posted
I caught the last 30 minutes or so. Because of that, I don't really have many comments on it other than the media really isn't trying to coddle him anymore. They definitely aren't pulling punches.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In many ways, I think the press conference shows just what a tight-rope the administration is walking. Obama has to temper the anger that has erupted, and is only a symptom of a larger problem, around AIG and the financial bailouts but he also has to show that he understands that anger or risk being seen as out of touch. In some sense, that is the tight-rope he has to walk with everything he does, whether it's the budget or foreign policy or the economy, because of the political and social climate of the country.
What I find more troubling is the scapegoating of the rich and the general anger and hostility the public has embraced. I don't believe there is any question that deregulation and greed were primary causes of the economic crisis and I don't believe that the populist rage of the public is entirely unjustified, but I do believe that there is an inherent danger in doing anything based entirely on rage and anger. I think Obama's main goal has to be to temper that anger, to get across and convince the people that he is correct when he says that we cannot govern out of anger, and I think he did a good job of that this weekend and in this press conference.
Edited: I was surprised that there was a lack of questions about foreign policy at the press conference. I think Obama is doing something interesting with Iran, he is trying to play the populist and moderate movements of Iran against the hard-line Islamic extremism in the country, and in so doing, he is trying to help the people of Iran force their own country into moderate talks with the United States. I think that's what he is trying to do with Republicans as well, he is trying to appeal to moderate republicans and force the extremists into a more palatable position where they will be forced to work with his administration.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course the media is finished coddling him and ignoring any potentially negative subject. They accomplished their mission on inauguration day. Now the interest has turned from contributing to a campaign to selling their product. Scandal sells and they've run out of Republicans to scandalize.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair to the media, those Republicans sold their own scandals. The media didn't have to invent anything.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree they weren't invented but focused on. There are plenty of stories on the other side that were barely touched on or left for tabloids. John Edwards, Kwame Kilpatrick, William Jefferson, Obama's entire backround. If Obama were a conservative from Chicago, the media and democrat lawyers would be crawling all over that city for dirt to connect him with Rezco, Blago et all. Kinda like they did to Palin in Alaska. Chicago is only known as the most corrupt political environment in the nation. The very same media that gives him a pass has noted repeatedly you do not succeed in Chicago politics unless you pay to play. Of course Obama's clean.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the parties were reversed here's your headlines:
President Skirts Ethics Laws By Signing $500k Book Deal Days Before Inauguration.
Culture of Corruption Continues: Top Recients of AIG and Fannie/Freddie Political Contributions #1 Senate Banking Comittee Chair Chris Dodd #2 President Barack Obama #3 Vice President Joe Biden
Spam Sales at Record Levels - President Spotted Eating Filet Mignot
Republicans - Administration of Tax Cheats
President's Ties To Rezco and Blago, Impeachment Procedures Considered
President on tape "57 States" (at least its not potato)
R. Barnie Frank Warned by Dems about Banking Collapse in 2003, Still in Charge of Oversight
President Appoints Tax Cheat to Head IRS
President Bowls, Appears on Leno, ESPN as Economy Collapses. (Bush golfed once, remember?)
Most Expensive Inauguration Ever, DC Homeless Relocated from Celebration Grounds (twice as much as the one Bush was scorned for during better times)
Presiden't Aunt an Illegal Alien Living in Slum
President's Brother Living on $2 a Month
Gaph Prone VP Secluded for Contradictions
White House Parties it Up on Wednesdays as Homeless Line Up For Food
Leiberman Receives Political Retribution For Reaching Accross the Aisle
Out of Touch Republican Congress Takes Holiday, Delays Stimulus Plan
Abuse of Power, Republican Speaker of House Uses AF G5's as Private Jets....more to come
Partisan Republicans Block Dems From Contributing to Stimulus Bill, Given 24 Hours to Review 1100 Page Plan
Republic Speaker Endorses Bailing Out Fox News (actually Pelosi and failing lib nespapers)
Republican Administration Strips DC Minorities of Scholarship Opportunities
Republican Bailout Funelling Tax Dollars to Foreign Countries
President Garners Opponents Support In Exchange for $10 Million Campaign Debt Contribution
Senate Banking Comittee Chair Dodd(R) Lies About Writing Amendment Aproving AIG Bonus...Then Admits it was at the Administration's Request.
Congress Has Lowest Approval Rate in Nation's History - 11%
RNC Fights Court Cases Calling For President's Birth Certificate
President Still Refuses To Release College and Medical Records - What's He Hiding?
Largest Stock Market Drop Ever For a New President
Stocks Plummet as President Speaks
President Dismisses Stock Market Slide, Compares it to a Poll.
President Laughs When Questioned About Economy
Republican Speaker Caught on Tape...."Never let a good crisis go to waste."
Republican Speaker Caught on Tape Telling Minute Men "You are true patiots". Calls for increased immigration raids.
There's Blood in the Streets, Dogs and Cats Sleeping Together.
Remember "hubris"...I think that term is more apt today.
I could probably come up with more. The media is a little bit more critical now but they need to get a second term before they really open up.
posted
Um... minus the Republican substitutions, I recall reading many of those headlines almost recreated to the T off of CNN at least.
The ones about Obama's brother, his aunt, the records(minus the "What's he hiding"), stocks plummeting, Pelosi using private jets, Lieberman attacks, congressional approval rating, congressional holiday, etc. I even saw the price-tag inauguration day ones, despite much of the inaccuracy.
The media reports these things, the problem is that these issues don't stick. Today's media focuses on giving the people what they want to hear about in order to increase profit and market share. These stories have been reported, it's just that most aren't interested in hearing them over and over again.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The media decides what people are interested in getting, they always "stick" to republicans. If the roles were reversed, they would get every inch of every mile out of these stories. The administration would be finished. They have been reported, on page two without the sensationality. I don't buy into the birth certificate conspiracy crap either, but I do believe it would be serious if were the other way around. Remember the scrutiny of McCain for being born on a Panamanian Military Base?
Obama refused to release his undergrad records. I don't really care but where's the transpancy. What, he get a C in Speech.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
So no one wants to talk about Iran? Or maybe the economy? How about the anger Americans are feeling right now and how that effects our politics?
Cmon guys, Iran nearly has a nuclear bomb, banks won't lend money, people are being laid off in record numbers, and the most important thing about tonight was the media? The freaking media is what we choose to debate? You have got to be kidding me.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The president sending a soft background video to the Iranian's only emboldened them. He is weak in the eyes of the terrorist and we're going to be attacked.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
McCain and Panama was a story for a day, but whether or not Obama is eligible to be president somehow survived for months despite repeatedly being debunked.
I'm all for bringing up pertinent historical data in current discussions, but I don't think this is relevant for two reasons.
1. Obama's media fawning wasn't nearly as pronounced as the Right likes to make it out to be. I think that within the Democratic party it may have been, as Clinton got a lot more negative press that I don't think was earned, but the negative press that McCain and Palin got was earned every step of the way. The media reported every single word the two of them said that was negative about Obama. I'm sorry, but that counts. The reason we can sit here and talk about all the negative Obama crap is because the media reported it all, then reported it again every time someone in the GOP rehashed it. Some people got sick of it, some people bought into it, and the media divided itself by catering to these groups accordingly. In other words, I think it was consumer driven. People didn't buy the BS about him, so it wasn't as prominent, but Palin was her own little media circus, and the people ate that up.
2. He's been getting this kind of press ever since he won the election. Day and night coverage about everything he had to do, about his cabinet picks and why they were wrong, and then about the actual scandals in many of his picks, some of which were actually pretty minor but still the media harped on them and people bowed out to avoid the frenzy. Now we're less than 70 days into his presidency and half the media are already calling it a failure of some degree.
My point? Get over it. The media weren't responsible for his victory or for McCain's loss. They're raising a lot of excellent points about possible pitfalls in Obama's plans, which I think deserve a lot more time and attention paid than a relatively minor, mostly baseless beef that ended four months ago.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're correct. I believe the media is being fair handed with him but they would not and have not been so when roles are reversed.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: So no one wants to talk about Iran? Or maybe the economy? How about the anger Americans are feeling right now and how that effects our politics?
Cmon guys, Iran nearly has a nuclear bomb, banks won't lend money, people are being laid off in record numbers, and the most important thing about tonight was the media? The freaking media is what we choose to debate? You have got to be kidding me.
I was surprised there weren't more foreign policy questions as well. Palestine/Israel was an interesting choice with Iran and Afghanistan on the table, but it gave him the perfect chance to basically say "Look, it's been 60 days, what do you really expect?"
I hope that message really sinks in, because "impatience" is becoming the national watchword I think. Too many people are expecting too much too fast, despite Obama's constant harping on the fact that these are long term solutions. The media I think are fanning this a little bit by suggesting that fast turnaround isn't just laudable, but possible when it really isn't.
The guy is trying to change 30 plus years of American foreign policy blunders in the Islamic world, and it was an excellent analogy to compare that to an ocean liner rather than a speedboat, in that they make slow turns, not sharp ones. The pace of our diplomatic reconciliation with the Muslim world will be set over there, not here. We can make the gestures, but they have to trust us first. That'll take time.
As for the economy...I honestly don't pretend to understand all the complexities. A lot of it sounds good on paper, but I don't know nearly enough about how the system works to try and parse out what the best solution is. I do think we're spending too much time focusing on AIG bonuses when we should be focused on cleaning up the banking system.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We can discuss American patience. The patience the former president commented on with this war on terror. Day one he said it was going to be long and unpopular. I was angry with the US flag sales after 911. Like yellow ribbons or sales of last years superbowl winner products, faddish patriotism. I needed a new flag last week, and Home Depot doesn't carry them anymore. I went everywhere, and Kmart found one in the back room. They were in gas stations for crying out loud. If we are ever going to be at peace with the Muslim world, we need them to be free nations.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The president sending a soft background video to the Iranian's only emboldened them. He is weak in the eyes of the terrorist and we're going to be attacked.
How did it embolden them? If the moderates in the region see this as America reaching out to them in the name of peace, then isn't it quite possible that the extremists would actually be harming their own cause by attacking the United States?
quote: If we are ever going to be at peace with the Muslim world, we need them to be free nations.
Why do they necessarily need to be free for us to be at peace?
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we're talking about Iran, the extremists are in charge. There is a significant pro-western population under the thumb of an extremist rule. They need to be free of this tyranical rule. We aren't fighting Iraqi's in Iraq. We are fighting alongside Iraqi people, for their freedom against enemies pouring in from neighboring nations. We leave, the previous tyrant will be replaced with another. The battle ground for the war on terror is in Iraq. When they are free, we will have an ally and the moderate Iranian people will have even a stronger desire for the freedom from tyrany they see next door.
Generally speeking, free nations do not attack free nations. If we could transform a country who believed its emperor was god (Japan) we can in the Middle East.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: We can discuss American patience. The patience the former president commented on with this war on terror. Day one he said it was going to be long and unpopular. I was angry with the US flag sales after 911. Like yellow ribbons or sales of last years superbowl winner products, faddish patriotism. I needed a new flag last week, and Home Depot doesn't carry them anymore. I went everywhere, and Kmart found one in the back room. They were in gas stations for crying out loud. If we are ever going to be at peace with the Muslim world, we need them to be free nations.
Hah, you're just all over the place now aren't you? From bush to flags to claiming Muslim nations must be free for peace. Not much connection between the ideas.
I actually agree with you on the flag bit. I don't think a person's patriotism is measured by how often the show the flag. I believe it comes from how much they care for the well-being of this nation. It's why I thought the attacks on Obama for not wearing the flag-pin were so silly.
As for the discussion on foreign policy at large. I liked Obama's 'speedboat' analogy as well. I think his strategy is brilliant with Iran, but like his plan with the Republican party, I think it's very risky. I also think it will take time like Lyrhawn was saying. We've had years of screwing up US perception and giving countries like Iran plenty of reason not to trust us. It will take time for them to trust us and be more forthright in the peace process.
I also don't buy into the argument that they need to be a free nation for there to be peace. If we keep that burden on them, it will only create discontent between both parties. They'll think that we're trying to enforce our misbegotten moral superiority, and we'll be frustrated that they don't want to accept it. I also don't buy into democratic peace theory. So I don't see how their being free/democratic would result in a more conducive environment for peace than we have now.
In fact, in some ways I think that their having highly centralized governments and heads of state could be to our benefit in trying to achieve peace. Obama is trying to speak to the people of the middle-east saying that we don't want to fight them, we want peace. This puts pressure on the leaders, and if Obama is consistent with that message, the leaders may eventually have to buckle to their people's demands in order to maintain their power. By having a country like Iran, we know who we have to pressure and persuade in order for change to take place because their form of government is contingent upon the Ayatollah.
ETA: I'm no foreign policy expert. I just like reading about the stuff. So I'm not altogether positive my line of thought is even close to what the real-world situation is. Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't mean to jump. I was asked about an earlier entry and not attempting to make a connection. I suppose patience, lasting patriotism for a long term objective might connect the statements though.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like "The Time Machine" when he kills the leader the hunters go crazy? I think higher of these people. I've worked with them, over there. They are terrified of what will happen if we leave. It will be the same type of genocide they had after we told them to rise up during gulf war one, and left them hanging.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Like "The Time Machine" when he kills the leader the hunters go crazy? I think higher of these people. I've worked with them, over there. They are terrified of what will happen if we leave. It will be the same type of genocide they had after we told them to rise up during gulf war one, and left them hanging.
I'm uh... I'm not sure what this applies to or even what you mean. Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Movie reference. Leader controls the masses through a mental connection. He dies and they eat everyone and destroy the planet....sorry
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we're talking about Iran, the extremists are in charge. There is a significant pro-western population under the thumb of an extremist rule. They need to be free of this tyranical rule. We aren't fighting Iraqi's in Iraq. We are fighting alongside Iraqi people, for their freedom against enemies pouring in from neighboring nations. We leave, the previous tyrant will be replaced with another. The battle ground for the war on terror is in Iraq. When they are free, we will have an ally and the moderate Iranian people will have even a stronger desire for the freedom from tyranny they see next door.
That same argument was used to let the Palestinians vote and they chose to put Hamas into power. The problem with the argument that freedom is the panacea of the region is that sometimes people choose incorrectly, sometimes people choose to live under systems of government that we would find objectionable, and under a true democracy that can be the case. We cannot expect that the rest of the Muslim world will embrace the West and our ways, in fact that argument is used by extremists to scare fellow Muslims into joining their cause, but what we can do is empower the Muslim world against the extremists and allow them to take back their own lives. What we can do is show the rest of the Muslim world that we have no intention of taking over or forcing our beliefs on them, and by doing so, we can undercut the very arguments the extremists employ to stay in power. In fact, when Ahmadinejad and Khameni replied to Obama's video, what they had to do was paint him as no different than Bush because they knew that his moderate stance would undercut their own hold on power.
By continually reaching out for peaceful and meaningful negotiations, Obama is curtailing the influence of the extremists in the region and giving the moderate voices a chance to expand into the rest of the Muslim world. In the end, they cannot attack us if they cannot vilify us, and by releasing that video, Obama is making that more and more difficult.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, no... I get the reference, I'm just not sure where you thought any of us were implying that. I mean, maybe you're trying to paint my argument that we can utilize Iran's entire government revolving around the Ayatollah as me saying that without him it would crumble, but that's not the case. I'm merely saying that it might be easier to make peace with Iran without requiring a complete overthrow of the government.
ETA: And Humean did a great job of explaining what I meant in better terminology. I'm freakishly tired right now and am not really sure why I'm still up.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The villification against us will not end unless we abandond Israel. The ire did not begin in Iraq or Afghanistan, so our presence there has little to do with it. They have been at war with us for at least 30 years. We could cut off all military aid to Israel, pull out of the region completely. Watch them destroy Israel and hope they are satisfied.
The problem with the election of Hamas, the population was given a vote but were still completely brain washed or terrified. I have no doubt if North Korea had an election, they would freely elect their "beloved leader". The man is a god who recieves their praises. Saddam Hussein always won elections as well. It wasn't even necessary to mess with the ballot box. The people hated Saddam but knew a vote against him was death.
When I said "free" country I meant more than an election. Freedom of press. Freedom of information. Freedom of education. Brainwashing schools, propoganda press and filtered internet, the sheep will fall in line. Maybe we aren't so differen't. Old propoganda is easier to detect and we seem satisfied with the illusion of freedom.
Maybe the relativism of societies is all that matters. If the North Koreans believe they live in the best place on the planet, we shouldn't question the millions starving while they sing praises to a god man. If the Muslim woman thinks that it is her obligation under God to have her clitoris cut off by a man, who are we to interfere with her religious beliefs. If their society embraces the execution of homosexuals and allows a rape victim to be stoned for dishonoring her family, so be it. These are not "moderate" things there. If by moderate you mean, not likely to attack America, we can appease and hope. We'll ignore the barbarism so long as they believe it's right. We're above it all and understanding of other cultures.
Where are the feminists? Where are the gay rights activists? Where are the HUMAN rights activists. We sure have plenty protesting our government, in our country. No wonder we're the joke of the world. The true tyrants are laughing at the fools over here who call for Bush to be charged with war crimes.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The villification against us will not end unless we abandond Israel. The ire did not begin in Iraq or Afghanistan, so our presence there has little to do with it. They have been at war with us for at least 30 years. We could cut off all military aid to Israel, pull out of the region completely. Watch them destroy Israel and hope they are satisfied.
I disagree. It is certainly the case that our support for Israel creates much anger but I believe the problem is different than this. The battle we fight is not really a traditional war, it's not simply a war between Muslim extremists and The United States, it's a culture war whose cause is much deeper and more philosophic than our support for Israel. In some sense, it is the same culture war we fight in America, it's a war between ideologies and culture, between religion and atheism, and between the future versus the status quo. Muslim extremists may speak of the evils of Israel and of it's unilateral destruction, but that's just a rallying cry these days. These days, Muslim extremists are fighting for what they view as their way of life, their ability to practice the form of Islam they desire, their ability to make their pilgrimage to Mecca without U.S. intervention, and in that sense, this isn't a war simply about Israel. For hundreds of years, the Muslim world was the most sophisticated and brilliant "Mecca" in the world, it was the place of civilizations beginning, and yet, in the past 100 years, the Muslim world has fallen woefully behind the rest of world. The war we fight today is about where the Muslim world will go in the future, it is about how the Muslim world will integrate itself onto a global stage, and it's about the future versus the status quo. Israel is maybe number 4 on the list of most important issues.
quote:Maybe the relativism of societies is all that matters. If the North Koreans believe they live in the best place on the planet, we shouldn't question the millions starving while they sing praises to a god man. If the Muslim woman thinks that it is her obligation under God to have her clitoris cut off by a man, who are we to interfere with her religious beliefs. If their society embraces the execution of homosexuals and allows a rape victim to be stoned for dishonoring her family, so be it. These are not "moderate" things there. If by moderate you mean, not likely to attack America, we can appease and hope. We'll ignore the barbarism so long as they believe it's right. We're above it all and understanding of other cultures.
You know what this assumes? That America's moral high ground is really the high ground. Of course, this would be the very reason that the rest of the world views America as arrogant, they see how we fight for our own view of morality and religion and they do not see modesty or humility in our approach. Basically, when you argue that you are with us or against us, don't be surprised when people choose to be against us.
But that's not my point. The problem is not that the rest of the world is immoral or in need of change, it is that we face the rest of the world incorrectly. There is no question that the rest of the world is morally, ethically, and spiritually different from America, but the solution cannot be that we automatically assume our way is correct and everyone else is incorrect. One of the rules of debate is that one must go into an argument with an open mind, with the ability to change one's views if faced with a persuasive and logical argument, and yet, this is the part of the debate we fail everyday. We believe that if we can transplant American ideas about freedom and justice and the American way, then we can make the world a better place, but this is exactly the wrong way to handle the problem. Our goal should not be to transplant American ideals but to appreciate and tolerate other cultures and their values. What it doesn't mean is endorsing that which we find reprehensible, but what it does mean is understanding that we can help to build a better world by simply following that simple rule of debate.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Anyone watch the second press conference?
A lot of tough questions and a lot of real answers (and a couple of dodged answers too).
The press certainly isn't shying away from asking hard questions.
I was again pleased more with the care with which he answered questions than with the particular answers. He took the time to explain things in some detail. And I loved that he encouraged people to stay attentive.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that he's particularly frustrating me now, but whenever Obama does frustrate me in some way, all I have to do is think to myself "What Would McCain Do"
quote:Mr. Obama will try to show confidence that his stimulus and economic program will work, administration officials said, while conceding that it may take time. He will say that he has put all the pieces in place to fix the American economy, while acknowledging that in a global system nations cannot put up walls to protect their individual economies.
Robert D. Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International, said the president “must demonstrate to the world that he understands that it’s not just about saving ourselves.”
And Mr. Obama must try to do all of that in the middle of a global recession for which most of the world blames the United States. “The U.S. brand name has clearly suffered from this crisis, and the rest of the world is no longer willing to sit quietly and be lectured by the United States on how they should conduct economic policy,” Mr. Rogoff said.
I found it interesting. Just thought I would share.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
There's definitely something seriously wrong when a communist country is worried about our government spending.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm very happy that conservatives have rediscovered outrage over executive accountability and a burning defense of frugality now that a democrat is in power.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm very happy that conservatives have rediscovered outrage over executive accountability and a burning defense of frugality now that a democrat is in power.
Bush's defecit never went much over 4% of GDP - Obama is at 12%.
posted
Actually, while Samprimary may believe that what Obama is doing is okay, he never actually said it.
He's not excusing Obama, at least not with that statement, he's pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of Congressional Republicans all of a sudden discovering fiscal restraint after doubling the national debt, and fulminating at everything Obama says after eight years of telling the country to get in line behind Bush regardless of circumstance.
In other words, he doesn't have to defend his point until you address it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
There's definitely something seriously wrong when a communist country is worried about our government spending.
I made a statement about China's concern. I didn't mention conservative concern. Increasing numbers of Dems are expressing concern as well. The deflection tactics in here are pretty amazing. I was slow to respond to the "I know you are but what am I" type of statement.
Please, explain how one wrong justifies another. If there is no wrong explain the economic benefits of the spending.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
There's definitely something seriously wrong when a communist country is worried about our government spending.
Please, explain how one wrong justifies another. If there is no wrong explain the economic benefits of the spending.
Essentially, instead of attacking the supply side of the equation, you spend money to attack the demand side, you give people money to spend by giving them a job and tax cuts, and in so doing, you can stimulate the economy. In simpler terms, people have no money to spend because they don't have a job or because their business maintains less customers. It would seem counter-intuitive to then give those people more things to buy, but what would help is to put money into the system so that jobs can be created and so that customers can have more money to spend.
I understand the need to cut deficit spending and balance the budget, but in some sense, President Obama has come upon a situation where the house is on fire. Until the fire is put out, I don't understand the call for water conservation. I think it's clear that you put out the fire and then worry about the water.
ETA: Honestly, it would be nearly impossible to imagine how little I care about who is to blame for this mess. It is a complete waste of time for us to sit here and indulge ourselves by throwing the people we hate to the wolves. What we should do is understand that we aren't going to fix the problems we face by burning innocent people at the stake nor are we going to satisfy the anger that has enveloped America by vilifying those we blame. We need solutions not scapegoats.
quote:Bush's defecit never went much over 4% of GDP - Obama is at 12%.
That's only if you don't count "war" expenditures, which Obama has deliberately included as part of his budget. Bush billed several things to the war -- including more than a few expensive Homeland Security programs -- that weren't military expenses and furthermore were clearly not "emergency" costs.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
There's definitely something seriously wrong when a communist country is worried about our government spending.
I made a statement about China's concern. I didn't mention conservative concern. Increasing numbers of Dems are expressing concern as well. The deflection tactics in here are pretty amazing. I was slow to respond to the "I know you are but what am I" type of statement.
Please, explain how one wrong justifies another. If there is no wrong explain the economic benefits of the spending.
You're completely missing the point.
Read what Samp said again. Read what I said again.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
There's definitely something seriously wrong when a communist country is worried about our government spending.
Please, explain how one wrong justifies another. If there is no wrong explain the economic benefits of the spending.
Essentially, instead of attacking the supply side of the equation, you spend money to attack the demand side, you give people money to spend by giving them a job and tax cuts, and in so doing, you can stimulate the economy. In simpler terms, people have no money to spend because they don't have a job or because their business maintains less customers. It would seem counter-intuitive to then give those people more things to buy, but what would help is to put money into the system so that jobs can be created and so that customers can have more money to spend.
I understand the need to cut deficit spending and balance the budget, but in some sense, President Obama has come upon a situation where the house is on fire. Until the fire is put out, I don't understand the call for water conservation. I think it's clear that you put out the fire and then worry about the water.
ETA: Honestly, it would be nearly impossible to imagine how little I care about who is to blame for this mess. It is a complete waste of time for us to sit here and indulge ourselves by throwing the people we hate to the wolves. What we should do is understand that we aren't going to fix the problems we face by burning innocent people at the stake nor are we going to satisfy the anger that has enveloped America by vilifying those we blame. We need solutions not scapegoats.
I agree with the spending to stimulate the economy as a short term solution. I have serious doubts about government releasing the reigns of control when the economy does rebound. Government usually only does one thing, grow, tax more, create more laws and more regulations. Everything they do costs more and lasts longer than promised, much, much more. Many of the proposals are long term social agenda that have been rejected when the house wasn't burning down. In part, I feel they are using the economic crisis much as Bush was accused of using 911 to go to war with Iraq. If they'd stick to what they "sell" I'd be less skeptical.
IE. TARP, never happened but was sold to us now they are revisiting buying up troubled assets after spending the money.
GM bailout or they will fail and destroy the economy. We, as a people, bought it. Now they've receive billions the pres sais we may have to just let them fail anyway.
I worry about the companies coming back repeatedly with their hands out as well as the strings attached to private industry from the govt.
I'll make a prediction. Even if GM survives, Ford will be the only great American American auto maker left. GM could end up like AMTRAC, forever subsidized and making green cars. Ford, string free will be profitable and busy making the cars the people want to buy, not the ones the govt dictates.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:GM bailout or they will fail and destroy the economy. We, as a people, bought it. Now they've receive billions the pres sais we may have to just let them fail anyway.
I worry about the companies coming back repeatedly with their hands out as well as the strings attached to private industry from the govt.
I'll make a prediction. Even if GM survives, Ford will be the only great American American auto maker left. GM could end up like AMTRAC, forever subsidized and making green cars. Ford, string free will be profitable and busy making the cars the people want to buy, not the ones the govt dictates.
The irony there is that the Big Three have been chastised for years for making big SUVs. People have said that it was these big honkin' cars that no one wanted, and that's why the Japanese cars sold so much better with smaller more fuel efficient cars. Now GM is basically banking their future on green cars. Mild hybrids, two mode hybrids, and now fully electric vehicles in the form of the Chevy Volt. And the reaction? In your case, it's that they're still making cars that no one wants.
Keep in mind that the US auto industry repaid every cent they borrowed in the 80's and had a banner decade in the 90's. The problem with this bait and switch is that GM asked for a certain sum of money to get them through June, but were only given money for three months. The fact that GM is back for more isn't a surprise to anyone but Richard Shelby and the media, who are making it look like some shock and surprise that they need more money.
Ford is suffering but will be fine, you're right. Chrysler it seems now will join with Fiat, and will slim down and be fine. GM is three quarters of the way through their restructuring, but their main problem is that the billions in savings they've arranged for don't really take effect until next year. They've also slimmed down, as was necessary, but it might have been too late. It's still unclear whether people will buy cars from a company in bankruptcy, or if they can even get out of bankruptcy. But GM being on the federal dole for years to come isn't going to happen.
Besides, EVERYONE makes cars the government dictates. That's what CAFE standards are for, and if you'd like to argue against them, I relish the discussion.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps, just perhaps, the cars in the highest demand are neither SUVs nor hybrids/electric cars.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're making those too, that's part of what I meant when I said "green cars," as I count conventional ICE cars with high gas mileage as green for this discussion. I should have been more clear when I specifically named off types of cars after I said that. They make a dozen different mid-size, full size and compact cars with excellent gas mileage by any measure I've seen used.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe we just don't need as many cars as they are making because we can't afford to get a new one every couple of years.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Better-made cars means that the average time folks keep new cars has gone WAY up to 9.4years or nearly 100thousand miles. And even second-hand cars are well worth repairing up to 160thousand miles or so.
Barrack's still the charmer. That's German Chancellor AngelaMerkel beside him at the official dinner, and Argentine President CristinaKirchner across the table. And Michelle has extraordinary charm of her own.
quote: Chinese leaders have adopted a plan aimed at turning the country into one of the leading producers of hybrid and all-electric vehicles within three years, and making it the world leader in electric cars and buses after that.
The goal, which radiates from the very top of the Chinese government, suggests that Detroit’s Big Three, already struggling to stay alive, will face even stiffer foreign competition on the next field of automotive technology than they do today.
“China is well positioned to lead in this,” said David Tulauskas, director of China government policy at General Motors. ... China wants to raise its annual production capacity to 500,000 hybrid or all-electric cars and buses by the end of 2011, from 2,100 last year, government officials and Chinese auto executives said. By comparison, CSM Worldwide, a consulting firm that does forecasts for automakers, predicts that Japan and South Korea together will be producing 1.1 million hybrid or all-electric light vehicles by then and North America will be making 267,000.
The United States Department of Energy has its own $25 billion program to develop electric-powered cars and improve battery technology, and will receive another $2 billion for battery development as part of the economic stimulus program enacted by Congress.
Premier Wen Jiabao highlighted the importance of electric cars two years ago with his unlikely choice to become minister of science and technology: Wan Gang, a Shanghai-born former Audi auto engineer in Germany who later became the chief scientist for the Chinese government’s research panel on electric vehicles.
Mr. Wan is the first minister in at least three decades who is not a member of the Communist Party. ... Electric cars have several practical advantages in China. Intercity driving is rare. Commutes are fairly short and frequently at low speeds because of traffic jams. So the limitations of all-electric cars — the latest models in China have a top speed of 60 miles an hour and a range of 120 miles between charges — are less of a problem.
Thought that was interesting in light of the government directing GM to focus more on "green" cars. Nothing like some good competition to keep each other honest, sounds cool.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus: I have no doubt China is in a good position to step firmly into this market. I kinda hope they do. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Maybe we just don't need as many cars as they are making because we can't afford to get a new one every couple of years.
Yep. I mentioned that, well, obliquely.
That's why there's such a dramatic drawdown in production at GM. When this is all over, and the credit markets finally get unfrozen, the market will probably support a couple million less units per year than it had before, which means everyone is going to have to produce less. Don't worry, they know that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: No Decline in Belief That Obama is a Muslim Nearly One-in-Five White Evangelicals Think So
More than two months into Barack Obama's presidency, as many people incorrectly identify him as a Muslim as did so during the 2008 campaign. When asked about Obama's religious beliefs, 11% say he is a Muslim. In October, 12% said Obama is a Muslim, which was unchanged from earlier in the campaign.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
