Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

How would you vote in the 2008 US Presidential Election?

  • Obama-Biden (Democrat)

    Votes: 67 59.3%
  • McCain-Palin (Republican)

    Votes: 18 15.9%
  • Barr-Root (Libertarian)

    Votes: 14 12.4%
  • Nader-Gonzales (Independent-Ecology Party / Peace and Freedom Party)

    Votes: 5 4.4%
  • McKinney-Clemente (Green)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Baldwin-Castle (Constitution)

    Votes: 7 6.2%
  • Gurney-? (Car & Driver)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Other...

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    113
  • Poll closed .
And that brings up an entirely new situation. How does this affect specialty makers? Certain companies exist solely to build gas guzzling fun cars.

When certain automakers do not meet the standard, they are normally charged a blanket fee. It isn't much, and as I recall, Ferrari and Lamborghini (for example) have been doing it for years. With a small operation, its going to hurt, but it won't stop automakers from producing gas guzzlers otherwise.

EDIT: Found it

Consumer Energy Alliance
The penalty for failing to meet CAFE standards recently increased from $5.00 to $5.50 per tenth of a mile per gallon for each tenth under the target value times the total volume of those vehicles manufactured for a given model year.

So, if GM sells 1.4 million cars but their corporate average is 34.9 MPG, they would pay a blanket fee of $4.2 million. My estimation of the situation is that for a company who runs close to the red every year, they're going to want to meet those goals. But, for someone who normally has higher profits and may not sell as many cars (I'm thinking of Porsche, for instance), its just a small penalty.

If it is easier on their engineers then why don't they just meet the most strict standard on their own?

Go ask them... Obviously none of the companies have felt much of a push to create fuel-efficent cars since the '80s.

RE: Jalopnik's Take

While I agree with them to some extent, this is not the end of the world either. There are still plenty of ways that automakers can produce fuel efficent cars while also making the hot rods that the 10-20% of the rest of us like. Keep in mind that these are corporate averages (which I believe are based on highway fuel economy), so while Ford will have 35-40 MPG ratings on the Ka, Fiesta, Focus and Fusion... There will still be plenty of room for a 25 MPG Mustang GT.

I guess I'm looking at it this way: This increases the chance of having smaller, more fuel-friendly, and likely more fun to drive hatchbacks crossing the pond. The Ka, 500, Polo, Spark, etc all come to mind... All of which will be more than enough fun with their modest power and tight chassis to toss around while still getting 35+ MPG.
 
Last edited:
It never ceases to amaze how all the Republicans have to do is say "You now that crap you hated? He's doing it too," and they would probably be swept immediately back into Congress (maybe even the Presidency), but instead they just get defensive of what they have done.
 
What concerns me is this:
cars.com
CAFE rankings are subject to a number of adjustments, such as whether a car can use E85 or other alternative fuels, specific vehicle usage, weight ratings and more, most of which are regulated by the Secretary of Transportation.

For example, in 2007 CAFE rated Honda's domestic cars at 33.5 mpg; Honda's imported cars averaged 39.6 mpg, and its light trucks averaged 25.0 mpg. Given those numbers, most consumers would assume they could walk into a Honda dealership and find several cars with combined city/highway gas mileage in the mid-30s. In reality, the Civic Hybrid is the only Honda that has combined mileage of better than 31 mpg.

I don't like that this plan just pushes manufacturers to shove out hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles.


Keep in mind that these are corporate averages (which I believe are based on highway fuel economy), so while Ford will have 35-40 MPG ratings on the Ka, Fiesta, Focus and Fusion... There will still be plenty of room for a 25 MPG Mustang GT.

After some scouring on the internet, it looks like the average is combined with slightly more weight on city mileage. It's also a harmonic mean and not an arithmetic mean, which wikipedia demonstrates. You can see in the wikipedia examplie that a fleet of 4 vehicles with 13, 15, 17, and 100mph gets a harmonic mean of 18.83 and an arithmetic mean of 36.25 This seems weird to me as the CAFE mean is apparently based on sales. So the auto manufacturers get punished if the consumers don't want fuel efficient vehicles.
 
That makes me wonder how much the rules will change then, because right now, there aren't many people who are wanting to buy small cars. Still, having to move up to 35.5 MPG by 2014, that's still a long way to go, so I wouldn't anticipate any drastic changes on behalf of the automobile companies immediately. But, hopefully, we'll see the engineers doing a bit more work to make current models more efficent.
 
The year 2014 is not a long way to go at all. That's right around the corner. This stuff doesn't just happen overnight, ya know.

I think one thing that companies could curb in order to meet these standards is to stop making their engines so damn powerful. Sure, they gain 2 mpg with whatever newfangled engine design, but they also gain 70 horsepower. Imagine if they didn't gain any horsepower. Or if they came up with a smaller engine to replace it, instead of making it bigger every time.
 
Oh no, they are about to cross the line:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-05-20-beer-health-insurance_N.htm?csp=34
Beer tax on tap for health care?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Consumers in the United States may have to hand over nearly $2 more for a case of beer to help provide health insurance for all.
Details of the proposed beer tax are described in a Senate Finance Committee document that will be used to brief lawmakers Wednesday at a closed-door meeting.

Taxes on wine and hard liquor would also go up. And there might be a new tax on soda and other sugary drinks blamed for contributing to obesity. No taxes on diet drinks, however.

Beer taxes would go up by 48 cents a six-pack, wine taxes would rise by 49 cents per bottle, and the tax on hard liquor would increase by 40 cents per fifth. Proceeds from the new taxes would help cover an estimated 50 million uninsured Americans.
:boggled: :nervous: :( :grumpy: :irked: :mad: :banghead: :ouch:

If this happens I am moving to some country that respects alcohol properly.


EDIT: Just to add to the CHANGE(tm)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...use_closing_gitmo_a_hasty_decision_96593.html
White House: Closing Gitmo a 'Hasty Decision'
By David Paul Kuhn

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said closing the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, was a “hasty decision,” in his daily press briefing with reporters.

President Obama’s decision to close the controversial detention center in the early days of his presidency was met with adulation on the political left and earned headlines in newspapers across the world. It was seen as a clear break from Bush-era national security policy.

But recently Obama has irked many liberals with his decision to continue Bush-era military commissions to try Guantanamo Bay prisoners and his decision not to release photographs allegedly depicting U.S. soldiers abusing detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq. To an extent, this break with the political left is indicative of the difference between campaigning and governing.

Gibbs' comment appears to affirm some White House critics who argued that closing Guantanamo Bay was a policy shift easier said than done.

The White House comment comes on the eve of a major national security speech by Obama. Obama is expected to address, in part, Senate Democrats' opposition to funding the closure of Gitmo. Democrats have withheld funding closure until the White House offers a clear plan on how the detention center will be shut down and importantly, where detainees will be sent.

The closure of Guantanamo Bay has quickly turned into a "not in my backyard" issue. No U.S. representative wants to explain why a Gitmo detainee was allowed to live in his or her district. In the same vein, Obama has found U.S. allies no more willing to accept detainees. France and Britain each accepted one former detainee. There are about 240 detainees at Guantánamo Bay and 30 are clear for release.
"Sorry, Gitmo prisoners. By the way, can I get that wet towel back? Thanks."
 
Last edited:
The problem is that California is running up a massive deficit that is going to eliminate a lot of jobs and a lot of benefits that millions of Americans count on. The taxes proposed, if my understanding was correct, would have covered some of the deficit, but not much of it.

We're having a similar problem here in Michigan, we're we are obligated to have a balanced budget every year. We just had to axe a major portion of the state budget, something no one wanted to see happen, and worst of all its going to effect the education budget - again.
 
What socialism?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104467_pf.html

U.S. to Steer GM Toward Bankruptcy
Filing Expected as Chrysler Set to Emerge

By David Cho, Peter Whoriskey and Kendra Marr
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 22, 2009


The Obama administration is preparing to send General Motors into bankruptcy as early as the end of next week under a plan that would give the automaker tens of billions of dollars more in public financing as the company seeks to shrink and reemerge as a global competitor, sources familiar with the discussions said.

The move comes as the administration prepares to lift the nation's other faltering car company, Chrysler, from bankruptcy protection as soon as next week, industry sources said.

The shifts into and out of bankruptcy are landmarks in the Obama administration's attempt to broker a historic restructuring of the American auto industry in the space of months.

The legal tactic is viewed by some as the best means of reviving the companies. But the speed of the government-led transformation has triggered complaints that the rights of investors and dealers are being trampled. Meanwhile, fears that a bankruptcy could lead to cascading business failures are spreading throughout GM's vast chain of suppliers.

Under the GM draft bankruptcy plan, the company would receive just short of $30 billion in additional federal loans, a source said.

The figure is a starting point in negotiations between the government and the company, the source said, and could change. A cash injection that large would boost the U.S. investment in GM to nearly $45 billion. The timing of the filing is also fluid, and could happen the first week of June.

The government previously indicated that it planned to take at least 50 percent of the restructured company, and likely would take the right to name members to its board of directors, as it has at Chrysler, where the government will control four of nine seats.

The United Auto Workers retiree health fund is set to own as much as 39 percent of the restructured GM, in exchange for giving up its claim to at least $10 billion that the company owes it. Yesterday, the union announced that it reached an agreement with GM that will reduce the company's labor costs.

Still unknown is what part the Canadian government might play in the ongoing GM restructuring.

GM operates several plants north of the border. The Canadians agreed to invest about $3.5 billion in the Chrysler restructuring and control one of the nine board seats.

In the GM negotiations, the Canadians are poised to make a similar investment, but they are seeking assurances that the share of GM production in their country will remain the same.

"China isn't putting up the money, and Mexico isn't putting up the money," said Tony Clement, Canada's Minister of Industry. "But if we're putting up the money, just as the Americans are, then we have the right to protect our production capacity."

Clement added that the Canadian Auto Workers union would have to make more concessions before the government agrees to get involved in the GM rescue.

"We've basically been joined at the hip with U.S. Treasury on our approach with both Chrysler and GM," he said. "We have officials down here in Washington all the time. We basically review the information together. We devise strategy together and execute strategy together."

Both Chrysler and GM have been saddled with too much in debt and labor costs to compete against rivals from Japan and Korea, industry analysts say.

To alleviate the financial burdens, the Obama administration has engaged for months in negotiations with the union, dealers and creditors in hopes of reducing automaker costs without having to resort to bankruptcy court.

But last month, the administration concluded that the only way to free Chrysler of its debt was to file for Chapter 11, and it is now nearing a similar decision with GM.

The chief obstacle to an out-of-court settlement for GM remains: There has been no agreement between the company and the investors who hold $27 billion worth of GM bonds.

Under orders from the Obama administration, GM has offered to give the bondholders a 10 percent equity stake in the restructured company in exchange for giving up their bonds.

So far, however, the investors have resisted that proposal and if no accord is reached by June 1, GM will follow Chrysler into bankruptcy.

The speed with which the Chrysler bankruptcy has proceeded has given the administration more confidence that the best path for GM may be a similar trip, where the claims of disgruntled creditors and dealers can be more easily resolved.

In the Chrysler proceedings, the court has yet to stand in the way of plans to create a new company led by Italian carmaker Fiat. Chrysler's existing assets would be sold to the new company and the new entity could be up and running as soon as next week.

That's because Chrysler is asking U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Arthur Gonzalez to waive the customary 10-day waiting period before the order approving the sale becomes effective. The hearing on the sale is scheduled for next Wednesday at 10 a.m.

Gonzalez has already granted a similar request to expedite proceedings. Time and again in court, Chrysler executives and attorneys have argued -- and the court has agreed -- that Chrysler's core assets are "wasting" and that an immediate sale must take place to preserve value.

"Subject to the closing conditions, a new Chrysler could emerge as soon as the ink is dry on the judge's order," said Scott Van Meter, managing director of LECG, a consulting firm.

The administration is taking steps to prepare. It is drafting the paperwork for a $4.7 billion loan to sustain Chrysler after it emerges from bankruptcy. On Wednesday, the automaker announced that C. Robert Kidder, former chairman of Borden Chemical and of Duracell International will become the company's new chairman. He will succeed Robert L. Nardelli.

Chrysler still could encounter some delays. The company faces a new legal challenge from pension funds representing Indiana teachers and police officers as well as a state construction fund. The investors, who contend that the automaker's sale violates their rights as senior secured lenders to Chrysler, are seeking to move the bankruptcy proceedings to federal district court, which has authority over the bankruptcy court.

A hearing on the matter is scheduled in district court Tuesday.

There are also challenges outside court. Chrysler has moved to close 789 dealerships on June 9. But Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) has introduced legislation that would withhold federal funding if the automaker does not give dealers an extra 60 days to close down operations and sell remaining inventory. Her amendment has won the backing of a number of other senators.

Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said he hopes to meet with White House officials today to discuss changing Chrysler's bankruptcy plan and GM's future. Conyers did not outline what he wanted, but a nine-person panel he assembled for a hearing yesterday offered a hint. Liberal consumer advocate Ralph Nader, a conservative Heritage Foundation analyst and minority auto dealers all criticized the automakers' restructuring.

Conyers and other committee members attacked the administration for abusing bankruptcy laws, unfairly eliminating dealerships and jeopardizing consumer safety.

"GM now stands for Government Motors," said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.). "While the UAW is cashing in, it's the dealers, creditors and American taxpayers who are being forced to cash out."

Staff writer Tomoeh Murakami Tse in New York contributed to this report.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but if this goes through then only 1 of GM's board members will not be representing a government or union interest? Only 1 board member will actually represent shareholders? Only 1 member will actually represent people who know about business? And the US government will be 1 share shy of a majority interest?

Maybe I am crazy, but I do believe this goes against everything this country has stood for and is the exact opposite of how this country got to where it is today. And while I am hesitant to use the C word, I will no longer hesitate to accuse the Obama Administration of practicing straight up socialism.

I will save the C word for when Obamacare causes healthcare companies to struggle and they then "have to" bail them out in exchange for a majority stake as well. Although using Obamacare as a reason to start taxing (aka punishing the use of) any unhealthy food products may be enough reason to give them that label anyway.
 
2 words: British Leyland.

Those who do not study history are doomed to relive it.
 
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but if this goes through then only 1 of GM's board members will not be representing a government or union interest? Only 1 board member will actually represent shareholders? Only 1 member will actually represent people who know about business? And the US government will be 1 share shy of a majority interest?

I'm not totally sure, but based on what is likely to happen at Chrysler, I think we would see a mirrored situation. The UAW would have seats on the board, as would the Fed, but it would not be a controlling interest. Furthermore, it sounds like government "control" for both companies ends as they pay off their loans.

...At least, if I'm reading that correctly as well...
 
Last edited:
I'm not totally sure, but based on what is likely to happen at Chrysler, I think we would see a mirrored situation. The UAW would have seats on the board, as would the Fed, but it would not be a controlling interest.

...At least, if I'm reading that correctly as well...
The only problem there is that it assumes the old rules still apply. But since, by rule, the US government is not supposed to take any interest in a company I see no reason why this administration wouldn't allow VEBA to break the rules too.

Even if it doesn't allow control at a board level, there is still control at the shareholders meeting.

But when you consider that Carl Icahn gets a lot of sway in companies that he owns 3% of you have to wonder how anyone can think that government or government backed unions won't get a lot of sway at 40%, 50% or more.

EDIT: Their source is also someone who was being considered for Labor Secretary by Obama. That makes him about as trustworthy as any of Cheney's former CIA buddies talking about Iraq.
 
A fair call on the last point (lulz)!

This is something from the Detroit News:

Under GM's restructuring plan, the automaker has proposed giving current shareholders just 1 percent of the equity in the company, while awarding 89 percent to the Treasury Department and the UAW trust. GM has offered to swap the remaining 10 percent equity for at least 90 percent of the $27.2 billion held by unsecured bondholders.

So, I've got no idea what to make of it. Most of the news up here is less about who will be running GM and more about how it will survive, and whether or not we'll have jobs, or any state tax income, in the near-future.

=-=-=

Daniel Howes has an excellent Op Ed on the frustration that we're generally having up here. While we want our companies to survive, its likely that thousands of jobs, and consequently, investment dollars, will have to go elsewhere.
 
A fair call on the last point (lulz)!

This is something from the Detroit News:



So, I've got no idea what to make of it. Most of the news up here is less about who will be running GM and more about how it will survive, and whether or not we'll have jobs, or any state tax income, in the near-future.
This is all the same numbers as the article I posted, just not broken down, and leaving out any room for Canada to get involved.


Oh, and Obama just signed the credit card reform, so if you have a credit card you may want to watch for any policy changes in the future.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE54L5S220090522?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Obama signs sweeping credit card reform bill
Fri May 22, 2009 3:28pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law on Friday sweeping reforms that restrict credit card interest rates and fees, marking a victory for Democrats trying to help recession-weary consumers.

But the law is expected to hurt profits of major card issuers such as Citigroup Inc, Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co and Capital One Financial Corp. Banks say the changes may cut the flow of credit to consumers because it will make it more difficult for issuers to set rates based on the risk their customers pose.

"With this bill we are putting in place some common sense reforms designed to protect consumers," Obama said at a signing ceremony at the White House.

"We're not going to be giving people a free pass and we expect consumers to live within their means and pay what they owe. But we also expect financial institutions to act with the same sense of responsibility that the American people aspire to in their own lives," he said.

Enactment marks the crest of a backlash against the card industry after years of rate and fee hikes and aggressive marketing programs that have angered consumers, analysts said.

It also represents the first major financial regulation reform completed by Obama as he tackles a rewrite of the rules of banking and the markets to better protect consumers and investors, and prevent another credit crisis.

(Reporting by John Poirier and Ross Colvin; Editing by Eric Walsh)

Regarding the bolded quote from the president, if the customers were acting with responsibility the credit card companies would have no reason to institute risk-based policies. As a credit card company I would respond to this by revoking every account that showed more than moderate risk, and quote the president's comment about expecting them to live within their means.


My question is that if credit cards have to adjust to a format that does not make them as easy to access, then what will that do to online business?
 
My question is that if credit cards have to adjust to a format that does not make them as easy to access, then what will that do to online business?

I'm guessing it will go down as there won't be as many users who are living beyond their means.
 
Blue on Blue?

Maybe she needed the ratings...

Maybe she's finally seeing the light of day. All these jerks fly the same banner.

Robert Gates still in there... that's real change.
 
She claims the last administration was some sort of lawless war empire that imprisoned those cute little innocent terrorists fooooeeeeeeeveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrr!

She has seen no light, just the endless abyss of the pit she is in.
 
Oh, and Obama just signed the credit card reform, so if you have a credit card you may want to watch for any policy changes in the future.

Too late, my accounts were nuked previously. I've paid every bill, well above the minimum payment, and have been late only once due to the way they calculate their online payment systems. Still, both cards are seeing a 10% rate hike, which is completely unnecessary.

Maybe she's finally seeing the light of day. All these jerks fly the same banner.

I think there are a lot of us (Liberal and Conservative) who are a bit upset on the "change of course" taken by Obama in regards to the situation in Guantanamo and the like. At least there has been a move to process these folks in court, but as the Administration has admitted, the previous one left "a mess," and we're left with few options with a few of these folk in terms of what we can do.

Saying nothing of course of the dumb-ass Democrats who wouldn't fund the closure of Guantanamo...
 
She claims the last administration was some sort of lawless war empire that imprisoned those cute little innocent terrorists fooooeeeeeeeveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrr!

Because they've committed thought crimes?
 
2 words: British Leyland.

Those who do not study history are doomed to relive it.

NOBODY learns from history... Especially not old car company executives and government officials who don't give a damn about the foreign car market in the first place. I would be surprised if Obama has ever even heard of British Leyland. Nevermind the causes of their demise.
 
Going back to this:
Taxing fuel prices to affect markets ad industry is worse than a direct regulation (not to mention just as unconstitutional) as it not only affects the industry targeted but many other things as well. A fuel tax that is steep enough to change driving habits long-term would raise prices on everything, not just cars, and hit the average citizen in the pocket at both the pump and the register.

It looks like instead of taxing fuel prices Obama is looking to cap carbon dioxide emissions, which doesn't seem that much different.
BusinessWeek

Congressional Climate Change, Act I
by John Carey

...the bill is designed to impose costs for emitting carbon dioxide, requiring permits for every ton of greenhouse gas emitted. The relative increase in costs will be higher in states with a lot of coal-fired power plants, since burning coal emits more carbon than burning natural gas to create the same amount of electricity...

...President Obama proposed that all of the permits be auctioned off, requiring companies to buy a permit, or allowance, for each ton of carbon they emit. He even put revenue from that auction in his budget. But from the start, an auction that required companies to buy all their permits was in trouble politically. Coal-heavy utilities like Duke Energy have been lobbying hard on this issue, saying that auctioning off all the permits would dramatically raise electricity prices. They want a significant number of permits to be given away free of charge—at least at the start. Proponents of an auction, on the other hand, have been arguing that giving away permits is the equivalent of giving utilities a huge windfall and doesn't accomplish the goal of reducing emissions...

source: BusinessWeek
 
It looks like instead of taxing fuel prices Obama is looking to cap carbon dioxide emissions, which doesn't seem that much different.

Although better in my opinion, it forces big corporations to do something instead of just harming the consumers' wallets :)
 
It looks like instead of taxing fuel prices Obama is looking to cap carbon dioxide emissions, which doesn't seem that much different.

...and adding a 150% tax for every time you exhale, demanding an American Idol recount, forcing all congressional members to support Rand Paul's inevitable 2012 Paul/Space Alien presidential campaign, and whatever else is in this bill that no one read...

 
Back