Hope and Change Obama Style

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Funny..

"Preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there."

Barack Obama
Sunapee, N.H.
June 20, 2007
"The international community has an obligation, even when it's inconvenient, to act when genocide is occurring."

Barack Obama
Dresden, Germany
June 5, 2009

[/I]

odd, I clicked on the link to the USA Today article of June 20, 2007, and the words that you put into quotations weren't spoken by obama.

what is there is a discussion of how the international community can work together to stop genocide, but those efforts will not be successful unless a desire by the conbatants for an end to the violence exists.

that certainly isn't what you placed in quotes...you wouldn't twist things, would you?

[mcsluggo]

nevah!!!

[dude1394]

Not on purpose.. after looking at the link and the google search for those words, it's obviously the title of the USAToday article was what was "".

I expect the answer was in response to a question and that's why the title was created. Do you believe he did not feel that way about Iraq.

Here are the first two paragraphs including a quote that seemingly is responding to this question.

SUNAPEE, N.H. (AP) — Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.


"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

So although that wasn't a direct quote out of his mouth, it was an accurate article it appears. I stand by the flip-flop.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Not on purpose.. after looking at the link and the google search for those words, it's obviously the title of the USAToday article was what was "".

I expect the answer was in response to a question and that's why the title was created. Do you believe he did not feel that way about Iraq.

Here are the first two paragraphs including a quote that seemingly is responding to this question.

So although that wasn't a direct quote out of his mouth, it was an accurate article it appears. I stand by the flip-flop.

if you want to understand a person's position, it would be much more accurate to not parse their words but look at the complete statement:

"Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis," Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. "There's no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there."

The greater risk is staying in Iraq, Obama said.

"It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions," he said.

The senator has been a fierce critic of the war in Iraq, speaking out against it even before he was elected to his post in 2004. He was among the senators who tried unsuccessfully earlier this week to force President Bush's hand and begin to limit the role of U.S. forces there.

"We have not lost a military battle in Iraq. So when people say if we leave, we will lose, they're asking the wrong question," he said. "We cannot achieve a stable Iraq with a military. We could be fighting there for the next decade."

Obama said the answer to Iraq — and other civil conflicts — lies in diplomacy.

"When you have civil conflict like this, military efforts and protective forces can play an important role, especially if they're under an international mandate as opposed to simply a U.S. mandate. But you can't solve the underlying problem at the end of a barrel of a gun," he said. "There's got to be a deliberate and constant diplomatic effort to get the various factions to recognize that they are better off arriving at a peaceful resolution of their conflicts."

the use of the phrase "genocide" in the title is questionable, especially when obama uses the phrase "civil conflict".

it's clear that he isn't saying the us (and the international community) should turn a blind eye to genocide.

so no, there'sno basis for your attempt at a "gothcha".

the good question is if you disagree with anything that obama has said (meaning his actual words mind you) in either of the articles....I sure don't find any fault with what he has said.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

<snip>
the good question is if you disagree with anything that obama has said (meaning his actual words mind you) in either of the articles....I sure don't find any fault with what he has said.

That isn't my question about agreeing or disagreeing with his words.

My question is: Do you use physical force or words?

This is where the bottom line gets too. If genocide is happening, do you use words and threats to stop it, or do you take action.

IMO -- changing attitudes changes big picture, but changing people changes the present issue. In other words, war only allows you the ability to teach younger people your ways and get them on board with you. War doesn't solve anything except that it resolves the individual issues with the current people that won't change. Example: Saddam would have been just like Castro and thumbed his finger at the US for the rest of his life, IF we just kept talking like we did with Castro and not taken and done it forcefully. With that said, you will never change Iraq with war, but only by working with the younger people there to educate and build something that everyone can be happy with. You will never be able to do this though, as long as some people are in a class system that does not allow them to change classes.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

That isn't my question about agreeing or disagreeing with his words.

My question is: Do you use physical force or words?

This is where the bottom line gets too. If genocide is happening, do you use words and threats to stop it, or do you take action.

imo you must take action if actual genocide is happening. I believe that was the meaning of obama's remarks.

IMO -- changing attitudes changes big picture, but changing people changes the present issue. In other words, war only allows you the ability to teach younger people your ways and get them on board with you. War doesn't solve anything except that it resolves the individual issues with the current people that won't change. Example: Saddam would have been just like Castro and thumbed his finger at the US for the rest of his life, IF we just kept talking like we did with Castro and not taken and done it forcefully. With that said, you will never change Iraq with war, but only by working with the younger people there to educate and build something that everyone can be happy with. You will never be able to do this though, as long as some people are in a class system that does not allow them to change classes.

to stop genocide it typically will take armed intervention. to stop genocide from reoccurring it takes winning the "hearts and minds" as they say, removing the mindset of the players to view murder as acceptable.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

imo you must take action if actual genocide is happening. I believe that was the meaning of obama's remarks.



to stop genocide it typically will take armed intervention. to stop genocide from reoccurring it takes winning the "hearts and minds" as they say, removing the mindset of the players to view murder as acceptable.

So although we should be removing the military from Iraq, we should be moving them into Darfur and the Congo? We should also be looking into Tibet.

Are you actually saying this?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

if you want to understand a person's position, it would be much more accurate to not parse their words but look at the complete statement:

"Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis," Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. "There's no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there."

The greater risk is staying in Iraq, Obama said.

"It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions," he said.

The senator has been a fierce critic of the war in Iraq, speaking out against it even before he was elected to his post in 2004. He was among the senators who tried unsuccessfully earlier this week to force President Bush's hand and begin to limit the role of U.S. forces there.

"We have not lost a military battle in Iraq. So when people say if we leave, we will lose, they're asking the wrong question," he said. "We cannot achieve a stable Iraq with a military. We could be fighting there for the next decade."

Obama said the answer to Iraq — and other civil conflicts — lies in diplomacy.

"When you have civil conflict like this, military efforts and protective forces can play an important role, especially if they're under an international mandate as opposed to simply a U.S. mandate. But you can't solve the underlying problem at the end of a barrel of a gun," he said. "There's got to be a deliberate and constant diplomatic effort to get the various factions to recognize that they are better off arriving at a peaceful resolution of their conflicts."

the use of the phrase "genocide" in the title is questionable, especially when obama uses the phrase "civil conflict".

it's clear that he isn't saying the us (and the international community) should turn a blind eye to genocide.

so no, there'sno basis for your attempt at a "gothcha".

the good question is if you disagree with anything that obama has said (meaning his actual words mind you) in either of the articles....I sure don't find any fault with what he has said.

I understand his words pretty completely while campaigning. He wanted out 2 years ago..OUT..He (and most liberals) were proven wrong that the battle was lost and the country has stabalized.
If the US had done what Barry wanted, there would have been genocide, he knows it, you knows it and the Iraqi's sure knows it.

The use of the term genocide is completely appropriate. The greater risk was NOT staying in Iraq, it was leaving and allowing the blood to flow.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

So although we should be removing the military from Iraq, we should be moving them into Darfur and the Congo? We should also be looking into Tibet.

Are you actually saying this?

I'm not of the opinion that any of the above fits the definition of genocide.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I understand his words pretty completely while campaigning. He wanted out 2 years ago..OUT..He (and most liberals) were proven wrong that the battle was lost and the country has stabalized.
If the US had done what Barry wanted, there would have been genocide, he knows it, you knows it and the Iraqi's sure knows it.

no, not at all.

The use of the term genocide is completely appropriate. The greater risk was NOT staying in Iraq, it was leaving and allowing the blood to flow.

you seem to confuse the concept of ethnic conflict with that of genocide.

as it relates to iraq, the truth is that it is up to the iraqis to acheive peaceful coexistence with each other, and to have a society that functions with its citizens not threatened with violence. the usa and our military cannot make this happen, only the iraqis themselves.

[dude1394]

Now THIS is some hope and change going on. He's now...GOD!! Heh...

Well...maybe not so much of a change, I'm not sure the media has had much of a different opinion about Barry for a while now.

THOMAS: ... Obama is 'we are above that now.' We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something - I mean in a way Obama's standing above the country, above - above the world, he's sort of God. He's-

I sure am glad however that our media is on the ball here.

[dude1394]

Heh...

[IMG]file:///C:/Users/SAMS/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-17.jpg[/IMG]
Michael Ramirez satirizes Barack Obama's apologetic persona on the occasion of his visit to Normandy:

[dude1394]

The problem I have here is not that he's holding these meetings in private. What is disturbing is that this will be swept completely under the rug by barry's media and his disciples, showing again their hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, because of the lefts behavior the last 8 years, the right will feel compelled to quid pro quo it and file suit for 8 years to get these records...declaring that barry is in the back pockets of the coal industry.

As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding "secret energy meetings" with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama's "clean coal" policies.
One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged "presidential
communications." The refusal, approved by White House counsel Greg Craig's office, is the latest in a series of cases in which Obama officials have opted against public disclosure. Since Obama pledged on his first day in office to usher in a "new era" of openness, "nothing has changed," says David -Sobel, a lawyer who litigates FOIA cases. "For a president who said he was going to bring unprecedented transparency to government, you would certainly expect more than the recycling of old Bush secrecy policies."

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

The problem I have here is not that he's holding these meetings in private. What is disturbing is that this will be swept completely under the rug by barry's media and his disciples, showing again their hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, because of the lefts behavior the last 8 years, the right will feel compelled to quid pro quo it and file suit for 8 years to get these records...declaring that barry is in the back pockets of the coal industry.

it's interesting that you do not provide a link, and most important you do not include the entire article.

while I agree the release of the visitor logs is the correct action for the obama administration to take, it is only fair to have their reasons included rather than cut out of the article.

as paul harvey would say, "now for the rest of the story..."

Obama Closes Doors on Openness
Michael Isikoff
NEWSWEEK

As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding "secret energy meetings" with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama's "clean coal" policies. One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged "presidential communications." The refusal, approved by White House counsel Greg Craig's office, is the latest in a series of cases in which Obama officials have opted against public disclosure. Since Obama pledged on his first day in office to usher in a "new era" of openness, "nothing has changed," says David -Sobel, a lawyer who litigates FOIA cases. "For a president who said he was going to bring unprecedented transparency to government, you would certainly expect more than the recycling of old Bush secrecy policies."

The hard line appears to be no accident. After Obama's much-publicized Jan. 21 "transparency" memo, administration lawyers crafted a key directive implementing the new policy that contained a major loophole, according to FOIA experts. The directive, signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, instructed federal agencies to adopt a "presumption" of disclosure for FOIA requests. This reversal of Bush policy was intended to restore a standard set by President Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno. But in a little-noticed passage, the Holder memo also said the new standard applies "if practicable" for cases involving "pending litigation." Dan Metcalfe, the former longtime chief of FOIA policy at Justice, says the passage and other "lawyerly hedges" means the Holder memo is now "astonishingly weaker" than the Reno policy. (The visitor-log request falls in this category because of a pending Bush-era lawsuit for such records.)

Administration officials say the Holder memo was drafted by senior Justice lawyers in consultation with Craig's office. The separate standard for "pending" lawsuits was inserted because of the "burden" it would impose on officials to go "backward" and reprocess hundreds of old cases, says Melanie Ann Pustay, who now heads the FOIA office. White House spokesman Ben LaBolt says Obama "has backed up his promise" with actions including the broadcast of White House meetings on the Web. (Others cite the release of the so-called torture memos.) As for the visitor logs, LaBolt says the policy is now "under review."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/202875

[dude1394]

More hopey and changey..

White House putting off release of budget update


WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House is being forced to acknowledge the wide gap between its once-upbeat predictions about the economy and today's bleak landscape.
The administration's annual midsummer budget update is sure to show higher deficits and unemployment and slower growth than projected in President Barack Obama's budget in February and update in May, and that could complicate his efforts to get his signature health care and global-warming proposals through Congress.
The release of the update - usually scheduled for mid-July - has been put off until the middle of next month, giving rise to speculation the White House is delaying the bad news at least until Congress leaves town on its August 7 summer recess.

I thought this kinda fit.

The_Anchoress

[dude1394]

More HopeyChangey from the king. Heh...

This is disappointing:

Invoking an argument used by President George W. Bush, the Obama administration has turned down a request from a watchdog group for a list of health industry executives who have visited the White House to discuss the massive healthcare overhaul.
...
The Secret Service sent a reply stating that documents revealing the frequency of such visits were considered presidential records exempt from public disclosure laws. The agency also said it was advised by the Justice Department that the Secret Service was within its rights to withhold the information because of the "presidential communications privilege."
...
Having promised transparency, the administration should be willing to disclose who it is consulting in shaping healthcare policy, said an attorney for the citizens' group. In its letter requesting the records, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics asked about visits from Billy Tauzin, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans; William Weldon, chairman and CEO of Johnson & Johnson; and J. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Assn., among others.

There's not much excuse for this. During the campaign, Obama loudly derided closed-door governing. In fact, it's still on his website:

The Problem

• Lobbyists Write National Policies: For example, Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force of oil and gas lobbyists met secretly to develop national energy policy.

... Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan
Bring Americans Back into their Government

• Make White House Communications Public: Obama will amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public.
• Conduct Regulatory Agency Business in Public: Obama will require his appointees who lead the executive branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can see in person or watch on the Internet these debates.

• \

[wmbwinn]

bad link. ignore and carry on

[Usually Lurkin]

noted by GayPatriot:

Obama’s Changing Rhetoric

President Barack Obama
The Tonight Show With Jay Leno (March 2009)

Today.

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/07/24...ging-rhetoric/
Ha, now that's the kind of Change we can expect!

[Mavdog]

that's odd, as I recall reading that he took part of the blame himself....

"This has been ratcheting up, and I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up," Obama said of the racial controversy. "I want to make clear that in my choice of words, I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department and Sgt. Crowley specifically. And I could've calibrated those words differently."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090725/...ard_scholar_34

I've not heard obama make any statement that it is the media, and not him, to blame for this situation...can you provide the quote?

[Usually Lurkin]

hah. When was the last time you apologized for something you did with, "I helped contribute ratcheting it up," and "I could've calibrated those words differently." Taking only part of the blame for something you did means you are trying to divert blame elsewhere.

http://www.considerthisnews.com/inde...remark_dustup/

If you are the President of the US, how can you pretend that telling the world that someone acted stupidly only "gives an impression" that you are maligning that person?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

hah. When was the last time you apologized for something you did with, "I helped contribute ratcheting it up," and "I could've calibrated those words differently." Taking only part of the blame for something you did means you are trying to divert blame elsewhere.

http://www.considerthisnews.com/inde...remark_dustup/

If you are the President of the US, how can you pretend that telling the world that someone acted stupidly only "gives an impression" that you are maligning that person?

ok, so bottom line is there in no quote from the president blaming the media for the cambridge flap. thanks for clearing that up.

as for obama's remarks, he clearly expressed regret for his choice of words, and has subsequently worked to have gates and the police dept work in a way to use the episode as a learning tool, with gates no longer talking about a lawsuit but rather a visit to the white houe to have a meeting (and a beer) with the officer.

that's as good an example of not focusing on blame but on the contrary taking charge and turning a negative into a positive.

somehow I'm expecting these same pundits who incorrectly accused obama to not write in support of these admirable acts...

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

ok, so bottom line is there in no quote from the president blaming the media for the cambridge flap. thanks for clearing that up.

You provided a quote of Obama deflecting blame for his own ill-spoken thoughts. A target of that blame was reported by his own spokesperson.

somehow I'm expecting these same pundits who incorrectly accused obama to not write in support of these admirable acts...

maybe because they are not so admirable. By moving on, and just forgetting about it over a beer or two, we all avoid the truth. Namely, whether there was racial profiling, and who profiled who, and whether Obama really simply miscalibrated his words (Gibbs also admitted Obama had prepped for those questions) or whether Crowley deserves a real apology.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

You provided a quote of Obama deflecting blame for his own ill-spoken thoughts. A target of that blame was reported by his own spokesperson.


maybe because they are not so admirable. By moving on, and just forgetting about it over a beer or two, we all avoid the truth. Namely, whether there was racial profiling, and who profiled who, and whether Obama really simply miscalibrated his words (Gibbs also admitted Obama had prepped for those questions) or whether Crowley deserves a real apology.

that's the ultimate spin.

first, there is no, that's NO, statement from obama that "blames the media", which if you recall is the accusation. in fact there is no statement from a white house spokesman either. the comment, relayed second hand, was in regard to how the controversy was distracting the coverage of the healthcare debate.

that's two completely different things.

so then you respond to obama's admission that he contributed to the escalation in an attempt to say that supports the false claim of his blaming the media.

too funny.

then you claim that his success in calming the particpants down, and having them meet and discuss the situation, is somehow resulting in "avoid[ing] the truth".

uh, just what do you believe these three will discuss when they sit down together? oh, maybe they'll not talk about what happened in cambridge (which of course is why they are meeting!!!) but "avoid" the issue and talk about the red sox vs the white sox....or maybe if harvard can beat yale this year....oh yeah, they'll just talk about the weather!

of course the meeting won't be covered either, so the discussion by the media of race and possible profiling won't happen.

yeah, right. without a doubt, it will.

admit it, the accusation is just bs. grasping at air.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

hah. When was the last time you apologized for something you did with, "I helped contribute ratcheting it up," and "I could've calibrated those words differently." Taking only part of the blame for something you did means you are trying to divert blame elsewhere.

http://www.considerthisnews.com/inde...remark_dustup/

If you are the President of the US, how can you pretend that telling the world that someone acted stupidly only "gives an impression" that you are maligning that person?

It looks like messiah fever is starting to subside and he is correctly starting to be evaluated as the zero experienced, overmatched, ivy towered personality he actually is by the public.

He's brilliant, sincere and a gifted speaker, and he utterly wasted the best opportunity any President had in the last 50 years to make dramatic and historical, fundamental changes because he can't get out of a campaign mode.

It was bad enough during the Stimulus Bill debate to go to the Dem retreat and ridicule his opposition, but his "Press Conference" last week when he should have gone Ross Perot he went whiny Perez Hilton. Now his problem is his own Party.

Instead of debating his health care "plan", people are wasting time debating a situation most would have never been aware of if he exercised some sense instead of speaking "stupidly".

[dude1394]

Barry in pictures.

The photographic end to the debate.

Linked by Hot Air. Thanks.

[dude1394]

Transparency...thy name is barry..

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is refusing to quickly release government records on its "cash-for-clunkers" rebate program that would substantiate — or undercut — White House claims of the program's success, even as the president presses the Senate for a quick vote for $2 billion to boost car sales.
The Transportation Department said it will provide the data as soon as possible but did not specify a time frame or promise release of the data before the Senate votes whether to spend $2 billion more on the program.

[chumdawg]

Geez, what is two billion in this grand scheme of things?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Transparency...thy name is barry..

geez, it's amazing at the extent some people will go to bitch. the cash for clunkers program is proving to be not just a success, but a huge success, and yet here's a post griping about some perceived lack of "transparency".

here's some "transparency" for ya....
---------------------------------------------------
Trade-In Program Tunes Up Economic Engine
By JUSTIN LAHART
Of the nearly $800 billion of stimulus funds, the $1 billion "Cash for Clunkers" program may offer the most bang for the buck in terms of jump-starting the economy.

The program comes as auto dealers' inventories are running lower, after the bankruptcy-related shutdowns at General Motors Co. and Chrysler LLC.

Car companies may need to raise production as a result, and to do that, they will have to boost their own depleted stockpiles of raw materials and parts.

The prospect has some economists scrambling to raise their forecasts for growth in the second half of the year.

"A billion dollars for 'cash for clunkers' looks dramatically more efficient, dollar for dollar, than anything else the Congress has passed yet," Credit Suisse economist Neal Soss wrote in a note last week. The program played a big role in his upward revision of his projection for gross domestic product. Mr. Soss now expects GDP to grow at a 2% rate in the third quarter, up from his previous 1.3%.

"The blowout response to the cash-for-clunkers incentive program has been far stronger than we expected," wrote Morgan Stanley economist Richard Berner in a note Monday. He now thinks GDP will grow 3% to 4%, up from his firm's earlier forecast of 1%.

The longer-term effect of the program remains unclear. Some economists believe cash-for-clunkers merely moves spending on cars that would have occurred at some later date into the current quarter. "The essence of what it's going to do," said Nomura Securities economist Zach Pandl, "is move purchases up in time."

That in itself, coming at a time when the economy appears on the cusp of recovery, is helpful, Mr. Pandl said. By boosting demand in the near term, the program will help bolster growth after a year of contraction, adding to the confidence of businesses and consumers alike. That, in turn, could lead them to increase spending.

Some suppliers are still waiting for the cash to trickle down, and with the clunkers program a little more than a week old, it will take some time before the extent of its ripple effects can be known. About two-thirds of the metal and plastic parts St. Louis-based Bachman Machine Co. sells goes into cars, but so far President William Bachman says he hasn't seen business pick up.

"I would think it would help a little bit," he says of the program. "If nothing else, it will move some inventory."

The clunkers program's "multiplier effects" -- where overall spending in the economy rises by more than the government's own outlay -- is a point of contention.

In a recent paper, economists John Cogan and John Taylor of Stanford University in California and Tobias Cwik and Volker Wieland of Goethe University in Germany theorize that because government spending raises inflation expectations and leads to higher budget deficits, it leads to higher interest rates and expectations of higher taxes that end up lowering spending, leading to small multiplier effects.

Another paper by economists Lawrence Christiano, Martin Eichenbaum and Sergio Rebelo at Northwestern University in Illinois takes a different tack, arguing that when overnight interest rates are near zero, as they are now, the multiplier effects become unusually large, because spending jolts consumers out of extreme caution.

At his eight Boston-area dealerships, Village Automotive Group President Raymond Ciccolo says the sales he has made on the clunkers program are to customers who wouldn't normally buy new cars. At the same time, he has seen an upsurge in traffic from customers whose cars are worth too much to qualify for the program.

"Any time you create traffic, you create the ability to sell a car," he said. "And if we can start selling cars now, they start coming back for oil changes, for body work, for new snow tires."

Meantime, the increase in sales provides an income boost for the nearly 500 people that Mr. Ciccolo employs, giving them more wherewithal to spend. Similarly, if auto companies step up production, their workers will be working more hours, boosting their incomes and ability to spend.

[dude1394]

I think we should have a cash for clunker home program too. We could give 45K to anyone who will tear down their old 1960+ home that isn't energy efficient. Then we could have great new homes and the construction business would do great.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

geez, it's amazing at the extent some people will go to bitch. the cash for clunkers program is proving to be not just a success, but a huge success, and yet here's a post griping about some perceived lack of "transparency".

geez it's amazing the extent obama supporters will go to explain away barry's lack of integrity and lack of doing what he said he was going to do. Most transparent administration yet, secret medical meetings, not providing clunker details, not putting his bills on the web as promised, firing attorney generals for doing their jobs and so on. But hey no problemo.

Since you think the clunker model is so great, where is the rest of the clunker legislation. Sure it's great when the government decides which industries (no surprise here) they will support, by either borrowing from someone. Nice vote buying it sounds to me.

Stupid program...imo..won't do a damn thing but transfer more dollars from the credit card to government motors...except...no one's buying government motors. then to destroy them is even MORE stupid.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I think we should have a cash for clunker home program too. We could give 45K to anyone who will tear down their old 1960+ home that isn't energy efficient. Then we could have great new homes and the construction business would do great.

the cost/benefit doesn't add up. what does add up is a tax credit for people who do improve the energy efficiency of their homes by adding new equipment or upgrading their current insulation.

wait, there's already a program like that? amazing....

geez it's amazing the extent obama supporters will go to explain away barry's lack of integrity and lack of doing what he said he was going to do. Most transparent administration yet, secret medical meetings, not providing clunker details, not putting his bills on the web as promised, firing attorney generals for doing their jobs and so on. But hey no problemo.

could you outline just what you want from the white house regarding the cash for clunkers program? could you explain just what "lack of integrity" and/or "lack of what he said he was going to do" as it relates to the cash for clunkers program?

what attorney general was fired?

your hate is getting the better of your reasoning.

Since you think the clunker model is so great, where is the rest of the clunker legislation. Sure it's great when the government decides which industries (no surprise here) they will support, by either borrowing from someone. Nice vote buying it sounds to me.

so it's "vote buying" to use the resources to stimulate the auto industry? apparently your view is they should just sit on their hands and not attempt to help, right?

Stupid program...imo..won't do a damn thing but transfer more dollars from the credit card to government motors...except...no one's buying government motors. then to destroy them is even MORE stupid.

yeah, "won't do a damn thing"....you should call up all those economist who are raising their predictions on the gdp and let them know they are all in error.

not to mention all those heavy polluting vehicles that are being retired and the benefit to our air quality that results, and the increased fuel efficiencies.

again, your hate is getting the better of you.

[dude1394]

I must admit...I never expected to see this in the US. A "pay czar". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080802532.html

Kenneth R. Feinberg has the unprecedented task of deciding executive compensation at seven companies that received large government bailouts. His meetings with American International Group, Citigroup, Bank of America, General Motors, Chrysler, Chrysler Financial and GMAC have been conducted in secret, with neither Feinberg nor the companies willing to say much in public.

[dude1394]

Amazing...Funny line.

Obama has publicly excoriated George W. Bush for running up a $455 billion deficit. Apparently, we missed the nuance there. It wasn’t high enough to suit Obama. So he’s going to quadruple it.

CBO now projects a $1.8 trillion deficit by the end of the fiscal year in September. Almost exactly four times the maximum Bush deficit. I’m certainly not going to defend Bush’s spending - or Democrat-controlled Congressional excess in the past three years - but I don’t see how multiplying the deficit by a factor of four will get us out of an economic hole.

[dude1394]

Heh...

THEY CAN’T HANDLE THIS, BUT THEY’LL HANDLE HEALTHCARE? Dealers stiffed as clunkers pile up. “Some New Mexico auto dealers have backed out of the cash-for-clunkers program and more may do so as the federal government takes its time providing cash reimbursements. Dealers across the state are owed more than $3.6 million, according to a dealers’ group which says that so far Uncle Sam has only written three checks totaling about $14,000.”


(Emphasis added). They promised FedEx, but they’re delivering the Post Office. . . .

[dude1394]

Way too much hope...way too much change.

At The Corner, Peter Wehner cites data from an email by Nicholas Thompson, vice president of the Tarrance Group. Thompson analyzed data from the Gallup poll on Presidential approval ratings from the Eisenhower administration to the present:

Obama's approval is down 14 points from his initial rating -- tying President Clinton for the biggest drop since the Eisenhower era. For those interested, here's how different presidents match up when comparing their initial approval rating with their average approval rating in the August of their first term: Eisenhower +6 (from 68 to 74 percent), Kennedy +4 (from 72 to 76 percent), Nixon +3 (from 59 to 62 percent), Carter -3 (from 66 to 63 percent), Reagan +9 (from 51 to 60 percent), George H. W. Bush +18 (from 51 to 69 percent), Clinton -14 (from 58 to 44 percent), George W. Bush -1 (from 57 to 56 percent), and Obama -14 (from 68 to 54 percent).

Wehner doesn't emphasize the point, but Obama has the lowest Gallup approval rating at this stage of his term of any post-Truman President, with the exception of Bill Clinton. I assume that what sank Clinton's rating was Hillarycare. Seems to be a pattern there.

[wmbwinn]

found a funny editorial cartoon but the link is bad. darn

[dude1394]

I'm so happy that we now have guvment motors. It's so nice to see how guvment ownership of something keeps it honest, open and accountable.

About a year after Washington began its rescue of two Detroit automakers, so many federal officials want to attend the Detroit auto show that organizers have, for the first time, created a new credential specifically for those in government.

Requests for passes to the show are pouring in from members of Congress, the Department of Transportation and other agencies, Doug Fox, chairman of the 2010 North American International Auto Show, said today.

Taxpayers have provided more than $80 billion in aid to the auto industry.

When the show opens to the press, analysts and politicians Jan. 11, about twice as many federal officials are expected to be in attendance, wearing the new gray and silver passes. The Detroit auto show opens to the public Jan. 16.

[Arne]

Hope and Change:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSp...layer_embedded

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Arne

Hope and Change:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSp...layer_embedded

Was he lying or did he really believe it? Which is more unsettling?