Is anything his fault?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Why don't you trust him? Be specific.



You do realize that this is nearly incoherent, don't you?



So, it's Obama's fault that he came into office with the economy losing 700,000 jobs per month and we're now adding jobs?

So, it's Obama's fault that the US automobile industry was on the verge of collapse in January 2009 and now they're getting stronger and stronger?

John

But that is not what Karl and Rush are telling him.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by merrylander

But that is not what Karl and Rush are telling him.

I stop in a small local garden center on my walks with Chuk so he can get a treat. (The couple who run it love dogs.) I walked in one afternoon to discover the wife of the couple listening to Michael Savage. She asked me if I listened to him and I said that I didn't. She then said that I should because he was non-partisan, neither Left nor Right.

John

[beej]

Originally Posted by whell

So now we hear a couple of the themes, as repeated by John who has demonstrated an affinity for passing along DNC talking points, that will be spewed by the Dems between now and November. Let's deal with at least one of them here: the auto "bailout".

First, one must remember that the "crisis" facing the auto industry was not necessarily one of their own making, was not related to some dramatic failure of the company's operations. In fact, Ford Motor company managed to dodge the "crisis" almost entirely. The crisis was lack of credit in the marketplace.

Access to liquidity in the credit marketplace was severely constrained in going into the second half of 2008. The lack of liquidity was the result of almost $500 Billion in write-offs that the financial industry was taking due to failures in the residential mortgage industry. Central to this crisis was the Federal government under Clinton, and enforced by Reno, threatening lenders who didn't ignore their own underwriting requirements and approve mortgages for those who couldn't afford them. Later, regulators under the watch of Congress failed to see what was happening in the market and exercise their regulatory authority.

Although the campaign rhetoric about Obama saving the auto industry may be effective with some of members here, anyone familiar with more than just the headlines of the 2009 auto bailout would know that it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, for several reasons:

• The choice in 2008-2009 was not bankruptcy versus no bankruptcy; instead, the choice was between precedent-driven bankruptcy and White House-driven "pre-packaged" bankruptcy. The rule-of-law versus rule-of-czar.

The taxpayer bailout was not applied to the “American auto industry”—instead, it was applied only to the two failed companies, GM and Chrysler, bypassing companies that had been sufficiently prepared for the downturn, including Ford, Honda of America, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, and others.

Orderly, rule-of-law bankruptcy might have led to continuing operations under restructuring for GM or Chrysler, in which case many auto-making jobs would have remained in Michigan. Alternatively, orderly bankruptcy might have led to a shutdown of GM or Chrysler and an open auction of assets—probably to surviving companies—in which case car buyers would have shifted to surviving companies’ products and auto-making jobs would have migrated to those same survivors.

The notion that the White House should intervene with a specially designed bankruptcy process, thereby sidestepping rule-of-law bankruptcy, originated in the Bush White House in 2008, not in the Obama White House in 2009. A more honest name for the program would therefore be the “Bush-Obama Bankruptcy/Bailout” for Detroit’s two failed auto companies.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...te-house_N.htm

Chrysler is no longer a company with US ownership. As part of the rule-of-czar bankruptcy process, Fiat was encouraged - some might suggest begged - to purchase Chrysler. Remember also that GM's Hummer division is now also under Chinese ownership. Ownership of these two companies was, therefore, outsourced.

Ironically, top-down economics was the de facto remedy applied to “save” GM and Chrysler—but in this case “top-down” was the government-knows-best notion that political wisdom, trickling down to displace a century of evolved bankruptcy case law, was supposedly a superior alternative for the two failed companies. Top-down economics, the politicians’ version of “intelligent design,” directly rewarded GM and Chrysler with special-interest life support—instead of indirectly rewarding their surviving competitors with new customers and the necessary additional workers. As a result, this resident of Detroit can confirm that the culture of GM - which led the company to its most recent financial and competitive demise still firmly entrenched in the company's DNA. This is not a good thing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-w...rs-ceo-speech/

Interesting discussion of the GM/Chrysler bailout. You did fail to mention what the consequences would have been for those industries that supply both GM and Chrysler had the companies been allowed to simply shutdown. Oh, by the way, every industry observer worth listening to has indicated such an eventually truly would have been catastrophic.

And, again, what specifically are the Obama policies that have been the perfect storm to our economy?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

So now we hear a couple of the themes,........................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .. As a result, this resident of Detroit can confirm that the culture of GM - which led the company to its most recent financial and competitive demise still firmly entrenched in the company's DNA. This is not a good thing.

Too long, Whell! I'll get to this after dinner.

John

[beej]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I stop in a small local garden center on my walks with Chuk so he can get a treat. (The couple who run it love dogs.) I walked in one afternoon to discover the wife of the couple listening to Michael Savage. She asked me if I listened to him and I said that I didn't. She then said that I should because he was non-partisan, neither Left nor Right.

John

Michael Savage? Non-partisan? Yeah, and so's Rush Limbaugh. I listened to Savage for 20 minutes once about 3 months ago. Not sure I've recovered yet.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by beej

Michael Savage? Non-partisan? Yeah, and so's Rush Limbaugh. I listened to Savage for 20 minutes once about 3 months ago. Not sure I've recovered yet.

Savage (real name Weiner) used to hang out with Alan Ginsberg back in The Village. There is some fairly informed speculation that the two were lovers. If true, it opens the door to a lot of conjecture about why "The Savage Weiner" is so rabidly (the correct term, IMO) anti-Left.

I once heard a quote from him regarding Muslims. He said they were a disgusting and violent religion and that he wanted to kill them all.

John

[finnbow]

To the OP's question about Obama admitting fault, this is not what politicians do. There's an old saying that victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan. I take it you do recall that when Dubya was asked what his biggest mistake was that he had no answer (despite a laundry list of failures). Nothing new here. Similarly, you don't see many Republicans admitting their complicity in supporting most, if not all, of Dubya's catastrophic actions.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by whell

As a result, this resident of Detroit can confirm that the culture of GM - which led the company to its most recent financial and competitive demise still firmly entrenched in the company's DNA. This is not a good thing.

You do not want to support the home team?

[whell]

Originally Posted by icenine

You do not want to support the home team?

Kind of an odd question. Ford is on the home team, and I'm a huge fan of what they've accomplished. I've said as much here in prior posts. Ford recovered from the mis-management of the company that occurred in the late 1980's and into the 1990's, and was finally on solid financial footing, just missing the credit crunch by a whisker.

Chrysler was looted first by Daimler and later by Cerberus Capital Management. Its a rather sad tale that extends beyond the context of this discussion.

GM has suffered from mis-management at various times in its recent history. Inconsistency in product offering and internal turf wars often hampered company performance.

However, I'm also a Detroit Lions fan, and am used to rooting for an underdog. No one is more critical of the Lions than the home town fans, and no one supports them more when they start to win a few games. Extend that analogy to how Detroiters regard the auto industry, and maybe you'll get the picture.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I stop in a small local garden center on my walks with Chuk so he can get a treat. (The couple who run it love dogs.) I walked in one afternoon to discover the wife of the couple listening to Michael Savage. She asked me if I listened to him and I said that I didn't. She then said that I should because he was non-partisan, neither Left nor Right.

John

"We're Unbiased"----The first of many lies. Kind of like "Fair and Balanced"................