Republican versus Democrat - Boil it Down, Please.

I'll even use politifact since most people use this site as a fact checker. Check out the ruling at the bottom.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-says-his-recovery-has-outpaced-ronald/

 

Instead of corporate criminals, Dems are political criminals. Instead of war overseas, they prefer to divide our nation.

 

The above link is indeed factual, that being said, by most measures, the number of jobs in the United States has increased on Obama’s watch. Presidents are not the only factor in job creation. The national, and world, economies are too big for any one person to control. So crediting Obama’s policies is at best partially correct because there are so many other factors -- such as policies of the Federal Reserve, the willingness of banks to lend money, and global business trends -- that play a role.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...-castro-says-united-states-has-had-30-straig/

These two links are why I love Politifact, they are about as close to unbiased as reporting and fact checking gets. They cut through the spin on both sides and just give the facts.

 

Obama has created 4.4 million jobs and lost 4.3 million jobs. So we have only a net gain of 100,000 jobs over 4 years. I think we can all agree that if he did this again for another 4 years, we would be in no better position. Obama needs to radically change his economic philosophies to grow the economy and I don't think he's willing to do that.

This cannot be blamed on the Federal Reserve. They have done everything in their power to help the economy. They have had rates at zero for years now and will continue for another 4 years. They just announced they will purchase $40 billion in mortgage backed securities to help the housing market. Obama needs to help them out with his policies.

Banks aren't lending as much money because Obama and Dems have placed very strict rules on them. When the banks could freely lend money, the criticism is that the Republicans let them run wild and they gave loans out to unqualified people. So you have to pick your poison...

 

Not so sure that Obama can be blamed for 4.3 million jobs lost, where did you get that figure? Per below, his policies are indeed having a very positive affect in historically tough economic times.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...rivate-sector-jobs-grown-22-months-best-annu/
In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005

The fed was responsible for drafting the bailout packages that increased our deficit. The banks were already tightening lending policies before Obama got in office due to defaults in the secondary market. Obama's policies are simply forcing more accountability and transparency in reporting, not restricting business.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ingrich-says-dodd-frank-destroying-community/

Gingrich said that community banks "are being destroyed by Dodd-Frank." But as a whole they are healthier than a year ago. No doubt the improvement in the economy has helped, but community banks also have benefited from a reduction in fees paid to the FDIC as a result of Dodd-Frank.

 

It's a misleading fact to say businesses have created the most jobs since 2005. The most jobs have been created because we're at record lows. Then the argument becomes, what would the number have been with a conservative fiscal policy?

The fed was responsible for the bailout. I support the banking bailout. Without a healthy financial system, you don't have a modern functioning economy. I disagreed with the auto bailout. They should have let them go through Chapter 11 bankruptcy restructuring.

Lending institutions undoubtedly had poor lending practices. The types of loans and the people they were giving them to were bad investments. But now, they are so cautious and so heavily scrutinized that they are not lending at a level to help the economy. Everyone has bad credit now, so how does a small business owner grows his business or how does a first time homebuyer get a home loan? The economy remains flat. So that's why you have to eliminate bad programs like sub prime lending. But you have to take risks on people and give out loans; otherwise we'll never get things on track.

 

Yes we were at record lows on jobs, that was handed to Obama on day 1, does not change the fact that his administration has seen the above mentioned increase in jobs.

Obama did force the Auto industry to go through bankruptcy as a condition of receiving federal aid.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/06/did-obama-save-us-automobile-industry/


"Even Sherk at the Heritage Foundation gives Obama credit for forcing the carmakers to go through bankruptcy and the necessary restructuring that followed. The Economist concludes "by and large Mr Obama has not used his stakes in GM and Chrysler for political ends. On the contrary, his goal has been to restore both firms to health and then get out as quickly as possible."

"As we said in the beginning, it is impossible to know if the American auto industry would have fared better without government money, without government ownership, and without strong government intervention. Most likely, that debate would be more robust if the industry were not doing well."

Loans are still tight because of the risk of default not the increased oversight. No easy answers here, but nothing Obama's administration has done is limiting lending, in fact, per the a factcheck.org article..

"The Obama administration has set aside billions to help entrepreneurs," Robbins continued. "And the president deserves credit for making these funds available. I only wish more entrepreneurs knew this money is there waiting for them."

Robbins created a website, http://SBAdirectloans.com, to help small business owners receive SBA-guaranteed funding.

Obama Administration Has Good News For Small Business Owners

When it comes to small business loans, the Obama administration may be the best friend that entrepreneurs will ever have, according to the makers of a new website, SBAdirectloans.com

 

The jobs created the last 4 years brings us back to even. He has not increased employment yet. With the mounting deficit problems, I do not see the overall job market getting any better in the next 4 years.

The auto bailout was a failure and Obama did not force them to restructure through bankruptcy, he gave them money. GM is once again flirting with bankruptcy despite massive government purchases propping up its sales figures. GM stock is rock-bottom. Losses continue to be revised in the wrong direction. According to the Detroit News, “the Treasury Department says in a new report the government expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout. That’s 15 percent higher than its previous forecast.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/315901/obama-s-failed-auto-bailout-michelle-malkin

The 13 biggest banks have increased lending to small business owners over the past year, but that does not take into account all of the other banks around the country. Also, business owners choose how much they drawn down. So even if they have a $50,000 line of credit, they might only use $10,000 because the economic outlook is so bleak. They're not going to risk the extra debt if nobody is buying anything from them.

 

The automakers did in fact go through a managed bankruptcy, the bailout was a huge success, including the money given to Ford (yes they got aid as well) and GM sold more cars than any other manufacturer last year. They are struggling again of late, and if the stock price stays where it is it could increase the cost of the bailout, we will have to see if GM can turn things around. The government accounted for less than one-third of GM’s June sales, not sure that is 'massive".

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...3/auto-bailout-Michigan-candidates/53226972/1

I would agree that banks are still being very conservative, again I would say this is more due to the slow growth of the economy than increased oversight and transparency especially in the secondary market.

 

President Obama touts the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler as one of the signature successes of his administration. He argues that the estimated $23 billion the taxpayers lost was worth paying to avoid massive job losses. However, our research finds that the president could have both kept the auto makers running and avoided losing money. The preferential treatment given to the United Auto Workers accounts for the American taxpayers' entire losses from the bailout. Had the UAW received normal treatment in standard bankruptcy proceedings, the Treasury would have recouped its entire investment. Please read link below...

http://www.akdart.com/uaw.html

 

Once again you post a very biased source with an agenda to push, here is the reality about the UAW and the bailout from a proven unbiased source. There was no preferential treatment for the UAW, quite the contrary in fact, the original loss on the bailout was projected at $30 billion so $23 billion is an improvement on that number. Lastly as we have already agreed, the credit markets were frozen. With the wider economy in dire straits, the car companies would not have gotten private financing and would have gone out of business completely if not for the bailout.

"Romney, in the debate, said "the president gave the (auto) companies to the UAW."

The reality is Obama was in charge of a bailout deal that resulted in the union’s health care trust owning stock in Chrysler and GM. But the trust was owed money to pay for health care under the terms of labor contracts the car companies signed. And the union "gave" plenty too -- in the form of wages, vacation and job security. In that light, the arrangement was a tradeoff, not a giveaway.

What tips Romney’s claim even further from reality is the fact that the union itself does not own any GM or Chrysler stock. The trust that manages health benefits for retirees is the stockholder, and it is independent from the UAW. It is not a majority shareholder in either company, nor does it have a vote on the board.

All the experts we talked to agreed that Romney’s statement is just flat wrong. Our ruling: False."

Full article here...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-says-obama-gave-away-car-companies-uni/

 

Romney diminishing 47% of Americans before elites really brought us together. lol

Republicans trash north easterners for being to liberal. Republicans trash San Francisco for it's stance on homosexuality. Republicans call their supporters real Americans. If you're critical of united states past transgressions you're unpatriotic. Republicans can't keep their nose out of women business. Out of people bedrooms and get stop mocking blacks. To bring this country together the republicans are very polarizing.

 

Biased source?? You use politifact which is a notorious liberal "fact checker". The UAW has complete control over the auto companies. If Obama let them file bankruptcy, they could have restructured those contracts. Right now the average salary for an autoworker is $57 hour. It is half that amount for most foreign automakers.

 

Nonsense, Politifact has won a Pulitzer prize, in part for unbiased reporting, they take Dems and Republicans to equal task. Did you read the link?

"The UAW itself does not own any GM or Chrysler stock. The trust that manages health benefits for retirees is the stockholder, and it is independent from the UAW. It is not a majority shareholder in either company, nor does it have a vote on the board."

Business 101 should tell you that it's kind of hard to control a company when you are not a majority shareholder and have no representation on the board of directors.

And for the last time OBAMA MADE IT A CONDITION OF RECEIVING BAILOUT MONEY THAT THEY WENT THROUGH BANKRUPTCY, what about that dont you get?

"Both companies ended up going through structured bankruptcies, Chrysler in April and GM in June. The Obama administration was instrumental in the manner in which the reorganizations proceeded. Some debt holders were forced to take losses, while the autoworkers union health care trust, which was owed billions in health benefits, took an equity stake, as did the federal government."

 

Just because it won a Pulitzer Prize does not mean the website doesn't have a liberal leaning. It is nowhere near equal in their reports.

The UAW doesn't need to own stock because each auto maker has a trust fund for workers. The federal government provided $26 billion to the UAW. PLEASE READ- http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/302888/auto-bailout-or-uaw-bailout-james-sherk

Auto workers made $70/hour before the bailout and $56/hour after the bailout. The average American worker makes about $30/hour in pay and benefits. So this is still nowhere near what it needs to be for these companies to be competitive.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmu...axpayers-money-the-answer-might-surprise-you/

 

Loki,tell in detail the history of discrimmination of Blacks by major banks in loans and methods like redlining which kept Blacks from getting in businesses for themselves.

 

It seems we will have to disagree about Politifact. The workers do not make a 'salary' of $70 an hour, see below, perhaps you will like this source better.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/auto-worker-salaries/

Auto Worker Salaries

***********800000]Q: [/COLOR]Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour?
***********800000]A: [/COLOR]No. That figure is derived from what the auto companies pay in wages, health, retirement and other benefits, and includes the cost of providing benefits to retirees.
***********800000]FULL QUESTION[/COLOR]
How much does a UAW member make at a domestic auto plant? Various sites have cited the figure at an average of seventy-three dollars an hour (The Heritage Foundation). Keith Olbermann says that the figure is actually at twenty-eight before benefits, which only add ten dollars to the amount. Other sources indicate that Toyota workers (who are not unionized) made more last year after profit sharing was calculated. So clear it up for us. What’s the real bottom line?

Labor costs only account for about 10 percent of the cost of producing a vehicle. And it’s not the cost of American cars that people complain about; they’re already often thousands of dollars less than their Japanese counterparts. Whatever changes may be made in the carmakers’ labor agreements, we’re convinced, and the recent hearings show, that there are much bigger problems in Detroit.