President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[slucero]

Tax increases on the rich will fund this Govt for about 25 minutes. It's the goddamned spending..

That is a simpletons view of things. It's not just the government spending.

The fact is that taxes are historically long. There is no more wiggle room for a tax cut to simulate the economy....which doesn't really help much anyway.

The bigger fact is that consumer spending is so low...and that is what really fuels the economy. Not rich people investing for the capital gains tax break, or even worse - putting their money overseas.

And, finally, as the economy picks up, more people at work, more income taxes to lower the deficit.

But, again, you will never have anything close to a balanced budget until you raise taxes for the rich, cut military spending, and cut social programs. Take any of those away, and you will still have a deficit....

It's all a moot point anyway - as long as the economy is sluggish, the deficit will be there...and if you make the cuts and tax increases to eliminate the deficit, the economy will collapse yet again.

And, again, I find it ironic how acceptable deficits were under Reagan - and how wrong Democrats were to whine about them....and now the deficit will cause the end of the world, according to Republicans. The entire argument depends on who is in office.

W. had a real opportunity to fix such problems, but he made it worse instead.

And, BTW, there was a post way up there that excused Bush's economy (compared to Clinton's) because of: Katrina, 9/11, and wars. Natural disasters happen under EVERY president. Seems Obama has had to deal with the worst oil spill ever, and we are now in the worst heat wave/drought in decades. The fact is W. took NO LEADERSHIP ROLE whatsoever with Katrina...instead he tried to delegate and allowed the problems to escalate out of control. 9/11 was a tragedy - absolutely. But, instead of call to action, it became an excuse to go to the mall to buy duct tape to keep the poison gas out of your house. It was an opportunity lost to bring us together as a country. Iraq was a war that should have never happened and to use it as an excuse that Bash had to deal with is pathetic. Afghanistan was really a forgotten war, for the most part, until Iraq came to an end under Obama, and Bin Ladin was put to death. And, of course you ignore how well Obama handled Lybia - a true coalition and an example of how Iraq SHOULD have been handled.

The bottom line is Bush shot his time in office in the face over and over again. He took the set up that Clinton gave him and let it wither away to the point of a worldwide financial collapse. I mean, seriously, he's the worst President this country has ever seen...and it was his own actions/inactions that put it there.

that post you refer to was mine... and it was fair and accurate... because blaming Bush for what he did or did not do... is no different than blaming Obama for what he did (like doubling the national debt in one year)... or didn't do (like repealing the Patriot Act)...

The lot of them are rotten, corrupt, and always piss away any good thing they inherit, and what Albert says below will continue to be true as long the majority of the People remain sheeple.

[Monker]

Tax increases on the rich will fund this Govt for about 25 minutes. It's the goddamned spending..

That is a simpletons view of things. It's not just the government spending.

The fact is that taxes are historically long. There is no more wiggle room for a tax cut to simulate the economy....which doesn't really help much anyway.

The bigger fact is that consumer spending is so low...and that is what really fuels the economy. Not rich people investing for the capital gains tax break, or even worse - putting their money overseas.

And, finally, as the economy picks up, more people at work, more income taxes to lower the deficit.

But, again, you will never have anything close to a balanced budget until you raise taxes for the rich, cut military spending, and cut social programs. Take any of those away, and you will still have a deficit....

It's all a moot point anyway - as long as the economy is sluggish, the deficit will be there...and if you make the cuts and tax increases to eliminate the deficit, the economy will collapse yet again.

And, again, I find it ironic how acceptable deficits were under Reagan - and how wrong Democrats were to whine about them....and now the deficit will cause the end of the world, according to Republicans. The entire argument depends on who is in office.

W. had a real opportunity to fix such problems, but he made it worse instead.

And, BTW, there was a post way up there that excused Bush's economy (compared to Clinton's) because of: Katrina, 9/11, and wars. Natural disasters happen under EVERY president. Seems Obama has had to deal with the worst oil spill ever, and we are now in the worst heat wave/drought in decades. The fact is W. took NO LEADERSHIP ROLE whatsoever with Katrina...instead he tried to delegate and allowed the problems to escalate out of control. 9/11 was a tragedy - absolutely. But, instead of call to action, it became an excuse to go to the mall to buy duct tape to keep the poison gas out of your house. It was an opportunity lost to bring us together as a country. Iraq was a war that should have never happened and to use it as an excuse that Bash had to deal with is pathetic. Afghanistan was really a forgotten war, for the most part, until Iraq came to an end under Obama, and Bin Ladin was put to death. And, of course you ignore how well Obama handled Lybia - a true coalition and an example of how Iraq SHOULD have been handled.

The bottom line is Bush shot his time in office in the face over and over again. He took the set up that Clinton gave him and let it wither away to the point of a worldwide financial collapse. I mean, seriously, he's the worst President this country has ever seen...and it was his own actions/inactions that put it there.

that post you refer to was mine... and it was fair and accurate... because blaming Bush for what he did or did not do... is no different than blaming Obama for what he did (like doubling the national debt in one year)... or didn't do (like repealing the Patriot Act)...

The lot of them are rotten, corrupt, and always piss away any good thing they inherit, and what Albert says below will continue to be true as long the majority of the People remain sheeple.

Your point was to was to bring down the economy during Clinton, and excuse the Bush years:

Before you completely swallow Clinton's load you might do some real research... typical (blind&brainwashed) sheeple..

Clinton economy:

Clinton administration did not face September 11th, two wars, Hurricane Katrina, a U.S. financial crisis (which was largely caused by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, by Clinton and a Republican Congress), or a global financial crisis.

You are using Bush's incompetent and failed leadership as an excuse for a mediocre economy compared to Clinton. THAT was YOUR point.

Hell yes you can blame Obama for the debt and not repealing the Patriot Act. Those issues were just not his priority the first term. Health Care was, along with the stimulus programs and such. He simply should not have addressed Health Care his first term...I've said that from the beginning. He should have used that political energy to fight for economic issues. If he does lose in November - that is why.

[slucero]

Tax increases on the rich will fund this Govt for about 25 minutes. It's the goddamned spending..

That is a simpletons view of things. It's not just the government spending.

The fact is that taxes are historically long. There is no more wiggle room for a tax cut to simulate the economy....which doesn't really help much anyway.

The bigger fact is that consumer spending is so low...and that is what really fuels the economy. Not rich people investing for the capital gains tax break, or even worse - putting their money overseas.

And, finally, as the economy picks up, more people at work, more income taxes to lower the deficit.

But, again, you will never have anything close to a balanced budget until you raise taxes for the rich, cut military spending, and cut social programs. Take any of those away, and you will still have a deficit....

It's all a moot point anyway - as long as the economy is sluggish, the deficit will be there...and if you make the cuts and tax increases to eliminate the deficit, the economy will collapse yet again.

And, again, I find it ironic how acceptable deficits were under Reagan - and how wrong Democrats were to whine about them....and now the deficit will cause the end of the world, according to Republicans. The entire argument depends on who is in office.

W. had a real opportunity to fix such problems, but he made it worse instead.

And, BTW, there was a post way up there that excused Bush's economy (compared to Clinton's) because of: Katrina, 9/11, and wars. Natural disasters happen under EVERY president. Seems Obama has had to deal with the worst oil spill ever, and we are now in the worst heat wave/drought in decades. The fact is W. took NO LEADERSHIP ROLE whatsoever with Katrina...instead he tried to delegate and allowed the problems to escalate out of control. 9/11 was a tragedy - absolutely. But, instead of call to action, it became an excuse to go to the mall to buy duct tape to keep the poison gas out of your house. It was an opportunity lost to bring us together as a country. Iraq was a war that should have never happened and to use it as an excuse that Bash had to deal with is pathetic. Afghanistan was really a forgotten war, for the most part, until Iraq came to an end under Obama, and Bin Ladin was put to death. And, of course you ignore how well Obama handled Lybia - a true coalition and an example of how Iraq SHOULD have been handled.

The bottom line is Bush shot his time in office in the face over and over again. He took the set up that Clinton gave him and let it wither away to the point of a worldwide financial collapse. I mean, seriously, he's the worst President this country has ever seen...and it was his own actions/inactions that put it there.

that post you refer to was mine... and it was fair and accurate... because blaming Bush for what he did or did not do... is no different than blaming Obama for what he did (like doubling the national debt in one year)... or didn't do (like repealing the Patriot Act)...

The lot of them are rotten, corrupt, and always piss away any good thing they inherit, and what Albert says below will continue to be true as long the majority of the People remain sheeple.

Your point was to was to bring down the economy during Clinton, and excuse the Bush years:

Before you completely swallow Clinton's load you might do some real research... typical (blind&brainwashed) sheeple..

Clinton economy:

Clinton administration did not face September 11th, two wars, Hurricane Katrina, a U.S. financial crisis (which was largely caused by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, by Clinton and a Republican Congress), or a global financial crisis.

You are using Bush's incompetent and failed leadership as an excuse for a mediocre economy compared to Clinton. THAT was YOUR point.

Hell yes you can blame Obama for the debt and not repealing the Patriot Act. Those issues were just not his priority the first term. Health Care was, along with the stimulus programs and such. He simply should not have addressed Health Care his first term...I've said that from the beginning. He should have used that political energy to fight for economic issues. If he does lose in November - that is why.

There is no excuse for what Bush did.... but Clinton did no better... as his repeal of Glass Steagal is largley the cause for what we have NOW... all the good Clinton did nets out to a big fat ZERO as a result.. If he does lose... Obama will owe Clinton as much blame as Bush come November...


Dems, Reps... same wolves, different skins..

[conversationpc]

Dems, Reps... same wolves, different skins..

[conversationpc]

Hell yes you can blame Obama for the debt and not repealing the Patriot Act. Those issues were just not his priority the first term.

It damn well should have been a priority. That piece of legislation is an abomination to this country.

[The_Noble_Cause]

There is no excuse for what Bush did.... but Clinton did no better... as his repeal of Glass Steagal is largley the cause for what we have NOW... all the good Clinton did nets out to a big fat ZERO as a result.. If he does lose... Obama will owe Clinton as much blame as Bush come November...

Dems, Reps... same wolves, different skins..

Ideologically, what kind of action was the repeal of Glass-Steagall? Seems at that time, Clinton was in the throes of Greenspan deregulatory mania. Just like Obama larding up the stimulus with 1/3 tax cuts, Clinton's actions were a shameless naked appeal to an intransigent opposition party, who gave him no credit. Like all beneficial regulations, Glass-Steagall was passed in the face of hysteric Republican objection. Historically, it remains a fundamentally Democratic/FDR piece of legislation and any similar modern attempts at curbing Wall Street excess thru legislation remain mostly Democrat. So this "same wolves/different skins", "all politics are a zero sum game" is total false equivalence. The only GOPer I know of in favor of bringing back Glass-Steagall is McCain and his party's own Tea Party, market-deifying base despises him. So let's get real here...

Unfortunately, the system is now so corrupt that, whereas Glass-Steagall was a simple 37 pages, Dodd-Frank is over a 1000 pages and bloated with loopholes. Both parties have been thoroughly infiltrated and co-opted, we all agree on this (right???). But between the two, you may still get the rare useful bill from the Dems (see the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau). That's never going to happen with the modern GOP. Even now Romney is running on repealing financial regulation.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Tax increases on the rich will fund this Govt for about 25 minutes. It's the goddamned spending..

Exactly, but some of the scrodes we've been discussing this with seem to believe that it will be a perminent fix-all forever.

[slucero]

There is no excuse for what Bush did.... but Clinton did no better... as his repeal of Glass Steagal is largley the cause for what we have NOW... all the good Clinton did nets out to a big fat ZERO as a result.. If he does lose... Obama will owe Clinton as much blame as Bush come November...

Dems, Reps... same wolves, different skins..

Ideologically, what kind of action was the repeal of Glass-Steagall? Seems at that time, Clinton was in the throes of Greenspan deregulatory mania. Just like Obama larding up the stimulus with 1/3 tax cuts, Clinton's actions were a shameless naked appeal to an intransigent opposition party, who gave him no credit. Like all beneficial regulations, Glass-Steagall was passed in the face of hysteric Republican objection. Historically, it remains a fundamentally Democratic/FDR piece of legislation and any similar modern attempts at curbing Wall Street excess thru legislation remain mostly Democrat. So this "same wolves/different skins", "all politics are a zero sum game" is total false equivalence. The only GOPer I know of in favor of bringing back Glass-Steagall is McCain and his party's own Tea Party, market-deifying base despises him. So let's get real here...

Unfortunately, the system is now so corrupt that, whereas Glass-Steagall was a simple 37 pages, Dodd-Frank is over a 1000 pages and bloated with loopholes. Both parties have been thoroughly infiltrated and co-opted, we all agree on this (right???). But between the two, you may still get the rare useful bill from the Dems (see the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau). That's never going to happen with the modern GOP. Even now Romney is running on repealing financial regulation.

Definition of false equivalence: False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.


so when I post: "same wolves/different skins" (not changing the context by adding what I did not post, your words "all politics are a zero sum game")

and you post: "Both parties have been thoroughly infiltrated and co-opted, we all agree on this (right???)"


Seems pretty much in line with my point ... and pretty equivalent to me...



and ya lets "keep it real".... and accurate...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... fRyxBZs5uc

Dec. 16 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Senators John McCain and Maria Cantwell proposed reinstating the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act that split commercial and investment banking to rein in Wall Street firms in response to the financial crisis.

And for the sake of clarity.... the 1933 President and Congress (73rd) that passed Glass-Steagall:

President: Franklin Roosevelt (D)

96 Senators
435 Representatives
5 Non-voting members

Senate Majority: Democratic
House Majority: Democratic

Vote on HR 5661:
House: 262-19
Senate: passed via voice vote


And the President and Congress (103rd) that passed the Banking Modernization Act of 1999, effectively repealing Glass Steagall:

President: Bill Clinton (D)

100 Senators
435 Representatives
5 Non-voting members

Senate Majority: Republican Party
House Majority: Republican Party

Vote on S. 900:
House: 362-57
Senate 90-8


The only difference in both instances is the party in power in Congress... while both Presidents were Democrat... yet Clinton signed it into law, and defended doing so when asked if the Reps were to blame.... hmmm... same wolf, different skin?

Or maybe we can just chalk that up to another one of those "false equivalences" then eh?

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

There is no excuse for what Bush did.... but Clinton did no better... as his repeal of Glass Steagal is largley the cause for what we have NOW... all the good Clinton did nets out to a big fat ZERO as a result.. If he does lose... Obama will owe Clinton as much blame as Bush come November...

Dems, Reps... same wolves, different skins..

Ideologically, what kind of action was the repeal of Glass-Steagall? Seems at that time, Clinton was in the throes of Greenspan deregulatory mania. Just like Obama larding up the stimulus with 1/3 tax cuts, Clinton's actions were a shameless naked appeal to an intransigent opposition party, who gave him no credit. Like all beneficial regulations, Glass-Steagall was passed in the face of hysteric Republican objection. Historically, it remains a fundamentally Democratic/FDR piece of legislation and any similar modern attempts at curbing Wall Street excess thru legislation remain mostly Democrat. So this "same wolves/different skins", "all politics are a zero sum game" is total false equivalence. The only GOPer I know of in favor of bringing back Glass-Steagall is McCain and his party's own Tea Party, market-deifying base despises him. So let's get real here...

Unfortunately, the system is now so corrupt that, whereas Glass-Steagall was a simple 37 pages, Dodd-Frank is over a 1000 pages and bloated with loopholes. Both parties have been thoroughly infiltrated and co-opted, we all agree on this (right???). But between the two, you may still get the rare useful bill from the Dems (see the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau). That's never going to happen with the modern GOP. Even now Romney is running on repealing financial regulation.

The repeal of Glass Stegall was not done by market deifying folks, or even people who have any faith or belief in capitalism. Greenspan turned his back on capitalism in the 1970's by the way. It was done by a lobby of folks in the banking industry that knows that if you lobby the government, it will use its power to create, or re-work regulation that allow you to take unfair advantage over smaller businessmen (in this case smaller banks) and use the new regulatory framework to commit aggression against your competition . Removing Glass Stegall did not create greater market conditions in banking. As a matter of fact it just gave big bankers the license to ignore business risk knowing that if they got into trouble they wouldn't need to pay the consequences of their bad choices - they would just be able to lobby and bully the government to reimburse them for their losses by stealing the money of others funneling it to them in the form of TARP. All facilitated by two parties neither of them who believe in free markets.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

There is no excuse for what Bush did.... but Clinton did no better... as his repeal of Glass Steagal is largley the cause for what we have NOW... all the good Clinton did nets out to a big fat ZERO as a result.. If he does lose... Obama will owe Clinton as much blame as Bush come November...

Dems, Reps... same wolves, different skins..

Ideologically, what kind of action was the repeal of Glass-Steagall? Seems at that time, Clinton was in the throes of Greenspan deregulatory mania. Just like Obama larding up the stimulus with 1/3 tax cuts, Clinton's actions were a shameless naked appeal to an intransigent opposition party, who gave him no credit. Like all beneficial regulations, Glass-Steagall was passed in the face of hysteric Republican objection. Historically, it remains a fundamentally Democratic/FDR piece of legislation and any similar modern attempts at curbing Wall Street excess thru legislation remain mostly Democrat. So this "same wolves/different skins", "all politics are a zero sum game" is total false equivalence. The only GOPer I know of in favor of bringing back Glass-Steagall is McCain and his party's own Tea Party, market-deifying base despises him. So let's get real here...

Unfortunately, the system is now so corrupt that, whereas Glass-Steagall was a simple 37 pages, Dodd-Frank is over a 1000 pages and bloated with loopholes. Both parties have been thoroughly infiltrated and co-opted, we all agree on this (right???). But between the two, you may still get the rare useful bill from the Dems (see the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau). That's never going to happen with the modern GOP. Even now Romney is running on repealing financial regulation.

The repeal of Glass Stegall was not done by market deifying folks, or even people who have any faith or belief in capitalism. Greenspan turned his back on real capitalism in the 1970's by the way. It was done by a lobby of folks in the banking industry that knows that if you lobby the government, it will use its power to create, or re-work regulation that allow you to take unfair advantage over smaller businessmen (in this case smaller banks) and use the new regulatory framework to commit aggression against your competition . Removing Glass Stegall did not create greater market conditions in banking. As a matter of fact it just gave big bankers the license to ignore business risk knowing that if they got into trouble they wouldn't need to pay the consequences of their bad choices - they would just be able to lobby and bully the government to reimburse them for their losses by stealing the money of others funneling it to them in the form of TARP. All facilitated by two parties neither of them who believe in free markets.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Did Monker relly equate the BP Oil Spill and current drought to Wars and Hurricanes? Good grief. Obama shook down BP for $20 Billion for his slush fund, hardly a hardship for his Presidency, and didn't he take like 2 weeks to even show up down there. And the drought, well fuck, we have that about every year where I live, wonder if he'd send some aid my way, my yard is a disaster. I'll use the Dem way of boosting the economy, send me Government money and I'll water my yard which will make my water bill higher and those lazy fucks down at GCWW can keep their easy jobs and pensions that are underfunded.

Yeah, CA goes through a drought every ten years or so regularily and has been that way for the past 40 years that I can remember. Global warming and the like is one hell of a money making scam for sure. Just ask people like Gore and they'd tell you only if they weren't so great at bullshitting the public for most of their political careers.

[The Sushi Hunter]

What's equally as stupid is when BOzo yaks this shit, the audience present eat it up. Are these audiences by invite only or something? There just can't be that many stupid people out there at once in the same place can there be?

Oh brother.....NOooooooooooooooooooooooo..

PUEBLO, Colo. – President Obama, while villifying Mitt Romney for opposing the auto industry bailout, bragged about the success of his decision to provide government assistance and said he now wants to see every manufacturing industry come roaring back.

“I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.

This dude is fucked up in the head MR's. Just 7 days ago we heard this news:

General Motors 2Q profit falls 41 pct. on European losses; company promises to fix problems


By Associated Press, Published: August 2




DETROIT — The engine that powers General Motors is running rough. And if the company doesn’t tune it up soon, GM’s comeback from bankruptcy is in danger of stalling.

The Detroit automaker said Thursday that its second-quarter net profit fell 41 percent on a big loss in Europe. And there are signs that North America, GM’s main income source, also is slowing. Profits there have fallen for two straight quarters, the first time that’s happened since the company left bankruptcy in 2009.

when a doofus like Obama says he wants to do this over and over again, people should be afraid, very afraid.

[slucero]

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Einstein knows his shit on that one!

[Behshad]

Oh brother.....NOooooooooooooooooooooooo..

PUEBLO, Colo. – President Obama, while villifying Mitt Romney for opposing the auto industry bailout, bragged about the success of his decision to provide government assistance and said he now wants to see every manufacturing industry come roaring back.

“I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.

This dude is fucked up in the head MR's. Just 7 days ago we heard this news:

General Motors 2Q profit falls 41 pct. on European losses; company promises to fix problems


By Associated Press, Published: August 2




DETROIT — The engine that powers General Motors is running rough. And if the company doesn’t tune it up soon, GM’s comeback from bankruptcy is in danger of stalling.

The Detroit automaker said Thursday that its second-quarter net profit fell 41 percent on a big loss in Europe. And there are signs that North America, GM’s main income source, also is slowing. Profits there have fallen for two straight quarters, the first time that’s happened since the company left bankruptcy in 2009.

when a doofus like Obama says he wants to do this over and over again, people should be afraid, very afraid.

Nice try, moron.

2Q profit fell 41 percent IN EUROPE. With the huge crisis in Europe plus their falling sales of most auto maker's line up its no big surprise. Why dont you show us some figures on 2Q profits in US ? $1.5 billion ! Of course Sushi follows you blindly like your puppy without paying any kind of attention!
I know youre an idiot most the times, but you cant be that big of an idiot to think that we should have let GM and Chrysler go under. Are you ??

[The Sushi Hunter]

Get one thing straight, I'm not following anyone around as you suggest. You want to talk about following anyone around, talk about yourself.

[slucero]

Oh brother.....NOooooooooooooooooooooooo..

PUEBLO, Colo. – President Obama, while villifying Mitt Romney for opposing the auto industry bailout, bragged about the success of his decision to provide government assistance and said he now wants to see every manufacturing industry come roaring back.

“I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.

This dude is fucked up in the head MR's. Just 7 days ago we heard this news:

General Motors 2Q profit falls 41 pct. on European losses; company promises to fix problems


By Associated Press, Published: August 2




DETROIT — The engine that powers General Motors is running rough. And if the company doesn’t tune it up soon, GM’s comeback from bankruptcy is in danger of stalling.

The Detroit automaker said Thursday that its second-quarter net profit fell 41 percent on a big loss in Europe. And there are signs that North America, GM’s main income source, also is slowing. Profits there have fallen for two straight quarters, the first time that’s happened since the company left bankruptcy in 2009.

when a doofus like Obama says he wants to do this over and over again, people should be afraid, very afraid.

Nice try, moron.

2Q profit fell 41 percent IN EUROPE. With the huge crisis in Europe plus their falling sales of most auto maker's line up its no big surprise. Why dont you show us some figures on 2Q profits in US ? $1.5 billion ! Of course Sushi follows you blindly like your puppy without paying any kind of attention!
I know youre an idiot most the times, but you cant be that big of an idiot to think that we should have let GM and Chrysler go under. Are you ??

Its a funny thing about facts....


Channel Stuffing: a practice whereby excess inventory is "sold" to dealerships so that the manufacturer, in this case, GM, can record those sales on its books, creating the false appearance of revenues, even while those cars remain unsold on dealer lots.


It's also why there's a now class-action lawsuit against GM for the very thing...
lawsuit filing here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/99352395/GM-2012-Complaint

In particular, an article published by Bloomberg on July 5, 2011 revealed that GM may have been unloading excessive inventory on dealers, a practice known as "channel stuffing," in order to create the false impression that GM was recovering and sales and revenues were rising." Luckily, since this is a class action lawsuit, anyone else out there who bought GM on the belief that the company would not engage in precisely the behavior that we have shown month after month to occur, is invited to enjoin the plaintiffs and to sue the company that exists only courtesy of taxpayer generosity (and more importantly, courtesy of labor unions subverting priority rights in bankruptcy, in exchange for presidential votes). Finally, and if nothing else, this lawsuit will certainly force the general co-opted media to pay some more attention to a topic that is quite sensitive for the administration: the business model of the one company that the president is so proud and happy to have saved from the clutches of evil bondholders.

but what does "channel-stuffing" actually look like?

In the latest GDP report we'd see it as an increase in durable goods "sales" of motor vehicles should being largely in sync with durable goods "output" of motor vehicles. Obviously, for the overall GDP accounts, the difference between sales and output is inventory. Seen below.. final sales are trending downward.





Demand for durable goods and motor vehicles join a downward trend in the wider economy, showing up in gross domestic purchases and real final sales, and highlighting the disconnect with inventory. The divergence between final sales and overall inventories, especially as they both intersect through the sensitive motor vehicle sector, calls into question just where the supposed auto manufacturing sales are actually coming from. If the trend in the first chart is valid, we should ultimately expect the next chart to follow.





oh.... and GM Europe?.. well they stuff the channel there too... even the GM France President admitted it..

Carmakers stuff German market with self-sales
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/ ... 9620120731

So while official figures show a 0.7 percent rise in German car sales for the half year, figures from auto market research firms Dataforce and BDW Automotive show private demand fell 5 percent in the period, which would mean all the growth had been manufactured by the manufacturers.

"Essentially, the carmakers are deceiving their shareholders, since they make it look as if the vehicles were actually sold. They want to pull the wool over their eyes," said Ferdinand Dudenhoeffer, head of automotive thinktank CAR at the University of Duisburg-Essen.

-------------

GM France President Yves Pasquier-Desvignes warned the tactic can have a "devastating cost" for dealers, who might, for example, boost their test-drive fleets to meet registration goals, but then end up caught in a vicious circle.

[Behshad]

Get one thing straight, I'm not following anyone around as you suggest. You want to talk about following anyone around, talk about yourself.

Look how you cheer for FF !

[Behshad]

Oh brother.....NOooooooooooooooooooooooo..

PUEBLO, Colo. – President Obama, while villifying Mitt Romney for opposing the auto industry bailout, bragged about the success of his decision to provide government assistance and said he now wants to see every manufacturing industry come roaring back.

“I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.

This dude is fucked up in the head MR's. Just 7 days ago we heard this news:

General Motors 2Q profit falls 41 pct. on European losses; company promises to fix problems


By Associated Press, Published: August 2




DETROIT — The engine that powers General Motors is running rough. And if the company doesn’t tune it up soon, GM’s comeback from bankruptcy is in danger of stalling.

The Detroit automaker said Thursday that its second-quarter net profit fell 41 percent on a big loss in Europe. And there are signs that North America, GM’s main income source, also is slowing. Profits there have fallen for two straight quarters, the first time that’s happened since the company left bankruptcy in 2009.

when a doofus like Obama says he wants to do this over and over again, people should be afraid, very afraid.

Nice try, moron.

2Q profit fell 41 percent IN EUROPE. With the huge crisis in Europe plus their falling sales of most auto maker's line up its no big surprise. Why dont you show us some figures on 2Q profits in US ? $1.5 billion ! Of course Sushi follows you blindly like your puppy without paying any kind of attention!
I know youre an idiot most the times, but you cant be that big of an idiot to think that we should have let GM and Chrysler go under. Are you ??

Its a funny thing about facts....


Channel Stuffing: a practice whereby excess inventory is "sold" to dealerships so that the manufacturer, in this case, GM, can record those sales on its books, creating the false appearance of revenues, even while those cars remain unsold on dealer lots.


It's also why there's a now class-action lawsuit against GM for the very thing...

In particular, an article published by Bloomberg on July 5, 2011 revealed that GM may have been unloading excessive inventory on dealers, a practice known as "channel stuffing," in order to create the false impression that GM was recovering and sales and revenues were rising." Luckily, since this is a class action lawsuit, anyone else out there who bought GM on the belief that the company would not engage in precisely the behavior that we have shown month after month to occur, is invited to enjoin the plaintiffs and to sue the company that exists only courtesy of taxpayer generosity (and more importantly, courtesy of labor unions subverting priority rights in bankruptcy, in exchange for presidential votes). Finally, and if nothing else, this lawsuit will certainly force the general co-opted media to pay some more attention to a topic that is quite sensitive for the administration: the business model of the one company that the president is so proud and happy to have saved from the clutches of evil bondholders.

but what does "channel-stuffing" actually look like?

In the latest GDP report we'd see it as an increase in durable goods "sales" of motor vehicles should being largely in sync with durable goods "output" of motor vehicles. Obviously, for the overall GDP accounts, the difference between sales and output is inventory. Seen below.. final sales are trending downward.





Demand for durable goods and motor vehicles join a downward trend in the wider economy, showing up in gross domestic purchases and real final sales, and highlighting the disconnect with inventory. The divergence between final sales and overall inventories, especially as they both intersect through the sensitive motor vehicle sector, calls into question just where the supposed auto manufacturing sales are actually coming from. If the trend in the first chart is valid, we should ultimately expect the next chart to follow.





oh.... and GM Europe?.. well they stuff the channel there too... even the GM France President admitted it..

Carmakers stuff German market with self-sales
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/ ... 9620120731

So while official figures show a 0.7 percent rise in German car sales for the half year, figures from auto market research firms Dataforce and BDW Automotive show private demand fell 5 percent in the period, which would mean all the growth had been manufactured by the manufacturers.

"Essentially, the carmakers are deceiving their shareholders, since they make it look as if the vehicles were actually sold. They want to pull the wool over their eyes," said Ferdinand Dudenhoeffer, head of automotive thinktank CAR at the University of Duisburg-Essen.

-------------

GM France President Yves Pasquier-Desvignes warned the tactic can have a "devastating cost" for dealers, who might, for example, boost their test-drive fleets to meet registration goals, but then end up caught in a vicious circle.

Again with your mumbo jumbo !?
The channel-stuffing is completely different than actual sales and reported profits. The reports of PROFITS ON SOLD UNITS @ $1.5B has nothing to do with what GM shoves down the dealers throat. The actual sales record comes from vehicles SOLD and reported by dealers , not what GM sold to dealers:What gets delivered and stays on the lot till customer signs and pay for it.
As always you wasted bunch of bandwidth with your graphs that has nothing to do with the FACT that there was actual profit of $1.5B for 2Q for GM.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Get one thing straight, I'm not following anyone around as you suggest. You want to talk about following anyone around, talk about yourself.

Look how you cheer for FF !

I cheer common sense.

[Behshad]

Get one thing straight, I'm not following anyone around as you suggest. You want to talk about following anyone around, talk about yourself.

Look how you cheer for FF !

I cheer common sense.

Good one !

You cheer FF when he takes shit way out of context about Obama's speech, yet when Obama says he wants to help out any AMERICAN BUSINESSES needing help, avoiding to go under, then your so called common sesne tells you Obama is wrong, since FF said so ?

[slucero]

Again with your mumbo jumbo !?
The channel-stuffing is completely different than actual sales and reported profits. The reports of PROFITS ON SOLD UNITS @ $1.5B has nothing to do with what GM shoves down the dealers throat. The actual sales record comes from vehicles SOLD and reported by dealers , not what GM sold to dealers:What gets delivered and stays on the lot till customer signs and pay for it.
As always you wasted bunch of bandwidth with your graphs that has nothing to do with the FACT that there was actual profit of $1.5B for 2Q for GM.

I never said there wasn't a profit.. I said it was due to channel stuffing... which you say isn't counted as sales...

But according to GM, it is.. (but its all just mumbo-jumbo right?. )


....funny thing about FACTS (mumbo-jumbo)... ENJOY:

From General Motors 2012 Annual Report. Page 21, bottom paragraph
http://www.gm.com/content/dam/gmcom/COM ... Report.pdf

Production and Vehicle Sales Volume

Management believes that production volume and vehicle sales data provide meaningful information regarding our automotive operating results. Production volumes manufactured by our assembly facilities are generally aligned with current period net sales and revenue, as we generally recognize revenue upon the release of the vehicle to the carrier responsible for transporting it to a dealer, which is shortly after the completion of production. Vehicle sales data, which includes retail and fleet sales, does not correlate directly to the revenue we recognize during the period. However, vehicle sales data is indicative of the underlying demand for our vehicles, and is the basis for our market share.

"cognitive dissonance" - look it up.. you suffer from it.

[The_Noble_Cause]

There is no excuse for what Bush did.... but Clinton did no better... as his repeal of Glass Steagal is largley the cause for what we have NOW... all the good Clinton did nets out to a big fat ZERO as a result.. If he does lose... Obama will owe Clinton as much blame as Bush come November...

Dems, Reps... same wolves, different skins..

Ideologically, what kind of action was the repeal of Glass-Steagall? Seems at that time, Clinton was in the throes of Greenspan deregulatory mania. Just like Obama larding up the stimulus with 1/3 tax cuts, Clinton's actions were a shameless naked appeal to an intransigent opposition party, who gave him no credit. Like all beneficial regulations, Glass-Steagall was passed in the face of hysteric Republican objection. Historically, it remains a fundamentally Democratic/FDR piece of legislation and any similar modern attempts at curbing Wall Street excess thru legislation remain mostly Democrat. So this "same wolves/different skins", "all politics are a zero sum game" is total false equivalence. The only GOPer I know of in favor of bringing back Glass-Steagall is McCain and his party's own Tea Party, market-deifying base despises him. So let's get real here...

Unfortunately, the system is now so corrupt that, whereas Glass-Steagall was a simple 37 pages, Dodd-Frank is over a 1000 pages and bloated with loopholes. Both parties have been thoroughly infiltrated and co-opted, we all agree on this (right???). But between the two, you may still get the rare useful bill from the Dems (see the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau). That's never going to happen with the modern GOP. Even now Romney is running on repealing financial regulation.

Definition of false equivalence: False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.


so when I post: "same wolves/different skins" (not changing the context by adding what I did not post, your words "all politics are a zero sum game")

and you post: "Both parties have been thoroughly infiltrated and co-opted, we all agree on this (right???)"


Seems pretty much in line with my point ... and pretty equivalent to me...



and ya lets "keep it real".... and accurate...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... fRyxBZs5uc

Dec. 16 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Senators John McCain and Maria Cantwell proposed reinstating the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act that split commercial and investment banking to rein in Wall Street firms in response to the financial crisis.

And for the sake of clarity.... the 1933 President and Congress (73rd) that passed Glass-Steagall:

President: Franklin Roosevelt (D)

96 Senators
435 Representatives
5 Non-voting members

Senate Majority: Democratic
House Majority: Democratic

Vote on HR 5661:
House: 262-19
Senate: passed via voice vote


And the President and Congress (103rd) that passed the Banking Modernization Act of 1999, effectively repealing Glass Steagall:

President: Bill Clinton (D)

100 Senators
435 Representatives
5 Non-voting members

Senate Majority: Republican Party
House Majority: Republican Party

Vote on S. 900:
House: 362-57
Senate 90-8


The only difference in both instances is the party in power in Congress... while both Presidents were Democrat... yet Clinton signed it into law, and defended doing so when asked if the Reps were to blame.... hmmm... same wolf, different skin?

Or maybe we can just chalk that up to another one of those "false equivalences" then eh?

Random Wikipedia factoids and snark without substance don't mean shit. Historically, the Dems are/were the party of reform. That remains true (for better or worse). You discuss Glass-Steagall without any context whatsoever, as if it were put in place by non-political alien beings who visited the planet some 5,000 years ago. The act of repealing Glass-Steagall was in the service of a specific anti-government ideology, which has been pushed by the GOP and the conservative movement for decades. It was the crown jewel in a conservative effort to overturn FDR/Democratic regulations one by one. To deny this is to deny reality.

[The_Noble_Cause]

The repeal of Glass Stegall was not done by market deifying folks, or even people who have any faith or belief in capitalism. Greenspan turned his back on real capitalism in the 1970's by the way. It was done by a lobby of folks in the banking industry that knows that if you lobby the government, it will use its power to create, or re-work regulation that allow you to take unfair advantage over smaller businessmen (in this case smaller banks) and use the new regulatory framework to commit aggression against your competition . Removing Glass Stegall did not create greater market conditions in banking. As a matter of fact it just gave big bankers the license to ignore business risk knowing that if they got into trouble they wouldn't need to pay the consequences of their bad choices - they would just be able to lobby and bully the government to reimburse them for their losses by stealing the money of others funneling it to them in the form of TARP. All facilitated by two parties neither of them who believe in free markets.

Go ask any Hayek-quoting libertarian, whether they would be for repealing Glass-Steagall or any remaining FDR firewall. The answer shouldn't be too surprising.
As is usually the case when regulations are discarded, the whole effort to repeal GS was done under the guise of freeing up the dynamism of the market and letting it self-correct. Blah, blah, blah.
Same tired shit we hear currently from Romney, Gary Johnson, medicare-dependent Tea Partiers, the Glenn Beck Mormon Death Cultists etc. etc.

[slucero]

There is no excuse for what Bush did.... but Clinton did no better... as his repeal of Glass Steagal is largley the cause for what we have NOW... all the good Clinton did nets out to a big fat ZERO as a result.. If he does lose... Obama will owe Clinton as much blame as Bush come November...

Dems, Reps... same wolves, different skins..

Ideologically, what kind of action was the repeal of Glass-Steagall? Seems at that time, Clinton was in the throes of Greenspan deregulatory mania. Just like Obama larding up the stimulus with 1/3 tax cuts, Clinton's actions were a shameless naked appeal to an intransigent opposition party, who gave him no credit. Like all beneficial regulations, Glass-Steagall was passed in the face of hysteric Republican objection. Historically, it remains a fundamentally Democratic/FDR piece of legislation and any similar modern attempts at curbing Wall Street excess thru legislation remain mostly Democrat. So this "same wolves/different skins", "all politics are a zero sum game" is total false equivalence. The only GOPer I know of in favor of bringing back Glass-Steagall is McCain and his party's own Tea Party, market-deifying base despises him. So let's get real here...

Unfortunately, the system is now so corrupt that, whereas Glass-Steagall was a simple 37 pages, Dodd-Frank is over a 1000 pages and bloated with loopholes. Both parties have been thoroughly infiltrated and co-opted, we all agree on this (right???). But between the two, you may still get the rare useful bill from the Dems (see the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau). That's never going to happen with the modern GOP. Even now Romney is running on repealing financial regulation.

Definition of false equivalence: False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.


so when I post: "same wolves/different skins" (not changing the context by adding what I did not post, your words "all politics are a zero sum game")

and you post: "Both parties have been thoroughly infiltrated and co-opted, we all agree on this (right???)"


Seems pretty much in line with my point ... and pretty equivalent to me...



and ya lets "keep it real".... and accurate...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... fRyxBZs5uc

Dec. 16 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Senators John McCain and Maria Cantwell proposed reinstating the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act that split commercial and investment banking to rein in Wall Street firms in response to the financial crisis.

And for the sake of clarity.... the 1933 President and Congress (73rd) that passed Glass-Steagall:

President: Franklin Roosevelt (D)

96 Senators
435 Representatives
5 Non-voting members

Senate Majority: Democratic
House Majority: Democratic

Vote on HR 5661:
House: 262-19
Senate: passed via voice vote


And the President and Congress (103rd) that passed the Banking Modernization Act of 1999, effectively repealing Glass Steagall:

President: Bill Clinton (D)

100 Senators
435 Representatives
5 Non-voting members

Senate Majority: Republican Party
House Majority: Republican Party

Vote on S. 900:
House: 362-57
Senate 90-8


The only difference in both instances is the party in power in Congress... while both Presidents were Democrat... yet Clinton signed it into law, and defended doing so when asked if the Reps were to blame.... hmmm... same wolf, different skin?

Or maybe we can just chalk that up to another one of those "false equivalences" then eh?

Random Wikipedia factoids and snark without substance don't mean shit. Historically, the Dems are/were the party of reform. That remains true (for better or worse). You discuss Glass-Steagall without any context whatsoever, as if it were put in place by non-political alien beings who visited the planet some 5,000 years ago. The act of repealing Glass-Steagall was in the service of a specific anti-government ideology, which has been pushed by the GOP and the conservative movement for decades. It was the crown jewel in a conservative effort to overturn FDR/Democratic regulations one by one. To deny this is to deny reality.

Except you state the true reality... "Both parties have been thoroughly infiltrated and co-opted, we all agree on this (right???)"


Make up your mind dude...

[slucero]

The repeal of Glass Stegall was not done by market deifying folks, or even people who have any faith or belief in capitalism. Greenspan turned his back on real capitalism in the 1970's by the way. It was done by a lobby of folks in the banking industry that knows that if you lobby the government, it will use its power to create, or re-work regulation that allow you to take unfair advantage over smaller businessmen (in this case smaller banks) and use the new regulatory framework to commit aggression against your competition . Removing Glass Stegall did not create greater market conditions in banking. As a matter of fact it just gave big bankers the license to ignore business risk knowing that if they got into trouble they wouldn't need to pay the consequences of their bad choices - they would just be able to lobby and bully the government to reimburse them for their losses by stealing the money of others funneling it to them in the form of TARP. All facilitated by two parties neither of them who believe in free markets.

Go ask any Hayek-quoting libertarian, whether they would be for repealing Glass-Steagall or any remaining FDR firewall. The answer shouldn't be too surprising.
As is usually the case when regulations are discarded, the whole effort to repeal GS was done under the guise of freeing up the dynamism of the market and letting it self-correct. Blah, blah, blah.
Same tired shit we hear currently from Romney, Gary Johnson, medicare-dependent Tea Partiers, the Glenn Beck Mormon Death Cultists etc. etc.

"same wolves/different skins"

[The_Noble_Cause]

Except you state the true reality... "Both parties have been thoroughly infiltrated and co-opted, we all agree on this (right???)"


Make up your mind dude...

And as I continued to say, (which you conveniently omit): "But between the two [parties], you may still get the rare useful bill from the Dems." The Democratic party used to try to serve as a counter-weight to corporate vested power. Some embers of hope remain, but not too much. The post-Lincoln GOP never really had this internal struggle of defending the weak while also carrying out the bidding of the powerful.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Go ask any Hayek-quoting libertarian, whether they would be for repealing Glass-Steagall or any remaining FDR firewall. The answer shouldn't be too surprising.
As is usually the case when regulations are discarded, the whole effort to repeal GS was done under the guise of freeing up the dynamism of the market and letting it self-correct. Blah, blah, blah.
Same tired shit we hear currently from Romney, Gary Johnson, medicare-dependent Tea Partiers, the Glenn Beck Mormon Death Cultists etc. etc.
]

What "Hayek quoting libertarians" (and by this I mean the ones who really understand free market /Austrian capitalist theories not some political candidate or activist who reads a few quotes here and there without any context - and yes I know there plenty of those there ) propose for the banking sector is :that it be regulated only by the market with no government intervention or bailouts - with the principles supply and demand and the business cycle and risk acting as the regulator. Risk is important here because in a world where there is no government bailouts (or Fannie and Freddie guarantees), banks have to pay for their own stupid decisions and mal-investments you aren't as likely to blithely go offering sub prime loans. You will still have low points in your business cycles and banking crashes but the will be less severe. Furthermore if you stopped the Fed from tinkering with the business cycle (screwing up all of the above market clearing mechanisms) you wouldn't of had those problems.

So yes market libertarians would support repeal of Glass Stegall IF it would have been replaced by a real bonafide market based banking system.

But that's not what the Republican / Democratic establishment (all tied to the banking industry ) or the pseudo champions of the free market were trying to do when they repealed Glass Stegall . What they wanted was all the regulations off, but they wanted the government to continue to offer loan guarantees on high risk loans, they wanted the Govt to be there to bail them out if they suffered consequences from Mal-investment. And they wanted an activist Federal reserve bank to control the economy creating boom conditions for them. Give me what I want to make me rich but give me special favors when I screw up so I dont have to take responsibility. That's isn't free market economics, you can't conflate it with that. What it is instead is corporatism/mercantilism at best -crap from the 17th century.

[conversationpc]

Sure, Democrats are the party of reform...When it jives with their lust for centralizing as much power as possible in the federal government.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Get one thing straight, I'm not following anyone around as you suggest. You want to talk about following anyone around, talk about yourself.

Look how you cheer for FF !

I cheer common sense.

Good one !

You cheer FF when he takes shit way out of context about Obama's speech, yet when Obama says he wants to help out any AMERICAN BUSINESSES needing help, avoiding to go under, then your so called common sesne tells you Obama is wrong, since FF said so ?

So how has noBOzos 2012 helped American businesses? All he's been doing his entire term is a bunch cheap talk and then spending most of his time coming up with excuses as to why he can't actually do what he's been talking about doing from day 1. Like a Snicker's bar, temporarily satisfies you but doesn't consist of any lasting nutritional value.