October 22nd Presidential Debate Opinions

[winex]

@winex: It's obvious you are pro Republican... is there anything you don't like about Romney?

@irvinecommuter: Same question but about Obama.

Yes, there are quite a few things.  Of the candidates who ran during this cycle, Santorum was my favorite.  I'll go into detail about Romney and problem areas after work this evening.

 

[qwerty]

World chaos - are you saying white people are the cause of our problems? 

 

[Irvinecommuter]

@winex: It's obvious you are pro Republican... is there anything you don't like about Romney?

@irvinecommuter: Same question but about Obama.

Yes, there are quite a few things.  Of the candidates who ran during this cycle, Santorum was my favorite.  I'll go into detail about Romney and problem areas after work this evening.

That statement speaks for itself for me. 

 

[steven]

He killed the economic recovery?  Have you looked at corporate earnings or the stock market?  Have you looked at the jobs reports to see what sectors are losing jobs?  If anything, he didn't spend enough to bolster the economy. 

You clearly don't read anything other than Obama Campaign pamphlets:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/markets-weighed-down-disappointing-earnings-145224609.html

You understand that companies in Japan, Germany, the UK, and every other country in the world with universal healthcare has a competitive advantage over American companies because they don't have to bear the health care costs right?  They leave that to the government. 

You still pass over the words of real, US employers who are telling us why they will not be hiring.  This is the problem with Obama supporters.  They feel they are entitled to ignore the facts.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

He killed the economic recovery?  Have you looked at corporate earnings or the stock market?  Have you looked at the jobs reports to see what sectors are losing jobs?  If anything, he didn't spend enough to bolster the economy. 

You clearly don't read anything other than Obama Campaign pamphlets:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/markets-weighed-down-disappointing-earnings-145224609.html

You understand that companies in Japan, Germany, the UK, and every other country in the world with universal healthcare has a competitive advantage over American companies because they don't have to bear the health care costs right?  They leave that to the government. 

You still pass over the words of real, US employers who are telling us why they will not be hiring.  This is the problem with Obama supporters.  They feel they are entitled to ignore the facts.

Seriously...you really think that's the only thing I read. 
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/gops-job-killing-whopper-again-2/http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/41...Affordable-Care-Act-for-American-Business.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/opinion/keller-five-obamacare-myths.html?src=me&ref=generalhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ney-on-obamacare-and-pre-existing-conditions/

Removing healthcare from employment benefits both the employer and the employee.  Employers don't have worry about raising healthcare costs and have cost certainty (if they don't want to offer healthcare, they just have to pay the fee).  Employee no longer have to worry about staying at a job because they need insurance. 

Oh also rather than citing to scare tactics by business people, check out real life result of what happened in Massachusetts where Obamacare was implemented by Mr. Romney. 
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...ing-under-its-landmark-health-care-reform-law

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Here is what Romney actually said, not what Obama said that Romney said.  (Again, for the record, I would feel better if what Obama said reflected reality)

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...auto-industry-post-bankruptcy-patrick-brennan

    If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won?t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

    Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course ? the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

    But don?t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass ? they bet on management and they lost. . . .

    The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

    In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

But in the 2008 piece, Romney said the money needed to keep General Motors (GM, Fortune 500) and Chrysler Group alive during bankruptcy should have come from the private sector, with the government providing only "guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing." Those guarantees would have made lenders whole if the automakers subsequently defaulted.

The problem was that there was no one available to write checks for the automakers other than the government in late 2008 and early 2009.

Bob Lutz, the vice chairman of GM at the time and an outspoken Republican himself, said the loan guarantees Romney talks about would not have made a difference due to the cash crunch at the time.

"The banks were even more broke than we were. Who had the money?" he told the Detroit Free Press in February. "Loan guarantees don't do any good if the banks don't have any money."

Without financing, both companies would have had to close. And even if they had survived, they could be struggling today rather than reporting record profits and strong sales. Many of their suppliers would have also been forced to shut down, and that could have caused bankruptcies at other automakers such as Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500), which would have been unable to build cars without their supplier base.

Lutz said Tuesday that the government was the only one willing to give GM most of the help it needed in return for stock in the company, rather than heaping on more debt that it couldn't afford. Even the Obama administration was reluctant to do that, Lutz said. But it was the only way a healthy GM could emerge from bankruptcy.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/23/news/companies/romney-auto-bailout/

 

[abcd1234]

If you gave Romney another 15 minutes to talk, we would have had him endorsing Obama.

Romney clearly doesn't remember UK-US CIA-led 1953 coup d'etat in Iran.  He should look it up.
Romney clearly doesn't know geography- Syria is Iran's route to the sea.  Um- heard of the Persian Gulf, Caspian Sea.

What an embarassment

 

[winex]

Here is what Romney actually said, not what Obama said that Romney said.  (Again, for the record, I would feel better if what Obama said reflected reality)

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...auto-industry-post-bankruptcy-patrick-brennan

    If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won?t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

    Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course ? the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

    But don?t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass ? they bet on management and they lost. . . .

    The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

    In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

But in the 2008 piece, Romney said the money needed to keep General Motors (GM, Fortune 500) and Chrysler Group alive during bankruptcy should have come from the private sector, with the government providing only "guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing." Those guarantees would have made lenders whole if the automakers subsequently defaulted.

The problem was that there was no one available to write checks for the automakers other than the government in late 2008 and early 2009.

Bob Lutz, the vice chairman of GM at the time and an outspoken Republican himself, said the loan guarantees Romney talks about would not have made a difference due to the cash crunch at the time.

"The banks were even more broke than we were. Who had the money?" he told the Detroit Free Press in February. "Loan guarantees don't do any good if the banks don't have any money."

Without financing, both companies would have had to close. And even if they had survived, they could be struggling today rather than reporting record profits and strong sales. Many of their suppliers would have also been forced to shut down, and that could have caused bankruptcies at other automakers such as Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500), which would have been unable to build cars without their supplier base.

Lutz said Tuesday that the government was the only one willing to give GM most of the help it needed in return for stock in the company, rather than heaping on more debt that it couldn't afford. Even the Obama administration was reluctant to do that, Lutz said. But it was the only way a healthy GM could emerge from bankruptcy.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/23/news/companies/romney-auto-bailout/

So you are telling me that rather than reference the words that Romney actually wrote himself you would defer to an opinion piece on CNN.com?

 

[changm55]

World chaos - are you saying white people are the cause of our problems? 

lol... no... i just find it ironic we went around forcing other markets to open up for globalization back in the day... and now we regret it cause we have to work harder for the same dollar because of outsourcing and too many illegal mexicans... haha i actually think this great equalization is a good thing...

 

[Irvinecommuter]

So you are telling me that rather than reference the words that Romney actually wrote himself you would defer to an opinion piece on CNN.com?

No...it's theory v. reality.  Romney wanted GM and Chrysler to go into BK first...come out lean and mean and receive government backed loans.  (it's in his USA Today piece).  Problem is that 1) having the two company go BK would have destroyed much of the company considering the severe cash crunch that it faced and 2) the severe cash crunch that all of GM and Chrysler's creditors were in would have prevent them from accepting much of anything other than straight liquidation.  Also, there was no funding to be had in 2008 and 2009 as the banks themselves had liquidity issues. 


Even if they did come out of BK clean, the two companies would have been substantially smaller than they are today which would have resulted in millions of jobs being lost. 

Romney likes BK because it give a venture investor like Bain Capital a win win proposition.  If the company being taken over was able to survive BK...it would be nice and clean and the investor can sell it off for much more than what was invested.  If the company didn't, the investor can sell the company for parts.  In the end the investor wins.  Not so for the company involved.

 

[winex]

So you are telling me that rather than reference the words that Romney actually wrote himself you would defer to an opinion piece on CNN.com?

No...it's theory v. reality.  Romney wanted GM and Chrysler to go into BK first...come out lean and mean and receive government backed loans.  (it's in his USA Today piece).  Problem is that 1) having the two company go BK would have destroyed much of the company considering the severe cash crunch that it faced and 2) the severe cash crunch that all of GM and Chrysler's creditors were in would have prevent them from accepting much of anything other than straight liquidation.  Also, there was no funding to be had in 2008 and 2009 as the banks themselves had liquidity issues. 


Even if they did come out of BK clean, the two companies would have been substantially smaller than they are today which would have resulted in millions of jobs being lost. 

Romney likes BK because it give a venture investor like Bain Capital a win win proposition.  If the company being taken over was able to survive BK...it would be nice and clean and the investor can sell it off for much more than what was invested.  If the company didn't, the investor can sell the company for parts.  In the end the investor wins.  Not so for the company involved.

I have a newsflash for you.  Both GM and Chrysler went through bankruptcy.  Of course Obama dictated that they ignore 200 years of case law in this country to favor political contributors to the President over secured debt holders.  But that's another topic.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

So you are telling me that rather than reference the words that Romney actually wrote himself you would defer to an opinion piece on CNN.com?

No...it's theory v. reality.  Romney wanted GM and Chrysler to go into BK first...come out lean and mean and receive government backed loans.  (it's in his USA Today piece).  Problem is that 1) having the two company go BK would have destroyed much of the company considering the severe cash crunch that it faced and 2) the severe cash crunch that all of GM and Chrysler's creditors were in would have prevent them from accepting much of anything other than straight liquidation.  Also, there was no funding to be had in 2008 and 2009 as the banks themselves had liquidity issues. 


Even if they did come out of BK clean, the two companies would have been substantially smaller than they are today which would have resulted in millions of jobs being lost. 

Romney likes BK because it give a venture investor like Bain Capital a win win proposition.  If the company being taken over was able to survive BK...it would be nice and clean and the investor can sell it off for much more than what was invested.  If the company didn't, the investor can sell the company for parts.  In the end the investor wins.  Not so for the company involved.

I have a newsflash for you.  Both GM and Chrysler went through bankruptcy.  Of course Obama dictated that they ignore 200 years of case law in this country to favor political contributors to the President over secured debt holders.  But that's another topic.

They did with substantially more cash in hand thanks to the US government.  This gave them greater leverage in BK to dictate what they could do or not.  BK is not complicated...having more money on hand helps you a lot.  Non-liquid assets are largely worthless because creditors don't need factories or auto parts. 

 

[changm55]

So you are telling me that rather than reference the words that Romney actually wrote himself you would defer to an opinion piece on CNN.com?

No...it's theory v. reality.  Romney wanted GM and Chrysler to go into BK first...come out lean and mean and receive government backed loans.  (it's in his USA Today piece).  Problem is that 1) having the two company go BK would have destroyed much of the company considering the severe cash crunch that it faced and 2) the severe cash crunch that all of GM and Chrysler's creditors were in would have prevent them from accepting much of anything other than straight liquidation.  Also, there was no funding to be had in 2008 and 2009 as the banks themselves had liquidity issues. 


Even if they did come out of BK clean, the two companies would have been substantially smaller than they are today which would have resulted in millions of jobs being lost. 

Romney likes BK because it give a venture investor like Bain Capital a win win proposition.  If the company being taken over was able to survive BK...it would be nice and clean and the investor can sell it off for much more than what was invested.  If the company didn't, the investor can sell the company for parts.  In the end the investor wins.  Not so for the company involved.

I have a newsflash for you.  Both GM and Chrysler went through bankruptcy.  Of course Obama dictated that they ignore 200 years of case law in this country to favor political contributors to the President over secured debt holders.  But that's another topic.

didnt really follow the GM Bk case... but seems very similar to the washinton mutual Bk case... cept the wamu case had some serious (gov sponsored) fraud/theft going on... i like how when u steal 60billion its not stealing anymore... they call it good business haha

 

[qwerty]

World chaos - are you saying white people are the cause of our problems? 

lol... no... i just find it ironic we went around forcing other markets to open up for globalization back in the day... and now we regret it cause we have to work harder for the same dollar because of outsourcing and too many illegal mexicans... haha i actually think this great equalization is a good thing...

i always chuckle when people try to blame things on illegal immigration. have you guys seen a "A day without a mexican" - the entire US stops functioning (or maybe it was jut CA).  In the south when Alabama passed that immigration law, the mexicans of the south (black people) tried to step in an pick the various fruits/vegetables and a lot of them would quit after one day because the work was so damn hard and you get paid shit, not to mention the conditions of some of those farm camps (over flowing toilets, shit on the ground, etc). White people would quit after one day as well. 

Seems like the only hard workers are the chinese and the mexicans.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

So you are telling me that rather than reference the words that Romney actually wrote himself you would defer to an opinion piece on CNN.com?

No...it's theory v. reality.  Romney wanted GM and Chrysler to go into BK first...come out lean and mean and receive government backed loans.  (it's in his USA Today piece).  Problem is that 1) having the two company go BK would have destroyed much of the company considering the severe cash crunch that it faced and 2) the severe cash crunch that all of GM and Chrysler's creditors were in would have prevent them from accepting much of anything other than straight liquidation.  Also, there was no funding to be had in 2008 and 2009 as the banks themselves had liquidity issues. 


Even if they did come out of BK clean, the two companies would have been substantially smaller than they are today which would have resulted in millions of jobs being lost. 

Romney likes BK because it give a venture investor like Bain Capital a win win proposition.  If the company being taken over was able to survive BK...it would be nice and clean and the investor can sell it off for much more than what was invested.  If the company didn't, the investor can sell the company for parts.  In the end the investor wins.  Not so for the company involved.

I have a newsflash for you.  Both GM and Chrysler went through bankruptcy.  Of course Obama dictated that they ignore 200 years of case law in this country to favor political contributors to the President over secured debt holders.  But that's another topic.

didnt really follow the GM Bk case... but seems very similar to the washinton mutual Bk case... cept the wamu case had some serious (gov sponsored) fraud/theft going on... i like how when u steal 60billion its not stealing anymore... they call it good business haha

What?  WaMu didn't go through BK...it went insolvent and the FDIC took it as required and sold assets to JPMorgan. 

 

[changm55]

nope... wamu went through chapter 11 after the gov took 60b of assets and gave it to jpm... on paper says gov bought jpm for 1.8b but during wamu bk, even the judges never asked if the gov paid wamu or not... 1.8b pretty much just disappeared... the bk case took almost 3 years man... fighting over NOLs n shit...

funniest thing that came out of the court was conclusion that if the gov did not come in, wamu would have been fine (had sufficient cash to hold out)... its called operation west or something... jpm had been planning on taking over wamu since early 2000's... why do u think the sale was done so fast and there has been complete media blackout afterwards?

 

[changm55]

i actually still hold some wamu stock hahaha... it came out of bk and has been trading under wmih ever since

again, during the court case, it came out that even after jpm took away the good parts, the judge still ruled that wamu WASNT insolvent... jpm wasnt the knight in shing armor that came to rescue wamu... rather it was the other way around, jpm used wamu to balance its books to survive... but meh... this is a dangerous path to go down... ignorance is a bliss... what i would give to forget all this so i could go back to drinking romney or obamas kool aid again...

 

[Irvinecommuter]

i actually still hold some wamu stock hahaha... it came out of bk and has been trading under wmih ever since

and thats one of the funny things... during the court case, it came out that even after jpm took away the good parts, it WASNT insolvent... hahaha can u say 60billion usd theft now?

The FDIC took over WaMu to ensure continuity...it shut down WaMu on a Friday and reopened as Chase on Monday.  It's the most important goal for the FDIC.  JPMorgan also only acquired the banking part of WaMu.

The FDIC sold the banking subsidiaries (minus unsecured debt or equity claims) to JPMorgan Chase for $1.9 billion, which JPMorgan Chase had been planning to acquire as part of a confidential plan internally nicknamed Project West.[8][9][10] All WaMu branches were rebranded as Chase branches by the end of 2009. The holding company, Washington Mutual, Inc., was left with $33 billion in assets, and $8 billion debt, after being stripped of its banking subsidiary by the FDIC.[3][4][11][12] The next day, September 26, Washington Mutual, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 voluntary bankruptcy in Delaware, where it is incorporated.

On September 15, 2008, the holding company received a credit rating agency downgrade; from that date through September 24, 2008, WaMu experienced a bank run whereby customers withdrew $16.7 billion in deposits over those 9 days,[12] and in excess of $22 billion in cash outflow since July 2008, both conditions which ultimately led the Office of Thrift Supervision to close the bank.

The FDIC then sold most of the bank's assets and liabilities, including secured debt to JPMorgan Chase for $1.9 billion. Claims of the subsidiary bank's equity holders, senior and subordinated debt (all primarily owned by the holding company) were not acquired by JP Morgan Chase

 

[changm55]

ok sir... i traded this and shorted this until Timbuktu... go ahead... u are right... again, this is a dangerous path to go down... ignorance is a bliss... if i told u wamu was not in trouble, rather jpm was, and wamus assets were used to balance jpms books instead would u believe me? probably not either... but its ok... i dont care haha...

 

[winex]

So you are telling me that rather than reference the words that Romney actually wrote himself you would defer to an opinion piece on CNN.com?

No...it's theory v. reality.  Romney wanted GM and Chrysler to go into BK first...come out lean and mean and receive government backed loans.  (it's in his USA Today piece).  Problem is that 1) having the two company go BK would have destroyed much of the company considering the severe cash crunch that it faced and 2) the severe cash crunch that all of GM and Chrysler's creditors were in would have prevent them from accepting much of anything other than straight liquidation.  Also, there was no funding to be had in 2008 and 2009 as the banks themselves had liquidity issues. 


Even if they did come out of BK clean, the two companies would have been substantially smaller than they are today which would have resulted in millions of jobs being lost. 

Romney likes BK because it give a venture investor like Bain Capital a win win proposition.  If the company being taken over was able to survive BK...it would be nice and clean and the investor can sell it off for much more than what was invested.  If the company didn't, the investor can sell the company for parts.  In the end the investor wins.  Not so for the company involved.

I have a newsflash for you.  Both GM and Chrysler went through bankruptcy.  Of course Obama dictated that they ignore 200 years of case law in this country to favor political contributors to the President over secured debt holders.  But that's another topic.

They did with substantially more cash in hand thanks to the US government.  This gave them greater leverage in BK to dictate what they could do or not.  BK is not complicated...having more money on hand helps you a lot.  Non-liquid assets are largely worthless because creditors don't need factories or auto parts. 

Thanks to the US government?  I thought they were taxpayer dollars.  And I also don't recall one of the enumerated powers of our government being the ability to funnel tax dollars to political supporters.

The UAW made out from the bailout, not the companies themselves.  Don't believe me?  Then look at the performance of GM stock since the IPO.