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.