You Guys Ready for Sarah Palin Yet?

[SexMachine]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

He was also doing the bidding of the executive managers of the Big Three.

[/quote]

There are corporate cronies in every Commie country that need to be paid off. And the union thugs:

“The sit-down strikers began to worry about the illegality of their action and the why and wherefore, and it was then the chief of all C.I.O. organizers, Lewis, gave them their rationale. He thundered, ‘The right to a man’s job transcends the right of private property! The C.I.O. stands squarely behind these sit-downs!’ The sit-down strikers at GM cheered.”
â?? Saul D. Alinsky on the '37-'38 UAW strikes, Rules for Radicals

…if Obama truly pined for the collapse of the American economy–and I would implore you to reconsider the gravity and implications of this kind of claim–he came into office in January 2009 and found himself in a fantastically unique position to engender that collapse. But then–and here’s where your argument runs into something of an obstacle–he didn’t.

He wants collapse via very specific means: by overloading the system with welfare recipients. This would lead to “a profound social and economic crisis” ushering in “change.”

Neither did he do so eight days ago, when his refusal to come to a fiscal cliff agreement would have plunged the US economy back into recession within months.

See above. He wants to create a welfare state that overloads the system.

A logical mind can only conclude that Barack Obama, in fact, would rather see the American economy succeed than languish and fail.

No. And Obama’s mind doesn’t work the way yours does so it’s hard to draw logical conclusions from his behaviour without understanding his background and ideology.

[quote]

Either that, or we truly are headed for some kind of catastrophic event and/or elemental politico-economic transfiguration. My question to you is, if Obama leaves office without this having happened, will you revise your view on the matter?[/quote]

You mean if he doesn’t succeed in bringing the country down by 2016? Depends if he’s created the conditions or not. If it doesn’t come down by 2024 I’ll revise my position.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:<<< He wants collapse via very specific means: by overloading the system with welfare recipients. This would lead to “a profound social and economic crisis” ushering in “change.” >>>[/quote]This is EXACTLY what he wants. Every single policy he has pursued leads directly to this end. He wants collapse, leading to chaos, leading to a hero savior state. These rapid though incremental moves of his serve to lube the way for now for this very thing by making government dependency normative to as many people as he can, rendering the transition later all the easier. How anybody cannot see that is absolutely beyond me. As I have been saying since day one, he is an enemy of everything this nation was founded to be.

[Mufasa]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:<<< He wants collapse via very specific means: by overloading the system with welfare recipients. This would lead to “a profound social and economic crisis” ushering in “change.” >>>[/quote]This is EXACTLY what he wants. Every single policy he has pursued leads directly to this end. He wants collapse, leading to chaos, leading to a hero savior state. These rapid though incremental moves of his serve to lube the way for now for this very thing by making government dependency normative to as many people as he can, rendering the transition later all the easier. How anybody cannot see that is absolutely beyond me. As I have been saying since day one, he is an enemy of everything this nation was founded to be.
[/quote]

And Sarah Palin would do what exactly to reverse this trend?

Mufasa

[Tiribulus]

I don’t think I understand where this question is coming from Mufasa. I’ve said repeatedly that no politician or group of them can save this nation. A nation that could elect Barack Obama is not long for this world. Twice, and it’s over. Not because of him. Because of them.

[Mufasa]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t think I understand where this question is coming from Mufasa. I’ve said repeatedly that no politician or group of them can save this nation. A nation that could elect Barack Obama is not long for this world. Twice, and it’s over. Not because of him. Because of them. [/quote]

The question came from the topic of the thread.

Mufasa

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t think I understand where this question is coming from Mufasa. I’ve said repeatedly that no politician or group of them can save this nation. A nation that could elect Barack Obama is not long for this world. Twice, and it’s over. Not because of him. Because of them. [/quote]
The question came from the topic of the thread.

Mufasa[/quote]Ok, but I didn’t start it and have not stated anywhere that I thought her or any other politician could reverse this trend.

[SexMachine]

Like any dictator from Caesar to Napoleon to the Nazis and Communists, Obama needs a paramilitary group:

- YouTube

[smh23]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

…if Obama truly pined for the collapse of the American economy–and I would implore you to reconsider the gravity and implications of this kind of claim–he came into office in January 2009 and found himself in a fantastically unique position to engender that collapse. But then–and here’s where your argument runs into something of an obstacle–he didn’t.

He wants collapse via very specific means: by overloading the system with welfare recipients. This would lead to “a profound social and economic crisis” ushering in “change.”

Neither did he do so eight days ago, when his refusal to come to a fiscal cliff agreement would have plunged the US economy back into recession within months.

See above. He wants to create a welfare state that overloads the system.

[/quote]

I understand that this is what Cloward and Piven prescribed, but ameliorating the effects of the recession worked directly against this goal of overloading the welfare system. Independent economists have estimated that the failure of the auto industry would have caused our teetering economy to shed four million jobs. Surely this would have gone miles further toward a welfare overload?

Likewise, why reach a fiscal cliff bargain? A 5 percent of GDP crunch could well have sent us back into recession which in turn would have put additional strain on the welfare system. If this is truly the goal, why take action in avoidance of it?

[Tiribulus]

These would have been too obvious. Even for him. Also, the illusion of having done some good is a useful instrument for later. This is not all him btw.

[smh23]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
These would have been too obvious. Even for him. Also, the illusion of having done some good is a useful instrument for later. This is not all him btw. [/quote]

“A useful instrument for later.”

This does get around my objections, but it also seems less than likely given that his time in power is very quickly approaching its conclusion.

In the end, I’ve found that the Obama-Cloward-Piven crowd is forced into some serious contortions in order to rationalize away the obvious problems with their position. “Well, that would be too obvious, so he has too seem like he’s actually trying to curb the effects of the recession.” Or, “well, sure, many of his policies have been welcomed by the executives of huge American companies, but all Communism is expected to be plagued by cronyism.”

In the end you’re left with literally no evidence, only a handful of rationalizations and predictions.

[smh23]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

…Independent economists have estimated that the failure of the auto industry would have caused our teetering economy to shed four million jobs…

[/quote]

Why would a GM reorganized under bankruptcy not have replaced many of these jobs?
[/quote]

GM was reorganized under bankruptcy. But credit markets were frozen solid at that time and it is unlikely that reorganization would have been underwritten by anyone other than the US government. Even the $25 billion they were originally seeking–which, by the way, would have probably only postponed collapse–would probably have never been scrounged up.

Why would a liquidated GM not have caused a huge boom in sales by the surviving auto manufacturers (taking up the slack) which would have necessitated huge amounts of job openings thereby mitigating the job loss of GM’s workers?

The CEO of Ford traveled to Washington and made the case for the bailout along with the executives of GM and Chrysler. Why would a capitalist ask the government to save his competitors? Because the parts industry was so reliant on orders placed by the Big Three that it would likely have collapsed along with GM and Chrysler.

Anyway, the point is simpler than all this. Economists were terrified of the Big Three’s possible failure. If Obama had truly pined (and planned) for economic ruin and welfare overload, reason dictates that he wouldn’t have taken the advice of the economist class on the eve of Chrysler and GM’s failures.

[Headhunter]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Like any dictator from Caesar to Napoleon to the Nazis and Communists, Obama needs a paramilitary group:

- YouTube

Satan cannot defeat the United States. The United States is the political embodiment of God on earth.

Even if Satan tricks the people and gets them to install one of Satan’s minions/pawns as president, he will lose in the end.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:<<< Satan cannot defeat the United States. >>>[/quote]I asked you once already, but got now answer. Who is this “Satan” feller you keep referring to?

[pittbulll]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:<<< Satan cannot defeat the United States. >>>[/quote]I asked you once already, but got now answer. Who is this “Satan” feller you keep referring to?
[/quote]

It is not a feller , it is a party called Republican

[SexMachine]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I understand that this is what Cloward and Piven prescribed, but ameliorating the effects of the recession worked directly against this goal of overloading the welfare system. Independent economists have estimated that the failure of the auto industry would have caused our teetering economy to shed four million jobs. Surely this would have gone miles further toward a welfare overload?

[/quote]

Two Obama czars(Ron Bloom and Steven Rattner) arranged a deal with the UAW and the executives of GM and Chrysler. They cooked up a nice little deal for Obama’s union thugs in the UAW.

"We estimate that these three irregularities increased the cost of the bailout by $26.5 billion. The Treasury expects the auto bailout to ultimately cost taxpayers $23 billion. The funds diverted to the UAW account for the taxpayers’ entire net loss.

Instead, President Obama gave over $26 billion to the UAWâ??more money than the U.S spent on foreign aid last year and 50% more than NASA’s budget. None of that money kept factories running. Instead it sustained the above-average compensation of members of an influential union, sparing them from most of the sacrifices typically made in bankruptcy."

James Sherk and Todd Zywicki: Obama's United Auto Workers Bailout

[quote]smh23 wrote:

GM was reorganized under bankruptcy.

[/quote]

It was not a regular bankruptcy. It was cooked up by a couple of Obama yes men, the executives and the UAW.

Anyway, the point is simpler than all this. Economists were terrified of the Big Three’s possible failure. If Obama had truly pined (and planned) for economic ruin and welfare overload, reason dictates that he wouldn’t have taken the advice of the economist class on the eve of Chrysler and GM’s failures.

“Avoiding these losses would have been straightforward. If the government treated the UAW in the manner required by bankruptcy law, it could have given the stock and promissory notes to the Treasury instead of to the UAW.”

[smh23]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I understand that this is what Cloward and Piven prescribed, but ameliorating the effects of the recession worked directly against this goal of overloading the welfare system. Independent economists have estimated that the failure of the auto industry would have caused our teetering economy to shed four million jobs. Surely this would have gone miles further toward a welfare overload?

[/quote]

Two Obama czars(Ron Bloom and Steven Rattner) arranged a deal with the UAW and the executives of GM and Chrysler. They cooked up a nice little deal for Obama’s union thugs in the UAW.

"We estimate that these three irregularities increased the cost of the bailout by $26.5 billion. The Treasury expects the auto bailout to ultimately cost taxpayers $23 billion. The funds diverted to the UAW account for the taxpayers’ entire net loss.

Instead, President Obama gave over $26 billion to the UAWâ??more money than the U.S spent on foreign aid last year and 50% more than NASA’s budget. None of that money kept factories running. Instead it sustained the above-average compensation of members of an influential union, sparing them from most of the sacrifices typically made in bankruptcy."

James Sherk and Todd Zywicki: Obama's United Auto Workers Bailout

[quote]smh23 wrote:

GM was reorganized under bankruptcy.

[/quote]

It was not a regular bankruptcy. It was cooked up by a couple of Obama yes men, the executives and the UAW.

Anyway, the point is simpler than all this. Economists were terrified of the Big Three’s possible failure. If Obama had truly pined (and planned) for economic ruin and welfare overload, reason dictates that he wouldn’t have taken the advice of the economist class on the eve of Chrysler and GM’s failures.

“Avoiding these losses would have been straightforward. If the government treated the UAW in the manner required by bankruptcy law, it could have given the stock and promissory notes to the Treasury instead of to the UAW.”[/quote]

Again, though, I’m not contending that the UAW didn’t make out better than they should have.

The simple fact remains that economists of every stripe, and executive management in Detroit–even the executive management of Ford, which was convinced of the necessity of a bailout for its competitors–insisted that a bailout was made necessary by the fact that credit markets were frozen solid during the financial meltdown. And let’s not pretend that every penny of the bailout fell into some union thug’s pocket–it averted collapse.

So, the handouts to unions aside, Obama would not have bailed out the auto industry if he truly pined for a welfare overload and collapse.

[smh23]

Another way to look at it:

1. It was predicted by economists and auto executives that both Chrysler and GM would fail without a government bailout.

2. With private capital dried up during the meltdown, bankruptcy reorganization would have been difficult or impossible.

3. This situation would undoubtedly have led to even more job losses at a time of serious nationwide economic fragility.

4. These job losses would have added to the welfare strain while also eliminating consumers from the market, thereby worsening the recession and paving the way for even more welfare strain.

5. Obama stepped in between steps 1 and 2 with a bailout.

6. The auto industry reorganized and survived.

7. Therefore, Obama is not working toward the collapse of the economy nor the overload of the welfare system.

The same argument can be set up regarding the fiscal cliff.

[pittbulll]

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Another way to look at it:

1. It was predicted by economists and auto executives that both Chrysler and GM would fail without a government bailout.

2. With private capital dried up during the meltdown, bankruptcy reorganization would have been difficult or impossible.

3. This situation would undoubtedly have led to even more job losses at a time of serious nationwide economic fragility.

4. These job losses would have added to the welfare strain while also eliminating consumers from the market, thereby worsening the recession and paving the way for even more welfare strain.

5. Obama stepped in between steps 1 and 2 with a bailout.

6. The auto industry reorganized and survived.

7. Therefore, Obama is not working toward the collapse of the economy nor the overload of the welfare system.

The same argument can be set up regarding the fiscal cliff.[/quote]

A voice of reason

If the auto industry were allowed to fail we would have had another hole in the American fabric just like when Reagan ushered American steel producers out of business. Forty years from now people would be posting about these big pockets of lazy unemployed people were the fault of some one they dislike and believe their own ignorance

[Headhunter]

Sarah wouldn’t take away your guns, unlike the criminals Obama and Biden.