Patterico's Pontifications

7/19/2010

Obama Scolds Republicans

Filed under: Obama,Politics — DRJ @ 10:51 am



[Guest post by DRJ]

President Obama scolded Republicans today for not extending jobless benefits:

“On Monday, [Obama] sought to cast his Republican opponents as hypocritical for having voted for extensions of unemployment benefits when his Republican predecessor, President George W. Bush, was in the White House, but not now. He accused Republican leaders of subscribing to what he called a misguided notion that providing unemployment aid to people lowers their incentive to look hard for a job.

“That attitude, I think, reflects a lack of faith in the American people,” Obama said.

The president said that the out-of-work people he hears from are “not looking for a handout. They desperately want to work. Just right now, they can’t find a job.”

I agree most Americans want to work … like those former car dealership employees the Obama Administration put out of work.

MORE: Commenter em has more Americans who want to work — Gulf Coast oil workers laid off because of Obama’s moratorium.

— DRJ

44 Responses to “Obama Scolds Republicans”

  1. “Obama doesn’t scold Republicans today”
    Now THAT would be news…

    Not My Problem (9e520d)

  2. And the oil industry. How about the Census workers? Have a heart Mr. Obama – couldn’t we count people every year?

    em (ae4747)

  3. Just wanted to note that the various ‘stimulus’ and bailouts were more expensive than simply shutting down all tax collection for a couple of years.

    Just imagine if our stimulus had been a tax holiday of two years. Unemployment? Not a problem.

    Sure, it would have been massively unsustainable, but so is the current stimulus that isn’t actually helping our country… just lining the pockets of the crooks.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  4. Good point, em. I added that to the post.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  5. is scolding like blaming?

    quasimodo (4af144)

  6. Thanks DRJ – being in Texas, it’s a near and dear concern.

    em (ae4747)

  7. like those former car dealership employees the Obama Administration put out of work.

    Again with this? While they may have lost their jobs while Obama is in office, they should have been put out of work years earlier.

    Commenter em has more Americans who want to work — Gulf Coast oil workers laid off because of Obama’s moratorium.

    a much better example.

    As for McConnell’s line that the GOP supports extending benefits but is arguing over the payment details? What a joke and what a losing argument! If extending benefits is the right thing to do, arguing over the funding makes the GOP look petty, like a bunch of accountants arguing over something ridiculous. I’d rather McConnell argue that we’ve extended benefits longer than at any time in history, that there comes a point where the federal government just isn’t responsible and that extending benefits will only prolong the economic trouble and increase the likelihood of a double dip recession. If the GOP is going to make a stand on this issue, they need the public behind them. And the only way to get that is to make it personal for the millions of people who aren’t in line for benefits… by making them fearful of what happens if benefits are extended. Absent a personal aspect, the public will invariably go with extending benefits, it is seen as the charitable thing to do.

    steve (369bc6)

  8. This is intended to deflect attention from the tarp audit report. Let’s see how many people see through that.

    Jim (844377)

  9. I thought that the Republicans had agreed to “extended unemployment benefits” if the money was taken from unused stimulus funds instead of creating more debt, which is what the Democrats are proposing. How is that blocking the extension of unemployment benefits?

    Couldn’t the Democrats be “scolded for not extending jobless benefits” because they won’t use stimulus funds?

    Tanny O'Haley (12193c)

  10. steve,

    The car dealers aren’t what put GM and Chrysler on life support. Forty years of management caving in to union demands did that. Why do you persist in blaming the dealers?

    However, I completely agree with you that “I’d rather McConnell argue that we’ve extended benefits longer than at any time in history, that there comes a point where the federal government just isn’t responsible and that extending benefits will only prolong the economic trouble and increase the likelihood of a double dip recession.”

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  11. Of all the many things to love about our current president it is his laser-like understanding that he represents and leads all of America and her varied interests that impresses most. Especially in situations where there are historic and deep seeded philosophical differences between how the the parties typically approach things, it would be so easy for him to politicize and demonize the other side. But he almost never does– always showing respect and open-mindedness for other ideas and for the people who boldly challenge him on an intellectual basis. He assiduously seeks common ground and areas for compromise which will ultimately strengthen America– all while making mid-course corrections as necessary based on evolving attitudes and events. I think it is almost unprecedented.

    (I keed. I keed!)

    elissa (e825eb)

  12. I agree GM and Chrysler and Ford did LOTS wrong, having too many dealers was a relatively small screw up. I’m not blaming the dealers, but I’m not willing to agree that cutting them was the wrong thing to do… nor that Obama’s task force pushing dealer cuts was motivated by a dislike or disregard for the little guy.

    steve (369bc6)

  13. Aren’t the democrats in charge? Why don’t they just go ahead and pass whatever they want, as they have been doing for some time now. Oh,right, then Obama wouldn’t be able to blame it on the Republicans.

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  14. 12, steve, you are badly misinformed, if not a Democrat hack. Ford didn’t accept TARP money, so Obama can’t order them around like he can Government Motors and UAW-Chrysler-shell.

    Obama is part of the Ruling class that hates the Country class. I know that story didn’t make it into your Liberal cuccoon.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  15. It would be fine to cut dealers if you were making corresponding cuts across-the-board but with GM and Chrysler the cuts were aimed at secured creditors, bondholders, and dealers … with minimal concessions by unions, arguably the main cause of GM’s and Chrysler’s crippling business debts. IMO it was a really, really bad message to punish the dealers without imposing equal hardship on the unions.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  16. PCD: you’re sadly mistaken thinking I’m liberal. And where did I say that Ford took TARP money? Idiot.

    DRJ: again, I’ll say it s l o w l y (sorry, couldn’t resist). No argument, the automakers did lots of things wrong. No argument, the restructuring was wrong on so many levels. But cutting dealers – and doing so quickly – wasn’t one of them.

    steve (369bc6)

  17. Being an insulting condescending pr!ck to the host is kind of douchey, steve.

    JD (d9926c)

  18. It’s a tough era, but Ford has been able to prosper without taking TARP money, they have a better understanding of who they need to replace than the apparatchik like Ratner and Deets

    ian cormac (d407d8)

  19. steve,

    Both GM and Chrysler wanted slower divestment of dealers, and the economy could ill afford to lose that many jobs at one time. It was just as ill-advised to dump the dealers at that point in time as it is now to declare a moratorium on offshore drilling.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  20. You have an economic crisis and fire tens of thousands of people in an incoherent way that appears to be politically motivated. And of course, it’s none of the government’s business anyway… they shouldn’t be bailing out bankrupt companies and bad investments.

    Imagine if GM and Chrysler had been sold off piecemeal to entrepreneurs. You would still have Corvettes and Suburbans, but with profitable business plans.

    And your grandkids wouldn’t be paying for another Union pension.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  21. JD: I know.

    DRJ: (1) You say that it was bad to lose that many jobs at one time…. but, if the unions hadn’t gotten a free pass, there would have been layoffs and salary cuts that exceeded the loss of jobs from cutting the number of dealers. And as you’ve implied that taking a hard line with the unions was what should have happened, are you being a tad inconsistent? (2) Holding off taking action that needs to be done only prolongs economic trouble, whether it be with foreclosures or job cuts, lots of economists agree that it is best to get the cuts and bad news out of the way. (3) you defer to GM and Chrysler management? Aren’t these the clowns that screwed things up in the first place? (4) and the drilling moratorium is way worse, unlike the dealers, where there were too many, there was nothing inherently wrong with the drilling, there was no rational business purpose in shutting down drilling as there was in cutting dealers. I repeat, you are taking a (rare) situation where Obama did the right thing and attempting to spin it as bad, isn’t it better and easier just to grab the low hanging fruit of steps that he has taken that have no justification whatsoever?

    steve (369bc6)

  22. We were sold the TARP bailout as having to avoid Chapter 11, turns out that still happened, cash for clunkers was another brilliant movement, one is tempted to say ‘even a caveman can do it’ but they would never be so irrational

    ian cormac (d407d8)

  23. When does unemployment become the dole?

    gahrie (ed7a50)

  24. DRJ – Am I correct that part of your point in that the similarities between the moratorium and closing of dealers is that they were very political decision, costing lots of jobs at bad times, and appeared to benefit political allies and ideologies as opposed to being based on good business decisions?

    JD (ffe6ea)

  25. What happened to the much heralded PayGo?

    JD (fc59fb)

  26. I think Steve should immediately contact Tupperwar and Amway and tell them their business plan is incorrect and they will need a government bailout soon. Maybe he should contact all the franchise businesses around the country and offer to fix their business plans, as well.

    And as you’ve implied that taking a hard line with the unions was what should have happened, are you being a tad inconsistent?

    I sure am glad we have these experts around here so all of us dummies who have run small businesses can learn from him.

    They have this thing called bankruptcy but, with The One in charge, the decisions can all be made in the White House by Harvard PhDs. They even have Nobel Prize winners there and once you have a Nobel Prize, there is no end of things you are expert about. Like California agriculture, for example.

    “Dry up and blow away .” Doesn’t that sound expert ?

    The one bad thing that bankruptcy does, though, is to allow the BK judge to void union contracts and we can’t have that, can we ?

    Steve, I have this problem, whether a guy gets a liver transplant or not. Maybe you could stop by and straighten me out, you being an expert and all.

    It’s a good thing us idiots have you around.

    Mike K (0ef8c3)

  27. It’s just ‘accepted wisdom’ that so many of these dealers needed to go.

    But if you’re buying a product from one of these companies with a reputation for poor quality, being near the warranty service is paramount.

    I have no doubt that GM and Chrysler would be losing less money today if they had more dealers. Sure, with Honda you can be 250 miles away from your dealer and never worry about it. Even if you pretend a Dodge is as high quality, you’ll still worry about this.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  28. Steve, I don’t know if they should have cut dealers or not, I think that the more people you have selling your product the better. The problem I have with the cuts was the political nature that seemed to be used to cut dealers. There were cases where in a town one dealer who was doing better than another dealer was cut and the under-performing dealer was allowed to stay in business. My problem is with what seems to be a political stain with everything the current administration gets their hands into. Dealer cuts should have been based on performance, not political influence.

    Tanny O'Haley (12193c)

  29. Tanny: no argument the way it was done reeked of politics, perhaps evidence of why a good many of them are winning reinstatement.

    Mike: are you really suggesting that the Amway and Tupperware model is applicable to everyone? If not, your comment is nonsensical. If you are, you are. As for other franchise businesses, name one that doesn’t restrict entry to a number that the franchiser believes both maximizes volume and ensures that franchisees don’t cannibalize one another?

    steve (369bc6)

  30. Obama is simply lying about what the dispute is about. He’s lying about what the Republicans want, and have demanded, as the price for supporting the extension – that this extension be paid for out of previously allocated Democratic pork.

    For Obama, Democratic pork is more important than jobless Americans.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  31. Obama’s policies are anti-business and anti-employment. He spent all that money (borrowed from China) and it didn’t facilitate job creation. The unemployed have suffered too long because of his policies and yet he arrogantly thinks he can fob blame off onto his opposition.

    New taxes, mandates, regulation, and anti-capitalist vitriol are in play and these tone-deaf, simple muthahfarkers are left scratching their heads.

    First, November 2, 2010 and then November 2012… we take America back from these statists.

    GeneralMalaise (26e9b5)

  32. Since Obama personally dictates to 75% of the economy, all of the House of Representatives (sic), the Senate, and most of te courts, how is the Republicans can do anything, should they want to?

    Larry Sheldon (7d77d0)

  33. Hey, Big Zero has an 85% approval rating in DC… what’s the problem?

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/141428/Obama-Highest-Half-Year-Approval-Ratings-Hawaii.aspx

    GeneralMalaise (26e9b5)

  34. The president said that the out-of-work people he hears from are “not looking for a handout. They desperately want to work. Just right now, they can’t find a job.”

    “These are honest, decent, hardworking folks who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own.”

    Then shut the hell up and stop poisoning the business climate with the threat of ever more taxes, regulation, and mandates.

    It’s really that simple.

    Blacque Jacques Shellacque (cf2f34)

  35. Unemployment is the new welfare. Get used to it. They have no intention of ending unemployment checks.

    Marie (02b253)

  36. steve,

    DRJ: (1) You say that it was bad to lose that many jobs at one time…. but, if the unions hadn’t gotten a free pass, there would have been layoffs and salary cuts that exceeded the loss of jobs from cutting the number of dealers. And as you’ve implied that taking a hard line with the unions was what should have happened, are you being a tad inconsistent?

    Maybe, but I thought my point was the inconsistent treatment of making secured creditors, bondholders, and dealers pay dearly while the other parties reaped the benefits. I don’t mind rules but I don’t like seeing rules twisted in ways that benefit some and penalize others.

    (2) Holding off taking action that needs to be done only prolongs economic trouble, whether it be with foreclosures or job cuts, lots of economists agree that it is best to get the cuts and bad news out of the way.

    True, but that’s exactly what happened here. The inflated union wages and bloated pensions are still burdening the automakers. The government didn’t solve any problems here. It just kicked the can down the road.

    (3) you defer to GM and Chrysler management? Aren’t these the clowns that screwed things up in the first place?

    They know more about their business than the Obama Administration, plus I would have had more confidence in the outcome if the government hadn’t put its heavy finger on the scales in the bankruptcy process.

    (4) and the drilling moratorium is way worse, unlike the dealers, where there were too many, there was nothing inherently wrong with the drilling, there was no rational business purpose in shutting down drilling as there was in cutting dealers. I repeat, you are taking a (rare) situation where Obama did the right thing and attempting to spin it as bad, isn’t it better and easier just to grab the low hanging fruit of steps that he has taken that have no justification whatsoever?

    I’m not blogging to criticize Obama. My goal is to cover the big daily news stories, because that’s what Patterico wants me to do. If it were just me, I’d probably only blog about unusual stories, legal issues, or Texas stuff.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  37. The very idea that steve would applaud Obama personally running a bankrupt automobile company – as steve’s comments above clearly do – ought to disturb all.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  38. If memory serves, small-s steve’s are way way way less intelligent than capital-S Steve.

    JD (b812d8)

  39. Paying people not to work helps them find work?

    Icy Texan (590c6e)

  40. #39 Icy Texan:

    Paying people not to work helps them find work?

    Well, it might.

    I will volunteer to find out if y’all will pay me enough not to work that I can live in the style to which I would like to become accustomed…

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  41. DRJ:

    (1) No argument that there was inconsistency and some parties were treated better. But my point is that I don’t give the dealers a pass because others are. What happened to the dealers as a group was fine, there were too many, they needed to be pruned and fast.

    (2) Same point, not dealing with the union workers only delays the problem (as well as makes any GM IPO problematic), but not dealing with the union shouldn’t justify not dealing with the dealers.

    (3) You’re being inconsistent, management was the ones who screwed things up for so many years… and you want to defer to them? Paraphrasing Buckley, I’d rather pick names out of the phone book to run GM than the guys who ran it into the ground. And Ratner, even though he worked for Obama, is a pretty shrewd businessman, as were the others on the auto task force (unlike Obama’s health care advisers who are all political hacks). I’d rather put my money with Ratner than with GM management.

    (4) fair enough, I saw what I thought I saw, I stand corrected.

    steve (369bc6)

  42. JD: I know.

    Yet you still said it anyway – your standard MO.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  43. Obama isn’t qualified to run an automobile company, bankrupt or otherwise. Small wonder that he’s making such a mess of the US economy.

    rochf (ae9c58)

  44. Why the hate, Obama? According to your stimulus plan unemployment should be down to 5% thereabouts. Keeping folks on unemployment is making you look bad.

    Jeff S. (b15751)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1022 secs.