Deprogramming Services wrote: A majority of economists rated Obama's economic performance "fair to poor?" "abysmal," "catastrophic," and "absolutely the stupidest plan ever conceived" must not have been options. – in response to Economists Finally Get One Thing Right for 2011: Obama a Failure.
Obama has spent over $10 trillion since becoming president and we have nothing to show for it. For that kind of money you could have seed-funded a developed economy, like Germany’s, Italy’s or France’s and completely rebuilt every industry from scratch. You have to try really hard to spend money like that and not create any jobs.
Jim wrote: Romney's Newest Bestest Buddy is...you guessed it...Goldman Sucks. Biggest contributor. These effers are setting up the biggest circular firing squad ever assembled. Looks like Ann Coulter desperately wants Odumbo to win. – in response to Economists Finally Get One Thing Right for 2011: Obama a Failure.
It’s: “Obama’s newest, bestest buddy and big toe…” if you want to be technically and artistically correct.
Mac 287 wrote: It should have been designed as a political punching bag because today Mom, apple pie and all things are targets for incredible snarky printed sarcasm...and it obviously pays well...bottom line, huh? The Volt is not the point...if its faulty, fix it or get rid of it...or yoo hoo consumer...don't buy it! Obama does not design cars...cheap shot. – in response to GM CEO Burst into Flames at Volt Meeting- Almost
Dear Comrade 287,
So your theory is that mom and apple pie are targets in a right-wing snark conspiracy?
Which side, the right or the left, had rallies where they left the public spaces cleaner than when they started? Which side, the right or the left, left literally tons of garbage in Zucotti Park after breaking the law? Which side, the right or the left, used defecation on a police car as a form of self-expression.
The right loves mom and apple pie. The Chevy Volt is an example of how far from baseball, hot dogs and apple pie America’s best loved brand of cars has strayed.
This quote exemplifies why:
They have a whole other ethos, inspired by Obama: “The Volt’s technology and its recent accolade from Consumer Reports make the Volt a marketing tool for Chevy,” said Alan Batey, vice president for Chevrolet U.S. sales, according to Bloomberg “This vehicle is about more than how many we sell,” Batey said. “This vehicle is a magnet around everything we are trying to do to showcase our brand.”
More than about how many they sell? They are going to reinvent their whole company around the Volt?
Try running any one of Chevy’s iconic music backgrounds like, “Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet,” or Bob Seger's “Like a Rock,” or John Mellencamp’s “Our Country” over footage of a Chevy Volt starting a garage fire.
Sorry, the mom and apple pie folks are buying Fords.
That’s why Volts aren’t selling.
Robert4112 wrote: I think the facts are misrepresented in this essay. The engineers who developed the Volt did not ask for a taxpayer bailout. Obama did not design the Volt. Its basic design predated the Obama presidency. – in response to GM CEO Burst into Flames at Volt Meeting- Almost
Dear Comrade 4112,
No, I think the facts are pretty-well represented in the piece.
It was Obama who set as a goal as he was campaigning for president that he would put 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015.
The piece wasn’t about the engineers. It was about people like GM CEO Akerson who thinks he can take $50 billion of taxpayer money and then complain that he has to be accountable to the American taxpayers for the results. If you are not prepared, Mr. Akerson to sit before Congress and answer questions patiently about your stewardship of America’s investment in GM without resorting to demagoguery, then you ought to quit. In fact, I think Akerson should be fired for his testimony before Congress.
Let’s be quite clear: 1) Bailout of any company by the federal government is wrong; and 2) It’s even worse when taxpayers will lose over $23.6 billion on the bailout and rising.
Then to top it all off we have to hear from a sycophant like Alan Batey that sales don’t matter.
As far as Obama goes, he’s the one who promised to put a million of these cars on the road. Until his mouth stops writing checks the country can’t cash, expect him to rightly get the lion’s share of the blame.
DonnaRain wrote: Don't you just LOVE how wingnut like Ransom HATE American workers and manufacturing? ESPECIALLY when he and the rest of the hatemongering GOP were completely against the loan given to GM to keep millions of workers employed and innovation alive in the US after the Bush Depression destroyed the American economy. – in response to GM CEO Burst into Flames at Volt Meeting- Almost
Dear Comrade Donna,
I don’t LIKE the WAY you use CAPS.
You’ll be eating those words when 20 years from now the “innovative” autoworkers of America are standing hat in hand once again asking for a bailout because their union screwed the rest of us at the bargaining table.
I love American workers. I hate the people who would use them to further their own narrow partisan purposes.
Far from having a manufacturing boom, manufacturing is lagging under Obama.
From our economists at Political Calculations:
Going by the post-recovery figures, we find that President Obama hasn't been paying much attention to manufacturing, either during the recession or during the recovery, as its share of jobs lost and created has been essentially identical during his three years in office.
Only 1 out of 3 jobs that have been created have been created in supply chain and manufacturing even though those jobs account for 47 percent of all jobs in the US according to Political Calculations.
Bill 1895 wrote: Quiet Reason, I will repeat the question: do you own a Volt? – in response to GM CEO Burst into Flames at Volt Meeting- Almost
Of course she doesn’t.
QuietReason wrote: This piece is riddled with misinformation. First, assistance to the auto industry was bipartisan. The Bush administration gave $17.4 to General Motors and Chrysler. The Obama administration provides an additional $7.5 billion. Your statement “right now, legally, General Motors operates as a subsidiary of the US Department of the Treasury” is also incorrect. (Your link doesn’t provide support). In fact the Government currently holds 23% of GM stock, hardly a controlling interest much less a “subsidiary” – in response to GM CEO Burst into Flames at Volt Meeting- Almost
The war in Iraq was a bipartisan vote too. So what?
Like a typical liberal you don’t seem to understand that conservatives don’t approve of everything that Republicans do.
Just because Republicans vote for liberal nonsense, doesn’t mean we approve.
The money Bush gave GM went down a rat hole in the largest bankruptcy in the history of the United States. Obama gave the company another $50 billion dollars- not $7.5 billion- to recapitalize, half of which the Treasury Department’s inspector general says we’ll never see back.
Under the terms of the recapitalization, the company is under the supervision of Congress in regard to TARP funds and an employee of the Treasury Department in regard to the government’s investment. The US Treasury owns 32 percent of the company, not 23- both Bloomberg and MarketWatch affirm federal ownership at 32 precent regardless on what the NYT's asserts- and according to BusinessWeek and Yahoo Finance, “the company operates as a subsidiary of United States Department of The Treasury.” A simple Google search of the phrase would have found it for you.
Obama can’t claim that he killed Osama bin Laden and saved GM, but then take no responsibilities for his failures. I know that’s what he’s done his whole life, but the citizens expect more from a president.
Lastly, I understand having a difference of opinion, but really Quiet, you’re always so lazy about looking up facts for yourself. That’s why so many of the facts you present here and elsewhere are simply wrong.
Toni wrote: I am a moderate. Subsidies for the oil industry need to end & be put in to renewable energy...I'm concerned about climate change. Further I do not believe [the Canadian tar sands oil] will mostly be transported by rail. What leads you to believe that Obama ensured transport by rail? Is there something you suggest I read indicating this, opposed to an Op/Ed piece? – in response to Unions, Buffett, Robber Barons and Cronies Now Have Our Oil, Oh My
While you're at getting rid of subsidies for oil- which I agree with- you can get rid of them for railroads too.
If you're really concerned about global warming then you will highly resent the fact that Obama just ensured that the oil from the Canadian tar sands will be transported by rail and that it will emit more carbon than had it gone by the pipeline. You'll also be extremely unhappy that high frequency of rail accidents will ensure that more oil is spilled potentially damaging aquifers.
If you really care about the issue that you say you do, Obama's decision is not good for you. There will now be MORE carbon in the atmosphere rather than less.
Go complain to Obama about it. Prove me wrong about liberals. Prove that you are a liberal of principle who I can respect even if I disagree with.
If you hold me to one standard, you should hold Obama to the same standard.
NormRX wrote: I use to admire and respect Buffett. I now think of him as just another corrupt two faced Democrat. – in response to Unions, Buffett, Robber Barons and Cronies Now Have Our Oil, Oh My
He and George Soros should have died ten years ago.
JoeDavis wrote: It is interesting because Herbert Hoover was the last businessman to be President and he was a conservative republican. You right wingers are totally delusional. – in response to Obama is that Damn Hoover President
Dear Comrade Joe,
Calling Hoover a conservative Republican is like calling FDR a conservative Democrat. Neither appellation fits.
Amongst the GOP there are gradations of political thought. I know Democrats have a group-think mentality, but it doesn’t fit Republicans.
Hoover was a businessman though in the Romney mold. It’s one of the reasons why a majority of Republicans think that nominating Mitt as the GOP candidate for president would be a mistake.
We want a conservative; not an establishment, big-government, chamber of commerce Republican.
Kilgore Trout wrote: Lizza didn't need to mention if Obama ever said "Hoover Dam" because the comparison or connection to Hoover Dam was all Lizza's. A pretty poor one actually. – in response to Obama is that Damn Hoover President
Dear Comrade Kilgore,
You almost had a good point. But it ended up being a pretty poor one actually.
During his state of the union message, the very day you wrote that comment, Comrade Obama verified Lizza’s story when he said:
Building this new energy future should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair America's infrastructure. So much of America needs to be rebuilt. We've got crumbling roads and bridges. A power grid that wastes too much energy. An incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world. During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge.
This is almost verbatim what Lizza alluded to.
So at 2:43 PM ET you attempted to take Obama’s foot out his mouth and by 9 PM ET Obama stuck both feet right back into his mouth.
You can’t make this stuff up folks.
That’s all for this week.
PS- If you friend me on Facebook you get sneak peeks of columns! Act now, because I'll only keep this offer open for a short period ;-)
The email function at the top of the page is working. So, let the Hate Mail begin!
John Ransom | Create Your Badge
Twitter http://twitter.com/#!/bamransom -See more top stories from Townhall Finance.
New Homepage, more content. ---Be the best informed fiscal conservative.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member