1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Nov 12, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 291 of 18258
  1. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Is there anything you won't regurgitate or link to if it fits some narrative you like?

    Jesus. That CAR study:

    1) It's sponsored by the industry that includes the two companies that got the handout. It doesn't necessarily invalidate their study, but it sure should make you scrutinize it (as others who are less caring than you did). ... because of their obvious motive in creating a false large number.

    2) Their study used a bunch of ridiculous assumptions (which I pointed out in my other post). First, they assumed that by the end of 2009, auto production in the U.S. would have decreased by 100 percent without the bailouts of GM and Chrysler. i.e. -- the bailout stopped the ENTIRE domestic auto industry from disappearing. It also assumed that would lead to such a big drop in the demand for auto parts that suppliers would be forced to liquidate. That led to an assumption that the disruption to the parts suppliers would cause domestic production of foreign auto makers to drop to zero in that first year. Not content with all of those assumptions. ... They assumed job losses in OTHER parts of the economy, because of yet more assumptions about a drop in consumer spending resulting from all of the direct job losses they had assumed in the first place. ... and so on. With those kinds of assumptions, the only surprising thing about the study is that they didn't come up with 1.5 BILLION jobs. That isn't a study. It's masturbation at best, dishonest at worst (and yes, it was done dishonestly).
     
    The Big Ragu, Dec 1, 2016
    #3481
  2. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    OK, suppose they're way off and it was only 700,000 jobs or something. The point remains. The bailout was not just the right thing to do morally but the smartest and most effective thing to do economically, as well.

    FYI, it was reported today that GM's sales rose 10.2 percent to 252,644 new vehicles in November at an average cost of $35,000-plus. That's the same "failed" GM to which we misallocated all that TARP money when we were picking winners and losers.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2016
    cranberry, Dec 1, 2016
    #3482
  3. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Yup. In fact, technology has probably killed more jobs.

    manufacturing.jpg
     
    cranberry, Dec 1, 2016
    #3483
  4. SpeedTchr

    SpeedTchr Well-Known Member

    Going back to the ACA issues... I will no longer be able to see my cardiologist (who has treated me for 16 years) because I cannot afford the $1000+ a month premium to get insurance on the exchange that includes him. I suppose I could just pay out the ass to see him out of network, but if I happen to have a cardiac incident and he is treating me, I will be bankrupt.

    My premium for this year was $429/month. That is going up to $571/month in January for a similar plan, minus access to my doctor.
     
    SpeedTchr, Dec 1, 2016
    #3484
  5. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Or suppose that it COST us (meaning the country) jobs (no, it didn't "save" jobs if you look at a FULL picture of its effects) by inefficiently rewarding failure at a cost to everyone who hadn't failed (and provided more viable jobs that weren't possible as a result of resources being steered away from them), and cost us further jobs in the future by the hit to our economy it required (including the public debt it left us with), meaning we got less innovation and none of the GOOD jobs actual demand-driven enterprises could have created.

    But you don't want to hear about opportunity costs and the actual (and likely) effects of the politicized bungling. ... because you care more than I do. And being the self-proclaimed most caring person, is the only rationale necessary to shout down people who point out inconvenient things.
     
    The Big Ragu, Dec 1, 2016
    #3485
  6. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Small business here ... we have 12 full-time employees. Our premiums jumped to the point where we had to drop down one level of coverage. Fortunate that our company pays for everything. Employees don't get anything deducted from their checks for healthcare. But we're definitely feeling it at some level.
     
    Cosmo, Dec 1, 2016
    #3486
  7. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    A good hire? (If he can get it approved by Congress, that is.)

     
    Inky_Wretch, Dec 1, 2016
    #3487
  8. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    Yep.

    But, wait, so you're saying you DO have health insurance? You DO have the ability to see a doctor and not be left bankrupt?

    Guess what, now so do millions of other Americans. Americans who pay taxes, who have jobs, or have parents who do. And they get to have health care. I'm sure they are grateful that you may not get to see the specialist you deserve. It sucks to be American, no?
     
    TigerVols, Dec 1, 2016
    #3488
  9. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Inky_Wretch, Dec 1, 2016
    #3489
  10. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Are you sure you have a complete grasp on what the phrase "a Share of" means?
     
    doctorquant, Dec 1, 2016
    #3490
  11. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    So if only we had the stomach to let those million people (or so) lose their jobs and allowed the economy to collapse further we would have (theoretically) created more jobs in the long term? Sort of like letting a forest fire run its course, only with people's lives instead of trees getting torched, right?

    But, no, we had to rescue a FAILING company like GM, let it reorganize and return to robust health with six straight years of profitability.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2016
    cranberry, Dec 1, 2016
    #3491
  12. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Translation: You don't won't to hear about opportunity costs. But it's not because you're so caring ... it's that you don't give a shit what happens so long as the right people benefit.
     
    doctorquant, Dec 1, 2016
    #3492
Page 291 of 18258
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page