What Obama says, and what Obama does are two different things.

Not running GM is comprised of firing the CEO and now ordering GM out of Nascar.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/motorsports/april _fools_obama_orders_chevrolet_and_dodge_out_of_nascar_car_news

That's pretty funny.

GM is $30 billion in debt. It has blown through the first $17.5 billion lent to it by the feds in December and it wants another $17.5 billion. In the broad scheme of things, the GM/ NASCAR relationship is minor at best. GM should focus on restructuring or possible bankruptcy, not its relationship with NASCAR. It ended its mutli-million dollar endorsement deal with Tiger Woods to save money; it can certainly do the same with NASCAR.

What is the date today?

LOL. I forgot.

You know Deane, you sure have a lot to say about how Obama is running the bailout. What's he supposed to do continue to pump unlimited amounts of government money into GM while the crooks at the top say "trust us"?

You know everything. Tell us how would you handle the problems with the auto companies.

This is what the link displays now:

"April 2009

Car and Driver has a proud tradition of April Fools’ Day jokes stretching back 30 years. We regret if this year’s went too far."

Car and Driver has taken the story down and apologized for going a bit far with their joke.

It has "april fools" in the link.

Pretty obvious it was a prank.

"Tell us how would you handle the problems with the auto companies."

Probably the same way Obama is, but I didn't stand up before the American people and say I wasn't going to do certain things, then do them.

The issue here is that Obama continues to say one thing and do another and the liberals, including the press, don't call him on it.

Same way with taxes. The middle and low income were not going to pay one dime more in taxes. He just signed the new cigarette tax into law. Guess who that hits the hardest.

Being just a little more respectful of the office of the President, I'm not going to call him a liar like the liberals do.

"Guess who that hits the hardest."

Smokers?

Couldn't they have gone bankrupt without government help?

"Probably the same way Obama is, but I didn't stand up before the American people and say I wasn't going to do certain things, then do them."

Well, he's holding the feet of financial institution executives to the fire, implementing stricter rules of how the bailout loans will be spent, and the repercussions if they fail to spend it in a manner that helps the consumer.

Bush gave the first bailout stimulus to the banks carte blanche, without stipulations, without rules. He was a bit more firm with the automakers, demanding some restructuring. It's obvious that GM anyways hasn't gone nearly far enough, that a change was needed at the top, and that the negotiations with the UAW aren't going to produce anything that will suffice in terms of streamlining, given the acrimonious relationship between the automakers and UAW.

Rather than put the taxpayers on the hook for funding a venture that is all but guaranteed to fail at this point (which GM IS), Obama is suggesting that the issue of restructuring be forced in the courts by Chapter 11. The government will back any and all GM warranties existing, so consumers don't get spooked off. It's a lot cheaper for taxpayers to go this route, and it forces GM to restructure more drastically, than what has happened thus far.

I don't think this is necessarily Obama "lying" as much as seeing that maybe bankruptcy IS a better option than to continue throwing money at this problem. Getting the financial sector right, and open to issuing more credit and lending, is more of a priority. That alone will solve so much of our economic woes!

I'm not disagreeing with most anything Obama is doing with the auto companies.

What I am questioning is his saying one thing for public consumption, then doing another. What would be wrong with telling the public the truth, since that's the platform he got elected on.

He is however, not the most objective person to be doing this. He's bought and paid for by the unions, so I can't quite imagine him being totally unbiased when dealing with the union mess.

Obama is not "running" GM. But as President, he very well should have some clout with some of the decision making at GM since they ARE using OUR money!

This is not saying one thing and doing another. It's called being a steward of our tax dollars and holding people accountable.

What I think is the REAL joke here is the notion that we can have it all AND a President Goodwrench to boot ! Whereby the Federal Govt dba you and me will Warrant any Detroit built automobile in the event that said company files for Bankruptcy protection.

I look at this as T H E most preposterous stunt concieved in the first 100 days of the Obama administration ! We might as well just go out on the GSA car lot and pick up a vehicle from the motor pool, and while were at it, have them fix the bad starter on my Yukon or Denali that I bought 18 months ago ! Now we have the government changing oil and replacing windshield wiper motors and covering an extended warranty. We could call it ....Medicar.............

Probably work as well as Medicare/Medicaid !

What a crock ....makes Franklin Roosevelt look like Ronald Reagan.

"Probably work as well as Medicare/Medicaid !"

That would be fine.
Medicare & Medicaid work well.

"He is however, not the most objective person to be doing this. He's bought and paid for by the unions, so I can't quite imagine him being totally unbiased when dealing with the union mess."

To his credit, he's been as hard on the UAW through this whole mess as he has the automakers. Yeah he received a ton of campaign finance from the labor unions, like any liberal Democrat does, but I don't see him being a union stooge throughout this. He's telling BOTH sides to figure it out, or ALL sides lose. And he's spot-on with that.

It could be worse - imagine Nancy Pelosi doing this. Talk about a labor mouthpiece!

His predecessor was bought and paid for by the bankers and look where that got us.

"His predecessor was bought and paid for by the bankers and look where that got us."

What evidence do you have of that?

About as much as your willing to give to back-up your crap.

""His predecessor was bought and paid for by the bankers and look where that got us."

What evidence do you have of that?"

Pretty much all you have to do is look at the massive deregulation, the subsequent subprime crisis/credit crisis, and then look at him loaning the financial sector $350 billion with ZERO strings, stipulations, or other controls, letting them spend it as they wanted, with no concern about opening up lending and getting the economy moving again ... to see that, while Bush might not have been "bought and paid for" by the financial institutions, he sure had one hell of a laissez-faire view of things, and ALL of us are paying because of that.

BRIAN!!!!
DUHbya and Co. wouldn't take the blame for that so why in God's name do you think that DJ would see it? Ignorance is bliss.....

He is spot on with that GM + union deal.

GM is a mess and both parties have a keen interest in coming to the table and dealing hard. It's the right thing to do.

(wish more of it were happening with our corporate oligarchs --big financial)

What is going to happen, and what the unions really want is a better playing field, and that's going to happen with the Employee Free Choice Act.

They then can go out and organize people and grow the unions stronger. That's a much larger benefit than not having to deal at GM would be.

They all know it too.

And I'm slowly turning very pro-labor. I find it difficult to stomach the devaluing of skilled labor that continues to go on. ALL WEALTH COMES INTO BEING THROUGH SKILLED LABOR and SIMPLE LABOR.

Those people building that wealth deserve their share. Couple that with a workable single pay health care plan, with luxery insurance riders for those so inclined, and we would be building a much more robust middle class.

When that happens, we run well.

We are just suffering from too much over exploitation. The well is dry and needs refreshing.

Build stuff. Any stuff really. Without that, we've too damn many revenue streams leading out of the country to continue to be sustainable. Need more of them here, circulating here, it's that simple.

And here's another idea.

If your company is too big to fail, then it's not really a private company any more. Grow that big, you threaten the national security, and Uncle Sam has a say.

This is why we had good anti-trust laws and good financial regulation. Uncle Sam doesn't want to have a say. Solid market rules make that a reality and business then does what it does with no worries.

Break the larger ones up, however brutal, regulate the crap out of them (like the French want), and invest in new revenue streams.

Obama even makes the Europeans nervous and that says a hell of a lot !

But certainly less nervous than Bush, so we're getting somewhere, eh?

But where are we going?

Considering that we've crash landed at the bottom of a barrel, its a pleasure to look at someone who is at least pointing up this time. Lets hope he can find a way to get us up there.

You have to admit Obama has taken Bush's problems and made them his own to solve.

There is a lot to the Europeans being nervous.

The two top producers there, France and Germany, have solid social safety nets in place. Their citizens suffer one hell of a lot less risk than we do, and they are more mobile in their employment options also.

Those two nations don't want to see a lot of extra debt, because it's a net loss burden for them, mostly because they are running well. Their people are being served nicely, and their nations compete nicely.

A lot of the rest of Europe, in particular the UK have bought into the same economic shit we have, and need stimulus in the same way we do, because their bubbles have popped in a fashion similar to ours.

This issue comes down to free market -vs- regulated markets, and level of social security for the people -vs- risk.

They are nervous because if we go down the route of spending to stimulate, there will be some inflation, forcing them to follow, or produce more, or devalue.

For some of them, it means surrendering the supply sider bit, and if they are like us, they have sent a lot overseas, and that's worrysome. For others, like I mentioned, they are worried about carrying other nations, who should have done right by their people in the first place.

Ask the Germans. They will tell you exactly that.

Another element in the mix is once the flow starts toward a greater degree of economic isolation (protectionism), then many nations will have to follow, building their own sources of revenue again, and we all are a bit less connected.

I'm all for this. We need to be eating our own dog food, more than we are eating others dog food, or we will continue to suffer low wages, bubbles, and risk as we have seen.

28 years of Reaganomics is going to be a bitch to untangle. Can't wait!

What we are going to learn is that there is a balance between socialism and free markets. We the people permit markets to exist, set the rules, so that they serve us!

Making money is all good. If making that money presents as a net loss, or with too high of a risk, then we don't need those people making that money.

A robust social safety net means some regulation on markets. That's just how it is, unless we want to continue the escalation of costs and risk we have been living under.

We shouldn't have to surrender everything when a job is lost, for example. Here, that happens and it happens big! That didn't used to be the case, and going forward it shouldn't be the case.

Want to start a business? Be self employed?

That's the perfect environment to do it in. What we live in right now is absolute hell for doing that, and those that do carry a LOT of risk they shouldn't have to. That same risk comes home to cripple many of us who would otherwise be making investments, creating jobs, building things, etc...

The majority of employment here is small business. Why not favor that and restrain the mega-corps a bit?

That's where I think we will be forced to go actually.

That's not socialist either. That's a measured balance between risk and wealth creation. The rich can get richer, but we can live a modest, fairly low risk lifestyle, if we want to, while they get there.

...and happy, healthy people are more civic minded, produce more, live longer, etc...

There is no reason to continue down the path we are on.

Recently, a company that I represent --an American company, filled with good Americans doing what they do well, was purchased by a German company. Now those big quarters go to pay for their health care, while our costs go up, and our wages stagnate in the face of inflation.

This kind of thing has been happening for 28 years. Now we are a nation of baristas, laundry washers, service people, etc... Our high paying, quality jobs are either overseas, or if they still exist here, are owned by other nations, paying for their people, not us.

That has got to end.

I don't know about bringing the jobs back. Some tariffs would nudge some back here, but the damage is largely done.

So then, the alternative is to build out new industries and protect those, so that we own those, and they serve us and their owners.

Alternative energy is at the top of my list for that activity. New Automotive is second. Medical is third.

Careful Missing, in glancing though your posts I get visions of a hammer and cycle. Is that really where you want to go mentally.

Gee that's new, a conservative implying or calling someone to the left a communist. You sure are original Deane. LOL

"hammer and cycle."

Sickel, not cycle. Slow down Deane. It could be pointed out that your racist overtones are symbolic of classic throne and altar monarchy leanings or worse, the red hurricane (curved swastika) of the Fascists. Since you're always whining about everyone attacking you for what you say, and now you're doing the same, veiled as it may be. Herb is back. We don't need you for board hypocrite.

Careful of what?

Not having your approval?

Please!

Andy, I'm attacking thinking, not the individual. I happen to think Missing is an intelligent, thinking person whom I respect. I don't agree with his drift on certain things, but not all things. We can agree on many issues.

By the way, you're right on the cycle vs. sickel. I even Googled it and it came up hammer and cycle, so since it was early in the morning, I through caution to the wind.

I always thought that you "threw" caution to the wind. DJ is getting flustered and is now making excuses for his mistakes. Poor conservatives.

I think Missing is spot on with that recent post. The boom and bust cycles we've been in lately aren't sustainable in the long term.

Missing has a point though.

I'm all for capitalism. As a rule of thumb, I have always been of the opinion that the less government dictates business and regulates, the better.

The mass deregulation, which started yes, under Reagan, but has continued through the three administrations that succeeded Reagan, are what has led us to this point. One of the great conservatives of all time, Teddy Roosevelt, was a champion of the labor movement and one of the big pushers, one of the staunchest allies, of regulation, and anti-trust legislation. Teddy fathered a Republican movement, much in the manner that Reagan did some 75 years later.

It's not all Reagan's fault though; some things to keep in mind with Reaganomics ... one, that it DID spur the economy eventually, after a rough couple of years. Look at what he walked into; unemployment in the double digits, inflation in the double digits, folks having a hard time borrowing because interest rates were so high as was inflation, the misery index was through the roof. Between Reagan tax cuts and the Federal Reserve knocking down interest rates, happy days were here again. Along with that went some deregulation. Some good (Ma Bell, the cable companies) and some not so good (ask any air traffic controller). The deregulation has continued, and it manifested under the George W. Bush administration, recklessly.

We are to the point where, honestly, we NEED to possibly go too far the other direction to right the ship. It's a fine balancing act, how much of a hand government should have in the affairs of private enterprise ... IMHO, ANY firm, no matter what, how big, or what they offer for services, if they receive bailout loans from the government, meaning you and I as taxpayers, they ultimately have to answer to us, the taxpayers, meaning they have to answer to those who we elect to represent us in Congress, the Senate, and the POTUS. Plain and simple.

You have to start by eliminating the tax rules that result in large corporations not paying into the system, outsourcing jobs offshore, and putting the burden of healthcare back onto the public whom do not have the loopholes to reduce taxation to near zero. The ripple effect of this would be the reduction of huge pre-tax profits that are then doled out to upper management in various forms (bonus, salary, etc.) which in turn reduces their taxable income. It's a cycle that needs to be corrected.

How about a basic no frills, no gismos car? easy for the back yard guy to change his own starter fanbelt, or waterpump without having to take out the engine? No power windows, GPS, sync, and other stuff that adds cost but not value. IHave a Tracer and you have to take out the whole instrument cluster to change a dash bulb. Needs a hose clamp on my leaky heater core, and you have to remove the ENTIRE dash to get to it. Take it to the dealer and its 600 dollars to replace a 99 cent part. My 98 buick has automatic headlights. They won't come on at all. new switch 79 dollars. new sensor 335 dealer only. new harness 79 dollars dealer only. BUT they aren't sure which it is until they get in there. Estimated repair low end 689.00 high end 1175.00
Does Ford still offer a basic straight 6, 3 speed half ton. no carpet? Nope. Their "WORK TRUCKS" are so nice, I wouldn't want to haul stuff in them. Is there NO market for a basic entry level car. Sure you can buy an AVEO for 8900, but again, not much on it that a guy can repair himself, so after warranty as things need replacing the repair bills for minor stuff starts to seriously impact income. Was this a company plan? Having sold cars, a NEW CAR dealership wouldn't last if all they did was sell new cars the big profit is in USED cars, and the service department. Nowadays you are hard pressed to find a local garage that can even do more than the basics. Got plug in that computer to diagnose the problem...

Rant over

This is precious and just too funny...

Coulter Falls For Fake Obama NASCAR Story That Limbaugh Said No One Would Believe

Wow, the ultra-right right can do nothing right these days!

Isn't it nice to see after 8 years of their BS...

Ignorance can be cured by education.
But you just can't fix stupid.

Amus, which of those two things are afflicting the liberals on this forum. I'm hopeful it's the first one.

For the neo-CONers it is definitely BOTH!
THEY'RE
THEIR
THERE

Holy cow, it's Homophone hell.

I think Homophones are illegal in most red states.

I think they may use a different style of RJ11.

LINK

I think they may use a different style of RJ11.

Yes they do. They use an RJ-21X.

http://www.shout.net/~wildixon/telecom/rj/rj21x.html