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 thatsales 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.
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.
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.
Ericynot wrote: Part of what Buffett proposed in the so-called Buffett Rule is raising the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to the level of ordinary income. Re-read my original post from 11:19 AM. You're confused and so, apparently, is John Ransom.- Obama’s Campaign about Nothing
Dear Comrade Eric,
No, I’m not confused. I think perhaps you don’t understand how tax law actually operates in real life.
Even assuming that the Buffett rule raises taxes on capital gains, there are easy ways for rich people to avoid paying capital gains taxes.
Unlike income taxes, a person can choose when to incur capital gains taxes.
The way Buffett chooses is by buying stocks and holding on to them for a really long time. Until he sells, there is no capital gain event- hence no taxable event. This is a common way that financial advisors routinely minimize the tax burden of people who fall into upper incomes. They buy companies and hold for long periods of time and much more rarely seek to realize capital gains, because the tax makes a big difference in total return.
You may say so what? The “so what” is that by punishing the realization of capital gains you stop the market from being more liquid, thereby not utilizing capital more often. In other words, you need more capital to get the same amount of liquidity.
You also raise less money with higher capital gains taxes.
In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced. Rather than expand by 36% as the Congressional Budget Office projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.
The CBO incorrectly calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion. Revenues for 2006 came in $47 billion above the pre-tax cut baseline.
Here’s what else happened after the 2003 tax cuts lowered the rates on income, capital gains and dividend taxes:
GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1%.
The S&P 500 dropped 18% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32% over the next six quarters.
The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
The timing of the lower tax rates coincides almost exactly with the stark acceleration in the economy. Nor was this experience unique. The famous Clinton economic boom began when Congress passed legislation cutting spending and cutting the capital gains tax rate.
RG_From_THP_1 wrote: Barack Obama claims his numerous Golf Outings have saved or created thousands of 'Greens Jobs.' .- Obama’s Campaign about Nothing
Oh well, then. Now this makes sense. It was a “greens job” thing not a “green job” thing.
Art F wrote: Ahh, we finally disagree. I hated the dot com era and the amount of damage it ultimately did. I hated that people who bought into the dot.com had absolutely no idea what they were doing or why they were doing it. They never asked why they never really made any money, and they bought more because financial clowns told them to. -Don’t Like Facebook
Dear Art F,
Well financial clowns always tell you to buy. But that doesn’t mean that something good can’t come from it.
Wall Street is a dangerous place. For every buyer, there is a seller. Not everyone can be on the winning side of a transaction. That goes for banks, or pharmaceuticals or dotcoms. There are still a number of thriving businesses in dotcoms.
I would say that overall the benefit has been positive.Aura wrote: I don't get why you conservatards don't criticize Jesus Christ for his wealth redistribution schemes. All liberals are doing is carrying out JC's instructions, more or less. - The Emancipation Proclamation: The Man Who Freed the Gays
Dear Comrade Aura,
Oh, here we go: The great liberal in going to break out the Bible for us and explain to us the Gospel According to Barack.
Aren’t you worried about displaying “false religiosity?”
If anyone thinks that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has anything to do with standard tables of deductions and tax returns, then they either don’t understand the Bible or they are just willing to twist the Bible for their own purposes.
Don’t liberals like you, at some point, tire of being hypocrites?
I guess the answer is no.
Mooonbat Exterminator wrote: But wait a minute, Didn't Barry say in Iowa that capitalism and the free market has never worked? Now, before a crowd of Wall Street fat cats, who he claims to despise that free markets are the greatest wealth generator ever. He must have been referring to himself when talking about the wealth that was generated for his campaign. - The Emancipation Proclamation: The Man Who Freed the Gays
Isn’t ironic that the Obamanauts are marching demanding that we tax the fat cats on Wall Street while Obama raised a record amount of money from Wall Street? I also find it ironic that at the same time Obama has shoveled more money into corrupt Wall Street schemes than any other president in modern history.
As I said above, one would think that eventually liberals would get tired of the hypocrisy. But they are liberals, after all. There is that.
Truth001 wrote: Ransom said: “Supposedly it was passed to curb abuses in origination of consumer mortgages. You may want to read the bill before you make off the wall comments about it.- JP Morgan Shows Obama Bank Reform as Flawed
Dear Comrade Pravda,
You may want to read the bill before you criticize me:
To promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability
and transparency in the financial system, to end ‘‘too big to fail’’, to protect
the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive
financial services practices, and for other purposes.
TITLE XIV—MORTGAGE REFORM AND ANTI-PREDATORY LENDING ACT
Sec. 1400. Short title; designation as enumerated consumer law.
Subtitle A—Residential Mortgage Loan Origination Standards
Sec. 1401. Definitions.
Sec. 1402. Residential mortgage loan origination.
Sec. 1403. Prohibition on steering incentives.
Sec. 1404. Liability.
Sec. 1405. Regulations.
Sec. 1406. Study of shared appreciation mortgages.
Subtitle B—Minimum Standards For Mortgages
Sec. 1411. Ability to repay.
Sec. 1412. Safe harbor and rebuttable presumption.
Sec. 1413. Defense to foreclosure.
Sec. 1414. Additional standards and requirements.
Sec. 1415. Rule of construction.
Sec. 1416. Amendments to civil liability provisions.
Sec. 1417. Lender rights in the context of borrower deception.
Sec. 1418. Six-month notice required before reset of hybrid adjustable rate mortgages.
Sec. 1419. Required disclosures.
Sec. 1420. Disclosures required in monthly statements for residential mortgage
Sec. 1421. Report by the GAO.
Sec. 1422. State attorney general enforcement authority.
Subtitle C—High-Cost Mortgages
Sec. 1431. Definitions relating to high-cost mortgages.
Sec. 1432. Amendments to existing requirements for certain mortgages.
Sec. 1433. Additional requirements for certain mortgages.
Subtitle D—Office of Housing Counseling
Sec. 1441. Short title.
Sec. 1442. Establishment of Office of Housing Counseling.
Sec. 1443. Counseling procedures.
Sec. 1444. Grants for housing counseling assistance.
Sec. 1445. Requirements to use HUD-certified counselors under HUD programs.
Sec. 1446. Study of defaults and foreclosures.
Sec. 1447. Default and foreclosure database.
Sec. 1448. Definitions for counseling-related programs.
Sec. 1449. Accountability and transparency for grant recipients.
Sec. 1450. Updating and simplification of mortgage information booklet.
H. R. 4173—11
Sec. 1451. Home inspection counseling.
Sec. 1452. Warnings to homeowners of foreclosure rescue scams.
Subtitle E—Mortgage Servicing
Sec. 1461. Escrow and impound accounts relating to certain consumer credit transactions.
Sec. 1462. Disclosure notice required for consumers who waive escrow services.
Sec. 1463. Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 amendments.
Sec. 1464. Truth in Lending Act amendments.
Sec. 1465. Escrows included in repayment analysis.
Subtitle F—Appraisal Activities
Sec. 1471. Property appraisal requirements.
Sec. 1472. Appraisal independence requirements.
Sec. 1473. Amendments relating to Appraisal Subcommittee of FFIEC, Appraiser
Independence Monitoring, Approved Appraiser Education, Appraisal
Management Companies, Appraiser Complaint Hotline, Automated
Valuation Models, and Broker Price Opinions.
Sec. 1474. Equal Credit Opportunity Act amendment.
Sec. 1475. Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 amendment relating to
certain appraisal fees.
Sec. 1476. GAO study on the effectiveness and impact of various appraisal methods,
valuation models and distributions channels, and on the Home
Valuation Code of conduct and the Appraisal Subcommittee.
Subtitle G—Mortgage Resolution and Modification
Sec. 1481. Multifamily mortgage resolution program.
Sec. 1482. Home Affordable Modification Program guidelines.
Sec. 1483. Public availability of information of Making Home Affordable Program.
Sec. 1484. Protecting tenants at foreclosure extension and clarification.
Subtitle H—Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 1491. Sense of Congress regarding the importance of government-sponsored
enterprises reform to enhance the protection, limitation, and regulation
of the terms of residential mortgage credit.
Sec. 1492. GAO study report on government efforts to combat mortgage foreclosure
rescue scams and loan modification fraud.
Sec. 1493. Reporting of mortgage data by State.
Sec. 1494. Study of effect of drywall presence on foreclosures.
Sec. 1495. Definition.
Sec. 1496. Emergency mortgage relief.
Sec. 1497. Additional assistance for Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
Sec. 1498. Legal assistance for foreclosure-related issues.
You should read all that.
Rat wrote: John, please dump the mustache, unless you have a "hare-lip".
Forget the silly 'mini-beard'. Grow a full BEARD ! I did it. You can too. Trust me, ( giggle, giggle, haw, haw, ) ... - JP Morgan Shows Obama Bank Reform as Flawed
That’s a really weird comment coming from a guy.
I assume you are a guy, although it’s just possible that you are an Obama-appointed DOJ lawyer who is a woman. Some of them do have beards. Actually I thought it might be a new Obama qualification for a Supreme Court appointment: 1) Must be woman; 2) Must have beard.
In any event, I leave the beard department to my wife to manage for me. She likes it.
Lastly, the “giggle, giggle, haw, haw” part really creeps me out.
That’s like restraining order territory.
Marie150 wrote: I hope politicians are not offering people hush money. Isn't it against the law?- Obama Heads for John Edwards-type Hush Money Scandal?
It all depends on the definition of the word “is.”
I colleague of mine, John Zakhem, who specializes in campaign finance matters, put it this way:
Edwards claims the payments were independent of the campaign, and were related to his personal life, not to attempting to shape public opinion relative to his candidacy. I would presume that Obama’s campaign would employ a similar defense. The critical factual aspect of any inquiry by the FEC will be the extent to which Obama’s contributors…coordinated their efforts with the candidate and/or his campaign. If such payments were, in fact, made in a coordinated manner they would be deemed a contribution. If such contributions went unreported and/or were in excess of applicable limits they would constitute violations of BCRA (McCain/Finegold).
Truth001 wrote: If $150K was all it took to silence Wright I would he comes pretty cheap. I take Hlilary at her word that she is done with politics. She has nothing to gain by running. I'm sorry but this stuff is bogus. - Obama Heads for John Edwards-type Hush Money Scandal?
Dear Comrade Pravda,
So you see nothing wrong with Obama offering money to someone. Like a typical liberal your only problem, isn’t moral or ethical, it that not enough money was spent.
At least your hypocrisy is consistent.
“Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.” – Oscar Wilde
75th Retired wrote: I have to wonder if Klein was setup, that this was an engineered trap by the libs. Consider the timing. Wright will come put and deny everything, even if he actually made the statements.. - Obama Heads for John Edwards-type Hush Money Scandal?
Sometime as conservatives we get a little too paranoid about our paranoia:
Mac287 wrote: JR can only hope that Obama is heading for a "John Edwards type scandal". Just imagine the columns that can be written in triumph! Hope springs eternal, Mr.Ransom...hang in there. - Obama Heads for John Edwards-type Hush Money Scandal?
Dear Comrade 287,
It’s not my only hope. Actually the polls are pretty hopeful that Obama will be gone by fall anyway.
But look: I think you are a sincere fellow, so let me ask you this: If Obama really did pay off cronies to stay out the limelight, wouldn’t that be a big betrayal of everything you believe as a liberal?
Daune wrote: I find the allegations of payoffs a bit hard to believe, only because the people being paid off have nothing to gain from talking, and everything to gain from being quiet. Obama is the most radically leftist president we have had since the days of WW and FDR - the likes of Ayers would know that keeping quiet will get him closer to his radical goals than outing Obama. - Obama Heads for John Edwards-type Hush Money Scandal?
That’s assuming that everyone Obama has met in his life is more interested in ideology than in money. This is the United States of America. Outside of Obama’s tiny academic enclave, most people value money,
That’s it for this week.