The End is Nigh ... No Not Really

Posted Sunday, June 7, 2009, at 7:33 PM

If you've been paying attention to Fox News or just the posters on this website you know that the world is coming to an end ... at least the United States. The fear and hating going on right now in this country by those on the right is one that is virtually unparalleled by any other time in this country. The worst we saw up to this point was after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor when the federal government put Japanese-Americans in internment camps. Publicly they stated that this was just a way to protect Japanese-Americans from retribution for the Pearl Harbor attack. In reality they were put in internment camps, because there was a fear in this country that the Japanese-Americans were actually spies for Japan (yes all of them).

The fear we are seeing today is being ramped up by the extreme right against anything seemingly to the left of their beliefs. Even moderate Republicans aren't safe from their wrath. They walk around with this air about them that their side is still in charge of the United States. They claim that those who voted for Obama were either in a fog or were scared that if they voted for the white guy they would be named a racist. The odd thing about the racist label is that Obama was not the first black man to run for the presidency. So why would people wait until now to label those who didn't vote for the black man a racist? They wouldn't. It's just a cop-out for those who didn't get the president they wanted.

They have screamed and yelled that Obama is turning this country into a socialist country. Those who are simply trying to scare people claim that Obama is attempting to turn our market system into a soviet market. Of course, that really isn't possible since Sovietism was a political unit not a market unit. Of course what those who claim that we are being turned into a socialist system fail to realize or simply don't care to admit, is that socialism has been alive and well as a market system since the 1940s and we have been absolutely fine.

They also like to say that Obama is going to take our guns and even point to a bill that senators tried to pass to do just that. What they fail to mention or just ignore since it runs contrary to their point is that this bill never even made it to committee. The Senator was looking for co-sponsors and found none. Another thing they forget to mention or just ignore is that under Obama you now can carry a gun with you into a National Park. Why you would need a gun in a National Park, I don't understand, but you now have that right.

They also like to claim that religion is under attack in the United States. While those who identify themselves as being religious has dropped over the past 20 years (at a pretty even level, not just a sudden recent drop), religion is hardly under attack. That is unless you are not "Christian". The reason I put Christian in quotes, is because there is a segment of our population that like to tell everyone they are Christian but they don't live by any of the tenets of Christianity, BUT, they expect everyone else to live by those same tenets or they are going to hell. I am not a religious man, but I went to church a lot when I was a kid. Among the teachings I remember are don't judge lest ye be judged and those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. I am of course paraphrasing.

One of the funnier things I have heard from the far right is that we should boycott GM, because our government bailed them out and they still had to file bankruptcy. I don't know if they realize or just are ignoring this fine point because it doesn't help their reasoning, is that the reason GM filed bankruptcy is because people weren't buying their products to begin with.

My point to all this is, regardless of what you have read or heard or seen, we are all fine. The United States will still be the United States at the end of Obama's term, whether it's one or two. The end isn't near, well except for this particular blog entry which is now over.

Comments
Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]

You pretty much summed up my blog for me though Sceptre. I have to thank you for that.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Jun 20, 2009, at 1:33 PM

Wow, talk about glittering generalities. Not to mention hysteria and paranoid. But you won't recognize it and you will probably trash me for saying it.

So be it. I can only thank God that people like you aren't in charge of anything, we'd be attacking anything that moved.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Jun 20, 2009, at 1:32 PM

Your recent memory much not be that great since Democrats were largely silent with both of Bush's nominees and they were passed through by large margins.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Jun 10, 2009, at 6:41 PM

"Your hate for the current administration runs so deep that until ALL the money is paid back you will criticize."

Apology accepted.

"What I do feel you are doing is criticizing most if not everything that Obama has done since day one."

I have not criticized everything he has done, only the things I don't support. In fact, I think he's doing as good a job as can be expected in Iraq and Afghanistan. Guantanamo is pure PR so I see it as a non-issue.

When he does something that I strongly disagree with then I will criticize it and oppose it. He just happens to be doing several things I disagree with and he's done it early, that's not my fault. If a President got a free pass from criticism just because they hadn't been on the job that long then every one of them would try to pass their biggest bills in their first 100 days i.e. stimulus bill. I don't criticize him because it's just something to do. I criticize him for the policies I oppose. It really is that simple.

"The national Republicans are doing nothing buy saying no to every single thing. They say it's dissension. It's not, it's obstructionism."

When Republicans say no to policies they don't support then that means they are doing something right. Why can't you believe that they don't support something for any other reason than "obstructing" the other side. When it was Democrats doing the same thing, I didn't say they were simply being obstructionists because I was seeing it from their point of view too, even if I didn't agree with them I didn't make baseless accusations either.

I guess "recent memory" for me is a little different since I was only 7 when Kennedy was appointed. I'm sure they're doing the same amount of obstructing that Democrats were doing with Bush's nominations, that's not a trait of only one of the parties. It's a Supreme Court nomination, that's what the minority party does. Come on Mike, you should know that regardless of who's doing the obstructing. I don't think they'll need the so called Gang of 14 on this one though.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Wed, Jun 10, 2009, at 5:21 PM

McCook1, I don't think I ever accuses you of hating Obama but if I did I apologize.

What I do feel you are doing is criticizing most if not everything that Obama has done since day one.

Dissension is one thing, saying no to everything is another. This is more directed at the national Republican Party who is now upset because they are trying to get the Sotomayor hearings to start in July. It has even lead McConnell to claim that the short time is the shortest in recent memory. Apparently McConnell has very short memory, since Kennedy who was Reagan's choice had his hearing one week after being selected. The national Republicans are doing nothing buy saying no to every single thing. They say it's dissension. It's not, it's obstructionism.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Jun 10, 2009, at 4:44 PM

Mike,

"Do you feel the same about all the videos that EVERY president has ever made about a dog or cat?"

I've only seen Bush's video but I'm sure I probably would feel the same if it was anything as ridiculous as that.

I disagree with Obama's policies and refuse to blindly trust that everything's going to be great because Obama said so, therefore, you think I must hate him. When did dissent become hate? I have a very strict definition of hate, that's how I was raised. The word hate in my house was another of those four letter words we didn't use because I was taught that is not a word to just throw around.

You can say I disagree with him, distrust him or criticize him but I've done nothing to reach the level of hate. I'm not hoping for his death or injury, calling him inappropriate names or defacing his picture with satanic horns. I did see and hear a lot of this behavior in DC during the Inauguration but it wasn't directed at Obama and I was thoroughly ashamed to be in a city filled with such hate and yes, that would be regardless of who it is directed at.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Wed, Jun 10, 2009, at 10:29 AM

Well the difference I guess would be that we waited longer than two minutes after Bush took office to start dooming and glooming everything he did.

Personally I didn't become anti-Bush until he decided to stop going after Osama bin Laden and attack a nation that was no threat to us. But that's just me.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Jun 10, 2009, at 9:14 AM

Mike:

You've mentioned at least a couple of times how much McCook1 hates the current administration, I don't know if he does or not, but even so, how is that any different from the hatred that many on the left have for the previous one? How is that any different from the the toadying and unequivical love for the Obama administration that sees any disagreement as hatred or attacks?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jun 9, 2009, at 9:52 PM

Do you feel the same about all the videos that EVERY president has ever made about a dog or cat?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jun 9, 2009, at 7:03 PM

"Who cares that the banks are starting to recover and pay back the money, in your eyes that isn't enough."

I would sure hope they'd have started recovering by now but at $68 billion dollars its more likely a mixture of a small recovery mixed witht the banks that have been trying to give it back for months because they didn't need it.

"$68 Billion isn't even 10% of the entire TARP bill." At least it's a start, they could be sitting at 0% but they aren't."

No, we couldn't be at zero unless the government refused to let them pay it back because a lot of banks never spent that money in the first place. Some saw the detriment of the strings the Feds were attaching to it and held off on spending it. Others proceeded to buy up banks and later backed down after hostilities from consumers who were upset about a takeover arose in those local communities. When they decided the buying banks idea was more trouble than it was worth they tried giving the money back. A lot of this money that is coming back was never spent to begin with, so it would not be at 0% repayed unless government interfered, which they have, they just didn't set the number at 0%, lucky us.

Let it be known, that I give Obama credit for letting some lenders pay back some of the money they've been trying to give back for months. There, happy now?

"What if President Obama succeeds and pulls us out of this recession? What happens then? Will you give credit, or will you find something else to bemoan him?"

If it is because of his polices then yes but I will measure his success on unemployment on the number of employed on Jan. 20, 2009 to where we are at when we are out of the recession. I'm not falling for this "saving" jobs.

You can't prove that you've "saved" jobs, it's just a political tool for exaggerating success. If you start with 106 million people employed and end your term with 105 million employed then you can't say you've "saved" anyone's job. You can only say you've lost a million jobs.

Everything so far, tells me that his plan isn't working. The economists were predicting 8.5 percent unemployment by the end of the year without a stimulus plan and we stand at 9.4 percent now. In fact, we've actually lost over a million jobs since the stimulus bill passed. My biggest worry isn't coming out of the recession because I have faith in the resourcefulness of the American businesses and workers. I worry more about an artificial recovery where companies plunge again when the stimulus money runs out. I just hope the companies start running their business better than the government runs its business. On second thought, I'm definitely setting the bar too low there.

It's still just a little bit early to see if this stimulus plan is working but if it is going to work we should know by the end of July when the majority of these projects are supposed to be well underway, if there are any spikes in employment. There should be just because there are so many projects but these are not permanent positions and contractors can still work with who they already have if they want to do so. They are not required to hire additional help to complete these projects since they don't directly apply for these funds.

A lot of these projects are already underway and we are not seeing improvement but this summer will be the time you'll see the larges benefit from these funds due to the nature of the construction season.

If things don't change though, I think we could see 10.5 percent unemployment by the end of year instead of the 8.5 percent Obama was worried about if he didn't get his stimulus passed.

I like how you try to make it sound like I have to look so hard to find something about Obama, I disagree with. I could always go on about abortion, civil rights, government mandated health care, deficits, the national debt, budgeting, foreign policy and don't get me started on that damned dog. For the record, I was also repulsed by the media's coverage of Bush's stupid dog too and the idiotic White House Christmas video he made about that mutt. God, I hope Obama doesn't make a video too.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti...

-- Posted by McCook1 on Tue, Jun 9, 2009, at 5:45 PM

Wow won't even give credit will you. Your hate for the current administration runs so deep that until ALL the money is paid back you will criticize. Who cares that the banks are starting to recover and pay back the money, in your eyes that isn't enough.

And then to top it off you invent that President Obama is holding it over their heads.

"$68 Billion isn't even 10% of the entire TARP bill." At least it's a start, they could be sitting at 0% but they aren't.

I'll ask my old standard question, which I know will be answered to some deviation of "He, won't", but I'll ask anyways. What if President Obama succeeds and pulls us out of this recession? What happens then? Will you give credit, or will you find something else to bemoan him?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jun 9, 2009, at 3:11 PM

Mike,

I couldn't get the link to load but I'm aware of the ten banks that were "allowed" to pay back the TARP money. You actually help me to make my argument because there should be no requirements for letting a bank repay the bailout money. If they want to send it back then let them. A bunch of bureaucrats are unnecessary for that decision. There is still a lot of money left to be paid back which means the government still has plenty of control. $68 Billion isn't even 10% of the entire TARP bill.

As long as those banks still owe one dollar of federal money then the government will squeeze as much control out of the banks as it can. There is a reason so many of our nation's founders opposed a national bank in any form and what this administration and the previous one have done is to erode that protection. The government has entirely too much control and my only worry is how much control this President wants over the banks and whether he will continue to exploit them by hanging the TARP money over their heads.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Tue, Jun 9, 2009, at 2:06 PM

So, McCook, the fact that ten banks are paying back $68 billion dollars to TARP is really inconsequential to you? And that "the Treasury Department has allowed nearly two dozen small, mostly community-based lenders to redeem the government's preferred shares, representing nearly $1.9 billion in taxpayer money" really doesn't fit into your argument either?

You might want to make sure you have all the facts before making a blind statement like that.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/09/news/com...

I hope the link works properly

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jun 9, 2009, at 11:49 AM

Mike,

I agree that he got upset because he was misunderstood and he did spend more time than he needed to, making that point.

npwinder,

I think Ford is in the best shape to make a profit if it can keep the government out of its business. The government is using the bailout money as an excuse to run the car companies just like they are doing with the banks. That bailout money comes with barbed wire strings. The auto companies are going to want to pay that money off ASAP but then they have to contend with whether the government will even let them pay the money back.

There are banks running into that trouble now. Some of these bankds could've survived just fine without the money but took it as an opportunity to invest in more banks (which government officials encouraged them to do) and when they saw how the government was using it as a trap to run their businesses they tried returning it and the government wouldn't let them give it back! The government won't let the banks return the taxpayers' money.

If elected officials want to be upset that banks were buying other banks and not freeing it up for credit then they should be upset with themselves, the Treasury and Geithner was involved in those discussions too. They could have easily written that stipulation as a condition for receiving TARP funds but they didn't. Heck, they're even using TARP funds for the auto companies. It was a poorly written bill rushed through Congress just like the StimuWish bill except the latter had more detail in it for the special projects everyone wanted.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Tue, Jun 9, 2009, at 11:21 AM

mccook, I make fun of him because he willingly broke the law and nothing happened to him. I'm glad he didn't overdose but he is a criminal that was protected.

But your outrage is noted. And for the record he never tried to please anyone he just yelled and bloviated because he was misunderstood.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jun 9, 2009, at 10:44 AM

Maybe Obama is a huge ford fan and wants to see them succeed and have GM and Chrysler fail.

Or maybe when Bush started giving money to the banks GM and Chrysler decided that they wanted in on the action and went to the government asking for money.

If you ask me, Ford is probably the only one "getting screwed" with the regulations as the other two are owned mostly by the government and are subject to what they say.

I don't feel sorry for GM or Chrysler. They should have been allowed to fail in the first place.

-- Posted by npwinder on Tue, Jun 9, 2009, at 10:36 AM

Rush trying to explain what he said is his way of trying to please people. I'm surprised he even did that.

You may think it's real funny for you to make fun of Rush Limbaugh for being addicted to prescription pills but it's not. He had an addiction that a lot of people get hooked on and it's not something to joke about. Maybe you know someone who has overdosed on prescription pills. If so, I don't see how you could still make that statement without an overwhelming sense of shame. I'm not saying what he did was ok but it's not something I joke about either because when you've seen someone nearly kill themselves on pills, it ceases to be amusing.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Tue, Jun 9, 2009, at 10:09 AM

Rush Limbaugh trying to please people? Now that's funnier than anything sam has ever said. The only person Rush has ever tried to please is himself ... when he's not overdosing on prescription pills.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jun 9, 2009, at 9:45 AM

G.I.,

Actually, I would talk to Dennis Kucinich about that one. He probably picked it up from that UFO he saw.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Tue, Jun 9, 2009, at 9:42 AM

Yes, I've heard him explain it because I was getting tired of CNN covering Rush Limbaugh more than his own radio station, with their same junior reporters. I got to the point that I just wanted Rush and Sanchez to get in a ring and settle it. Every day I'd watch, Sanchez was whining about Rush for something.

I've heard everyone such as yourself who doesn't want to acknowledge his explanation, continue to use the most generic terms to describe what he said. He just gave up trying to please people (after about 2 minutes) because he knew you would keep playing the same old games anyway plus I think he enjoys seeing people like yourself pretend like they don't know what he was saying or just ignore the context entirely. You're no different than the guy I argued with for a half hour about the Muslim nation thing with Obama.

I've known people who think like Rush. They like to be in control and he will not stop phrasing those words in a way that upsets you because he knows that when people come out like that and he puts it in context on his show, it makes you look like political hacks. His show is actually growing in listeners too. However, I'm not sure if it's people interested in his views or just CNN employees looking for their next story that are increasing his popularity.

I do think Rush should thank the media and Rahm Emmanuel for all the attention though because it has certainly helped him and put more money in his pocket.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Tue, Jun 9, 2009, at 9:40 AM

Limbaugh never said he hoped Obama's policies would fail until a few days later when he came out and said that's what he said. He said that he hoped Obama failed, and he has said it multiple times since then.

And Obama's car is a Cadillac, which is under the GM brand. But so was Bush's and Clinton's and the first Bush's and Reagan's.

You betcha, I'm paranoid (yes that is rich in sarcasm.

I am thinking that you are the paranoid one McCook, considering on my Chrysler post I didn't even mention you or suggest I was talking about you.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 9:08 PM

Hey Mike,when you pay your taxes it's not your money anymore. It's the GOVERMENTS MONEY! Federal,State and local. "GOVERMENT MOTORS"

-- Posted by orville on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 8:58 PM

You clearly stated that his policy applies to ALL vehicles in the 2010-2011 timeframe. The article said something different....or is this one of those things where you are using some other definition for confirm?

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandf...

Allow me to clarify that, yes, they apply to cars and light trucks. I was loose in the wording because I knew there was an article for reference. They do not include heavy trucks, SUVs, dump trucks, buses, limos, boats, yachts, motorcycles, scooters, ATVs, jet skis, planes (propeller or jet-propelled), jet packs, rockets (for commercial, personal or governmental use) any craft designed for planetary travel with or without an interdimensional warp drive.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 6:34 PM

Mike,

"I just want to say one thing McCook, you brought up the fact that you thought Obama would love to have a Ford, when I point out that he does in fact have a ford you openly mock it (proving my point that you are so against anything Obama does or says that when he actually does something you think he should your openly criticize him for it)."

Alright, I think you just misunderstood what it said when I said, " I'm sure he would love to get his hands on Ford too."

Sorry but I meant he wanted his hands on Ford as a company to be under more government control not as a car under his own control. I don't care if wants to drive a Ford or not. It's an American company that's struggling right now... he can buy a hundred of em if he wants, I'm all for it. He can buy all the cars he wants, I just don't want the government on the hook for selling them. I don't know why you think I was mocking him for having a Ford because I can't even think of good reason to mock him for having a Ford unless I was a Chevy guy but that would have nothing to do with Obama it would be the same time honored Chevy vs. Ford battle.

I'm sorry you got so upset for nothing. Personally, I don't care about specific brands of cars. I'm pretty sure his limo is made by GM and it gets a lot more use than his Ford does so why would I mock him for a car he barely uses and not one he uses all the time? I will put you in the file with my other liberal friends who suffer from conservative paranoia.

"McCook I wasn't comparing prices from last year to this year. I bought the smaller car at the height of last year's high gas prices."

So your tank would be... 3.5 gallons?! Something seems amiss there.

"What I think and a lot of his supporters don't realize that if Obama's policies fail then this country is in seriously deep trouble."

If Obama said he was going to solve the economic crisis by throwing a penny in a wishing well and wishing all our troubles away as his official policy then I said, "I hope his policy fails", does that mean I'm supposed to just sit around and hope his wish comes true? I'd say I hope that policy fails and that he would look at something more productive. I'm sorry people don't word things exactly like you want. You can have your political correctness because all it does is give people one more thing to argue about.

"Yet Chrysler is trying to get itself to Fiat, a foreign car company (which the Supreme Court just stopped) and you are oddly enough quiet."

I have not been discussing GM or Chrysler individually in this blog so don't sit there and tell me I've singled out GM without including Chrysler. I'm not happy about either one being taken over and given away to the unions. In fact, I was talking about this in an earlier blog discussing why I wasn't comfortable with the government taking over auto companies and I even used Chrysler as the example since they were the first to be delivered to the unions through bankruptcy.

Honestly Mike, sometimes I think you make up parts of my arguments in your head based on what you expect me to say and not what I have actually said.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 6:21 PM

Also, you have been yelling and screaming about how dare the government take a controlling interest in GM. That's an American company and the government shouldn't put its fingers in it.

Yet Chrysler is trying to get itself to Fiat, a foreign car company (which the Supreme Court just stopped) and you are oddly enough quiet.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 5:07 PM

SWNebr

If I have a 5.5 gallon tank and I am driving a car that's gas mileage is 51 mpg (which is what the new 2010 Prius has) then I could go 280.5 miles as opposed to 93 miles in most of America's big size vehicles (that's roughly 17 mpg).

Personally I believe the technology is a lot cheaper than the car companies want to admit. They just don't want to do it. 6 of the top 10 cars sold in the United States were fairly decent fuel running foreign (sadly) cars.

The government still isn't telling anyone what to buy. The own (well actually we all do since it is our taxes) GM, but I have yet to hear a single Obama official come out and officially or otherwise demand us to buy GM. So how exactly are they telling us what to buy.

Bush specifically told us after 9/11 to buy more SUVs and Hummers. Was it different then because they didn't own the companies? Or because we were supposed to be obedient to the 9/11 president.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 5:02 PM

McCook I wasn't comparing prices from last year to this year. I bought the smaller car at the height of last year's high gas prices.

As for Rush, who I said I would never bring up again, but since your brought him up I will comment on it. Not only was his original comment not taken out of context he has repeated it several times.

What I think and a lot of his supporters don't realize that if Obama's policies fail then this country is in seriously deep trouble.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 4:53 PM

I just want to say one thing McCook, you brought up the fact that you thought Obama would love to have a Ford, when I point out that he does in fact have a ford you openly mock it (proving my point that you are so against anything Obama does or says that when he actually does something you think he should your openly criticize him for it).

Not only that you criticize me for something you brought up, trying to paint a picture that I was getting away from the subject of my blog.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 4:46 PM

"There is a dissonance between your, "raised the fuel economy on vehicles..." and the article's "the move increases fuel economy standard for LIGHT [my emphasis] vehicles."

Dissonance? You are not making any sense. You are saying that because I didn't say "light" vehicles in my original post that I am somehow contradicting myself? Obama is raising the standards on "light" [your emphasis] vehicles for Model Year 2011 which is due in a year but in some cases less than a year and the easiest and most affordable way to do this with the least impact on safety is to reduce the overall size and consequently the weight of these "light" vehicles which include cars and light trucks. If anything, they confirm what I've been saying.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 4:27 PM

"Likely, the problem is you are giving yourself too much credit in that department."

Not possible, I'm too humble.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 3:51 PM

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/...

theautochannel.com/news/2006/01/23/208171.html

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2...

fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2009_Ford_Focus.shtml

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/...

fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/24043.shtml

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 3:49 PM

I don't know what the problem is with the links but I'll work on it.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 3:45 PM

G.I.,

"What do you think the distinction "light vehicles" means McCook1? Sounds pretty reasonable that if companies are making cars lighter anyway, making them fuel efficient too makes sense. There goes your safety argument. Light cars are already less safe."

Making cars lighter does make them more fuel efficient. Please don't tell me I have to explain why a lighter vehicle is more fuel efficient than a heavier one. What are they putting in your drink and where do I get some?

You completely missed the point in making a car lighter by reducing its overall size and simply using lighter materials to make the car lighter. That was the comparison not whether they were lighter or not but how they were made lighter. I car with a reduction in overall size with heavier and more solid material is safer than a slightly larger car made of lighter less solid material. A small car with a steel frame will fare better than a slightly larger car with an aluminum frame.

"I wonder, were you critical of Bush when he presented these ideas first?"

I didn't agree with it but I also didn't hear a lot out of anybody who supported it so I didn't have anyone to argue with. Even Bush knew the auto companies were in trouble and this was no time to make it harder for them to remain profitable with increased standards so he dropped the standards, that part I supported. Kind of like when McCain was criticized for saying that you don't raise taxes on anybody during a recession and after the election Obama comes out repeating the same thing McCain said months earlier. Don't worry he'll get those evil rich people eventually, and then some.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 3:45 PM

"The cause and effect scenario you outline seems fairly plausible, more so than some gibberish about Obama's desire to force small cars on people. So I was wondering if you had anything more than opinion to substantiate your claim. It appears that you do not; I just stop being surprised by that I suppose."

I'm saying he is forcing smaller cars on auto companies not people. Most people can't stand the smaller cars anymore than the auto companies who lose money on them. I also said that Obama should know exactly what this will mean for the auto industry as far as being forced to build smaller cars in the short term to meet the new standards. Perhaps I give him too much credit and overexaggerate his intelligence and understanding of the situation. However, I believe in time the auto industry will develop the technology to return to larger vehicles and meet the ever increasing CAFE standards leveled against them because they know that is what the consumer wants. Nobody wants to be seen in an ugly and tiny car. They want something that performs and looks good but that will take time and money to develop. The auto companies, despite bailouts and bankruptcies don't have much money and Obama just gave them even less time. If they come out of this successful it will be despite Obama's policies not because of them. The auto companies are being given more and more obstacles and challenges from this adminsistration during the hardest time their industry has ever faced.

We should have let them go into bankruptcy in the beginning and let the courts handle it not the White House. The bank bailouts remind me of the Reagan quote, "If it moves, tax it, if it keeps moving, regulate it and if it stops moving, subsidize it."

We've spent billions and billions on these failing companies. We want them to succeed financially but then turn around and make that goal even harder with increased CAFE standards with a precipitous deadline for compliance in the middle of an unprecedented collapse of the auto industry. I was right, I think I've been giving this President way too much credit in the intelligence department.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 3:24 PM

http://www.caranddriver.com/blog/2009/05...

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/ener...

If that doesn't work the text of each is:

caranddriver.com/blog/2009/05/obamas-cafe-fuel-economy-standards-to.html

usnews.com/articles/news/energy/2009/03/27/obama-boosts-fuel-economy-standards-despite-detroits-woes.html

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 3:04 PM

Mike,

"Wow McCook I thought you knew all, because if you weren't just opposed to all Obama is and does you would probably know that Obama does in fact own a Ford Fusion."

Good for him. I'm sure he gets a lot of use out of it. I don't see what that has to do with his takeover of 2 of our major auto companies and an eye on the third.

"I just want to make sure McCook1, that this is what you said. I wasn't assigning you to anything. You assigned yourself to the position with the comment."

I'm not denying anything I've actually said but when you are the one who said, "You and your ilk are always railing against the current administration about being racist against white people and haters of Christians." That is not something I assigned to myself.

"Every network is going to have it's on-air talent that has a biased twinge to them. But when it comes to the news, only Fox News actually puts a spin on their "actual" news and then airs it as factual. How many times has Fox News splices a speech of President Obama has given to make it appear he is actually saying something completely different? Many times."

So how would that fit into the "Mission Accomplished" banner you love to refer to so much. If Bush really believed that then wouldn't he have withdrawn troops since he thought the mission was accomplished. What about when Rush was taken out of context about hoping Obama fails to pass his policies and being accused of hoping America fails? CNN comes to mind there. Everyone takes people out of context and presents them in their own light. Just last week I found myself defending Obama's statements because somebody was taking his comments on "America as a Muslim nation" out of context. I went through the trauma of being called a Democrat but it was worth it and I'll survive.

"I used to drive an American SUV that cost over $100 to fill up every time I filled up. We traded it off for a Ford Focus that takes $14 and goes further on a tank of gas than the SUV ever could."

So you're comparing an SUV that you filled with gas when prices were more expensive than they are today with a small passenger car with lower gas prices?! Of course, you're going to save a lot of money but that's a great way to really milk an uneven comparison. I drive an Avenger and it's about $44 but it has a larger 17 gallon tank. Your numbers just seem strange to me.

Assuming you got a terrible 10mpg on a SUV (many are in the teens) at the rate of $4 gas at the time would mean you had a 25 gallon tank (which also seems small for an SUV but I have no way of checking the specific SUV). Which would take you 250 miles. With $14 of gas in a Focus with an average of $2.61/gallon today you would have a tank that held about 5.36 gallons which, at 35 mpg would take you 187.6 miles and I even made it all highway mileage. I have a hard time believing you have a 5 gallon tank. Especially since I was using the latest figures from the new Focus and it has a 13.5 gallon tank which would cost just a little more than $35 to fill up not $14. While you are saving a significant amount after going from an SUV to a Focus, your numbers are skewed. You may fill up half your tank for $14 but not the whole thing as you have led us to believe.

If you want to make a slightly more accurate comparison your 10 mpg SUV would cost you just over $65 to fill up. You would have a 25 gallon SUV at 10 mpg taking you 250 miles while your 13.5 Focus would take you 455 miles. Just as a side note, my 17 gallon Avenger takes me 510 miles at 30 mpg. Godspeed.

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/...

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2...

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/...

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 2:52 PM

"I used to drive an American SUV that cost over $100 to fill up every time I filled up. We traded it off for a Ford Focus that takes $14 and goes further on a tank of gas than the SUV ever could."

You have a car that has a 5.5 gallon gas tank, how far does that go before you need a refill?

Good for you Mike, I think that's the way it should be. YOU decided on your own what made the most sense for you, the government wasn't involved in making that decision for you. If the American car makers can't make a car that people want fine, let them go under. I would prefer that to throwing billions of dollars at them only to watch them go under anyway. I won't advocate a boycott of GM however I plan to buy a GM or Chrysler only as a last resort. Again, that is MY choice and it doesn't need to involve the government. What is so funny about right wing loons wanting to boycott GM?

In response to your original blog entry, I agree there is far too much crying and carrying on and that as will all things, this too shall pass. You rail against the scare tactics from the right but give a pass to scare tactics from the left. Your blogs have continued to reinforce my opinion that you are a hypocrite. Just as those Conservatives who voted time and again for huge budget deficits under Bush are hypocrites when they rail at Obama for doing the same thing without giving any justification for the change of opinion. In my view, all media is biased, as are all people, just in different ways. Guillermo is right, a thinking person takes information from many sources and synthesizes it to make his own decision.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 2:46 PM

G.I.,

"Is this another of your famous opinions that needs no factual basis?"

I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious. Obama raised the fuel economy standards on vehicles beginning with the 2011 model year. Most car companies have already developed their vehicles for the 2010 model year and will go on sale this year. That gives them a year, at the most, to comply with the new standards. The auto companies will go to simple physics as the quickest and most affordable way to comply and that will mean smaller cars. They are already struggling financially and they need quick, safe and effective solutions . Making cars smaller does this but if they just try using lighter materials they know they reduce the safety of the vehicle more than just reducing it's overall size. It's just one more way for him to force them to make the smaller vehicles he wants them to make.

"I have seen where Obama is seeking to give states control over how they enforce emission standards...is this what you mean when you say he wants a certain car sold?"

I'm wondering if you are referencing how they "enforce" their standards or if you really mean whether they can "set" their standards.

It is much easier and less expensive for an auto company to make one type of vehicle instead of several that must meet each of the states' varying standards. This would be extremely helpful while they are restructuring and trying to make themselves profitable again. How can they develop a successful restructuring plan for profitability when they have several states regulating fuel economy. Especially, when they don't know exactly what those standards are going to be, and whether other states will enact differing restrictions in the future and what those standards will be. I always hear the President talk about how the auto companies need to be profitable on their own yet he keeps supporting policies that make profitability harder and harder for auto companies. Then again, that's what happens when you try to please all the people all the time. You think he would know better being such an expert on Lincoln and all.

By allowing how states "enforce" standards means they would have control over the consequences which means they could charge a $10 fine, endless warnings or an hour of community service. In that case, companies would just ignore the law due to insignificant consequences. So what would be the point in having standards anyway?

"I guess I am in the dark here."

I guess you are.

http://www.caranddriver.com/blog/2009/05...

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/ener...

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 1:54 PM

Damn the Obama Administration for wanting for fuel efficient vehicles so the American people aren't hemorrhaging money every time they gas up!

I used to drive an American SUV that cost over $100 to fill up every time I filled up. We traded it off for a Ford Focus that takes $14 and goes further on a tank of gas than the SUV ever could.

Let me reverse that, Great thanks to the Obama Administration for wanting American car makers to make better fuel efficient cars that can actually compete with foreign car companies.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 1:48 PM

"All staples of the current administration. Good observation."

I just want to make sure McCook1, that this is what you said. I wasn't assigning you to anything. You assigned yourself to the position with the comment.

Every network is going to have it's on-air talent that has a biased twinge to them. But when it comes to the news, only Fox News actually puts a spin on their "actual" news and then airs it as factual. How many times has Fox News splices a speech of President Obama has given to make it appear he is actually saying something completely different? Many times.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 1:44 PM

Wow McCook I thought you knew all, because if you weren't just opposed to all Obama is and does you would probably know that Obama does in fact own a Ford Fusion.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 1:39 PM

"You and your ilk are always railing against the current administration about being racist against white people and haters of Christians."

There you go again, trying to assign positions to me that I have not taken nor endorsed. Keep trying maybe one of these times it'll stick.

"Not to mention this on-going myth of a biased media."

I'm so sorry, I forget that FOX is the only biased media. Everyone else is very objective. MSNBC, CNN, NBC and ABC, with God as their witness, will not let a single question go unanswered about the President's dog. Thank God for the tough questions from objective reporters relentlessly seeking the truth... it is to laugh.

"I haven't got a clue what crappy cars has to do with the current administration. You're on your own there."

The administration is the one that wants to control what kind of cars the auto companies are selling. It's been shown that the smaller cars they believe auto companies should focus on, haven't been making the companies any money. They have less cargo space, leg room and power. The big SUVs and mid size sedans on the other hand, made them all kinds of money. If you're selling a car that most people don't want and it has fewer features than previous models it is therefore... crappy. Those are the vehicles the administration wants sold to consumers.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 11:28 AM

G.I.,

"But McCook1, I thought Obama was a secret Muslim who hates Christians, white people, and Fords!!!"

I very much doubt that because he wouldn't be where he is today without Christians and white people. I'm sure he would love to get his hands on Ford too.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 11:13 AM

Did you forget that German Americans and Italian American were also interned? Or did you not know this?

You and your readers can learn more of this dark episode of American History at:

http://www.foitimes.com

-- Posted by CrystalCity on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 11:10 AM

What reality are you living in McCook if you honestly think freedom only for hetero-sexual Christian white people is a staple of the current administration. You and your ilk are always railing against the current administration about being racist against white people and haters of Christians.

Not to mention this on-going myth of a biased media.

I haven't got a clue what crappy cars has to do with the current administration. You're on your own there.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 10:42 AM

"Crappy cars, biased media, and freedom only for hetero-sexual Christian white people!!!"

All staples of the current administration. Good observation.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 9:46 AM

Steffanie,You give him,well you know what!! Go girl.

-- Posted by orville on Sun, Jun 7, 2009, at 8:29 PM

You've got to have a JOB in order to buy a vehicle,Home,Food,est.est. I hope to GOD it's not two terms most people won't make it.

-- Posted by orville on Sun, Jun 7, 2009, at 8:07 PM