Topic: 2012 Election Thread

[slslbs]

yep.
to protest, we could all just boycott electronic devices.

also, it's not just the computer / electronics industry

[Hicks]

Yeah when people whine about our speakers being manufactured in China I'm always tempted to ask them where the phone they are talking on was made, the computer they used to find out about us, what kind of car they drive, what kind of TV they have. . .   


But I don't. 

[slslbs]

some good news - while it lasts

3d-party ads nixed by Brown, Warren
By Glen Johnson
Globe Staff / January 24, 2012


Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Elizabeth Warren today signed a novel ban on third-party ads in their hotly contested US Senate race after posturing between both sides over the agreement. “This is a great victory for the people of Massachusetts,” Brown said in a statement. He is battling to retain the seat he won in a January 2010 special election to replace the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, while Warren is expected to emerge from a group of lesser-known Democrats.

the interested 3rd parties said that for now they will honor the agreement, but once someone violates it then the gloves will be off. Of note is that Koch hasn't commented yet.

[goodabouthood]

yep.
to protest, we could all just boycott electronic devices.

also, it's not just the computer / electronics industry

there's too many people that just don't care. it's pathetic honestly. but what can i say even this website is a part of it.

[slslbs]

yep.
to protest, we could all just boycott electronic devices.

also, it's not just the computer / electronics industry

there's too many people that just don't care. it's pathetic honestly. but what can i say even this website is a part of it.

from today's NYT
didn't quote it (nor did I read the entire article) - it's quite long
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy-apples-ipad-and-the-human-costs-for-workers-in-china.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

[antelope19]

I really enjoyed obama's SOTU the other night. Thought it was pretty upbeat.  Anyone else have thoughts?

[runawayjimbo]

I really enjoyed obama's SOTU the other night. Thought it was pretty upbeat.  Anyone else have thoughts?

I was gonna keep my rant to myself, but since you asked... 

I was not a fan (shocking). I was pleasantly surprised that it didn't come off quite as much like a stump speech as I thought it would; I figured he'd spend the better part of an hour chastising Republicans for being too intransigent to do what's "good" for the country. But overall, I felt it was another speech chocked full of lofty promises meant to get the base fired up for the election.

A couple of my major sticking points:

-- He defended the GM bailout and even had the balls to praise GM's re-emergence as the #1 automaker in the world. I'm not ok with the President unilaterally firing the CEO of a private company and subverting decades of bankruptcy law by putting junior creditors (i.e., allies at UAW) ahead of senior ones (i.e., greedy fat cat bondholders). I also find it in pretty pathetically poor taste to pretend GM would be the top automaker if not for a tsunami and nuclear fallout that wrought havoc on its major competitors' supply chains. If you gave Sears $50B in cash and another $20B in tax breaks and took out some distribution centers at Wal-Mart or Home Depot or Best Buy, Sears would probably overtake the others as the most profitable retailer; that doesn't make Sears a success story.

-- Took credit for withdrawal in Iraq. While I am fully supportive of this "fact", I find it pretty disingenuous for the administration to take credit for it. Obama aggressively lobbied the Iraqi PM to allow him to leave troops there past the 12-31-2011 date but was denied (not to mention his campaign promises of full withdrawal by YE 2009). Also, I don't know how many embassies have 16,000 "staff" (in addition to the thousands of private contractors hired to stay), but I'm pretty sure that doesn't exactly constitute a full withdrawal. I also didn't like the sabre-rattling line towards the end about taking "no option off the table" with regard to Iran.

-- Demanding states require kids to graduate or stay in school until they're 18. I'm not sure where the President gets off telling all 50 states they should do his bidding, but that was as big an example of gov'tal overreach as I can remember in a SOTU. I'm not suggesting kids shouldn't graduate from HS in this day in age, I just don't understand how a Constitutional scholar thinks the President derives the authority to mandate policy to the states, especially in an area like education. Also, when taken with the equally offensive requirements from No Child Left Behind which make it nearly impossible to hold kids accountable by making them repeat a grade or go to summer school, there's nothing that would improve how kids who are struggling in school learn more gooder and make them less likely to want to drop out, it would only make school more mandatory.

[slslbs]

I thought it was a good speech.
clearly, it was a campaign speech meant to give "the other side" to a lot of the BS that Romney and Gingrich have been saying.
If we went point by point with their arguments, this thread would have about 50 more pages. If you don't believe me, just go to factcheck.org

anyway -
I agree with the GM bailout. GM going bankrupt would have affected numerous other companies, the unemployment results would hav been disasterous

I agree with rjimbo that he has no authority over what states to with education. That said, who can argue with trying to keep kids in school? I mean, why shouldn't the Prez try to support that? There's nothing wrong with urging the states to do anything. He can't force them. I also liked his comment that we should have the ability to get rid of bad teachers and reward good teachers, a thinly veiled shot at the teachers union (not teachers), which typically supports dems

I agree with his rhetoric toward Iran. He clearly stated that we would tried diplomacy 1st. The military is best used as a threat. If he took military response off the table they would be thinking well - what's he gonna do about it.

I agree with his sentiments regarding the tax code. I don't begrudge Mitt's 42 mill over 2 years, it does piss me off that he payed a lower tax rate than probably anyone on this board except the students. Something is wrong with that. I don't blame Mitt for that, he followed the law. But -  I do blame him for wanting to keep the system. What's worse is that according to the NYT under Newt's plan Mitt would pay even less.

I agree with efforts towards green energy and ending tax breaks to the oil companies

[V00D00BR3W]

Fair points and analogy re: GM, but at then end of the day, weren't jobs saved and an important cog in the U.S. economy preserved? Was it a net win?

[runawayjimbo]

I agree with the GM bailout. GM going bankrupt would have affected numerous other companies, the unemployment results would hav been disasterous

I love your optimism, sls, but the "it would have been worse" argument just doesn't fly with me. I don't know what could be worse than 3 yrs of a recession, stagnant wages and persistently high unemployment (remember the whole "unemployment won't exceed 8% with the stimulus" prediction?).

we should have the ability to get rid of bad teachers and reward good teachers, a thinly veiled shot at the teachers union (not teachers), which typically supports dems

True, but I'm pretty sure he's said this line before with nothing to show for it. If he really wanted to make teachers' unions take notice, he should have proposed increasing school choice or a "money follows the student" approach rather than "we should be able to fire incompetent teachers (wink wink)."

I agree with his rhetoric toward Iran. He clearly stated that we would tried diplomacy 1st. The military is best used as a threat. If he took military response off the table they would be thinking well - what's he gonna do about it.

Will we be at war with Iran before the election?

I agree with his sentiments regarding the tax code. I don't begrudge Mitt's 42 mill over 2 years, it does piss me off that he payed a lower tax rate than probably anyone on this board except the students. Something is wrong with that. I don't blame Mitt for that, he followed the law. But -  I do blame him for wanting to keep the system. What's worse is that according to the NYT under Newt's plan Mitt would pay even less.

I'll spare you my Buffet's secretary sitting next to FLOTUS rant, but I agree the tax code needs to be dramatically overhauled. Chances of that happening in an election year? Less than zero.

I agree with efforts towards green energy and ending tax breaks to the oil companies

I totally agree oil company subsidies should be ended, but I don't see the point in taking those same subsidies and passing them on to another industry.

Fair points and analogy re: GM, but at then end of the day, weren't jobs saved and an important cog in the U.S. economy preserved? Was it a net win?

Based on the amount spent and the actual number of jobs "saved" (how do you measure that exactly) - which, BTW, is far less than the 1M Obama mentioned - the gov't spent approx. 500k per job (I'll try to find you a source if interested). Doesn't sound like a net win to me.

Also, if it was wrong to save the financial companies who acted recklessly and were poorly managed (and I'd contend that it was), why should we follow the same strategy for another industry? And do you really think the auto bailout will help these companies turn around permanently or will this just be a life line that will keep them afloat until the next time they need some help? If the bank bailout did nothing but enrich bankers and encourage excessive risk taking (again, I'd argue it did), why would the auto bailout be any different? BTW, the gov't bought into GM around $33/share and needed the stock to go to around $50 to break even; it's currently trading around $25. A couple of profitable qtrs doesn't make a gov't takeover of the auto industry any more palatable.

Also, VDB, don't forget there's another GOP debate/shitshow tonight if you're interested.

[slslbs]

we'll just have to agree to disagree with GM. I understand the principles of where you're coming from. Personally, I think a more pragmatic approach is sometimes warranted. We'll have to wait a few years to see what the long term effects of bailing out GM are - unlike the bankers the board of GM is incented to profit over the long run, not just today.

Much of our current technology / science  etc, which is now controlled by the private sector, started with Federal $. So - no, I see nothing wrong with investing federal $ in green energy.  The reasons we have to do it have all been said before, and, if we don't do it, someone else will.

No - I don't think we'll be at war with Iran before the election.

and - I don't think anything will happen before the election. For better or worse, he can't do anything without Congress. What should he do - only propose things that will pass? If that's the case, he could have skipped the speech because nothing will pass, except resolutions like "In God We Trust is the motto of our country" This is clearly the most dysfunctional Congress in my lifetime.


ETA - was anyone else surprised / outraged to find out that Congress is aloud to trade securities based on insider info??? Unfriggin' real.
The way this made it into  SOTU is that Scott Brown authored a bill to outlaw it. It was introduced in November. Reid announced today that it will come to the Senate for vote.

[Superfreakie]

Will we be at war with Iran before the election?

This, I assure you, will not happen.

[V00D00BR3W]

Fair points and analogy re: GM, but at then end of the day, weren't jobs saved and an important cog in the U.S. economy preserved? Was it a net win?

Based on the amount spent and the actual number of jobs "saved" (how do you measure that exactly) - which, BTW, is far less than the 1M Obama mentioned - the gov't spent approx. 500k per job (I'll try to find you a source if interested). Doesn't sound like a net win to me.

Also, if it was wrong to save the financial companies who acted recklessly and were poorly managed (and I'd contend that it was), why should we follow the same strategy for another industry? And do you really think the auto bailout will help these companies turn around permanently or will this just be a life line that will keep them afloat until the next time they need some help? If the bank bailout did nothing but enrich bankers and encourage excessive risk taking (again, I'd argue it did), why would the auto bailout be any different? BTW, the gov't bought into GM around $33/share and needed the stock to go to around $50 to break even; it's currently trading around $25. A couple of profitable qtrs doesn't make a gov't takeover of the auto industry any more palatable.

Also, VDB, don't forget there's another GOP debate/shitshow tonight if you're interested.

Mind you, I'm not making an argument necessarily on the GM matter -- I raised the question 1. to prompt discussion and 2. because I'm admittedly not entirely hip to all the details.

I do think it raises an interesting and fundamental issue -- on the one hand, should private businesses and even entire industries be left to sink or swim on their own accord? I think I've let on here that I'm enough of a government-wary libertarian-type to find the notion attractive. At the same time, I like to leave room for practical considerations and will tend to side with real-world evidence and circumstances over strict dogma. (Again, that's not necessarily to stake out a position in this particular case; just to say that I tend not to first consult my rote ideology before deciding where I land on an issue.)

And yeah, I did know about tonight's debate but had a late night getting home and figured I'd spend time with the wife instead... anyway, since my state has voted I feel less compelled by civic duty versus, if anything, sheer curiosity to check in on what the knuckleheads have to say nowadays.

[runawayjimbo]

we'll just have to agree to disagree with GM. I understand the principles of where you're coming from. Personally, I think a more pragmatic approach is sometimes warranted. We'll have to wait a few years to see what the long term effects of bailing out GM are - unlike the bankers the board of GM is incented to profit over the long run, not just today.

Understood. I wasn't trying to belittle your POV (or VDB's), only to further the discussion.

ETA - was anyone else surprised / outraged to find out that Congress is aloud to trade securities based on insider info??? Unfriggin' real.
The way this made it into  SOTU is that Scott Brown authored a bill to outlaw it. It was introduced in November. Reid announced today that it will come to the Senate for vote.

This story was broke by 60 Minutes in November. WARNING: this video is highly enraging.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388130n

Will we be at war with Iran before the election?

This, I assure you, will not happen.

I hope you're right (of course, sanctions and covert assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists probably qualify as an act of war ).

[PG]

I hope you're right (of course, sanctions and covert assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists probably qualify as an act of war ).

there is a "war on terror" that has been declared with no end in sight. Somehow, this qualifies.