I still fail to understand why the republicans are so mortally terrified of Obama.
I was sent a video clip by a colleague today which continues the fearmongering from the republican camp. (http://tinyurl.com/yc7dns6)
The state of Detroit is nothing to do with state dependence, conservatism, liberalism or any of the other topics or "entitlement" programs that this 'reporter' blames it on. It's to do with a city that placed all its eggs in one basket in the motor industry, then stood by and watched as the big three motor companies were overtaken by poor management, terrible cars, and the inability to adapt to changing times and conditions.
If it was to do with a particular government, or program, then by that reporters way of thinking, probably 40% of countries in the world would look like Detroit simply because they have democratic / liberal governments.
True GM did offer more 'green' vehicles than the Japanese importers, but the difference is reliability, image and customer service. Any independent review will show you reliability ratings for US cars, coupled with how badly US car manufacturers treat their customers and their products in follow-up service and support. (compared to Japanese manufacturers)
Top 10 cars in the US? Sure the top selling vehicle (not car) was the Ford F-series but the whole list shows the whole story. The top selling CAR was Japanese (but made in America). The only American CAR to make it into the top 10 was the Ford Fusion - built in Canada I believe.
1.Ford F-Series: 179,632
2.Toyota Camry: 150,242
3.Chevrolet Silverado: 149,949
4.Honda Accord: 131,043
5.Toyota Corolla: 121,643
6.Honda Civic: 118,459
7.Nissan Altima: 96,428
8.Dodge Ram: 94,516
9.Ford Fusion: 85,146
10.Honda CR-V: 78,917
The only part of that report that in any way makes sense is the union involvement and their wholesale destruction of the motor industry, and by association, Detroit.
The same thing happened in England in the north with the shipbuilding industry. Two of the biggest cities in the north penned all their hopes on shipbuilding, and have since become Detroit-like. Why? The South Koreans started to build ships cheaper and faster and the UK shipbuilders refused to try to compete. Restrictive and expensive trade union practices (from the TGWU - transport and general workers union), especially pay differentials between workers doing different jobs, combined with frequent strikes, made British shipbuilding firms prohibitively uncompetitive and unreliable. To finish it off, the government (in this case Republican / Labor) sold off two of the companies to Germany and Sweden (Harland/Wolf, and Voss). Not only that, but they sold off the operators too - Cunard and White Star, for example are now owned by the Germans.
As an example of how it should be done, look at the UAE. They realise very clearly that the money from oil is going to run out. That's why Dubai has so many business centres there now, and tourist attractions, and world-class colleges and schools. They're planning for the future, even if they are bankrupting themselves doing it. Which is unfortunate because it does rather undermine my point, but pressing on regardless.....
I still fail to understand why the republicans are so mortally terrified of Obama.
History speaks volumes but nobody seems to want to listen. The unemployment rate for example. Look at the monthly rate here: http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
See a pattern? It goes up every time republicans get in, followed by a leveling out about 2 years after they leave, then it begins to decline under democratic leadership. When republicans get in again, the decline levels off after about 2 years and the rate begins to rise again.
3.9% when Bush Jnr took office. 7.2% when he left.
5.3% when Bush Snr took office. 7.4% when he left.
Go back further. 3.4% when Nixon took office, 7.8% when Ford left - two consecutive Republican presidents.
2.7% when Eisenhower took office, 6.6% when he left.
America's overall prosperity very closely follows the unemployment rate, and only once in the past 100 years has the unemployment rate dropped under republican leadership - Reagan through Bush Snr. Every other time, it's gone up with Republicans, and come down with Democrats. Similarly the country has declined and prospered at roughly the same rate.
Look at the inflation rate (http://www.miseryindex.us/irbymonth.asp) - same thing is true - almost every hike/bump in inflation corresponds with Republican presidents.
At the extreme end of the scale, look at wars or invasions instigated at the hands of Republican presidents in the last few decades:
Afghanistan and Iraq - GW Bush.
Persian Gulf War - Bush Snr.
Panama - Bush Snr.
Grenada - Reagan.
Korea and Vietnam - Eisenhower.
We can't consider Bosnia because it was NATO-led with US involvement as oppose to US-instigated. The last Democrat-instigated invasion or war was the Bay Of Pigs in Cuba in 1961 under JFK and I could probably argue that that was the only one that was a clear and present danger to the US because of the actual proximity to our shores.
Given those basic history lessons, if we're tarring political leaders with the same brush as the entire party, then the American public should be justly terrified of the Republicans, not the Democrats. If for no other reason than they don't seem able to tell the difference between democratic liberalism and communism.
Look - Obama has inherited a scorched-earth policy left to him by 8 years of GW Bush. Nobody can deny that. There's sure not going to be any reasonable sign of improvement in the first year and frankly I would doubt we'll see anything in the second year. If we're still in the crapper in 4 or 8 years time, I'll reconsider, but history is on his side. Give the guy another 3 years and see what happens.
The state of Detroit is nothing to do with state dependence, conservatism, liberalism or any of the other topics or "entitlement" programs that this 'reporter' blames it on. It's to do with a city that placed all its eggs in one basket in the motor industry, then stood by and watched as the big three motor companies were overtaken by poor management, terrible cars, and the inability to adapt to changing times and conditions.
If it was to do with a particular government, or program, then by that reporters way of thinking, probably 40% of countries in the world would look like Detroit simply because they have democratic / liberal governments.
True GM did offer more 'green' vehicles than the Japanese importers, but the difference is reliability, image and customer service. Any independent review will show you reliability ratings for US cars, coupled with how badly US car manufacturers treat their customers and their products in follow-up service and support. (compared to Japanese manufacturers)
Top 10 cars in the US? Sure the top selling vehicle (not car) was the Ford F-series but the whole list shows the whole story. The top selling CAR was Japanese (but made in America). The only American CAR to make it into the top 10 was the Ford Fusion - built in Canada I believe.
1.Ford F-Series: 179,632
2.Toyota Camry: 150,242
3.Chevrolet Silverado: 149,949
4.Honda Accord: 131,043
5.Toyota Corolla: 121,643
6.Honda Civic: 118,459
7.Nissan Altima: 96,428
8.Dodge Ram: 94,516
9.Ford Fusion: 85,146
10.Honda CR-V: 78,917
The only part of that report that in any way makes sense is the union involvement and their wholesale destruction of the motor industry, and by association, Detroit.
The same thing happened in England in the north with the shipbuilding industry. Two of the biggest cities in the north penned all their hopes on shipbuilding, and have since become Detroit-like. Why? The South Koreans started to build ships cheaper and faster and the UK shipbuilders refused to try to compete. Restrictive and expensive trade union practices (from the TGWU - transport and general workers union), especially pay differentials between workers doing different jobs, combined with frequent strikes, made British shipbuilding firms prohibitively uncompetitive and unreliable. To finish it off, the government (in this case Republican / Labor) sold off two of the companies to Germany and Sweden (Harland/Wolf, and Voss). Not only that, but they sold off the operators too - Cunard and White Star, for example are now owned by the Germans.
As an example of how it should be done, look at the UAE. They realise very clearly that the money from oil is going to run out. That's why Dubai has so many business centres there now, and tourist attractions, and world-class colleges and schools. They're planning for the future, even if they are bankrupting themselves doing it. Which is unfortunate because it does rather undermine my point, but pressing on regardless.....
I still fail to understand why the republicans are so mortally terrified of Obama.
History speaks volumes but nobody seems to want to listen. The unemployment rate for example. Look at the monthly rate here: http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
See a pattern? It goes up every time republicans get in, followed by a leveling out about 2 years after they leave, then it begins to decline under democratic leadership. When republicans get in again, the decline levels off after about 2 years and the rate begins to rise again.
3.9% when Bush Jnr took office. 7.2% when he left.
5.3% when Bush Snr took office. 7.4% when he left.
Go back further. 3.4% when Nixon took office, 7.8% when Ford left - two consecutive Republican presidents.
2.7% when Eisenhower took office, 6.6% when he left.
America's overall prosperity very closely follows the unemployment rate, and only once in the past 100 years has the unemployment rate dropped under republican leadership - Reagan through Bush Snr. Every other time, it's gone up with Republicans, and come down with Democrats. Similarly the country has declined and prospered at roughly the same rate.
Look at the inflation rate (http://www.miseryindex.us/irbymonth.asp) - same thing is true - almost every hike/bump in inflation corresponds with Republican presidents.
At the extreme end of the scale, look at wars or invasions instigated at the hands of Republican presidents in the last few decades:
Afghanistan and Iraq - GW Bush.
Persian Gulf War - Bush Snr.
Panama - Bush Snr.
Grenada - Reagan.
Korea and Vietnam - Eisenhower.
We can't consider Bosnia because it was NATO-led with US involvement as oppose to US-instigated. The last Democrat-instigated invasion or war was the Bay Of Pigs in Cuba in 1961 under JFK and I could probably argue that that was the only one that was a clear and present danger to the US because of the actual proximity to our shores.
Given those basic history lessons, if we're tarring political leaders with the same brush as the entire party, then the American public should be justly terrified of the Republicans, not the Democrats. If for no other reason than they don't seem able to tell the difference between democratic liberalism and communism.
Look - Obama has inherited a scorched-earth policy left to him by 8 years of GW Bush. Nobody can deny that. There's sure not going to be any reasonable sign of improvement in the first year and frankly I would doubt we'll see anything in the second year. If we're still in the crapper in 4 or 8 years time, I'll reconsider, but history is on his side. Give the guy another 3 years and see what happens.
Comments