Whats Obama's First Priority

[Muskan]

One more thing, do you know who is the worst president of America?

One must remember in their evaluation of politics that, like in law, precedent is paramount. Without the horrendous acts of those who have preceded them, our tyrants would not have been able to do as much damage as they did in real life. As such, here is my list of the worst presidents.

1.) Lincoln. "Union uber alles" sums it all up. His taxing, spending, regulating, war, and suppression of civil liberties set the stage for tyranny abroad and tyranny at home by way of empire and the surveillance state. Killer of 622,000 americans

2.) Teddy Roosevelt. Advanced the cause of 'scientific progressivism', which gave the state more power to intervene at home and abroad for utopian fantasies.

3.) Woodrow Wilson. Set another stage for empire through intervening in Europe, as well as income taxes and inflation at home, and advanced the horrid religion of democracy and egalitarianism.

4.) FDR. The man who truly forced America into being a bastardized mixed-economy, and ensured that America would be bled out internationally ever since.

5.) LBJ. Great Society and Vietnam. (I wonder what pattern these presidents are forming?)

6.) Bill Clinton. Kosovo laid the groundworks of the Iraq invasion through the flouting of international law, the last piece of law outside the dominion of the state, his welfare 'reform' was a joke, the dot-com bubble he created was a catastrophe, and he helped advance the surveillance state through the ATF and certain legislation. Bush II has done nothing Clinton hadn't already done.

7)Bush II. patriot Act, Iraq War, Printing excessive dollars twice, dollar bubble, 4000 american soldiers were killed till march 08.

Now it is Obama's turn.
There is no chance he will be any different.
He cannot do a hurry in removing army from Iraq, because if he do so, Al-Qayeda will take over iraq very soon.
Even he removes tropps from iraq, he has promised to increase tropps in Afghanistan. So no help for tax payers.
His socialistic programs of universal health, National Security force, centralized education and all are detrimental for America. His bailing out sprees means American tax payers buying the well-announced failed ventures.
Will you buy a company which you know is doomed to be a failure? But now you are buying because Obama is using your money to buy those doomed companies and banks. Nationalizing them.

Moreever, he promised a 30 billion help-for Israel against Palestine and Syria, why?
Should American tax payers waste their money on Israel? Why? for what obligation? Obama is no good.
Americans need to "think more".

[mkemse]

Let's just give him a chance to prove himself, he is not going to please 100% of the people 100% of thetime, nor can Bush, Or Clinton, or the 1st Bush ect ect

Before everyone panics let's give the guy achance to see what he CAN do, and will do
Hecan't be any worse then Bush, ourt Invasion of Iraq was illconcieved, he it Bushes turn to finish was his Dad did not do in Desert Storm, we should be in Afghanistan, that is were Al Quida is "dsupposedly" hinidngf, the the Tora Bora Mountain between there and Pakastan, we need ot go after Bin Ladin for 911/ and not waste our Money. Lives ect in Iraq
Iraq has had 7 years to show what they can do, not to mention they have Billoind put away from their oil and yet we pay for most of what ius going onthere

Aside from Al-Quida in Afganistan which we need to do from 9/11 we have no other reason to "Police" the world and force our way on others, we don't want others to force trheir ways on us, so why should we do that to others

Let's just give him tim,e he isn't even in office for 99 more days let's see what he offers, EVERYONE is not going to be pleased with what he does, this is a reality of it, but when he won the lection almost 2 to 1 in electroal votes and took 52% of the Popular vote, that means something, the American People have spokdn let'ssee howwell he and Congress have listened

[Muskan]

Let's just give him a chance to prove himself,

I should remind you if you have forgotten.
Obama has got the chance.
he is president!

[mkemse]

Let's just give him a chance to prove himself,

I should remind you if you have forgotten.
Obama has got the chance.
he is president!

No,he is the President Elect he does not take over for 99 more days, til Jan 20, 2009 then we can all be critical of him when he messes up, which as a Human he will do, he is not perfect

thanks for all your posts and comments, much appriciated

[Muskan]

No,he is the President Elect he does not take over for 99 more days, til Jan 20, 2009

Even now he has power to affect Bush decisions.

Infact Obama urged Bush to help GM, and Bush said, he will, "if" Obama agrees to assist him for Columbia free trade aspects, Obama shrugged at it, and now I think he will postpone the help for GM till Jan 20.

Its not Bush who is in favor of helping GM and Ford, it is Obama's idea. Bush may agree helping them right now only if Democrates agree for assisting Bush, they won't so America is free from wrong doings of Obama till 20th of Jan. Only then he will waste tax money for saving the worthless GM and Ford etc. by malinvestment.

[mkemse]

Bush can't postpone GM til th 20th, from what I heard on the radio GM does not have enough operating cash to last that long
In any event I want to give our President Elect a chance to prove himself, he messes up ,I will be the 1st to say so, he keeps his promises only time will tell, in either event, ANYTHING has to be better then the last 8 years

[mkemse]

If Gm were to be allowed to fail, imagine, auto part stores going out of business because cars are not made snd not as many parts would be needed for repairs,, gas stations the same, less car to sell gas for, ect ect GM going under would have a catastophe domino effect not only in this country but world wide, to many other businesses related to the car industry would falter if GM went belly, up
GM if world wide
Let's have every politician now in office in Washington take their pay and bail out GM
and leave taxpayers go on thids one, r got burned 1 time with the $700 billoin Dollar package which will take generations to pay of, sure we own the banks be bailed out or parts of them, but if they fail we as taxpayers loose out

[Stealth694]

I am seeing some GREAT REPLIES>

I got to agree with Mkemse, give Obama Time,,, you cannot clean up 8 yrs of greed and stupidity in less than a month.

As for The Big Three (?) I say lend( repeat LEND) them the money, with two proviso's
1. Close down your overseas factories
2. Re-OPEN your Domestic Factories..

One of the biggest reasons for this economy is we outsourced all the factory Jobs for Cheaper Labor and less environmental standards.
If you want to stimulate an economy People have to have money to spend and to have money to spend You Need JOBS>

[mkemse]

I am seeing some GREAT REPLIES>

I got to agree with Mkemse, give Obama Time,,, you cannot clean up 8 yrs of greed and stupidity in less than a month.

As for The Big Three (?) I say lend( repeat LEND) them the money, with two proviso's
1. Close down your overseas factories
2. Re-OPEN your Domestic Factories..

and NO more Golden Parachutes for the excutives of these companies, they made thier own bed, let them sleep in them now

One of the biggest reasons for this economy is we outsoursed all the factory Jobs for Cheaper Labor and less environmental standards.
If you want to stimulate an economy People have to have money to spend and to have money to spend You Need JOBS>

Also as far as Obama goes, tearing him apart now before he even takes
office to me is similar to complaining about a house being built nex tdoor to yours and only seeing the foundation and having no idea what the house will look like til it's done

I agree and we can not do that when jobs of all kinds are off shored, it is not possble, we have to keep american jobs here in the United States

Let's not critisize "ideas" or "Ideologies" critisize what actualy is or is not done as it is done or not done
Even in his election night speach Obama said, "There will be decisons to make that many will not like, that will be hard to make" at least he is being honest, I do not expect to agree with EVERYTHING he says or does, that it not realistic, I live in the real world not in a Utopian Socieity

Again 52% of the electorate voted for him, meaning more then 1/2 the voting public wanted him in office, they liked what they heard, let's him him time to be true to his word, that simple, don't critisize the way an umpire umps a game til the game starts

[Muskan]

I am seeing some GREAT REPLIES>

I got to agree with Mkemse, give Obama Time,,, you cannot clean up 8 yrs of greed and stupidity in less than a month.

As for The Big Three (?) I say lend( repeat LEND) them the money, with two proviso's
1. Close down your overseas factories
2. Re-OPEN your Domestic Factories..

One of the biggest reasons for this economy is we outsourced all the factory Jobs for Cheaper Labor and less environmental standards.
If you want to stimulate an economy People have to have money to spend and to have money to spend You Need JOBS>

Where do you think are the factories of Ford and GM if not in Detroit?

They have showrooms outside, they have some parts working stations outside. Why do they have those work stations outside?
Because it is much cheaper for them!
if they are disallowed to get cheaper work help from outside, they will surely get bankrupt.

Also, American market are not the actual consumers for them. And if they stops outsourcing completely, other markets may stop letting them get in.

You know what? Americans think that outsourcing is wrong for them, but the reality is, Outsourcing is HELPING them.

Better would be if American citizens stop buying chinese cheap alternatives for American own made expensive goods. That will help America to provide a stimulus to American producers.
But why will you buy a thing for double the price if the similar thing is available at much cheap price?

Anyways, if America goes protectionist, Obama will loose all confidence in outside world. And that will be greater loss for American producers.

[mkemse]

Where do you think are the factories of Ford and GM if not in Detroit?

They have showrooms outside, they have some parts working stations outside. Why do they have those work stations outside?
Because it is much cheaper for them!
if they are disallowed to get cheaper work help from outside, they will surely get bankrupt.

Also, American market are not the actual consumers for them. And if they stops outsourcing completely, other markets may stop letting them get in.

You know what? Americans think that outsourcing is wrong for them, but the reality is, Outsourcing is HELPING them.

Better would be if American citizens stop buying chinese cheap alternatives for American own made expensive goods. That will help America to provide a stimulus to American producers.
But why will you buy a thing for double the price if the similar thing is available at much cheap price?

Anyways, if America goes protectionist, Obama will loose all confidence in outside world. And that will be greater loss for American producers.

if American Car Quality is the same a forien, how does one explain that Toyota is now the leading makers of cars and GM has fallen to number 2??
If i own an Americna made car and 85% of ythe parts are made over seas, i do notsee how this helps the guy next dor to me who has acar who is assemeleb in the US but who's part are 85% forien??

[lucy]

if they are disallowed to get cheaper work help from outside, they will surely get bankrupt.

They were allowed to do that and went bankrupt. Duh.

As for the reasons GM is going down: One reason is that American car manufacturers kept on building Hummers and those huge offroaders when the rest of the world realized that oil prices will be a decisive factor in picking a model to buy and started to build cars which need much less gas.

[mkemse]

They were allowed to do that and went bankrupt. Duh.

As for the reasons GM is going down: One reason is that American car manufacturers kept on building Hummers and those huge offroaders when the rest of the world realized that oil prices will be a decisive factor in picking a model to buy and started to build cars which need much less gas.

Thank you, at $3.50 a gallon at the timei i do not want a car getting 15mpg, i am not worrid about looks i am looking at good gas milage, the Companies knew they had to downsizecars, why they waited, i have no clue

[Muskan]

They were allowed to do that and went bankrupt. Duh.


yes it will increase the number of reasons. Whats wrong? even when they have one less reason, they are demanding for bail out. if that reason for loss is added, they will not even be in position to demand a bail out again.
Anyways, the reason you mentioned is right. but it is not the direct reason.

Why did they kept making hummers and worthless luxurious cars with least efficiency?

Bad management? Union system? That can be said as actual REASON.

Why did not Toyota or Honda failed in US?

You know who much subsidies and help the trio (GM ford and chryslers) already getting from Government? You know some years ago US government gave a huge impetus to GM and chryslers to make them spend more in producing fuel efficient and even electric run cars?
Why didn't they tried that? Although even without any stimulus any subsidy any help from government, Toyota and Honda did exactly the same.

Why?

Bad management? wrong ethics? A sense of security that no matters what we do, government is helping us now and will help us later?

the Companies knew they had to downsizecars, why they waited, i have no clue

Not only the companies knew it, Companies were taking stimulus, subsidies and monetary help from Government from time to time too.
While the rivals of these companies were not getting any help any subsidy from government. yet they succeeded and FORD, CHRYSLERS and GM failed.

Anyways, it is the time of Obama to commit mistakes.

Judging from past behavior, I think GM would have used most of the profits and governmental support it gets, if not all of that cash to waste on more SUVs, more failed lobbying for stupid government policies, etc. And I do feel it will keep doing so. because even now, GM/Fords lobbying and SUVs is actually making them dream of a better future with better bail out!

[Muskan]

The best incentive to building a better product is knowing that if you don't, nobody's going to buy your product, and you go out of business.

The American auto industry is old, stale, and is needs to collapse and fail so they can start over again with new investment, leadership, and no unions.

[mkemse]

The best incentive to building a better product is knowing that if you don't, nobody's going to buy your product, and you go out of business.

The American auto industry is old, stale, and is needs to collapse and fail so they can start over again with new investment, leadership, and no unions.

True but is there ,money to start anew, as I havereado n various Financial sites if any 1 or all 3 Companies go under, it will have a catastophe effect world wide, these are NOT MY WORDS butthose in the Financial Sectors

[Muskan]

I havereado n various Financial sites if any 1 or all 3 Companies go under, it will have a catastophe effect world wide, these are NOT MY WORDS butthose in the Financial Sectors

And those financial sites are also payed by same money Ford and GM uses to pay the lobbiysts.
Thats how they waste the governmental stimulus.

Removal of 10,000 workers by DHL has much more catastrophic effect worldwide.

I am an economist.

bailing Out these trio will cause loss for America and will lenghten the period of recession, hence whole world will suffer.

If they decide for bankruptcy, not only america will save its ass, world will also feel good. Though some workers (2300) will suffer) but as obama said we all have to sacrifice.

And no matters Obama save these trio for a period, they will again face the same situation. Nothing new, but the period of recession will increase.

Anyways, its obama's time to commit mistakes.

[mkemse]

won't be his time for another 98 days atthe earliest

[Muskan]

GM gears up for launch of mini car next year
PUNE: General Motors(GM), plans to roll out its new mini car next year from its Talegaon plant, near Pune. This will be followed by the launch of a sedan category car named Cruz by 2010.
“Though the parent company in the US is pleading for a bailout, GM India is on track with its plans,” Mr Balendran said. GM India started making profits from 2004. The $200 million engine plant near the car plant in Talegaon has already started and will be fully commissioned by 2010. This the first flexi engine plant in the world which can produce petrol and diesel engines on the same line. The plant has a total capacity of 1,60,000 units.
“The company is neither reducing production, nor going for a lay off. In fact, we are adding our head count. The second production unit in Talegaon enabled us to meet the increase in demand for the entry car segment. At present, the plant is working in single shift and produces around 200 cars per day. By next year we are planning second shift too,” said Mr Balendran." The company is targeting a market share of 10% by 2010.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ow/3710852.cms
No matters GM USA is a failure, Indian management has made it a successful venture in India! (That too without US government's help)
So now, TATA, GM, Maruti, Toyota all are in race of making Mini Cars to provide a tough competition for the TATA Nano!

[lucy]

Why did they kept making hummers and worthless luxurious cars with least efficiency?

Because you Americans had (and to some extent still have) incredible cheap gas. Because a gallon of gas was, and probably still is, cheaper than a gallon of water. Because you guys think cheap gas is a basic human right when in fact it's not. Oil is a market good and thus subjected to the powers of supply and demand. Supply is not growing (or not as fast as demand), whereas demand is. Theory of economy tells you pretty exactly what happens in such a situation.

Bad management? Union system? That can be said as actual REASON.

Yes, not to realize that oil prices are bound to go up was bad management. indeed. It was obvious that that would happen, with China and India consuming ever more of the stuff and few new oil fields coming on the map and existing ones being more difficult to exploit.

Why did not Toyota or Honda failed in US?

Because they probably have quite some heavy taxes on their gas (at least that's the case all over Europe, so maybe it's the same in Japan) so builing fuel efficient cars was paramount for a longer time to survive. And, to be honest, because they build better cars.

You know who much subsidies and help the trio (GM ford and chryslers) already getting from Government? You know some years ago US government gave a huge impetus to GM and chryslers to make them spend more in producing fuel efficient and even electric run cars?
Why didn't they tried that? Although even without any stimulus any subsidy any help from government, Toyota and Honda did exactly the same.

Why they didn't? Simple, because no American wanted to buy such a fuel efficient car. You guys wanted it big, bigger, biggest and that's what you got.
*shrug*
Don't blame the industry or government when you asked for the wrong thing for too long. There's a reason that America consumes a quarter of the worldwide oil production but makes up for only about 4% of the global population.
I'm predicting here and now that we all will come down hard, oil-wise, but America probably will come down hardest.

[Muskan]

Why they didn't? Simple, because no American wanted to buy such a fuel efficient car. You guys wanted it big, bigger, biggest and that's what you got.
*shrug*
Don't blame the industry or government when you asked for the wrong thing for too long.


They don't sale Luxurious Large cars in India.

Indian roads do not support luxurious cars.

They makes small fuel efficient cars here. because people are not THAT rich or MAD to waste their money in useless products.

[Muskan]

,

[Muskan]

Why they didn't? Simple, because no American wanted to buy such a fuel efficient car. You guys wanted it big, bigger, biggest and that's what you got.
*shrug*
Don't blame the industry or government when you asked for the wrong thing for too long.

umm I am not American (nor a guy).

But i want to clear out something. American Government always encouraged people to save less and Invest more, because it has some basic lack of understanding of economics.

Even now, during the recession, government want people to spend and take loans so that banks may start working.
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/mor...ic-crisis.aspx

Government thinks by doing so, economy will start booming again. It doesn't happens.

Also, American people do not want big Cars that is why GM is failing. GM never learnt from Toyota and Hundaye and others which are a success US, infact, it was a matter of pride for GM Chrysllers and Ford to create luxurious big and RICH cars. They did not wanted to do same business as toyota were doing. They wanted to maintain their unique position.
And they will do it again. They won't learn.
They do not believe in consumers power. They believe in Keynesian Economics, the supply-side economics which is wrong and irrational.
They thinks, people will buy that which they will make.
\And they want people to reject toyota no matters how better cars they make, and accept the luxurious cars of GM, Ford etc.
People don't accept it now a days, hence they are failing.

[gagged_Louise]

*sighs* Can't they proclaim and print a new kind of currency, existing parallel to the dollar, which would be state backed but only valid in the US, and thereby permitting assistance on short term to the car industry, the finance sector and other exposed parts of the economy. You see, an indefinite amount of this "new money" could be printed and circulated... *gg*

[mkemse]

*sighs* Can't they proclaim and print a new kind of currency, existing parallel to the dollar, which would be state backed but only valid in the US, and thereby permitting assistance on short term to the car industry, the finance sector and other exposed parts of the economy. You see, an indefinite amount of this "new money" could be printed and circulated... *gg*

No, if for no othher reason it makes too much sense to do that

[gagged_Louise]

*smiles* Not a totally serious proposal of course, but it's an interesting one to try figure out what it would take to make it work, even for a limited time. "Only valid in the US" would mean only in shops on main street in the US - sure enough you'd have to make countries like India, Britain, Canada, China, Kuwait and others - and major companies there - accept dealing in this new "dollar Mk2" side by side with the old one. And I guess state regulated freezes on some wages and prices would be needed too.

[DesertDom]

Does anyone perhaps think it odd that Democrats would support a bailout (handout) to auto industries and Republicans are resisting?

Why would the party that supposedly in is bed with 'evil' businesses not want to hand out money and the party that claims to want to reform business is in favor of giving away more money ?

The background is that our auto industries are heavily unionized, the per hour cost to a car company for a union worker is in the $70 - 75 dollar range approx. Similiar costs for japanese car companies are $30-40 per hour.

One of the Democrats major backers and we are talking millions of dollars annually from the various regions are labor unions, relevant to this issue is the Auto Workers Union.

Car companies have been desperately trying to cut costs for years, having done so through automation, out sourcing of parts and assembly, etc. One of their remaining cost issues is labor costs. Due to union contracts, they haven't been able to make much headway.

Car companies would like to declare bankruptcy (similiar to what airlines have done) and redefine the labor cost structure as much as possible. If they get handouts from the government, it will make it that much more difficult to declare bankruptcy and the government would then have a yes / no say into what changes are made.

One reason obama was urging Bush to support this handout during their meeting, to try and take care of his labor union support.

I do believe in the theory of labor unions, but in some industries here, labor contracts have made the entire cost structure untenable. Hence why there has been a lot of movement to outsourcing of mfgr'ing parts by large companies.

[mkemse]

Does anyone perhaps think it odd that Democrats would support a bailout (handout) to auto industries and Republicans are resisting?

Why would the party that supposedly in is bed with 'evil' businesses not want to hand out money and the party that claims to want to reform business is in favor of giving away more money ?

The background is that our auto industries are heavily unionized, the per hour cost to a car company for a union worker is in the $70 - 75 dollar range approx. Similiar costs for japanese car companies are $30-40 per hour.

One of the Democrats major backers and we are talking millions of dollars annually from the various regions are labor unions, relevant to this issue is the Auto Workers Union.

Car companies have been desperately trying to cut costs for years, having done so through automation, out sourcing of parts and assembly, etc. One of their remaining cost issues is labor costs. Due to union contracts, they haven't been able to make much headway.

Car companies would like to declare bankruptcy (similiar to what airlines have done) and redefine the labor cost structure as much as possible. If they get handouts from the government, it will make it that much more difficult to declare bankruptcy and the government would then have a yes / no say into what changes are made.

One reason obama was urging Bush to support this handout during their meeting, to try and take care of his labor union support.

I do believe in the theory of labor unions, but in some industries here, labor contracts have made the entire cost structure untenable. Hence why there has been a lot of movement to outsourcing of mfgr'ing parts by large companies.

Part of the reason the Repubilcans are leary about helping out the Big 3 is that they already Borrowed $700 Billion form us and have no clue what to do with that, 1st it was to bail out Mortages, then they pull the rug out on that, they have all this money borrowed from us Taxpayers and have No Clue where to use it

[mkemse]

INtresting, the just had a story on the Noon news, the Senate Committee over seeing the $700 Billoin Dollar Bailout,now wants an explanation from the Teasury Department as to why they suddendly decide NOT to use the Money for the Mortage Bail Out as orginialy planned and exaclt what they plan to do with it
It may also be notied that those companies who are being Bailed OUt or help said yesterday the have placed Milloin upon Milloins off to the side to give their Excexutive Xmas Bonuses
When asked by the Senate why, the COO's of these Companies said "We placed these Bonus Monies off to the side before the Bailout was offered"

Well if they did, let them use THAT money to help save their skins not the Taxpayers money
we bail them out then they still have the nerve to give outrageouds bonus based n "money put off ot the side"

yes right

Will they NEVER learn

[Muskan]

A British Lesson on Auto Bailouts
A faltering auto giant whose brands are synonymous with the open road. Hundreds of thousands of unionized workers with powerful political backers. An urgent plea for the government to write a virtual blank check.
This is not the story of Ford and General Motors, but British Leyland, a car company that went through £11 billion of inflation-adjusted British taxpayer money, or $16.5 billion, in the ’70s and ’80s before going out of business. All that is left of the company now are memories of cars like the Triumph, and a painful lesson in the limited effectiveness of bailouts.
“It’s all too evocative,” said Leon Brittan, a top official in the government of Margaret Thatcher, the free-market-minded prime minister who nevertheless backed the rescue. “I’m not telling the U.S. what to do, but the lessons of the British experience is don’t throw good money after bad. British Leyland carried on for a few more years, but they’re not there now, are they?”
Other experts are sounding the same alarm. “The British Leyland experience is a relevant and cautionary one,” said John Casesa, a principal in the automotive consulting firm Casesa Shapiro Group in New York. “The government got in the business of trying to make a winner out of a structurally flawed company. That’s the risk in the U.S. as well.”
Though Continental automakers have fared better than British ones, Mr. Casesa argues that the long history of government support in Europe made companies like Renault and Fiat strong players in their home markets, but not worldwide.
“With the exception of BMW and Mercedes, European automakers haven’t been globally successful,” he said. “Nor have they been hugely profitable.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/bu...omy/18car.html