• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Was the Auto Bailout an economic move or a political one?


Casualbets

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,638
Here's the situation.... Romney is slightly ahead in National Polls and has been consistently for two weeks... However, Obama has been consistently ahead in the Electoral College Vote tally... The reason? Four letters... Ohio.

To set the scene, Obama won by 7.9% in 2008. In the last two weeks, Romney has generally speaking been about 1% ahead in the National Polls. In 2008, Obama won Ohio by 4.6%. Therefore, on a Uniform National Swing, Romney should be leading Obama by about 4 or 4 and a half % in Ohio. But he is not - he is actually behind by 2%. And the main reason for this? The auto bailout.

So the question is - was the auto bailout as much a political decision to shore up Ohio's 20 Electoral College Votes as an economic one?
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,845
What's the relevance? There's nothing to be gained by anyone pushing "Yeah it worked, but it was only done because of political reasons". It worked. That's all the voters of Ohio care about. FWIW it doesn't appear to have been political. Obama continued on Bush's plan on the bailout. It was thought to the be the right thing to do, history would tend to bear that out.
 

Casualbets

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,638
What's the relevance? There's nothing to be gained by anyone pushing "Yeah it worked, but it was only done because of political reasons". It worked. That's all the voters of Ohio care about. FWIW it doesn't appear to have been political. Obama continued on Bush's plan on the bailout. It was thought to the be the right thing to do, history would tend to bear that out.
Well the relevance is if Obama does win - which I think he probably will - the fact that he was able to hold onto Ohio against the grain will be seen as a key factor in that win. So therefore, the question about the bailout is a legitimate one to ask, and it will be asked....
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,845
Well the relevance is if Obama does win - which I think he probably will - the fact that he was able to hold onto Ohio against the grain will be seen as a key factor in that win. So therefore, the question about the bailout is a legitimate one to ask, and it will be asked....
Asked by who? It was a republican plan executed by Obama. Who's going to say it was politically motivated and who is going to care? Obama won the state by 4% in 2008, and Democrats have taken it in 3 out of the last 5 elections. How is it going against the grain if he wins in 2012?
 
R

Ramps

FWIW it doesn't appear to have been political. Obama continued on Bush's plan on the bailout.
Just because the 2 presidents belonged to different parties doesn't mean it wasn't 'political'. Both had the same ultimate motivation: keep Eddie Punchclock happy.


It was thought to the be the right thing to do, history would tend to bear that out.

Er, no; that's why you can say with near certainty that it was political. You couldn't defend it on economic grounds.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
56,230
It kept an entire community alive; there are both political and economic benefits to that.
 

SilverSpurs

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
5,550
Here's the situation.... Romney is slightly ahead in National Polls and has been consistently for two weeks... However, Obama has been consistently ahead in the Electoral College Vote tally... The reason? Four letters... Ohio.

To set the scene, Obama won by 7.9% in 2008. In the last two weeks, Romney has generally speaking been about 1% ahead in the National Polls. In 2008, Obama won Ohio by 4.6%. Therefore, on a Uniform National Swing, Romney should be leading Obama by about 4 or 4 and a half % in Ohio. But he is not - he is actually behind by 2%. And the main reason for this? The auto bailout.

So the question is - was the auto bailout as much a political decision to shore up Ohio's 20 Electoral College Votes as an economic one?
A socialist buying todays votes with his childrens and grandchildrens taxes.....you never!!!:mad::mad::mad:
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
56,230
A socialist buying todays votes with his childrens and grandchildrens taxes.....you never!!!:mad::mad::mad:
You have no idea what the word Socialist actually means, do you?
 

Casualbets

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,638
Asked by who? It was a republican plan executed by Obama. Who's going to say it was politically motivated and who is going to care? Obama won the state by 4% in 2008, and Democrats have taken it in 3 out of the last 5 elections. How is it going against the grain if he wins in 2012?
I explained the math above Sync. Obama won nationally by 8% in 2008, by 4% in Ohio. He is now 1% down in National polls, yet is still 2% ahead in Ohio. That is very much against the grain. Ohio's 20 Electoral College are pivotal.

So therefore it IS a pertinent question. In the same way questions about Doctor James Reilly's Primary Care Centre decisions are pertinent.
 
R

Ramps

It kept an entire community alive; there are both political and economic benefits to that.
Imagine all the communities that could have been kept alive if US govts. had bailed out farmers for the last 200 years...not to mention all the chimney sweeps, owners of horse-drawn carriages, tinkers, wireless manufacturers, etc etc.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
56,230
Imagine all the communities that could have been kept alive if US govts. had bailed out farmers for the last 200 years...not to mention all the chimney sweeps, owners of horse-drawn carriages, tinkers, wireless manufacturers, etc etc.
They certainly should have done more to support farmers.

As far as I'm aware, most Americans still drive cars; I'm not sure there's the same level of demand for the ither services you list.
 
R

Ramps

They certainly should have done more to support farmers.
Why?!

As far as I'm aware, most Americans still drive cars;

Yes, and obviously the quality they get at the price they pay is not to their liking.


I'm not sure there's the same level of demand for the ither services you list.

I'm quite sure that virtually every industry that has been threatened by modernity has pleaded for special consideration from govt.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,845
I explained the math above Sync. Obama won nationally by 8% in 2008, by 4% in Ohio. He is now 1% down in National polls, yet is still 2% ahead in Ohio. That is very much against the grain. Ohio's 20 Electoral College are pivotal.
So in spite of the fact that Ohio's gone blue more times than not in the last 20 years, you think the fact that Obama is ahead in Ohio by a % within the error zone means they're going against the grain because he's down in national polls by >1% (also within the error zone).

So therefore it IS a pertinent question. In the same way questions about Doctor James Reilly's Primary Care Centre decisions are pertinent.
Pertinent to who? You still haven't answered that. "Hey Ohio, that Bush jerk and that Obama jerk only pushed through legislation to save 1/8 people's jobs in your state because they wanted your vote!" Who cares? 1. You've offered no evidence to support a position that Bush wasn't motivated primerily by economic interests 2. You've offered no evidence that Obama was motivated by something other than economic interests when he continued that position.

And Reilly's a totally different situation. If Mary Harney had selected the care centres there would be no one questioning Reilly continuing that decision.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
56,230
Why?!




Yes, and obviously the quality they get at the price they pay is not to their liking.





I'm quite sure that virtually every industry that has been threatened by modernity has pleaded for special consideration from govt.
Undoubtedly; however I believe that the job of government is to protect society as a whole, not just the economy. Sometimes this will mean making decisions that an economic view would see as wrong.
 
R

Ramps

1. You've offered no evidence to support a position that Bush wasn't motivated primerily by economic interests 2. You've offered no evidence that Obama was motivated by something other than economic interests when he continued that position.
The evidence that economic interests weren't both presidents primary motivation is that they intervened full stop.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
56,230
The evidence that economic interests weren't both presidents primary motivation is that they intervened full stop.
This is very true. There is no reason why they should have been primarily motivated by economics.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
56,230
No problem whatsoever; but if that's the case, I think they should just come out and say so.
You're overlooking the salient fact; they're politicians. ;)
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
46,201
If it was an economic bailout, then we would have seen vocal supporters of the Democrats in the media, and on blogs like this buy shares in General Motors.

They didn't. Or if they did, they kept very quiet about it.

Therefore, it is logical to conclude that it was a political move.
 
Top