Pulitzer prize winning fact checker, PolitiFact reports it's annual 'Lie of the Year'.
Lie of the Year: the Romney campaign's ad on Jeeps made in China
By Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Wednesday, December 12th, 2012 at 6:00 a.m.
Says Barack Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China" at the cost of American jobs.
Mitt Romney, Monday, October 29th, 2012.
The falsehood originated with a conservative blogger and spread when the Drudge Report ran with it. (Tampa Bay Times illustration)
It was a lie told in the critical state of Ohio in the final days of a close campaign -- that Jeep was moving its U.S. production to China. It originated with a conservative blogger, who twisted an accurate news story into a falsehood. Then it picked up steam when the Drudge Report ran with it. Even though Jeep's parent company gave a quick and clear denial, Mitt Romney repeated it and his campaign turned it into a TV ad.
And they stood by the claim, even as the media and the public expressed collective outrage against something so obviously false.
People often say that politicians don’t pay a price for deception, but this time was different: A flood of negative press coverage rained down on the Romney campaign, and he failed to turn the tide in Ohio, the most important state in the presidential election.
PolitiFact has selected Romney's claim that Barack Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China" at the cost of American jobs as the 2012 Lie of the Year.
It is the fourth year PolitiFact has looked back over a year’s worth of political mendacity and selected the most significant falsehood. Last year, it was the claim that Republicans voted to end Medicare. In 2010, it was the claim that the federal health care law was a government takeover of health care. In 2009, it was the claim that the same health law included "death panels."
This marks the first year that the Lie of the Year is not about health care -- a reflection of the importance of the economy in the 2012 election.
It’s not that President Obama and his campaign team were above falsehoods, either. Their TV ads distorted Romney’s positions on abortion and immigration to make them seem more extreme than they actually were. A pro-Obama super PAC even created an ad suggesting Romney was responsible for a woman’s death when her husband lost his job at a Bain-controlled company.
But the Jeep ad was brazenly false.
It started as a line in a speech about where an American brand of car would be made. It blew up into a lie heard by voters well beyond Ohio.
A campaign rally in Defiance
Like many political distortions, Romney’s claim contained a grain of truth.
Chrysler was one of the companies that received billions in loans from the federal government. The government ended up forcing Chrysler into bankruptcy in 2009 when its debtholders couldn’t reach an agreement. Since Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy, the Italian car company Fiat has held a controlling interest.
By 2012, Chrysler and other automakers were doing much better -- a fact that confounded Romney. In Ohio, a major expansion of its Toledo plant was in the works for the Jeep Liberty. In Detroit, the company was hiring workers to build the Jeep Grand Cherokee.
But Chrysler was thinking of reviving the Jeep brand in key foreign markets, and like other American automakers, Chrysler preferred to build cars in the countries where it intended to sell them -- a common strategy to reduce tariffs and transport costs.
Bloomberg reported on Oct. 22 that the company was planning to restart production of Jeeps in China. The entirety of the Bloomberg report made it clear that Chrysler was considering expansion in China, not shuttering American production.
But one conservative news outlet seized on the report’s opening lines. The Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard blogged on Oct. 25 about the Bloomberg story and incorrectly wrote that Jeep was "considering giving up on the United States and shifting production to China," a move that would "crash the economy in towns like Toledo, Ohio … ." The conservative Drudge Report then linked to Bedard’s post under the headline, "Jeep eyes shifting production to China."
Within hours, Chrysler spokesman Gualberto Ranieri responded on Chrysler’s company blog.
"Let’s set the record straight: Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China," Ranieri wrote, adding, "A careful and unbiased reading of the Bloomberg take would have saved unnecessary fantasies and extravagant comments."
But later that night at a campaign stop in Defiance, Ohio, Romney added a new line to his stump speech:
"I saw a story today, that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China," he said, to boos from the audience. "I will fight for every good job in America. I’m going to fight to make sure trade is fair, and if it’s fair, America will win."
Reporters mentioned the mistake in their stories the next day, it lit up the Internet, and the liberal cable channel MSNBC attacked Romney for not knowing the facts.
"His lie is embarrassing, frankly, and it should be unsettling for the rest of the world," said MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. "Imagine Romney waking up in the Lincoln bedroom or whatever, checking his conservative Twitter feed and running with whatever he finds there."
Romney’s campaign didn’t retreat, though. It doubled down with a TV ad for Ohio voters that weekend:
"Who will do more for the auto industry? Not Barack Obama," the ad began, adding, "Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China. Mitt Romney will fight for every American job." A similar radio ad soon followed.
That in turn prompted another unqualified denial, this time from Chrysler Chairman and CEO Sergio Marchionne, who said Jeep assembly lines "will remain in operation in the United States and will constitute the backbone of the brand. It is inaccurate to suggest anything different."
PolitiFact and other fact-checkers weighed in and said the ad was inaccurate. PolitiFact rated it Pants on Fire because it "strings together facts in a way that presents an wholly inaccurate picture."
Factcheck.org said Romney’s speech was "flat wrong" and the ad was misleading. The Washington Post’s Fact Checker gave the ad four Pinocchios, saying, "This ad shows that we have entered the final, desperate week of the campaign."
When pinned down with questions on the ad, the Romney team either dodged or defended the ad as literally accurate. Stuart Stevens, a senior adviser to Romney, told the New York Times, "It would be better if they expanded production in the U.S. instead of expanding in China." The automakers said that ignored common global trade practices.
There was no give from Romney. Maybe that wasn't surprising.
At the Republican National Convention in Tampa, journalists had challenged the Romney campaign team about an ad that falsely claimed Obama was ending work requirements for welfare. Romney pollster Neil Newhouse responded by saying, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."
Obama campaign responds
If the Jeep ad was intended to confound the Obama campaign, the reaction was the opposite: gleeful outrage.
Obama’s campaign fired back with its own ad, which crowed that "Chrysler itself has refuted Romney's lie. The truth? Jeep is adding jobs in Ohio." Surrogates on the campaign trail, notably former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden, mocked the ad as audiences roared with laughter.
For the Obama camp, it was a twofer: They got to remind voters in Ohio and all over the country that Romney had opposed the auto bailouts and also portray him as desperate.
Obama himself brought it up in a campaign appearance in Cincinnati the Sunday before the election, casting it as a character issue.
"And so when you’re thinking about this choice, or you’re talking to your friends and neighbors about this choice, you’ve got to remind them it’s not just about policy, it’s also about trust. Who do you trust?"
On the weekend before the election, Chris Wallace of Fox News interviewed Romney political director Richard Beeson and asked him if the ad was a mistake.
"Well, I found it interesting that President Obama would attack Mitt Romney on that when they put up an ad saying that Gov. Romney says ‘Let Detroit Go Bankrupt’ when that’s a headline from the New York Times op-ed," Beeson said. "And the second thing is President Obama talking about scaring people when yesterday he’s out there saying ‘voting is the best revenge.’"
The problem for Romney was that his opposition to the bailout was out of step with most Ohio voters, said William Binning, a professor of political science at Youngstown State University.
"I think the Romney people just couldn’t figure out how to handle this, or mitigate its effect," Binning said. "So they came up with this ad. And this ad didn’t get them anywhere."
PolitiFact tried many times to reach Romney's top staff but received no response. In a post-election panel discussion conducted with both campaigns at Harvard University, Romney’s team insisted the ad had worked, that it had reassured voters in key Ohio markets.
"If you look in those markets, we did better in those markets for having run that," Stevens said.
But Democrats didn’t see it that way.
In Ohio, Democrats used Romney’s Jeep ad to attack Republicans for not being supportive enough of the American auto industry. Chris Redfern, chairman of the state party, said he intends to use it again against Republicans who "remained silent" while Chrysler’s top brass were refuting the ad.
"If you come from northwest Ohio, and you’re not defending Jeep, you’re part of the problem," Redfern said.
In an interview with PolitiFact, Obama strategist David Axelrod said the so-called "earned media" -- news coverage -- can easily outweigh the points made by paid political ads, especially when a campaign is in the final stretch.
"The controversy surrounding the ad became a focus of news coverage," he said. "At the end of the campaign, when everybody is watching everything closely. … They just weren’t going to get away with it. It was a very high-risk strategy, and it backfired."
"You didn't build that" isn't a lie though, as the people he was talking about did not, in fact build the roads and communication infrastructure. It could win for 'most used out of context'.
Ahtman wrote: "You didn't build that" isn't a lie though, as the people he was talking about did not, in fact build the roads and communication infrastructure. It could win for 'most used out of context'.
We'll agree to disagree... cool?
As for the list... all politicians lie... don't they?
Here's one I saw recently:
Obama: Premiums Will Decrease 3000% So You Should Get A Raise When H'care Is Passed Obviously a lie...
Or... the whole Benghazi thingy being blamed on that Youtube director... another lie.
Ahtman wrote: "You didn't build that" isn't a lie though, as the people he was talking about did not, in fact build the roads and communication infrastructure. It could win for 'most used out of context'.
We'll agree to disagree... cool?
Me: 2+2=4
You: We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Why would I agree to something that is blatantly false?
Ahtman wrote: "You didn't build that" isn't a lie though, as the people he was talking about did not, in fact build the roads and communication infrastructure. It could win for 'most used out of context'.
We'll agree to disagree... cool?
Me: 2+2=4
You: We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Why would I agree to something that is blatantly false?
ANOTHER BLATANT LIE!
We all know the closer you get to the speed of light 2 + 2 DOES NOT EQUAL 4.
This message brought to you by: Math Nazi, the only good Nazi-unless you count cheese eating surrender monkey Nazis.
Ahtman wrote: "You didn't build that" isn't a lie though, as the people he was talking about did not, in fact build the roads and communication infrastructure. It could win for 'most used out of context'.
We'll agree to disagree... cool?
Me: 2+2=4
You: We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Why would I agree to something that is blatantly false?
Do you really want to engage on this topic?
Frazzeled: does the whole number "1" equal to "0.9~"? (tilde is infinity... ie, 0.9999...)
Ahtman wrote: "You didn't build that" isn't a lie though, as the people he was talking about did not, in fact build the roads and communication infrastructure. It could win for 'most used out of context'.
We'll agree to disagree... cool?
Me: 2+2=4
You: We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Why would I agree to something that is blatantly false?
Do you really want to engage on this topic?
The topic of you not knowing the difference between a lie and just disagreeing with someone stance? The President didn't lie, so it makes no sense to pretend otherwise. There is room for all sorts of criticism of the President, but purposefully choosing to just make things up, or to willfully ignore everything but a tiny snippet out of context and pretending it is something it isn't, is a bit obtuse.
Ahtman wrote: "You didn't build that" isn't a lie though, as the people he was talking about did not, in fact build the roads and communication infrastructure. It could win for 'most used out of context'.
We'll agree to disagree... cool?
No.
You don't get to make-up facts. That is Frazzled's job.
Ahtman wrote: "You didn't build that" isn't a lie though, as the people he was talking about did not, in fact build the roads and communication infrastructure. It could win for 'most used out of context'.
We'll agree to disagree... cool?
Me: 2+2=4
You: We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Why would I agree to something that is blatantly false?
Do you really want to engage on this topic?
The topic of you not knowing the difference between a lie and just disagreeing with someone stance? The President didn't lie, so it makes no sense to pretend otherwise. There is room for all sorts of criticism of the President, but purposefully choosing to just make things up, or to willfully ignore everything but a tiny snippet out of context and pretending it is something it isn't, is a bit obtuse.
Fair enough... it isn't a outright lie in regards to this thread, but a position/comment he made on the campaign trail.
As for the Lie of the Year?
How 'bout, claiming Bengahzi was attacked due to that "shadowy" mohamed youtube file?
Ahtman wrote: "You didn't build that" isn't a lie though, as the people he was talking about did not, in fact build the roads and communication infrastructure. It could win for 'most used out of context'.
We'll agree to disagree... cool?
Me: 2+2=4
You: We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Why would I agree to something that is blatantly false?
Do you really want to engage on this topic?
Frazzeled: does the whole number "1" equal to "0.9~"? (tilde is infinity... ie, 0.9999...)
I find your lack of faith in the power of relativity...disturbing.
Ahtman wrote: "You didn't build that" isn't a lie though, as the people he was talking about did not, in fact build the roads and communication infrastructure. It could win for 'most used out of context'.
We'll agree to disagree... cool?
No.
You don't get to make-up facts. That is Frazzled's job.
WO WO WO!!!
I'l have you know that almost 72.35878% of my facts are not made up. mostly.
I think it's a pretty good lie to have as lie of the year. Perhaps it wasn't the biggest lie, but it's the lie that, to me, symbolises most of the other lies we heard during the year. Because it was such a lazy, half-assed lie that was shown as false within seconds of being made, and despite that the Romney campaign kept on saying it, not realising all they were doing was bringing the auto-bailout back into the discussion and making themselves look like donkey-caves who'll say anything to win a vote.
It's funny that 'you didn't build' got mentioned, when that was yet another Republican lie just like 'Chrysler is going to China' - a really obvious piece of bs that won't fool anyone that isn't already on your side, and happy to believe whatever bs you're feeding in.
2012 was a pretty bad year for liars, really.
whembly wrote: Never understood why Perry was so hated... shrugs.
He wasn't hated, he was laughed at. His debate performances were shockingly bad (his campaign later stated his recent back surgery had seriously impacted his efforts).
Ahtman wrote: "You didn't build that" isn't a lie though, as the people he was talking about did not, in fact build the roads and communication infrastructure. It could win for 'most used out of context'.
We'll agree to disagree... cool?
I truly don't understand how you can read\watch the news as much as you clearly do, and yet still manage to so consistently internalize all these half-baked non-truths.
Did you know the Republican Natonal Convention, which proudly boasted "WE BUILT IT" as it's central theme; was funded in part by taxpayer dollars from the FEC ($18 million) and was held in a venue paid for by $80 million USD from the city of Tampa? The whole thing is ludicrous - the only thing more so is in any way defending this stupidity.
Well the science of cloning is still not really understood so The Clones of Dr. Funkenstein will have to wait, you'd be hard pushed to say they weren't Up for the Down Stroke and bear in mind the year isn't done yet so we still might make that Mothership Connection.
Well the science of cloning is still not really understood so The Clones of Dr. Funkenstein will have to wait, you'd be hard pushed to say they weren't Up for the Down Stroke and bear in mind the year isn't done yet so we still might make that Mothership Connection.
If he were prime minister, I might move us back over the pond...
Well the science of cloning is still not really understood so The Clones of Dr. Funkenstein will have to wait, you'd be hard pushed to say they weren't Up for the Down Stroke and bear in mind the year isn't done yet so we still might make that Mothership Connection.
If he were prime minister, I might move us back over the pond...
LOL but still our goverment are lying, money grabbing scumbags. Its a pity people dont protest as much these days.
Ahtman wrote: "You didn't build that" isn't a lie though, as the people he was talking about did not, in fact build the roads and communication infrastructure. It could win for 'most used out of context'.
We'll agree to disagree... cool?
I truly don't understand how you can read\watch the news as much as you clearly do, and yet still manage to so consistently internalize all these half-baked non-truths.
Did you know the Republican Natonal Convention, which proudly boasted "WE BUILT IT" as it's central theme; was funded in part by taxpayer dollars from the FEC ($18 million) and was held in a venue paid for by $80 million USD from the city of Tampa? The whole thing is ludicrous - the only thing more so is in any way defending this stupidity.
Still hated it.... and will always have a problem with it.
As to the convention... yes, I'll admit it's ironic and frankly I don't think conventions are even needed anymore.
You will always have a problem with the fact that business owners didn't build the roads that lead to their system or the schools that provide them with educated workers?
d-usa wrote: You will always have a problem with the fact that business owners didn't build the roads that lead to their system or the schools that provide them with educated workers?
So... are you disregarding that those business owners are also tax payers that the money used to support those things?
If these business owners don't pay any taxes (or those workers)... then, you'd have a point.
I'm not arguing that we don't need to have a stable government that provides these services in order to have a successful business operation.
I'm arguing the tact of the comment "You Didn't Build That" (in or out of context, doesn't matter) was awful to use during a campaign speech. Which re-enforces the belief that Obama is a big Government politician.
These business owners, and all tax payers, are using infrastructure that was build and put in place during times that taxes were higher (pre-Bush tax cuts and beyond) than they are now. So complaining about taxes now when they benefit from stuff put in place during higher tax rates is silly.
And no, the taxes one person paid before they were a business didn't build a road or were enough to pay for their workers education.
So even if somebody that builds a business after paying taxes, then THEIR taxes didn't pay for all the infrastructure needed to make that business even possible. All our taxes did. And that was the point of that statement. They didn't build the infrastructure, we all did, so we need to make sure we all continue to have the same opportunities and continue to pay into the system that allowed them to be successful.
The only thing awful from that campaign speech is the backwards reasoning from Republican politicians and talking heads that they try to force to pretend that Boot-Strap Joe McRepublican really exists and would have build a multi-billion business without any use of governmental resources what-so-ever.
d-usa wrote: These business owners, and all tax payers, are using infrastructure that was build and put in place during times that taxes were higher (pre-Bush tax cuts and beyond) than they are now. So complaining about taxes now when they benefit from stuff put in place during higher tax rates is silly.
And no, the taxes one person paid before they were a business didn't build a road or were enough to pay for their workers education.
So even if somebody that builds a business after paying taxes, then THEIR taxes didn't pay for all the infrastructure needed to make that business even possible. All our taxes did. And that was the point of that statement. They didn't build the infrastructure, we all did, so we need to make sure we all continue to have the same opportunities and continue to pay into the system that allowed them to be successful.
The only thing awful from that campaign speech is the backwards reasoning from Republican politicians and talking heads that they try to force to pretend that Boot-Strap Joe McRepublican really exists and would have build a multi-billion business without any use of governmental resources what-so-ever.
Yeah, I understand your position. I disagree with ya.
My dislike for Obama is coloring my opinion on everything he has done or will do... I'll admit to that.
When's Hillary's campaign starting? She's a shoo-in...
When's Hillary's campaign starting? She's a shoo-in...
Rumors now she will refuse to testify on Bengazi.. She's no longer a shoe in. Plus the real contenders will come out for this one. On the R side I'm already seeing Christie, Rubio, and Jindal. There will be more. On the Demo side I'm seeing H Clinton and that faced grinner Chris. There will be more.
Besides the incumbent party hasn't won a 3rd term since the 1980s.
whembly wrote: If these business owners don't pay any taxes (or those workers)... then, you'd have a point.
Paying taxes on something and building it yourself are two different things. Walk up to a cop and tell him he has to do what you say because you pay his salary. After the cop is done laughing go do the same to a US Marine. When you get out of the hospital come back and tell us how well it worked out. Taxes don't work like that.
whembly wrote: If these business owners don't pay any taxes (or those workers)... then, you'd have a point.
Paying taxes on something and building it yourself are two different things. Walk up to a cop and tell him he has to do what you say because you pay his salary. After the cop is done laughing go do the same to a US Marine. When you get out of the hospital come back and tell us how well it worked out. Taxes don't work like that.
whembly wrote: If these business owners don't pay any taxes (or those workers)... then, you'd have a point.
Paying taxes on something and building it yourself are two different things. Walk up to a cop and tell him he has to do what you say because you pay his salary. After the cop is done laughing go do the same to a US Marine. When you get out of the hospital come back and tell us how well it worked out. Taxes don't work like that.
Why do I feel like you're supporting my premise?
If you think that was anywhere near your premise, you completely misunderstood the point, which wouldn't shock me, or you are oblivious to what argument you have been presenting, which would also not surprise me.
whembly wrote: If these business owners don't pay any taxes (or those workers)... then, you'd have a point.
Paying taxes on something and building it yourself are two different things. Walk up to a cop and tell him he has to do what you say because you pay his salary. After the cop is done laughing go do the same to a US Marine. When you get out of the hospital come back and tell us how well it worked out. Taxes don't work like that.
Why do I feel like you're supporting my premise?
If you think that was anywhere near your premise, you completely misunderstood the point, which wouldn't shock me, or you are oblivious to what argument you have been presenting, which would also not surprise me.
And I can say you're just as oblivious as towhy I had an issue to that statement... here's the juicy quote:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
What I interpreted by that statement is that ”You don’t get credit for your hard work.” It wasn't like, "hey, the government helped you to be successful" that the righties keep pushing.
So... I'm done with that bit in this thread. Moving on... I asked you this earlier... which is the more egregious lie?
A) The Romney Jeep AD in the original OP?
or
B) Blaming the attacks in Bengahzi on that Youtube Mohamed director?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who skipped an overseas trip this past week because of a stomach virus, sustained a concussion after fainting, the State Department said Saturday.
The 65-year-old Clinton, who's expected to leave her job soon, was recovering at home after the incident last week and is being monitored by doctors, according to a statement by aide Philippe Reines.
No further details were immediately available.
President Barack Obama telephoned his top diplomat Saturday to wish her well, a White House official said.
The State Department said Clinton was dehydrated because of the virus, fainted and sustained a concussion. She will continue to work from home in the week ahead and looks forward to returning to the office "soon," the statement said.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee said it won't hear from Clinton as planned at a Thursday hearing into the Sept. 11 attack against a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador. The House Foreign Affairs Committee also said Clinton would no longer give scheduled testimony at its hearing Thursday on Libya.
Senior State Department officials William Burns and Thomas Nides are to take Clinton's place at both hearings.
Clinton's aides on Saturday informed the Senate committee chairman, Sen. John Kerry, about her health, and the Massachusetts Democrat "insisted that given her condition, she could not and should not appear" as planned, said Kerry spokeswoman Jodi Seth. Obama is expected to nominate Kerry to succeed Clinton.
Clinton backed out of a trip to North Africa and the Persian Gulf on Monday because she was sick. She caught the virus during a recent visit to Europe.
The former first lady is known for her grueling travel schedule and is the most traveled secretary of state, having visited 112 countries while in the job.
This is getting stranger, and stranger...
Unless someone else has an idea... I can only think of 2 reasons why her people would let us hear this story that she fainted, addled her pate, and can't face up to Congress on Benghazi:
1. She's not going to run for President (which, I still think it's likely), or
2. What she would have to say about Benghazi is more damaging than thiseffort to avoid testifying.
Ahtman wrote: "You didn't build that" isn't a lie though, as the people he was talking about did not, in fact build the roads and communication infrastructure. It could win for 'most used out of context'.
Unfortunantly he was talking about people not building their own businesses by using the word "that" in his speech. If he meant the roads and communication infrastructure he would have said "those" instead.
Unfortunantly he was talking about people not building their own businesses by using the word "that" in his speech. If he meant the roads and communication infrastructure he would have said "those" instead.
The word "that" could be interpreted as referring to the phrase "American system".
Unfortunantly he was talking about people not building their own businesses by using the word "that" in his speech. If he meant the roads and communication infrastructure he would have said "those" instead.
The word "that" could be interpreted as referring to the phrase "American system".
Exactly, here is the quote:
Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that
So somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system...you didn't build those? That's what Obama should have said to keep from insulting the American small business man?
Really, the only way the quote could say what everybody who is anti-Obama wants it to say is this:
Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build it.
Although I don't even know why we waste bandwidth, because the people who don't like it will insist that the statement was wrong simply because it came out of Obama's mouth.
whembly wrote: So... are you disregarding that those business owners are also tax payers that the money used to support those things?
No, not disregarding it at all. Just asking people to recognise that they're not tiny little islands of unbridled capitalism, but part of a greater system. A system in which they, along with everyone else, pay in taxes, and in return they get the infrastructure and educated population that produces economic opportunities that business owners can take advantage of.
I'm arguing the tact of the comment "You Didn't Build That" (in or out of context, doesn't matter) was awful to use during a campaign speech. Which re-enforces the belief that Obama is a big Government politician.
That was how the Republicans tried to run it. It sounded great to all the people that already thought Obama was a big government politician. But they were already voting Republican.
It's kind of one of the big reasons that the Republicans lost the election - their various political campaigns were just preaching to the converted.
whembly wrote: So... are you disregarding that those business owners are also tax payers that the money used to support those things?
No, not disregarding it at all. Just asking people to recognise that they're not tiny little islands of unbridled capitalism, but part of a greater system. A system in which they, along with everyone else, pay in taxes, and in return they get the infrastructure and educated population that produces economic opportunities that business owners can take advantage of.
I'm arguing the tact of the comment "You Didn't Build That" (in or out of context, doesn't matter) was awful to use during a campaign speech. Which re-enforces the belief that Obama is a big Government politician.
That was how the Republicans tried to run it. It sounded great to all the people that already thought Obama was a big government politician. But they were already voting Republican.
It's kind of one of the big reasons that the Republicans lost the election - their various political campaigns were just preaching to the converted.
Just so that we can truly keep the OP's topic... What do you think of the initial Benghazi response?
Okay, back to your responses...
I'll certainly buy they from a strategic standpoint, the (R)s flubbed royally as they couldn't reach anyone outside of the usual voters. That's where the Obama Campaign truly shined... they found a way to engage the voters who don't usually vote at all. Bascially, their ground work spanked the (R)'s arse.
Frazzled wrote: Rumors now she will refuse to testify on Bengazi.. She's no longer a shoe in.
Are you honestly suggesting that Benghazi, which barely rated a mention during the 2012 election after it had just happened, will be a major factor in four years time? The thing is alive now only because the Republicans are desperate to keep talking about it, in the hope that it will somehow start paying dividends.
Nah, Benghazi won't impact Clinton one bit. Her age is far more likely to be a negative factor in four years.
Besides the incumbent party hasn't won a 3rd term since the 1980s.
There's been a whopping total of two instances that fit your criteria above (Gore losing in 2000, McCain in 2008). So your theory actually reads as 'incumbent party hasn't won a 3rd term the last two times, but did the time before that'. Which doesn't really mean gak, to be honest.
Unfortunantly he was talking about people not building their own businesses by using the word "that" in his speech. If he meant the roads and communication infrastructure he would have said "those" instead.
The word "that" could be interpreted as referring to the phrase "American system".
whembly wrote: Just so that we can truly keep the OP's topic... What do you think of the initial Benghazi response?
Not much, really. Security at a consulate was compromised and people were killed. It's awful when it happens, but simply isn't that rare of a thing. Following the event, the initial comments from the administration weren't correct, but those comments didn't impact the investigation one bit.
But I am pretty disappointed in the Republicans continuing to fish around, trying to make some kind of scandal of this. It reaks of Whitewater, honestly. Lots of suggestion and innuendo that feeds on itself - lots of things phrased like they're suspicious, but at the core there's no actual wrong doing by anyone in government.
Okay, back to your responses...
I'll certainly buy they from a strategic standpoint, the (R)s flubbed royally as they couldn't reach anyone outside of the usual voters. That's where the Obama Campaign truly shined... they found a way to engage the voters who don't usually vote at all. Bascially, their ground work spanked the (R)'s arse.
The Democrats also have a much greater pool of potentially persuadable voters that they can can tap to get out and vote.
The Republicans have a smaller pool, albeit one that typically gets out and votes more reliably. The problem is that their pool of voters is getting to be no longer enough to win, given the demographic trends, and so running political nonsense campaigns like 'He didn't build that' - half truths that the loyal party voters eat up, just aren't enough to win new voters, and therefore aren't enough to win an election.
whembly wrote: Just so that we can truly keep the OP's topic... What do you think of the initial Benghazi response?
Not much, really. Security at a consulate was compromised and people were killed. It's awful when it happens, but simply isn't that rare of a thing. Following the event, the initial comments from the administration weren't correct, but those comments didn't impact the investigation one bit.
But I am pretty disappointed in the Republicans continuing to fish around, trying to make some kind of scandal of this. It reaks of Whitewater, honestly. Lots of suggestion and innuendo that feeds on itself - lots of things phrased like they're suspicious, but at the core there's no actual wrong doing by anyone in government.
Hmmm... then why is Madam Clinton not testifying this week...
Seems to me that she could nip this in the bud now... take any licking (if any). Then, it'd be old news by the time the next Presidential campaigns starts.
Okay, back to your responses...
I'll certainly buy they from a strategic standpoint, the (R)s flubbed royally as they couldn't reach anyone outside of the usual voters. That's where the Obama Campaign truly shined... they found a way to engage the voters who don't usually vote at all. Bascially, their ground work spanked the (R)'s arse.
The Democrats also have a much greater pool of potentially persuadable voters that they can can tap to get out and vote.
The Republicans have a smaller pool, albeit one that typically gets out and votes more reliably. The problem is that their pool of voters is getting to be no longer enough to win, given the demographic trends, and so running political nonsense campaigns like 'He didn't build that' - half truths that the loyal party voters eat up, just aren't enough to win new voters, and therefore aren't enough to win an election.
Yup... and then some.
I'd still say that if Clinton runs, there's nothing the (R)s can do. She'll win.
I just want the republican to give me a good candidate, one who actually pushes for less government control of our lives. Until then if I have to vote for big government politicians then I'm going to vote for the government that helps me the most.
Hear that republicans, give me a Goldwater not a Reagan.
whembly wrote: Hmmm... then why is Madam Clinton not testifying this week...
Seems to me that she could nip this in the bud now... take any licking (if any). Then, it'd be old news by the time the next Presidential campaigns starts.
Yeah, that's exactly what I mean when I say this is so reminiscent of Whitewater. There's no actual substance about anything anyone actually did wrong, just stories about how they're not testifying so therefore something must be wrong...
I'd still say that if Clinton runs, there's nothing the (R)s can do. She'll win.
Well, it depends where the country is at in four years. And where Clinton is at - she's had a massive boost by serving in a non-partisan role the last four years, but if she runs she has to commit to more partisan positions and that'll hurt her numbers - but exactly how much it'll hurt her numbers is the big question.
And it also depends on how she campaigns. She absolutely should not have lost the primary in 2008, but she played a bad game and got beat by someone who had no right to politically outsmart her. She'll be smarter and will probably have smarter people around her next time, but it is possible something like it might happen again.
I agree she looks a strong candidate right now. But a week is a long time in politics, four years is a lifetime away.
Was 2012 the year when the democratic world lost its grip on reality? Must we assume now that no party that speaks the truth about the economic future has a chance of winning power in a national election? With the results of presidential contests in the United States and France as evidence, this would seem to be the only possible conclusion. Any political leader prepared to deceive the electorate into believing that government spending, and the vast system of services that it provides, can go on as before – or that they will be able to resume as soon as this momentary emergency is over – was propelled into office virtually by acclamation.
So universal has this rule turned out to be that parties and leaders who know better – whose economic literacy is beyond question – are now afraid even to hint at the fact which must eventually be faced. The promises that governments are making to their electorates are not just misleading: they are unforgivably dishonest. It will not be possible to go on as we are, or to return to the expectations that we once had. The immediate emergency created by the crash of 2008 was not some temporary blip in the infinitely expanding growth of the beneficent state. It was, in fact, almost irrelevant to the larger truth which it happened, by coincidence, to bring into view. Government on the scale established in most modern western countries is simply unaffordable. In Britain, the disagreement between Labour and the Conservatives over how to reduce the deficit (cut spending or increase borrowing?) is ridiculously insignificant and out of touch with the actual proportions of the problem. In the UK, the US, and (above all) the countries of the EU, democratic politics is being conducted on false premises.
Of course, once in power all governments must deal with reality – even if they have been elected on a systematic lie. As one ex-minister famously put it when he was released from the burden of office: “There’s no money left.” So that challenge must be met. How do you propose to go on providing the entitlements that you have sworn never to end, without any money? The victorious political parties of the Left have a ready answer to that one. They will raise taxes on the “rich”. In France and the United States, this is the formula that is being presented not only as an economic solution but also as a just social settlement, since the “rich” are inherently wicked and must have acquired their wealth by confiscating it from the poor.
Of course, the moral logic of this principle is absurd. The amount of wealth in an economy is not fixed so that one person having more means that somebody else must have less. But, for the purposes of our problem, it is the fault in the economic logic that is more important. The amount of money that is required to fund government entitlement programmes is now so enormous that it could not be procured by even very large increases in taxation on the “rich”. Assuming that you could get all of the rich members of your population to stand still and be fleeced (rather than leaving the country, as Gérard Depardieu and a vast army of his French brethren are doing), there are simply not enough of them to provide the revenue that a universal, comprehensive benefits system requires. And if all the French rich did stay put, and submit to President Hollande’s quixotic 75 per cent income tax, they would soon be too impoverished to invest in the supply side of the economy, which would undermine any possibility of growth.
Barack Obama knows that a tax rise of those proportions in the US would be politically suicidal, so he proposes a much more modest increase – an income tax rate of around 40 per cent on the highest earners sounds very modest indeed to British ears. But that is precisely the problem. If a tax rise is modest enough to be politically acceptable to much of the electorate, it will not produce anything like enough to finance the universal American entitlement programmes, social security and Medicare, into a future with an ageing population. There is no way that “taxing the rich” – that irresistibly glib Left-wing solution to everything – can make present and projected levels of government spending affordable. That is why Britain and almost all the countries of the EU have redefined the word “rich” to mean those who are earning scarcely twice the average wage, and pulled more and more middle-income people into high tax bands. Not only are there vastly more of them but they are far more likely to stand still and be fleeced, because they do not have the mobility of the truly rich.
Is this the lesson of a year of false economic hopes and cynical political deceptions? That governments will have to accomplish by stealth and betrayed promises what they did not dare to propose when running for office? Here in Britain, the Conservatives make much of their determination to cut welfare, as if out-of-work benefits were the heart of the government spending problem. But in fact, in the medium and long term, it is the state benefits that working people think of as a right that present a far more serious dilemma. The reality is that our ever-rising state pension and entirely free health care system are as unsustainable as social security and Medicare in the US. It is not going to be possible for the NHS, paid for by general taxation, to offer world-class modern medical provision – with its never-ending advances and innovations – into the indefinite future.
At some point, we will have to accept that government-funded health care will consist of subsidised core services to be topped up by the patient’s own insurance or personal funds, just as dentistry and opticians’ services are now. Similarly, pension provision will have to be largely the responsibility of the individual. The greatest contribution that government will be able make to these efforts will be in cutting personal taxes, thus leaving people with more money to pay for provision that they will be free to choose for themselves.
This is not an ideological argument about the moral advantages of a smaller state: it is simple economic necessity. As the man said, there’s no money left. And the only ways that anybody can think of for the state to get more of it are either futile (taxing the “rich”) or destructive of any possibility of recovery (more borrowing). What began as a banking collapse has turned into a crisis of democratic politics. Is this what we have to look forward to? The process of campaigning and voting will be an irrelevance: all parties will tell pretty much the same lies. Whichever one is marginally more credible than the others will gain power (probably in coalition with another bunch of liars), and then have to do what needs to be done in whatever desperate, underhand ways it can devise. Nobody will feel that he got what he voted for, because what he voted for was impossible. Not a happy thought to leave you with at Christmas. Sorry.
We don’t have a revenue problem... we have a spending problem... more specifically, we have a problem with PRIORITES.
Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne said the automaker plans to build some Jeeps in China for the local market — and later, in Russia.
"As part of our global expansion of the Jeep brand, there are some cars — that because of the price position in the market — can never be made in the U.S. and exported," Marchionne told reporters on the sidelines of the North American International Auto Show. "We're going to be announcing the first step in the globalization of Jeep (in China). There's another one that's going to come in Russia. These things are part of a natural process of expansion."
Marchionne said he will keep "the pillar cars of the Jeep (brand) in the United States. Wrangler is one. The Grand Cherokee is another. These are things that need to be protected because they represent the best and the essence of Jeep. If you tell me I cannot make a Patriot somewhere else, I might as well go out of the market."
Marchionne came under harsh criticism from Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who falsely suggested that Chrysler would shift production from Ohio to China of the Jeep brand. The Romney ad on the issue was branded the "lie of the year" by fact checker "Politifact."
Marchionne rejected Romney's assertion in a letter to employees last fall. "I set the record straight to our people," he said. "We live in a world where we tell each other the truth and I think the stuff that was coming out was improperly phrased — it certainly was not reflective of the position of Chrysler."
Separately, Marchionne said no initial public offering could occur before nine months.
"Even I execute flawlessly… At the earliest, it's the fourth quarter," Marchionne said, noting that Chrysler needs to convert to a Chapter C Corporation first. "We will see what the markets say about an IPO."
He said he understands the United Auto Workers health care trust fund wants to swap more stock for cash.
"They need to see their position monetized," Marchionne said. "We'll try to get them a way there. If they want to do it through an IPO, we'll do it through the IPO."
Marchionne said he believes U.S. vehicle sales will be strong in 2013, totaling at least 15 million.
I find it interesting that they weren't already a "C" corporation...o.O
whembly wrote: We don’t have a revenue problem... we have a spending problem... more specifically, we have a problem with PRIORITES.
That article was non-economic gibberish. Absolute codswallop wrapped up in a heavy dose paternal morality.
If we choose to pay the taxes to have a welfare system then it is just as affordable as the big screen TVs and alloy wheels we'd other wise spend those dollars on. Anyone who claims otherwise simply does not understand how dollars work.
The person who wrote the article understands how dollars work, of course. He's just playing a little make believe game, where he assumes taxes for some nebulous, non-explained reason, absolutely, positively must be no higher, and likely much lower... and therefore it's a real shame but the welfare safety just has to go.
It'd actually be quite a clever little political trick, if it wasn't around 80 years old.
Kanluwen wrote: I see that much like Romney, you've glossed over the fact that they're building those Jeeps in China and Russia...for sale in China and Russia.
From what I understand, they're losing some models to be made over there... (keeping the Cherokee and Wrangler here?)
Now, what's missing is that, maybe those other models aren't profitable here anymore, and thus being made over there probably makes sense. What's left unsaid is the probably impact to local workers. o.O
Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne said the automaker plans to build some Jeeps in China for the local market — and later, in Russia.
Oh for feth's sake. It's the same half assed lie as last time.
As the original article points out quite clearly - "The entirety of the Bloomberg report made it clear that Chrysler was considering expansion in China, not shuttering American production." Whereas the Romney claim was "I saw a story today, that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China"
Stop believing transparent lies. It makes you look like a fool.
Kanluwen wrote: I see that much like Romney, you've glossed over the fact that they're building those Jeeps in China and Russia...for sale in China and Russia.
From what I understand, they're losing some models to be made over there... (keeping the Cherokee and Wrangler here?)
Now, what's missing is that, maybe those other models aren't profitable here anymore, and thus being made over there probably makes sense. What's left unsaid is the probably impact to local workers. o.O
Just wait another 6 months... cool?
No, what you're missing is reading the article you linked.
Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne said the automaker plans to build some Jeeps in China for the local market — and later, in Russia.
"As part of our global expansion of the Jeep brand, there are some cars — that because of the price position in the market — can never be made in the U.S. and exported," Marchionne told reporters on the sidelines of the North American International Auto Show. "We're going to be announcing the first step in the globalization of Jeep (in China). There's another one that's going to come in Russia. These things are part of a natural process of expansion."
Those two bits are key, Whembly. What Sergio Marchionne is saying that they are going to be producing some Jeeps in China for sale in China, and do the same thing in Russia.
The reason that this will be done is because those cars--because of their price position in the market--cannot be made here in the United States for exportation.
whembly wrote: From what I understand, they're losing some models to be made over there... (keeping the Cherokee and Wrangler here?)
It's the first sentence of the article you quoted;
"As part of our global expansion of the Jeep brand, there are some cars — that because of the price position in the market — can never be made in the U.S. and exported"
So there are cars that can't be built and exported... that haven't been getting built and exported. So they're opening new plants in China to build for the local market over there.
whembly wrote: From what I understand, they're losing some models to be made over there... (keeping the Cherokee and Wrangler here?)
It's the first sentence of the article you quoted;
"As part of our global expansion of the Jeep brand, there are some cars — that because of the price position in the market — can never be made in the U.S. and exported"
So there are cars that can't be built and exported... that haven't been getting built and exported. So they're opening new plants in China to build for the local market over there.
Right... it's also a statement to placate the local unions... they've always resisted those sort of statements.
Lemme tell ya a story. When I was working for Anheuser Busch as a help desk technician (no seriously, you'd dial 1-800-BEER-TALK... frigg'in awesome!) there was a brewery in Columbus, OH that implemented automated forklift robots to move the pallets from the warehouse to the docks. It was really expensive (not to mention awesome), but at the time, the cost to implement / configure / maintaine was cheaper than hiring the union guys. The unions at the other breweries (11 others) saw that, and for some "unexplained reasons" the workers performed more efficiently AND negotiated contracts that made implementing the OH automations at the other plants impractical.
My point is... from a business stand point, this could be nothing more than the CEO "placating" the unions publically. We'll see what happens to Chrystler in 6 months... I'd suspect there would be some contract work that would be more favorable for the company.
whembly wrote: Woah there pard'ner... ya'll miss the little "poking a little fun here"?
See my image man... chill.
I'll buy that Romney was a bit disingenuous... but, we'd expect that from politicians... no?
I saw that detroit article and whammo... thought that was interesting.
Where's your sense of humor? o.O
It isn't poking a little fun, though. It's just retelling the original story, and pretending this time its true.
Right... it's also a statement to placate the local unions... they've always resisted those sort of statements.
But this is in the wake of Chrysler's expansion of their Toledo plant (per the original article). You don't expand local facilities and then move production overseas.
But if you are looking at growing overall demand, then you do expand local production and look to establish new plants overseas.
Lemme tell ya a story. When I was working for Anheuser Busch as a help desk technician (no seriously, you'd dial 1-800-BEER-TALK... frigg'in awesome!) there was a brewery in Columbus, OH that implemented automated forklift robots to move the pallets from the warehouse to the docks. It was really expensive (not to mention awesome), but at the time, the cost to implement / configure / maintaine was cheaper than hiring the union guys. The unions at the other breweries (11 others) saw that, and for some "unexplained reasons" the workers performed more efficiently AND negotiated contracts that made implementing the OH automations at the other plants impractical.
BEER-TALK... awesome.
And I don't disagree. The thing that really gets me opposed to unions is the 'work only as hard as you'll make me mentality', as if you should spite the person that gave you a job.
I'm just saying that what Chrysler is doing here is fairly clear - they're expanding local production, and also looking to begin production in other countries.
The mystery is how Chrysler sells any cars at all, let alone is increasing the numbers they sell. The rent a car my wife and I drove to the Grand Canyon in was a Jeep, and it was hands down the worst car I've ever driven. I've owned a Mazda 121, and drove my Mum's old Festiva a whole lot. Those were small, cheap cars, but they did what you told them, when you told them. That Jeep had uneven accelerating that was frankly dangerous, and the steering was so spongy that any idea of controlling it on gravel was laughable.
whembly wrote: Woah there pard'ner... ya'll miss the little "poking a little fun here"?
See my image man... chill.
I'll buy that Romney was a bit disingenuous... but, we'd expect that from politicians... no?
I saw that detroit article and whammo... thought that was interesting.
Where's your sense of humor? o.O
It isn't poking a little fun, though. It's just retelling the original story, and pretending this time its true.
Okay... I see that. My bad...
Right... it's also a statement to placate the local unions... they've always resisted those sort of statements.
But this is in the wake of Chrysler's expansion of their Toledo plant (per the original article). You don't expand local facilities and then move production overseas.
But if you are looking at growing overall demand, then you do expand local production and look to establish new plants overseas.
That's what common sense tells ya... but, if you've ever witness'ed the epic negotiations between the Detroit's big Three vs the Unions... and usually anything but. Hence I said, "wait 6 months".
Lemme tell ya a story. When I was working for Anheuser Busch as a help desk technician (no seriously, you'd dial 1-800-BEER-TALK... frigg'in awesome!) there was a brewery in Columbus, OH that implemented automated forklift robots to move the pallets from the warehouse to the docks. It was really expensive (not to mention awesome), but at the time, the cost to implement / configure / maintaine was cheaper than hiring the union guys. The unions at the other breweries (11 others) saw that, and for some "unexplained reasons" the workers performed more efficiently AND negotiated contracts that made implementing the OH automations at the other plants impractical.
BEER-TALK... awesome.
Yup... now I wonder if that still exists since Imbev bought AB... (might call them later...)
And I don't disagree. The thing that really gets me opposed to unions is the 'work only as hard as you'll make me mentality', as if you should spite the person that gave you a job.
Yup... agreed.
I'm just saying that what Chrysler is doing here is fairly clear - they're expanding local production, and also looking to begin production in other countries.
Like I said... wait 6 months or so...
The mystery is how Chrysler sells any cars at all, let alone is increasing the numbers they sell. The rent a car my wife and I drove to the Grand Canyon in was a Jeep, and it was hands down the worst car I've ever driven. I've owned a Mazda 121, and drove my Mum's old Festiva a whole lot. Those were small, cheap cars, but they did what you told them, when you told them. That Jeep had uneven accelerating that was frankly dangerous, and the steering was so spongy that any idea of controlling it on gravel was laughable.
I'd never even look at a Chrysler after that.
Yup... I would never buy a Chrysler either... they've always been problematic for me.
I had an old Mazda 626... and other than the fact it burnt a little oil (checked it every 1k miles), it was the only car I had that was maintenance free.
At the local home depot, Obamacare is listed as a separate tax on the reciepts.
So, right off, you're claiming that Obamacare contains taxes, but is not itself a tax. This means that your decision to consider Obamacare as a tax was almost certainly based in the Supreme Court ruling regarding the individual mandate.
Not to be belligerent, but that level of simplification is why we can't have nice things in America.
I'm sorry, but 'Lie of the Year' award has to go to the Ontario Elementry Teacher's Union... Ever since the start of the school year it's been a giant tirade of;
Union: The Liberals are evil, EVIL!!! They're killing democracy by threatening to legislate a new contract on us!
Now what's really happening:
a) The Unions walked away from the bargaining table, because they outright refuse to take a 2-year wage freeze, drop teacher sick days from 20 to 10 and put an end to banking--->cashing out unused sick days upon retirement
b) The province of Ontario is flat broke and can't afford the teachers unions' constantly wanting MOAR!!! despite them already being among the highest paid teachers in North America!
As an example, the starting base salery for the 'average' elementry teacher is around $42,000/year. Within ten years, they can climb the paygrade scale upto around $70,000/year. The top end is around $90,000/year.
And yes, this is unfair and according to the unions, teachers are hard done by and need a raise...
Union: We're not going to take our anger with the government out on students!
Meanwhile... The Governement passes the 'Putting Students First' act, aka Bill 115 which gives them the power to impose upon the public elementry & high school teachers the exact same contract that was agreed to by the province's french teachers.
Union: OMG! The Goverment has destroyed the democratic process and is going to use Bill 115!!!
That's it! We're protesting and so teachers will withdraw at once from any and all extracirrular activities of any kind! No more after-school clubs! No more extra help!
Then... The Liberals use Bill 115 to impose contracts because the Union won't negotiate in good faith, knowing full well there's no more money and that the taxpayer is beyond tapped out.
Union: That's it! We're going to have rotating, (and by the letter of Bill 115 technically illegal), 1-day strikes! "We're doing this for all Ontarians!"
"We're fighting for your democratic rights and freedoms!" (but really, they're simply doing it to protect their stupidly over-inflated salleries, bogus amount of sick days and the farcical cashing out unused sick days for upto half their current salery upon retirement... )
So now, despite their promise not to harm students or use them in any way as pawns in their political games, the union has pretty much taken away absolutely everything from the students - sports teams, intermerials, before/after school clubs & study groups, no additional help, hell, even some of the special ed programs have been cancelled!
But this all being done for the benifit of us everyday Ontarians...
At the local home depot, Obamacare is listed as a separate tax on the reciepts.
So, right off, you're claiming that Obamacare contains taxes, but is not itself a tax. This means that your decision to consider Obamacare as a tax was almost certainly based in the Supreme Court ruling regarding the individual mandate.
Not to be belligerent, but that level of simplification is why we can't have nice things in America.
The government is pulling money from us to fund it. Along with increased sales taxes to fund it, most people would define it as a tax or at the least a cause of tax increase.
The government is pulling money from us to fund it. Along with increased sales taxes to fund it, most people would define it as a tax or at the least a cause of tax increase.
The ACA has caused a series of selective tax increases, that much is true. But calling the ACA a tax increase is just lazy. That approach to legislation is, as I said above, why we cannot have nice things in America.
Experiment 626 wrote:I'm sorry, but 'Lie of the Year' award has to go to the Ontario Elementry Teacher's Union... Ever since the start of the school year it's been a giant tirade of;
Spoiler:
Union: The Liberals are evil, EVIL!!! They're killing democracy by threatening to legislate a new contract on us!
Now what's really happening:
a) The Unions walked away from the bargaining table, because they outright refuse to take a 2-year wage freeze, drop teacher sick days from 20 to 10 and put an end to banking--->cashing out unused sick days upon retirement
b) The province of Ontario is flat broke and can't afford the teachers unions' constantly wanting MOAR!!! despite them already being among the highest paid teachers in North America!
As an example, the starting base salery for the 'average' elementry teacher is around $42,000/year. Within ten years, they can climb the paygrade scale upto around $70,000/year. The top end is around $90,000/year.
And yes, this is unfair and according to the unions, teachers are hard done by and need a raise...
Union: We're not going to take our anger with the government out on students!
Meanwhile... The Governement passes the 'Putting Students First' act, aka Bill 115 which gives them the power to impose upon the public elementry & high school teachers the exact same contract that was agreed to by the province's french teachers.
Union: OMG! The Goverment has destroyed the democratic process and is going to use Bill 115!!!
That's it! We're protesting and so teachers will withdraw at once from any and all extracirrular activities of any kind! No more after-school clubs! No more extra help!
Then... The Liberals use Bill 115 to impose contracts because the Union won't negotiate in good faith, knowing full well there's no more money and that the taxpayer is beyond tapped out.
Union: That's it! We're going to have rotating, (and by the letter of Bill 115 technically illegal), 1-day strikes! "We're doing this for all Ontarians!"
"We're fighting for your democratic rights and freedoms!" (but really, they're simply doing it to protect their stupidly over-inflated salleries, bogus amount of sick days and the farcical cashing out unused sick days for upto half their current salery upon retirement... )
So now, despite their promise not to harm students or use them in any way as pawns in their political games, the union has pretty much taken away absolutely everything from the students - sports teams, intermerials, before/after school clubs & study groups, no additional help, hell, even some of the special ed programs have been cancelled!
But this all being done for the benifit of us everyday Ontarians...
Let me make sure I understand your anger:
Teacher's Union is upset that the government passed a bill that allows itself to legislate the teachers back to work with their expired contract, effectively negating the entire collective bargaining process.
In protest, the Teacher's Union says that they will no longer continue to do all the EXTRA WORK that they do FOR FREE.
And the teacher's NOT PUTTING IN OVERTIME FOR FREE is what makes you mad.
Help me understand your position; and then tell me when was the last time you worked two hours of unpaid overtime every day.
If it weren't for those fat-cat teachers with their $28k salaries, Park Avenue manicures, and luxury limousines, I suspect we wouldn't even HAVE a deficit.
Teacher's Union is upset that the government passed a bill that allows itself to legislate the teachers back to work with their expired contract, effectively negating the entire collective bargaining process.
In protest, the Teacher's Union says that they will no longer continue to do all the EXTRA WORK that they do FOR FREE.
And the teacher's NOT PUTTING IN OVERTIME FOR FREE is what makes you mad.
Help me understand your position; and then tell me when was the last time you worked two hours of unpaid overtime every day.
The unions walked away from the bargaining table and refused to bargain in good faith. Ontario is flat broke. A $14 billion deificit means there's litterly no money left. Every other public sector union/group has had to fess up and take pay freezes and the like so that we can continue to ruin the province with things like buying Liberal seats by cancelling contracts and moving power plants and all-day government funded daycare... (sorry, 1.5 billion/year all-day Kindergarden)
The teachers have refused to aknowledge reality, so in order to get then under contract, the Libs created Bill 115 to impose the exact same contract that the French Teachers Union already negotiated and ratified. (and it's only for just 2 years at that, so it's hardly like our already highly overpaid teachers are going to suffer much)
Bill 115 doesn't remove bargaining rights, it simply imposes a viable and desperately needed contract that's fair to taxpayers AND teachers because the Public Teacher Unions want to just bury their heads in the sand and ignore financial reality.
The Unions have made a huge and very public promotion that they would NOT! put students in the middle of their rediculous demands/fight with the one-time BFF's they helped put in power.
Instead, they're simply using the students as pawns in their political games and saying crap like "it's not our fault, blame McFibby and the Fiberals" and "We're doing this for the rights of all Ontarians" and "This isn't about money!" (b-fing-s this isn't about money!)
Students have no sports, no clubs, no additional help, no nothing to look forward to beyond their basic lessons.
And the teachers are also outright denying students their future educations as well, since for numerous high school students, sports are their only way to get noticed for scholarships and/or teachers are refusing to write letters of recomendation to uni/colleges.
And as for "unpaid overtime"
Name me another profession that gets a job-for-life security, 2 months holidays over the summer, 2 weeks as Xmas, 1 week in March, optional 'professional development' days, an insanely good salery, full medical coverage, 20 sick days/year that can be banked and then cashed-in upon retirement for upto half a year's current pay, etc...
Teachers have it far too good, and they're acting like spoiled children because after ten years of getting everything they want, they're told "No" for once.
Being a teacher perhaps is different in Canada, but here in the Estados Unidos, teachers definitely could not be described as having "insanely good salerys". They make on average 44k a year, and have to pay off school supplies out of their end, spend their evenings grading homework and tests, as well as of course requiring a bachelors at a minimum, generally - some states require a masters. They're on the nearly lowest end of nearly any profession that requires those credentials - any accountant will start the first year out of school making more, on average.
Ouze wrote: Being a teacher perhaps is different in Canada, but here in the Estados Unidos, teachers definitely could not be described as having "insanely good salerys". They make on average 44k a year, and have to pay off school supplies out of their end, spend their evenings grading homework and tests, as well as of course requiring a bachelors at a minimum, generally - some states require a masters. They're on the nearly lowest end of nearly any profession that requires those credentials - any accountant will start the first year out of school making more, on average.
Although... thats true for the most part.
But sometimes some benefits are outrageous... like that school district in the northeast where Plastic Surgery is covered.
Hmmmm... not that I'd complain... I have nothing against bewb jobs.
Teacher's Union is upset that the government passed a bill that allows itself to legislate the teachers back to work with their expired contract, effectively negating the entire collective bargaining process.
In protest, the Teacher's Union says that they will no longer continue to do all the EXTRA WORK that they do FOR FREE.
And the teacher's NOT PUTTING IN OVERTIME FOR FREE is what makes you mad.
Help me understand your position; and then tell me when was the last time you worked two hours of unpaid overtime every day.
Spoiler:
The unions walked away from the bargaining table and refused to bargain in good faith. Ontario is flat broke. A $14 billion deificit means there's litterly no money left. Every other public sector union/group has had to fess up and take pay freezes and the like so that we can continue to ruin the province with things like buying Liberal seats by cancelling contracts and moving power plants and all-day government funded daycare... (sorry, 1.5 billion/year all-day Kindergarden)
The teachers have refused to aknowledge reality, so in order to get then under contract, the Libs created Bill 115 to impose the exact same contract that the French Teachers Union already negotiated and ratified. (and it's only for just 2 years at that, so it's hardly like our already highly overpaid teachers are going to suffer much)
Bill 115 doesn't remove bargaining rights, it simply imposes a viable and desperately needed contract that's fair to taxpayers AND teachers because the Public Teacher Unions want to just bury their heads in the sand and ignore financial reality.
The Unions have made a huge and very public promotion that they would NOT! put students in the middle of their rediculous demands/fight with the one-time BFF's they helped put in power.
Instead, they're simply using the students as pawns in their political games and saying crap like "it's not our fault, blame McFibby and the Fiberals" and "We're doing this for the rights of all Ontarians" and "This isn't about money!" (b-fing-s this isn't about money!)
Students have no sports, no clubs, no additional help, no nothing to look forward to beyond their basic lessons.
And the teachers are also outright denying students their future educations as well, since for numerous high school students, sports are their only way to get noticed for scholarships and/or teachers are refusing to write letters of recomendation to uni/colleges.
And as for "unpaid overtime"
Name me another profession that gets a job-for-life security, 2 months holidays over the summer, 2 weeks as Xmas, 1 week in March, optional 'professional development' days, an insanely good salery, full medical coverage, 20 sick days/year that can be banked and then cashed-in upon retirement for upto half a year's current pay, etc...
Teachers have it far too good, and they're acting like spoiled children because after ten years of getting everything they want, they're told "No" for once.
But they're not hurting the students...
Job-for-life-security? You'll have to define exactly what you mean by that, but generally, everything in the public sector applies.
2 Holiday months over the summer? You're clearly expressing your ignorance on the subject, and I strongly suggest that you actually learn about the subject before continuing. Teachers do not get paid for the time off in the summer. Most teacher's federations do allow for teachers to receive only 80% of their pay, however, in order to continue to receive a steady paycheque through the summer months. However, even past that, what you obviously fail to realise is that the 9-3 school day is NOT the extent of the work day for a teacher. Most teachers will actually spend 3+ more hours of marking and lesson planning every single day. that means the teachers' work day is closer to 9-10 hours, 5 days a week. That is a lot of very long weeks, and does not even begin to take into account the FREE OVERTIME they put in for coaching, tutoring, after school programs, etc. and on that note...
If you think after-school programs are so important and someone should be obligated to perform them, unpaid... tell me when the last time you volunteered to coach the school basketball team was. Go on. I'd love to hear it. You seem to think that someone is obligated to fill that role. Why not you?
Oh, and it's generally not about salaries. I'm willing to bet that the Teacher's Union left the bargaining table because the government refused to negotiate on class sizes. That is usually the huge issue, and it directly affects the quality of education that students receive.
As to your point about woe-is-the-poor-government-that-overspent-everyone-has-to-feel-the-pinch: that is complete and utter BS. I want you to take your paycheque, spend all of it, and then attempt to negotiate the lease on an apartment under the premise that you simply don't have enough money, and it's somehow the apartment owner's problem. Because that is the argument that the Ontario government is giving, and it is what you have clearly bought into without even the slightest bit of critical thought.
As for your inane "teachers have it too good" idea... that demonstrates your belief that teachers owe you something. Teachers should be given the same respect and pay that doctors, nurses, pilicement and firefighters receive. They are a foundational tool of our country and without them this country would end up with an education system like the US (sorry guys, but y'all know your public education system is fethed right now).
Also, I agree... Teachers ought to be held to the same esteem as Doctors / CEO.
You also forget that Teachers regularly bring home work too... When I was married, during the last 3 weeks or so of the quarter, I'd never see her has she's frantically writing up test plans, grading, writing progress reports... etc... shoot, even *I* helped her do some grading.
As many of you know... I'm pretty conservative... but, I'd have no problems with higher taxes if the school districts need them.
Thanks for that. Sorry for being far too aggressive in making my point originally.
That's what common sense tells ya... but, if you've ever witness'ed the epic negotiations between the Detroit's big Three vs the Unions... and usually anything but. Hence I said, "wait 6 months".
I agree that you can't really trust anything that comes out of a media release, and agree it's even more of a good point when the company in question is dealing with a group as difficult as the auto manufacturing unions. But this isn't about the press release - the expansion of their plant is a major undertaking, a massive investment in new capital, and not the kind of thing you'd do to pull one over the unions.
Now, it is entirely likely that what we're seeing is a car company overestimating its ability to expand, committing to a scale of production that's greater than its ability to sell cars. Other than Toyota I think they've all done that at one stage or another.
Yup... I would never buy a Chrysler either... they've always been problematic for me.
I had an old Mazda 626... and other than the fact it burnt a little oil (checked it every 1k miles), it was the only car I had that was maintenance free.
My first car was a Mazda 121 - that thing ran on no petrol and never had a maintenance problem. I've got a Mazda 6 now that I've almost got to 100,000 kms, and the only problem its had is dodgy batteries. I'd happily go for another Mazda.
I had a Honda Integra in between those cars, and that thing ran like a dream. I wouldn't get another one, though, as every time something went wrong the replacement parts were ridiculously expensive.
My Ford Probe was a Mazda, and it made it to 205,000 miles.
I'll gladly buy American, as long as its a good car. I won't buy crap out of a misguided sense of patriotism.
I will also gladly buy "foreign" cars build in the US instead of "US" cars build in another country.
d-usa wrote: My Ford Probe was a Mazda, and it made it to 205,000 miles.
I'll gladly buy American, as long as its a good car. I won't buy crap out of a misguided sense of patriotism.
I will also gladly buy "foreign" cars build in the US instead of "US" cars build in another country.
Whoa... you must have been one of the lucky ones. I've had two friends whose Probe broken down all them time... but, then again... they were driven by chicks.
Most "foreign" cars sold in US are built here anyways... so the whole buy US Cars (GM, Ford, etc) is patriotic is laughable.
faced grinner Chris. There will be more.
)
