Skip to main content

View Diary: Total votes at 130.6 million, Obama at 68.95M - Updated x2 (208 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If I had it to do over again, (0+ / 0-)

    you would be subtracting one.  

    They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20 ~~ Dennis Kucinich

    by dkmich on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 05:05:17 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Really? (12+ / 0-)

      You'd really not vote for Obama?

      I guess it's easy to be that way since we won so big. But if you honestly expected progressive perfection from a general election in the United States of America...

      So tell me what actions you've taken since the election to register your response in a way that might actually produce progressive social change.

      It's easy to be self-righteous. It's harder to actually do something that produces results.

      •  I am disappointed in the way he is treating (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Woody

        people in MI and Ohio.  I feel like President Elect Obama is making a liar out of candidate Obama.  When he was in MI and OH, he was promising the autos and the UAW the moon.  Never once did he say that he would support them if they groveled, took pay cuts, or otherwise met terms and conditions that would make them "redeemable".  He lied to MI and Ohio.  

        It's easy to be self-righteous. It's harder to actually do something that produces results.

         This sounds like it came out of Obama's mouth to the union and autos.  Obama isn't going to produce any real change. He is going to produce change we can believe in, which is  reverting to the Clinton presidency and the 1990s.  If I had wanted that, I would have voted for Hillary.  

        Sure Obama is better than McCain because he at least believes in science.  Beyond that, Obama appears to be just another pandering and self-serving politician.

        They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20 ~~ Dennis Kucinich

        by dkmich on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 09:21:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Please lay out your easy plan (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          djs, mayim, sea2008, lompe, fleisch, FistJab

          for fixing the economy, and explain how it differs from what Obama is proposing to do.

          "Save it for 2050." -- Mark Penn (on Obama's electability)

          by throughaglassdarkly on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 09:50:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  dkmich I guess we should just hand out money (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FistJab

          to the big 3 and keep on giving until they stop asking?  Seriously I would be upset with any President who would just give out money with no pre-conditions that the money would be used wisely so that the receipent would not become a bottomless pit for more taxpayer money.  And by actually requiring the big 3 to get their act together Obama is doing much more for the companies and their workers; without it those companies are headed for the scrap heap of busted business models past.

          •  Hand out money to banks and Wall Street (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dkmich

            But don't do shit for Democrats, I mean, for UAW members or their employers. What reform plan was extracted from Citibank? Yeah, right.

          •  Double standards.... (0+ / 0-)

            The hypocracy is bad enough and the tone is inexcusable.   But hey, its not you.

            They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20 ~~ Dennis Kucinich

            by dkmich on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 11:08:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I forgot this is a candy store and everyone is (0+ / 0-)

              free to get what they want.  Move over store owner cause the kids are in charge.  Seriously accountability has never been a strong suit of the auto industry and to expect them to "do the right thing" with money with no strings attached is the height of naive and is right down irresponsible of any leader's charge over taxpayers money. I dont like the lack of oversight over Wall Street bailout money but that is no excuse to continue with the trend and just keep giving out money with no strings attached.

            •  banks supply operating credit to ALL BUSINESSES.. (0+ / 0-)

              unfortunately, banks must be bailed out because they are the linch pin for all businesses and we are headed for a depression without banks that extend credit.  also, the big 3 destroyed our air with gross poluting big SUV's and disgusting cars that don't compare to Japanese or European for safety and durability and where are the hybrids?

              I'm sorry the auto workers are getting screwed by the stupid managers in USA's auto industry; but they need to ENGINEER DECENT CARS!  WHERE ARE THE HYBRIDS and the higher gas mileage and the flex fuels or veggie oil diesels?

              The banks with bond departments did screw up bad with CDO's and bundling funky loans but that is all spilled milk; nobody knew when the housing bubble would burst and the damn Congress never got regulators to demand oversight of the crazy risk in the inflated housing market mortgages and exotic derivatives.

              Grown ups need to let the grown ups run a federal government dealing with a disastrous mess left by the Bush wrecking crew.

              When the big Three come back with a reorg plan and plan to build desirable cars that people will prefer over Toyota and Honda etc, Congress will bail out the auto industry.  Also, the labor unions make the American worker, with benefits get 30 to 40 dollars more than the American workers in Honda and Toyota plants in the US states.  How can the Japanese plants operate for so much less and still get good workers?  Business has to reduce costs to make money.

              Business deals in profits and good products sold at good prices get profits.

              •  IF YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT (0+ / 0-)

                JUST DON'T.

                They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20 ~~ Dennis Kucinich

                by dkmich on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 01:07:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  You have this half-right (0+ / 0-)

                unfortunately the half you have wrong screws the American union worker, and has a devastating impact not just on those 3 million workers, but also on the same financial institutions you are willing to bailout.  They, and their loan-insurer, AIG, and therefore the American taxpayers will still on the hook for any home, car, student, etc loans those 3 million American workers may default on to their banks, if they lose their jobs.  This is an interconnected problem.

                The original bailout for the banks resulted not in an extension of credit to other businesses or consumers but in dividend payments to the owners (stockholders), this problem was belatedly recognized by Paulson so they have restructured the next round of free money to require more money directed to consumer loans (auto, home, etc).  

                Banks are failing, in part, because they made loans that they had a fiduciary duty not to, but they got greedy and made them anyway.  They then purchased insurance from AIG, who decided to make money on the banks' risk, by insuring those too risky loans, betting that the bubble would never burst, and raking in money from the premiums.  This is your profit driven solution.  They dealt in "profits" and made a lot of it.  Does this square with your assertion that only "good products sold at good prices get profits"?  

                The size of the bailout to AIG remains in flux precisely because they have NO idea how much money they will owe on failed loans, because they keep on keepin' on, even on loans that were once considered good or safe, as people lose jobs (possibly 3 million autoworkers?) or have hours cut or investments in stocks tank, and people default.  It is a continuing cascade.  

                Banks & AIG are the nexus of the problem, the other player in this mess are the rating agencies, that, in my mind, have gotten off scot free, though they are the purported reasons that AIG and Wall Street investors "believed" their investments were safe.  

                The bond rating agencies vouched for worthless paper. Even though, I, and many others, can point to the warning signs that were clearly evident by 2001.  It influenced my home mortgage decisions in 2002. I read a report by the US Gov Banking Commission that flagged the subprime market as a potential risk for the whole economy. And this is not what I do for a living, why didn't the banks or AIG know or the bond raters know?  They knew, but they didn't care to believe, because it was too lucrative. Nothing in the bailout packages require any change in that kind of thinking from the financial sector.  Nothing in the free money given to banks or financial institutions requires that they clean house and build a better system or a better product.  You want to hold the auto industry accountable yet no one seems to be demanding the same of the financial institutions that are the center of this storm.

                The only bailout that has a direct impact on consumer spending is a loan to the Big 3, which keeps 3 million Americans employed at middle class wages.  And has a direct impact on the 20 million jobs that depend on those 3 million spenders.  It is the best INVESTMENT loan we can make, as a nation.  

                I agree that Detroit failed in not going green.  They made a huge strategic blunder.  And unlike the Pres of the UAW, I do hold management of the Big3 accountable, they could have seen the writing on the wall about green if they had looked, but like the money folks, the chose greed and delusional blindness to the detriment of their industry.  

                But if we bailout the financial institutions without caveats, why is it fair to then require this of the Big 3 which directly impact 3 million American jobs, 3 million middle class American consumers (the engine of our economy)?  My feeling is that we should require caveats of both, and LOAN them both the money for fix in the short-term.  Whether I personally like the management of the Big3 or the CEO of Citibank or AIG (I don't), we're all part of the same system and they are all too big to fail.  It is the time for grownups, and as much as the financial institutions screwed up they would have too devastating an impact on our economy if they failed, so too would the loss of 3 million jobs in an economy that has at least 5 million currently unemployed.  We can't afford not to loan the Big 3 money.   If you blame Detroit for lack of foresight in making big SUVs as a reason not to give them a loan, then by your own standard, you must blame the banks for their lack of foresight in how they handled their primary business, and that is loan-making, and not give them money, either.  Both choices, however, would be short-sighted in my view.

                "Out of Many, One." This is the great promise of our nation.

                by Uncle Moji on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 02:12:37 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Take a better look (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Murdershewrote

                The Big 3 didn't "[destroy] our air with gross poluting big SUV's". Toyota makes big SUVs and big trucks, too -- they just didn't make them as well, so they sold fewer of them. And it's a game Toyota and Nissan desperately want in on -- look at their latest entries, in the Tundra, Sequoia, Armada, Titan. Those babies are not fuel sippers. Keep that in mind when you bash the Big 3.

                And by comparison, Ford's vehicles are all amazingly clean of smog-forming pollution: The Ford Taurus has the same pollution score as the Toyota Yaris -- despite being twice as big, twice as roomy, and twice as powerful as Toyota's tiny entry. The Ford Explorer actually has a BETTER pollution score than the Toyota Yaris!

                Flex Fuels are ENTIRELY the domain of domestic manufacturers, so I can't imagine HOW you bring them into a this argument. Ford even created a 3-way flex fuel engine that could run on gas, ethanol, or hydrogen. They have hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in active service, ready for that route if we take it. And they have fleets of plug-in hybrids being tested.

                The Ford Fusion Hybrid which will be available in 3 months gets 5mpg better than the Camry Hybrid!

                Consumer Reports has said that every Ford vehicle is at or above average in reliability, and that if you were to compare only their cars, they would match Toyota and Honda in reliability.

                Plus, Ford leads the fuel economy race in many segments, and is in the running in many more. The new Fusion will lead the midsized sedan segment, the Ranger has the best small truck mileage, the F-150 has the best large truck mileage, the Escape hybrid does better than the Highlander hybrid, the Focus ties a number of other compacts at 35mpg -- the Focus gets the same highway mileage as the Yaris or the Fit! They've published a commitment that every redesigned vehicle will lead its class in fuel economy, and at least with the Fusion, they've kept that promise.

                And in about a year and a half, Ford's going to have a wide variety of their European small cars for sale in the US.

                At least with Ford, they've been showing their plan for years. They don't need to change direction.

                I have no idea what plans GM or Chrysler have, I don't follow them.

                Those who ignore the future are condemned to repeat it.

                by enigmamf on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 05:52:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site