Acebuckeye13 posted:

The auto bailout was a good policy that saved a tremendous number of working-class jobs, and Obama won handily in Michigan in part because of that policy. You really do not know what you're talking about here.

Rated PG-34 posted:

Ok, keep on drinking the obama koolaid. You have to weigh policies that were implemented over other policies that could've been implemented (and not just ones that were on the table). Was the bailout better than nothing? Sure, but compared to other solutions, it was fundamentally unfair and people were left behind. It's the same with the ACA: was it better than nothing? Sure, but health care costs are still rising out of control and quality of care is lower than other wealthier countries. Eventually people wake up to the economic reality.

Veskit posted:

What did we choose not to use that wasn't on the table?

M_Gargantua posted:

Trump proved that was an actual useful strategy. So I don't see why not. Un-truth as a weapon.

Rated PG-34 posted:

Bailing out the pension funds. Capping auto executive pay. Not negotiating below poverty salaries for new union workers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/16b-of-bank-bailout-went-to-execs/

Veskit posted:

We did bail out pension funds, it's called qunantitative easing, aka the bailout.



Your first attempt in teaching me new ways of income distribution was literally to say we should have bailed out the banks. I want to make this clear how little you know what the gently caress you're talking about when you throw a hissy fit and then explain to me we should bail out the banks.



Lol you dumb gently caress.

Veskit posted:

We did bail out pension funds, it's called qunantitative easing, aka the bailout.



Your first attempt in teaching me new ways of income distribution was literally to say we should have bailed out the banks. I want to make this clear how little you know what the gently caress you're talking about when you throw a hissy fit and then explain to me we should bail out the banks.



Lol you dumb gently caress.

Veskit posted:

I'll simplify it. Pension funds are run by financial institutions, and I dunno if you were around at the time but they had a bit of a problem... with their assets, IE, things like pension funds.

Rated PG-34 posted:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-05/detroit-pension-cuts-from-bankruptcy-prompt-cries-of-betrayal

Veskit posted:

What exactly is your point?

Rated PG-34 posted:

The pension funds weren't bailed out

Veskit posted:

They were. You're like fundamentally not getting that pension funds were bailed out as part of the bailout

Rated PG-34 posted:

Please cite your source.

Veskit posted:

It's not going to make any sense to you if you don't understand how a bailout works. Think of it like if I told you that in another universe a avatar of myself just kicked you in the nuts to death, and you asked for the source and I tried to link you string theory but i mean none of it makes sense if you don't get how it works.


So like here's the source?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_(finance)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_security


Here's how monetary policy works and QE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcPEkmstDek



Is that what you're asking for?

Rated PG-34 posted:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-05/detroit-pension-cuts-from-bankruptcy-prompt-cries-of-betrayal

Rated PG-34 posted:

No. If there was a pension fund bailout, you can drat well bet it would've made the news. People would be touting Obama's grand benevolence from every orifice. Please cite a news source.

Stare-Out posted:

This is all terribly interesting but is the next show not really until next year? What is it, January? That's a hell of a break.

Rated PG-34 posted:

No. If there was a pension fund bailout, you can drat well bet it would've made the news. People would be touting Obama's grand benevolence from every orifice. Please cite a news source.

Veskit posted:

Might be February.

Caros posted:

Veskit posted:

I think he's in the Jill Stein camp in that qunaititative easing is just financial fuckery and you can't just QE a pension plan.


Who am I kidding he has no idea how monetary policy works on any level whatsoever.

Caros posted:

You are fundamentally misunderstanding this dude.

Pension funds don't sit on their money, they invest it. Pension funds also don't invest the money themselves because they aren't equipped to do that.

Take the pension funds of the state of Texas. These were owned by AIG which was on the verge of bankruptcy due to their retarded practices. If AIG went bankrupt that would destroy the pension plans of millions, we are talking pennies on the dollar losses.

The state of Texas was prepared to seize AIG subsidiaries in an attempt to get back dimes on the dollar if push came to shove, and the only thing that prevented this total meltdown, and saved the pension funds, was the bank bailouts.

Yes it is possible to have bailed out the pensioners directly, but it is false to say that they were not bailed out at all.

Acebuckeye13 posted:

Okay, since you really don't understand what's going on in Michigan, I'll break it down for you.

You are conflating two different issues-the automotive bailout, and Detroit's bankruptcy. The auto bailout, which took place in 2009, was effectively a loan given to GM and Chrysler to allow them to retain their assets as they went through partial bankruptcy proceedings to restructure their companies. It also took place alongside the federal "Cash for Clunkers" program, where the government funds were used to guarantee $4000 trade-ins for new cars (To help improve demand and keep the factories running and workers employed), and renegotiations between the UAW and the Big 3, where the UAW agreed to pay cuts (Especially for new workers) to help the automakers improve their financial stability. The end result of these programs, 7 years later, is that all three automakers have returned to profitability, and as a result not only has the economy of SE Michigan not collapsed, but the UAW was able to push through generous new contracts that restored wages for new hires and increased profit-sharing for workers. Note as well that the primary legislation that occurred during this time to facilitate the auto recovery was signed in 2009, aka when the Democrats had a majority in both the House and Senate.

Detroit's bankruptcy, by contrast, was a deliberate effort by the state government to drive Detroit into bankruptcy through the appointing of an "Emergency Manager" with wide-sweeping powers to break union contracts and control the city's finances. Part of the state's motivation to do so was so that they could renegotiate pension liabilities, and when the bankruptcy came that's what they did. And regardless of whether Obama wanted to use federal funds to guarantee the city's pensions, he had no ability to do so, as in 2013 (When the Bankruptcy was filed) the city, the state, and the House were controlled by Republicans that would block any action to help the city.

Neoliberalism isn't to blame for Detroit's woes, as much as you want it to be.

Duzzy Funlop posted:

So how about Last Week Tonight, huh?

Rated PG-34 posted:

Sure, giving money to the banks supposedly ensured the economy from complete collapse, and people were invested in that economy. However, that's not the same thing as bailing out a pension fund that can't meet it's obligation to its pensioners. Pension funds were still allowed to default.

Duzzy Funlop posted:

So how about Last Week Tonight, huh?

Caros posted:

Why the gently caress do you only call it a pension bailout if uncle Sam pays Johnny or the pensioners directly.

Rated PG-34 posted:

In 2009, it was still pretty obvious that Detroit was in serious trouble. The city was in decline for decades. The political will to target help to the people of Detroit just wasn't there. They don't contribute enough to election campaigns.

Rated PG-34 posted:

Because that's what it means to bailout a pension fund. When did the government guarantee a pension fund?

Uncle sammie bailing out the banks is not the same as uncle sammie bailing out everyone or all the funds that depend on the market. Bailing out everyone would mean guaranteeing that all businesses/funds wouldn't fail/default as a result of the crash.

Veskit posted:

The bailout didn't do that so it wasn't a bailout then?

Rated PG-34 posted:

The bank bailout bailed out the banks, not everyone.

Rated PG-34 posted:

Bailing out everyone would mean guaranteeing that all businesses/funds wouldn't fail/default as a result of the crash.

Rated PG-34 posted:

The bank bailout bailed out the banks, not everyone.

Veskit posted:

I bolded the part I'm trying to get across

Rated PG-34 posted:

I'm not sure what you mean. The government didn't guarantee that all businesses/funds wouldn't fail as a result of the crash. Businesses/funds did fail.

BIG HEADLINE posted:

In keeping with HBO, it's pretty obvious you're like a Westworld host, where whenever you're shown something that challenges your ideologies or threatens your sanity, all you're capable of saying is "it doesn't look like anything to me."

Rated PG-34 posted:

I'm not sure what you mean. The government didn't guarantee that all businesses/funds wouldn't fail as a result of the crash. Businesses/funds did fail.

Acebuckeye13 posted:

Where do you think banks get their money?