RE: Proof cry-baby-cons aren`t happy about our good news..... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Anaxagoras -> RE: Proof cry-baby-cons aren`t happy about our good news..... (2/9/2012 5:26:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper
quote:

On principle its bad form for a big company like Chrysler to be pushing a political message that furtively favours one side but I don't know if its that big a deal though, in part because Eastwood is entitled to endorse whoever he wants.

ON PRINCIPAL, it's pretty much fucking rotten for big business to rather openly declare as a class that they will not spend any money to employ people until they remove the sitting President. The phrase 'bloodless coup' comes to mind. So I think in the bigger picture (if this even IS an Obama centric message) it's better form than what the opposition is resorting to.
  But nobody's said there's any super pac money flowing here. And Clint Eastwood is a pretty died in the wool conservative.

The concern may also be that Chrysler is agitating for its own interests because a conservative government is far less likely to bail them out again than Obama. If they are in part using tax payers money because they rely on it for their recovery then it might be perceived a double slap in the face.

I agree, it is wrong for any company to say if Obama wins we won't employ anyone but at the same time people must know that businesses look after number one whoever wins so maybe I'm wrong but I doubt many pay much notice. We have that sort of thing going on in my part of the world too where businessmen, celebrities etc. threaten all sorts if X wins. If anything it backfires against the candidate they are trying to endorse.

quote:


So maybe they have a right to report to America about things that have WORKED.
And if it tips things in favor of the guy who conceived the manner of recovery, he EARNED it. It was a big risk.

If they wanted to report it then fair enough, they should do it out in the open but they did it in a furtive way by placing it in a strongly emotive advert heavily laced with patriotism.



SternSkipper -> RE: Proof cry-baby-cons aren`t happy about our good news..... (2/9/2012 7:24:36 AM)

quote:

The concern may also be that Chrysler is agitating for its own interests because a conservative government is far less likely to bail them out again than Obama.


Well I suppose that would be the case if you wanted to extrapolate into the area of irrational fears. The fact however is that GM is now the top manufacturer in terms of sales and profit/per unit in the world. And toyota and honda have sunk to the back of the pack. In fact, GM did so well in the past year and a half that the payback was accelerated beyond expectations. Well beyond
   I can't remember the economist's name but on either the Today Show or the news program that shadows it they had a chart listing the top 10 automakers sales for 2011.
The American Mfgs were by a large margin at the top and Honda and toyota were in the bottom half. We all know there were exacerbating factors for the Japanese, but that sure as hell wasn't the whole story, and it won't be for a while to come.


quote:

If they are in part using tax payers money because they rely on it for their recovery then it might be perceived a double slap in the face.


Tazzy presented the numbers in regard to how much they were paid and how the money and dividend came back. If most of the SBA loans and say the Bear Sterns bailout the last president committed us to had turned out as well, the recovery would be that much more vigorous.
  But beyond that, the tactic IS being used in the US and unfortunately, we're yet to see what it will yield politically. We know that among the electorate it sure brings out the kooks and nay-sayers. What we don't know is if there are enough kooks and if they know how to pull a lever.




SternSkipper -> RE: Proof cry-baby-cons aren`t happy about our good news..... (2/9/2012 7:43:57 AM)

quote:

If they wanted to report it then fair enough, they should do it out in the open but they did it in a furtive way by placing it in a strongly emotive advert heavily laced with patriotism.


They've already DONE that. You're familiar with the nature of the major halftime commercials in the superbowl and what that ritual is all about, right?
   Those advertisements, or many of them anyway, are tailored to air ONCE and are literally wrapped around the superbowl. It would be an UNGODLY waste of money and the viewer's time to run any commercial that wasn't a) Very Theatrical. And b)If about the United States (this is in no way the first), it will typically be GROSSLY Patriotic.
   There was nothing odd about this particular one except that it was narrated by a man with a very favored reputation and a known conservative, and it didn't endorse a republican or continue in the tradition of them claiming credit for anything good since sliced bread.
If Clint had said "the republicans have a vision" or "PeePants in 2012", not one of these fucking crybabies would have done anything but their usual pathetic impression of the schoolyard bully. And Democrats? We have an easy out with the ability to say "Well, everybody knows Clint's a conservative. What do you expect?"
  And BELIEVE ME, that's how it would have gone..... HAD THAT BEEN THE CASE.
    But it didn't and they sure are pissed. I can't ever remember seeing bad stuff in comments on the web about Eastwood.. hell even liberals like the guy. I can't believe the shit they are putting up on youtube and around the web insulting the guy.
   I hope they're not too shocked when he stays conservative yet comes to his senses about which party is best for America.





Anaxagoras -> RE: Proof cry-baby-cons aren`t happy about our good news..... (2/9/2012 5:44:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper
quote:

The concern may also be that Chrysler is agitating for its own interests because a conservative government is far less likely to bail them out again than Obama.

Well I suppose that would be the case if you wanted to extrapolate into the area of irrational fears. The fact however is that GM is now the top manufacturer in terms of sales and profit/per unit in the world. And toyota and honda have sunk to the back of the pack. In fact, GM did so well in the past year and a half that the payback was accelerated beyond expectations. Well beyond

I read a few conflicting reports on how well Chrysler is doing but I must admit I'm not well up on the facts of the story since its not an issue where I am. Its been said a lot that the US won't get back 1.3 or so billion even with the Obama loan paid back because this relates to the initial Bush loan http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-phony-accounting-on-the-auto-industry-bailout/2011/06/06/AG3nefKH_blog.html and Tazzy's source suggests a good deal of the cash won't be repaid http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/entities/93-chrysler#payments_table (top-right column) but its not clear how they come to that determination.

I'm not ideologically opposed to bail-outs but they have to be done very selectively or they can really help fuck up an economy, dragging it down into spiraling dept which will spook the markets more, leading to degraded ratings by the loan agencies. It can lead to a spiralling out of control issue like we have in Europe. A pretty grim situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper
quote:

If they wanted to report it then fair enough, they should do it out in the open but they did it in a furtive way by placing it in a strongly emotive advert heavily laced with patriotism.

They've already DONE that. You're familiar with the nature of the major halftime commercials in the superbowl and what that ritual is all about, right?
   Those advertisements, or many of them anyway, are tailored to air ONCE and are literally wrapped around the superbowl. It would be an UNGODLY waste of money and the viewer's time to run any commercial that wasn't a) Very Theatrical. And b)If about the United States (this is in no way the first), it will typically be GROSSLY Patriotic.

I'm not familiar with superbowl commercials but after you said that they ought to have reported about what worked, they still chose that format rather that issue a statement that could be assessed without the heavily emotive patriotic message mixed in with it.

quote:


There was nothing odd about this particular one except that it was narrated by a man with a very favored reputation and a known conservative, and it didn't endorse a republican or continue in the tradition of them claiming credit for anything good since sliced bread.

Eastwood is cool and he is entitled to endorse any message or side he chooses. I don't disagree with him being in the advert but rather what Chrysler did themselves. Hell he could even support Ron Paul...



tazzygirl -> RE: Proof cry-baby-cons aren`t happy about our good news..... (2/9/2012 6:20:04 PM)

quote:

Its been said a lot that the US won't get back 1.3 or so billion even with the Obama loan paid back because this relates to the initial Bush loan http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-phony-accounting-on-the-auto-industry-bailout/2011/06/06/AG3nefKH_blog.html and Tazzy's source suggests a good deal of the cash won't be repaid


Thats because the two were under different deals. I dont think the terms were the same.




SternSkipper -> RE: Proof cry-baby-cons aren`t happy about our good news..... (2/9/2012 6:40:34 PM)

quote:


I read a few conflicting reports on how well Chrysler is doing but I must admit I'm not well up on the facts of the story since its not an issue where I am. Its been said a lot that the US won't get back 1.3 or so billion even with the Obama loan paid back because this relates to the initial Bush loan


Yep. but I see the Bush deals cut as an entirely different proposition. And in my opinion they were a huge failure. What about Bear Stearns ... All the comparatively HUGE bailout dis was clean the corporation up enough that someone would buy them and their obligations.
    I consider that an abysmal failure. And while I am angry about the later bank bailouts, it's also quite realistic to view the country as being hostage by that point.

So do I think it's a shame we won't see 1.3 (or even 4B as I read in one report) of close to a total of 750 Billion Bush is likely to have squandered? Of course it's a shame. It's a frigging hanging offense what those neo-con shitheads did in terms of cashing their cronies out during their decade of antics.
    What I don't really agree is that the current President had a choice but to rescue what he could, with what he could.
  And yeah, shame on anyone who took advantage of it. However I think Detroit did a better job being transparent than the banking industry.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875