DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> So how do you think Obama is doing so far?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 145, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/30/2009 01:39:56 PM · #1
I'm waiting for "The Change I can believe in". The "stimulus" package, loaded with social spending is a bit of a stretch for me - but hey - like Obama said; "He won".

01/30/2009 01:43:51 PM · #2
Geesh, give the guy some TIME. We're in the midst of possibly the worst financial crisis of our history, certainly the second-worst, and he JUST took office what, ten days ago? We'll be lucky if we see stabilization, let alone improvement, in calendar year 2009...

R.
01/30/2009 01:53:29 PM · #3
R,

no problem giving him some time - except he seems bent on pushing this huge spending bill through and marketing it as a stimulus package. Talk about dishonest. Time is great, but we can't afford to take a seista while he ramrods increased social spending programs that we can't afford and are counterproductive to "stimulating". Giving all those in the bottom 2 tax brackets a lowered rate would immediately put more money into their pocket. Eliminating the taxes on unemployment - immediately puts more money into the pockets of those most in need. Let's adopt these. Lets adopt a $1500 tax credit to anyone who buys a new car. That is a stimulus. Not resodding the National Mall.

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 13:57:02.
01/30/2009 02:09:56 PM · #4
I don't understand the animosity. Repubs are griping about the spending aspects and programs of Obama's stimulus plan. It's "too much" and they'd rather have tax cuts, but that just doesn't make sense. We've already HAD tax cuts thanks to the previous administration, the total cost of which is now up to about $1.3 trillion, and how's that working out for us? Whether it's stimulus spending or tax cuts, either way, the money comes out of the government- the only difference is that one is targeted spending while the other is simply handing money to the people to let them do as they please. Remember how well that worked when the government gave Katrina victims debit cards to cover emergency expenses? "Woohoo! Flat screen TVS, beer, casino gambling... oh, and by the way, we're still suffering- help us!"

We've seen the results of direct tax cuts (goodbye economy) and the results of massive targeted spending (FDR's New Deal). I'll take Door #2, thanks. Resodding the National Mall may not sound like help to the short sighted, but to unemployed landscapers it means work and a paycheck for something with longer term benefits than a new flat screen TV. It's about time we tackled schools, bridges, transportation and other infrastructure because those costs are unavoidable. We can either put people to work on projects with future benefits and get paid in return or let them go shopping for a day... and still have to pay for those crumbling projects. We tried the tax cut thing and it failed miserably. Time to give the other approach a chance.
01/30/2009 02:11:58 PM · #5
Originally posted by Flash:

R,

no problem giving him some time - except he seems bent on pushing this huge spending bill through and marketing it as a stimulus package. Talk about dishonest. Time is great, but we can't afford to take a seista while he ramrods increased social spending programs that we can't afford and are counterproductive to "stimulating". Giving all those in the bottom 2 tax brackets a lowered rate would immediately put more money into their pocket. Eliminating the taxes on unemployment - immediately puts more money into the pockets of those most in need. Let's adopt these. Lets adopt a $1500 tax credit to anyone who buys a new car. That is a stimulus. Not resodding the National Mall.


If you want to characterize something as dishonest, look at the TARP funding, which, from what I can tell, was just a way to hand money to the rich so they could give themselves billions in bonuses. Even if the stimulus package contains some spending, at least it's not just shoving more into the hands of the haves while the have-nots starve.
01/30/2009 02:17:56 PM · #6
So I should conclude from Scalvert's and Spazmo's reply that each of you think Obama is doing OK so far?
01/30/2009 02:18:36 PM · #7
Originally posted by Flash:

So I should conclude from Scalvert's and Spazmo's reply that each of you think Obama is doing OK so far?


Probably. Add my name to that list as well.
01/30/2009 02:20:46 PM · #8
Originally posted by Flash:

Lets adopt a $1500 tax credit to anyone who buys a new car. That is a stimulus.

No, that's another bad idea to bolster a national financial disgrace.

The auto industry needs to seriously revamp how it does business, and fix its problems from within.
01/30/2009 02:22:55 PM · #9
Obama who?

01/30/2009 02:23:33 PM · #10
Originally posted by Flash:

So I should conclude from Scalvert's and Spazmo's reply that each of you think Obama is doing OK so far?

Yep. While it's entirely possible that he faces the unenviable task of repairing the irreparable, I think he's making an admirable effort.
01/30/2009 02:25:19 PM · #11
Originally posted by scalvert:

Yep. While it's entirely possible that he faces the unenviable task of repairing the irreparable, I think he's making an admirable effort.

I agree.
01/30/2009 02:26:17 PM · #12
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Flash:

Lets adopt a $1500 tax credit to anyone who buys a new car. That is a stimulus.

No, that's another bad idea to bolster a national financial disgrace.

The auto industry needs to seriously revamp how it does business, and fix its problems from within.


1. It was never mandated that the new vehicle had to be domestic.
2. The woes of industry can hardly be laid at the doorstep of the american domestic's as countries all over the world are assisting their home industries.
3. Revamping a business as the US government is doing to the US auto industry, in mandating it manufacture vehicles that the public doesn't want to purchase, will have its own repercussions.
01/30/2009 02:27:27 PM · #13
Originally posted by Flash:

So I should conclude from Scalvert's and Spazmo's reply that each of you think Obama is doing OK so far?


I can't speak for Shannon, but, yes.

01/30/2009 02:31:35 PM · #14
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

The auto industry needs to seriously revamp how it does business, and fix its problems from within.

A good example: Chrysler announced an incentive program that offers most of their cars at employee prices PLUS an additional discount of up to $6000. So we were thinking, hey, maybe we could add or replace one of our cars with a little high mileage runabout for daily commuting. We checked out their line and were completely appalled. There isn't a single product they offer that would appeal to me at even half price. GM has a decent line, but they're hamstrung by unions and a legacy image of lower quality. Ford's in better shape than either, but it took them so long to get their act together that it might still be too late.
01/30/2009 02:32:50 PM · #15
After an entire week (and two days), I can safely say that Obama’s tenure has been an unmitigated disaster and find myself longing for the previous administration. I beg for your forgiveness McCain supporters.
01/30/2009 02:37:10 PM · #16
LOL
01/30/2009 03:04:32 PM · #17
Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Flash:

Lets adopt a $1500 tax credit to anyone who buys a new car. That is a stimulus.

No, that's another bad idea to bolster a national financial disgrace.

The auto industry needs to seriously revamp how it does business, and fix its problems from within.


1. It was never mandated that the new vehicle had to be domestic.
2. The woes of industry can hardly be laid at the doorstep of the american domestic's as countries all over the world are assisting their home industries.
3. Revamping a business as the US government is doing to the US auto industry, in mandating it manufacture vehicles that the public doesn't want to purchase, will have its own repercussions.


The EU Emissions Standards are pretty strict and they sell plenty of cars over there.

The repurcussions will come from subsidizing foreign automakers here in the US
01/30/2009 03:28:38 PM · #18
Check out today's broadcast of Science Friday on Building Greener Cars. Of particular interest (to me) was the interview with the advisor to the West Philadelphia High School team competing for the Automotive X Prize -- they expect to have a 100MPG plug-in hybrid built from off-the-shelf parts running soon ...
01/30/2009 04:21:56 PM · #19
Originally posted by Flash:

3. Revamping a business as the US government is doing to the US auto industry, in mandating it manufacture vehicles that the public doesn't want to purchase, will have its own repercussions.

This statement makes it abundantly clear of how woefully inadequate your knowledge of the automotive industry truly is.

Where did you ever get the idea that the guv'mint is forcing automakers to build cars the public doesn't want????

Have you driven on an American road in the last five years?????

It's conspicuous consumption at the worst level EVER!!!

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 16:30:49.
01/30/2009 04:25:07 PM · #20
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

The auto industry needs to seriously revamp how it does business, and fix its problems from within.

Originally posted by scalvert:

A good example: Chrysler announced an incentive program that offers most of their cars at employee prices PLUS an additional discount of up to $6000. So we were thinking, hey, maybe we could add or replace one of our cars with a little high mileage runabout for daily commuting. We checked out their line and were completely appalled. There isn't a single product they offer that would appeal to me at even half price. GM has a decent line, but they're hamstrung by unions and a legacy image of lower quality. Ford's in better shape than either, but it took them so long to get their act together that it might still be too late.

Ford is building very decent cars these days, and they're in a lot better shape because of it.

GM doesn't have a legacy image of lower quality, they consistently refuse to build their cars better because they've been able to get away with it for the last three decades.....their attitude has been, "F*ck 'em, they'll buy whatever junk we give 'em!".

It has caught up with them in spades, and now they're crying.

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 16:30:19.
01/30/2009 04:34:37 PM · #21
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Have you driven on an American road in the last five years?????

Actually, part of the problem is that in many places it requires an SUV to safely navigate the unfilled potholes. Of course, fixing those potholes requires the government to collect and spend tax dollars, and we can't have that ...
01/30/2009 04:44:17 PM · #22
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Flash:

3. Revamping a business as the US government is doing to the US auto industry, in mandating it manufacture vehicles that the public doesn't want to purchase, will have its own repercussions.

This statement makes it abundantly clear of how woefully inadequate your knowledge of the automotive industry truly is.

Where did you ever get the idea that the guv'mint is forcing automakers to build cars the public doesn't want????

Have you driven on an American road in the last five years?????

It's conspicuous consumption at the worst level EVER!!!


Exactly. People still want big vehicles: full size trucks and SUVs.

The government wants to make the emissions restrictions and economy standards even higher, which means that the automakers will need to make more smaller, efficient cars, not the Trucks and SUVs that people are still clamoring to buy.

If government wants to reduce emissions, they need to force people to realize that a Suburban or F-250 is a really poor commuter vehicle. Unfortunately, the best way to do this is to increase the operating cost of these vehicles to the point it hurts. $8/gal gasoline would do the trick, but the government doesn't have the balls to make gas that expensive.
01/30/2009 04:58:35 PM · #23
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Have you driven on an American road in the last five years?????

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Actually, part of the problem is that in many places it requires an SUV to safely navigate the unfilled potholes. Of course, fixing those potholes requires the government to collect and spend tax dollars, and we can't have that ...

Oh, puuuuuuuhleeeeeeeze!

I live in Pennsylvania......the pothole is the state animal......8>)

Nobody NEEDS an SUV......they want them.

The people that need trucks don't need $65K King Ranch F-350s either.....but they buy 'em.
01/30/2009 06:34:03 PM · #24
Nobody above seemed to mention that 1/3rd of the Stimulus package is represented by tax cuts...

The rest is basically the ultimate test of Keynesian economics. It could be a total failure. However, there is no guarantee at all that tax cuts would get us out any faster either. It's officially Black Swan time folks. Nobody has any precedents to go by here. Don't blame that on Obama because the Reps are flying just as blind.
01/30/2009 06:41:53 PM · #25
Originally posted by Spazmo99:


The government wants to make the emissions restrictions and economy standards even higher, which means that the automakers will need to make more smaller, efficient cars, not the Trucks and SUVs that people are still clamoring to buy.

If government wants to reduce emissions, they need to force people to realize that a Suburban or F-250 is a really poor commuter vehicle. Unfortunately, the best way to do this is to increase the operating cost of these vehicles to the point it hurts. $8/gal gasoline would do the trick, but the government doesn't have the balls to make gas that expensive.


Not everyone who owns a truck lives in the suburbs and commutes to work. You raise the price of gas and diesel, you raise the cost of goods production, particularly food. I know quite a few farmers that own F350s, all of them needed. I know a lot of people who require trucks and SUVs for their livelihood. Raising gas to $8 a gallon to thwart suburban drivers because you think they are excessive hurts the people who actually need them to live.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/14/2019 11:41:07 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/14/2019 11:41:07 AM EST.