The Economy Under Obama

[Guest]

This forum is riddled every day with vitriolic criticism of President Obama's "management" of the economy. Let's forget whether this president or any president can really manage the economy. But it might be worthwhile to look at some of the numbers so commonly used in forming the criticism of the president.

Job growth is a measure commonly used to judge the effect of presidential policy on the economy. Presidents are somewhat disadvantaged, as they initially take office inheriting both an economy and a federal budget created under the administration of their predecessor. In the case of President Obama, he took office at the height of the deepest recession, maybe even a depression, since the 1930's. But even at that, during his short 3-year administration more jobs were created than during the terms of ten previous presidents. And that includes Hoover, Coolidge, Ike, FDR, Bush 42 and George W. Bush. In fact, George W. Bush holds the record during his second term as being the only U.S. president who left office with fewer people employed than when he took office. And for Bush's first term he had the benefit of the robust economy he inherited from Bill Clinton. (These are records kept by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

Unemployment Rate is another statistic commonly used to criticize presidents. Again, these statistics are created by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since the first six months after President Obama took office, the percentage of people unemployed in the U.S. has consistently declined. The number of people unemployed in the country is still at a level far higher than historic norms. But in fact, whatever policies adopted by the current administration is resulting in consistent, albeit slow, reductions in the rate of unemployment in the U.S.

Economic Growth is another measure commonly used to evaluate the effect of presidential politics on the economy. Economic growth is measured as a percentage change in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or Gross National Product (GNP) from one period to the next. Since GDP bottomed out with negative growth during the six months after George W. Bush left office, there has been twenty-three straight months of growth in the U.S. economy, as measured by month-to-month GDP growth. GDP grew again in the first quarter of fiscal 2012 and is forecasted to continue that trend for the balance of the fiscal year.

There's nothing wrong with people opposing candidates of one political or economic persuasion or another. People can criticize how things were accomplished and at what pace--I have my own criticisms of the president along those lines. But at least when criticism is leveled, the facts used should be accurate. As someone here noted recently, people have a right to their own opinions, but not thier own facts.

[Guest]

Good summary VK, as usual. Most attacks on the president seem more personal than factual.

[Guest]

This a little off subject but not all that bad. Yes facts should speak louder but when a person ,president or not does not gain the trust of the people they work with or govern in this case it become very hard for that person in that environment. The job I have I always tell the people I hire to never give anyone a reason to mistrust you . I think with all the questions that have come up about obama is the biggest problem here. Also the tactics that are used. Good as he appears on the fact sheet will never out weigh trust.

[Guest]

Some substantiation from you would be nice.

I have a chart here that shows people rapidly being dropped from the labor force. If you are going to ignore the people dropping out of the job seeker pool I guess the remaining numbers are going to look statistically favorable.

1.2 million people dropped out of the labor pool in one month.

So, the civilian labor force tumbled to a 30 year low of 63.7% as the Bureau of Labor Statistics is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation.

Evidence is that high paying jobs are being replace with lower wage jobs in the employment that is being created as evidence by withholding taxes.

Sure does look rosy, doesn't it.

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-million-people-fall-out-labor-force-one-month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-)

[Guest]

Things are looking better every day.

[Guest]

Richie: I pointed out when you first brought that up that the 1.2 million unmber includes those RETIRING. The baby boomers are now starting to retire and that's the biggest demographic segment we've ever seen in this country.

[Guest]

Richie: I pointed out when you first brought that up that the 1.2 million unmber includes those RETIRING. The baby boomers are now starting to retire and that's the biggest demographic segment we've ever seen in this country.

And this trend has been predicted for decades.

[Guest]

I do agree that people are entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. The reality is that the recession ended 2009 and while a president cannot help an economy the president's policies can certainly hurt. Since 1950 every recession ended within two years and followed with substantial growth. Because of poor economic policies Obama has frustrated the economic recovery ObamaCare, Tax policy, Dodd-Frank, etc have left businesses questioning the future. hence they are using the cash on hand to repurchase their stock . Those people who have been unemployment for a good deal of this econmic downturn may well never return to the market place because of loss of skills, etc.

Obama and his Admin's math reminds me of that story about the enterpreneur that interviewed an engineer, lawyer and accountant with only one question for his new business. When he asked the engineer what 2+2 is the engineer responded 2+2 is 4 unequivocally absolutely and cannot be anything more. When the lawyer was asked he said 2+2 is 4, however, I can make an argument that 2+2 can be 5. And when he asked the accountant, the accountant got up out of his chair closed the door then went behind the enterpreneur's chair and pulled the blinds came back sat down and then leaned forward and said "how much do you want it to be":D

[Guest]

I do agree that people are entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. The reality is that the recession ended 2009 and while a president cannot help an economy the president's policies can certainly hurt. Since 1950 every recession ended within two years and followed with substantial growth. Because of poor economic policies Obama has frustrated the economic recovery ObamaCare, Tax policy, Dodd-Frank, etc have left businesses questioning the future. hence they are using the cash on hand to repurchase their stock . Those people who have been unemployment for a good deal of this econmic downturn may well never return to the market place because of loss of skills, etc.

Obama and his Admin's math reminds me of that story about the enterpreneur that interviewed an engineer, lawyer and accountant with only one question for his new business. When he asked the engineer what 2+2 is the engineer responded 2+2 is 4 unequivocally absolutely and cannot be anything more. When the lawyer was asked he said 2+2 is 4, however, I can make an argument that 2+2 can be 5. And when he asked the accountant, the accountant got up out of his chair closed the door then went behind the enterpreneur's chair and pulled the blinds came back sat down and then leaned forward and said "how much do you want it to be":D


Wow! Never knew that a President's policies couldn't help the economy but could hurt it. Thanks for the enlightenment.

[Guest]

Richie: I pointed out when you first brought that up that the 1.2 million unmber includes those RETIRING. The baby boomers are now starting to retire and that's the biggest demographic segment we've ever seen in this country.

People have, and are, always leaving the workforce by retiring. This is an abnormal number no matter how you spin it. Because of your spin you even have Jan swooning. Come up with the amount of people in this 1.2 Million that are retirees. If it's as significant as you think, the BLS has documented it.

There are now almost as many people in the job pool as not. This is not a good thing. There are less jobs and more people.

[Guest]

Did any of you know there are people - including Fox Noise darling Rush Limbaugh -who have hoped Obama would fail? Terrible thing to wish upon your President.

[Guest]

Did any of you know there are people - including Fox Noise darling Rush Limbaugh - that are hoping upon hope that something terrible will happen to the United States of America (huge terrorist action, massive unemployment rise, stock market meltdown) so it will be looked at like President Obama's fault and he would lose in November? Isn't this about the sickest thing you could imagine for someone to hope for?

I'm thinking that what you say is not the truth. You heard this.....where? You read this........where? You must have a YouTube video of Rush saying this; right?.............Did you have strange dreams last night?

[Guest]

I must have been thinking of something else or another time. The synapses in the senior brain were not firing all at the same time, maybe.

[Guest]

VK: You suggest President Obama has led the nation toward overcoming almost unprecedented economic odds, within the Constitutional and media manufactured limitations of the chief executive. You didn't even mention the even-handed foreign policy which has eliminated a number of terrorist leaders and tiptoed closer to withdrawal instead of running headlong to hell. You are not thrilled with some of his actions, but you don't mention anything particularly bothersome. But for as long as I can recall, you categorically reject voting for any incumbent.

May I ask whom you think is best qualified to be our next President?

[Guest]

I must have been thinking of something else or another time. The synapses in the senior brain were not firing all at the same time, maybe.

I don't get to listen to Rush much anymore. I'm too busy now that I've retired. (It's crazy to say that, but true) I used to be able to listen to a transistor radio with earphones as I went about my day, but radio reception is one of the only things that suck in TV.

But, having listened to him for over 20 years, I know Rush would never say what you said. He may predict something based on events and his intuition, but he'll always clarify that he hope's he's wrong about the doom and gloom he sees coming, if indeed he did say something of the sort.

The only broadcaster, that I know, who I can imagine saying something like you said is, maybe, Michael Savage. But, I haven't listened to Savage in years.

[Guest]

...The reality is that the recession ended 2009 and while a president cannot help an economy the president's policies can certainly hurt. Since 1950 every recession ended within two years and followed with substantial growth. Because of poor economic policies Obama has frustrated the economic recovery ObamaCare, Tax policy, Dodd-Frank, etc have left businesses questioning the future. hence they are using the cash on hand to repurchase their stock . Those people who have been unemployment for a good deal of this econmic downturn may well never return to the market place because of loss of skills, etc....

Lots of economists would debate whether the recession we experienced was more like the Great Depression than any recession since 1950. It absolutely was different in the sense that home values declined so precipitously and dramatically. Most economists, all of them that I've read recently, have opined that recovery from the deep economic recession the U.S. experienced during 2007-2009 can't happen until home values stabilize and begin to increase again.

I won't argue that all of the actions taken on Obama's administration so far are good and effective in creating economic recovery and jobs. Both Dodd-Frank and the healthcare reform bill are Rube Goldberg abominations, in my opinion. But let's not forget that both those bills were the product of hot negotiations between two political parties in a Congress widely divided by both ideology and political motives. I will blame his administration for the installation of regulations which I don't believe are helpful, like blocking the oil pipeline from Canada for no good reason. And I definitely think that the president's fiscal policies will have long-term negative effects. But to say that President Obama slowed an economic recovery that might have proceeded at a faster pace is conclusion that can't be assigned solely to the POTUS and fully supported by the facts.

[Guest]

VK: You suggest President Obama has led the nation toward overcoming almost unprecedented economic odds, within the Constitutional and media manufactured limitations of the chief executive. You didn't even mention the even-handed foreign policy which has eliminated a number of terrorist leaders and tiptoed closer to withdrawal instead of running headlong to hell. You are not thrilled with some of his actions, but you don't mention anything particularly bothersome. But for as long as I can recall, you categorically reject voting for any incumbent.

May I ask whom you think is best qualified to be our next President?Now that we seem to be down to only two Republican candidates, I will admit that there's only one of them that I could draw myself to vote for. Depending on how the GOP primaries and their convention develops, I'll either be voting for Mitt Romney, or witholding my vote for anyone running for President from either party in the fall.

[Guest]

When things improve who ever is in the WH will get the credit and ditto for when things don't go so well.

What I would like to see is if the claim is things are improving because of Obama, how about tying the progress to something he did that resulted in any improvements.

What Obama is experiencing is what we called the lake effect improvement. That meaning if Obama is captain of the ship in a shallow lake that is rising to improve ship movement it is not because of anything he did at all. Any boat that happens to be on the lake will rise as well. And that is what is happening to the economy; the improvements as slight and as fragile as they are are not traceable to any money pay out programs.

Does anybody really believe the auto industry is seeing improving sales is attributable to the auto bail out?

btk

[Guest]

I don't get to listen to Rush much anymore. I'm too busy now that I've retired. (It's crazy to say that, but true) I used to be able to listen to a transistor radio with earphones as I went about my day, but radio reception is one of the only things that suck in TV.

But, having listened to him for over 20 years, I know Rush would never say what you said. He may predict something based on events and his intuition, but he'll always clarify that he hope's he's wrong about the doom and gloom he sees coming, if indeed he did say something of the sort.

The only broadcaster, that I know, who I can imagine saying something like you said is, maybe, Michael Savage. But, I haven't listened to Savage in years.

Rush Limbaugh At CPAC: Doubles Down On Wanting Obama To Fail (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/28/rush-limbaugh-at-cpac-dou_n_170792.html)

[Guest]

Rush Limbaugh At CPAC: Doubles Down On Wanting Obama To Fail (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/28/rush-limbaugh-at-cpac-dou_n_170792.html)

I don't even have to read the ultra liberal online rag to know what Rush is talking about. He's talking about The Obama Administration's schemes to take this country to socialism. He's not hoping for America to fail, he's hoping for Obama's socialist takeover and schemes to fail.

It's a big difference, if you're not just a knee-jerk partisan liberal who only sees opposition to Obama as opposition to America. Opposition to Obama is the ultimate patriotism if you're a real American with real American values.

[Guest]

Did any of you know there are people - including Fox Noise darling Rush Limbaugh -who have hoped Obama would fail? Terrible thing to wish upon your President.

I'm thinking that what you say is not the truth. You heard this.....where? You read this........where? You must have a YouTube video of Rush saying this; right?.............Did you have strange dreams last night?

You chastised buggy for saying limbaugh hoped Obama would fail - "not the truth, you heard this......where?". He has said that numerous times, and it doesn't matter what you or anyone else interprets as the meaning. from his own website: Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails - The Rush Limbaugh Show (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2009/01/16/limbaugh_i_hope_obama_fails)

[Guest]

Yes, Rush did say he hopes he fails. He doesn't deny it. He wants Obama's policies to fail. So do I.

[Guest]

Yes, Rush did say he hopes he fails. He doesn't deny it. He wants Obama's policies to fail. So do I.

So you want the country, and the people in it, to suffer, so that your party can win an election, and you can win a philosophical argument?

[Guest]

When things improve who ever is in the WH will get the credit and ditto for when things don't go so well.

What I would like to see is if the claim is things are improving because of Obama, how about tying the progress to something he did that resulted in any improvements.

What Obama is experiencing is what we called the lake effect improvement. That meaning if Obama is captain of the ship in a shallow lake that is rising to improve ship movement it is not because of anything he did at all. Any boat that happens to be on the lake will rise as well. And that is what is happening to the economy; the improvements as slight and as fragile as they are are not traceable to any money pay out programs.

Does anybody really believe the auto industry is seeing improving sales is attributable to the auto bail out?

btk

It would be difficult for the auto industry to see improving sales if GM and Chrysler had gone out of business. I don't get it.

The title of this thread is "The Economy Under Obama" and there's no better barometer than the Dow Jones Industrial Average which was 7949 when President Obama was sworn in on Jan 20, 2009 and closed yesterday, Feb 28, 2012, at 13,005.

[Guest]

Yes, Rush did say he hopes he fails. He doesn't deny it. He wants Obama's policies to fail. So do I.

So you wanted the Iraq war to go on, you wanted Bin Laden to live, you wanted GM and Chrysler to go bankrupt and one million people in the midwest to be out of work, you want to pay $600 more per year for your meds, you want your insurance company to be able to drop you when you get sick or refuse you coverage because of a pre-existing condition, you want to end social security and medicare as we know it, and you want the Dow Jones to be back at 7949 where it was when President Obama took office? WOW!!!!!

[Guest]

...Does anybody really believe the auto industry is seeing improving sales is attributable to the auto bail out?...Yes, I do.

Everyone seems to forget that the "auto bailout" was a forced bankruptcy wherein the government provided the "debtor in possession" (D-I-P) financing. Both GM and Chrysler came within a very short time of filing for a liquidation-type bankruptcy. They were essentially out of money, operating with negative cash flow, and their creditors had stopped negotiating. If you recall, at the time...
The bondholders of both companies had stopped negotiating how big the a "writeoff haircut" they would take. They were prepared to let the companies be liquidated and use the preferential position of their bond terms to get a more generous payout than negotiationg any further.

The UAW had refused any further concessions without more "give" on the part of the bondholders.

The unsecured creditors, mostly the auto parts suppliers who were not being paid their accounts receivable, were all on the verge of bankruptcy and liquidation. Some had already filed.
And given the stalemate among all the creditors, the equity holders could not and would not agree to voluntarily modify the value of their ownership position.What the government did--mostly the Treasury Department under Tim Geithner with the President Obama serving as spokesman--was to strong arm all the parties to file for a pre-arranged bankruptcy in exchange for the government providing the necessary D-I-P loans. (None of the commercial banks or insurance companies, the usual providers of D-I-P loans, would provide bankruptcy financing as they were all badly undercapitalized at the time and would not undertake the kind and size of risk inherent in this type of financing.)

The pre-arranged bankruptcy worked exactly as it should have. The lenders had to write off substantial amounts of their bond loans, the UAW was forced to modify it's union contract terms, in pay, benefits and working conditions, as well as agree to a no-strike term for a considerable time. And the equity holders of both GM and Chrysler basically lost their entire investments.

Both companies stayed under the guidance of the bankruptcy courts for only a short time because all the terms that normally would have been negotiated by the unsecured and secured lenders and the stockholders had already been dictated by the government, who was providing the short-term financing.

The action by the government precluded massive and immediate unemployment which would have numbered in the millions of jobs. Since then, the economy has improved somewhat and the auto companies could manufacture and sell cars and trucks at a profit with their restructured balance sheets and cost structures. And in less than two years both GM and Chrysler have paid back the government's D-I-P loans.

I know that permitting free market forces to continue to try to resolve the problem at the time would have resulted in the liquidation of those two iconic American companies, taking most of the U.S. auto industry with them. Without question, both GM and Chrysler would not be operating today without the intervention of the federal government. For those who say that would have been a good thing, you have the right to your opinion. I don't agree.

So yes, I not only believe but I know that action by the federal government worked in this case.

[Guest]

I enjoy reading this forum, some of you are extremely articulate and very informative. I seldom, if ever post as I cannot keep up with the level of detail some of you possess.

WRT this thread I certainly have an opinion. I have always believed that the economy runs in cycles and to some degree runs its course no matter who is in charge. I have no links to prove this of course, but I do remember saying to my Dad the day after President Obama was elected that he is one of the lucky presidents. What I meant by that, is no matter what he does, the economy has to appear better than it does now and he will get credit for that deserved or not as any president would.

How would things be different if the election cycle was 2006 - 2010 and President Obama was elected in 2006? Would 2008 crash not have happened?

[Guest]

You chastised buggy for saying limbaugh hoped Obama would fail - "not the truth, you heard this......where?". He has said that numerous times, and it doesn't matter what you or anyone else interprets as the meaning. from his own website: Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails - The Rush Limbaugh Show (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2009/01/16/limbaugh_i_hope_obama_fails)

You're taking what Limbaugh says out of context. He hope's Obama's policy of turning this country into a socialist state is going to fail.

He's hoping for America to succeed, and it's needs Obama to fail in his schemes for that to happen.

No matter how many times you try to twist his words, it's you who are twisting in the wind.

[Guest]

You're taking what Limbaugh says out of context. He hope's Obama's policy of turning this country into a socialist state is going to fail.

He's hoping for America to succeed, and it's needs Obama to fail in his schemes for that to happen.

No matter how many times you try to twist his words, it's you who are twisting in the wind.

No matter how hard you try to twist my words, it is you who basically said buggy was lying for saying limbaugh said he wanted obama to fail. That is EXACTLY what he said as I have demonstrated and you owe buggy an apology, though I know that is not in your make-up.

[Guest]

I was not aware the auto businesses were or would have gone out of business. They were headed for bankruptcy which does not = going out of business.

Without government throwing money at them, they would have gone into chapter 11 and with the high horsepower legal staff they would have no doubt already had a plan to submit to the judge, commonly referred to as a prepac bankruptcy. They would have secured a line of credit from some source without a doubt. Due to the requirements of the courts there would have been a purge of incumbent management and a down sizing of overheads. They would have not ever missed one day of production or new model introduction as that is the life blood of the newly organized business structures. The debt would have had a structured pay back and the bankruptcy plan would have established benchmarks with progress reviews via the courts. The auto makers involved would meet their criteria and they would emerge from bankruptcy....now get this part....AS PLANNED!!

The ongoing misinformation about these manufacturers shutting down and hundreds of thousands of jobs lost was never ever in the cards.
Obama struck a deal with the executives and more importantly the UAW using our money with no plan for assurance of accomplishment. Purely 100% political just like the stuff being currently spewed by Obama at the union meetings this past week. "They wanted to shut you down" = BS! He also inferred Romney would have allowed your company to shut down, lose your job = BS!

Obama doesn't know the bankruptcy policy and doesn't care. And unfortunately far too many of his supporters don't understand it either...OR CARE!!

In closing, to point to the stock market as an indicator of improvement is also mis information. The stock market has been puzzling those on the edges of it for the last two years as they continued to be amazed at the continuous improvement during the midst of the so called recession. And now that the networks are hailing the breaking of 13000 the political spinners and the naieve are claiming the market is an indicator of Obama's improving economy. More political spin and BS right along side the notion that auto companies were going to close their doors and millions be unemployed....PURE UNADULTERATED POLITICAL BS!!!

And the pied piper once again raises the volume on his flute for the flock to follow....

btk

[Guest]

Maybe if the auto companies would have filed Warren Buffet could have back them and we would have Buffetmobile. Just a joke

[Guest]

Maybe if the auto companies would have filed Warren Buffet could have back them and we would have Buffetmobile. Just a joke

okay:eek:

[Guest]

Thanks, richielion. You said it better than I did.

[Guest]

I was not aware the auto businesses were or would have gone out of business. They were headed for bankruptcy which does not = going out of business.

Without government throwing money at them, they would have gone into chapter 11 and with the high horsepower legal staff they would have no doubt already had a plan to submit to the judge, commonly referred to as a prepac bankruptcy. They would have secured a line of credit from some source without a doubt. Due to the requirements of the courts there would have been a purge of incumbent management and a down sizing of overheads. They would have not ever missed one day of production or new model introduction as that is the life blood of the newly organized business structures. The debt would have had a structured pay back and the bankruptcy plan would have established benchmarks with progress reviews via the courts. The auto makers involved would meet their criteria and they would emerge from bankruptcy....now get this part....AS PLANNED!!

The ongoing misinformation about these manufacturers shutting down and hundreds of thousands of jobs lost was never ever in the cards.
Obama struck a deal with the executives and more importantly the UAW using our money with no plan for assurance of accomplishment. Purely 100% political just like the stuff being currently spewed by Obama at the union meetings this past week. "They wanted to shut you down" = BS! He also inferred Romney would have allowed your company to shut down, lose your job = BS!

Obama doesn't know the bankruptcy policy and doesn't care. And unfortunately far too many of his supporters don't understand it either...OR CARE!!

In closing, to point to the stock market as an indicator of improvement is also mis information. The stock market has been puzzling those on the edges of it for the last two years as they continued to be amazed at the continuous improvement during the midst of the so called recession. And now that the networks are hailing the breaking of 13000 the political spinners and the naieve are claiming the market is an indicator of Obama's improving economy. More political spin and BS right along side the notion that auto companies were going to close their doors and millions be unemployed....PURE UNADULTERATED POLITICAL BS!!!

And the pied piper once again raises the volume on his flute for the flock to follow....

btk

President Obama said in his speech Tuesday there was no private equity available to save these companies. Even Bane Capital balked at the idea. If you know otherwise, please post a link. Don't forget that George W Bush was the one that authorized the 25 billion dollar bridge loan, and Obama increased it to 60 billion.

What did Romney mean in his editorial in the Wall Street Journal titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"?

Obama champions auto bailout (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12060/1213319-84.stm)

[Guest]

Maybe if the auto companies would have filed Warren Buffet could have back them and we would have Buffetmobile. Just a joke

I can hardly contain myself. Things are looking pretty glum for some of you right now. Keep up that sense of humor.

Xavier

[Guest]

"No matter how hard you try to twist my words, it is you who basically said buggy was lying for saying limbaugh said he wanted obama to fail. That is EXACTLY what he said as I have demonstrated and you owe buggy an apology, though I know that is not in your make-up."

Hey, I do not take things that are said on this forum on a personal basis. You, I, and all free-thinking Americans know that Limbaugh did say he wants Obama to fail.

If the Limbaugh-Lover Club wants the economy to go down, down, down and unemployment to climb; have wanted the Iraq war to go on, wanted Bin Laden to live, wanted GM and Chrysler to go bankrupt and one million people in the midwest to be out of work, wanted to pay $600 more per year for your meds, wanted your insurance company to be able to drop you when you get sick or refuse you coverage because of a pre-existing condition, wanted to end social security and medicare as we know it, and wanted the Dow Jones to be back at 7949 where it was when President Obama took office - that just shows want kind of people they really are.

Wanting your country to fail in the policies that have seen real successes in the past 3 years is just plain wrong - and all because you do not like the person voted into the Office of President of the United States by a majority of American voters.

[Guest]

$3.76 per gallon for regular gas this AM. Believe it is a fact that rising fuel prices negatively impacts many components of our economy. The President says he can't do anything about gas prices and all the others are merely creating bumper stickers. "Hope and change" and "yes we can" were bumper stickers too that have not resulted in much improvement after 3 plus years.

Neil Boortz said this morning that Obamacare is not about improving our healthcare, it's really about controlling healthcare which ultimately means gov't controls us. I'm inclined to believe this in light of recent events.

More time spent discussing contraception and proving "free" stuff while ignoring fact that nothing provided by gov't is free because someone outside of gov't must pay for everything that gov't provides.

More smoke and mirrors coming from DC in the next 8 months.

[Guest]

Hancle posted, "Neil Boortz said this morning that Obamacare is not about improving our healthcare, it's really about controlling healthcare which umtimately means gov't controls us. I'm inclined to believe this in light of recent events."

I would like Hancle to tell me if he would like his health insurance company to be able to drop him because he got sick and was costing them too much money. I would like Hancle to say if he would be pleased if he knew some young person who could not get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition. I would like to ask Hancle what "recent event" he is talking about when he says Obamacare is about controlling health care and means government is controlling us. Thank you for those 3 answers in advance.

[Guest]

$3.76 per gallon for regular gas this AM. Believe it is a fact that rising fuel prices negatively impacts many components of our economy. The President says he can't do anything about gas prices and all the others are merely creating bumper stickers. "Hope and change" and "yes we can" were bumper stickers too that have not resulted in much improvement after 3 plus years.

Neil Boortz said this morning that Obamacare is not about improving our healthcare, it's really about controlling healthcare which umtimately means gov't controls us. I'm inclined to believe this in light of recent events.

More time spent discussing contraception and proving "free" stuff while ignoring fact that nothing provided by gov't is free because someone outside of gov't must pay for everything that gov't provides.

More smoke and mirrors coming from DC in the next 8 months.

I don't believe it's the White House that's been discussing contraception or trans-vaginal probes. Republicans really want to have their nose in women's healthcare and control all aspects of women's reproductive choices.

[Guest]

The high price of gasoline is due to the speculators buying and selling gasoline contracts on Wall Street. It is not due to President Obama in any way.

[Guest]

"I would like Hancle to tell me if he would like his health insurance company to be able to drop him because he got sick and was costing them too much money. I would like Hancle to say if he would be pleased if he knew some young person who could not get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition. I would like to ask Hancle what "recent event" he is talking about when he says Obamacare is about controlling health care and means government is controlling us. Thank you for those 3 answers in advance. "

Are you convinced that the only way for these 3 problems to be fixed was by having gov't take over the total control of healthcare in this country, by adding thousands of additional gov't employees who will be now watching over your doctor's shoulders and who will decide what tests and treatments should be employed based on statistical analysis of illnesses, treatments, age of patients, chances for recovery and yes, cost? Do you like the idea that you will be required by law to purchase the service? If so, you may get to enjoy more gov't provided products in the future.

The latest requirement for insurance companies to provide totally free reproductive services for women is an example of gov't control. Sibellius has said that private healthcare inurance companies are on their way out and the void will be filled by guess who? If the Catholic Bishops and many Evangelical Christians have a problem with this, to bad, Eric Holder is getting ready to use the full force of his office and gov't lawyers to make it happen, despite what many believe is wrong and uncontitutional.

[Guest]

"I would like Hancle to tell me if he would like his health insurance company to be able to drop him because he got sick and was costing them too much money. I would like Hancle to say if he would be pleased if he knew some young person who could not get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition. I would like to ask Hancle what "recent event" he is talking about when he says Obamacare is about controlling health care and means government is controlling us. Thank you for those 3 answers in advance. "

Are you convinced that the only way for these 3 problems to be fixed was by having gov't take over the total control of healthcare in this country, by adding thousands of additional gov't employees who will be now watching over your doctor's shoulders and who will decide what tests and treatments should be employed based on statistical analysis of illnesses, treatments, age of patients, chances for recovery and yes, cost? Do you like the idea that you will be required by law to purchase the service? If so, you may get to enjoy more gov't provided products in the future.

The latest requirement for insurance companies to provide totally free reproductive services for women is an example of gov't control. Sibellius has said that private healthcare inurance companies are on their way out and the void will be filled by guess who? If the Catholic Bishops and many Evangelical Christians have a problem with this, to bad, Eric Holder is getting ready to use the full force of his office and gov't lawyers to make it happen, despite what many believe is wrong and uncontitutional.

I would like Hancle to tell me: is he now or will he ever be on Medicare? Guess what? That's a government program that the majority of recipients approve of.

If the government had not stepped in with The Affordable Care Act, do you honestly believe insurance companies would step up to the plate and remedy these problems that they created in the first place; ie dropping people when they get sick, not covering people with a pre-existing condition, not allowing young people to remain on their parents' medical insurance until age 26?

The government is not forcing anyone to use birth control.

[Guest]

It's becoming more apparent that right wingers not only want Obama to fail; they want America to fail. They are willing to let America fail just to get power. How sad that is. :doh:

[Guest]

I would like Hancle to tell me: is he now or will he ever be on Medicare? Guess what? That's a government program that the majority of recipients approve of.

If the government had not stepped in with The Affordable Care Act, do you honestly believe insurance companies would step up to the plate and remedy these problems that they created in the first place; ie dropping people when they get sick, not covering people with a pre-existing condition, not allowing young people to remain on their parents' medical insurance until age 26?

The government is not forcing anyone to use birth control.

Yes I am on Medicare. I have paying a Medicare premium for years and despite what has been paid in it will be going broke unless? What, it gets expanded? in 2009, I wrote to the White House and my elected representitives asking that they fix what government already controlled before they expanded the program. I mentioned that Medicare provided a wheelchair for a family member who broke an ankle. The total payment from Medicare and our co-pays amounted to over $800. I asked the provider if we were not on Medicare and wanted to purchase the same wheelchair what would it cost? $160.00 was the response. I wrote about the industry that had sprung up because of Medicare, offering diabetes testing supplies and motorized scooters/wheechairs and found it necessary to spend large amounts of money to advertise on TV their Medicare covered services. Why would firms advertise for more customers if they did not find that huge profits can be made on the government program. I still wonder if the Medicare and Medicaid fraud problems that some claim cost billions every year, have been fixed.

I still feel the same way. That which government already controls has not been fixed and probably wont ever be fixed and apparently you and others believe that's not a concern. We should just expand the broken soon to be bankrupt program wth thousands more federal workers.

Yes I agree the government is not forcing anyone to practice birth control, they are just forcing others to pay for it. This apparently does not bother you. A counter argument about government Rx plan covering viagra does not make sense, it just points out that 2 wrongs don't make a right. Anyhow, I have been told by others that they are not totally free so it's not quite the same.

May I now ask you a few questions, are you on Medicare and if so, do you receive every benefit for free, or do you pay a monthly premium and have an annual deductible and a copay for many of the services you receive? Do you have any medical problems that without these might speed up your death? Are they worth whatever you pay or, do you get them for free? Have you had the opportunity to call 1-800-MEDICARE if you had a question or problem? Try it sometime when you have a few hours to waste.

[Guest]

Hancle wonders if Medicare and Medicaid fraud has been fixed. I do not think it has been fixed. Just ask Rick Scott and the Columbia/HCA hospital consortium about Medicare fraud. Any yet, Rick Scott got elected governor of Florida - and I wonder if Hancle voted for the crook.

I have a health insurance that I have a co-pay each time I go to a doctor and I pay a monthly premium for the health insurance. There is an annual deductible for the health insurance. Fortunately, I do not have health problems and hope I never do.

Since Hancle takes advantage of Medicare, he is not against government health insurance.

[Guest]

No I did not vote for him. Glad you agree that there is fraud that has not yet been fixed. And yes I am on Medicare. You might not have read my previous response in which I simply asked that gov't fix what they already controlled before they expanded it and made the problems worse.

[Guest]

No I did not vote for him. Glad you agree that there is fraud that has not yet been fixed. And yes I am on Medicare. You might not have read my previous response in which I simply asked that gov't fix what they already controlled before they expanded it and made the problems worse.

There is a lot of fraud in the Medicare system - that is well known. Glad you did not vote for Scott, too. The Columbia/HCA consortium got caught for their fraud and was fined over $2 Billion dollars - and Scott said he did not know anything about it - and the Dumpublicans of Florida believed him and voted him into office as Goobernator of Florida.

Concerning the "thousands of Federal employees hired to manage the new healthcare", I do not know how many will be hired but it is putting people to work (creating jobs). That is helping the economy by taking people off of unemployment and having them pay taxes. Sounds good to me. Federal employees are hard workers for the most part. I was one for 36 years.

[Guest]

You chastised buggy for saying limbaugh hoped Obama would fail - "not the truth, you heard this......where?". He has said that numerous times, and it doesn't matter what you or anyone else interprets as the meaning. from his own website: Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails - The Rush Limbaugh Show (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2009/01/16/limbaugh_i_hope_obama_fails)

OK, I guess it's my interpretation of what I thought Buggy was saying is the problem here.

It it's simply that Rush L. want's Obama to fail. I agree 100%, and hope Obama fails miserably. I hope he fails and goes back into the undocumented life, with all his records from birth to present sealed, that he lived (I guess) before.

I guess I was taking it that Buggy said Rush wanted America to fail under Obama so that he would be defeated come November. I just had that conversation with someone in person, but I don't know if it was Buggy.

So, let me now openly join Rush Limbaugh and unequivocally say that I hope with all my heart that Barack Obama fails miserably in his bid to change the face of my country. Thank you.

[Guest]

Yes I am on Medicare. I have paying a Medicare premium for years and despite what has been paid in it will be going broke unless? What, it gets expanded? in 2009, I wrote to the White House and my elected representitives asking that they fix what government already controlled before they expanded the program. I mentioned that Medicare provided a wheelchair for a family member who broke an ankle. The total payment from Medicare and our co-pays amounted to over $800. I asked the provider if we were not on Medicare and wanted to purchase the same wheelchair what would it cost? $160.00 was the response. I wrote about the industry that had sprung up because of Medicare, offering diabetes testing supplies and motorized scooters/wheechairs and found it necessary to spend large amounts of money to advertise on TV their Medicare covered services. Why would firms advertise for more customers if they did not find that huge profits can be made on the government program. I still wonder if the Medicare and Medicaid fraud problems that some claim cost billions every year, have been fixed.

I still feel the same way. That which government already controls has not been fixed and probably wont ever be fixed and apparently you and others believe that's not a concern. We should just expand the broken soon to be bankrupt program wth thousands more federal workers.

Yes I agree the government is not forcing anyone to practice birth control, they are just forcing others to pay for it. This apparently does not bother you. A counter argument about government Rx plan covering viagra does not make sense, it just points out that 2 wrongs don't make a right. Anyhow, I have been told by others that they are not totally free so it's not quite the same.

May I now ask you a few questions, are you on Medicare and if so, do you receive every benefit for free, or do you pay a monthly premium and have an annual deductible and a copay for many of the services you receive? Do you have any medical problems that without these might speed up your death? Are they worth whatever you pay or, do you get them for free? Have you had the opportunity to call 1-800-MEDICARE if you had a question or problem? Try it sometime when you have a few hours to waste.

Yes I am on Medicare, but I'm not your typical Medicare beneficiary. I go to one specialist a year to get my thyroid prescription renewed, and I pay cash. I get one blood test a year for same condition and I pay cash. I just wrote out a check for $135 for one blood test.

I also paid into Medicare for all of my working years, and I've been on the program for a few years, but I have yet to use it and I hope I never have to.

[Guest]

Okay, Richie, take a deep breath and relax. Turn Hannity on Fox and take solice in whatever he is saying today.

Also, repeat after me - "Buggy made 5 pars today at Hawk's Bay!"

I was there when you had the conversation about Limbaugh wanting Obama to fail but it was not with me. It was one of the other elitist, commie,socialist pinko liberals that you associate with on occasion.

[Guest]

OK, I guess it's my interpretation of what I thought Buggy was saying is the problem here.

It it's simply that Rush L. want's Obama to fail. I agree 100%, and hope Obama fails miserably. I hope he fails and goes back into the undocumented life, with all his records from birth to present sealed, that he lived (I guess) before.

I guess I was taking it that Buggy said Rush wanted America to fail under Obama so that he would be defeated come November. I just had that conversation with someone in person, but I don't know if it was Buggy.

So, let me now openly join Rush Limbaugh and unequivocally say that I hope with all my heart that Barack Obama fails miserably in his bid to change the face of my country. Thank you.

How patriotic. :doh:

[Guest]

How patriotic. :doh:

Thank you, thank you, thank you. You're finally beginning to understand, and I heartily applaud you.

Barack Hussein Obama failing in his bid to fundamentally change the fabric of our society by whittling down traditional American values, and the defeat of his policies which are plunging us into a socialist "utopia" is in everyone's interests, and is indeed as patriotic as a true American can be.

Welcome aboard.

[Guest]

Richie,have been reading your posts lately and although your rhetoric is wonderful your assessments of Obama seem to contain a great deal of opinion and no factual basis. "fundamentally change the fabric of our society",whittling down traditioanl American values",plunging us into socialist utopia"....really how, when ,where ,I must have missed it. I see it as the Republicans doing what you are talking about.

[Guest]

OK, I guess it's my interpretation of what I thought Buggy was saying is the problem here.

It it's simply that Rush L. want's Obama to fail. I agree 100%, and hope Obama fails miserably. I hope he fails and goes back into the undocumented life, with all his records from birth to present sealed, that he lived (I guess) before.

I guess I was taking it that Buggy said Rush wanted America to fail under Obama so that he would be defeated come November. I just had that conversation with someone in person, but I don't know if it was Buggy.

So, let me now openly join Rush Limbaugh and unequivocally say that I hope with all my heart that Barack Obama fails miserably in his bid to change the face of my country. Thank you.

Politics 101: To replace the president that you are so desperate to replace; first of all find a candidate that your side can rally behind, then try to sell him to the independents.

Next tell your candidates to stop p-ssing off every segment of the population: for instance - women, African Americans, Latinos, gay and lesbians, immigrants, college graduates, catholics, JFK supporters, etc

Tell your candidates to get into the 21st century and stop arguing about matters that were settled 40 years ago. Let's make this a fair fight.

[Guest]

Politics 101: To replace the president that you are so desperate to replace; first of all find a candidate that your side can rally behind, then try to sell him to the independents.

Next tell your candidates to stop p-ssing off every segment of the population: for instance - women, African Americans, Latinos, gay and lesbians, immigrants, college graduates, catholics, JFK supporters, etc

Tell your candidates to get into the 21st century and stop arguing about matters that were settled 40 years ago. Let's make this a fair fight.

When have the Repubs ever wanted to be fair? :doh:

[Guest]

Politics 101: To replace the president that you are so desperate to replace; first of all find a candidate that your side can rally behind, then try to sell him to the independents.

Next tell your candidates to stop p-ssing off every segment of the population: for instance - women, African Americans, Latinos, gay and lesbians, immigrants, college graduates, catholics, JFK supporters, etc

Tell your candidates to get into the 21st century and stop arguing about matters that were settled 40 years ago. Let's make this a fair fight.

Heck with that. 40 years ago? I want to go back to the founding principles, and thats a lot longer than 40 years ago.

The only people we're trying to p-ss off, as you so eloquently put it, are the liberals. I hope we're succeeding.

[Guest]

Now that we seem to be down to only two Republican candidates, I will admit that there's only one of them that I could draw myself to vote for. Depending on how the GOP primaries and their convention develops, I'll either be voting for Mitt Romney, or witholding my vote for anyone running for President from either party in the fall.

Well VK, there sure were a lot of silly posts since your above comment. l'm glad I spent the day tiling a bathroom.

Of course Romney has to be the guy, but I can't figure why you would vote for him as opposed to staying home. Tell me what you think he can accomplish, or those things he will even be inclined to promote.

Romney will align with his party in Congress. If (in the less likely event) the
Republicans retain their current legislative clout, he will somewhat half-heartedly propose spending cuts, probably to education, environmental and consumer protection, social programs and health care. The glossy quest will be an even less than half-hearted attempt to support the repeal of Obamacare, naturally in the name of sacred states rights. All of this scurrying around will amount to virtually nothing.
We will also lose, for another four years, the possibility of a finer tuned, very good opening effort at national healthcare, a whole slew of important follow up regulations to protect us from greed and corruption, meaningful revision of immigration and energy policy, and the beginnings of real revisions in the individual and corporate tax codes. The poor, including unemployed vets, will lose their support in high places. Our schedules for successfully withdrawing ground troops and streamlining huge defense expenditures will diminish. There might not even be some consolidation of Washington bureaucracies.
I see even the lame duck incumbent as potentially far more successful than Romney. I'll even predict that a lot of the above, which just won't happen in a Republican administration, will occur if the Democrats retake the House. There is a chance of that, as the economy improves and more voters embrace the main Obama principle of the fair treatment of ordinary citizens.

Surely Romney doesn't deserve your vote just because he's 'new'. Please explain what you think he will do, or even want to do, which will spell progress for our nation.

[Guest]

...Of course Romney has to be the guy, but I can't figure why you would vote for him as opposed to staying home. Tell me what you think he can accomplish, or those things he will even be inclined to promote....Surely Romney doesn't deserve your vote just because he's 'new'. Please explain what you think he will do, or even want to do, which will spell progress for our nation.There are only three names to consider. One of them, Rick Santorum, has based his entire platform on angry, looney tunes, over the edge right wing ideas on both social issues as well as the economy. He's had little to say about foreign affairs. Maybe State is one of the federal departments he'd shut down. He has been undisciplined as a candidate and hasn't even done a good job of managing his campaign staff. No way I could draw myself to put an X next to his name for the presidency of the United States.

As I've said before, I have been disappointed in President Obama's leadership. Some of his accomplishments have been laudable, but on balance the manner and pace with which he has accomplished things has been too liberal and too slow for me. Most importantly, he has shown no ability to push or lead the Congress towards any kind of workable government. I said when I voted for him in 2008 that if he didn't work out, he wouldn't get my vote in 2012. That's where I'm at. I don't hate him like many here. I don't want him to fail. I think he's an extremely smart, well meaning, but liberal president, who has shown little ability to lead, either the government or the country. It's time for a change.

Is Mitt Romney the answer? He did a marvelous job creating and running Bain Capital. He clearly understands economics. He demonstrated an ability to work effectively with the opposite party while governor of Massachusetts. His intelligence and morality is unquestioned. Whether he has any ability in the area of foreign affairs or the military is an open question, although the U.S. is likely to find itself with a dangerous worsening of the situation in the Middle East, even before inauguration day in 2013.

I would hope...and it's only hope...that Mitt Romney could provide some leadership to what is now a totally ineffective, broken government. I hope he is smart and thoughtful enough to confront problems in the arera of foreign affairs that almost certainly will confront him on the day he takes office, if he is elected.

I only hope that whichever candidate is elected doesn't cause me to reach the same sad conclusion announced by Senator Olympia Snow today. She's quitting the Senate. She's giving up. She sees no hope that the Senate or the Congress can ever effectively govern this country.

I'll give Mitt Romney my vote, although I doubt that he can be elected. His party is too fractured for him to effectively mount a winning campaign. I just hope I don't reach the same conclusion as Senator Snow did today.

[Guest]

I was not aware the auto businesses were or would have gone out of business. They were headed for bankruptcy which does not = going out of business.

Without government throwing money at them, they would have gone into chapter 11 and with the high horsepower legal staff they would have no doubt already had a plan to submit to the judge, commonly referred to as a prepac bankruptcy. They would have secured a line of credit from some source without a doubt. Due to the requirements of the courts there would have been a purge of incumbent management and a down sizing of overheads. They would have not ever missed one day of production or new model introduction as that is the life blood of the newly organized business structures. The debt would have had a structured pay back and the bankruptcy plan would have established benchmarks with progress reviews via the courts. The auto makers involved would meet their criteria and they would emerge from bankruptcy....now get this part....AS PLANNED!!

The ongoing misinformation about these manufacturers shutting down and hundreds of thousands of jobs lost was never ever in the cards.
Obama struck a deal with the executives and more importantly the UAW using our money with no plan for assurance of accomplishment. Purely 100% political just like the stuff being currently spewed by Obama at the union meetings this past week. "They wanted to shut you down" = BS! He also inferred Romney would have allowed your company to shut down, lose your job = BS!

Obama doesn't know the bankruptcy policy and doesn't care. And unfortunately far too many of his supporters don't understand it either...OR CARE!!

In closing, to point to the stock market as an indicator of improvement is also mis information. The stock market has been puzzling those on the edges of it for the last two years as they continued to be amazed at the continuous improvement during the midst of the so called recession. And now that the networks are hailing the breaking of 13000 the political spinners and the naieve are claiming the market is an indicator of Obama's improving economy. More political spin and BS right along side the notion that auto companies were going to close their doors and millions be unemployed....PURE UNADULTERATED POLITICAL BS!!!

And the pied piper once again raises the volume on his flute for the flock to follow....

btkYou and I are going to have to simply agree to disagree, Billie.

I spent a quarter of a century in corporate finance. Prior to that part of my career I worked for ten years as an executive with Chrysler. I have been thru dozens of bankruptcies. I know how they work. I was personally involved when the government bailed out Chrysler with loan guarantees back in 1980. And I know quite clearly what the financial condition of GM and Chrysler was in 2009, at the time the government stepped into the situation.

Little of what you said in the quoted post is accurate. GM and Chrysler were within a couple weeks of running out of money. No lender had expressed any interest whatsoever in providing them with a financing commitment, even in a bankruptcy. They might have initially filed for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but would have quickly modified to a Chapter 7 liquidation. If not for the government stepping in to force a plan of reorganization and provide financing, neither GM or Chrysler would be operating today.

All I can tell you is that I speak from first-hand experience.

[Guest]

That's the line I heard that made the compelling case for intervention.

*NO* financial institution would give a PENNY to GM to manage their way through the bankruptcy. Not a SINGLE ONE. It was liquidation all the way until the government stepped in and that's what candidates like Romney don't seem to want to acknowledge, even though it WAS on the news when this all went down.

[Guest]

BillieTheKid and Rubicon insist that there was plenty of private money to save the auto manufacturers, but they have yet to post a link to all these private equity firms so that I can delve into their facts and figures.

[Guest]

Heck with that. 40 years ago? I want to go back to the founding principles, and thats a lot longer than 40 years ago.

The only people we're trying to p-ss off, as you so eloquently put it, are the liberals. I hope we're succeeding.

So you admit that you don't want women or African Americans or American Indians to have the right to vote or own property?

[Guest]

Yes, it does seems as though the Dumpublicans who say they want the country to be like the founding fathers envisioned do forget that slavery was allowed, women could not vote as neither could minorities.

I like to remind them that the 2nd amendment about having the right to bear arms was part of the militia (National Guard of their day) and that the writers of the Constitution did not envision M-16's, Glock 9mm's, AK-47's and the other semi-automatics that are now part of their arsenal. If these people want a firearm, let it be the firearm that the writers of the constitution had in mind - a flintlock musket or pistol.

Well, Caribou Barbie, Cowboy Ariapo, and Christine O'Donnell have stood up for the principles of slavery, women and minorities as second class citizens, and an automatic weapon in every house. Good for them. Typical for Dumpublicans, isn't it?

[Guest]

someday you will put up a post addressing the subject and without the endless labeling, nasty name referrals and just plain outright being rude.

It adds no value and only continues to marginalize any commentary that might be of value. But if others are like me, when I see the the malicious adjectives, I rarely finish reading the post.

btk

[Guest]

someday you will put up a post addressing the subject and without the endless labeling, nasty name referrals and just plain outright being rude.

It adds no value and only continues to marginalize any commentary that might be of value. But if others are like me, when I see the the malicious adjectives, I rarely finish reading the post.

btk

Are you talking to me? Asking for a link to support your position can hardly be construed as being rude.

[Guest]

someday you will put up a post addressing the subject and without the endless labeling, nasty name referrals and just plain outright being rude.

It adds no value and only continues to marginalize any commentary that might be of value. But if others are like me, when I see the the malicious adjectives, I rarely finish reading the post.

btk

May I ask to whom you have directed this reply?

If it is not to VK, then may I ask if you have any response to his last comments about the auto industry bailout?

[Guest]

Nor janmcn; not ijusluvit.

Regarding VK's...I accept we agree to disagree.

We all have differing experiences to recount. My comments about GM obtaining financing was based on my experience of aiding companies that were headed into bankruptcy with comments like, not a prayer of getting anybody to back the deal. In three different situations a white knight came forward. Very costly financing but the alternative to liquidate was the least attractive return. As per usual we flushed all the corporate execs. Cleaned up the income statement and balance sheet. Got suppliers to work with us to be able to keep their processes running and extended payment terms. Did not lay off anybody directly involved in the manufacturing process. Wound up selling the companies to folks in like businesses.

I just happen to one of many who believe there would have been a rescue effort of some kind from some body or some organization.

I love being reminded by some that Bush made the initial loan. I do not recall any discussion required about who started or finished it. My comments or position on the matter are not affected by who was in the WH when ever. I would not support having done it.

btk

[Guest]

BillieTheKid and Rubicon insist that there was plenty of private money to save the auto manufacturers, but they have yet to post a link to all these private equity firms so that I can delve into their facts and figures.Actually, Chrysler was owned by private equity firm Cerebus Capital Management when the government bailed them out and forced the sale of the company to Fiat. It was the worst investment ever made by a private equity firm. Cerebus lost their entire investment as a condition of the Treasury Department's bailout of Chrysler in 2009.

In 2007, Cerberus purchased an 80% stake in Chrysler for $7.4 billion, promising to bolster the auto maker’s performance by operating it as an independent company. In 2008, the Cerebus plan collapsed due Chrysler's inability to meet any of the Cerebus financial projections and a lack of capital. In response to questioning at a hearing before a House committee in December, 2008, Chrysler President and CEO Robert Nardelli said that Cerberus' fiduciary obligations to its other investors and investments prohibited it from injecting any more capital in Chrysler. Those were fancy words for saying that Cerebus had no intention of throwing good money after bad.

In March, 2009, it was announced that Cerberus Capital Management would lose its entire equity stake and ownership in Chrysler as a condition of the Treasury Department’s bailout deal. Cerberus, which continued to own Chrysler Financial was required by Treasury to inject the first $2 billion in proceeds from its planned sale of Chrysler Financial to secure a $4 billion Treasury Department loan made to Chrysler. In exchange for obtaining that loan, Cerebus was forced to promise many concessions including surrendering equity, foregoing profits and fees, and giving up board seats. Cerebus no longer has anything to do with Chrysler or Chrysler Financial. The firm, named after the mythological three-headed dog who guarded the gates of Hell exited what was the worst investment on record by any private equity firm with their tails between their legs.

Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. is one of the largest private equity investment firms in the United States. The firm is based in New York City, and run by financier Steve Feinberg. Former U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle is a senior partner with Cerebus. The firm's headquarters are located at 299 Park Avenue in New York City.

[Guest]

Actually, Chrysler was owned by private equity firm Cerebus Capital Management when the government bailed them out and forced the sale of the company to Fiat. It was the worst investment ever made by a private equity firm. Cerebus lost their entire investment as a condition of the Treasury Department's bailout of Chrysler in 2009.

In 2007, Cerberus purchased an 80% stake in Chrysler for $7.4 billion, promising to bolster the auto maker’s performance by operating it as an independent company. In 2008, the Cerebus plan collapsed due Chrysler's inability to meet any of the Cerebus financial projections and a lack of capital. In response to questioning at a hearing before a House committee in December, 2008, Chrysler President and CEO Robert Nardelli said that Cerberus' fiduciary obligations to its other investors and investments prohibited it from injecting any more capital in Chrysler. Those were fancy words for saying that Cerebus had no intention of throwing good money after bad.

In March, 2009, it was announced that Cerberus Capital Management would lose its entire equity stake and ownership in Chrysler as a condition of the Treasury Department’s bailout deal. Cerberus, which continued to own Chrysler Financial was required by Treasury to inject the first $2 billion in proceeds from its planned sale of Chrysler Financial to secure a $4 billion Treasury Department loan made to Chrysler. In exchange for obtaining that loan, Cerebus was forced to promise many concessions including surrendering equity, foregoing profits and fees, and giving up board seats. Cerebus no longer has anything to do with Chrysler or Chrysler Financial. The firm, named after the mythological three-headed dog who guarded the gates of Hell exited what was the worst investment on record by any private equity firm with their tails between their legs.

Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. is one of the largest private equity investment firms in the United States. The firm is based in New York City, and run by financier Steve Feinberg. Former U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle is a senior partner with Cerebus. The firm's headquarters are located at 299 Park Avenue in New York City.

VERY INTERESTING. Thanks for the post Kahuna!

[Guest]

Lots of economists would debate whether the recession we experienced was more like the Great Depression than any recession since 1950. It absolutely was different in the sense that home values declined so precipitously and dramatically. Most economists, all of them that I've read recently, have opined that recovery from the deep economic recession the U.S. experienced during 2007-2009 can't happen until home values stabilize and begin to increase again.

I won't argue that all of the actions taken on Obama's administration so far are good and effective in creating economic recovery and jobs. Both Dodd-Frank and the healthcare reform bill are Rube Goldberg abominations, in my opinion. But let's not forget that both those bills were the product of hot negotiations between two political parties in a Congress widely divided by both ideology and political motives. I will blame his administration for the installation of regulations which I don't believe are helpful, like blocking the oil pipeline from Canada for no good reason. And I definitely think that the president's fiscal policies will have long-term negative effects. But to say that President Obama slowed an economic recovery that might have proceeded at a faster pace is conclusion that can't be assigned solely to the POTUS and fully supported by the facts.

Hi VK: you recollect that old saw "Believe nothing you hear and half of what you read". Well given rapid assimilation of information ( there is more information on line every day then had been accumulated from the beginning of time until 2003. and given the fact that far too many people in authority or the public trust ignore ethics...people are best to trust but verify all communication.

I preface this because ask any question and you will get a variety of answers.

My manner of coping is to keep faith in those things that have proven reliable.
I know free is not free. I know profit is a good motivator. I do not believe that we should look to the government to slove our problems .

When the horseless carriage moved to the assembly line horse drawn wagons
disappeared. Many many companies went under and resurrected under new names etc better and more relevant to society.

The auto bailouts IMHO were unnecessary because nature should have taken its course and these companies would have ressurected better. yes they have profits but only because taxpayers paid off their liabilities , they continue to deduct operating expesnes and pay no taxes on their profits and will not be taxed for years to come. Hell who could make a profits.
When I blog here I share my opinion. I desire to learn others points of view. i really have no interest in upmanship

succintly stated the present presidential battle is about government control vis a vis a free enterprise system. i am a pro growh guy and believe that private sector is far more financially savvy...all the government needs to do is get out of the way......and this addresses one of your comments concerning the housing market. TheFHA chair made it clear Fannie and Freddie conti ue to offersubprime mortgages and for his efforts the Obama Admin stifle his efforts. these subprime mortgages should be divided up in the private market and they will soon disappear. On a smaller scale the requirement for more labeling info by the government on raw meat is another example of hiw the governement destroys an economy.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

So you admit that you don't want women or African Americans or American Indians to have the right to vote or own property?

I can bring myself to answer your idiotic question, sorry.

[Guest]

Yes, it does seems as though the Dumpublicans who say they want the country to be like the founding fathers envisioned do forget that slavery was allowed, women could not vote as neither could minorities.

I like to remind them that the 2nd amendment about having the right to bear arms was part of the militia (National Guard of their day) and that the writers of the Constitution did not envision M-16's, Glock 9mm's, AK-47's and the other semi-automatics that are now part of their arsenal. If these people want a firearm, let it be the firearm that the writers of the constitution had in mind - a flintlock musket or pistol.

Well, Caribou Barbie, Cowboy Ariapo, and Christine O'Donnell have stood up for the principles of slavery, women and minorities as second class citizens, and an automatic weapon in every house. Good for them. Typical for Dumpublicans, isn't it?

More liberal idiocy. Please look up "founding principles" before you embarrass yourself further, my friend. I don't think you're going to find "protection of slavery" in the Declaration or the Constitution.

All your other points are just standard leftist drivel. Of course that's only in this American's humble opinion.

[Guest]

someday you will put up a post addressing the subject and without the endless labeling, nasty name referrals and just plain outright being rude.

It adds no value and only continues to marginalize any commentary that might be of value. But if others are like me, when I see the the malicious adjectives, I rarely finish reading the post.

btk

He can't do it, no liberal can. They have nothing, only diversion and ridicule. We've been over this again and again.

[Guest]

I like to remind them that the 2nd amendment about having the right to bear arms was part of the militia (National Guard of their day) and that the writers of the Constitution did not envision M-16's, Glock 9mm's, AK-47's and the other semi-automatics that are now part of their arsenal. If these people want a firearm, let it be the firearm that the writers of the constitution had in mind - a flintlock musket or pistol.


Not *entirely* true.

The "militia" of the time meant any person who could answer the call to the town common. A member of the militia could leave at any time (unlike if you were in the Continental Army and had signed up for a specific period of time).

The phrase is "well-regulated militia". Back then "well-regulated" meant what we would think of today as "well-trained" - meaning you COULD hit the broad side of a barn. But later on, the Ammendment reinforces the meaning with "the right of the *people*" to bear arms being clearly stated.

And as far as weaponry.. Well, let's remember that the flintlock muskets WERE the assault weapon of the day.

[Guest]

Not that Richie needs *me* defending him - but there's a difference between a principle and the way it's executed.

Consider how far a leap the Founding Fathers made from what they came from as British subject to what they went to as Americans. No, the implementation was not perfect - flawed in many ways. But we've spent over 200 years trying to implement that grammatical error - "In order to form a more perfect Union".

[Guest]

Richie, I hate to have to teach you Constitutional Law for free.

The founding fathers of this country included slave owners. Slaves were not allowed to vote. The non-slave owners wanted to exclude slaves completely from population when deciding the number of representatives to Congress. The slave holding states did not agree. Therefore, the 3/5 compromise was reached with slaves being counted as 3/5 of a person.

It was not until the 13th Amendment was adopted in 1865 that slavery in the USA was outlawed. It was not until the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870 that minorities were allowed to vote. This was about 100 years after the Constitution was written.

Your quote to me of "I don't think you're going to find "protection of slavery" in the Declaration or the Constitution." is right. No where did I say that, either. I said that, "... they want the country to be like the founding fathers envisioned and do forget that slavery was allowed, women could not vote as neither could minorities." Whenever I see one of the Republican candidates or people saying he wants to take the country back to the same way our founding fathers had envisioned it, I cannot help but feel these candidates or people have not come to accept the fact the Constitution has evolved over the years - and this includes the abolition of slavery and the right to vote guaranteed to all citizens. If you are going to atribute a quote to me, please do it correctly.

[Guest]

Not *entirely* true.

The "militia" of the time meant any person who could answer the call to the town common. A member of the militia could leave at any time (unlike if you were in the Continental Army and had signed up for a specific period of time).

The phrase is "well-regulated militia". Back then "well-regulated" meant what we would think of today as "well-trained" - meaning you COULD hit the broad side of a barn. But later on, the Ammendment reinforces the meaning with "the right of the *people*" to bear arms being clearly stated.

And as far as weaponry.. Well, let's remember that the flintlock muskets WERE the assault weapon of the day.

I certainly do not need you to give me an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

[Guest]

Heck with that. 40 years ago? I want to go back to the founding principles, and thats a lot longer than 40 years ago.

Not that Richie needs *me* defending him - but there's a difference between a principle and the way it's executed.

Consider how far a leap the Founding Fathers made from what they came from as British subject to what they went to as Americans. No, the implementation was not perfect - flawed in many ways. But we've spent over 200 years trying to implement that grammatical error - "In order to form a more perfect Union".

Richie, I hate to have to teach you Constitutional Law for free.

The founding fathers of this country included slave owners. Slaves were not allowed to vote. The non-slave owners wanted to exclude slaves completely from population when deciding the number of representatives to Congress. The slave holding states did not agree. Therefore, the 3/5 compromise was reached with slaves being counted as 3/5 of a person.

It was not until the 13th Amendment was adopted in 1865 that slavery in the USA was outlawed. It was not until the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870 that minorities were allowed to vote. This was about 100 years after the Constitution was written.

Your quote to me of "I don't think you're going to find "protection of slavery" in the Declaration or the Constitution." is right. No where did I say that, either. I said that, "... they want the country to be like the founding fathers envisioned and do forget that slavery was allowed, women could not vote as neither could minorities." Whenever I see one of the Republican candidates or people saying he wants to take the country back to the same way our founding fathers had envisioned it, I cannot help but feel these candidates or people have not come to accept the fact the Constitution has evolved over the years - and this includes the abolition of slavery and the right to vote guaranteed to all citizens. If you are going to atribute a quote to me, please do it correctly.

Buggy, you're going off the deep end and there's no water in the pool. Look at my post that you commented on above; I said "founding principles"....that's it, nothing else.

You extrapolated that to mean much more than I intended and that's YOUR mistake. I said exactly what I meant to say and even DJ, who disagrees with me more often than not, had to agree to that point.

As to quoting you correctly: Again you're cracking up. In your misinterpretation of my simple wish for returning to the Founding Principles, YOU brought up slavery as if that blot on history negated them. YOU BROUGHT UP SLAVERY..... I merely pointed out to you that "protection of slavery" was not a Founding Principle. Calm down "over zealous one, calm down".....

The Founding Principles.........they're the greatest words ever written this side of the Holy Bible. The people who wrote them had flaws, but the "principles" have none.

[Guest]

I did go back and look at your post where you said you wanted the founding principles to be followed. My fault for the wrong assumption. I presume you mean, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Once again, I have to bring up slavery. If the drafters of the Declaration of Independence stated that it is self-evident that all men are created equal and their Creator endowed them with unalienable rights to include Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - how do you hold it to be self-evident if there were human slaves held by some of these people when the document was written? Slaves were not considered to be equal (3/5 of a person), and I am pretty sure a slave was not allowed his/her liberty and also pretty sure they did not get the pursuit of happiness very often.

IF the words had been backed up by the Bill of Rights instead of having to wait about 100 years to be enforced with a Constitutional Amendment, those words would have meant a lot more. In other words, words alone are not enough for a country; the words have to be backed up by the appropriate action.

[Guest]

For goodness sakes buggy - have you not seen early drafts of the Declaration? Jefferson *clearly* wanted to outlaw slavery but there was *no* way the southern colonies would vote for the Declaration if he included it.

Here's the paragraph that Jefferson had to exclude:


He [the king of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.


*That* is what Jefferson wrote on the subject. I know it conflicts with him owning slaves (like Washington and others) and the fact that many of his papers were destroyed after his death means we'll NEVER know what he might have done had slavery been abolished from the beginning.

[Guest]

I did go back and look at your post where you said you wanted the founding principles to be followed. My fault for the wrong assumption. I presume you mean, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Once again, I have to bring up slavery. If the drafters of the Declaration of Independence stated that it is self-evident that all men are created equal and their Creator endowed them with unalienable rights to include Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - how do you hold it to be self-evident if there were human slaves held by some of these people when the document was written? Slaves were not considered to be equal (3/5 of a person), and I am pretty sure a slave was not allowed his/her liberty and also pretty sure they did not get the pursuit of happiness very often.

IF the words had been backed up by the Bill of Rights instead of having to wait about 100 years to be enforced with a Constitutional Amendment, those words would have meant a lot more. In other words, words alone are not enough for a country; the words have to be backed up by the appropriate action.

I don't want to get twisted into debating you on your hysteria, when you know what I was driving at. You want to "divert" the conversation and I won't have it.

DJ has laid out the issue to your "troubles" with our Founding Principles quite clearly and I really don't have anything to add to his diligent homework on this.

[Guest]

Dumpublicans?

No wonder Obama got elected, we had first graders voting for him. Sheesh.

[Guest]

Dumpublicans?

No wonder Obama got elected, we had first graders voting for him. Sheesh.

Aww c'mon; Buggy put a lot of time under the thinking hat to come up with that one. He's hoping you at least snickered before getting serious on him again :)

[Guest]

Plong does show a paragraph that was excluded for political purposes. However, it does not explain the disconnect between the words that Jefferson wrote and the fact he, himself, was a slave owner. Once again, words are nothing without the action of which they speak.

[Guest]

People have, and are, always leaving the workforce by retiring. This is an abnormal number no matter how you spin it. Because of your spin you even have Jan swooning. Come up with the amount of people in this 1.2 Million that are retirees. If it's as significant as you think, the BLS has documented it.

There are now almost as many people in the job pool as not. This is not a good thing. There are less jobs and more people.

Richie...you ask people with whom you do not agree to cite data. I now ask you to cite data and sources for your claim.

[Guest]

Richie...you ask people with whom you do not agree to cite data. I now ask you to cite data and sources for your claim.

I think I've already provided that. Do I have to do everything around here?

[Guest]

This thread began with the oft repeated, but untrue assertion that the economy Obama inherited was the worst since the great depression. The worst economy was the one inherited by Ronald Reagan. It had not only high unemployment but runaway inflation and exorbedant interest rates as well.

When Reagan took office unemployment was at 7.1%; when Obama took office it was at 4.9%.

Unemployment under Reagan was to peak at 10.7%; under Obama 10.2%.

At this point in Reagan's first term unemployment was at 7.5%; under Obama 8.3%.

President Reagan and Fed Chairman, Paul Volcker, recognized that unemployment was not the biggest problem but rather inflation. Inflation was destroying the savings of Americans, especially seniors, who had no way to combat the destruction of their life savings. Reagan inherited an inflation rate of 13.9% that was to peak at 14.8%. In February of 1984 it was down to 4.6%.

President Obama inherited an inflation rate of 3.9% which is now down to 2.9%

President Reagan came into office with a Federal Funds Rate of 14.1% that was to peak at 19.1% and be at 9.6% at this point in his term. 30 year mortgages carried interest rates of 18-20% when he came into office.

President Obama came into office with a Federal Funds Rate of 3.9% which is now at 0%. While mortgages are now at all-time lows keeping them there will again release the plague of inflation.

One method of reviving the economy has worked; one has not. I suggest we go back to the one that worked - that of President Reagan and abandon the one that has not - that of President Obama.

[Guest]

A statement by buggyone that I continuously advocate measuring all politicians:

"Once again, words are nothing without the action of which they speak."

Well done:BigApplause:

btk