Tag Archives: bailouts

Just How Unpopular Is President Obama?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/gallery/2010/12/approval-by-numbers-how-obama-c… http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/gallery-presapproval1.jpg Infographic of the Day: Just How Unpopular Is President Obama? The results might surprise you. If you listen to the pundits on cable news — and Fox News especially — then President Barack Obama is reaching theoretically impossible levels of unpopularity, due to his overhaul of health care, the sputtering economy and his bailouts of banks and auto makers. In point of fact, Americans actually like the health care bill, when told what it actually does. And the bailouts of Detroit and Wall Street have had remarkable results. So the issue isn't really about either one. It's the economy, stupid. For proof of that, you need only look at Obama's approval ratings in historical perspective, as Talking Points Memo did. Granted, the man isn't so popular right now — but his unpopularity has some remarkable parallels. In fact, the president whose approval ratings most resemble Obama's is Ronald Reagan. So what was the difference? Reagan, Carter, and Obama all entered office amidst a floundering economy and high unemployment. But with Carter, the economy continued to struggle as he came up for reelection. Not so with Reagan: He had the good fortune to experience a strong bounce-back in job figures right before he came up for reelection. (Whether that was due to Reagan's tax cuts is highly debatable.) It remains to be seen whether the economy will bounce back like that for Obama. Meanwhile, let's take a look at some presidents whose popularity far exceeded Obama's. Take Nixon. Things were great for him — until Watergate, and the great disillusionment with government that followed. But Obama's approval ratings really can't touch Kennedy's, the figure with whom he has often been compared. You could adduce all sorts of reasons why, but it's worth noting that Kennedy was the first true TV President. Never before had America had such a dynamic media figure at the helm, with small kids by his side and a first lady who famously went on national TV to show off her decorating choices. added by: UtopianSky

Psst! GM and Chrysler Are Peddling Eeeevil Light Trucks and SUVs to a Greater Extent Than Any Other Maker

Here's something about which the environmentalists and car czars planted inside the Obama administration can't be pleased: as a percentage of their U.S. sales, Multi-Government/General Motors and Chrysler are selling more “light trucks,” consisting of pickups, SUVS, and “crossover” vehicles than any other major manufacturer. Further, the companies are clearly emphasizing light trucks at the expense of their car models. I wonder how a government promise to accomplish this would have been received by the fossil-fuels-are-awful media at bankruptcy crunch time last year? You can pretty much count on this inconvenient product mix not getting a great deal of establishment press attention while it drools over the underpowered, heavily subsidized electric lemon known as the Chevy Volt and whatever toy disguised as a useful vehicle Chrysler/Fiat plans on foisting onto the market. The detail is at the Wall Street Journal's monthly report on vehicle sales (link will change in one month). Key items include these: read more

Go here to see the original:
Psst! GM and Chrysler Are Peddling Eeeevil Light Trucks and SUVs to a Greater Extent Than Any Other Maker

OMG, They’re Serious: ‘GM Says Thank You to American Public,’ Using Popeye, Animal House, Knievel References

When I first saw this video at a non-Government/General Motors site, I said, “Wow, that's quite a spoof. Who did that?” It's not a spoof. It's for real. It's posted in the media section at GM's web site. Even diehard defenders of the GM and Chrysler bailouts have to wonder what in the world the folks who put together the 60-second ad were thinking. Here's the hype for the ad found at GM's site

Robert Reich: Palin ‘Realistic Candidate’ for President, Not Clear GM Bailout Was Necessary

Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich made a couple of rather startling comments on ABC's “This Week” Sunday. During the Roundtable segment, the devout liberal not only defended former governor Sarah Palin as a “realistic candidate” for president, but also questioned whether or not the government bailout of GM was necessary (video follows with transcript and commentary): read more

Read the original:
Robert Reich: Palin ‘Realistic Candidate’ for President, Not Clear GM Bailout Was Necessary

AP Dresses Up a Housing Confidence Index’s Tiny Rise From Near Rock-Bottom

On Thursday, I noted (at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ) that the Associated Press's Marty Crutsinger and Chris Rugaber worked very hard to

Scooped: British Publication Tells Us Uncle Sam Having Problems Unload Citi Shares

You would think someone in the U.S. establishment press would be following Uncle Sam’s progress or lack thereof in getting out from under its investment in Citigroup, especially since the government promised that it would be fully divested from the bank holding company by the end of this year. From all appearances, you would be wrong. It looks like the government may not be able to keep that year-end divestiture promise. For a fair number of news followers to learn that, the UK’s Financial Times had to take an interest (link may require registration), and Drudge had to link to it: US Treasury stumbles selling Citi shares The US government is in danger of missing its deadline of divesting all of its Citigroup shares by the year-end after a fall in stock market trading volumes prompted authorities to slow down sales in July and August. The lull could prompt the US Treasury, which has a stake of about 17 per cent in Citi, to consider a share offering instead of selling the stock in small quantities in the market, according to bankers and analysts. “The sales of Citigroup stock have slowed way down in July and August … The US Treasury will not finish its share sale by … the end of the year,” said Linus Wilson, a professor of finance at the University of Louisiana. “The only option for the Treasury if it wants to exit Citigroup before the year-end seems to be to conduct a large secondary offering of the stake.” The government only seeks to sell shares equivalent to a small percentage of the overall trading volume in Citi to avoid depressing the price. By the end of August, less than half of the government’s 7.7bn shares in Citi had been sold, with the average number of shares sold per day falling sharply, the latest official data show. The Treasury has until Thursday to complete the sale of 1.5bn shares before entering a “blackout period” ahead of Citi’s third-quarter results. … The government’s continued involvement complicates Citi’s efforts to convince investors its troubled past is behind it. The lack of stateside establishment media interest is, as far as I can tell, complete. None of the stories returned in a search on the company’s name at the Associated Press’s main site contained any information citing the government’s stock-selling difficulty. One item in a group of “Business Highlights” at least acknowledges that Citigroup “is still partly owned by taxpayers.” A search on the company’s name at the New York Times also returned nothing relevant. The Washington Post also has nothing relevant , though it does have an item also carried at the AP’s main site on bonuses that are being paid to Citi execs in (of all things) company stock. But there’s no mention of the problems the government is having in unloading its stake. If Uncle Sam is having trouble unloading Citi, imagine the difficulties it might encounter pulling off its planned initial public offering of stock in Government/General Motors, an attempt which has conveniently been put off until after Election Day. It would appear that the establishment press might be interested in keeping a lid on stories indicating that once the state gets in the business ownership door, it’s very hard for it to get out — assuming it even really wants to. Ultimately, that explains why one has to hope that the British and foreign press stay on top of developments such as these — and that Drudge keeps on reviewing their work. Meanwhile, Tim Geithner says that TARP has worked out just fine , almost as if we’re in past-tense mode. Uh-huh. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

View original post here:
Scooped: British Publication Tells Us Uncle Sam Having Problems Unload Citi Shares

Krauthammer Smacks Down WaPo’s King Over Stimulus Jobs Created or Saved

For the second week in a row Charles Krauthammer has gotten into a heated debate with the Washington Post’s Colby King on the PBS program “Inside Washington.” This time it was about the effectiveness of President Obama’s stimulus plan.  “These guys have had a year and a half and people are not happy with the results,” said Krauthammer. “$1 trillion of stimulus it disappeared and there is nothing to show.” King responded, “They had 3 million jobs to show for it.” The fun really started after Krauthammer marvelously replied, “Yeah, saved, saved, how do you measure a saved job?” (video follows with transcript and commentary):  GORDON PETERSON, HOST: Is Axelrod right, or is he just looking for an excuse to talk about the President’s bad numbers? EVAN THOMAS, NEWSWEEK: Is that a binary question? CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Yeah, the correct answer is “b.” (LAUGHTER) KRAUTHAMMER: Let’s go on to something else. I mean, it’s so damned obvious, come on. I mean, he’s whining in advance, he’s looking for an excuse. He ran, look, these guys have had a year and a half and people are not happy with the results. $1 trillion of stimulus it disappeared and there is nothing to show. With the healthcare reform people don’t want… COLBY KING, WASHINGTON POST: They had 3 million jobs to show for it. KRAUTHAMMER: Yeah, saved, saved, how do you measure a saved job? KING: Go out and ask the teachers. Go out and ask the teachers. Go out and ask the cops whose jobs were saved. Ask them about it. They’ll tell you. KRAUTHAMMER: The net loss of jobs is staggering under this administration. KING: Well… KRAUTHAMMER: Yes… KING: Given the eight years of mismanagement it was bound to happen. KRAUTHAMMER: There has been a half a million increase… KING: The eight years of mismanagement it was bound to happen. KRAUTHAMMER: …government jobs have gone up and the private sector has cratered. KING: Charles, that’s speaking a lie, you know exactly what I am talking about because you are a straight shooter. PETERSON: If you’re Axelrod, Evan, what do you say to the President at this point? KRAUTHAMMER: I’m leaving. [Laughter] KRAUTHAMMER: Which he is. I’m leaving in spring. That’s what you say. THOMAS: Yeah, I think that they are really exhausted and, and a little bit down and they’re just kind of, I think they’re, they don’t know what to do. I don’t, I don’t think they are having happy, optimistic, this is all going to work out conversations in the Oval Office. I think they’re just trying to get… NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: Do you have any good ideas? KRAUTHAMMER: They made a choice early on that they were going to push an ideological agenda on healthcare instead of addressing the American economy and that is the major complaint against them. And that’s why they’re going to get swept in November. Indeed. Nicely done, Charles. These weekly smackdowns are becoming something to look forward to on Friday nights. Almost better than high school football.  Readers are encouraged to review last week’s fight .  

Excerpt from:
Krauthammer Smacks Down WaPo’s King Over Stimulus Jobs Created or Saved

CNN/US President Jon Klein Fired

Jonathan Klein is out as the president of CNN/US. According to TVNewser, Klein is being replaced by HLN chief Ken Jautz. Although it hasn’t been confirmed, the website FTVLive is reporting Klein was fired. Klein, who got the position in 2004, was given a four-year extension in 2007. With CNN’s ratings in the dumps, and decisions like giving disgraced former New York governor Eliot Spitzer a show with Kathleen Parker, one has to wonder why it took so long. Of course, if this news is true, it will be interesting to see whether any of Klein’s recent moves will be reversed. Stay tuned. *****Update: CNN has now confirmed . The Associated Press is reporting he was fired and didn’t come to work today: The timing, however, is odd. Klein just remade CNN’s prime-time lineup with an 8 p.m. show starring former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, which debuts next week, and announced Piers Morgan as the replacement to Larry King.  Maybe it’s not odd at all. Maybe those pathetic decisions are the reason.

Read the rest here:
CNN/US President Jon Klein Fired

Movie Review: ‘Wall Street’ Sequel Attacks Debt, ‘Cancer’ of the Financial System

“Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” That was the defining line of Oliver Stone’s 1987 film “Wall Street,” and his attack on the financial system that the news media would use for decades to portray businessmen as villains. The theme Stone wants viewers to take away from his sequel, “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps,” was tucked away in the credits of his film on a greenback. “In Greed We Trust,” the bill proclaimed where the words “In God We Trust” should have been. “Money Never Sleeps,” which opens in theaters Sept. 24, uses the financial crisis of 2008 as a backdrop for the comeback of Gordon Gekko, the iconic villain of the original. This time Gekko reinvents himself as a changed man, coming back bearish on housing and speculation. In a business school lecture Gekko warns, “The mother of all evils is speculation — leveraged debt.” He claims the economy is merely moving money around in circles and the business model itself is like a “cancer.” The 1987 Gekko is a shark, a killer, the viewer senses it from the outset and can anticipate the time when Gekko’s blade will rip into protégée Bud Fox’s back. This Gekko comes across as a different animal entirely, a snake that can charm you into believing he won’t sell you out to make a buck. But in the end Gekko’s still the shark, he’s just gotten better at hiding his sharp teeth. Stone’s movie weakly attempts to convince the audience that everyone is in the “game” now, and that the corruption (caused by greed and envy) has become “systemic.” From people taking out second mortgages to go shopping, to greedy real estate investors; the new evil is leverage itself. As proof it offers many characters including Josh Brolin’s Bretton James. In the film, James secretly creates a panic by spreading rumors about a competitor in order to tank its stock and acquire it. The fictional investment bank that collapses and is acquired is meant to resemble Bear Stearns that had two of its hedge funds collapse in July 2007. Liberal themes such as green energy is good and materialism is bad abound, but the story is less political than one might expect. There were no mentions of political parties or specific administrations (Bush or Obama). Stone’s movie criticizes the types of financial products that were in use and slams toxic subprime debt, but without delving into the government policies that helped create the devastating housing bubble and the financial crisis. It says nothing about the accounting rules that many economists and financial experts say helped cause the liquidity crisis. Economist and Business & Media Institute advisor Dr. Walter E. Williams explained in a Sept. 17, 2008, column that the “credit crunch and foreclosure problems are failures of government policy.” What “foolhardy government policy” was Williams referring to? The Community Reinvestment Act, which “intimidated lenders” into offering credit to more people and specifically “discourages them from restricting their credit services to low-risk markets, a practice sometimes called redlining.” A couple of scenes show closed door meetings with bankers, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, where bankers were asking for a bailout because they were “too big to fail.” But according to BB&T’s former CEO John Allison, that’s not the whole story. Allison and others have said “most of the banks didn’t need to be saved,” and that his bank (BB&T) and others were strong-armed by the Treasury into taking bailout (TARP) funds. Allison said in a 2009 speech, “I think the news media unfortunately has been quite willing to jump on the criticism of capitalism and not the [government].” Overall, Stone’s latest film does the same thing: attacking the capitalist system and its players, rather than examining the government’s culpability. But at least viewers know his movie is fiction. Like this article? Then sign up for our newsletter, The Balance Sheet .

Go here to read the rest:
Movie Review: ‘Wall Street’ Sequel Attacks Debt, ‘Cancer’ of the Financial System

Question for Paul Krugman: Are Things Better Today Than In January 2007?

A recurring theme from liberal media members as we approach the midterm elections is that Americans have to vote for Democrats in November so the nation doesn’t go back to the way things were when Republicans ran everything. A perfect example is New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who on Friday penned a piece called “Downhill With the G.O.P.”: Never mind the war on terror, the party’s main concern seems to be the war on arithmetic. And this party has a better than even chance of retaking at least one house of Congress this November. Banana republic, here we come. In the midst of all this ” Do you really want to go back to those days ” talk is a staggering ignorance concerning how ” those days ” compare to now: In January 2007 before the Democrats took over Congress, unemployment was 4.6 percent; now it’s 9.6 percent. In January 2007 there were 7.1 million unemployed people in America; now there are 14.9 million. In January 2007 the median home price was $210,600; today it’s $179,300. In January 2007 the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 12,500; today it’s at 10,840. In January 2007 the gross federal debt was $9 trillion; today it’s $13.5 trillion. The poverty rate in 2006 was 12.3 percent; now it’s 14.3 percent In the final budget created by a GOP-controlled Congress, the deficit was $160 billion; now it’s $1.6 trillion. Add it all up and: there were half as many people out of work then; houses were worth 17 percent more; stocks were 16 percent higher; the federal debt was 33 percent lower; poverty was 14 percent lower, and; the deficit was 90 percent lower!  As such, I ask Mr. Krugman and all liberal media members stumping for Democrats: is America really better off today than it was in January 2007? If so, how ?

Excerpt from:
Question for Paul Krugman: Are Things Better Today Than In January 2007?