Obama on drugs?

[Vance2335]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-on-the-economy-we-tried-our-plan-and-it-worked/article/2502981

Obama on the economy: ‘We tried our plan — and it worked’
July 24, 2012


Joel Gehrke
Commentary Writer
The Washington Examiner

E@Joelmentum DJoel on FB

President Obama, discussing his economic policies during a fundraiser in California, told supporters last night that “we tried our plan — and it worked” as he explained why they should reelect him.

“We tried that and it didn’t work,” Obama said of Romney’s proposed tax cuts and spending cuts, which he dismissed as a Bush-style “top down” economic policy.  “Just like we’ve tried their plan, we tried our plan — and it worked,” he added later in the speech.  “That’s the difference. That’s the choice in this election.  That’s why I’m running for a second term.”

Obama made these comments in Oakland, Calif., where the unemployment rate was 13.7 percent in May 2012. The national unemployment rate is 8.2 percent — up from 8.1 percent in May — for the second straight month.

To prove that his economic plans have “worked,” Obama cited the auto industry bailouts. “I refused to turn my back on a great industry and American workers,” he said. “Three years later, the American auto industry has come roaring back.”

Obama’s auto bailouts aren’t the unalloyed success he describes. “President Obama’s auto task force pressed General Motors and Chrysler to close scores of dealerships without adequately considering the jobs that would be lost or having a firm idea of the cost savings that would be achieved, an audit of the process has concluded,” The New York Times reported in 2010, based on an audit. “The report … estimated that tens of thousands of jobs were lost as a result.”

The Washington Examiner’s Conn Carroll also observes that Obama bailed out union pensions, while neglecting non-union workers, and decided not to follow the law by paying certain creditors — and still didn’t save money.

“All told Obama’s violations of bankruptcy law made the bailout of GM and Chrysler $26.5 billion more expensive than it had to be,” Carroll explained recently. “And according to Obama’s own Treasury Department, taxpayers stand to lose $23 billion if GM stock were sold today.”

Obama’s view of the economy is not shared by congressional leaders in his own party. “The economy has not recovered,” Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said in a recent interview. “Some people call it a recession, I think it’s a depression.”

[orphanedhawk]

''Neither the incumbent nor his assumed opponent are "good" choices to be President, if you ask me.  Besides that, more needs to be done that changing the face of the "national whipping boy".  We've discussed at great length what needs to happen in politics and most are in agreement.... changing this facet of government with a measly election will not bring any resolve to the issues at hand.''

I agree.

[brice1967]

In all fairness, Mitt hasn't been President so it would be difficult to compare records.  Otherwise, I guess you could compare their records outside of the Presidency.... if both parties would unseal and expose all of their records.  They won't as both are hiding something.

As far as the auto industry going down, adgal... (and the President didn't have anything to do with this.  This started before he took office)  General Motors has numerous plants in China.  Even the CEO from GM touted 7 of 10 vehicles off the line is now out of China.  (I was under the impression that most folks here were against Big Corporations, against them creating jobs over seas, and basically becoming China or India's Bthc#.)  

We were told that we couldn't let the auto industry fail.  Allowing them to go bankrupt was going to be the "demise" of the country.  Numerous airlines have gone bankrupt....  numerous businesses, numerous corporations have gone bankrupt and have risen from the ashes to again be successful.  What is necessary for this to have any long term affect is an internal restructuring and working from a refined business model.  If those changes aren't done, failure is in the future unless you can keep throwing money at it.... sooner or later, the money tree bears no fruit.

Neither the incumbent nor his assumed opponent are "good" choices to be President, if you ask me.  Besides that, more needs to be done that changing the face of the "national whipping boy".  We've discussed at great length what needs to happen in politics and most are in agreement.... changing this facet of government with a measly election will not bring any resolve to the issues at hand.

[teko]

So by your logic, there is no reason to bash obama either then? So why would you waste time bashing obama then? You will not tout Mittens record because you know we can tear him apart and he has no record of substance. So give it a try! We should have the same option of opening your eyes as well?

[Vance2335]

How did the stimulas get passed? Obamacare? If republicans could block everything?

I have been here for 1 week and 80% of the articles posted is Obama is the second coming, so I'm trying to bring some balance to this forum. No reason to tout Mitt's record as none of you would vote for him. Why am I going to waste time showing you Mitt's record? i am trying to open the eyes of people to show them that if you really look Obama is not what he ran on, not what he promised and not any good.

[teko]

And of course it was fillabuster proof as well? And as I pointed out, half the government has been in campaign mode with a boycott against anything this president attempted to do. What has been done has largely been done by executive order and not by cooperation of the Congress.

Im curious. Im not hearing you tout your mans accomplishments and the Obama bashing has been going on for years. So. sell your guy to me. Does he not have any record to run on or is it simply anti obama all the way? Maybe if you didnt trash the man with every breath, we would not feel the need to defend?

[Vance2335]

Of course defend him that things are working to your last breath even though in his own words unemployment would not above 5 or 6% yet it's over 8% and has been. But it's not his fault, let's keep blaming President Bush.

And for Obama's 1st 2 years Congress was controlled by the Dems. Just thought you would want to know that. And not in destruction mode, but if you believe that then you must believe that the Dems were in destruction mode when they took over Congress when Bush was President right??

[adgal]

I don't think it's too tough to believe that things could easily have been worse had the auto industry gone down, and there is no real question that the financial system was on the verge of collapse. I can only imagine what that would have done to the unemployment numbers.  I know it's tougher to measure success against an unknown or a theory, but that does seem to be the general consensus.  As for economic recovery, well, that is going to take some time.  It took a long time to get here right?  So it makes sense recovery will be slow.  I sure hope its steady though.  

[teko]

Well, fact. We are no longer bleeding 800,000 jobs a month and we didnt get where we are overnight. Hard to believe isnt it. Regardless of what we hear Obama doesnt walk on water and since the whole other side of the government who were elected to help run the country have been in campaign and obstruction mode for the last four years. We are pretty darn lucky we are not in worse shape. imo

[Vance2335]

With all the news about unemployment you can't say it worked. If the economy comes around then yes brag but not now. But the line used by the admin. is it was much worse than expected. I find that to be a dumb statement.

[brice1967]

A bit of a stretch to say it worked.....  

There are supporters who will say it worked all day.  Some will speculate that it halted something worse.  Theoretically, all of that is still up in the air.  I mean, it can get better and it can get worse.  If it gets worse or stays stagnant, I don't think you can run around and say it worked.