Michigan Auto Bailout: Dunderhead Mitt Romney Got it 100% Wrong!!

Wrong. You need a tutor.

Call it idiotic do you? It is one of the many terms you and the Right Wing uses ENDLESSLY. You use it so much that the nation which has the world's largest GDP, the nation that generates more business than any other nation--a nation whose gross income is year after year skewed more heavily to the already wealthy than the rest of the population, has to defend itself against claims of socialism. What a rot.

I merely used the term you and your cohorts always use.

Nice work, using a dictionary. It gives me hope. We may be able to cut the time you need to be tutored.

Obviously, when you were spending some of the previous 70+ responses which never responded to my original post and veered off to promote an incredibly misleading, misinformative research study prepared by a Right Wing "think tank".....

(it seems they should change the description "think tank" for this group which the Right Wing loves so much----to something like...We think we can publish any sort of misleading anger provoking b^llsh^t and get folks who aren't using their thinking caps to buy into it and get angry

The "think tank" applied direct subsidies (as described by dictionary.com) plus various tax cuts and breaks( some of which have not been applied, some of which might never be applied) to come up with a humongous amount of money.

They call it a subsidy.

You are one which showcased and broadcast this baseless piece of garbage analysis to further fan the flames of political anger.

Obviously, earlier you considered tax cuts and tax breaks subsidies. Now you are saying they are not subsidies.

That is called arguing out of two sides of your mouth. Its often a sign of mental instability or crazy psychosis. Sometimes its a sign of simply drinking way too much.

(Note: my tutoring lessons don't go into this area. I suggest you visit a shrink...or possibly cut back on the scotch.).

In any case make up your mind.

Please articulate the fewer deductions Ryan has enumerated and about which he has been specific.

I'll help you out. There are none.

(seriously...another flight of fancy????). seriously lad I'm pointing this out to assist you in a climb back to rationality

ah....your feelings came out. that is nice. I hope you have a balanced day.

Now as it applies to the 25 hedge fund managers who averaged $1 billion/year/person for the last two years...

you must be joking about being over taxed or under taxed. When provided with the tax gift that allows them to pay only 15% in federal taxes....they are each left with $850 million/year (on average) for everything else.

Suppose they were taxed at the highest currrent federal tax rate...like the rest of the population who don't get that favored position.

Oh my....I'm already feeling very very sorry for these folks. After federal taxes they would be left with a meager $650 million/per person/per year (on average).

Those poor souls (per your emotional lament). Were they not granted a favor by the government, treating them better and differently than the other 99.9% of tax payers....they would be burdoned with only $50++ million dollars/per month to buy things...or about $1.8 million/per day.

Yes I can understand your emotional pain for those 25 people who (under your previous application of the term subsidy) who, if treated like the over than 99.9% of taxpayers--would have to suffer with that measly $1.8/day spending limit on their little treats.

To set the record straight and not subject it to still one more artificially created GOP/Right Wing/isn't obviously Extremist--fantasy.

Jeffrey Immalt is a registered Republican.

His long term contributions to politicians have neither been extraordinarily high or dramatic in any context.---He is in no way like the oil billionaires who are funding the various GOP PAC's.

He was appointed by Obama to the Economic Advisory Recovery Board. He is the chairman of GE.

Other than the appointment there is no evidence of any relationship with Obama or any other Democrat in his long history. Basically the guy, while registered as a Republican, has generally been uninvolved in any considerable way with politics over his long history.

It appears the Jeffrey Immalt reference is still one more example of the absurdist anger provoking fantasy tales created by the Right Wing to fan anger and under report specifics.

and now drum roll please...after avoiding the topic for all these comments over several months...our buddy O_Nation has taken up my challenge and is willing to respond to the question

DRUM ROLL PLEASE

Now to respond:

First the statements I put forth...lets review one more time:

Romney, lets be clear, was making a prediction. He predicted.
1. Kiss the american auto industry goodbye
2. Without bailout money the industry will change. With bailout money the industry won't change.
3. The 3 Detroit auto manufacturers will continue to lose market share.
4. There will be more and more job losses in the American auto industry.

So lets review current facts. I've been publishing updates over time.

1. The American auto industry is growing rather nicely. More domestic auto sales, more revenues, more profits, more employees than when Romney wrote his piece.
2. With the bailout money the industry changed extremely. Heads rolled. Factories and personnel were slashed. What had to make you incredibly happy, O_Nation, union salaries were slashed and dramatically restructured. Big Big Big hit on the unions.
3. The 3 American auto makers have gained market share.
4. The 3 American auto makers have hired more workers. Beyond that with growth in the industry...many more workers who supply the auto makers..but don't work for either Ford, GM, or Chrysler have been hired.

And yet...you say he was right when he made his prediction...and he is correct now.

I suggest you drink a lot of coffee and try and get a grasp on reality. Seriously!!!!

Okay..too much time has been devoted to the top of this piece...but I'll be happy to respond to the rest of this later.

Have a great day, O_Nation. My advice is to stay off the juice today, though.

 

Why are liberals so threatened by thinking?

Earl, you've violated one of Alinksy's most important rules. Don't be a drag. Economic use of words would make your nonsense much more readable. For example, your entire quoted paragraph above could be boiled down to:

Look how much money the rich make! They can afford a tax hike! There are only 25 of them, we can do whatever we want to them!​

To your illegitimate point, when those guys are asked to pay 38%, how many of them do you think will drop US citizenship in favor of UK citizenship, which does not tax income earned abroad, and promptly move to Gibraltar, or Isle of Man? That is but one legal tax avoidance strategy, and there are many more like it. The real problem you would have to deal with then, are all the other countries on the planet that don't charge our tax rates..... perhaps we need to invade them!

Oooo! Well theres the smoking gun! Pay no attention to the hundreds of thousands of dollars thrown at Democrats/Obama by GEPac. Pay no attention to the non-partisan organization Public Campaign criticisms of General Electric for spending $84.35 million on lobbying and not paying any taxes during 2008-2010, instead getting $4.7 billion in tax rebates, despite making a profit of $10.4 billion, laying off 4,168 workers since 2008, and increasing executive pay by 27% to $75.9 million in 2010 for the top 5 executives. Hell, a 15% rate would be a huge tax increase for GE. Pay no attention to the fact Immalt's GE is the parent corporation of MSNBC, which is nothing more than a left wing propaganda outfit like Media Matters. It's very existence is a campaign contribution.

Obviously Immalt is a patriot! You think he voted for anyone in the party he is registered in, as a protest to such blatant crony capitalism by the Obama admin and the Democrats? Obama's appointment of Immalt to the chair of his economic advisory council is an insult to any American who works and pays taxes.

Reiterating your argument doesn't make it any more effective. If you wanted to make a counter argument, you would have to argue my points, not repeat yours.

Now there is a surprise. By all means, take your time get out the books. Do some research. Call up Media Matters and ask them how to respond. Certainly there must be some justification that works.

 

O.K., you refused to post the original argument and instead you were lazy and insisted that I make your argument for you. Fine.
I re-read the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1
Earl, it seems that you only read the VERY FIRST SENTENCE, right? You know, there's a second sentence. And here is some fascinating information for you - did you know there is an ENTIRE ARTICLE right below that first paragraph? That's right, a nice big article filled with facts! It's FUN to read, isn't it?

Now, hold your breath, here is that first paragraph:

I know you only read the first sentence of the article, BUT LOOK! There's a second sentence! I highlighted it in blue so you can find it easily. There, isn't that better?

Earl, is it your argument that Romney claimed that Detroit would never ever see an increase in sales, never never ever ever? Never? Never ever? If that is your argument, then please allow me to direct your attention to the SECOND SENTENCE IN THE FREAKIN PARAGRAPH!!! Do you need someone to read it out loud for you?

Sarcasm aside, I agree with Romney's arguments BECAUSE I WAS THERE IN DETROIT! Like the article says, GM is focused on short term and the next quarter. A bankruptcy would have forced them to re-structure and do the right thing under threat of dissolution.

GM has the same problems. Nothing has changed. They still have the highest overhead costs of any automobile manufacturer in the world, their quality still sucks, and their union workers still get paid 15% to 30% more than anyone else. They still aren't allowed to upgrade manufacturing plants to be competitive because the unions won't allow it if it costs union jobs. GM is still a make-work company for union employees. Because they still sure as shit can't compete selling cars.

Now Earl, I invite you to take something out of context, and like a typical left-wing extremist please scream that anyone who doesn't share your left-wing extremism is a right-wing extremist. Because YOU only THINK in extremes, right?

 

What happens when you create a tax that targets .001% of the population?

The answer:

Question. What is the Buffet Rule's net impact on tax revenue if just 25 billionaires impacted by it decide to become citizens of the UK? Does anyone in the US honestly believe you can't manage a US hedge fund from Switzerland?

 

I think that would be great. There are 50 other hedge funds that would go after every deal, every dollar, every player in the US. They would be selling hard, beating the guys hidden in Switzerland, day after day, out competing them, conducting more face to face meetings right here in the US, dealing with more businesses in the US on a face to face basis, every day.

Its what competition is all about.

Meanwhile back to cars.

From Reuters:

Every month Romney, who purposely submitted his story to the NYTimes to get super wide exposure, shows himself to be even more wrong. It appears on a monthly basis Romney is showing himself to be ever more wrong.

 

Corwin: Its been 3.5 years since he wrote that piece. 3.5 years since GM and Chrysler got bailout funds:

Since that time, every one of Romney's claims; about sales, about change, about revival of the two businesses has been completely wrong. He gets more wrong on a monthly basis. Sales volume is up, profits are up, labor costs are down, speed of decisions is up, hiring is up.

Your entire frantic argument is that Some day things will go downhill.

Tell me when. Give me hard facts. In the meantime he gets more wrong every day!!!!

 

Regardless of who said what here, who is the bigger "Dunderhead" ? Obama or Romney ?

This thread seems like a complete and utter waste of time, but enjoy it !

 

I'm sure you do, but you didn't answer the question. What would the net tax impact be when your top 25 income earners ditch their US citizen after being targeted by the Buffet rule?

Because clients of hedge funds are all about face to face meetings, not bottom line performance, right? Because foreign citizens can never visit the US for face to face meetings right?

As the article points out, this is not a new phenomenon, its just accelerating. The Buffet rule would have just been fuel for the fire. A global economy doesn't just mean our companies compete with foreign companies for business. It means our country competes with foreign countries for educated, top earning and net worth taxable citizens and residents. Yet another reason why our government needs to learn to live within its means rather than gifting 25 billion dollars to auto unions so people like you can brag about how many jobs Obama saved.

 

Two things O_nation:

You continuously move off the topic, veering away from discussions about the auto industry.

Every day, the US auto industry shows tremendous resilience and growth from its 2008/2009 bottom.

Every aspect of the industry that Romney cited has shown complete and utter change from his assertions:

The industry is growing;
The industry is showing profits (especially profits here in the US)
Sales are up up up
Costs are down down down.
Labor costs are down down down.
The industry has been revitalized.

All of that is a complete reversal of Romney's precise predictions.

Its all a direct and concise reversal of the basic GOP/Right Wing program....which is all government expenditures suck and they ruin the economy.

Direct investment in the 2 US auto businesses that were about to go down has resulted in more sales, more profits, more people working and more wealth created that is distributed within the US rather than sent overseas.

Attacking an investment in America is essentially attacking American jobs.

Moreover the attacks on GM and Chrysler and their auto assembly plants was a wholesale attack on American manufacturing. For every person who works in an auto assembly plant for GM, Ford, Chrysler, or any of the foreign manufacturers, there are at least 1.5 Americans working in auto parts manufacturing that supplies the auto assemblers. Under an incendiary attack by the GOP to discredit GM and Chrysler the GOP was simultaneously attacking hundreds of thousands of workers who don't directly work for those businesses but work for separate businesses that supply the auto assemblers.

Ford, who the GOP loves to extol, was so incredibly aware of this issue that at the height of the crisis in 2008 and into 2009 Ford worked in overtime to support auto parts manufacturers that were necessary and critical to keep its own operations running. http://www.booktv.org/Program/13322...and+the+Fight+to+Save+Ford+Motor+Company.aspx

Looks like this one has only served to put people to work, created profits and served to distribute the profits to the people who work. Its so PRO AMERICA its terrific and startling.

Meanwhile, O_Nation, instead of dealing with the US auto industry, how it has revived from its depths in 2008 and 2009, how since then it has hired more people, distributed more profits $$$ to people who actually work, you are now focusing on how the US need to cater to immensely wealthy people who might run off to Switzerland if they somehow are limited to keeping only $500 million/year per person rather than the $700 million/year you and the GOP wishes them to keep in their pockets.

You and the GOP right wing extremists aren't even trying to explain away the "values" and benefits of "trickle down economics" anymore.

Your polemics simply extol....give the rich everything under the sun, all the wealth of the country and screw everyone else.

bin laden would love you.

 

Gee, I wonder how I can get the US Taxpayers to lnvest(lose) 25 billion dollars on my company. Attacking such an investment would be attacking American jobs. After all, I am an American.

The part that really has me laughing is how the president, who is supposedly running against Wall St. excess, wealth, and too big to fail, props up too big to fail at the very same time. Meanwhile, the so-called "corporatist" Republicans are calling for the break up of too big to fail, which obviously did, does, and should include GM. Check it out.

GM, had it been broken up properly, would have had more value in pieces than it had as a whole, and more net jobs would have been created. The problem is, the Unions would have lost out on their cushy contracts. Instead of going through the legally established process of bankruptcy, the president circumvented the law and gave them billions of taxpayer dollars, 25 billion of which those same taxpayers will likely never see again.


Explain to me Earlpearl, if the wealthy are such a problem in America, how come President Obama is such a fan of corporate welfare? How come it is conservatives like myself are left to argue the point that big companies which only exist because of bailouts need to be broken up? How come I have to be the one to put a Ralph Nader link in my signature? Why does Obama want to pick at things like the Buffet rule, which even those on MSNBC call a political gimmick with negligible real impact, while he remains a corporate stooge for defacto monopolies and unions?

 

Geez, Earl, you are so impatient. Ross Perot predicted in 1990 that General Motors would crash like they did in 2008.

Holy crap, what a desperate rant.

You are wrong. General Motors has the same problems. Your last sentence ("Sales volume is...") is total bullshit that you pulled out of your ass. Yes, GM Sales are up because sales go up and down, but GM's labor costs are basically unchanged and still the highest in the automotive industry. speed of decisions are as slow as ever, GM hiring is at a trickle compared to other industries. Your last sentence is just made up.

Look, Earl, I enjoy a good logical argument, but you are just making up shit about an industry you know nothing about. Hey, I cut my teeth as a vendor to the Detroit automobile companies and in my expert opinion you are wrong.

And I can't believe that your lack of knowledge of how to argue effectively is putting me in the strange position of actually defending Mitt Romney!!?!?!?! A man who's name I feel is synonymous with "None of the above".