Obviously a somewhat slanted & opinionated piece, but still some substantial truth to the article.
koaj - imo your views are too black, white & simplistic lacking some perspective of the times back then - socially & otherwise. Had I not been born, I wouldn't be able to post this
Easy to try to fit things in a nice neat hindsight package now, many decades later -
Obviously a somewhat slanted & opinionated piece, but still some substantial truth to the article.
koaj - imo your views are too black, white & simplistic lacking some perspective of the times back then - socially & otherwise. Had I not been born, I wouldn't be able to post this
Easy to try to fit things in a nice neat hindsight package now, many decades later -
Well, 1st of all come from such a anti-govt/Fed perspective that you seem to presuppose that everything has been totally centrally planned & that I disagree with while giving it a certain amount of credence as well. But as most things it's a matter of degrees, not all or nothin or back/white -
For example recently - were the financial & auto co bailouts more a planned manipulated thing or were they by neccessity decisions based on the economic factors at the time for the greater good?
Well, 1st of all come from such a anti-govt/Fed perspective that you seem to presuppose that everything has been totally centrally planned & that I disagree with while giving it a certain amount of credence as well. But as most things it's a matter of degrees, not all or nothin or back/white -
For example recently - were the financial & auto co bailouts more a planned manipulated thing or were they by neccessity decisions based on the economic factors at the time for the greater good?
If the left is right, then we have nothing to worry about. If the left is wrong then we will suffer the same consequenses. We all have different opinions on what could happen, good or bad, we won't really know until something happens that will effect us as the greater good, humanitarian style.
The outcome is out of our control and Democrat, Republican or other we have to deal with the consequenses that may effect our personal lives. There is no right or wrong in what we think is ethical. They make the rules and they want us to pay or defend ourself from those who can't pay.
There is no use in being divided over polotics on a personal level towards each other. We are all led to believe in the system that was put into place and all the jobs that were sent overseas were done for a reason, during the Clinton administration. Every admisnistration for the past 30 years have been moving us towards one world government and through hidden taxes we will be making $5.00 an hour to make ends meet.
Since we are a consumer market, we will not be able to support our own economy that we has been created for us and we will be forced to deal with strikes and high consumer prices.
If the left is right, then we have nothing to worry about. If the left is wrong then we will suffer the same consequenses. We all have different opinions on what could happen, good or bad, we won't really know until something happens that will effect us as the greater good, humanitarian style.
The outcome is out of our control and Democrat, Republican or other we have to deal with the consequenses that may effect our personal lives. There is no right or wrong in what we think is ethical. They make the rules and they want us to pay or defend ourself from those who can't pay.
There is no use in being divided over polotics on a personal level towards each other. We are all led to believe in the system that was put into place and all the jobs that were sent overseas were done for a reason, during the Clinton administration. Every admisnistration for the past 30 years have been moving us towards one world government and through hidden taxes we will be making $5.00 an hour to make ends meet.
Since we are a consumer market, we will not be able to support our own economy that we has been created for us and we will be forced to deal with strikes and high consumer prices.
If the left is right, then we have nothing to worry about. If the left is wrong then we will suffer the same consequenses. We all have different opinions on what could happen, good or bad, we won't really know until something happens that will effect us as the greater good, humanitarian style.
The outcome is out of our control Democrat, Republican or other we have to deal with the consequenses that may effect our personal lives. There is no right or wrong in what we think is ethical. They make the rules and they want us to pay or defend ourself from those who can't pay.
There is no use in being divided over polotics on a personal level towards each other. We are all led to believe in the system that was put into place and all the jobs that were sent overseas were done for a reason, during the Clinton administration. Every admisnistration for the past 30 years have been moving us towards one world government and through hidden taxes we will be making $5.00 an hour to make ends meet.
Since we are a consumer market, we will not be able to support our own economy that we has been created for us and we will be forced to deal with strikes and high consumer prices.
If the left is right, then we have nothing to worry about. If the left is wrong then we will suffer the same consequenses. We all have different opinions on what could happen, good or bad, we won't really know until something happens that will effect us as the greater good, humanitarian style.
The outcome is out of our control Democrat, Republican or other we have to deal with the consequenses that may effect our personal lives. There is no right or wrong in what we think is ethical. They make the rules and they want us to pay or defend ourself from those who can't pay.
There is no use in being divided over polotics on a personal level towards each other. We are all led to believe in the system that was put into place and all the jobs that were sent overseas were done for a reason, during the Clinton administration. Every admisnistration for the past 30 years have been moving us towards one world government and through hidden taxes we will be making $5.00 an hour to make ends meet.
Since we are a consumer market, we will not be able to support our own economy that we has been created for us and we will be forced to deal with strikes and high consumer prices.
Well, 1st of all come from such a anti-govt/Fed perspective that you seem to presuppose that everything has been totally centrally planned & that I disagree with while giving it a certain amount of credence as well. But as most things it's a matter of degrees, not all or nothin or back/white -
For example recently - were the financial & auto co bailouts more a planned manipulated thing or were they by neccessity decisions based on the economic factors at the time for the greater good?
Well, 1st of all come from such a anti-govt/Fed perspective that you seem to presuppose that everything has been totally centrally planned & that I disagree with while giving it a certain amount of credence as well. But as most things it's a matter of degrees, not all or nothin or back/white -
For example recently - were the financial & auto co bailouts more a planned manipulated thing or were they by neccessity decisions based on the economic factors at the time for the greater good?
Since Congress holds the purse strings, I would like to know what the DOW was when Newt and the boys took over, and then what it was when Nancy and Harry took over....
My guess 300% return or more ||bank.gif' border=0>
What was the DOW in January 2007...as compared to now?
I am guessing a net loss
Since Congress holds the purse strings, I would like to know what the DOW was when Newt and the boys took over, and then what it was when Nancy and Harry took over....
My guess 300% return or more ||bank.gif' border=0>
What was the DOW in January 2007...as compared to now?
I am guessing a net loss
"For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism."
I can agree with the author Timmy Egan on this one ..Obama did save Capitalism by showing Americans what the exact opposite looks like.............
"For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism."
I can agree with the author Timmy Egan on this one ..Obama did save Capitalism by showing Americans what the exact opposite looks like.............
"For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism."
I can agree with the author Timmy Egan on this one ..Obama did save Capitalism by showing Americans what the exact opposite looks like.............
What the fuck are you talking about
"For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism."
I can agree with the author Timmy Egan on this one ..Obama did save Capitalism by showing Americans what the exact opposite looks like.............
What the fuck are you talking about
What the fuck are you talking about
Government interference in the market place to achieve a desired effect is not Capitalism. Proping-up failure with tax $'s is not saving capitalism ..now is it ?
Maybe the title to the article should be changed to :
Obama Saved Capitalism by Losing the Midterms ...
What the fuck are you talking about
Government interference in the market place to achieve a desired effect is not Capitalism. Proping-up failure with tax $'s is not saving capitalism ..now is it ?
Maybe the title to the article should be changed to :
Obama Saved Capitalism by Losing the Midterms ...
Since the author thinks TARP and the auto bailouts were such successes, why is he crediting Obama?
The real laugher is that he complains that Obama is blamed for TARP when it was instituted by Bush, while simultaneiously arguing that Obama should be applauded for TARP. Huh?
If TARP and the auto bailouts were in the author's view great accomplishments, then he should be writing about how Bush saved us all. Because I have news, the auto bailouts began in December by Bush also. Obama just continued them just like TARP.
IMO none of these things "saved" us and both Presidents deserve blame, but while we can argue that, what is not arguable is how flawed the author's logic is in his attempt to compliment Obama.
"Obama is mistakenly being blamed for things Bush did. Those things were extremely successful. So you all owe Obama." Brilliant.
Since the author thinks TARP and the auto bailouts were such successes, why is he crediting Obama?
The real laugher is that he complains that Obama is blamed for TARP when it was instituted by Bush, while simultaneiously arguing that Obama should be applauded for TARP. Huh?
If TARP and the auto bailouts were in the author's view great accomplishments, then he should be writing about how Bush saved us all. Because I have news, the auto bailouts began in December by Bush also. Obama just continued them just like TARP.
IMO none of these things "saved" us and both Presidents deserve blame, but while we can argue that, what is not arguable is how flawed the author's logic is in his attempt to compliment Obama.
"Obama is mistakenly being blamed for things Bush did. Those things were extremely successful. So you all owe Obama." Brilliant.
For starters, having a senile McCain choose Palin as a running mate is why a well-spoken bullshitter like Obama was elected.
For starters, having a senile McCain choose Palin as a running mate is why a well-spoken bullshitter like Obama was elected.
Since the author thinks TARP and the auto bailouts were such successes, why is he crediting Obama?
The real laugher is that he complains that Obama is blamed for TARP when it was instituted by Bush, while simultaneiously arguing that Obama should be applauded for TARP. Huh?
If TARP and the auto bailouts were in the author's view great accomplishments, then he should be writing about how Bush saved us all. Because I have news, the auto bailouts began in December by Bush also. Obama just continued them just like TARP.
IMO none of these things "saved" us and both Presidents deserve blame, but while we can argue that, what is not arguable is how flawed the author's logic is in his attempt to compliment Obama.
"Obama is mistakenly being blamed for things Bush did. Those things were extremely successful. So you all owe Obama." Brilliant.
Since the author thinks TARP and the auto bailouts were such successes, why is he crediting Obama?
The real laugher is that he complains that Obama is blamed for TARP when it was instituted by Bush, while simultaneiously arguing that Obama should be applauded for TARP. Huh?
If TARP and the auto bailouts were in the author's view great accomplishments, then he should be writing about how Bush saved us all. Because I have news, the auto bailouts began in December by Bush also. Obama just continued them just like TARP.
IMO none of these things "saved" us and both Presidents deserve blame, but while we can argue that, what is not arguable is how flawed the author's logic is in his attempt to compliment Obama.
"Obama is mistakenly being blamed for things Bush did. Those things were extremely successful. So you all owe Obama." Brilliant.
The real laugher is that he complains that Obama is blamed for TARP when it was instituted by Bush, while simultaneiously arguing that Obama should be applauded for TARP. Huh?
If TARP and the auto bailouts were in the author's view great accomplishments, then he should be writing about how Bush saved us all. Because I have news, the auto bailouts began in December by Bush also. Obama just continued them just like TARP. "
Well put
The real laugher is that he complains that Obama is blamed for TARP when it was instituted by Bush, while simultaneiously arguing that Obama should be applauded for TARP. Huh?
If TARP and the auto bailouts were in the author's view great accomplishments, then he should be writing about how Bush saved us all. Because I have news, the auto bailouts began in December by Bush also. Obama just continued them just like TARP. "
Well put
One of the most outlandish defenses of Obama's first two years has become one of the most emailed articles on the New York Times.
In the Opinionater section on the website of the New York Times, Timothy Egan tells big corporate donors to be worried "about what you just bought."
He's talking, of course, about the Republican victory in the midterms, which has delivered the GOP control of the House of Representatives. But it's far from clear that big corporate donors "bought" anything in this election. Certainly, it's a canard to say they bought the Republican victory.
As Tim Carney explains, the top 12 corporate political action committees gave far more to Democrats than Republicans. More campaign cash from HMOs went to Democrats. Wall Street donated more to Democrats than Republicans. Lobbyists sent more money into Democratic campaigns than Republican campaigns. Politico showed that even when you include independent political expenditures, the Democratic-aligned political machinery had far more cash to spend than the Republicans.
In short, if corporate donors were trying to buy anything, it would be accurate to say they were trying to buy a Democratic victory. As it turns out, money is nowhere near as effective in politics as Egan thinks.
But if Egan starts with a canard, he goes on to an absurdity: "For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism."
What is the evidence that Obama "saved capitalism?" It's that Obama continued the Bush policy of bailing out banks. No, really. That's Egan's main argument.
The banking system was resuscitated by $700 billion in bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans), and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal Reserve. It worked. The government is expected to break even on a risky bet to stabilize the global free market system. Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big capitalism could have collapsed. He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged.
Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama's political capital, is a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated....
Interest rates are at record lows. Corporate profits are lighting up boardrooms; it is one of the best years for earnings in a decade.
All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist.
While I'm not especially interested in the question of whether Obama is a socialist (my instinct is to reply that Obama is not a socialist, he's a golfer), I think it's important to clear up this question of whether saving failed banks and failed automakers while holding interest rates artificially low is good for capitalism. Of course it isn't.
The word capitalism is usually used to refer to a system of free enterprise in which market processes are permitted to operate with relatively little intervention by the government. All of the things Egan describes as "good for capitalism" are, of course, the opposite of capitalism. They undermine market processes.
Low interest rates are not necessarily the sign of something being good for capitalism. Indeed, when those interests rates are engineered by central bankers, they have nothing at all to do with capitalism. They are the product of central planning of the economy and manipulation of the money supply. They certainly aren't the sign of the healthy economy: the Fed is explicitly lowering interest rates because the economy is so unhealthy.
Corporate profits are not a proxy of something being good for capitalism, especially in the short term. Government subsidies and easy money can easily make for a great earnings year.
Egan is looking at the world through a very strange lens. Everything is the opposite of reality. Far from the "manipulators of great wealth" being ungrateful to Obama, they were very grateful. But this time around, they lost the election.
One of the most outlandish defenses of Obama's first two years has become one of the most emailed articles on the New York Times.
In the Opinionater section on the website of the New York Times, Timothy Egan tells big corporate donors to be worried "about what you just bought."
He's talking, of course, about the Republican victory in the midterms, which has delivered the GOP control of the House of Representatives. But it's far from clear that big corporate donors "bought" anything in this election. Certainly, it's a canard to say they bought the Republican victory.
As Tim Carney explains, the top 12 corporate political action committees gave far more to Democrats than Republicans. More campaign cash from HMOs went to Democrats. Wall Street donated more to Democrats than Republicans. Lobbyists sent more money into Democratic campaigns than Republican campaigns. Politico showed that even when you include independent political expenditures, the Democratic-aligned political machinery had far more cash to spend than the Republicans.
In short, if corporate donors were trying to buy anything, it would be accurate to say they were trying to buy a Democratic victory. As it turns out, money is nowhere near as effective in politics as Egan thinks.
But if Egan starts with a canard, he goes on to an absurdity: "For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism."
What is the evidence that Obama "saved capitalism?" It's that Obama continued the Bush policy of bailing out banks. No, really. That's Egan's main argument.
The banking system was resuscitated by $700 billion in bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans), and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal Reserve. It worked. The government is expected to break even on a risky bet to stabilize the global free market system. Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big capitalism could have collapsed. He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged.
Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama's political capital, is a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated....
Interest rates are at record lows. Corporate profits are lighting up boardrooms; it is one of the best years for earnings in a decade.
All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist.
While I'm not especially interested in the question of whether Obama is a socialist (my instinct is to reply that Obama is not a socialist, he's a golfer), I think it's important to clear up this question of whether saving failed banks and failed automakers while holding interest rates artificially low is good for capitalism. Of course it isn't.
The word capitalism is usually used to refer to a system of free enterprise in which market processes are permitted to operate with relatively little intervention by the government. All of the things Egan describes as "good for capitalism" are, of course, the opposite of capitalism. They undermine market processes.
Low interest rates are not necessarily the sign of something being good for capitalism. Indeed, when those interests rates are engineered by central bankers, they have nothing at all to do with capitalism. They are the product of central planning of the economy and manipulation of the money supply. They certainly aren't the sign of the healthy economy: the Fed is explicitly lowering interest rates because the economy is so unhealthy.
Corporate profits are not a proxy of something being good for capitalism, especially in the short term. Government subsidies and easy money can easily make for a great earnings year.
Egan is looking at the world through a very strange lens. Everything is the opposite of reality. Far from the "manipulators of great wealth" being ungrateful to Obama, they were very grateful. But this time around, they lost the election.
well, I would have mentioned those things so go ahead & explain it, lol. What about the number of jobs that were saved & the thousands of folks who were rehired? And the many parts supplier cos that would have gone under that not only would have probably sunk Ford (who didn't take a bailout but was seriously struggling) but also adversely affected Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc that have plants in the country,
All 3 cos showed a profit in the 1st qtr of 2010 for the 1st time since '04. Production is also increasing which will create more jobs. If it gets fully paid which it looks like it will earlier than expected & profits/production continue, I can't see how on balance it wouldn't be considered the right thing to do whether it was deserving or philosophically/constitutionally fair to taxpayers or not. Good arguments to made on both sides though -
well, I would have mentioned those things so go ahead & explain it, lol. What about the number of jobs that were saved & the thousands of folks who were rehired? And the many parts supplier cos that would have gone under that not only would have probably sunk Ford (who didn't take a bailout but was seriously struggling) but also adversely affected Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc that have plants in the country,
All 3 cos showed a profit in the 1st qtr of 2010 for the 1st time since '04. Production is also increasing which will create more jobs. If it gets fully paid which it looks like it will earlier than expected & profits/production continue, I can't see how on balance it wouldn't be considered the right thing to do whether it was deserving or philosophically/constitutionally fair to taxpayers or not. Good arguments to made on both sides though -
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.