Obama Administration's Strongarm Tactics Against...

FirefightnRick · May 5, 2009

White House Denies Charge By Attorney that Administration Threatened to Destroy Investment Firm's Reputation*

Make sure you click on the actual radio interview of Tom Lauria by Frank Beckmann on Detroits WJR-AM radio

American, private citizens and private businesses should not be threatened by the White House, threatening this man's clients and telling them that if they don't go along, if they don't violate their fiduciary duty and go along with what Obama wants them to do that they will be punished and smeared.

Simply amazing.

Rick

stebo · May 6, 2009

Rick,

Don't get defensive but since you work for the "man" - why don't we just have private companies take care of fires? Why should I have to pay for some idiot that fell asleep with a ciggie in his mouth and burned his own house down? What about the police? How about the army? Shouldn't the government just butt out of everything? I look at health coverage the same way that I do as the fire department, the cost of a civilized nation. Of course there will be some people that will want to protect their property even more and install fire detectors and sprinklers. Since the government screws "everything" up - maybe they should butt out of fire departments. And while they are at it - why should we provide public education? Those parents should just work harder! Damn their kids if they are born into a crappy family!

p.s. it is really difficult to post from a phone.

Edited May 6, 2009 by stebo

FirefightnRick · May 6, 2009

New Allegations Of White House Threats Over Chrysler

The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say they were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person described the administration as the most shocking "end justifies the means" group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger." Both were voters for Obama in the last election.
One participant in negotiations said that the administration's tactic was to present what one described as a "madman theory of the presidency" in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm.

Rick

stebo · May 6, 2009

So since it is your tax payer money bailing out all these industries - did you prefer W handing off a blank check and not asking for any changes in return? Or do you want a return on your investment? I don't get this - W started all this, and I voted for him and I stand behind his intervention in the economy.... but he just handed off the money without asking the companies to change anything at all. Chrylser will soon be Chrylser in name only, it will be a a cruddy Italian car with the name Chrysler on it. Oh, and good news! Now they have Opel involved! So our money went to Chrysler, they were completely incompetent and could not turn their company around and produce the cars that people want - so now they are bankrupt and are being acquired by an Italian automaker that will make its parts in Germany. Sounds like a really good plan. How is this Obama's fault again? At least he is trying to hold these guys accountable for spending our children's money. I suppose the blank check idea by Bushy was a much better solution.

You still haven't answered my question.

KingDL1 · May 6, 2009

So since it is your tax payer money bailing out all these industries - did you prefer W handing off a blank check and not asking for any changes in return? Or do you want a return on your investment? I don't get this - W started all this, and I voted for him and I stand behind his intervention in the economy.... but he just handed off the money without asking the companies to change anything at all. Chrylser will soon be Chrylser in name only, it will be a a cruddy Italian car with the name Chrysler on it. Oh, and good news! Now they have Opel involved! So our money went to Chrysler, they were completely incompetent and could not turn their company around and produce the cars that people want - so now they are bankrupt and are being acquired by an Italian automaker that will make its parts in Germany. Sounds like a really good plan. How is this Obama's fault again? At least he is trying to hold these guys accountable for spending our children's money. I suppose the blank check idea by Bushy was a much better solution.
You still haven't answered my question.

You do realize he was discussing the creditors not the management.

stebo · May 6, 2009

You do realize he was discussing the creditors not the management.

Yes, I read the entire article. I wasn't going to listen to some radio hack because people on the radio these days are either with Obama or against him. 73% of the country is with him, but I guess that they are all just morons. Anyway - I read the article and I read one side blaming the other and both denying it. Really no evidence to point either way. The car industry is corupt, all the way down to the companies that make the parts. They involve unions and unions have killed this great industry. It makes me sick to my stomach that Chrylser made it through the 80's only to be a subsidiary of freaking FIAT now, with freaking OPEL making the parts. At least they could have gotten a GOOD car company to help them build a decent car. Why is it that America cannot build a nice economy car? Why is it so hard?

Ford has a couple. The Fusion is a car that I might even buy. I want to see if the $4500 tax credit gets passed and I will trade my BMW in for the Ford Fusion Hybrid. And that's not because I am a fan of Ford, it is because I am a fan of America and I want our auto indistry to survive. It is pretty sickening to think out of all cars made in America - that is the only one that I would even consider. I drive back and forth to Austin every weekend so a truck is not the right fit for me - but my dad's Toyota Tundra is 10 years old, has 200,000 miles on it, and he has never had to do a thing to it other than change the oil.

KingDL1 · May 6, 2009

Yes, I read the entire article. I wasn't going to listen to some radio hack because people on the radio these days are either with Obama or against him. 73% of the country is with him, but I guess that they are all just morons. Anyway - I read the article and I read one side blaming the other and both denying it. Really no evidence to point either way. The car industry is corupt, all the way down to the companies that make the parts. They involve unions and unions have killed this great industry. It makes me sick to my stomach that Chrylser made it through the 80's only to be a subsidiary of freaking FIAT now, with freaking OPEL making the parts. At least they could have gotten a GOOD car company to help them build a decent car. Why is it that America cannot build a nice economy car? Why is it so hard?
Ford has a couple. The Fusion is a car that I might even buy. I want to see if the $4500 tax credit gets passed and I will trade my BMW in for the Ford Fusion Hybrid. And that's not because I am a fan of Ford, it is because I am a fan of America and I want our auto indistry to survive. It is pretty sickening to think out of all cars made in America - that is the only one that I would even consider. I drive back and forth to Austin every weekend so a truck is not the right fit for me - but my dad's Toyota Tundra is 10 years old, has 200,000 miles on it, and he has never had to do a thing to it other than change the oil.

The problem comes from Union laws, EPA over regulation and OSHA over regulation. Its not that US auto industry can't make a nice car, it just they start out with the deck stacked against them to be competitive. Hybrids are pretty bad for the environment as well, with shorter life spans and battery creation/disposal issues they have a pretty big environmental footprint.

Obama's polls are all over the place depending who takes them but 73% is by far the highest I have heard of, and on the car industry it was less then 50% last I saw. Not that polls matter nor does most of the masses have a clue. Something like 35% of the masses can't even tell you the name of the vice president. People should be qualified to be polled, something like get 4 of 5 simple questions correct to make sure they have any real knowledge kind of like a marketing survey.

Edited May 6, 2009 by KingDL1

KRAM1 · May 6, 2009

You "ain't" seen nothing yet from this administration. Hold on to your rear ends and your pocketbooks, it has only just begun. This early "stuff" will seem like child's play when you get a load of the details behind things like say...national socialized healthcare. I wonder how many folks who voted for Obama are giving it a second or third guess right about now? My guess, plenty! A great lesson in being careful what you ask for since you might just get it! We got it and it's sticking in a privite part of our anatomy right now. Oh, well, at least it's fun to wait for Biden's next gaff, and that's at least one thing we can be certain of from this administration...that and "shoot from the hip" policies, higher taxes, more socialism, less personal freedom, etc., etc.

CaribbeanGreen · May 6, 2009

Good points, Stebo. Interesting mind candy.

And hey, my Dad has a Tundra with 185k... same story, oil changes, tires, nothing out of the ordinary. High five!

forevereagle · May 6, 2009

Not that polls matter nor does most of the masses have a clue. Something like 35% of the masses can't even tell you the name of the vice president. People should be qualified to be polled, something like get 4 of 5 simple questions correct to make sure they have any real knowledge kind of like a marketing survey.

I don't think that it is possible for me to disagree more with you here. You cannot make decisions about whose opinion counts and whose doesn't. Just because people are not well informed or intelligent does not mean that they don't count. In order to create a poll that is statistically significant, and therefore representative of the opinions of the US population, you must adhere to certain standards. The most important is that you cannot throw out good responses because they don't fit the mold of the perfect citizen. Do we start throwing out their votes next? A poll is a measure of public opinion. If a portion of the public is uninformed and uneducated, then so should a portion of the poll that represents everyone. Are polls always 100% accurate? No. But they can give a feel of what the public thinks, usually within ~5% above or below.

Censored by Laurie · May 6, 2009

I don't think that it is possible for me to disagree more with you here. You cannot make decisions about whose opinion counts and whose doesn't. Just because people are not well informed or intelligent does not mean that they don't count. In order to create a poll that is statistically significant, and therefore representative of the opinions of the US population, you must adhere to certain standards. The most important is that you cannot throw out good responses because they don't fit the mold of the perfect citizen. Do we start throwing out their votes next? A poll is a measure of public opinion. If a portion of the public is uninformed and uneducated, then so should a portion of the poll that represents everyone. Are polls always 100% accurate? No. But they can give a feel of what the public thinks, usually within ~5% above or below.

2/3's of a vote for some?

KingDL1 · May 6, 2009

I don't think that it is possible for me to disagree more with you here. You cannot make decisions about whose opinion counts and whose doesn't. Just because people are not well informed or intelligent does not mean that they don't count. In order to create a poll that is statistically significant, and therefore representative of the opinions of the US population, you must adhere to certain standards. The most important is that you cannot throw out good responses because they don't fit the mold of the perfect citizen. Do we start throwing out their votes next? A poll is a measure of public opinion. If a portion of the public is uninformed and uneducated, then so should a portion of the poll that represents everyone. Are polls always 100% accurate? No. But they can give a feel of what the public thinks, usually within ~5% above or below.

I did not say people don't count, just opinions. Here is a great one it was general opinion that world was flat at one time, so lets make policies based off opinion. Some places did and people were killed out of fear because the masses were misinformed.

I do think there should be voter qualification process simple, basic stuff that everyone should know such as "# Federal branches of government", and the ballet should be in English only. If you can't speak and read English how can you be a citizen? You have speak English to pass the test. Not to mention there is no way a person can be informed.

CFLs are a great current example public opinion of them are high does that make them good for the environment or a good alternative NO, incandescent bulbs are hundreds of times better. But they are passing laws as we speak to ban incandescent bulbs in favor of CFLs.

Opinions are like a$$holes everybody has one not everybody should. How many people understand High Finance of the Auto industry? 10% of this population at best probably less. Asking a guy that has no clue does nothing for policy making and could only create a nightmare.

Edited May 6, 2009 by KingDL1

Smitty · May 6, 2009

...and the ballet should be in English only.

The Russians are really going to object to the ballet being only in English.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Smitty

forevereagle · May 6, 2009

I did not say people don't count, just opinions. Here is a great one it was general opinion that world was flat at one time, so lets make policies based off opinion. Some places did and people were killed out of fear because the masses were misinformed.
I do think there should be voter qualification process simple, basic stuff that everyone should know such as "# Federal branches of government", and the ballet should be in English only. If you can't speak and read English how can you be a citizen? You have speak English to pass the test. Not to mention there is no way a person can be informed.
CFLs are a great current example public opinion of them are high does that make them good for the environment or a good alternative NO, incandescent bulbs are hundreds of times better. But they are passing laws as we speak to ban incandescent bulbs in favor of CFLs.
Opinions are like a$$holes everybody has one not everybody should. How many people understand High Finance of the Auto industry? 10% of this population at best probably less. Asking a guy that has no clue does nothing for policy making and could only create a nightmare.

I am not sure that I want to go completely into methodogies here, but your opinion stated above appears to be misinformed. Becuase everyone's opinion counts in the general election, then everyone's vote counts in an opinion poll. What you are proposing is not exactly representative. If you want to go down that path, then here is what you might experience.

One could argue that all of the younger people don't have the experience needed to formulate an opinion, so let's just slice out the 18-24 year olds.

And the people over 65 are not in touch with everything like they should be, so they are now gone too.

And let's be honest, the less wealthy are not contributing as much, so they're opinion doesn't really count either.

Now, let's see if we can find a way to take out the people who live on the coasts, since the sea water has probably rotted their brains or something.

Now, doesn't this start to look a little skewed? This could be used to go the other way too, so be careful what you wish for.

And I guess opinions are a little as you say. How many people understand the concepts of survey design and methodologies and how best to implement them? Not as many as probably understand the high finance of the auto industry as I would guess. A lack of understanding does not mean that people cannot have opinions.

meangreenbob · May 6, 2009

White House Denies Charge By Attorney that Administration Threatened to Destroy Investment Firm's Reputation*
Make sure you click on the actual radio interview of Tom Lauria by Frank Beckmann on Detroits WJR-AM radio
American, private citizens and private businesses should not be threatened by the White House, threatening this man's clients and telling them that if they don't go along, if they don't violate their fiduciary duty and go along with what Obama wants them to do that they will be punished and smeared.
Simply amazing.
Rick

The "Obamanation of Desolation" is in the White House. Who really believes that Kellerman hung himself?

UNTBill · May 7, 2009

The "Obamanation of Desolation" is in the White House. Who really believes that Kellerman hung himself?

Does seem strange. If I were of that mind, I certainly wouldn't pick hanging. There are many other choices available.

Bullet to the brain. Hose in the exhaust pipe. Car off a cliff. A slash of the wrists. Dive of a building. Pills.

Has anyone heard more of this story?

meangreenbob · May 7, 2009

Does seem strange. If I were of that mind, I certainly wouldn't pick hanging. There are many other choices available.
Bullet to the brain. Hose in the exhaust pipe. Car off a cliff. A slash of the wrists. Dive of a building. Pills.
Has anyone heard more of this story?

It got buried. They used the torture bull about "water boarding" as a diversion. It worked.

Notice how you don't hear much about Barney Franks or Chris Dodd anymore. They have to realize that they were only puppets.

God Save America!

Go Mean Green!!!

Shuke-D · May 7, 2009

The "Obamanation of Desolation" is in the White House. Who really believes that Kellerman hung himself?

I'm worried about my reading comprehension skills here. I'm sorry to ask this, but I want to make sure I understand your intent. Are you implying the President of the United States ordered an assassination?

meangreenbob · May 7, 2009

I'm worried about my reading comprehension skills here. I'm sorry to ask this, but I want to make sure I understand your intent. Are you implying the President of the United States ordered an assassination?

A President of the United States would never do anything like that. I believe he is just a front man.

Edited May 7, 2009 by meangreenbob

FirefightnRick · May 7, 2009

I look at health coverage the same way that I do as the fire department, the cost of a civilized nation.

Apples and Car Batteries.

You can look at it however you want but I don't agree. Socailized Healthcare will encourage those who are covered already and who can afford private insurance to jump onboard. The end result will destroy the private industry and deliver less coverage. And if the recent failed experiment in Hawaii is any indication of how things will go, I expect the newly enacted S-Chip program to fail as well. The link above is to a blog that kept a copy of the AP's story from last year's report of the failure Hawaii's universal child healthcare program. The AP has removed it from their website.

Notice this comment:

“People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free,” said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. “I don’t believe that was the intent of the program.”

And to your comparison of Socialized Healthcare to Fire protection. Which fire departments are you referring to? The one that is funded by and gives protection to the individual city and municipal tax payer who lives within it's jurisdiction, or the rest of the U.S. fire service which consist of 73% of this nations' firefighters who volunteer their efforts to protect their homes and communities for free? Other than the U.S. Forestry division, neither are funded nor managed by the Federal government, especially not the department I work in. Sure, some of the departments who employ the 1.1 Million FF's may recieve a federal grant once in a blue moon to help with a training class etc, but their fire and EMS protection of local entities are far and beyond managed and funded locally compared to that required to fund National Healthcare.

the cost of a civilized nation.

Where does this thought process come from? MSNBC? Plenty of people have lived, and have chosen to live without healthcare coverage for generations and yet this country has managed to maintain a stable civilized society, and the best there has ever been I might add? Where does this nationalization end? The fed's have nationalized the banking industry, nationalized the auto industry, they now control the labor unions(which you yourself have stated you dislike(find the remaining money given to the Chrysler bailout earlier this year), they control products that are produced, they control executive pay and countless other entities and now you want to hand over to them our healthcare? Where does it end?

Wake up people!

Rick

Edited May 7, 2009 by FirefightnRick

Bryan316 · May 7, 2009

Does seem strange. If I were of that mind, I certainly wouldn't pick hanging. There are many other choices available.
Bullet to the brain. Hose in the exhaust pipe. Car off a cliff. A slash of the wrists. Dive of a building. Pills.

Tell that to this Kenyan Arsenal fan: Reuters, Goal.com

stebo · May 7, 2009

You make a good point Rick, if 73% of the country has volunteer fire departments - we should just make it 100%. I don't want my taxpayer money going to other people's problems. Fire Departments are funded by tax money and all social services are bad. I will take my chances with an all volunteer force because I believe in the hearts and minds of the American people. You could volunteer and everything. My dad did it, while working at IBM and running 2 rental houses and a coin operated car wash.. surely we can get enough volunteers to take this tax burden off of the cities and counties. I have never had a fire and I have insurance in case it happens, why should I pay for other people's mistakes? Thank you for changing my mind.

I know that you don't believe a word that comes out the of the Devil... err, Obama's mouth - but he has stated numerous times that the federal government should not be in the auto industry. But the big three were going out of business. We have an economic crisis going on in this country. Allowing them to fail would have hurt more than intervening. Bush recognized that and was a part of the first bailouts. Obama has asked for accountabiility. You can't keep throwing money into an empty business. The U.S. auto industries are producing an outdated product that the country doesn't want. The cost to tax payers would be much more by letting them fail because it would hurt so many other facets of the economy.

Look, like I said earlier - I don't want the government involved in private industry. This was an intervention and it is supposed to be a temporary one. Instead of giving a blank check, Obama is trying to get some sort of return on tax payer's money IF they are able to turn it around. He has stated numerous times that he wants the government out of these industries as soon as possible. You just don't believe him. Reagan grew the federal government larger than any President in the history of the country. Most of his spending was on defense in a time where there was no war - but the money was spent either way. Obama is not perfect, but he walked into a complete MESS. I don't agree with all of his policies but he is the first Democrat that was elected by a military majority vote in over 40 years. If anything, I have to agree with you that he is a smooth talker... I never thought in a million years that he would support these wars that cannot be won in the middle east. He is trying to be all things to all people. But he is also cutting programs - in fact he cut 171 government programs in his budget equalling 17 billion dollars of government (fed) spending.

I work for a college and he is reforming financial aid as well. While it will probably change the way that our students get money, the grants are going up and the loans are going down. The people that are choosing to get loans will no longer have subsidized interest if their income is above the $250K/year mark. Why in the world should the feds subsidize interest on a student loand for someone that can clearly afford to pay cash for their classes? That is what Bushy had put into law. The interest rate is locked at 5.85% so its not like a huge amount - but what people were doing is taking out student loans that they didn't need and using it to buy cars, houses, invest in stocks, etc... because the interest was paid for by your taxes. Obama took out that loophole. Makes my job harder but it is the right thing to do.

Edited May 7, 2009 by stebo

FirefightnRick · May 8, 2009

You make a good point Rick, if 73% of the country has volunteer fire departments - we should just make it 100%. I don't want my taxpayer money going to other people's problems.

Your absolutely right, and you shouldn't want your taxes in which you pay to the city where you live that pay for your Fire and EMS protection going to other peoples Fire and EMS concerns who live elsewhere such as in L.A. or New York. Your local officials which you elect have that say, giving you much of the say in how those taxes are spent. And unlike with National Social Rationing, once the current system is destroyed and socialized medicine is our main or only option, you have a choice to not pay those city/municipal Fire and EMS taxes. All you have to do is move to a rural county that has neither. And if it does happen to have a county hospital you pay for that, but again, your taxes go for your hospital. Not some hospital in Virginia rural West Virginia.

As for Obama's job cuts. How many are within our military? $17 Billion dollars he cut pales in comparison to his spending.

By the way, my sim card crashed a while back and I lost countless phone numbers including yours. I'm slowly getting them back so give me a ring and we'll continue this above. Save us both some typing.

Rick

Edited May 8, 2009 by FirefightnRick

KingDL1 · May 9, 2009

I work for a college and he is reforming financial aid as well. While it will probably change the way that our students get money, the grants are going up and the loans are going down. The people that are choosing to get loans will no longer have subsidized interest if their income is above the $250K/year mark. Why in the world should the feds subsidize interest on a student loand for someone that can clearly afford to pay cash for their classes? That is what Bushy had put into law. The interest rate is locked at 5.85% so its not like a huge amount - but what people were doing is taking out student loans that they didn't need and using it to buy cars, houses, invest in stocks, etc... because the interest was paid for by your taxes. Obama took out that loophole. Makes my job harder but it is the right thing to do.

You really think that is fair, so the guys that have paid the most in with their taxes get nothing out? Plus $250K in not a ton of money depending where you live. Some areas it is huge. But more importantly besides setting arbitrary numbers of who we help and who we don't is how many $250K people would use it? I mean is there really equal interest at that? I say if not everybody is eligible cut off the program. The crap is all about when the Federal government decided it had to do more then just regulate trade and protect people from enemies foreign and domestic.