I feel as if Obama thinks that his job is tantamount to a contractor hired to turnaround a firm. Only it seems this firm exists in la-la land and the contractor has presidential powers.
Obama has stated adnausium that he desires to “change” and to “remake” America. It seems that his entire campaign centered on “changing” the country from the way George Bush ran it. Honestly, I don’t really understand what that means entirely, but I suppose that is what Obama is indeed referring to when he says “you ain’t seen nothing yet.”
Now, anyone with a brain stem attached can see that there are many problems that need to be addressed in this country, but I kind of liked it the way it was when I was growing up. I sort of like the idea of the land of the free and all that. I mean, what in tarnation is Obama talking about anyway? So now we own a few car companies; that is the change we have all been waiting for? So now Obama can threaten private citizens over and over again (i.e. Rush Limbaugh or the investors in GM) and have his will be done, is that it?
Read how the man talks to the citizenry: “… a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany … and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama.” The guy is talking about himself. . .um. . . I cannot for the life of me understand the thinking of anyone who could stomach voting for a canidate who is so arrogant, so stupid as to think that he can usher in a happier season as if he were some strange deity who could magically lower the oceans or a car’s gas mileage.
Under the Bush administration’s TARP money give away GM got 20 billion dollars of your tax money in order not to go into bankruptcy. But that was back when it was “too big to fail.” Now 50 billion more is promised under a deal in which GM was forced into bankruptcy by the Obama administration.
As a first, totalitarian, measure Obama fired the chief executive officer and half of the board (now that’s a great sign for the future stability of the economy!). Now the government is admitting that the new cars that GM will be told to make will not be profitable. Well that’s just brilliant. Oh, and another thing, they will not be safer either. So, I guess the answer to GM’s financial troubles is to make more expensive, less safe vehicles. Let’s let Obama run all of our industries!
From what I remember of Fredrick Hayek’s book all of the hullabaloo swirling around the GM deal should be unto us a sign; a street sign that is only found on that much traveled “road to serfdom.”
I suppose I should thank the Obama administration and all of his supporters in a sense as they have helped me to understand just how predictable “liberalism” really is.
“What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.”
Chapter 11 would have been good for General Motors. The new CAFE standards are not good for General Motors, nor are they good for the country.
Note that the new CAFE standards will raise toxic non-carbon emissions… automakers will spend so much complying with CAFE that they will have an incentive to under-comply with emissions regulations for noxious gases with which they currently over-comply. Oops. Didn’t notice anyone on the Hill thinking of that unintended consequence.
Guess who stopped raising CAFE levels?
Reagan.
If we had continued down the path that both Republican and Democratic presidents had set forth (raising CAFE levels every year), we would likely have no need for foreign oil right now.
Raising CAFE levels will be good for the auto industry and our country. There’s a reason Honda and Toyota are kicking our butt in auto sales: they built smaller, more fuel-efficient cars while GM was pumping out Hummers. Plus, if we’re serious about truly weaning ourselves off oil and staving off climate change, we must raise the CAFE standards. From the late 70s to 90s, raising the standards had a profound effect on reducing our oil consumption. Look towards the future and not the short-term. Would you rather us not raise CAFE standards at all? Ever? That’s just silly.
Chris, you’re making an assumption that changing their practices from over-compliance to just compliance is actually profitable. In many cases, it is not. Why would you tear out technologies and replace them with ones that pollute more? Even if it saved money in the long-term, it would be a huge cost burden in the short-term, one the auto industry can ill afford at the moment. The reason no one “noticed” this problem is because it isn’t one.
@ Johnny Q: isn’t the point that central planning is bad b/c they can’t manage the car industry efficiently?
This isn’t CENTRAL PLANNING!!!
hahaha, you guys are ridiculously silly. You use words and phrases like “socialism,” “central planning,” and “fascism” as rallying cries in an attempt to make you feel better about losing the election. Soviet Union = Central Planning
And if you’ve watched any news outlet other than Fox News, you would realize that what is going on is NOT central planning. Raising CAFE standards is NOT central planning. Republican and Democratic presidents alike have raised them.
How exactly is Obama “MANAGING” the automotive industry? What was your alternative proposal to bailing out the auto industries… allowing them all to fail?