How is the State Of The Union?

Obamas' speech!

Obamas speech reminds me of the World Class Swimmer Who bragged that he would set a new WORLDS RECORD the next day.

A HUGE crowd gathered to watch, the swimmer strutted to the pools edge, flexed his muscles, took several deep breaths, smiled and waved at his fans.
leaned even more over the pools edge, then suddenly with a FAST and VIOLENT movement sprung HIGH into the air and out over the pool. He landed in a heap of broken bones, a bruised body , and was never to swim again!!
You see, in his ARROGRANT, SELFISH, desire to show off his skills he overlooked the most important factor-SUBSTANCE!! the pool had NO SUBSTANCE-- it contained NO WATER!!, His fans just shook their heads and walked away as his medical team carried the "LOSER" to his bed.

As they say in TEXAS , "Obama is all HAT and NO CATTLE!"

Obama your speech last night had NO SUBSTANCE!!
 
Werbung:
Re: Obamas' speech!

re-hash of all that came before.

new jobs bill ? wasn't that the goal of the porkulus ? still have most of that money left, quit pissing it away maybe ?

anyway, WSJ agrees

Its clear he is quite happy to flame out instead of understanding the will of the people. Congress has not lost sight of this though and the president has bet his last dollar of political capital on having the GOP not bringing anythng to the table (hithertofore a place they were not welcome).

Lets see how many dems are willing to fall on the president's sword !
 
Re: State of the Union on CNN

Fact check: Obama and the ‘hatchet’ job
Look at some of the president’s claims and how they compare with the facts

APTRANS.gif

updated 10:47 p.m. CT, Wed., Jan. 27, 2010
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama, who once considered government spending freezes a hatchet job, told Americans on Wednesday it's now part of his solution to the exploding deficit. He didn't explain what had changed.
His State of the Union speech skipped over a variety of complex realities in laying out a "commonsense" call to action.
A look at some of his claims and how they compare with the facts:
OBAMA: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't."
THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit — and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along.
Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel," he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year to year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain's.
___
OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."
THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted — a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.
___
OBAMA: The president issued a populist broadside against lobbyists, saying they have "outsized influence" over the government. He said his administration has "excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs." He also said it's time to "require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress" and "to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office."
THE FACTS: Obama has limited the hiring of lobbyists for administration jobs, but the ban isn't absolute; seven waivers from the ban have been granted to White House officials alone. Getting lobbyists to report every contact they make with the federal government would be difficult at best; Congress would have to change the law, and that's unlikely to happen. And lobbyists already are subject to strict limits on political giving. Just like every other American, they're limited to giving $2,400 per election to federal candidates, with an overall ceiling of $115,500 every two years.
___
OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress "to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve."
THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign — to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN "so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it's acted upon.

<story source>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35112718/ns/politics-white_house/

***************************************************
My POV...it might not have been all the 'RIGHT' thought it should be...it wasn't far from what I fully understood that he would need to say {constant reassurance/hand holding/redirection seem to the be game plan for those with whom nothing is going to help {you know who you are}...but it was a good well rounded speech with several points that needed to be repeated again & again & again...but the left seated side of the house {the Presidents left} with whom nothing is going to change, there won't be any bipartisan working together, they are as lock-stepped together as to be auto-bots in thought and speech...there won't be any cohesion on any of our problems left over for all of AMERICA since G.W.B. exited the White House :cool:
 
Ford earns first annual profit in four years

Ford says it gained market share in North America, South America, Europe


Ford says it expects to be profitable next year as well.

M. Spencer Green / AP
APTRANS.gif

updated 1 hour, 47 minutes ago

DEARBORN, Mich. - Ford, the only U.S. automaker to avoid bankruptcy court, clawed its way to a $2.7 billion profit in 2009 and expects to stay in the black in 2010. It was the automaker's first annual profit in four years.
Ford's full-year revenue of $118.3 billion fell nearly 20 percent from 2008, but the Dearborn-based automaker benefited from cost-cutting, a $696 million profit in its credit arm and popular cars and trucks like the Ford Fusion midsize sedan and Ford Escape small SUV. It gained market share in North and South America and Europe, despite the worst U.S. sales climate in 30 years.
"While we still face significant business environment challenges ahead, 2009 was a pivotal year for Ford," Ford CEO Alan Mulally said in a statement.

<story source>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35120808/ns/business-autos/

**********************************************************
Hmmmm, it would appear that despite the naysayers/constant whine of the far right crowd that the system set in place has had some serious earmarked successes...Hyundai has posted some record increases for their last quarter reports too. GEE WHIZ isn't it just horrible that our entire economy isn't has terrible as the far right say it is :confused:
Don't you just hate it when they have to retract/eat their own words :D
 
Ford earns first annual profit in four years

Ford says it gained market share in North America, South America, Europe


Ford says it expects to be profitable next year as well.

M. Spencer Green / AP
APTRANS.gif

updated 1 hour, 47 minutes ago

DEARBORN, Mich. - Ford, the only U.S. automaker to avoid bankruptcy court, clawed its way to a $2.7 billion profit in 2009 and expects to stay in the black in 2010. It was the automaker's first annual profit in four years.
Ford's full-year revenue of $118.3 billion fell nearly 20 percent from 2008, but the Dearborn-based automaker benefited from cost-cutting, a $696 million profit in its credit arm and popular cars and trucks like the Ford Fusion midsize sedan and Ford Escape small SUV. It gained market share in North and South America and Europe, despite the worst U.S. sales climate in 30 years.
"While we still face significant business environment challenges ahead, 2009 was a pivotal year for Ford," Ford CEO Alan Mulally said in a statement.

<story source>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35120808/ns/business-autos/

**********************************************************
Hmmmm, it would appear that despite the naysayers/constant whine of the far right crowd that the system set in place has had some serious earmarked successes...Hyundai has posted some record increases for their last quarter reports too. GEE WHIZ isn't it just horrible that our entire economy isn't has terrible as the far right say it is :confused:
Don't you just hate it when they have to retract/eat their own words :D


it was good that America rewarded Ford for its corporate responsibility. And how much marketshare did GM and Chrysler lose ?
 
it was good that America rewarded Ford for its corporate responsibility. And how much marketshare did GM and Chrysler lose ?

It wouldn't matter had GM not become Government Motors. That's how the market is supposed to work, isn't it? The well run industries gain market share, the poorly run ones lose it, and eventually change or go bankrupt. How much market share does Studebaker have? How about DeSoto? GM should have been allowed to follow them if they couldn't make a comeback. Now, thanks to statist policies, we own the failing company.
 
It wouldn't matter had GM not become Government Motors. That's how the market is supposed to work, isn't it? The well run industries gain market share, the poorly run ones lose it, and eventually change or go bankrupt. How much market share does Studebaker have? How about DeSoto? GM should have been allowed to follow them if they couldn't make a comeback. Now, thanks to statist policies, we own the failing company.


obviously GM and Chrysler have been losing marketshare for years but that fall picked up momentum with the socialization. that was people rewarding Ford.

but are you not glad that China saw to it that the union's retirement program is now saved ? well, we have to pay China back some day so I guess its our grandkids.
 
What...you would suggest that all industry, regardless of their 'dead wood mentality' should always be supported/made to be more profitable...just because they've been around for ever...REALLY:confused:


GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to go Chapter 11 sans the govt bailout of the union . They were allowed to go bankrupt anyway but only after the unions got their ride on the bailout gravy train.

Did you have that all typed out irrespective of my post as it makes no sense as a response.
 
GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to go Chapter 11 sans the govt bailout of the union . They were allowed to go bankrupt anyway but only after the unions got their ride on the bailout gravy train.

Did you have that all typed out irrespective of my post as it makes no sense as a response.

so with unemployment where it is now, watch GM and Chrysler go down....and all the companies that supply them ( and Ford Actuly does better with them there then without in terms of supply costs becuse of econ of scale)

at what unemployment rate would make you happy you let the free market kill as many jobs as possible? Maybe 20% employment and you could say yay, GM did not get help ( paying it back)
 
so with unemployment where it is now, watch GM and Chrysler go down....and all the companies that supply them ( and Ford Actuly does better with them there then without in terms of supply costs becuse of econ of scale)

at what unemployment rate would make you happy you let the free market kill as many jobs as possible? Maybe 20% employment and you could say yay, GM did not get help ( paying it back)



You assume that they would not come out of chapter 11. Well, they DID come out of chapter 11 so your point is moot.

All that happened is that we lost bailout money and unions got heaped on the backs of the taxpayers.
 
You assume that they would not come out of chapter 11. Well, they DID come out of chapter 11 so your point is moot.

All that happened is that we lost bailout money and unions got heaped on the backs of the taxpayers.

Unions are not the problem. Ford is unionized as well. The problem is poor management.
 
Unions are not the problem. Ford is unionized as well. The problem is poor management.


You miss the point.

GM and Chrysler both went through Chapter 11 and emerged.

They could have gone through Chapter 11 without the bailout (and would actually have come out better off). All that happened is that our grandchildren will be paying for union benefits.

They all have bad management, they all signed those union agreements, GM and Chrysler are just worse. Ford was smart enough to avoid the siren song and the American people have rewarded them for it.
 
Let me review {I've been away at a job}:
You said:
Originally Posted by dogtowner
it was good that America rewarded Ford for its corporate responsibility. And how much marketshare did GM and Chrysler lose ?
And I said: What...you would suggest that all industry, regardless of their 'dead wood mentality' should always be supported/made to be more profitable...just because they've been around for ever...REALLY:confused:
Then You Said:
GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to go Chapter 11 sans the govt bailout of the union . They were allowed to go bankrupt anyway but only after the unions got their ride on the bailout gravy train.

Did you have that all typed out irrespective of my post as it makes no sense as a response.

So, my response confused you :rolleyes:

OK, here I'll try to brake it all down for you:
Market Share...would you want to invest in a company that couldn't mange their business any better then GM & Chrysler have done in the past 12 odd years...granted they haven't had the vehicle recall problems that seem to have been plaguing several of the other auto industry of late but they haven't been pushing anything new & improved since the Dodge Caravan {MINI VAN} first hit the scene back in the late 80's...so who's to blame {truthfully for the market share falling off}...HMMM I'll give you 3 guesses
 
Werbung:
So, my response confused you :rolleyes:

OK, here I'll try to brake it all down for you:
Market Share...would you want to invest in a company that couldn't mange their business any better then GM & Chrysler have done in the past 12 odd years...granted they haven't had the vehicle recall problems that seem to have been plaguing several of the other auto industry of late but they haven't been pushing anything new & improved since the Dodge Caravan {MINI VAN} first hit the scene back in the late 80's...so who's to blame {truthfully for the market share falling off}...HMMM I'll give you 3 guesses


Their marketshare dropped off the edge of the table with the bailouts. Ford had lost share as well but Ford did not absorb Toyota or Honda share, they got a good jolt of GM and Chrysler.
 
Back
Top