Quote:

---

You fail to recognize that its your side pulling against the recovery that slows the progress,

---

What I recognize is that just like in the 1930s ;government intervention extended the depression.

Quote:

---

And maybe its your intention Tom, to point out the job losses by the auto industry, without acknowledging what would have been no auto industry and millions of job losses,

---

Ford did not become a ward of the government . How is it that they were able to restructure without Uncle Obama taking them over ?

Quote:

---

Capitalism is ending and change will be painfull, there is no panocea, no great recovery

---

No sir ;what is proving to be a failure is the paternalistic Bismark state socialist model .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

No sir ;what is proving to be a failure is the paternalistic Bismark state socialist model .

---

Tom, where on earth do you get these ideas? Everything that doesn't conform to the free market model is not necessarily socialism. Bismarck was anti-socialist. If anything he was a pragmatist.

Tut

Again Tom you don't have all the facts,

Government Bailout of Ford GM Chrysler and the Auto Industry

Quote:

---

Ford requested a $9 billion line-of-credit from the government, and a $5 billion loan from the Energy Department. Ford pledged to accelerate development of both hybrid and battery-powered vehicles, retool plants to increase production of smaller cars, close dealerships, and sell Volvo. Ford is in better shape than GM or Chrysler because it had already mortgaged its assets in 2006 to raise $24.5 billion. Although Ford didn't need, and didn't receive any funds, it also didn't want its competition to get the upper hand thanks to the government bailout.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Tom, where on earth do you get these ideas? Everything that doesn't conform to the free market model is not necessarily socialism. Bismarck was anti-socialist. If anything he was a pragmatist.

Tut

---

I clearly called his model state socialist.. and it was . It really doesn't matter that he was in fact a monarcist . He instituted his reforms to appease the working class and detract support for the radical socialists. So although he opposed socialism ,his reforms were indeed socialist. By implementing the minimalist view of the socialists he undercut their support . However ;it fed very well into gradualists strategy like the Fabians.
The ball still moves "FORWARD" (note that is the new Obama campaign word ) .It has been the Progressive game plan for a century .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I clearly called his model state socialist ..and it was . It really doesn't matter that he was in fact a monarcist . He instituted his reforms to appease the working class and detract support for the radical socialists. So although he opposed socialism ,his reforms were indeed socialist. By implementing the minimalist view of the socialists he undercut their support . However ;it fed very well into gradualists strategy like the Fabians.
The ball still moves "FORWARD" (note that is the new Obama campaign word ) .It has been the Progressive game plan for a century .

---

I see, so 100 years of world political history can be summed up by the principle of bivalence (one or the other). One hundred years of economic history leading up to the present day also boils down to Socialism or free market economics. True or not true?

So is it the invisible hand of socialism that is simplifying world events and guiding us towards a socialist end?

Just because someone introduces socialist reforms doesn't necessarily make them a socialist, nor does it make him a conformist of socialist model.

My readings of Bismarck tells me that he was a pragmatist who implemented socialist reforms. After all that is what pragmatists tend to do. But we can ignore pragmatism?


Tut

Always Forward right ? The assumption is that these reforms are good . I do not agree. That 100 years of history has led the world to the brink of collapse . What difference to the socialist if the reforms are radically produced overnight ;or gradually over many decades ?The Marx vision of the end of history is the same... mission accomplished .

"Call it socialism or whatever you like. It is the same to me." (Bismarck)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

always Forward right ? The assumption is that these reforms are good . I do not agree. That 100 years of history has led the world to the brink of collapse . What difference to the socialist if the reforms are radically produced overnight ;or gradually over many decades ?The Marx vision of the end of history is the same....mission accomplished .

"Call it socialism or whatever you like. It is the same to me." (Bismarck)

---

Hi Tom,

Always forward?

We have no choice. In physics the arrow of time points in one direction. It is the same for politics, economics and anything else. We can't go back to the past to save the future. There is no society that has ever achieved this and none ever will. You don't think I long for this possibility? You don't think Plato longed for this possibility?

Like you I don't agree that all reforms are good, but we can only move forward. By holding up an ideal model of economics, society, politics we end up being an ideologue. It is easy to be safe in the knowledge that what is happening in the world doesn't really conform to the ideal and that everything will eventually be realized once it does.

You don't need me to tell you we live in an imperfect world with imperfect systems in. Idealizing a system won't provide the answer.


Tut

P.S.

In relation to your Bismarck quote. The idea of pragmaticism is that it doesn't conform to a model .

Quote:

---

Like you I don't agree that all reforms are good, but we can only move forward. By holding up an ideal model of economics, society, politics we end up being an ideologue. It is easy to be safe in the knowledge that what is happening in the world doesn't really conform to the ideal and that everything will eventually be realized once it does.

You don't need me to tell you we live in an imperfect world with imperfect systems in. By idealizing a system won't provide the answer.

---

I'm rejecting the utopian vision of those who move society ever FORWARD . I am not the one idealizing. I'm the one who is warning that as we centralize and consolidate power in the hands of the Leviathan we lose too much ;and that it is a system doomed to failure .

Quote:

---

We can't go back to the past to save the future.

---

Why not ? I think in many cases that is exactly what's needed . I happen to think that any law created should have an expiration date where it should be reviewed and only reinstituted if periodically debated and again approved . How about showing some positive results ? Does a program work ? Shouldn't we know it works before it becomes permanently institutionalized?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Sorry if you think I insulted you intelligence, not my intentions. But please look a bit deeper than Fox News for all the facts. In today's age, there is no excuse not to know what they don't tell you. So don't insult mine with a lack of facts.

---

Nice, an apology followed by another attempt at an insult, lol. You want facts? I've always got facts but I don't think you're interested in facts, I think you're only interested in ideological rhetoric.

So far in this thread I've sourced Wikipedia and Business Insider.

So far this week I've also sourced ABC/Yahoo, Investors Business Daily (via Hotair), The Wall Street Journal (Twice), WaPo and White House Dossier, Newsweek and Pulitzer.

You want more facts? Obama's Green Jobs plan is a monumental FAILURE (IBD). How long will our kids be paying for that boondoggle? Unemployment has been over 8 percent now for over 3 years (BLS) in spite of Obama's nearly trillion dollar stimulus, and you guys think the answer is to double down on the stimulus. How long is it going to take our kids and grandkids to pay for repeating that failure? The cost of Obamacare keeps rising (Washington Examiner), how are we going to pay for it, by raising taxes on the 1 percent? Even Bill Clinton said you could tax him at 100 percent and it wouldn't be enough (Politico) to balance the budget.

Doubling down on the same mistakes is not moving "forward" and spewing clichés does nothing to solve real life problems, yet that is all the left is offering as a solution.

Quote:

---

Did you know that stopping the filibuster in the Senate would result in 1.5 million new jobs? Bet you don't, nor do you care.

---

Your source is who, Think Progress? Huffpo? Daily Kos? When Democrats block change it's "patriotism." When Republicans do it it's "obstruction." Cry me a river.

P.S. Please drop the Fox News bit, I think I've sufficiently destroyed that line of attack.

Quote:

---

Ford requested a $9 billion line-of-credit from the government, and a $5 billion loan from the Energy Department. Ford pledged to accelerate development of both hybrid and battery-powered vehicles, retool plants to increase production of smaller cars, close dealerships, and sell Volvo. Ford is in better shape than GM or Chrysler because it had already mortgaged its assets in 2006 to raise $24.5 billion. Although Ford didn't need, and didn't receive any funds, it also didn't want its competition to get the upper hand thanks to the government bailout.

---

Yeah that's right Ford had government" funding" in the form of a line of credit to insure that the government run auto company did not gain a competitive advantage.

Today the US taxpayer owns about 26% of GM To break even ;shares of GM would need to sell at $53/share... Today GM shares are about $22/share ;and investors are bailing out.
Why Investors Are Selling GM Like Crazy - Seeking Alpha
The whole company is worth less than $34 billion even after we invested $50 billion in direct TARP funds alone plus other gimmicks that far exceed those loan guarantees to Ford(a special exemption waiving payment of $45.4 billion in taxes on future profits, an exemption for all product liability on cars sold before the bailout, $360 million in stimulus funds, $7,500 tax credit for those who buy the Chevy Volt. )

So yeah let the President brag about his success story. We would've been better off letting them go through standard bankruptcy .

Mitt would love that, because he would have taken millions out as profit, along with pensions too. I get you don't like it, but as long as they sell cars, and add JOBS, there is always tomorrow. Right?

http://seekingalpha.com/article/5877...-gm-like-crazy

Quote:

---

GM showed a major increase in revenue in North American markets even though it lost market share to foreign automakers along with Ford as well. The problem is that GM's heavy investment in the European market has been dragging down revenues since before GM went into bankruptcy. The issue here is that this trend still continues. There seems to be no way out or no plan in sight aside from waiting for the European market to rebound.

---

Its not all gloom and doom Tom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Its not all gloom and doom Tom.

---

Wait, isn't that what you've been warning of if Mitt gets elected?

I am pretty sure that the numbers add up to $400,000 per job saved (and that may be a low ball estimate )... we are also subsidizing every GM car sold to the tune of almost $2,000 /car...

and this doesn't account for the former GMAC aka Ally Financial bailout which never gets mentioned in the equation .We still own 74% of the company, and no one knows the value of the potential loss or since the government has not sold any of this company's stock into the market place.

Quote:

---

As of January, 2012, TARP had about $12 billion invested in Ally . The government stake represented a 74% ownership interest in Ally. In March, 2012, Ally failed the Federal Reserve's so-called financial "stress test" for capital adequac

---

Ally Financial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

always Forward right ? The assumption is that these reforms are good . I do not agree. That 100 years of history has led the world to the brink of collapse . What difference to the socialist if the reforms are radically produced overnight ;or gradually over many decades ?The Marx vision of the end of history is the same....mission accomplished .

"Call it socialism or whatever you like. It is the same to me." (Bismarck)

---

Tripe, Tom, otherwise known a capitalist propaganda .What has led the world to this collapse is unbridled capitalism. You want to look a Greece and say AH! I told you so. But the destabilastion occurred in The United States in the sub prime loans bubble perpertrated, wait for it, by capitalist bankers who subverted the world with their dud securities. Good Heavens even my local Local Government Council lost millions and that is about as far away from Wall street as you can get. It wasn't socialism, it was greed, deliberate fraud, and it is a virus which is allowed to grow and flourish in very few places.

I've explained that before. It was government trying manage and control of the housing market that caused the 2008 crisis.

What is happenening in Greece ;and Spain and Italy is the direct result of cradle to grave entitlement culture. And this oaf Hollande will drive France over the cliff. The EU stands a good chance of collapse before the US November elections.

Repeat after me... Free Market Capitalism is the best path to Prosperity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Mitt would love that, because he would have taken millions out as profit, along with pensions too. I get you don't like it, but as long as they sell cars, and add JOBS, there is always tomorrow. Right?

Why Investors Are Selling GM Like Crazy - Seeking Alpha


Its not all gloom and doom Tom.

---

All of you seem to know more about all this than I do, so I have a question on a personal business level. I purchased a truck from Chrysler Financial and half way through paying on the loan, supposedly Chrysler went bankrupt after or was it before, receiving a bailout. In any event, about this time I received notification that my loan was being sold to TD Auto Finance out of Canada and that I was to start paying them directly. So there I was paying a foreign country (as much as I love Canada) for an American loan…of which Toronto-Dominion Bank acquired Chrysler Financial for $6.3 billion. Question: Was Chrysler Financial obligated to pay back the American Government any of the $6.3 billion they received from a Canadian bank for the bailout amount that went south, that the American taxpayers' essential paid for? Wasn't this under Obama's watch?

Quote:

---

In December 2010, Toronto-Dominion Bank announced it would acquire Chrysler Financial for $6.3 billion from private-equity firm Cerberus Capital Management. The company was renamed TD Auto Finance in early June 2011.

---

TD Auto Finance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TD_Auto_Finance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Repeat after me .....Free Market Capitalism is the best path to Prosperity

---

Sorry Tom I'm not into repeating capitalist mantras anymore than I am into repeating communist mantras but I did like and you should repeat this one yourself we will sell the last capitalist the rope to hang himself It has a real possibility of coming true and only because of the actions of the capitalists themselves who have employed communist labour

Markets need to be regulated the great bubbles of the past few centuries have been unregulated markets. Get it Tom Adam Smith and Milton Keynes were wrong, they saw through a glass but dimly and stop making the excuse that the government caused the GFC. Greed and fraud caused the GFC Tom. And it is ever so so long as unregulated markets exist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FirstChair

All of you seem to know more about all this than I do, so I have a question on a personal business level. I purchased a truck from Chrysler Financial and half way through paying on the loan, supposedly Chrysler went bankrupt after or was it before, receiving a bailout. In any event, about this time I received notification that my loan was being sold to TD Auto Finance out of Canada and that I was to start paying them directly. So there I was paying a foreign country (as much as I love Canada) for an American loan…of which Toronto-Dominion Bank acquired Chrysler Financial for $6.3 billion. Question: Was Chrysler Financial obligated to pay back the American Government any of the $6.3 billion they received from a Canadian bank for the bailout amount that went south, that the American taxpayers’ essential paid for? Wasn't this was under Obama's watch?

TD Auto Finance:
TD Auto Finance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

By your theorum FC there should be no cross border finance. Chrysler was required to do whatever its agreement required. They didn't receive a bailout from a canadian bank. The bank bought the asset and you should be pleased they did since a bankruptcy makes many things complicated. You cannot blame BO for a commercial transaction and you should blame corporate greed and fraud for the losses not BO

.Free Market Capitalism is the best path to Prosperity

Quote:

---

we will sell the last capitalist the rope to hang himself

---

You keep on touting your economic turn around without mentioning that it is based on selling resources to the Potamkin economy of your neighbor . Your model needs the Chinese to continue to grow beyond reason . I think you are in for a whole lot of hurt . But go ahead ;listen to Red Julia's lies about surplus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I am pretty sure that the numbers add up to $400,000 per job saved (and that may be a low ball estimate ) ..... we are also subsidizing every GM car sold to the tune of almost $2,000 /car...

---

Some Chevy volts are being subsidized to the tune of over $30,000 when you take in the $25,600 federal grant and the $7000 per Volt subsidy. And those "green jobs" have cost the taxpayer something like $2 million each. Give me $2 million to play with and I guarantee I can create a lot more than one job.