Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (55345)	9/6/2012 7:53:58 PM
From: Geoff Altman	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

I repeat Bill O: There’s no question that the country is worse off today, despite the Vice President’s rhetoric, than when President Obama took office. And if you’re speaking to somebody who disputes that, immediately terminate the conversation, because that person is irrational - a Kool-Aid drinker. So you'd rather bet on the loser.... An anti capitalist ...... I'd prefer to get someone in office who knows how businesses work..... History is going to look back at Obama's election in 2008 and record it as the biggest mistake American voters ever made...... The dude's a poser, hardly a thing real about him, including his own autobios....... Time to go back to Hawaii.

To: LLCF who wrote (55345)	9/6/2012 11:23:44 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

To Obama, 'Investment' Is Another Word For Crony Capitalism The really remarkable thing about President Obama's rhetoric about the economy in this election season is just how little it has changed since 2010. Those who expected new ideas from this administration for getting the economy back on track must have been sorely disappointed, as the widely-anticipated "reset" on economic issues has really just been a "repeat." Once again, he's trotting out the same old straw men and warmed-over policies he has pounded relentlessly for the last 3-1/2 years: He inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, Republicans have stymied the recovery by refusing all compromise and the only way we will remain competitive in the world economy is by "investing" in things like education, renewable "green" energy and infrastructure development. This "investment" angle has become so repetitive it's easy just to ignore. But what does it really mean? When the president says he wants to invest in education, what, exactly does he want to invest in it? It can't simply be better education results, because 40 years of soaring costs for public education have already failed to do that. Since 1970, the per-pupil cost of a K-12 education has exploded from about $55,000 to about $150,000 in inflation-adjusted terms. Yet math and reading scores have stagnated, and science scores have actually declined. Surely, President Obama can't believe that "investing more in education and training" and "recruiting an army of new teachers" in math and science constitutes new and innovative education policy. We've been trying it for decades, and despite hiring 3 million more teachers and spending $210 billion more per year on public education, taxpayers have nothing to show for it. If taxpayers and students have not benefited from this public largesse, who has? Teachers unions, of course. Not coincidentally, they are one of the Democratic Party's most powerful constituencies and the single biggest obstacle to education reform in America today. They continually sacrifice the interests of public school students to permanent job security and pay hikes for teachers. When the president talks about investing in "education," what he means is giving more money to the teachers unions to solidify their political efforts on his behalf. Same goes for the other abstract nouns in which the president constantly demands more "investment." "Clean energy?" We've been "investing" in that for years. And what is the return on that investment? Solyndra, a company whose failure cost taxpayers $528 million in Department of Energy loan guarantees. A123 Systems, a recipient of $279 million in energy grants, filed for bankruptcy earlier this year. First Solar, having procured $1.46 billion in loan guarantees, announced layoffs of more than 2,000 employees over the last several months. Dozens more "clean" energy companies are filing for bankruptcy or laying off thousands of workers after receiving federal funds. Is this "investment" producing better energy resources, or economic growth? But, as with the teachers unions, subsidized green energy executives do produce lots of campaign contributions. Time and again, when the president says "investment," he doesn't simply mean spending — he means a redistribution of wealth from successful individuals and businesses to those who support his liberal agenda. The president compares his "investment" vision to the successes of Thomas Edison or the Wright brothers. But a government handout wasn't needed to invent the light bulb or airplane. Government "investments" invariably go not to the people with the most promising innovations, but those with the best political connections. Politicians — of both parties — use the "investment" rhetoric to paper over payoffs to their friends and benefactors. It's both immoral and inefficient. For Obama, however, this spending is a matter of faith. "I don't believe," he asserted, "that a tax cut is more likely to create jobs than providing loans to new entrepreneurs or tax credits to small business owners who hire veterans. I don't believe it's more likely to spur economic growth than investments in clean energy technology and medical research, or in new roads and bridges and runways." If we are to take his rhetoric seriously, the president clearly believes the way to get our floundering economy moving again is not to let employers keep more of the money they themselves created, but to tax them and spread the wealth around to special interests such as teachers unions, labor bosses and well-connected firms like Solyndra that embody the correct leftist policies. Call it a boondoggle. Call it crony capitalism. Call it corporate welfare. But let's stop calling this "investment."

To: LLCF who wrote (55345)	9/6/2012 11:30:12 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 71588

To: LLCF who wrote (55345)	10/5/2012 8:50:30 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

A White House That Punishes Adversaries, Pays Off Friends Fri, Oct 05 2012 00:00:00 E A14_ISSUES Posted 10/04/2012 06:45 PM ET Cronyism: Did the Obama administration stiff a group of non-union workers and pay off a political ally in the 2009 auto bailout? Yes, it did, says the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. When the administration turned General Motors into Government Motors in 2009's M&A of the automaker, it made sure that retirees from Delphi Corp. who were members of the United Auto Workers didn't lose a dime from their pensions. The White House, though, was not as generous with the nonunion retirees from GM's parts supplier. Roughly 22,000 Delphi retirees who were salaried employees and not members of a union were stripped of up to two-thirds of their pensions during the bailout. They weren't even invited to negotiations by the administration, while the politically favored UAW was asked to sit at the table with GM. The White House has long rejected charges that there was political manipulation from the administration. It claims that it was in no way involved in the decision and sent officials to Capitol Hill to testify that there was no manipulation from Obama's circle. But Rep. Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, one of three congressional panels probing the pension question, says he has found evidence to the contrary. After reviewing documents provided by Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp., the federal agency that was tasked with sorting out the pensions during the bailout, Camp concluded that "top officials at Treasury were heavily involved in the" decision as to how the pension issue would be worked out. "Treasury," he said, "was clearly in the center of the decision to terminate the pensions of Delphi's salaried workers." Camp says "Treasury has repeatedly denied involvement in the Delphi pension decision," but as he tells it, "limited documents already provided to the committee do not support Treasury's claim of noninvolvement." The appearance of an ugly cover-up by the White House, which has not directly responded to Camp's requests for documents related to Delphi, gets stronger almost by the day, as does the appearance of a payoff to the union. Why else would the nonunion retirees be cheated if not to leave more money for the union? Maybe a reasonable explanation exists, but it seems unlikely.Punishing enemies and paying off friends are in this administration's DNA. news.investors.com