News Obama for President: Experienced Leader

[mheslep]

I'm confused. What's wrong with Obama's comment exactly? He's going to buy a Volt, but apparently it isn't super popular so his credibility as a President is dinged?

I meant the other way around: it won't impact Obama it will impact the car sales (IMO). Assuming for the moment the country is 50:50 split on liking/disliking Obama, I posit that the like-half won't be moved at all on decision to buy the car. Not true for the dislike-half. The Chevy Volt is early yet and still in the definition stage of American iconography, unlike (say) an F150 or a Prius. That is, now that he's said he'll buy the car, it's fair game to be called the ObamaCar just like the AHCA is ObamaCare. If he was an immensely popular president, a Reagan, an FDR, maybe this would be to the good for Chevy. As it is, I imagine Chevy sales managers are pulling their hair out.

I guess that most politicians, who are as a lot somewhat arrogant, nonetheless get this kind of thing: not to hang their political fortunes around the neck of some nascent private enterprise or product. That Obama doesn't is yet another comment on the man's immense self regard that has been so evident in his me-myself-and-I laden speeches.

 

[Office_Shredder]

OK I buy that mheslep

 

[Char. Limit]

IMO - certainly hope the plant is operational in November 2012.

Actually, he said after his presidency ends. So he's got over 4 years.

EDIT: As to why I think Obama will be re-elected:

1. I haven't seen a really strong Republican contender actually run the front. Maybe if Jeb Bush joined, but it's a bit late for that.
2. He's an incumbent, and historically, incumbents have a good chance of re-election.

 

[mege]

2. He's an incumbent, and historically, incumbents have a good chance of re-election.

Except when unemployment stays high.

 

[Char. Limit]

Except when unemployment stays high.

Seems to be going down to me. Do you have a different source saying it's not?

 

[Evo]

Except when unemployment stays high.

Wrong. The fact that employment has been rising steadily was on tv earlier today.

The number of people seeking unemployment benefits in the U.S. fell to the lowest point in almost four years last week, the latest signal that the job market is steadily improving.

Weekly applications for unemployment benefits dropped 13,000 to a seasonally adjusted 348,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the fourth drop in five weeks and the fewest number of claims since March 2008 — six months before Lehman Brothers collapsed and only a few months into the Great Recession.

The four-week average, which smooths out fluctuations in the weekly data, fell for the fifth straight week to 365,250. The average has fallen nearly 13 percent in the past year.

The consistent decline indicates that companies are laying off fewer workers, and hiring is likely picking up further. When applications drop below 375,000, it usually signals that hiring is strong enough to lower the unemployment rate.

Jeremy Lawson, a senior economist at BNP Paribas, said the report points to solid hiring this month, similar to the average net gain of about 200,000 in the past three months.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-unemployment-applications-drop-4-low-133936693.html

 

[mheslep]

The point that employment is now going up does not contradict the separate point that employment is at a historic low (last time was 1983), and that employment at these levels factors into elections.

 

[turbo]

The Republicans have been steadfast in stalling public-works projects (you know, the bridges, highways, etc) that could employ workers on short notice that might possibly help Obama's chances. That will not go unnoticed when the primary process is done, and the general election enters its early stages. The Democrats are not stupid enough to ignore the advantages that could accrue from decrying and detailing the stalling and obstructionism used in Congress to game the system using arcane rules.

 

[mege]

Unemployment is still 'high' compared to long term averages, right? Just because it's going down doesn't mean he's safe from the historical perspective. I was addressing CharLimit's statement about incumbency being a good bet, but there's more to it than just being the man with the stuck currently.

Here's something that ought to keep President Obama up at night: No president since FDR has won re-election with unemployment over 7.2%.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2...mployment-over-7-2-is-president-obama-doomed/

 

[Evo]

The point that employment is now going up does not contradict the separate point that employment is at a historic low (last time was 1983), and that employment at these levels factors into elections.

IMO, Obama might be awesome, but he's not magic.

 

[mege]

The Republicans have been steadfast in stalling public-works projects (you know, the bridges, highways, etc) that could employ workers on short notice that might possibly help Obama's chances. That will not go unnoticed when the primary process is done, and the general election enters its early stages. The Democrats are not stupid enough to ignore the advantages that could accrue from decrying and detailing the stalling and obstructionism used in Congress to game the system using arcane rules.

Like the Keystone pipeline?

Do you honestly believe that 'keeping unemployement high' is why these projects are being turned down? That's quite an indictment.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Currently Obama is polling well against each of the Republican candidates and against generic Republican too. If the employment picture improves from here, it could be a problem for Republicans.

 

[Evo]

Anyone see Obama's speech today? He interrupted my tv show.

 

[Gokul43201]

Gallup did a poll last week (with a fairly large sample size - don't recall the actual number), and estimated a seasonally adjusted Feb unemployment number of 8.6%, which is an increase from the 8.3% in Jan. And last I checked, Intrade was going at 8.4% or 8.5%. BLS numbers for Feb should be here soon - we'll see how it goes. The Jan dip was encouraging, but historically expected because of its Jan-ness.

The way I see it, if the unemp numbers are still in the 8's come November, Obama is toast. If it's at 7 or better, the Republicans are toast. If unemployment is in between, then it comes to gas prices. If gas is close to $5, Obama will need unemployment to be in the 6's or he'll have a hard time getting re-elected.

Basically, the outcome of election will likely come down to a bunch of factors that are only weakly related to who the people in the race are.

 

[WhoWee]

The Republicans have been steadfast in stalling public-works projects (you know, the bridges, highways, etc) that could employ workers on short notice that might possibly help Obama's chances. That will not go unnoticed when the primary process is done, and the general election enters its early stages. The Democrats are not stupid enough to ignore the advantages that could accrue from decrying and detailing the stalling and obstructionism used in Congress to game the system using arcane rules.

Can you name any of these projects (that Republicans are stalling)?

 

[mheslep]

Gallup did a poll last week (with a fairly large sample size - don't recall the actual number), and estimated a seasonally adjusted Feb unemployment number of 8.6%, which is an increase from the 8.3% in Jan. And last I checked, Intrade was going at 8.4% or 8.5%. BLS numbers for Feb should be here soon - we'll see how it goes. The Jan dip was encouraging, but historically expected because of its Jan-ness.

The way I see it, if the unemp numbers are still in the 8's come November, Obama is toast. If it's at 7 or better, the Republicans are toast. If unemployment is in between, then it comes to gas prices. If gas is close to $5, Obama will need unemployment to be in the 6's or he'll have a hard time getting re-elected.

Basically, the outcome of election will likely come down to a bunch of factors that are only weakly related to who the people in the race are.

Agreed.

 

[turbo]

Can you name any of these projects (that Republicans are stalling)?

Miss this?

http://thehill.com/video/administration/180469-obama-a-bridge-between-ohio-and-kentucky-

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...highway-bill-for-political-reasons-says-reid-

 

[daveb]

Unemployment is still 'high' compared to long term averages, right? Just because it's going down doesn't mean he's safe from the historical perspective. I was addressing CharLimit's statement about incumbency being a good bet, but there's more to it than just being the man with the stuck currently.



http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2...mployment-over-7-2-is-president-obama-doomed/

There have been only 4 presidents who could have beeen reelected (Johnson, Ford, Carter, and Bush #1) but were not. Johnson chose not to run for relection, and both Carter and Bush faced strong and charismatic opposition. This leaves only Ford. The statistic is meaningless.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

There have been only 4 presidents who could have beeen reelected (Johnson, Ford, Carter, and Bush #1) but were not. Johnson chose not to run for relection, and both Carter and Bush faced strong and charismatic opposition. This leaves only Ford. The statistic is meaningless.

There was no way that Ford could have been reelected.

 

[WhoWee]

Miss this?

http://thehill.com/video/administration/180469-obama-a-bridge-between-ohio-and-kentucky-

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...highway-bill-for-political-reasons-says-reid-

Nice try - some additional info on the Brent Spence Bridge.

http://www.brentspencebridgecorridor.com/

Voters thought it was going to be a beneficiary of the Stimulus Bill. From the campaign of Josh Mandel - regarding comments by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH).
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...andel-says-sherrod-brown-promised-ohio-river/

"Don’t buy their promises.

One particular bridge spanning the Ohio River comes with a claim of a broken promise that Josh Mandel’s camp is pressing as an election issue.

"Sherrod Brown promised that the first stimulus bill would fund the Brent Spence Bridge … and now he is embarrassed to stand there with the president after both of them broke their promise," Mandel’s campaign said in a news release.

Mandel, currently Ohio’s treasurer, is a Republican who wants to oust Brown, a Democrat, from his U.S. Senate seat in the 2012 election. The news release, distributed Sept. 28,2011, by Mandel campaign spokesman Joe Aquilino, criticized Brown on several fronts.

The reference to the Brent Spence Bridge, which carries traffic for Interstates 71 and 75 across the Ohio River, refers both the federal stimulus package Congress approved two years ago and to a recent visit President Barack Obama made to promote a second stimulus bill. Brown was not present, saying he had congressional business to attend to in Washington.

Before Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known simply as the stimulus act, lawmakers across the country were discussing whether the federal government should funnel billions of dollars into bridge, road and sewer projects. Brown believed so, saying that by funding "shovel-ready projects," the government could begin filling the country’s extensive infrastructure needs while putting Americans back to work.

Among Browns comments then was one that referred to the Brent Spence Bridge. Transportation planners say the 48-year-old bridge needs to be replaced. It is cramped, has poor visibility and carries more than twice the 80,000 vehicles a day it was designed for, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. But coming up with the estimated $2.4 billion is a problem that has has dogged local and state governments in Ohio and Kentucky.

Enter Brown. In an appearance on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe" program on Jan. 28, 2009, Brown said that "we do need to do direct spending on job creation. That means shovel-ready projects for water and sewer systems, whether it's the Brent Spence Bridge in Cincinnati that will put a lot of people to work and help with economic development, or whether it's a water and sewer system in Defiance, Ohio or in Nashville. It's pretty clear to me that we need direct spending on projects that are ready to go, particularly, green projects that put people to work immediately but also help longer term and economic development.""



further down in the article


"Facing questions about the bridge, a White House spokesman stressed the same day as Obama’s speech that the Brent Spence project is merely "an example" of the kind of project that could get funding in Obama’s new $447 billion stimulus proposal.

Many details remain to be worked out, including how a particular component, a $10 billion infrastructure bank, would work. It is not clear whether this -- or a bigger infrastructure bank that Brown proposes -- could be used toward the eventual Brent Spence project.

So let’s stipulate: Brown said in 2009 that the Brent Spence Bridge was the kind of project the first stimulus could pay for, using it as an example of a shovel-ready project. He clearly suggested that the bridge could be built with stimulus money.

It didn’t happen. And the project was not shovel-ready."

 

[daveb]

Nice try - some additional info on the Brent Spence Bridge.

http://www.brentspencebridgecorridor.com/

Voters thought it was going to be a beneficiary of the Stimulus Bill. From the campaign of Josh Mandel - regarding comments by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH).
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...andel-says-sherrod-brown-promised-ohio-river/

"Don’t buy their promises.

One particular bridge spanning the Ohio River comes with a claim of a broken promise that Josh Mandel’s camp is pressing as an election issue.

"Sherrod Brown promised that the first stimulus bill would fund the Brent Spence Bridge … and now he is embarrassed to stand there with the president after both of them broke their promise," Mandel’s campaign said in a news release.

Mandel, currently Ohio’s treasurer, is a Republican who wants to oust Brown, a Democrat, from his U.S. Senate seat in the 2012 election. The news release, distributed Sept. 28,2011, by Mandel campaign spokesman Joe Aquilino, criticized Brown on several fronts.

The reference to the Brent Spence Bridge, which carries traffic for Interstates 71 and 75 across the Ohio River, refers both the federal stimulus package Congress approved two years ago and to a recent visit President Barack Obama made to promote a second stimulus bill. Brown was not present, saying he had congressional business to attend to in Washington.

Before Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known simply as the stimulus act, lawmakers across the country were discussing whether the federal government should funnel billions of dollars into bridge, road and sewer projects. Brown believed so, saying that by funding "shovel-ready projects," the government could begin filling the country’s extensive infrastructure needs while putting Americans back to work.

Among Browns comments then was one that referred to the Brent Spence Bridge. Transportation planners say the 48-year-old bridge needs to be replaced. It is cramped, has poor visibility and carries more than twice the 80,000 vehicles a day it was designed for, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. But coming up with the estimated $2.4 billion is a problem that has has dogged local and state governments in Ohio and Kentucky.

Enter Brown. In an appearance on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe" program on Jan. 28, 2009, Brown said that "we do need to do direct spending on job creation. That means shovel-ready projects for water and sewer systems, whether it's the Brent Spence Bridge in Cincinnati that will put a lot of people to work and help with economic development, or whether it's a water and sewer system in Defiance, Ohio or in Nashville. It's pretty clear to me that we need direct spending on projects that are ready to go, particularly, green projects that put people to work immediately but also help longer term and economic development.""



further down in the article


"Facing questions about the bridge, a White House spokesman stressed the same day as Obama’s speech that the Brent Spence project is merely "an example" of the kind of project that could get funding in Obama’s new $447 billion stimulus proposal.

Many details remain to be worked out, including how a particular component, a $10 billion infrastructure bank, would work. It is not clear whether this -- or a bigger infrastructure bank that Brown proposes -- could be used toward the eventual Brent Spence project.

So let’s stipulate: Brown said in 2009 that the Brent Spence Bridge was the kind of project the first stimulus could pay for, using it as an example of a shovel-ready project. He clearly suggested that the bridge could be built with stimulus money.

It didn’t happen. And the project was not shovel-ready."

You forgot the rest of the article from Politifact (my bold).

Does this make it a broken promise? PolitiFact Ohio discussed this with the National Republican Senatorial Committee, whose spokesman, Jahan Wilcox, says that Brown certainly made a strong suggestion that a casual listener might equate to a promise.

We agree. That’s an element of truth that that factors into why we are not ruling Mandel’s claim about a broken promise to be entirely False.

But Mandel used a strong word: promise. He did not say Brown broke his suggestion. He said Brown broke a promise. Brown never made a promise, which is a critical difference. It is why Mandel’s claim gets a rating of Mostly False.

 

[WhoWee]

You forgot the rest of the article from Politifact (my bold).

Did the Republicans block the bridge - did Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) promise the bridge - would the bridge have been included in Stimulus II? Like I said - nice try - to blame Republicans for blocking this project.

 

[WhoWee]

In the news - IMO - you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...proposes-raising-volt-tax-credit-10000/415346

"Obama promotes proposed $10,000 Volt tax credit"

"According to the White House, Obama will proposes that the tax credit is "available at the point-of-sale by making it transferable to the dealer or financier, allowing consumers to benefit when they purchase a vehicle rather than when they file their taxes."

The president first proposed an update to the tax credit in February.

Last week, General Motors announced plans to temporarily suspend production of the Volt and the layoffs of 1300 employees due to sluggish sales.

The MSRP for a Chevy Volt is estimated at $39,145. But even with a $10,000 tax credit, you could own a Chevy Impala full size car for $25,760, $4000 cheaper than the subsidized Volt."

my bold
This isn't a tax credit - it's a rebate paid at the point of sale by the Government?

 

[Evo]

In the news - IMO - you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...proposes-raising-volt-tax-credit-10000/415346

"Obama promotes proposed $10,000 Volt tax credit"

"According to the White House, Obama will proposes that the tax credit is "available at the point-of-sale by making it transferable to the dealer or financier, allowing consumers to benefit when they purchase a vehicle rather than when they file their taxes."

The president first proposed an update to the tax credit in February.

Last week, General Motors announced plans to temporarily suspend production of the Volt and the layoffs of 1300 employees due to sluggish sales.

The MSRP for a Chevy Volt is estimated at $39,145. But even with a $10,000 tax credit, you could own a Chevy Impala full size car for $25,760, $4000 cheaper than the subsidized Volt."

my bold
This isn't a tax credit - it's a rebate paid at the point of sale by the Government?

Apparently you can make it up. I can't believe you fell for this WhoWee, you should know to double check sources.

Obama urges shift to new energy technologies
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press – 3 hours ago

President Barack Obama on Wednesday made his most urgent appeal yet for the U.S. to wean itself from oil, calling it a "fuel of the past" and demanding that the country broaden its approach to energy.

Mindful of the political dangers of high gas prices, he said shrinking demand for oil must drive the solution.

Obama, promoting his energy policies in a politically prominent state that will host the Democratic National Convention, called on Congress to provide $1 billion in grants to local communities to encourage greater use of fuel-efficient technologies. The administration's goal is to make electric vehicles as affordable and convenient as gasoline-powered vehicles by 2020.

The president also proposed greater tax incentives to encourage the purchase and use of more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Obama's $1 billion incentive for local communities is designed to promote use of advanced technologies such as more charging stations for electric vehicles. Obama has called for 1 million plug-in vehicles on American roads by 2015.

Obama also was calling for increasing a tax incentive to $10,000 from $7,500 for people who purchase certain advanced vehicles.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hlnm93loFhEFqHFBl9GopmsSyZlQ?docId=ffa64da68d074eacb78b68005c9a400d

 

[mheslep]

I'm missing how the AP article contradicts the Washington Examiner article? Both state that Obama is calling for a raise of the tax incentive on EV's such as the Volt to $10K.

 

[Evo]

I'm missing how the AP article contradicts the Washington Examiner article? Both state that Obama is calling for a raise of the tax incentive on EV's such as the Volt to $10K.

Because the article WhoWee posted, which is not mainstream, more or less skewed the truth to make it seem that Obama was wanting the government to pay people to specifically buy the Volt. That's absolutely false.

Starting with the false headline

Obama promotes proposed $10,000 Volt tax credit

It is not a "Volt" tax credit.

Then WhoWee stated it wasn't a tax credit, it was an instant rebate at point of sale, yet he furnished no proof of this and I find no proof of it.

Whowee knows better than to post such misinformation as contained in that article. He used to be so good at checking sources and being a great example of how people should vet the information before they post and if it's questionable to not post it.

 

[Gokul43201]

No contradiction that I can tell. However, both the Examiner's headline and WhoWee's choice of quotes make it look like Obama is singling out the Chevy Volt for special treatment (noteworthy, if it were true), while in fact, the tax benefit applies for all high-efficiency vehicles, including natural-gas-powered commercial trucks.

 

[Gokul43201]

Then WhoWee stated it wasn't a tax credit, it was an instant rebate at point of sale, yet he furnished no proof of this and I find no proof of it.

I've seen that corroborated (I use that loosely, I can't be sure they're independent sources) by another source: http://wot.motortrend.com/obama-ask...er-cars-include-commercial-trucks-177641.html

 

[Evo]

I've seen that corroborated (I use that loosely, I can't be sure they're independent sources) by another source: http://wot.motortrend.com/obama-ask...er-cars-include-commercial-trucks-177641.html

Today's article on CNN mentions nothing about it being an "instant rebate", just an increase of the current tax credit.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/07/autos/alternative-fuel-cars/index.htm

 

[mheslep]

Because the article WhoWee posted, which is not mainstream, more or less skewed the truth to make it seem that Obama was wanting the government to pay people to specifically buy the Volt. That's absolutely false.

Starting with the false headline It is not a "Volt" tax credit.

The headline was incomplete, misleading perhaps, but not absolutely false. There are exactly 11 EV's currently for sale in the US that qualify the credit. Of these, only the Chevy Volt (~6000) and Nissan Leaf (~8000) have annual sales above one thousand units per year.

Then WhoWee stated it wasn't a tax credit, it was an instant rebate at point of sale, yet he furnished no proof of this and I find no proof of it.

The Examiner reference Whowee quoted may not have been acceptable, but it is nonetheless correct according the WhiteHouse website:

The President is proposing to transform the existing $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles into a rebate that will be available to all consumers immediately at the point of sale.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/other/fact-sheet-one-million-advanced-technology-vehicles.pdf