• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Indian Diaspora and American Politics in 2012.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear ALL:

As per some estimate there are about 3 million Indians in the US.

My guess is that about 70% of them are US citizens. (I may be wrong here!).

I want the readers here (both in the US and India) chime about their view of world on the Primary Process, Electoral College and the General Election of the President of the US (the POTUS).

I will give my two cents on this as and when possible!

Cheers.

ps. Dear N, in one of the recent posts you said "I want to talk about politics". Here is the Thread for you.

Maybe, we will be in different corners of the Boxing Ring! Lol :) Our other "friends" will have some good entertainment if both of us box in this Forum!! Lol.

Wait & watch.

:)
 
Dear N, in one of the recent posts you said "I want to talk about politics". Here is the Thread for you.

Maybe, we will be in different corners of the Boxing Ring!
Dear Y, you know where I stand on U.S. politics, while I detest Obama's stand on many issues from Wall Street to Gitmo, he is an angel compared to the clowns who are in the running for the GOP nomination. Even the maven of GOP politics, George Will, has given up on the presidential race and wants to focus on keeping the majority in the house and possibly gain majority in the senate.

Another important issue is the make up of the Supreme Court. The Republicans have pushed the court to the right at every opportunity, Thomas for Marshall, Alito for O'Connor, but the Democrats have done the same as well, Kagan for Stevens moving the court further to the right. This is why I am not sanguine about the prospect of another Obama term even though I am terrified of a Republican Presidency from the present crop of candidates.

From what has transpired over the past one week, I think the race for presidency is over, Obama is unbeatable. What is at stake now is the house and senate. My guess is, the Republican party has become so extreme that it is quite probable that Pelosi will be the Speaker of the House, Reid will be the Majority Leader, and one of the most undeserving Nobel Peace Prize winners, Mr. Obama, will rule from the Oval office for 4 more years.

Better Obama than a Republican is too lame a reason for me to vote for Obama, sorry to say.

As you always say, wait and watch, or is it watch and wait?!!! :)

Cheers!

p.s. What do you think about my new signature? I got a kick out of your comment on my previous signature LOL.
 
Dear N:

I hear you.

It's really amazing how the GOP field has narrowed down (or collapsed) to the King of Bain Romney and the Social Conservative Theologian Santorum! All others were driven out of the Primary by the Super PACs, thanks to Citizen United Vs. Clinton decision of the SCOTUS!

In a perverse way, I want Santorum get the Nomination to beat him like a drum in the Fall, although realistically Romney will clinch it by the end of May or so...

There is some murmur in the making that HRC may be asked to join BHO in the ticket, if Biden likes to be the Sec of State in the next term.

But, HRC has signaled that she will not join the Administration in 2013!

As my dearest wife says, "BHO has to work his tail off with a real FEAR that he is going to lose, if he really wants to win in the Fall, for anything can happen: remember October Surprises!"

Innum varum..

Cheers.

:)
 
....In a perverse way, I want Santorum get the Nomination to beat him like a drum in the Fall, although realistically Romney will clinch it by the end of May or so...
Dear Y, I also would like to see a debate between where the Republican base is, personfied by Santorum, and Obama, a straight up or down debate between conservatism and progressive politics in the U.S. But, as you do, I also think it is going to be a contest between Mitt and Barak, one corprotist chamelean against another. All said and done, BHO is a thousand times preferable to Mitt, but I still can't bring myself to vote for dear BHO.

Switching gears, a swap between Biden and Clinton makes a lot of sense, a clear pathway for the first president of the kind made possible by the 19th amendment. A sixteen year Democratic rule will surely have a lasting progressive impact by way of shift in SCOTUS.

Cheers!
 
Dear Brother Nara Ji,

Sorry, need to disagree with you on BHO locking up the Presidency for 5 more years.

With all the deficits and debt and the bungled energy policy and unemployment, the issue will be competency this election. So, if Mitt is the guy on the Republican side, he will win easily the independent vote. If it is Santorum, he will surely lose.

Would love to see BHO buying and driving a Chevy Volt (if it is available by then) next year on the streets of Chicago! :)

Regards,
KRS
 
My Predictions for the Election 2012:

1. Mitt Romney will be the Nominee from the Republican Party. This will be decided around May/June 2012

2 He will lose the General Election to the incumbent President Barack H. Obama. Because

a. Social Conservatives & Tea Partiers who supported Santorum and Gingrich in the Primary will be very dejected to go to polls in Nov 2012. They will stay home rather.

b. Many Independents and Centrists consider Romney as nothing but Obama Lite on Policy Matters, and they don't like his Bain Way of making money, and having investments in offshore accounts like in Bermuda, Cayman Islands etc. He just can't connect with ordinary Americans... Maybe, the Wall Street will love him the most.

c. Economy is perking up, and the jobless rate is slowly and steadily inching down month after month. This trend is a friend of Obama.

d. President Obama's Approval Rating is inching up slowly, and will reach about 53% by Oct 2012. This will definitely translate into about 325 Electoral Votes to win the White House.

But... there are some unknowns here... October Surprises could change the landscape!

Like, Israelis bombing Tehran and inviting a regional crisis around the Strait of Hormuz. Gasoline prices could skyrocket to $6 a gallon overnight...

During sudden crisis, some Americans will stick to the "Known Devil" - the Incumbent, and others will ask for a Change of Leadership.

That's the problem with October Surprises....

Wait & watch

:)
 
Last edited:
Is it not simpler to decide on the basis - whether obama has delivered what he promisd to deliver and what his next term promises are?

For those in india, it is 'raman aanda enna, ravana aanda enna'. US is not india friendly in most issues.
 
hi
Mitt may get GOP nomination.....BHO has a lot of hurdles....i feel ....both are bad....both parties are bad....like romney's word...
both are not bother abt poor...becoz of social net....rich doesnt care abt both...ONLY POOR MIDDLE CLASS HAS TO SUFFER...
gas prices are going to be $4 .00....who cares?
 
Why will American Citizens Re-Elect Barack H. Obama for another FOUR years as the POTUS?


Against any Republican Nominee (most probably Romney), Barack H. Obama will win the re-election, because

1. He passed the $870 bn Stimulus and stabilized the Banking & Financial Sector, the vascular system of the (body) economy. We need a healthy and robust BFS to grease the Economy.

2. He saved about 2 million auto manufacturing Jobs in Detroit. This is the heart of our Manufacturing.

3. He passed the comprehensive healthcare reform to get rid of the menacing Pre-Existing Conditions, and medically insuring about 35 million citizens at a cost of about $100 bn (as per CBO).

4. He repealed the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and brought Equality among our Service men and women.

5. He passed the FINRE to protect Consumers, and stabilize the Financial Sector.

6. He established the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (Corderoy as the Chief)

7. He passed Fair Pay Act to bring Equality among our workers (women get paid same as men).

8. He passed temporary payroll tax cut to prime up the economy.

9. He brought new Tobacco Regulation to discourage smoking. This is a solution to long term health cost of smoking.

10. He killed and buried successfully Osama Bin Laden, the Evil Incarnate of Al Qaeda.

(This is a list initially prepared by Dan Hanninger, Editor of Wall Street Journal to support his hypothesis that the Congress helped President Obama to achieve all this in his first 2.5 years).

And, most Moderates and Centrist are fed up with the Republican Primary and the Process. They will go with the incumbent President.

Some Progressives (here please include dear N :)) are angry that BHO did not do MORE than what he achieved in the first term. I tell them that's because of the Rules in the US Senate, and we need at least 60 Senators to move any Bill at all forward. And Democrats got a "shellacking" in 2010.

I expect a "shellacking" of the GOP in 2012! It's their turn to enjoy it for all the talk of Rush Limbaugh and the like!

Wait & watch.

:)

ps. I want President Obama to pass the "Federal Dream Act" like TX did, and bring forth a comprehensive Immigration Reform, after the Model of President Reagan.

We must cut the demagoguery on this issue, and get on with it ASAP. Even W Bush wanted a meaningful Immigration Reform.. Where are those Sensible Republicans?
 
Last edited:
....Some Progressives (here please include dear N :)) are angry that BHO did not do MORE than what he achieved in the first term.
Dear Y, my reluctance to support BHO is not because I expected more of what you call achievements -- I would be firmly in his corner if he had not achieved anything but fought for it.

The reason I don't support BHO is because of the long list of broken promises, wholesale selling of his supporters so willingly down the river, surrounding him with Wall Street insiders and corporatists, his unconscionable expansion of the state secret powers, illegal assassinations, capitulation to Israel, expansion of police powers, and the list goes on.

The list of achievements you cite will sell I am sure, but it is no more than snake oil and the public is only too eager to buy because the salesman is such a smooth talker.

With the Republic party self-immolating, there is even more reason for BHO to take the liberals and progressives for granted.

He acts as though he does not care for my vote, so why I should I give it to him, I won't.

Cheers!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dear Brother Nara Ji,

At least we will have one thing in common. As an Independent, my vote will not go to him. My reasons why?:

1. Stimulus (almost $900 Billion):
In effective; wasted huge amounts of money; geared towards saving public Union (read that democrats) jobs, that too not for long term; actually increased unemployment.

2. TARP & Feds & Dodd/Frank (almost $1.8 Trillion, if one includes Fed actions)
Again a policy not thought through. Banks sitting on cash, not lending, making money on Fed Rate differential. We need regulations, but not from two guys who should be counting bars in a jail for their role in the housing schemes which started the whole fiasco.

3. Governing through ideology and not through pragmatism.
A. Pumped billions of TARP money in to auto industry and claiming now to have saved 2 Million jobs! (Per Sri Yamaka's posting above). Does he know that the total workforce in automotive industry, including that of ancillary industries total about 2 million? As usual our friend plucks a number out of thin air.

The fact is when GM went to bankruptcy, they had 92000 jobs; and after bankruptcy, they had 77000. They also shed plants and brand lines and now half the size in terms of sales. From traditional managed bankruptcies, the loss of jobs is usually 20% and in GM's case it is 16%. So 4% can be attributed to pre bankruptcy aid. That is almost 40 billions to save 4000 jobs! Similar scenario at Chrysler. Where did the money go? Do we need to say to save UAW member retirement & other benefits? Because of the assistance, bond holders with valid legal standings were shortchanged and more than that many working at Delphi as non union labor lost all their insurance and most of their pension. If you have doubts on this, please look it up.

B. Non decision on a no brainer of oil from Canada. Shutting down of refineries in east coast when we need them. Drastic reduction in exploration permits issued.

C. Solyndra and other 'venture' capital investments again shortchanging the taxpayers to the tune of almost $2 billion.

D. Most of all, ramming through major legislations without any concessions to the opposition, even while claiming that they included provisions favored by the opposition. Changing traditional rules governing the Senate by fiat. No budget in the Senate for now over 3 years.

E. Czars everywhere; non transparency; blaming the other side and the last administration for everything - essentially no leadership.

4. Pathetic foreign policy especially regarding Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, N. Korea, Egypt, Israel; Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan etc. One bright spot - OBL gone.

5. Run up the deficit and debt the most, single handedly, while lambasting Bush on the same. Says one thing and does another - two faced. Hidden agenda with the monstrous Health Insurance policy. Berates business. Does not understand how businesses work. Have no clue about how to improve unemployment (that is how to make the huge private capital on the sidelines to invest in business).

Need to say more? This is THE worst president barring none and that includes Carter.

I peg his chance for re election at about 45% (non scientific). If the unemployment does not improve, (below 7% e.g., prospect for which is dismal according to OMB), I will peg his chance 5% lower at 40%.

Regards,
KRS
 
Last edited:
.... As an Independent, my vote will not go to him. My reasons why?:

[...]

Need to say more? This is THE worst president barring none and that includes Carter.
Wow brother, your memory seems to have such a short span, Obama is worse than Nixon, really?

This US News report of ranking by historians has W as the worst and Obama as the 15th best as of 2010. In several other polls of both historians and common folks, W is ranked among the worst, even lower than Nixon, Carter comes in the middle of the pack and Obama in around the middle of the top half of the list of presidents.

Of course, among the die-hard base of the Republican party Obama is surely the worst, followed closely by any other Democratic President.

BTW, your long list of complaints against Obama so closely match the Right-wing section of the tea-party base of the Republican part, is this what true Independents are thinking these days? If so, I am glad I am not an Independent.

Cheers!
 
Dear Brother,

Best and Worse overall are for Historians to decide in the future, considering each one's impact. I compared BHO to Carter mainly on managing the economy. Everyone agrees that on this score, Carter was the worst. Without an activist Fed policy, I am afraid that all this deficit spending, despite borrowing money, would have raised the interest rates sky high by now. We are still looking at the abyss unless the deficit is reduced soon.

One can keep on blaming a branch of Congress and the Republicans for this situation, but one should remember that the President had both houses the first two years and ultimately he is supposed to be the leader where the buck stops.

By the way, I do not read any 'Tea Party' publications/literature. I don't even read any conservative blogs (was not even aware of Breibart till he died, e.g.). I read the news and if something piques my interest (like claims being made by either side), I do a bit more reading and make my opinion.

This is why I do not support either Gingrich or Santorum for candidacy. Each will continue the bickering with the Democrats. Gingrich is a theoretician who has the well poisoned against him and in my opinion, Santorum is an idiotic right wing symbol, nothing more. I think any future President should be able to forge consensus among both political parties (on which BHO failed miserably, because of his arrogance during the first 2 years of his administration, in my opinion) and Romney has the executive experience in doing such that. I will consider voting for him on that basis. This to me is the number one criterion.

Independents, in my opinion, are not monolithic. They come with different outlooks. Mine is just one of them, although from a conservative one. You are anyway an ardent Liberal Progressive already. So you would not qualify to be an independent, even if you wanted! :)

Regards,
KRS
 
....At least we will have one thing in common. As an Independent, my vote will not go to him.
Dear brother, just out of curiosity, how often have you voted for a Democratic candidate in a national election?

My reasons why?:
Of course, you have your reasons :)!!! Interestingly enough, some of these are the reasons why I am not voting for him, but from a more fact based angle.

1. Stimulus (almost $900 Billion):
In effective; wasted huge amounts of money; geared towards saving public Union (read that democrats) jobs, that too not for long term; actually increased unemployment.
The only major outlay that could have benefited Union jobs was 53.6 billion to State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Compare this against individual tax relief of 246.8 billion.

Wasted/ineffective is a political opinion, I can counter this by saying it was a grand success. Instead of exchanging our opinions let us look at what the Congressional Budget Office says.

"...through the third quarter of 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created or saved between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs and added between 1.2 percent and 3.2 percent to GDP." -- for more click
here.

These facts fly in the face of your claims.

The reason I am not supporting the president on this issue is not because it was ineffective, but it was tepid, because it was not large enough. There were Nobel prize winning economists of his own progressive persuasion who were warning him that if the stimulus is not big enough the recovery will be inimical and the whole notion of short-term stimulus spending will be blamed, and they were right.

Now you and fiscal conservatives may reject the views of the economists list Krugman and Stigletz, but you guys lost the election. My complaint is, having won the election on the enthusiastic support of the progressives, he turned his back on us and surrounded himself with Bankers and Corporatists. The stimulus worked, but it was not large enough because Obama listened to his Banker friends and not to economists like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz.


2. TARP & Feds & Dodd/Frank (almost $1.8 Trillion, if one includes Fed actions)
Again a policy not thought through. Banks sitting on cash, not lending, making money on Fed Rate differential. We need regulations, but not from two guys who should be counting bars in a jail for their role in the housing schemes which started the whole fiasco.
TARP was passed under Bush. His Treasury Secretary wanted a blank-check for over $700 billion for his Banker friends. But for the Democrats in Congress, with some help from sensible Republicans, an endangered species, he would have gotten it. Not prosecuting these Banker criminals is one of the prime reasons I oppose Obama.

Fed is an independent agency under no direct control of anybody. Only a partisan will try to link Fed with Obama, but you are an Independent, so I don't get it, why are you hanging Fed around Obama's neck.

Dodd/Frank legislation was intended to reign in the Banks and protect consumers. One of the objectives was to resurrect Glass/Steagall act that kept the financial system safe from greedy bankers. It was a greedy nexus between Democrats and Republicans that got rid of Glass/Steagall. You oppose the attempt to put some of these protections back in place, amazing!

But I oppose Dodd/Frank too, but for reasons altogether different from yours. Once again, in a very predictable fashion, Obama caved to Republican bullying and stalling tactics and watered down the legislation so much so that the bills that initially roared like a tiger was a mere mouse when amended and finally passed into law. The Republicans are not satisfied with even this, they are trying their best to impede its implementation. This failure of Obama to stand up to the Republicans is one of the reasons I won't vote for Obama.

3. Governing through ideology and not through pragmatism.
A. Pumped billions of TARP money in to auto industry and claiming now to have saved 2 Million jobs! (Per Sri Yamaka's posting above). Does he know that the total workforce in automotive industry, including that of ancillary industries total about 2 million? As usual our friend plucks a number out of thin air.
Well, you, the Republican right-wing base and those candidates who want to garner their votes must be the only ones who think GM bail out was a mistake. One of the reasons Mitt Romney was about to lose Michigan, but managed to squeeze through because of Satorum's own ineptitude, was his opposition to the bail-out in his own trademark naked pandering style.

Obama wanted to save union pension plans, and that is your complaint? Your concern for non-union Delphi workers is very touching. Given union pension plan was saved and non-union workers lost out, would you then support the card-check bill that would remove the barriars the Republicans put in the way of workers to organize? I am sure your answer is no. Your real concern was for bond-holders and share-holders. That is fine. But GM is now posting record profits, that must mean something to millions of folks. Michigan is now firmly in Obama's column thanks to the bail out.

As far as the numbers are concerned, 2 million, 1/2 million, let it be, that is not a major issue, playing the number game is nothing new and it is bipartisan.

B. Non decision on a no brainer of oil from Canada. Shutting down of refineries in east coast when we need them. Drastic reduction in exploration permits issued.
I oppose this pipeline which you call "no-brainer". But never mind my opposition, the Republicans wanted to embarrass the president with liberals like myself by imposing an arbitrary deadline. This tactic backfired. Also, I think you are getting the facts about exploration, oil production etc., from the same place you are accusing Y of getting his numbers.

Now, you may want more drilling of the drill-baby-drill kind, that is your political position and on that basis you may want to not vote for Obama, that is understandable. My political position is that Obama must go further and have very strict rules for issuing new drilling permits, and his refusal to go further is the reason I don't want to vote for him.

C. Solyndra and other 'venture' capital investments again shortchanging the taxpayers to the tune of almost $2 billion.
Another number from where you think Y gets his numbers from. The loan guarantees were for $535 million, still a large number, unconscionable that WH would put pressure to get this project approved quickly. But this is part of the push for renewable energy, a commendable goal, and it is unfortunate they got this one wrong.

Contrast this with billions that were lost by way of fraud and theft in Iraq and Afghanistan, that is still continuing. It is illustrative to take a look a story CBS's 60 Minutes ran in 2006.

I am not condoning Obama WH for Solyndra, they should not have pushed for it. But I find it disingenuous to say the least that those who condemn Obama for 1/2 billion somehow defend W's tens of billions that were stolen outright.

D. Most of all, ramming through major legislation without any concessions to the opposition, even while claiming that they included provisions favored by the opposition. Changing traditional rules governing the Senate by fiat. No budget in the Senate for now over 3 years.
Another partisan canard, surprised it is coming from you an Independent. Legislation after legislation Obama bent over backwards to accommodate Republicans in the hope of one or two votes, always to be snubbed. This is one of the primary reasons why I am so vexed with Obama. He just turned his back on progressives and liberals and compromised even some of the things he passionately campaigned on, like the so called Public Option, yet he got nothing for it. Even when he agreed to Republican demand they simply moved the goal posts. To say he did not work with the Republicans in congress one has to be ultra-partisan, but you are an Independent, does not compute for me :).

E. Czars everywhere; non transparency; blaming the other side and the last administration for everything - essentially no leadership.
I think you get your facts from FoxNews.

FactCheck.org lists 35 Czars under W and 32 under Obama, some of these Obama inherited from W's administration. To blame he has too many Czars is nitpicking.

When the other side is doing everything possible to block Obama -- declaring that their prime goal is to deny a second term to Obama -- I see nothing wrong in blaming those who are so imminently blame-worthy. W gave an economy that was teetering on the verge of disaster, and Republicans were hellbent on denying Obama whatever it was that he wanted to do to plug the leak, stabilize, and turn the economy around. Take a look at this graph of the employment statistics and true independents will be persuaded with what Obama has achieved.

4. Pathetic foreign policy especially regarding Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, N. Korea, Egypt, Israel; Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan etc. One bright spot - OBL gone.
Yes, pathetic foreign policy I agree, he should have supported the Egyptian protestors much more vigorously, should have condemned Saudi Arabia when they invaded Bahrain, must have condemned Israel when they invaded Gaza and mercilessly murdered an American in the Mari Marmara flotilla incident, he continues to offer unconditional support to the murderous Israeli regime, he still acts as the world police, a role W played even more arrogantly that the sympathy the world had for USA evaporated quickly. Bad as it is under Obama, a Republican President will be that much worse, going to war willy nilly.

5. Run up the deficit and debt the most, single handedly, while lambasting Bush on the same.
Under Bush the national debt increased by $4.9 trillion, and it went mostly for (i) two wars, (ii) tax cut for the rich, and (iii) an unpaid Medicare Part D program. (i) and (ii) brought the country to its knees. The debt increase of $4+ trillion under Obama has been for the continuation of Bush's wars and investments that will pay dividends later on. Giving a pass to Bush's wasteful debt increase and lambasting Obama for the debt that is more investment and saving the economy, is irrational.


Says one thing and does another - two faced. Hidden agenda with the monstrous Health Insurance policy. Berates business. Does not understand how businesses work. Have no clue about how to improve unemployment (that is how to make the huge private capital on the sidelines to invest in business).
Wow, you hate Obama don't you?

It is clear to me from all this that you are as much an Independent as FoxNews is Fair and Balanced :)!!!

Cheers!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...Independents, in my opinion, are not monolithic. They come with different outlooks. Mine is just one of them, although from a conservative one. You are anyway an ardent Liberal Progressive already. So you would not qualify to be an independent, even if you wanted!

.... I am not a Republican. I am an independent, conservative on most fiscal issues. I am almost a libertarian in terms of Government involvement. I do not agree with them on foreign policy, but tend to agree with almost all of their social positions.

This is strange brother KRS, you are conservative, libertarian, and agree with Republicans with almost all of their social positions, and you are still independent, but I, being liberal/progressive, I do not agree with Democrats on foreign policy, but tend to agree with almost all of their social positions, yet I can't be an Independent even if I wanted??

Not that I want to be an Independent with a capital I. But I don't think your claims to being an Independent passes a lot of muster, all you have going for such a claim is your claim itself. The policies, positions and views you support and espouse make you an ardent member of the tea-party wing of the Republican Party :).

Cheers!
 
Hello ALL: This is from NY Times, "Economix" Nov 17, 2008:

How Many Jobs Depend on the Big Three?


By CATHERINE RAMPELL“The auto industry supports one of every 10 jobs in the United States,” Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan wrote in a CNN.com plea for a bailout of Detroit’s Big Three. The day before, she told “The Early Show” on CBS that “this industry supports one in 10 jobs in the country,” adding, “If this industry is allowed to fail, there will be a ripple effect throughout the nation.”Many others have used the same statistic.
That’s a scary figure. It’s also somewhat misleading.
The statistic seems to indicate that 10 percent of American jobs – a total of roughly 14 million jobs, if you’re just looking at the Bureau of Labor Statistics non-farm payroll report – could evaporate if the Detroit Three are allowed to fail. But that’s not actually what the statistic refers to.
The widely cited 1-in-10-jobs figure appears to come from a 2003 studyconducted by the Center for Automotive Research on the “economic contributions of the motor vehicle to the U.S. economy, to a multitude of U.S. industries in retail, manufacturing and service sectors, and to individual Americans.” (C.A.R. is a nonprofit research organization with industry, labor, academic and government ties; this particular study was commissioned by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry group).
The study concludes that “new vehicle production, sales, and other jobs related to the use of automobiles are responsible for 1 out of every 10 jobs in the U.S economy.” The term “responsible for” is interpreted quite broadly, and covers jobs in steel, glass and electronics (the so-called “upstream” jobs) as well as those in taxi-driving, travel and advertising companies (“downstream” jobs), among others.
The broadness of the term “responsible for” aside, the study has minimal relevance to the question of how many jobs are at risk if the Detroit Three go bankrupt, for two reasons:
1) The study uses data from 1998 to 2001, and the industry has changed significantly since then. Employment in the motor vehicles and parts manufacturing sector has fallen, for example.
2) Much more importantly, it is an industrywide study: The auto-related jobs covered in the report include more than those dependent on the Detroit Three; they are related to cars sold by any manufacturer, domestic or international, in the American market.

In other words, the loss of a single American car company wouldn’t necessarily dissolve all those jobs that the entire auto industry “supports.” The failure of General Motors, for example, wouldn’t eliminate the entire car-wash industry. Car-washing jobs are primarily dependent on Americans’ continued demand for automobiles — whether they’re from Detroit or Nagoya — and not the operations of any one automobile company. If a foreign company could swoop in to fill that demand with minimal disruption, then, theoretically, car-wash employees would keep their jobs.
That’s not to say that there would be no ripple effects whatsoever from a G.M., Chrysler and/or Ford bankruptcy. In fact, C.A.R. has done a more recent — and much more relevant — study on just this question.
The study, which came out on Election Day, estimates “the economic impact — in terms of jobs, compensation and tax revenues — of a major contraction involving one or more of the Detroit Three automakers,” under two separate scenarios. In both cases, there would be major short-term shocks to employment; depending on which scenario you use, a contraction of the Detroit Three would result in direct and indirect job losses of 2.5 million to 3 million in 2009. (This figure was also cited by Governor Granholm.)
That statistic is nowhere close to 1 in 10 American jobs, but it’s nothing to sneeze at.
It still doesn’t tell the whole story, though. After all, if Americans still buy cars, how permanent would those auto-related job losses be? Some argue that most of these jobs would be recovered, because foreign-owned auto companies would expand their plants in the United States to fill the void left by the Big Three. Others predict that foreign companies would instead expand their production overseas because of cheaper labor costs and because the suppliers that now serve both domestically — and foreign-owned American plants would be pulled under along with the Big Three.
The C.A.R. study, for its part, extrapolates to 2011 only, but it finds that a significant portion of those lost jobs (40 or 59 percent, depending on the scenario) would be recovered by that time. This is a subject I’ll discuss further in another post.


--------------------------

To recall, in one of my posts earlier I cited a WSJ estimate by Dan Hanninger that President Obama saved about 2 million Jobs by bailing out the Auto Industry in Detroit.

I hope this clarifies "the number confusion" if any, in the minds of the readers. I did NOT pull the numbers from the thin air, as someone here suggested.

Cheers.

:)
 
Last edited:
Republicans and in particular the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Partiers blather that President Obama increased the deficit and debt.

Dear N in his post #15 in this Thread has given the primary reasons for the increase in deficit and debt in since 2009.

Another important reason people forget is, because of the Deepest Recession since 1930s, the Revenue collected by the Treasury (all incomes) amounted to just about 15% of the GDP, while the long term average has been about 19% of GDP, and Expenditure on auto-pilot amounted to about 23% of the GDP (all came from GW Bush's period).

That's the reason President Obama said, "When I walked in to the Oval Office on 20th Jan 2009, there was a bill waiting for me with a total dues of $1.2 trillion for the fiscal year".

For some reason the TEA Partiers don't understand this point... Had they started their Party during early days of GW Bush, it would have made some real sense. Not in 2009. All pure dirty politics, and Rick Santolli (of CNBC) knew it.

Innum varum...

Wait & watch.:)
 
Last edited:
I am not an Independent, or an independent like Sen. Bernie Sanders.

But one thing is perfectly clear: the Republican Party has declared an all-out war on women and they must be stopped this November. Spineless Republican leaders like Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Speaker John Boehner, and Leader Eric Cantor couldn’t even give a condemnation of Limbaugh’s despicable comments until Rush himself apologized.
 
I must say, I have the luxury of expressing my dismay at Obama because he has the same as snowflake in hell to carry the state where I live. So my withheld vote is not going to matter. If it was a toss up state I would be willing to hold my nose and vote for him for no other reason than avoiding the possibility of Republicans getting to appoint more right-wing Associate Justices of SCOTUS like Roberts and Alito.

Cheers!
 
Dear Bro Nara ji,
Thank you for your detailed post. My response in 'blue':
Dear brother, just out of curiosity, how often have you voted for a Democratic candidate in a national election?
Well, my first election was Mondale/Reagan. I voted for Mondale (I could not understand how anyone could vote for President Reagan. Since then, I had voted democratic, except for President Bush on his second term (I missed voting in the Bush/Gore election, as I was going through a personal event in my life at that time - but had I voted, I would have for Bush as I was not happy with President Clinton). Last election I cast a protest vote against the Republicans, because I was totally against the way President Bush ran the domestic policy.
Of course, you have your reasons :)!!! Interestingly enough, some of these are the reasons why I am not voting for him, but from a more fact based angle.
Gosh! Sorry if what I have laid out is not fact based! After all, that's all my small brain could muster.

The only major outlay that could have benefited Union jobs was 53.6 billion to State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Compare this against individual tax relief of 246.8 billion.

Wasted/ineffective is a political opinion, I can counter this by saying it was a grand success. Instead of exchanging our opinions let us look at what the Congressional Budget Office says.

"...through the third quarter of 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created or saved between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs and added between 1.2 percent and 3.2 percent to GDP." -- for more click
here.

These facts fly in the face of your claims.
Of course when close to a Trillion $ is spent, there should be some beneficial economic activity. Success and failure of a government program is always measured by the objectives/targets set for the program and this is not political. In that respect, obviously the stimulus has failed, both on the objective of getting the unemployment rate below 8% and having a sustained recovery.

Talking about politics, please read this very interesting article about how Obama went about deciding on stimulus; he did not seem to do what bhis economic advisers asked him to do. Instead he based his decision on what is good for him politically, not what is good for the country. My take on this is that when he was considering the stimulus package, the unemployment rate was already going down from it's peak and the growth was showing improvement. So, he figured, he can have his cake and eat it too - that is why he chose a package based on political considerations:
The political failure of Obama’s stimulus package : The New Yorker

The reason I am not supporting the president on this issue is not because it was ineffective, but it was tepid, because it was not large enough. There were Nobel prize winning economists of his own progressive persuasion who were warning him that if the stimulus is not big enough the recovery will be inimical and the whole notion of short-term stimulus spending will be blamed, and they were right.
Not only Krugman and Stiglitz, others also wanted bigger packages. Again, given that the republicans would not vote for any stimulus of the size he eventually decided on, I do not understand why he did not go with the higher amount, even though that would have increased the deficit.

This boild down to his inexperience. I personally am not sure whether the Keynesian theory works very well in a globalized economy anymore (even Krugman says that there is a old Keynesian and a new Keynesian models). But the rub here is that he chose not to hear them on political grounds.
Most Economists Told Obama to Pursue Bigger Stimulus

Now you and fiscal conservatives may reject the views of the economists list Krugman and Stigletz, but you guys lost the election. My complaint is, having won the election on the enthusiastic support of the progressives, he turned his back on us and surrounded himself with Bankers and Corporatists. The stimulus worked, but it was not large enough because Obama listened to his Banker friends and not to economists like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz.
I agree, though I don't think it is the 'Bankers and Corporatists' he listened to. It was his political advisers.

TARP was passed under Bush. His Treasury Secretary wanted a blank-check for over $700 billion for his Banker friends. But for the Democrats in Congress, with some help from sensible Republicans, an endangered species, he would have gotten it. Not prosecuting these Banker criminals is one of the prime reasons I oppose Obama.
Banks did not do anything illegal. The issue was with Fannie&Freddie and the Fair Housing Act of Congress. When you guarantee a mortgage and don't examine the underlying risks of derivatives (which are legal) to the tax payers, then it is the problem with the government, not with the Corporate entities whose sole objective in life is to make money and increase the shareholder equity. By the way, I mainly blame the Bush Administration for this.

Fed is an independent agency under no direct control of anybody. Only a partisan will try to link Fed with Obama, but you are an Independent, so I don't get it, why are you hanging Fed around Obama's neck.
Yes, Fed is independent, but please don't tell me that their policies are seperated totally from the Administration in power.

Dodd/Frank legislation was intended to reign in the Banks and protect consumers. One of the objectives was to resurrect Glass/Steagall act that kept the financial system safe from greedy bankers. It was a greedy nexus between Democrats and Republicans that got rid of Glass/Steagall. You oppose the attempt to put some of these protections back in place, amazing!

But I oppose Dodd/Frank too, but for reasons altogether different from yours. Once again, in a very predictable fashion, Obama caved to Republican bullying and stalling tactics and watered down the legislation so much so that the bills that initially roared like a tiger was a mere mouse when amended and finally passed into law. The Republicans are not satisfied with even this, they are trying their best to impede its implementation. This failure of Obama to stand up to the Republicans is one of the reasons I won't vote for Obama.
I know a bit about Corporate regulations and their costs. I was part of a team that implemented a very bad regulation called Sarbanes-Oxley in my company. That one is a joke as it won't prevent Enron like instances to happen again. It just added enormous cost to American enterprises and put them at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis their competition. In fact, I know of a few companies abroad that will not list in America because of this.

Todd-Frank is ten times more of a monstrosity and more importantly was passed on strictly a partisan vote. Acts as big as these that impose costs on any business sector should be crafted with bipartisan support. Again, because of this act, our community banks are going out of business because of the cost.
I am for regulations (I think this is a valid and necessary government function), but any regulation should be based on risks and cost/benefit. Seems to me that any act passed by Congress in response to a populist reaction os a negative event are based on political considerations not on merit.

Well, you, the Republican right-wing base and those candidates who want to garner their votes must be the only ones who think GM bail out was a mistake. One of the reasons Mitt Romney was about to lose Michigan, but managed to squeeze through because of Satorum's own ineptitude, was his opposition to the bail-out in his own trademark naked pandering style.

Obama wanted to save union pension plans, and that is your complaint? Your concern for non-union Delphi workers is very touching. Given union pension plan was saved and non-union workers lost out, would you then support the card-check bill that would remove the barriars the Republicans put in the way of workers to organize? I am sure your answer is no. Your real concern was for bond-holders and share-holders. That is fine. But GM is now posting record profits, that must mean something to millions of folks. Michigan is now firmly in Obama's column thanks to the bail out.
I am a firm opposer of unionization, based on the way they hamper competition. But I am not opposed to voluntary unionization, if that's what the workers want.
Regarding the auto bail out, most Americans are still opposed to it. My issue with it is the way it was implemented and I think it was unnecessary.

As far as the numbers are concerned, 2 million, 1/2 million, let it be, that is not a major issue, playing the number game is nothing new and it is bipartisan.

I oppose this pipeline which you call "no-brainer". But never mind my opposition, the Republicans wanted to embarrass the president with liberals like myself by imposing an arbitrary deadline. This tactic backfired. Also, I think you are getting the facts about exploration, oil production etc., from the same place you are accusing Y of getting his numbers.

Institute for Energy Research | The Obama Administration Is Slowly Reissuing Offshore Drilling Permits


Now, you may want more drilling of the drill-baby-drill kind, that is your political position and on that basis you may want to not vote for Obama, that is understandable. My political position is that Obama must go further and have very strict rules for issuing new drilling permits, and his refusal to go further is the reason I don't want to vote for him.

Another number from where you think Y gets his numbers from. The loan guarantees were for $535 million, still a large number, unconscionable that WH would put pressure to get this project approved quickly. But this is part of the push for renewable energy, a commendable goal, and it is unfortunate they got this one wrong.

Contrast this with billions that were lost by way of fraud and theft in Iraq and Afghanistan, that is still continuing. It is illustrative to take a look a story CBS's 60 Minutes ran in 2006.
I have no comments on the above, as your own words speak for themselves.

I am not condoning Obama WH for Solyndra, they should not have pushed for it. But I find it disingenuous to say the least that those who condemn Obama for 1/2 billion somehow defend W's tens of billions that were stolen outright.
I did not support Bush domestic policies in his secong term. One can not justify one wrong by pointing to another wrong committed by someone else.

Another partisan canard, surprised it is coming from you an Independent. Legislation after legislation Obama bent over backwards to accommodate Republicans in the hope of one or two votes, always to be snubbed. This is one of the primary reasons why I am so vexed with Obama. He just turned his back on progressives and liberals and compromised even some of the things he passionately campaigned on, like the so called Public Option, yet he got nothing for it. Even when he agreed to Republican demand they simply moved the goal posts. To say he did not work with the Republicans in congress one has to be ultra-partisan, but you are an Independent, does not compute for me :)
I don't need to elaborate - the results speak for themselves.
I think you get your facts from FoxNews.

FactCheck.org lists 35 Czars under W and 32 under Obama, some of these Obama inherited from W's administration. To blame he has too many Czars is nitpicking.
I did not approve Bush doing it. I don't approve it now.

When the other side is doing everything possible to block Obama -- declaring that their prime goal is to deny a second term to Obama -- I see nothing wrong in blaming those who are so imminently blame-worthy. W gave an economy that was teetering on the verge of disaster, and Republicans were hellbent on denying Obama whatever it was that he wanted to do to plug the leak, stabilize, and turn the economy around. Take a look at this graph of the employment statistics and true independents will be persuaded with what Obama has achieved.
Brother, no need for the snide remarks - okay, I am not a TRUE independent - have it your way, if it gives you satisfaction. In my opinion, the President is the driver of Bi Partisanship, not the other way around. Because he has the tools and the power to drive this.

Yes, pathetic foreign policy I agree, he should have supported the Egyptian protestors much more vigorously, should have condemned Saudi Arabia when they invaded Bahrain, must have condemned Israel when they invaded Gaza and mercilessly murdered an American in the Mari Marmara flotilla incident, he continues to offer unconditional support to the murderous Israeli regime, he still acts as the world police, a role W played even more arrogantly that the sympathy the world had for USA evaporated quickly. Bad as it is under Obama, a Republican President will be that much worse, going to war willy nilly.
Spoken as a true progressive. Obviously we are diametrically opposed in our views on this, but agree on the result.
Under Bush the national debt increased by $4.9 trillion, and it went mostly for (i) two wars, (ii) tax cut for the rich, and (iii) an unpaid Medicare Part D program. (i) and (ii) brought the country to its knees. The debt increase of $4+ trillion under Obama has been for the continuation of Bush's wars and investments that will pay dividends later on. Giving a pass to Bush's wasteful debt increase and lambasting Obama for the debt that is more investment and saving the economy, is irrational.
I don't give a pass to Bush. What gave you that idea? Again, please come off these baseless assumptions on your part.

Wow, you hate Obama don't you?

It is clear to me from all this that you are as much an Independent as FoxNews is Fair and Balanced :)!!!
I don't hate him. I hate what he is doing to this country. It is going to take years to get rid of the bad effects.
Yes, I watch Fox, in addition to CNN, MSNBC, CBS and PBS. I don't care what you call me. Call me whatever you want and have fun.

Cheers!

Regards,
KRS
 
Since then, I had voted democratic, except for President Bush on his second term (I missed voting in the Bush/Gore election, as I was going through a personal event in my life at that time - but had I voted, I would have for Bush as I was not happy with President Clinton). Last election I cast a protest vote against the Republicans, because I was totally against the way President Bush ran the domestic policy.
Am I reading this right, you voted Democratic except Bush second term? Wow, you voted for Dukakis against Bush, Clinton against Bush, Clinton against Dole, Kerry against Bush, and Obama against McCain, really? It is amazing that your voting record is just the opposite of what you write here. Or, it this a typo and you intended to say Republican?

Brother, no need for the snide remarks - okay, I am not a TRUE independent - have it your way
[..]
I don't care what you call me. Call me whatever you want and have fun.
Sorry brother I apologize, thank you for taking it lightly.

Cheers!
 
Dear Brother Nara Ji,

Yes, I voted for all those democrats. Hard to believe, correct? My wife was as liberal as they come. She knew some noted liberals personally, like Chomsky etc. I learnt a lot from her about American politics.

But something happened during President Clinton's second term. I became an independent mainly because of two things. I saw President Clinton's lack of respect for women. My issue was not his personal conduct. My issue was his recklessness in putting himself in a place where it impacted directly on the nation's welafare, particularly in foreign affairs. Secondly, I saw how the party used the minorities and did not really respect them.

By that time also, I have seen the Corporate life - working for a very conservative company. All this experience taught me not to demonize anyone automatically, but look under the hood of any issue before judging.

I also saw how a whole lot of government programs (my wife was in working in Social Welfare area) though well meaning, were a huge waste of money and it was so easy to cook up the results. She also became disillusioned by the big government policies.

From that time onwards, I have become a person of my own thinking and I do not believe in big government. I believe that an entitlement state saps a country of it's entrepreneurship and creativity. I believe in personal responsibility. I also believe though that those who are truly in need of help (old and the infirm and the poor) should get help, but among those who are able bodied, that help should be to reskill.

Regards,
KRS
 
US 'AUTO INDUSTRY' Employment Statistics:

[h=2]National Employment[/h]
[h=3]Employment -- Seasonally Adjusted[/h]
Data seriesBack
data
One year ago:
Jan. 2011
Nov. 2011Dec. 2011Jan. 20121-month change:
Dec. 2011 -
Jan. 2012
12-month change:
Jan. 2011 -
Jan. 2012
Employment
(all employees, in thousands)

Manufacturing
Motor vehicles and parts manufacturing
702.4730.2(P) 738.4(P) 746.3(P) 7.9(P) 43.9
Retail Trade
Motor vehicle and parts dealers
1,664.81,705.6(P) 1,708.7(P) 1,713.4(P) 4.7(P) 48.6
Automobile dealers
1,037.41,069.0(P) 1,071.3(P) 1,078.7(P) 7.4(P) 41.3
Footnotes
(P) Preliminary

 
..Yes, I voted for all those democrats. Hard to believe, correct?
You have blown my mind!!!

My wife was as liberal as they come.
She was surely a wonderful person -- (light-hearted dig -- all kind and loving people are liberals)


She knew some noted liberals personally, like Chomsky etc.
Chomsky and late Zinn are my favorites. Both inspire me with their rhetoric and actions.

Human beings are social animals. We need each other. We all need to pull our weight, but some may not be able to and some others may want to take a free ride -- these are exceptions, most people want to pull their weight.

The problem is exploitation, by a few, of the vast majority of decent folks, that ends up making the society too lopsided in terms of accumulated wealth. An out and out individualist must go to the woods and live like Ted Kaczynski, without sending any bombs of course.

Cheers!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top