong:

1. Bailouts - which bailouts do you support and which do you oppose? Do you oppose the GM bailout along with the banks? If yes, please explain the rationale. If you opposed both, well then you are a pure capitalist and I give you credit for consistency.

2. Servers - Clinton has apologized MULTIPLE times for setting up the server. Her first specific one was in in Q3 of '15, here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-private-email-mistake-im/story?id=33608970 She apologized many more times including last week on Morning Joe. What else do you expect of her?

3. Warhawk... that's a tough one. Remember she was executing the policy of Obama. That's not to say she didn't agree with it, but it was the administration policy. I've found it interesting to see the vitriol against HRC for her time at State and the absolute silence to hold Obama to the same standard when, as Harry Truman famously said "The buck stops here."

1. I don't feel that we in the public reserve the right to pick and choose what bailouts to support, especially when corporations like GM so resemble banks. Monthly payments and interest charges effectively provide clients the right to withhold full payments owed in exchange for fees. Of course, there's more to a car company and to a bank, but this is a gist of it. Whether a poor-quality product is provided, or a poor-yielding set of investments is made, both entities responsible ought to be held accountable. That said, mrussell, if you're more well-versed and can add info to this topic, please do!

You are correct that in some ways, an automotive company is similar to a bank (although GM spun off GMAC financing into Ally Bank a few years ago). But they are structured in similar ways and have similar issues. Without getting into the details, I supported both bailouts. And I did so for overlapping reasons. (Disclaimer: During 2008 crisis, I was in senior management at a large bank. We took TARP money because we were forced to do so by the government. The gov made solvent banks take TARP as well so the market didn't destroy the ones that were distressed... different argument though. But anyway, my perspective may be different than others.)

So I supported both bailouts. The reason I supported GM was because of all the people that were employed or connected to GM through the supply chain (truck drivers, parts makers, dealerships, etc.). The resulting unemployment, particularly in the Midwest, would have been fairly substantial and worsened an already sick economy. So the government bought preferred shares of GM (rather than just loaning $, creating more debt for them) and GM recovered. Now we taxpayers lost probably 10 billion on that deal after the government sold its shares, but that's far less than it probably would have paid in unemployment, lost taxes (personal and business), lower GDP, etc. So in all, I think it was a wise thing to do. And think of how many families that the small 10 billion investment saved.

TARP - this is the one people had a bigger problem with, but to me it was essentially the same concept, but the ramifications would have been far worse. Regardless of whose fault it was (that's a whole different discussion), the reality is that Bank provide two essential services in this country. First, they provide not only loans for cars, homes, etc, but they provide essential small business loans that are used to keep these companies afloat through payroll, through slow pay of clients etc. Second, the top six banks in the US employ 800K people. 98% of these people are just like you and me. They are middle class, and earn between 40 and 100k per year. If these banks had failed, how many middle class families would have suffered the same fate as GM families? Untold amounts, particularly since it wasn't the Chase and Citi's that really needed TARP, it was all the regional and second tier banks. And if the gov't let them fail, would the Jamie Dimon (Chase) or Ken Lewis (BAC) be hurt? Hell no. They are ungodly rich already. Letting the banks fail hurts middle class employees, not the C class.
And then you let the banks fail. Then what? Then the credit market tightens because there is more competition for %, so interest rates raise. Who gets hurt there? Consumers and small business's that can't afford the double digit rates. So small businesses close because they can't float their receivable, or can't pay employees. It's a reverberating effect.

And what was the final cost of TARP? Officially the taxpayers made about 15 billion but I suspect it was an even trade because of value of the dollar and inflation. Either way, both investments were wise to me. They were not pure capitalistic, but in many ways humanitarian.

Sorry so long Benjs, but this is something I have thought about for many years.

HughFreakingDillon said:

and how is he going to "MAKE" Mexico pay for the wall? send them a bill and then sick a collection agency on them? them claim bankruptcy and then blame them for all the financial ills of 'murica?

This is getting kinda scarey. I don't give a shit who the Democratic nom is. They should be so far in the lead with this douche on the other side. This is really painting a nasty picture of today's america.

No more foreign aid.

unsung said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

and how is he going to "MAKE" Mexico pay for the wall? send them a bill and then sick a collection agency on them? them claim bankruptcy and then blame them for all the financial ills of 'murica?

This is getting kinda scarey. I don't give a shit who the Democratic nom is. They should be so far in the lead with this douche on the other side. This is really painting a nasty picture of today's america.

No more foreign aid.

Why would it be Mexico's responsibility to pay for a wall under any scenario.? We don't force people to stay in our country, so why should they? Wouldn't it be our responsibility to pay for the method of keeping people out of our country?

It's addition through subtraction.

They'll pay. They might not be writing the check, but they'll pay.

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

You have not questioned Clinton's actions here, not once and 100% defended Hillary. Leading me to believe you are blindly following. Understand?

Looking for where you questioned Bernie in any way.....looking....looking.... hmmm...

If Bernie had any questionable deals and behavior, something Hilary has shown and proven multiple times, he should and would have been questioned as should be. But that's what people like about him: he's more trustworthy and reliable, and full of integrity, so much more than your candidate and you are NOT questioning her. Which is why I'm questioning all Hillary supporters for not questioning her. Her shadiness is all out there in the open. And her supporters do not question it. There is something seriously wrong with that and says a lot about the American citizen.

Bernie had questionable policies, ones that were fraught with economic fantasy land scenarios. For me, that's more important than DWS or Goldman speeches. See? Different priorities.