PDA

View Full Version : Clint Eastwood and that Chrysler SB Commercial



Franco
02-06-2012, 04:32 PM
So, here's the deal;

Chrysler, like General Motors, was aided by government loans made under the Bush and Obama administrations in 2008 and 2009. Taxpayers lost up to $1.3 (http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/21/autos/chrysler_government_exit/index.htm) billion lent to Chrysler, and the government no longer owns a stake in the company.
Chrysler had hoped the ad would not become politicized. "It has zero political content," said Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne Monday (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120206/AUTO01/202060369/1148/auto01/Marchionne-Chrysler-ad-not-political-endorsement). "It was not intended to be any type of political overture on our part. We are as apolitical as you can make us...I wasn't expressing a view and certainly nobody inside Chrysler was attempting to influence decisions."
Clint Eastwood isn't particularly partisan, either -- he identifies as a libertarian. He served as nonpartisan mayor of Carmel, Calif., for two years. He supported Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the 2008 presidential election but has said he no longer identifies with the GOP (http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201110/leonardo-dicaprio-clint-eastwood-gq-september-2011-cover-story-article?slide=2#slide=4) and doesn't know (http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/02/clint-eastwood-still-undecided-about-113257.html) who he's voting for in 2012. He has also brushed off critics (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/jun/06/1) who read political messages into his films.
Though conservatives have criticized the ad for supporting the auto bailout, Eastwood himself did not support it (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2011/11/clint-eastwood-talks-politics-whos-the-one-democrat-that-he-voted-for.html).

I personally think that Chrysler CEO Sergio Macaroni is full of it!:p And, tax payers also own about 40 billion worth of Government Motors stock that we can't sell.

road kill
02-06-2012, 04:42 PM
I was conflicted on that commercial.
I thought Eastwood was one of us.

I guess money talks..........


RK

Franco
02-06-2012, 05:09 PM
Reading between the lines, I would suspect that it was a way for the UAW to run a political ad for Obama in the Super Bowl. You know, with the false claim that Obama saved the U S Auto Industry.

At $3.5 million for a 30 second commercial, that two minute ad cost $14 million. They would have won far more support buying a little bitty ad in the Detroit Free press stating that they were giving back 14 million to the tax payers.

Lets don't forget that tax payers were stiffed for $1.3 billion dollars in the bailout of the UAW/Chrysler.

Buy FORD!

menmon
02-06-2012, 05:16 PM
Reading between the lines, I would suspect that it was a way for the UAW to run a political ad for Obama in the Super Bowl. You know, with the false claim that Obama saved the U S Auto Industry.

At $3.5 million for a 30 second commercial, that two minute ad cost $14 million. They would have won far more support buying a little bitty ad in the Detroit Free press stating that they were giving back 14 million to the tax payers.

Lets don't forget that tax payers were stiffed for $1.3 billion dollars in the bailout of the UAW/Chrysler.

Buy FORD!

No one has been stiffed:rolleyes:

I thought it made a statement to buy American. It was just as good a message for any of the US automakers.

Yes money is still owed but not forgiven and these companies are on track to pay it back.

This did not only bailout GM and Crysler, it saved Michigan.

But to get Obama beat, you guys would buy a Toyota.

Hew
02-06-2012, 05:23 PM
At $3.5 million for a 30 second commercial, that two minute ad cost $14 million. They would have won far more support buying a little bitty ad in the Detroit Free press stating that they were giving back 14 million to the tax payers.
Chrysler giving the Obama admin a $14 million reach-around during the Superbowl is chump change compared to the $3.5 BILLION loan they're waiting on the Obama Energy Dept. to approve.

Franco
02-06-2012, 05:28 PM
No one has been stiffed:rolleyes:

I thought it made a statement to buy American. It was just as good a message for any of the US automakers.

Yes money is still owed but not forgiven and these companies are on track to pay it back.

This did not only bailout GM and Crysler, it saved Michigan.

But to get Obama beat, you guys would buy a Toyota.

I drive a Ford Lariat F150 built in Deerbourne, Michigan.

Tax Payers will NOT be getting that 1.3 Billion under the terms of the buyout by Fiat of Chrysler. That money is gone forever.

The forced stock purchase of GM stock is well below the IPO and it could be years or decades if the stock price ever gets to the point where it could be sold. And, if the tax payer portion of GM stock were to hit the market it would create a sell spree on GM stock. All very big "ifs" because GM/UAW may need another major bailout just to keep going!

Don't forget that a few months ago when there was some positive news coming out of GM, the UAW was already demanding more consessions because of the consessions they had to give up in the original bailout.

Raymond Little
02-06-2012, 05:28 PM
No one has been stiffed:rolleyes:

I thought it made a statement to buy American but body assembled in Canada and engine in Mexico. It was just as good a message for any of the US automakers.

Yes money is still owed but not forgiven and these companies are on track to pay it back. What track is that?

This did not only bailout GM and Crysler, it saved the UAW.

But to get Obama beat, you guys would buy a Toyota Made in America.
Just needed to fix it a little bit Sam;)

Buzz
02-06-2012, 05:38 PM
So far as I'm concerned, that was a very pro American message.

But go ahead and crap all over it.

Buzz
02-06-2012, 05:41 PM
Just needed to fix it a little bit Sam;)

Toyota sources all their parts from USA suppliers?

luvmylabs23139
02-06-2012, 05:41 PM
The secured bond holders who should have been first in line at bankruptcy court got royally screwed by OBUMMA. Instead the unsecured union got what rightfully belonged to the bondholders. REDISRTIBUTION at its finast.

mngundog
02-06-2012, 06:11 PM
Toyota sources all their parts from USA suppliers?

The Toyota Camry is the most American built car with 80%+ of its parts coming from the US, followed by the Honda Accord. If you want to buy an American product, built in America with American parts that's what you need to know.

Hew
02-06-2012, 06:44 PM
So far as I'm concerned, that was a very pro American message.

But go ahead and crap all over it.

Of course you like it. It echoed everything Obama has been spoonfeeding to a any moonbat who will listen on the campaign trail...

- Obama thinks Americans have been a "little bit lazy" and Clint thinks Americans have "lost our heart at times."

- Obama thinks he saved the auto industry, Detroit and Michigan. Clint thinks Obama saved the auto industry and Detroit...he's not so sure about Michigan, apparently.

- Obama wants us to forget the last three years of his ineptitude and divisiveness (although he wouldn't mind if you remembered Bush before that). Clint would likes us to forget the last three years of Obama's ineptitude and divisiveness.

Jason Glavich
02-07-2012, 07:46 AM
I think the commercial was a way for a company who has shown they do not manage their money very well to waste a few million of a commercial during the super that should have been put into R&D.

zeus3925
02-07-2012, 08:23 AM
Reading between the lines, I would suspect that it was a way for the UAW to run a political ad for Obama in the Super Bowl. You know, with the false claim that Obama saved the U S Auto Industry.

At $3.5 million for a 30 second commercial, that two minute ad cost $14 million. They would have won far more support buying a little bitty ad in the Detroit Free press stating that they were giving back 14 million to the tax payers.

Lets don't forget that tax payers were stiffed for $1.3 billion dollars in the bailout of the UAW/Chrysler.

Buy FORD!

Com'on Franco. There is nothing, nada in that ad that is even remotely related to the UAW. Essentially the message is Detroit is in a process of resurrection from the dead. It still ain't that shining city on the hill, but it isn't dead yet.

zeus3925
02-07-2012, 08:27 AM
I drive a Ford Lariat F150 built in Deerbourne, Michigan.



Your F150 was made in Dearborn a suburb of Detroit

road kill
02-07-2012, 09:11 AM
To me, that commercial was about DA UNION and Obama's "second half!!"
("second half" to me was metaphor for second term):rolleyes:

Pathetic.


When will somebody do a commercial for Wall-Street's "second half??"

They both took bail out money.


RK

menmon
02-07-2012, 09:54 AM
Why can't we be happy for our neighbors?

US Auto has come a long way and has made major steps to recreate intself to compete in a very tough industry. If they succeed we all win, so can you please stop routing for them to fail:rolleyes:

road kill
02-07-2012, 10:19 AM
There is always MORE!

Here is the MORE!!!;-)




THE GOOD, THE AD AND THE UGLY


By Luke Jerod Kummer and Erik Hayden Tuesday, February 7, 2012


WASHINGTON — Chrysler’s chief executive is insisting his company’s Super Bowl ad starring Clint Eastwood has “zero political content,” even though members of the advertising team that created the spot have ties to President Obama.

Democrats, including the White House, cheered “Halftime in America” and its upbeat message in which Eastwood offers the auto industry comeback as proof of America’s resilience. Many Republicans, though, panned it, calling it payback for the government bailout Chrysler received in 2008. And Eastwood confirmed CEO Sergio Marchionne’s contention that the ad was not an endorsement of any candidate.

“We are as apolitical as you can make us,” Marchionne said in a radio interview in Detroit yesterday. “I wasn’t expressing a view and certainly nobody inside Chrysler was attempting to influence decisions.”

Eastwood echoed Marchionne’s comments.

“I am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama,” Eastwood told Fox’s “The O’Reilly Factor.” “It was meant to be a message ... just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it.”

Still, the advertising agency that created the commercial — Wieden + Kennedy — has members who have designed Obama campaign items or who have worked on behalf of Democratic causes.

The creative minds behind the ad are in the agency’s Portland, Ore., branch. Aaron Allen designed a poster for the 2008 Obama campaign and Jimm Lasser designed a basketball sneaker called the “Obama Force One,” with an image of the president on the soles and the message “A Black Man Runs and a Nation Is Behind Him.” Lasser displayed the shoe in a 2008 gallery exhibition with the tagline “The Dunk on McCain.”

Elsewhere at Wieden + Kennedy, which has Kraft and Coca-Cola on its client list, global public relations director Joani Wardwell worked in the press office of the Clinton White House. She started as a grassroots organizer for Democratic causes in the early 1990s and continues to do political consulting.

“I’ve managed to always keep my toe dipped in the water that way,” she said in 2009.

The Wieden + Kennedy spot set itself apart in two ways: its length — two minutes, compared with the standard 30 seconds — and its powerful message.

“Detroit’s showing us it can be done,” Eastwood tells the audience. “And, what’s true about them is true about all of us ... This country can’t be knocked out with one punch.”

American carmakers have seen better times since receiving taxpayer funds. Collectively, Chrysler, General Motors and Ford sold slightly more than 6 million vehicles last year, a 15 percent increase over 2010. However, taxpayers will never recover about $20 billion of the $80 billion spent on the bailout, according to a recent government report.

Obama has increasingly highlighted his role in keeping the auto industry alive after many analysts believed it — and the millions of jobs it supports — was on its last legs. The president frequently brings up Detroit as an achievement on the campaign trail and made it a centerpiece of his State of the Union address.

It was no surprise, then, that the ad was a hit with the West Wing, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer tweeting: “Saving the America auto industry: Something Eminem and Clint Eastwood can agree on.”

A top Republican had a far different take.

Karl Rove, the former adviser to President George W. Bush, told Fox News yesterday he was “frankly offended” by the commercial and called it an example of “Chicago-style politics” in which the president and “his political minions” were being repaid by Chrysler for the taxpayer money the company received.

But not every Republican thinks there’s such a clear-cut relationship.

“It’s only natural that people ask that question given how much this dovetails with the president’s own re-election narrative,” said Bruce Haynes, a GOP media strategist.

Haynes, though, dismissed the notion there was any active coordination, adding, “I think that it’s a bit of stretch to suggest that an agency in Portland did an ad about a car company in Detroit that’s owned by Fiat in Italy to fulfill the wills and aims of the White House in Washington.”




RK

Golddogs
02-07-2012, 10:22 AM
The Toyota Camry is the most American built car with 80%+ of its parts coming from the US, followed by the Honda Accord. If you want to buy an American product, built in America with American parts that's what you need to know.


You watched the same report I did. It went on to say that if you factor in which auto makers had headquarters here, Our 3 plus Toyota and Honda employ over 255,000 workers not including those manufacturing parts.

As far as asembled in the US with parts from Mexico or China, that is far from a perfect situation, but is OK with me. I would hate to see what shape we would be in if they were shipped here whole.

And a FYI both Honda and Toyota are planning to ramp up assembly here and ship finished products overseas. Not related to the ad, but a chance to add more jobs.

I looked at the ad as hopeful we can recover and be stronger and better. For me, the alternative is not an option.

menmon
02-07-2012, 10:27 AM
There is always MORE!

Here is the MORE!!!;-)




RK

RK - All your really creative advertisers have worked for politicians. Hell if they havn't you probably should use someone else. These political campaigns spend billions of dollars so any good advertiser is going to get some of it.

Try again RK

Jason Glavich
02-07-2012, 11:01 AM
Why can't we be happy for our neighbors?

US Auto has come a long way and has made major steps to recreate intself to compete in a very tough industry. If they succeed we all win, so can you please stop routing for them to fail:rolleyes:

No need to root for them to fail, they already did.

Franco
02-07-2012, 11:02 AM
RK - All your really creative advertisers have worked for politicians. Hell if they havn't you probably should use someone else. These political campaigns spend billions of dollars so any good advertiser is going to get some of it.

Try again RK

Nope, you try again;-)

McCann - Erickson USA has handled all Chrysler advertising for over a dozen years.

The Clint Eastwood SB ad was produced by an outside political advertising firm!

It was the UAW's way of supporting Obama in the upcoming election. I think Eastwood was duped into doing the ad because of his big hit "Grand Torino". With all the fallout since it aired, I'm sure Eastwood wouldn't touch this assignment with a 10 foot poll with hindsight!

mngundog
02-07-2012, 11:08 AM
Why can't we be happy for our neighbors?

US Auto has come a long way and has made major steps to recreate intself to compete in a very tough industry. If they succeed we all win, so can you please stop routing for them to fail:rolleyes:
I thought this thread was about Chrysler which is an Italian auto not a US auto.
I guess if you consider Toyota and Honda US automobiles then you could include Chrysler.

menmon
02-07-2012, 11:10 AM
Nope, you try again;-)

McCann USA has handled all Chrysler advertising for over a dozen years.

The Clint Eastwood SB ad was produced by an outside political advertising firm!

It was the UAW's way of supporting Obama in the upcoming election. I think Eastwood was duped into doing the ad because of his big hit "Grand Torino". With all the fallout since it aired, I'm sure Eastwood wouldn't touch this assignment with a 10 foot poll with hindsight!

I'm sorry your hero did something positive and you don't like it. I'm sure he would do it again....because he is a smart man, and the likes of Jim Beck don't pull his strings:razz:

Franco
02-07-2012, 11:15 AM
I thought this thread was about Chrysler which is an Italian auto not a US auto.
I guess if you consider Toyota and Honda US automobiles then you could include Chrysler.

Correct, and before it became an Italian Company it was a German Company (Damlier-Benz).

P S

Part of the deal when Fiat purchased the company out of bankruptcy was that USA tax payers would payoff 1.3 billion of the former companies bad debt!

Had our government not interfered and let this situtaion run its true course, Chrysler along with Dodge and Jeep would be well on it way to recovery. Understand that big government can't stand it when companies do well without thier help!;-)

Franco
02-07-2012, 11:16 AM
I'm sorry your hero did something positive and you don't like it. I'm sure he would do it again....because he is a smart man, and the likes of Jim Beck don't pull his strings:razz:

Yup, Beck is an idiot but, had Eastwood realized the politics behind what was going on, he wouldn't have agreed to do this project!

Remember, Eastwood is by his own admission a Libertarian and they hate big intrusive Democrat style government.

Buzz
02-07-2012, 11:17 AM
I'm sure Eastwood wouldn't touch this assignment with a 10 foot poll with hindsight!


I bet at this point in his live, Eastwood is really worried about what people think of him.

Buzz
02-07-2012, 11:19 AM
Had our government not interfered and let this situtaion run its true course, Chrysler along with Dodge and Jeep would be well on it way to recovery. Understand that big government can't stand it when companies do well without thier help!;-)


And you know this how?





Remember, Eastwood is by his own admission a Libertarian and they hate big intrusive Democrat style government.


He must be getting senile and can no longer figure anything out for himself.

Franco
02-07-2012, 11:26 AM
And you know this how?






He must be getting senile and can no longer figure anything out for himself.


Because Damlier-Benz did two things for the Chrysler brands that haddened been done before. The brought up to date styling and better engineering to all Chrysler brands. They just couldn't deal with the UAW anymore. As they said when they divested of Chrysler that the quality of workers in Germany compared to Detroit were oceans apart!

Franco
02-07-2012, 11:30 AM
He must be getting senile and can no longer figure anything out for himself.

Nope, I think he was duped. Probably approached along the lines of; you stared and produced this wonderful movie, "Grand Tarino" and we want to take it a step further........

All the while the political ad agency knew exactly what they were doing.

menmon
02-07-2012, 11:30 AM
Because Damlier-Benz did two things for the Chrysler brands that haddened been done before. The brought up to date styling and better engineering to all Chrysler brands. They just couldn't deal with the UAW anymore. As they said when they divested of Chrysler that the quality of workers in Germany compared to Detroit were oceans apart!

You don't think unions are live and well in Europe? Think again!!

Two totally different markets is why this did not work.

The only true statement is that Chrysler gained form their technolgy

menmon
02-07-2012, 11:32 AM
I thought this thread was about Chrysler which is an Italian auto not a US auto.
I guess if you consider Toyota and Honda US automobiles then you could include Chrysler.

They own 25%...I think that 75% ownership still makes them a US owned company

road kill
02-07-2012, 11:34 AM
They own 25%...I think that 75% ownership still makes them a US owned company

What % is owned by DA UNION???


RK

mngundog
02-07-2012, 11:44 AM
They own 25%...I think that 75% ownership still makes them a US owned company
Interesting last I checked Fiat owned over 50% did something happen in the last couple days?

menmon
02-07-2012, 11:48 AM
Interesting last I checked Fiat owned over 50% did something happen in the last couple days?

They have option to buy more but have not exercised it....all available in their SEC Filing...much more accurate that Glenn;)

menmon
02-07-2012, 11:51 AM
What % is owned by DA UNION???


RK

Don't now but you can find it in their proxy statement.

What is wrong with the employees owning stock in their company?

I own stock in my bank...does that make me bad or something?

mngundog
02-07-2012, 11:52 AM
They have option to buy more but have not exercised it....all available in their SEC Filing...much more accurate that Glenn;)
Can you post a link? Everything that I see is that Fiat owns 52-53% of Chrysler.

M&K's Retrievers
02-07-2012, 12:04 PM
Don't now but you can find it in their proxy statement.

What is wrong with the employees owning stock in their company?

I own stock in my bank...does that make me bad or something?

It could. Most banks should have three balls hanging on their sign.

Pawn Shop regards,

road kill
02-07-2012, 12:07 PM
Don't now but you can find it in their proxy statement.

What is wrong with the employees owning stock in their company?

I own stock in my bank...does that make me bad or something?
Do the employees own the stock??

Or does DA UNION????

And I don't think you're bad, the or something part is different!!;-)


stan b

Hew
02-07-2012, 01:02 PM
Can you post a link? Everything that I see is that Fiat owns 52-53% of Chrysler.
Good luck with that. I'm sure he has flitted on to shilling for Obama (while saying mean things about Jim Beck....whoever that is :rolleyes:) on another thread by now.

Franco
02-07-2012, 06:02 PM
http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s320x320/430137_321334074585852_189290231123571_1037127_601 691505_n.jpg

;)

mngundog
02-07-2012, 07:03 PM
I was a little surprised for an ad that was talking about Detroit, that not one scene in the whole ad was filmed in Detroit.

Cody Covey
02-07-2012, 07:19 PM
They have option to buy more but have not exercised it....all available in their SEC Filing...much more accurate that Glenn;)

Much more accurate than you is fiat them self.

54% with an option to go to 70%...

http://www.fiatspa.com/en-US/media_center/FiatDocuments/2012/January/Fiat_increases_its_interest_in_Chrysler_Group_LLC_ to_58,5_per_cent.pdf

EDIT: That took me 20 seconds to find.

menmon
02-07-2012, 08:31 PM
Good luck with that. I'm sure he has flitted on to shilling for Obama (while saying mean things about Jim Beck....whoever that is :rolleyes:) on another thread by now.

Actually I misspoke...I meant Glenn Beck. Jim Beck is a fine man and dog trainer. Just the opposite of Glenn Beck.

menmon
02-07-2012, 08:36 PM
Do the employees own the stock??

Or does DA UNION????

And I don't think you're bad, the or something part is different!!;-)


stan b

They own it through one of their benefit plans the company provided for them that they vested in as compensation while they worked there. Not the Union. So this compensation is subject to the performance of the company. If they bankrupt the company they will have nothing. Strong motivation to work hard.

menmon
02-07-2012, 08:43 PM
Much more accurate than you is fiat them self.

54% with an option to go to 70%...

http://www.fiatspa.com/en-US/media_center/FiatDocuments/2012/January/Fiat_increases_its_interest_in_Chrysler_Group_LLC_ to_58,5_per_cent.pdf

EDIT: That took me 20 seconds to find.

I was wrong..they have exercised the option

mngundog
02-08-2012, 08:40 AM
No one has been stiffed:rolleyes:

I thought it made a statement to buy American. It was just as good a message for any of the US automakers.

Yes money is still owed but not forgiven and these companies are on track to pay it back.

This did not only bailout GM and Chrysler, it saved Michigan.

But to get Obama beat, you guys would buy a Toyota.
So now that you understand that Chrysler is no different then Toyota what is your you opinion on buying a "foreign automobile" like Chrysler or Honda?

zeus3925
02-08-2012, 09:02 AM
Me like Jeeps!

http://www.jeep.com/en/

Cowtown
02-08-2012, 09:31 AM
RK - All your really creative advertisers have worked for politicians. Hell if they havn't you probably should use someone else. These political campaigns spend billions of dollars so any good advertiser is going to get some of it.

Try again RK

RK supported his claim with facts and links.

How about you do the same for your claim that "all your really creative advertisers have worked for politicians."

Just because you'd like for it to be true doesn't make it true.

Back it up with fact and links.

M&K's Retrievers
02-08-2012, 09:35 AM
Actually I misspoke...I meant Glenn Beck. Jim Beck is a fine man and dog trainer. Just the opposite of Glenn Beck.


I was wrong..they have exercised the option

Well, that's two you admit to. It's a start.

road kill
02-08-2012, 09:43 AM
I like Clint Eastwood.
I have nothing against the Chevrolet or Chrysler brand.

Explain to me why the bailout makes these brands special?
Explain to me how Obama buying allegiance from DA UNION makes these companies better than Ford or Toyota?
Why are the bail outs for these companies OK but the Wall Street bail outs are for EVIL companies??

If these companies were run better and made better products and negotiated more skillfully with DA UNION, no bail outs would have been needed.

Rewarding failed/poor business practices create more failed/poor business practices.

Trying to tell people in a Super Bowl commercial that these EPIC failures were some how noble is a lie, they are not.

They have failed and this administration seized the opportunity to do something that is fundamentally wrong.
I don't want the Government involved in private industry.


This was about saving DA UNION, nothing else.
The very cause of these EPIC failures.


So basically, to you progressives, these companies that failed are more deserving of our loyalty than those that tightened their belts, became more austere, made product improvements, worked a little harder and did the right thing??
You know, the essence of America!!

RK

Gerry Clinchy
02-08-2012, 10:29 AM
Wonder when we'll see the first ad for Fiskars ... the company that has a $500+ million dollar loan to build some electric cars (their "debut" model to be priced at $100,000!) Seems that they have laid off workers (most in Delaware, Joe B's home state). They are renegotiating the loan terms since they didn't meet their deadline for progress toward production. They say they have also raised $850 million in private investment.

Is there a large market for an electric car that costs $100,000? Why would taxpayers be funding a car company that has a primary market in that price range?

I still keep wondering how this whole scheme works: You reduce costs for gas by using electricity. You plug the car in at home. I'm guessing you have to pay for the electricity to charge the car. How much does your electric bill go up? Does anybody on this forum have any info on that? Does the cost of electricity equal or exceed the cost of the gas you didn't have to buy?

Yes, people pay $100K for a Ferrari ... but they don't mass produce those Ferraris as far as I know. You don't actually see a lot of Ferraris on the road every day. Will a $100,000 electric car offer the same features as a Ferrari to attract a larger market of buyers in this price range than Ferrari does?

Do electric companies have enough capacity to fulfill the needs of a bunch of electric cars? Will the cost of electricity go up due to short supply?

We make that electricity with ... coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power. But the Fed govt is very interested in making coal hard to produce and burn. They aren't too friendly to exploiting our own oil and natural gas due to environmental concerns. There has been a long-term concern about the safety of nuclear plants. So, is it really dumb to ask where we will get the additional electricity for a bunch of these electric cars? Does somebody actually have a plan besides, "Yeah, let's have electric cars!"

California is in the forefront of the electric car movement. They have passed a law that "X" number of cars sold in CA by a certain year MUST be electric cars. Wonder how that's going to work out.

menmon
02-08-2012, 10:42 AM
So now that you understand that Chrysler is no different then Toyota what is your you opinion on buying a "foreign automobile" like Chrysler or Honda?

Honestly, I think Fiat is very good for Crysler to access other markets. Long term, I think Fiat will reduce it ownership as the value increases. This was a good trade for them. They purchased well established brands with established distribution at distressed prices. Something Mitt would have done at Bain or Sam Zeel, Blackstone, or Apollo. Made a lot of sense for Crysler. Fiats won't ever sell well in this market, but Fiat will make a lot of money for being the one that recaptialized Crysler.

menmon
02-08-2012, 10:56 AM
I like Clint Eastwood.
I have nothing against the Chevrolet or Chrysler brand.

Explain to me why the bailout makes these brands special?
Explain to me how Obama buying allegiance from DA UNION makes these companies better than Ford or Toyota?
Why are the bail outs for these companies OK but the Wall Street bail outs are for EVIL companies??

If these companies were run better and made better products and negotiated more skillfully with DA UNION, no bail outs would have been needed.

Rewarding failed/poor business practices create more failed/poor business practices.

Trying to tell people in a Super Bowl commercial that these EPIC failures were some how noble is a lie, they are not.

They have failed and this administration seized the opportunity to do something that is fundamentally wrong.
I don't want the Government involved in private industry.


This was about saving DA UNION, nothing else.
The very cause of these EPIC failures.


So basically, to you progressives, these companies that failed are more deserving of our loyalty than those that tightened their belts, became more austere, made product improvements, worked a little harde and did the right thing??
You know, the essence of America!!

RK

I don't either, but we forget that the only money available for the banks and the auto industry was government money when everything collasped. Had the government not have stepped up, everything would have failed. We would have lost our deposits in these banks, the companies we work for would have lost thus we would have lost our jobs. Now after all that, the private sector would have come in and pick up the value that was left, but life the way we know it would be over.

It is real easy to play conservative right now and complain about the debt and blame the current administration for it. I assure you, a republican would had to have done all the same things, if they had not like Hoover did, they would have sent us all to the soup lines and hopefully there would have been soup.

I think the message here is that we as americans did not turn our back on these companies and helped them out with our tax dollars, so lets support them by considering purchasing their products and let them be successful and pay us back. Why would you want them not to succeed? They sure can't pay us back if they fail.

I'm glad that the unions negotiated strong for their members and keeped the VEBA from raided. Something they paid money into and accepted as compensation to have when they retired. Good for them!! Now would you have rather seen some corporate raider take their money, because that would have been the outcome?

Marvin S
02-08-2012, 12:51 PM
It is real easy to play conservative right now and complain about the debt and blame the current administration for it. I assure you, a republican would had to have done all the same things, if they had not like Hoover did, they would have sent us all to the soup lines and hopefully there would have been soup.

I just recently read a writeup on Hoover - the guy was a technocrat who had been born with a silver spoon. Were he running today he would be to the left of R-Money. What he did was provide the D's over the years political cover for being stupid, which seems to have "Trickled Down". :)

Buzz
02-08-2012, 02:08 PM
Why would you want them not to succeed? They sure can't pay us back if they fail.



Two words, DA UNION!

And if they succeed and pay the money back with interest, it will forever be a dagger in the heart of hard core Laissez-Faire.

menmon
02-08-2012, 03:56 PM
I just recently read a writeup on Hoover - the guy was a technocrat who had been born with a silver spoon. Were he running today he would be to the left of R-Money. What he did was provide the D's over the years political cover for being stupid, which seems to have "Trickled Down". :)

There is always a spin that shifts blame with you guys:rolleyes:

The history books have spoke on this one....little late to spin;)

paul young
02-08-2012, 04:35 PM
it's nice to know where you stand with folks.

i've been a union member for 36 years, the last 16 of which i have been a member of a bargaining unit which is a local of UAW. i guess that makes me part of "the problem". i think my wages and benefits are commensurate with what i do , which is structural design of nuclear submarines. i assure you i make far less than you might think. i can also assure you that as i drive to work each day at 5:30 am to start a 10 hour day, that i am not plotting to ruin our nation or drive the company i work for into bankruptcy.

you guys have some strange ideas about what being a union member means. i'm proud to be part of a workforce that makes the finest warships in the world. it's been a great career, both challenging and rewarding. i feel fortunate to have benefitted from a great management team that has aggressively pursued new contracts and modernized our engineering, design and manufacturing methods so that we can maintain our position at the top of the industry.

that didn't happen in the auto industry. the problems that hurt the auto industry were the product of poor decisions by management as to what would be produced, how it would be produced and how what was produced was marketed. the guys on the assembly line don't make these decisions, they live with them and do as they are directed.

i know i won't change anyone's mind on this or any other subject discussed on this forum, but i wanted to let you know where i stand.-Paul

road kill
02-08-2012, 05:02 PM
it's nice to know where you stand with folks.

i've been a union member for 36 years, the last 16 of which i have been a member of a bargaining unit which is a local of UAW. i guess that makes me part of "the problem". i think my wages and benefits are commensurate with what i do , which is structural design of nuclear submarines. i assure you i make far less than you might think. i can also assure you that as i drive to work each day at 5:30 am to start a 10 hour day, that i am not plotting to ruin our nation or drive the company i work for into bankruptcy.

you guys have some strange ideas about what being a union member means. i'm proud to be part of a workforce that makes the finest warships in the world. it's been a great career, both challenging and rewarding. i feel fortunate to have benefitted from a great management team that has aggressively pursued new contracts and modernized our engineering, design and manufacturing methods so that we can maintain our position at the top of the industry.

that didn't happen in the auto industry. the problems that hurt the auto industry were the product of poor decisions by management as to what would be produced, how it would be produced and how what was produced was marketed. the guys on the assembly line don't make these decisions, they live with them and do as they are directed.

i know i won't change anyone's mind on this or any other subject discussed on this forum, but i wanted to let you know where i stand.-Paul

Paul,
None of this is personal.
The tone here is not one of hate.
I'll bet there is a conservative or 2 you are friends with.
I train and hunt with a couple progressives.
I even have a friend that belongs to the teachers union here in WI.

We have all arrived at where we are by the different roads we have traveled.

Hell, you might even know some "traveling men."
And we know how dangerous they are.;-)

RK

Gerry Clinchy
02-08-2012, 05:07 PM
I can see where Paul is coming from.

I think the problem that developed with unions is that they have tried to equate those who take pride in their work with those who don't. That is, those union rules that require so much red tape to eliminate those employees that aren't productive. The same problem exists with teachers.

Again, it may boil down to that universal issue of personal responsibility.

Hew
02-08-2012, 05:20 PM
you guys have some strange ideas about what being a union member means. i'm proud to be part of a workforce that makes the finest warships in the world. it's been a great career, both challenging and rewarding. i feel fortunate to have benefitted from a great management team that has aggressively pursued new contracts and modernized our engineering, design and manufacturing methods so that we can maintain our position at the top of the industry.

that didn't happen in the auto industry. the problems that hurt the auto industry were the product of poor decisions by management as to what would be produced, how it would be produced and how what was produced was marketed. the guys on the assembly line don't make these decisions, they live with them and do as they are directed.
The dissimilarities between your business and the auto business don't stop and start at management. No offense, but your business ain't exactly subject to the free market the way car business is. Who else are we going to buy nuclear submarines from? You've got a captive customer who has no other options and ain't exactly stingy with the purse strings (eg the proverbial $600 toilet seat). I'm not saying your company rips off the government, but you're not exactly competing against every other industrial nation in the free world to sell a consumer product, either. The upshot of all that....in your business meeting worker/union demands don't necessarily effect the company's bottom line. In the auto business they sure as hell do.

No offense to auto-workers, but working on an assembly line building a Chevy Geo ain't exactly the same skill-set as bulding a nuke submarine. Just a hunch, but I bet the salary/bennies for someone snapping a plastic cap onto the headlight of a Geo isn't much different from a guy assembling nuclear reactor gizmos at the sub plant. They should be alot different. If a Detroit auto worker is overpaid, then you're correct...ultimately management is responsible. But you can't then turn around and make management the bad guy when they move their assembly plants to right-to-work states as they're a) correcting past mistakes, and b) responding to market demands.

menmon
02-08-2012, 05:28 PM
I can see where Paul is coming from.

I think the problem that developed with unions is that they have tried to equate those who take pride in their work with those who don't. That is, those union rules that require so much red tape to eliminate those employees that aren't productive. The same problem exists with teachers.

Again, it may boil down to that universal issue of personal responsibility.

The problem is that your understanding of unions is wrong. As long as you listen to the politicians that represent the owners and management you will still have it wrong. Nothing wrong with that but their first priorty is their stockholders and if they could they would give their labor less so that they can give their stockholders more. If you are a working man, it is good to have a union covering your backside. My dad spent 30 years of his life making sure these oil companies took care of their workers. I don't see them suffering because of it;)

Franco
02-08-2012, 05:35 PM
I don't either, but we forget that the only money available for the banks and the auto industry was government money when everything collasped. Had the government not have stepped up, everything would have failed. We would have lost our deposits in these banks, the companies we work for would have lost thus we would have lost our jobs. Now after all that, the private sector would have come in and pick up the value that was left, but life the way we know it would be over.

It is real easy to play conservative right now and complain about the debt and blame the current administration for it. I assure you, a republican would had to have done all the same things, if they had not like Hoover did, they would have sent us all to the soup lines and hopefully there would have been soup.

I think the message here is that we as americans did not turn our back on these companies and helped them out with our tax dollars, so lets support them by considering purchasing their products and let them be successful and pay us back. Why would you want them not to succeed? They sure can't pay us back if they fail.

I'm glad that the unions negotiated strong for their members and keeped the VEBA from raided. Something they paid money into and accepted as compensation to have when they retired. Good for them!! Now would you have rather seen some corporate raider take their money, because that would have been the outcome?

Not true at all!

Fram an article that Cotts posted a while back. The Wall St bailouts were totally unnecessary!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/sep/20/tarp-bailout-banks-wall-street



This was when the Wall Street boys made their mad rush for the public trough. They enlisted everyone that mattered in the effort, including Treasury secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Board chairman Ben Bernanke, and Timothy Geithner, then the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank.
The line was that the economy would collapse if congress did not immediately rescue the banks. They were prepared to make up anything to save the banks in their hour of need. Bernanke was probably caught in the biggest fabrication when he told congress that the commercial paper market was shutting down (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/business/25econ.html).

Hew
02-08-2012, 05:37 PM
Take 'em down, boys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKgM68MzXpg

Got DKM tix in March for my b-day.

paul young
02-08-2012, 05:54 PM
The dissimilarities between your business and the auto business don't stop and start at management. No offense, but your business ain't exactly subject to the free market the way car business is. Who else are we going to buy nuclear submarines from? You've got a captive customer who has no other options and ain't exactly stingy with the purse strings (eg the proverbial $600 toilet seat). I'm not saying your company rips off the government, but you're not exactly competing against every other industrial nation in the free world to sell a consumer product, either. The upshot of all that....in your business meeting worker/union demands don't necessarily effect the company's bottom line. In the auto business they sure as hell do.

No offense to auto-workers, but working on an assembly line building a Chevy Geo ain't exactly the same skill-set as bulding a nuke submarine. Just a hunch, but I bet the salary/bennies for someone snapping a plastic cap onto the headlight of a Geo isn't much different from a guy assembling nuclear reactor gizmos at the sub plant. They should be alot different. If a Detroit auto worker is overpaid, then you're correct...ultimately management is responsible. But you can't then turn around and make management the bad guy when they move their assembly plants to right-to-work states as they're a) correcting past mistakes, and b) responding to market demands.

of course you're right; auto assembly lines are very different from what we do.

however, we do have a very capable and committed competitor called Northrup Grumman who would like to steal our bacon. we are constantly improving our work methods to stay ahead of them. it pays off. we have had several contracts with Great Britain in the past and one with them currently. they know where to go for cutting edge design. we intend to keep it that way.

Hew
02-08-2012, 06:10 PM
however, we do have a very capable and committed competitor called Northrup Grumman who would like to steal our bacon.
My bad, I didn't realize NG did subs, too.

Gerry Clinchy
02-08-2012, 10:53 PM
The problem is that your understanding of unions is wrong. As long as you listen to the politicians that represent the owners and management you will still have it wrong. Nothing wrong with that but their first priorty is their stockholders and if they could they would give their labor less so that they can give their stockholders more. If you are a working man, it is good to have a union covering your backside. My dad spent 30 years of his life making sure these oil companies took care of their workers. I don't see them suffering because of it;)

I have also listened to friends who have been union workers.

However, also just came across this article in the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/nyregion/city-hotel-workers-to-be-issued-panic-buttons.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

I'm definitely in the wrong line of work ... a "housekeeper" in a NY hotel will now make $59,000 a year! (up from $46,000/year). And they get health insurance for themselves and their families, with no cost to them, and no co-pays; and will also have pension contribution of employer go up from 9% to 10.5%. Hotel business in NYC must be very good.

menmon
02-09-2012, 09:40 AM
Not true at all!

Fram an article that Cotts posted a while back. The Wall St bailouts were totally unnecessary!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/sep/20/tarp-bailout-banks-wall-street



This was when the Wall Street boys made their mad rush for the public trough. They enlisted everyone that mattered in the effort, including Treasury secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Board chairman Ben Bernanke, and Timothy Geithner, then the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank.
The line was that the economy would collapse if congress did not immediately rescue the banks. They were prepared to make up anything to save the banks in their hour of need. Bernanke was probably caught in the biggest fabrication when he told congress that the commercial paper market was shutting down (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/business/25econ.html).

That is so untrue! And there is not use arguing with you, but you are wrong wrong wrong!

road kill
02-09-2012, 09:41 AM
of course you're right; auto assembly lines are very different from what we do.

however, we do have a very capable and committed competitor called Northrup Grumman who would like to steal our bacon. we are constantly improving our work methods to stay ahead of them. it pays off. we have had several contracts with Great Britain in the past and one with them currently. they know where to go for cutting edge design. we intend to keep it that way.
Paul,
At one point in my illustrious career, I did infrared imaging for AGEMA.
I did composite testing for heat dissapation.
(we used cryogenically cooled imagers back then)

The experiments and testing was for a composite skin on subs.
For signature rotation and detection avoidance.

I'm sure it has changed a lot since then.


RK

Marvin S
02-09-2012, 11:37 AM
There is always a spin that shifts blame with you guys:rolleyes:

The history books have spoke on this one....little late to spin;)

Rather like the latest revelation in JFK's various affairs :-P. History is only as good as the person who does a thorough job of uncovering all the facts :o. Again I say - the ignorance in the party of the D's does have a trickle down effect :-P.

Franco
02-09-2012, 11:55 AM
That is so untrue! And there is not use arguing with you, but you are wrong wrong wrong!

Tell us how I am wrong.

TARP funds were suppose to be used to free up capital an keep the banks operational. Instead, the banks used the money to invest overseas, make a quick buck and then the paid the money back!

Funny how the smaller community banks stayed solvent and had money to lend in late 2007 and into 2008 to consumers.

Gerry Clinchy
02-09-2012, 12:34 PM
And wait until the next round of foreclosures and short sales hit the fan ... they'll be coming back for respite again.

road kill
02-09-2012, 02:18 PM
So, the state of MI is in recovery, why I have even read the state has a surplus right now, and this is because Obama bailed out Chrysler??

Really????


It had nothing to do with Governor Snyder?

Oh, of course not, he is a Republican!!:cool:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/us/surplus-surprises-michigan-but-is-it-safe-to-spend-again.html?partner=MYWAY&ei=5065



Surplus Surprises Michigan, but Is It Safe to Spend Again?
By MONICA DAVEY
Published: February 8, 2012
Recommend
Over most of the past decade, budget deliberations in Michigan have taken on a glum and familiar monotony: What do we cut now?

But the state that experienced an economic downturn earlier, deeper and longer than most of the rest of the country has made an unlikely discovery as its officials closed out its latest financial books: Michigan has a $457 million surplus.
Even more surprising: Revenues, which had sunk or had been mostly flat for all but one year since 2000, have grown. Not a lot, but grown.

Michigan is the most unlikely example of a phenomenon that was unimaginable in most states in recent years. Though nearly all states are required by law to balance their budgets, most have been able to do so only through rounds of painful spending cuts to make up for deep shortfalls in revenue.

Now, however, as a majority of states have begun collecting tax revenues that are on par with or even above expectations, they face some measure of Michigan’s situation — trying to sort out whether the worst is really over, whether it is safe to start spending again, or whether a rainy day fund may be the prudent course.

“Revenues are definitely improving, but it’s just unsure where it’s going to head from here,” said Todd Haggerty, an analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures, who noted that although revenues in many states have not returned to pre-recession levels, 17 states exceeded their expected personal income tax collections in the first quarter of the current budget year, and 18 states got more in sales tax than they had anticipated.

Even the federal government has seen an encouraging boost in revenues. After declining sharply (17 percent) in the 2009 fiscal year and rising only 3 percent in 2010, federal revenues rose 6 percent in 2011, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

In Michigan, a state that has cut so much so often that in the words of a former state budget director, “we were so far down that the floor looked like up to us,” nearly everyone is now clamoring desperately for a piece of the extra cash. As Gov. Rick Snyder, a first-term Republican, prepared to propose a new budget on Thursday, he and his budget team were hearing from seemingly every imaginable department, agency and interest group.

The attorney general wants 1,000 new police officers after 3,200 were cut around the state over the last decade. Schools leaders say they need to offset cutbacks that have left teachers laid off and schools closed. Child advocates want money for early education for toddlers from poor families; construction workers want money for Michigan’s crumbling roads; and on and on.

For years in Michigan, the only certainty seemed to be a vanishing state budget. The auto manufacturing industry, so central to the state’s existence, was believed to be fading, then collapsing. At various times, Michigan officials had to offset more than $10 billion in expected shortfalls — closing prisons, eliminating state departments and cutting funds to libraries, day care programs, crime laboratories, zoos and more. By 2010, Robert L. Emerson, the budget director under Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm, a two-term Democrat who preceded Mr. Snyder, said he found himself working with general fund revenues that had dropped to levels last seen in the early 1990s (or the 1960s, when adjusted for inflation).

While the state had closed the books in the black in some previous years, too, its surpluses on paper were often instantly overtaken by larger projected deficits for the year ahead. Lately, though, signs have shifted. Manufacturing jobs, often declared dead by frustrated workers, have picked up. United States automakers have increased production, saying sales are up, and General Motors, only a few years after a federal rescue and bankruptcy, recaptured in 2011 a crown some thought was merely a dusty memory — that of the world’s largest automaker.

In part, as a result, the unemployment rate in Michigan, which reached 14.1 percent in 2009 and had regularly been among the worst several states in the nation, has lately been among states showing the most significant and continuing rates of improvement, though at 9.3 percent in December it is still above the national average.




You guys are comical!!!!



RK

zeus3925
02-11-2012, 08:43 AM
Eastwood responds..Gov. Snyder says Chrysler should be complimented.

http://www.freep.com/article/20120211/BUSINESS0103/202110323/Eastwood-surprised-by-reaction-to-Chrysler-ad?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p

road kill
02-11-2012, 10:14 AM
Eastwood responds..Gov. Snyder says Chrysler should be complimented.

http://www.freep.com/article/20120211/BUSINESS0103/202110323/Eastwood-surprised-by-reaction-to-Chrysler-ad?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p

Indeed, he is a class act.
Where as Obama thinks HE saved Chrysler!!!

With the current administration, when the is credit to be GIVEN, they TAKE it, when there is blame to be TAKEN, they GIVE it!!!

Props to Gov. Snyder!!!:D

But I'm sure it was really Obama that made Chrysler & MI successful!!!:rolleyes:


RK

zeus3925
02-11-2012, 11:45 AM
Indeed, he is a class act.
Where as Obama thinks HE saved Chrysler!!!

With the current administration, when the is credit to be GIVEN, they TAKE it, when there is blame to be TAKEN, they GIVE it!!!

Props to Gov. Snyder!!!:D

But I'm sure it was really Obama that made Chrysler & MI successful!!!:rolleyes:


RK
The resurrection has many authors working together--Obama and the Congress, who passed the the rescue, Michigan state government ( including Snyder), and new and enlightened management, and most of all, the employees of the big three and their suppliers.

paul young
02-11-2012, 01:07 PM
The resurrection has many authors working together--Obama and the Congress, who passed the the rescue, Michigan state government ( including Snyder), and new and enlightened management, and most of all, the employees of the big three and their suppliers.

forget it, Zeus. you will never make your point on this. Obama is never part of anything that is successful.

let's hope when Romney is elected everyone gets behind him instead of what's been going on for the past 3 years.-Paul

zeus3925
02-11-2012, 11:04 PM
forget it, Zeus. you will never make your point on this. Obama is never part of anything that is successful.

let's hope when Romney is elected everyone gets behind him instead of what's been going on for the past 3 years.-Paul

Ask Osama bin Laden if he agrees with you.

Down East Labs 217
02-12-2012, 07:59 AM
Ask Osama bin Laden if he agrees with you.

Obama had nothing to do with the removal of OSB. He would have blamed the military if anything had gone wrong, lucky for him it went down almost without a hitch so he could grand stand and make himself look like he did the intel himself, was the only one on the mission and personally pulled the trigger. This is proven when he decided to run his lips before all the facts were in.

He lacks the ability to be humble. That is the one trait that makes a good leader great. He just happened to be sitting in the chair when our military found OSB. That does not make him the hero, and in fact makes him look like an a$$ for taking the credit vice being humble and giving credit to the real heros.

My opinion

Richard

zeus3925
02-12-2012, 08:36 AM
Obama had nothing to do with the removal of OSB. He would have blamed the military if anything had gone wrong, lucky for him it went down almost without a hitch so he could grand stand and make himself look like he did the intel himself, was the only one on the mission and personally pulled the trigger. This is proven when he decided to run his lips before all the facts were in.

He lacks the ability to be humble. That is the one trait that makes a good leader great. He just happened to be sitting in the chair when our military found OSB. That does not make him the hero, and in fact makes him look like an a$$ for taking the credit vice being humble and giving credit to the real heros.

My opinion

Richard

Excuse me, but, when the Iran hostage rescue failed, the buck appropriately landed on Carter. Now, you get success of a major national priority on the current POTUS's watch and you say he doesn't deserve credit? You guys can't have it both ways.

road kill
02-12-2012, 09:26 AM
Excuse me, but, when the Iran hostage rescue failed, the buck appropriately landed on Carter. Now, you get success of a major national priority on the current POTUS and you say he doesn't deserve credit? You guys can't have it both ways.

Like I said.........


With the current administration, when the is credit to be GIVEN, they TAKE it, when there is blame to be TAKEN, they GIVE it!!!



RK

charly_t
02-12-2012, 12:26 PM
....................

With the current administration, when the is credit to be GIVEN, they TAKE it, when there is blame to be TAKEN, they GIVE it!!!

.................................................. ..........................

But I'm sure it was really Obama that made Chrysler & MI successful!!!:rolleyes:


RK

"oh, Lord, its hard to be humble when you're perfect in every way. etc. I can't wait to look in the mirror each day etc." ( Mac Davis song I think ) anyway
our prez makes me think of that song every time I see him. And I still say he and the misses ain't got a clue what card game they bought chips in. I really think she has a little better grasp than he does but who knows. It's all about PR with this administration. Nothing of value just like our money is looking. off of soap box now. :rolleyes:

Hew
02-12-2012, 01:33 PM
I give Obama the credit for making the call to send the SEALs deep into Pakistan to snatch OBL. That was pretty ballsy. A lot could have gone wrong (see previous reference to the hostage rescue attempt in '79). There were other options presented to him that were less risky yet wouldn't have proved OBL dead for sure. He coulda dropped a MOAB, claimed OBL was in there and dead and then run a victory lap...but there'd always be that shadow of doubt. His own Vice President advised Obama not to send the SEALs into Pakistan (although that might have been a good indicator that it was the right thing to do).

Marvin S
02-12-2012, 01:57 PM
I give Obama the credit for making the call to send the SEALs deep into Pakistan to snatch OBL. That was pretty ballsy. A lot could have gone wrong (see previous reference to the hostage rescue attempt in '79). There were other options presented to him that were less risky yet wouldn't have proved OBL dead for sure. He coulda dropped a MOAB, claimed OBL was in there and dead and then run a victory lap...but there'd always be that shadow of doubt. His own Vice President advised Obama not to send the SEALs into Pakistan (although that might have been a good indicator that it was the right thing to do).

I've never felt it happened that way. I believe Panetta sent them, mission successful - Obama gets credit :), mission unsuccessful, Panetta gets blame :(. Just my Gut feeling.

smillerdvm
02-12-2012, 04:41 PM
Indeed, he is a class act.
Where as Obama thinks HE saved Chrysler!!!

With the current administration, when the is credit to be GIVEN, they TAKE it, when there is blame to be TAKEN, they GIVE it!!!

Props to Gov. Snyder!!!:D

But I'm sure it was really Obama that made Chrysler & MI successful!!!:rolleyes:


RK

As opposed to the last administration where Bush started a presumptive ill-advised war based on trumped up "Intelligence" and then preened around underneath a "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner; way before anything had been accomplished.

Real class there

By the way have you ever found the time to post up your NASA study about the suns warming effects?

road kill
02-12-2012, 04:45 PM
As opposed to the last administration where Bush started a presumptive ill-advised war based on trumped up "Intelligence" and then preened around underneath a "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner; way before anything had been accomplished.
Actually, President Bush was GIVING credit to that crew for accomplishing their assigned mission.
Which they had done and done well!!
Real class there

By the way have you ever found the time to post up your NASA study about the suns warming effects?
Actually, Mark, it has been discussed a lot recently.
Even in your beloved MSM.

You may have missed it deciding which of your on line personas to use??;-)

Having said that, how does your percieved failures of Bush have anything to do with this Presidents hubris??


RK

Down East Labs 217
02-12-2012, 10:23 PM
Excuse me, but, when the Iran hostage rescue failed, the buck appropriately landed on Carter.

That poorly executed mission did not land on Carter. It landed squarely on the military and many heads rolled. Carter dodged the blame by blaming the ill prepared military. In stead of using one branch to execute the mission, it was insisted that every branch be represented. To many issues with so many un familiar working parts caused the failure.

Again, if I look good I did it, if it didn't work it was their fault.

My opinion

Richard

luvmylabs23139
02-12-2012, 10:35 PM
No one has been stiffed:rolleyes:

.

Secured Bondholders were royally screwed in favor of the unsecured union!:confused::confused:

zeus3925
02-13-2012, 08:54 AM
Secured Bondholders were royally screwed in favor of the unsecured union!:confused::confused:

It didn't go down exactly like that. GM and Chrysler owed their pension and health funds enormous amounts of cash. The deal traded stocks in lieu of those obligations and placed the responsibility of managing the funds on the union. Those funds along with debt to the suppliers would have come before the bond holders anyway. It got the union off the back of the companies by giving it a pool of money work with and relieved the companies of their obligations.

Buzz
02-13-2012, 09:24 AM
It didn't go down exactly like that. GM and Chrysler owed their pension and health funds enormous amounts of cash. The deal traded stocks in lieu of those obligations and placed the responsibility of managing the funds on the union. Those funds along with debt to the suppliers would have come before the bond holders anyway. It got the union off the back of the companies by giving it a pool of money work with and relieved the companies of their obligations.

It's easy to ignore the facts I guess when you hate unions and do not feel that the workers the represent deserve their pensions. The deal with the union took any obligation for healthcare and pensions for retirees off the back of the companies and put it on the backs of the unions.

M&K's Retrievers
02-13-2012, 11:10 AM
It's easy to ignore the facts I guess when you hate unions and do not feel that the workers the represent deserve their pensions. The deal with the union took any obligation for healthcare and pensions for retirees off the back of the companies and put it on the backs of the unions.

If that doesn't bust the Unions nothing will.

Buzz
02-13-2012, 01:21 PM
If that doesn't bust the Unions nothing will.

But it does put success or failure in their hands. The American Dream... Personally I'm rooting for their success.

Gerry Clinchy
02-13-2012, 01:41 PM
That poorly executed mission did not land on Carter. It landed squarely on the military and many heads rolled. Carter dodged the blame by blaming the ill prepared military. In stead of using one branch to execute the mission, it was insisted that every branch be represented. To many issues with so many un familiar working parts caused the failure.

Again, if I look good I did it, if it didn't work it was their fault.
My opinion
Richard

I think it did reflect back on Carter, and also the military. Since Carter was a military(Navy) man, I think I would expect more understanding of a military operation from him. The military also bears responsibility for not vetting their equipment better. And they still lost a chopper in the Bin Laden venture.