Az Gov Brewer gives Obama What For!

[dorminWS]

[quote="KreutzMost socialist nations have protectionist trade policies, the antithesis of free trade.
[/quote]
................................................
True, I suppose, but how is it relevant to this discussion?
.................................................

Huh. Orewellian nightmare eh?

Patriot act? Bush.

SOPA? Thank you Lamar Smith R TX

NDAA allowing indefinite detention of US citizens? Thank you Lindsey Graham R SC.

Yeah, all Obamas fault.

............................................................
As TrenchCox already said, Obama and his crowd's hands are just as dirty, but I'm talking about Obama's embracing the UN scheme for global control by them of where and how we live, outlawing guns, etc. when I use the term "Orwellian society". You're getting off the subject.
..............................................................
[/quote]

I do not recall Democrats politically murdering any other Democrats that had a kind word or two for Bush, and they were out there, many Dems liked No Child left Behind and Medicare part D for example. None were chased with pitchforks for stating such.
[/quote]
........................................................
Hearken back to the little spat between Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter as just one example. But then I don't endorse the way the republicans are carrying on right now because (in addition to other reasons) they're taking a chance on getting Obama reelected. And I'm also not all that happy with republicans in general. I'm a conservative independent. But ABO is my watchword on this election. ANYBODY BUT OBAMA! If we can't steer the Republic away from the precipice this election, I fear there will be no getting back. We will be too impoverished to recover. And YES, prior republican officeholders also bear some of the responsibility for this. But Obama is heading the bus over the cliff and he's got the thing in overdrive with the pedal to the metal. We need to put on the brakes and make a sharp right turn RIGHT NOW. We'll figure out who all gets a speeding ticket after that.
.......................................
[/quote]

Obama could personally discover a way to make pigeons crap gold nuggets and I guarantee if so much as one Republican politician ever dared say publicly, "hey, thats kind of cool" he'd be done for.[/quote]
...................................................
First, I just have to pose the question of what the utility of gold pigeon crap might be. But I would say that if such a thing happened, (a) it would probably be because Obama's henchmen were feeding the pigeons 2 ounces of gold for every 1 ounce they crapped (sort of like the fiascos with Solyndra, etc, etc, etc) and (b) if that wasn't the explanation, I'd be looking for exactly what sort of smoke and mirrors WAS used. Probably a Presidential Finding that pigeon crap, notwithstanding that it was a white splater with a brown spot in it, was in fact GOLD. Certainly wouldn't be the first time a politician polished a turd and passed it off as jewellry. Finally, I'd observe that if Obama could get every cow in Texas to crap pure gold, it STILL wouldn't pay the bills the way he's spending money.

Kreutz, the bottom line is that it's not because I am a rabid republican partisan or tea partier or anything else that I have nothing good to say about Obama. It's because by my lights THERE IS nothing good to say about Obama. I daresay that's the reason a lot of other people aren't speaking well of him.

[mamabearCali]

Eh--politics is a rough and nasty business. You gotta know it,be tough and have the hide of a rhinoceros. This is nothing more than business as usual.

Both parties stink on ice. The republicans are only slightly less stinky right now. Both sides have ceased to acknowledge vast sections of our God given rights. If I did not know how important all of this is I would be tempted to wash my hands of the process entirely. But I gotta fight for my kids to have some semblance of liberty, so I guess I keep my head up and keep trying to pick the best option available.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Kreutz]

True, I suppose, but how is it relevant to this discussion?

You went on some tangent about socialism being some globalist conspiracy or something?

As TrenchCox already said, Obama and his crowd's hands are just as dirty, but I'm talking about Obama's embracing the UN scheme for global control by them of where and how we live, outlawing guns, etc. when I use the term "Orwellian society".

This crap (betcha wanted to mention FEMA camps too, remember that wingunt conspiracy theory?) has been floating around for decades. Seriously, decades.

The UN is really just what it is. A forum for nations to discuss trade, diplomacy, and alternatives to war.

Its member nations (because its not one monolithic organization over in reality) are often antagonistic towards other nations, and none of them seem to want to become...absorbed into some Global New World Unity Government.

You're getting off the subject.

How is a far-reaching UN conspiracy in regards to Jan Brewer and Obamas public interaction on the subject?

Hearken back to the little spat between Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter as just one example. But then I don't endorse the way the republicans are carrying on right now because (in addition to other reasons) they're taking a chance on getting Obama reelected. And I'm also not all that happy with republicans in general. I'm a conservative independent. But ABO is my watchword on this election. ANYBODY BUT OBAMA! If we can't steer the Republic away from the precipice this election, I fear there will be no getting back. We will be too impoverished to recover. And YES, prior republican officeholders also bear some of the responsibility for this. But Obama is heading the bus over the cliff and he's got the thing in overdrive with the pedal to the metal. We need to put on the brakes and make a sharp right turn RIGHT NOW. We'll figure out who all gets a speeding ticket after that.

Huh. Did you know Romneys fortune was made via leveraged buyouts, where he spent money that wasn't his on risky bets to profit off of? Public risk private profits sound familiar, say, summer of 2007?

Yeah, he's the savior.

If you think this place is hemorrhaging money now, oh man, just wait until we credit default swap all our arable land.

[dorminWS]

The UN is really just what it is. A forum for nations to discuss trade, diplomacy, and alternatives to war.

Its member nations (because its not one monolithic organization over in reality) are often antagonistic towards other nations, and none of them seem to want to become...absorbed into some Global New World Unity Government.

...............................................
The UN is an anti-USA nest of spies.
Check out the UN AGENDA 21.
Check out the UN ARMS TRADE TREATY.
check out the UN's KYOTO PROTOCOLS AND PRPOSED GLOBAL WARMING TREATY.
Remember all the instances of having the USA and it's allies treated like freckle-faced stepchildren by various UN bodies while the US is funding the lion's share of the UN budget.

They're not simply a harmless group indulging in collegial discussions. Those socialist @ssholes absolutely do want to rule the world and equalize wealth and income at the expense of developed countries, the primary one of which is the USA. Your buddy Obama, as my old daddy would say, "is p!ssing through the same quill with them". I say; GET THE US OUT OF THE UN, GET THE UN OUT OF THE US, AND SEND OBAMA WITH THEM.
.........................................................

Huh. Did you know Romneys fortune was made via leveraged buyouts, where he spent money that wasn't his on risky bets to profit off of? Public risk private profits sound familiar, say, summer of 2007?

Yeah, he's the savior.

If you think this place is hemorrhaging money now, oh man, just wait until we credit default swap all our arable land.

.........................................................
Kreutz, no offense, buddy, but you remind me of the anti-gun nuts. You obviously don't understand the world of finance, but you buy whole-hog into the notion that a "leveraged buyout" is an evil practice just because the guy got rich. Be honest, now……. Are you morally outraged, or just jealous? Me? I’m jealous as hell.

(1) If people didn't borrow money to start businesses, there would be no commerce. There is nothing evil about having debt in your capital structure. In fact, an appropriate amount is essential to financial efficiency, as it maximizes return to the shareholders. That's why they call it "leveraging".

(2) Risk is also not per se evil; nor is profit. In fact, it is a basic tenet of capitalism that it is the bearing of risk that justifies a return in the form of profit. Profit drives the engine of commerce. Without it, there can be no increase in ANYONE'S standard of living. Another way to look at a “leveraged buyout” is that it is a WORKOUT (or turnaround). That’s when a company that is in trouble is acquired or the management is temporarily turned over to new management that has the skill and resources to guide it back to financial and operational soundness; thereby saving the company and the jobs of its employees. Not an evil thing at all, in my book.

(3) I don't understand your reference to "public risk, private profit". By definition, if the risk is too high, lenders will not lend. If the profit is insufficient, risk-takers will not borrow. If government chooses to meddle in the markets to attempt to decrease the risk attendant to a particular activity in order to encourage it (just in case you’re reference is to Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac), entrepreneurs can hardly be criticized for taking advantage of this and doing exactly what the government wanted them to do. If the government was so incompetent that their intervention backfired or was otherwise unsuccessful, THAT is the government's fault. Truth is they've got no business meddling most of the time; and don’t know what they’re doing almost all the time.

It is true that not all workouts are successful. It is also true that not all leveraged buyouts are a good deal. Sometimes companies get looted. But the lenders will not lend unless they are motivated by an expectation of repayment. If a company is on the rocks and its only value is what can be realized from its liquidation, then doing so is in the interest of financial efficiency. In the long run, it serves no purpose to preserve jobs artificially at a company that cannot survive without subsidy. Better to shift the capital to some enterprise with prospects for success and foster employment there. But never forget that it is neither the purpose nor the obligation of companies to employ people UNLESS THEY CAN DO SO AT A PROFIT. That is the free-market equivalent of survival of the fittest, and like it or not, that’s the way the world works.

One last point: If you get rich doing what you characterize as “leveraged buyouts”, you have to have more successes than failures. The one thing I can say for sure about the shape our country is in right now is that it would do us good to have somebody in charge that knows how to do a turnaround.

[Kreutz]

The UN is really just what it is. A forum for nations to discuss trade, diplomacy, and alternatives to war.

Its member nations (because its not one monolithic organization over in reality) are often antagonistic towards other nations, and none of them seem to want to become...absorbed into some Global New World Unity Government.

...............................................
The UN is an anti-USA nest of spies.
Check out the UN AGENDA 21.
Check out the UN ARMS TRADE TREATY.
check out the UN's KYOTO PROTOCOLS AND PRPOSED GLOBAL WARMING TREATY.
Remember all the instances of having the USA and it's allies treated like freckle-faced stepchildren by various UN bodies while the US is funding the lion's share of the UN budget.

They're not simply a harmless group indulging in collegial discussions. Those socialist @ssholes absolutely do want to rule the world and equalize wealth and income at the expense of developed countries, the primary one of which is the USA. Your buddy Obama, as my old daddy would say, "is p!ssing through the same quill with them". I say; GET THE US OUT OF THE UN, GET THE UN OUT OF THE US, AND SEND OBAMA WITH THEM.

I guess we just have to disagree. The fact UN decisions are not binding; at all appears irrelevant. Nor the fact the Supreme Court has said several times no treaty can ever supersede the Constitution.

I consider the UN one more amongst many a waste of money and little more.
.........................................................

Kreutz, no offense, buddy, but you remind me of the anti-gun nuts. You obviously don't understand the world of finance, but you buy whole-hog into the notion that a "leveraged buyout" is an evil practice just because the guy got rich. Be honest, now……. Are you morally outraged, or just jealous? Me? I’m jealous as hell.

I grew up with the WSJ and Barrons alongside my nursery rhymes thanks to my grandfather.

My father? Never had a head for numbers, but, he was a hippy. I grew up under Reaganism and whether I like it or not its affected me and made me interested in finance at a very young age. Had my first Roth at 18....didnt get laid till 19, no shock there.

And to answer your question both.

(2) Risk is also not per se evil; nor is profit. In fact, it is a basic tenet of capitalism that it is the bearing of risk that justifies a return in the form of profit. Profit drives the engine of commerce. Without it, there can be no increase in ANYONE'S standard of living. Another way to look at a “leveraged buyout” is that it is a WORKOUT (or turnaround). That’s when a company that is in trouble is acquired or the management is temporarily turned over to new management that has the skill and resources to guide it back to financial and operational soundness; thereby saving the company and the jobs of its employees. Not an evil thing at all, in my book.

Yeah, it sounds good when you put it like that, however the last paragraph is not how corporate raids work, nor how Bain capital worked. The acquisitions were gutted for a profit; nothing of value was created, in fact, wealth was siphoned off to the private equity firm at the expense of the business they acquired and the business that company can no longer offer other business, since its now dead.

Concentrating wealth at the top does not do an economy good, ask the poor Tsar Nicholas II how well it worked for Imperial Russia.

The companies these people employed (and like you said, debt can be good, just because a company is in the red doesn't justify it being gutted) cannot acquire and spend capital as theyre now unemployed.

Externalizing costs and ignoring ripple effects are the secret to a "free" market economy.

(3) I don't understand your reference to "public risk, private profit". By definition, if the risk is too high, lenders will not lend. If the profit is insufficient, risk-takers will not borrow. If government chooses to meddle in the markets to attempt to decrease the risk attendant to a particular activity in order to encourage it (just in case you’re reference is to Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac), entrepreneurs can hardly be criticized for taking advantage of this and doing exactly what the government wanted them to do. If the government was so incompetent that their intervention backfired or was otherwise unsuccessful, THAT is the government's fault. Truth is they've got no business meddling most of the time; and don’t know what they’re doing almost all the time.

Uh, those bailouts ring a bell? The government itself was not at fault, rather the efforts of lobbyists neutering the SEC under Bush and passing laws in their favor. Regulation was the answer then, and I hope meaningful regulation will stop this or a variant form happening again.

It is true that not all workouts are successful. It is also true that not all leveraged buyouts are a good deal. Sometimes companies get looted. But the lenders will not lend unless they are motivated by an expectation of repayment. If a company is on the rocks and its only value is what can be realized from its liquidation, then doing so is in the interest of financial efficiency.

Why'd you leave this out of the earlier glowing appraisal of leveraged buyouts?

In the long run, it serves no purpose to preserve jobs artificially at a company that cannot survive without subsidy. Better to shift the capital to some enterprise with prospects for success and foster employment there.

Well, I dislike subsidies, but they do have their uses. Would you have axed Amtrak, the ever moribund rail service? It had many rough years but now theres a good chance passenger rail will become very important again soon as people move back into cities and air travel becomes increasingly expensive and tedious, was it worth maintaining them until now?

But never forget that it is neither the purpose nor the obligation of companies to employ people UNLESS THEY CAN DO SO AT A PROFIT. That is the free-market equivalent of survival of the fittest, and like it or not, that’s the way the world works.

How come massive government (i.e. public) money has bailed the free market out twice now (the New Deal, including WW2 spending and whatever the hell Obamas been up to which is showing a slow but steady recovery) but its never the other way around?

One last point: If you get rich doing what you characterize as “leveraged buyouts”, you have to have more successes than failures. The one thing I can say for sure about the shape our country is in right now is that it would do us good to have somebody in charge that knows how to do a turnaround.

Pssst, you know the collateral in those buyouts in this case? That'd be us. Learn Mandarin now.