Just based on the Arizona Debate hosted by CNN, right-wing cult/news outlets like Fox News, and right-wing talking heads, the emerging theme coming out of Republican candidates, as a response to the deteriorating economic conditions, high unemployment rates and social distress of the working class, is that the workers should blame no one else but themselves.
According to this theme, workers should blame everything they face in this shithole economy, doubtlessly caused by the top 1% aristocrat layer themselves, on how they were brought up in the household, and how they in turn, are managing their household. In a nutshell, the high unemployment rates that is pretty much pervasive across the entire country, is squarely the fault of none other than workers themselves; their "poor decisions" has caused this economic catastrophe.
They will also lopsidedly loose the votes of voting immigrants because of virulent anti-immigrant scapegoating. Rather than owning up to their own fvck-ups, they want to blame their failures on immigrants, supposedly under the guise of championing "legal immigration".
In an environment of what is going to be a fairly low voter turn out, on both sides--Democrats and Republicans, this deficit in vote is going to be a big deal, even though Republican candidates are obviously shrugging it off!
I suspect that Obama, even with his extremely appalling performance in office, is very likely going to get another term in office!
The Republican candidates are simply too much of total klutzes to win, that they make a klutz like Obama look like a professor. Their constituents of Republican knuckleheads may buy the garbage these candidates dole out, but it will not fly in the general election.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Outside of the Obama bashing, I agree, that that is a likely scenario. I will add though, that Americans have proven time after time again to be jaw droppingly dumb, so this logic, i.e., that they'll be deterred by those who blame the economic turmoil on them, might not apply to them.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suspect that Obama, even with his extremely appalling performance in office, is very likely going to get another term in office!
Since you're against Republicans (me too), and Obama as a Democrat has an ''extremely appalling performance'' rating from you, and the Republicans agree with your assessment of his performance, although some of the candidates may not say 'extremely appalling,' what is it about Obama's performance specifically you disagree with? Will it be his continuing meddling in foreign affairs, as all past Presidents have done, or does it have something to do with the Patriot Act? Is it his continuing hunt for 'disagreeables' unsettling to you? Don't forget what's disagreeable to you or me won't have the same effect on others. EgyptSearch will be an immediate reminder for you; and I'm not just talking about you and me but a lot of others here.
Are you in disagreement because Obama didn't rule with an iron fist? You will take note ruling with an ironfist will necessitate trampling on a host of other peoples rights? But you already know this so this can't be it.
Does your attitude have anything to do with his administration saving the automobile industry, at taxpayers expense, an industry that has sufficiently recovered from itself and has repaid all or nearly all the government loaned to it, and I don't mind that one bit. So what exactly is troubling to you about his time in office that him governing from a moderate and sensible position can't explain?
You will recall a few hundred thousand illegal immigrants have been deported under his watch, according to the news, therefore satisfying a lot of Republicans and Democrats to some degree; and shouldn't the Mexican government at least have tried to come to grips with the reason its citizens deserted it shores for more fertile ground, instead of encouraging it en masse like former president Vicente Fox did. You do realize this stuff is complicated and neither you nor I nor anyone else can solve it. When I say this I don't have the KKK nor the Michigan Militia or any other hate group in mind because we all know what their answer is. Again, and redundantly, what is it you're after in your understanding of why Mr. President Obama is very unsatisfying to you? For that matter, any other Obama-hater that is going to read this can respond also.
Before you respond think about a lot of other countries that aren't pluralistic at all, and how those that run their societies view different ideas and opinions. Syria immediately jumps to the forefront because it is constantly in the news. And no, I'm not talking about the U.S.'s made up attitude about the Syrians looking for freedom--this freedom may not entail what the U.S. is looking for anyway; same for the other Arab countries that 'found it.' So they can just shut up about Syrian aspirations for freedom.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding the perception that I'm "bashing" Obama, this would be an oversimplification of what I was doing. I was merely noting what I thought was an observation of fact.
Grumman, let's try to not loose track of the fact that this thread was meant to be about election prospects of the incompetent Republican candidates, rather than Obama, but to answer your question, the examples of the very actions you brought to attention have factored into my rating of Obama's performance.
quote:Does your attitude have anything to do with his administration saving the automobile industry, at taxpayers expense, an industry that has sufficiently recovered from itself and has repaid all or nearly all the government loaned to it, and I don't mind that one bit.
Indeed, it does, among others. I don't recall though, coming across any news of the auto industry paying back taxpayers.
quote:So what exactly is troubling to you about his time in office that him governing from a moderate and sensible position can't explain?
In simple terms, his dramatic movement to the right concerns me, but above all, the worsening socio-economic situations and the progressive erosion of civil liberties under his watch. The national deficit got higher under his watch, and the workers are asked to pay for this under his watch. He has pretty much abandoned just about every "progressive" campaign promise he made. The only reason troops are even scheduled to return from Iraq, for instance, is that the Iraqi government would not extend the granting of immunity against possible war crimes. Obama has expediently sought to cover up this foreign policy failure as some sort of an intentional strategic move towards fulfilling a campaign promise.
quote: You will recall a few hundred thousand illegal immigrants have been deported under his watch, according to the news, therefore satisfying a lot of Republicans and Democrats to some degree; and shouldn't the Mexican government at least have tried to come to grips with the reason its citizens deserted it shores for more fertile ground, instead of encouraging it en masse like former president Vicente Fox did. You do realize this stuff is complicated and neither you nor I nor anyone else can solve it.
Indeed, Obama had outdone his Republican predecessor in deporting "illegal immigrants". His Republican opponents' rhetoric has only served to obscure this right-wing element about Obama, and thereby increasing Obama's chances of getting a higher portion of Hispanic votes, for instance.
While the Republicans continue foolishly bashing and scapegoating undocumented immigrants, Obama slyly continues to apply a populist rhetoric to the immigration question, even as he is actually doing otherwise. This again speaks to how much of tactical and intellectual goofballs Republican candidates are, even when compared to Obama, whose policies should be getting him the boot rather than another term.
quote: Again, and redundantly, what is it you're after in your understanding of why Mr. President Obama is very unsatisfying to you? For that matter, any other Obama-hater that is going to read this can respond also.
That's inaccurate. I don't care for Obama's person; if I "hate" anything, it's his actions in office.
quote: Before you respond think about a lot of other countries that aren't pluralistic at all, and how those that run their societies view different ideas and opinions.
You don't seriously think that I don't already keep these things in mind, do you?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't post the two links to the two articles because they lead to an advertisement or something.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Chrysler has paid back $7.6 billion worth of high-interest bailout loans to the U.S. and Canadian governments, the automaker said Tuesday. The payback included the $5.9 billion the carmaker owed in loans to U.S. taxpayers and the $1.7 billion owed to the Canadians, Chrysler said.
"The original loans were repaid in full, more than six years ahead of schedule, along with the payment of accrued interest and additional consideration," said Chrysler, in a statement. This doesn't mean that Chrysler is debt free. In fact, the automaker took out additional loans last week to help pay off older debt. But the company said it could save $300 million in annual interest payments through refinancing. Under its current debt structure, Chrysler is paying between 7% and 14% interest on U.S. loans and as high as 20% interest on some of its Canadian loans.
In February, Sergio Marchionne, the CEO of Chrysler and Fiat, the Italian automaker that owns a controlling stake in Chrysler, said his company needs to repay "shyster loans" to the governments. He later apologized for his comments.
Chrysler also said Tuesday that government intervention allowed the company to hire 6,000 workers.
President Obama acknowledged the workers in a statement issued Tuesday while he was visiting London.
"I was not willing to walk from the workers at Chrysler and communities relying on this iconic American company," said Obama, referring to the auto industry bailout as a "tough decision." Chrysler to pay back loans
On May 2, Chrysler reported its first quarterly profit since 2006. In fact, Ford (F, Fortune 500) and General Motors (GM, Fortune 500) also reported profits for the first quarter, the first time since 2004 the Big Three all reported profitable quarters.
Repayment of the loans will still leave U.S. taxpayers about $2 billion short, in shares that are still held by the U.S. government. Treasury and the Canadian government will both continue to hold minority stakes in the company.
The U.S. government might be able to recoup some of that money when Chrysler holds an initial public offering later this year or next. First Published: May 24, 2011: 10:01 AM ET
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
President Obama’s phony accounting on the auto industry bailout
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 12:00 PM ET, 06/07/2011
“Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes American taxpayers for their support during my presidency.” — President Obama, June 4, 2011 This post has been updated.
With some of the economic indicators looking a bit dicey, President Obama traveled to Ohio last week to tout what the administration considers a good-news story: the rescue of the domestic automobile industry. In fact, he also made it the subject of his weekly radio address.
We take no view on whether the administration’s efforts on behalf of the automobile industry were a good or bad thing; that’s a matter for the editorial pages and eventually the historians. But we are interested in the facts the president cited to make his case. What we found is one of the most misleading collections of assertions we have seen in a short presidential speech. Virtually every claim by the president regarding the auto industry needs an asterisk, just like the fine print in that too-good-to-be-true car loan.
Let’s look at the claims in the order in which the president said them.
“Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes American taxpayers for their support during my presidency — and it repaid that money six years ahead of schedule. And this week, we reached a deal to sell our remaining stake. That means soon, Chrysler will be 100 percent in private hands.”
Wow, “every dime and more” sounds like such a bargain. Not only did Chrysler pay back the loan, with interest — but the company paid back even more than they owed. Isn’t America great or what?
Not so fast. The president snuck in the weasel words “during my presidency” in his statement. What does that mean?
According to the White House, Obama is counting only the $8.5 billion loan that he made to Chrysler, not the $4 billion that President George W. Bush extended in his last month in office. However, Obama was not a disinterested observer at the time. According to The Washington Post article on the Bush loan, the incoming president called Bush’s action a “necessary step . . . to help avoid a collapse of our auto industry that would have had devastating consequences for our economy and our workers.”
Under the administration’s math, the U.S. government will receive $11.2 billion back from Chrysler, far more than the $8.5 billion Obama extended.
Through this sleight-of-hand accounting, the White House can conveniently ignore Bush’s loan, but even the Treasury Department admits that U.S. taxpayers will not recoup about $1.3 billion of the entire $12.5 billion investment when all is said and done.
The White House justifies not counting the Bush money because, it says, that money was completely spent when Obama was making a tough political decision on whether to extend another loan. In other words, a decision to do nothing at the time would have resulted in the immediate loss of the $4 billion that Bush had extended. This is chicanery. Under the president’s math, Chrysler paid back 100 percent of Obama’s loan and less than 70 percent of Bush’s loan. A more honest presentation would combine the two figures to say U.S. taxpayers got back 90 percent of what they invested. In fact, that is how the Treasury and other administration officials frequently portray it; it is just when Obama speaks that the numbers get so squishy. The White House justifies saying that Chrysler will be in 100 percent “in private hands” because there will no longer be government ownership once Fiat completes its purchase of the U.S. stake. For the record, the United Auto Workers will own 46 percent of the company. “All three American automakers are now adding shifts and creating jobs at the strongest rate since the 1990s.”
The White House says the data to back this claim concerning the Big Three automakers is not public information. The official Bureau of Labor Statistics data refers to the entire auto industry — including foreign auto manufacturers, auto parts manufacturers, auto parts dealers and auto dealers. If you look at the data, the 113,200 jobs added between June 2009 and May 2011 amounts to about a 5 percent increase — from a rather low base.
UPDATE, 10:45 AM: Yen Chen, automotive business statistical analyst at the Center for Automotive Research, says CAR's analysis of Big Three auto data shows this statistic is correct. The Detroit Three are expected to add 10,000 hourly and 5,000 salaried workers this year, from a base of 115,805 hourly workers and 56, 432 salaried workers. That's an increase of about eight percent in each case. More than 16,000 hourly workers were added in 1991, but from a much higher base--440,000-- and 10,000 were also added in 1995, when there were 433,000 hourly workers. Meanwhile, salaried workers have been on a steady decline since 1990 (when the big Three employed 157,000).
“GM plans to hire back all of the workers they had to lay off during the recession.” This is another impressive-sounding but misleading figure. In the five years since 2006, General Motors announced that it would reduce its workforce by nearly 68,000 hourly and salary workers, creating a much smaller company. Those are the figures that generated the headlines. Obama is only talking about a sliver of workers — the 9,600 workers who were laid off in the fourth quarter of 2008. About 4,100 were sent home for a few weeks. Another 5,500 were put on indefinite leave, meaning there were no jobs at the time for them. All but 1,000 have returned to work, and the rest should be back at work by year’s end, according to GM spokesman Greg A. Martin.
“In the year before I was President, this industry lost more than 400,000 jobs, and two great American companies, Chrysler and GM, stood on the brink of collapse. Now, we had a few options. We could have done what a lot of folks in Washington thought we should do — nothing.”
This is quite a straw man — that many people wanted to do nothing. It was never so black and white. The debate was over the right course to take in the bankruptcy process.
The Wall Street Journal published Monday an interesting conservative critique of the government’s intervention by David Skeel, a law professor at University of Pennsylvania. Skeel says that the revival of the auto industry “is a very encouraging development,” but “to claim that the car companies would have collapsed if the government hadn’t intervened in the way it did, and to suggest that the intervention came at very little cost, is a dangerous misreading of our recent history.”
To support the claim that “a lot of folks” wanted to do nothing, the White House referred us to statements by the House minority leader, John Boehner (R-Ohio), and Sens. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).
We do not read Boehner’s quote that way; in this 2009 comment, he is questioning the administration’s approach while saying, “The success of our automotive industry is critical.”Shelby and Kyl in 2008 were protesting the use of taxpayer funds by Bush to delay a bankruptcy filing; they preferred immediately putting the companies through the bankruptcy process.
It will be up to historians to decide what the best solution would have been for taxpayers and the auto industry. We can understand why the president wants to portray himself as making a lonely and tough decision. But the debate was not either/or, bur rather what was the best policy to bring the automakers back to financial health.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your first article on the bailout takes Chrysler's side into account, and not GM's. Your second article factors in the "loans" parceled out under the Bush administration. Anyway, here's yet another take on the bailout:
The truth behind Chrysler’s fake auto bailout pay back
It is not every day that the White House and Democratic National Committee celebrate a supposedly private company's debt restructuring plan, but such is the marriage of big government and big business under the Obama administration. The New York Times reports: "Chrysler said Tuesday that it had paid back $7.6 billion in loans from the American and Canadian governments, marking another significant step in the revival of the company, the smallest of the Detroit automakers."
But as The Truth About Cars reports, the loan pay back is just another Obama con job:
"Back in November of 2009, when GM announced that it would repay its government loans, it didn't take much investigation to realize that The General was simply shuffling government money from one pocket to the other and that true payback was still a ways off. And now that our government finds itself contemplating a runaway deficit and getting rid of its 8 percent of Chrysler's equity, would you believe that a similar federal money-shuffle is under way? Believe it."
American taxpayers have already spent more than $13 billion bailing out Chrysler. The Obama administration already forgave more than $4 billion of that debt when the company filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Taxpayers are never getting that money back. But how is Chrysler now paying off the rest of the $7.6 billion they owe the Treasury Department?
The Obama administration's bailout agreement with Fiat gave the Italian car company a "Incremental Call Option"? that allows it to buy up to 16% of Chrysler stock at a reduced price. But in order to exercise the option, Fiat had to first pay back at least $3.5 billion of its loan to the Treasury Department. But Fiat was having trouble getting private banks to lend it the money. Enter Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu who has signaled that he will approve a fuel-efficient vehicle loan to Chrysler for--wait for it--$3.5 billion. TTAC comments:
"Now, technically the DOE loan program is supposed to be used for specific, qualifying retooling projects, so Fiat can't literally take the DOE money and use it to pay back the government loans. But freeing up $3.5b in capital that would otherwise be spent on retooling with low-cost loans will make it infinitely easier for Chrysler to secure the $3.5b in debt refinancing it needs. And, in light of the GAO's pointed criticisms of the DOE loan program's fairness and transparency, it's hard to overlook the coincidental nature of Chrysler's need for $3.5b and the government's allocation of extra funds to apparently guarantee a low cost loan to Chrysler for precisely the same amount. After all, we've seen this movie before.."
So, to recap, the Obama Energy Department is loaning a foreign car company $3.5 billion so that it can pay the Treasury Department $7.6 billion even though American taxpayers spent $13 billion to save an American car company that is currently only worth $5 billion.
Oh, and Obama plans to make this "success" a centerpiece of his 2012 campaign.
It's not just the "bailout" of auto companies with taxpayer money that should be an issue; one can't help but sense the hesitation to "bail out" workers, when no such concern was expressed at all when it came to bail out the aforementioned companies.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So there you have it. I'm sure there may be a rebuttal to the rebuttal but....
...at any rate...
In simple terms, his dramatic movement to the right concerns me, but above all, the worsening socio-economic situations and the progressive erosion of civil liberties under his watch.
How far right do you think he's gone? Right of center? I'm sure you don't mean far right... do you?
So Obama can correct this worsening socio-economic condition--at his will? I wonder why George Bush didn't do anything about it. But George is an oil man isn't he; or so I've heard. You do understand the clown republicans and democrats play checkers and chess. Sometimes they get the two confused. And I'll bet you can't specify what erosion of civil liberties you have in mind--unless you won't mind your own business. Do you consider getting wanded at an airport an erosion of liberty? The Republicans probably don't think so.
The national deficit got higher under his watch, and the workers are asked to pay for this under his watch.''
Agreed, but, everybody pays for something under another's watch. Bill Clinton took nearly four dollars a week out of my check back in 1992 or thereabout, to balance the budget among other things.
When Obama wants to cut spending to offset his spending the Republicans stand in his way. When he says we can cut spending to the Pentagon and NASA they moan about it. And since we need more weapons to be safe from the enemies we make around the world because we constantly interfere then he's accused of not being strong enough.
He has pretty much abandoned just about every "progressive" campaign promise he made. The only reason troops are even scheduled to return from Iraq, for instance, is that the Iraqi government would not extend the granting of immunity against possible war crimes. Obama has expediently sought to cover up this foreign policy failure as some sort of an intentional strategic move towards fulfilling a campaign promise.
George Bush said the troops would be home by that specified time. Obama made good on it. The Republicans whooped and hollered, especially McCain, and said we're deserting Iraq. Now if you want to suggest Obama and Maliki conspired to deny Americans immunity just to say Obama fulfilled his pledge then go right ahead. But it lacks substance. America damned near screwed up Iraq and it's marginally better now than when we went in. The fact is Iraq had had enough of the U.S.'s intentions, plain and simple. Obama brought them home. Good for him.
Oh, almost forgot. You're right per your topic: the Republicans won't cut it in November. Then this asks the question of why you admitted to it then asked for confirmation of sorts. Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you wish to discuss these issues on Obama, then I suggest that you open another thread on that. We are getting off track on the actual topic of this thread.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
Oh, almost forgot. You're right per your topic: the Republicans won't cut it in November. Then this asks the question of why you admitted to it then asked for confirmation of sorts.
I opened the discussion with my observations on how the general election will likely play out, based on the performance of Republican candidates running for president, but obviously I wanted to hear opinions of other observers on the matter, not a confirmation. It matters not whether other opinions agree with mine or not.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic