Since Obama didn’t take office until Jan 20, 2009, there wasn’t much he could do when the plant closed before then. One can blame Obama for a lot of things but he can’t be blamed for that closing. Have to be fair if you want credibility.Obama led people to believe that if he was elected, the plant would stay open. They voted for him. Plant closed. That’s the point.
thank you for your respectful response. as I said, I am not against fracking just not as the only solution. I don’t see why we shouldn’t utilize all our technological might to get off oil for real. Oil companies are fighting this.There are and have been cases of that. Some are potentially fracking related, while others are the result of natural methane seepage.
My opinion, and it is only that, is that if companies are required to line the wells to a level of several hundred feet, there should be few problems as that would place them well below ground water levels in this area.
A greater concern, IMHO is erosion and silting from the huge pad sites and the access roads.
John
Precisely. Romney (pro-choice, pro-life) and Ryan (Ayn Rand, anti-Ayn Rand, stimulus, no stimulus, not enough stimulus) talk from all sides of the mouth. Makes for an ugly election.Forgive me for the assumption. What I mean is some are going on Romney’s word that he is pro-life although his record refutes that.
He could of funneled stimulus money to it, no? I thought that was the point of the stimulus.Since Obama didn’t take office until Jan 20, 2009, there wasn’t much he could do when the plant closed before then. One can blame Obama for a lot of things but he can’t be blamed for that closing. Have to be fair if you want credibility.
Except you obfuscate. The point wasn’t whether Obama was to blame for the closing. Based on reading all these links and articles, there were no angels in this particular play.Since Obama didn’t take office until Jan 20, 2009, there wasn’t much he could do when the plant closed before then. One can blame Obama for a lot of things but he can’t be blamed for that closing. Have to be fair if you want credibility.
Thank you. Ryan makes Sarah Palin’s Bridge to Nowhere look brilliant.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/30/obama-could-not-have-saved-janesville-gm-plant-it-closed-before-he-took-office/
Last night Paul Ryan said that Obama failed to save a GM plant in Janesville, Wis. Many outlets — including Wonkblog — said that was a lie. But some conservatives have tried to salvage the claim. Jonathan Adler of the National Review asks, “What was ‘false’ in Ryan’s statement? Was Janesvile ‘about to lose’ the factory at the time of the election? Yes. Did Obama fail to prevent this as he had promised? Yes.”
Let’s break down, then, the exact chronology of the Janesville plant closing; Conn Carroll of the Washington Examiner has helpfully posted one here, which I add to below. The basic takeaway, however, is this: by December 2008, the plant had reached a point of no return where the plant would be shut down regardless of federal action. Ryan was faulting Obama for an that was event that was inevitable over a month before he took office.
February 2008: At a campaign stop in Janesville, Obama says, ”I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years.” As Politifact writes, “That’s a statement of belief that, with government help, the Janesville plant could remain open — but not a promise to keep it open.”
June 3, 2008 – GM decides to close the Janesville plant, announcing that production will end by 2010, after months of rumors it might close. The press release declares, “Janesville, Wisconsin, will cease production of medium-duty trucks by the end of 2009, and of the Tahoe, Suburban and Yukon in 2010, or sooner.” Senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, both Democrats, and Paul Ryan, whose House district includes Janesville, write the company urging it to reverse the decision.
September 2008 – Paul Ryan flies to Detroit to urge GM to reconsider its decision to close the plant. According to the Los Angeles Times, he pitched “a $224-million proposal that included roughly $50 million in state enterprise zone tax credits, local government grants worth $22 million and major contract concessions from the United Auto Workers union local.” Throughout, Ryan frequently speaks with GM chief Rick Wagoner.
Oct. 11, 2008 – Barack Obama comments on the Janesville closing. He does not promise to prevent the closing-in-progress, but instead declares he will “retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville” (emphasis mine) as president. Regardless of one’s views of the auto bailout, it has saved facilities like the Janesville one, if not the Janesville one in particular.
November/December 2008 – Congress weighs a bailout of GM and other automakers. One proposal, backed by Ryan and 31 other House Republicans, but not Mitt Romney, would have provided $15 billion in bridge loans. The bill passed the house but was not picked up by the Senate. The Bush administration declines to use TARP funds to rescue automakers, but approves a bridge loan on Dec.19, too late to save the Janesville plant.
Dec. 23, 2008 – Lacking a bailout, the plant closes. The plant holds a “final goodbye ceremony” as it builds its last SUV. In a statement to MSNBC, GM confirmed that the plant “was idled” in December. But — and this is where it gets confusing — winding down a plant takes time.
April 21, 2009 – The Janesville plant builds its last medium-duty truck and shuts down its last assembly line, completing the shutdown process started in June 2008.
In short, the Janesville shutdown commenced in June 2008. Once it was clear that aid wasn’t forthcoming in November, actual assembly lines were being shut down by December. It is true that Paul Ryan tried to get the Obama administration to save another plant, in Kenosha, which the Obama administration failed to do. Attacking Obama for that is fair. But hitting him for Janesville is dishonest. The first assembly line stopped rolling in December 2008. Workers unfurled banners declaring the “Last Vehicles Off the Janesville Line” at a “final goodbye ceremony,” The plant was closing regardless of what Obama did.
This is a very strange dispute, in a way. Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in the New York Times under the title “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” and now his campaign is trying hard to fault Obama for not bailing out automakers aggressively enough. Not only that, but after the campaign’s repeated denunciation of the Obama administration for “picking winners,” Ryan is faulting Obama for not “picking a winner” not just among companies, but among plants. He’s attacking Obama for not using the government to micromanage GM’s affairs.
boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/08/16/ryan/WEMawbCVyVTq2qi0pyBheK/story.html
WASHINGTON _ After seeking millions of dollars from a federal stimulus program he opposed, Republican vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan repeatedly denied lobbying the Obama administration for home state aid – first on a Boston radio station in 2010 and then again on Tuesday in an interview with a Ohio television station.
On October 28, 2010, after the Wisconsin Republican penned at least five letters to two federal departments seeking grants under the Obama administration’s economic recovery package, Ryan responded to a caller on WBZ’s Nightside with Dan Rea who asked if he sought any of the money.
Ryan said that he would not vote against something “then write to the government to ask them to send us money.”
“I did not request any stimulus money,” he continued.
Meanwhile, in an interview yesterday with an Ohio television station, Ryan repeated the denial, before quickly adding “I don’t recall.”
You were saying?
To be fair, we had two wars going on in the middle east and there is little that he President can do to stop speculators from gambling on the price of commodities. Regarding the wars, at the time, I thought they were justified. However, never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that we would get involved in decades long nation-building. THAT was, and still is, a patently stupid move.Under Bush, oil prices went from $20/barrel to $147/barrel and then crashed in 2008 as did the entire banking industry as well as AIG, housing, GE, everything. And it’s this administration’s energy policy which you’re blaming?
If there’s anything I’d like to blame, it’s this Japan-style low interest rate and liquity trap environment which stifles growth.
I agree completely with the caveat that we will still need energy as we gradually ramp up on newer technology. In this I prefer natural gas because it is cleaner and (selfish) my rural area could use some prosperity, however temporary.I don’t see why we shouldn’t utilize all our technological might to get off oil for real.
I don’t think the stimulus had such pork but if you check the records, the Obama stimulus went to states, most of whom accepted the money for teachers, tax credits and rebates. Much of that stimulus was not spent; the next Congress shut that off.He could of funneled stimulus money to it, no? I thought that was the point of the stimulus.
CNN Fact Check: Did Ryan get Obama’s GM speech right?washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/30/obama-could-not-have-saved-janesville-gm-plant-it-closed-before-he-took-office/
Last night Paul Ryan said that Obama failed to save a GM plant in Janesville, Wis. Many outlets — including Wonkblog — said that was a lie. But some conservatives have tried to salvage the claim. Jonathan Adler of the National Review asks, “What was ‘false’ in Ryan’s statement? Was Janesvile ‘about to lose’ the factory at the time of the election? Yes. Did Obama fail to prevent this as he had promised? Yes.”
Let’s break down, then, the exact chronology of the Janesville plant closing; Conn Carroll of the Washington Examiner has helpfully posted one here, which I add to below. The basic takeaway, however, is this: by December 2008, the plant had reached a point of no return where the plant would be shut down regardless of federal action. Ryan was faulting Obama for an that was event that was inevitable over a month before he took office.
February 2008: At a campaign stop in Janesville, Obama says, ”I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years.” As Politifact writes, “That’s a statement of belief that, with government help, the Janesville plant could remain open — but not a promise to keep it open.”
June 3, 2008 – GM decides to close the Janesville plant, announcing that production will end by 2010, after months of rumors it might close. The press release declares, “Janesville, Wisconsin, will cease production of medium-duty trucks by the end of 2009, and of the Tahoe, Suburban and Yukon in 2010, or sooner.” Senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, both Democrats, and Paul Ryan, whose House district includes Janesville, write the company urging it to reverse the decision.
September 2008 – Paul Ryan flies to Detroit to urge GM to reconsider its decision to close the plant. According to the Los Angeles Times, he pitched “a $224-million proposal that included roughly $50 million in state enterprise zone tax credits, local government grants worth $22 million and major contract concessions from the United Auto Workers union local.” Throughout, Ryan frequently speaks with GM chief Rick Wagoner.
Oct. 11, 2008 – Barack Obama comments on the Janesville closing. He does not promise to prevent the closing-in-progress, but instead declares he will “retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville” (emphasis mine) as president. Regardless of one’s views of the auto bailout, it has saved facilities like the Janesville one, if not the Janesville one in particular.
November/December 2008 – Congress weighs a bailout of GM and other automakers. One proposal, backed by Ryan and 31 other House Republicans, but not Mitt Romney, would have provided $15 billion in bridge loans. The bill passed the house but was not picked up by the Senate. The Bush administration declines to use TARP funds to rescue automakers, but approves a bridge loan on Dec.19, too late to save the Janesville plant.
Dec. 23, 2008 – Lacking a bailout, the plant closes. The plant holds a “final goodbye ceremony” as it builds its last SUV. In a statement to MSNBC, GM confirmed that the plant “was idled” in December. But — and this is where it gets confusing — winding down a plant takes time.
April 21, 2009 – The Janesville plant builds its last medium-duty truck and shuts down its last assembly line, completing the shutdown process started in June 2008.
In short, the Janesville shutdown commenced in June 2008. Once it was clear that aid wasn’t forthcoming in November, actual assembly lines were being shut down by December. It is true that Paul Ryan tried to get the Obama administration to save another plant, in Kenosha, which the Obama administration failed to do. Attacking Obama for that is fair. But hitting him for Janesville is dishonest. The first assembly line stopped rolling in December 2008. Workers unfurled banners declaring the “Last Vehicles Off the Janesville Line” at a “final goodbye ceremony,” The plant was closing regardless of what Obama did.
This is a very strange dispute, in a way. Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in the New York Times under the title “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” and now his campaign is trying hard to fault Obama for not bailing out automakers aggressively enough. Not only that, but after the campaign’s repeated denunciation of the Obama administration for “picking winners,” Ryan is faulting Obama for not “picking a winner” not just among companies, but among plants. He’s attacking Obama for not using the government to micromanage GM’s affairs.
boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/08/16/ryan/WEMawbCVyVTq2qi0pyBheK/story.html
WASHINGTON _ After seeking millions of dollars from a federal stimulus program he opposed, Republican vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan repeatedly denied lobbying the Obama administration for home state aid – first on a Boston radio station in 2010 and then again on Tuesday in an interview with a Ohio television station.
On October 28, 2010, after the Wisconsin Republican penned at least five letters to two federal departments seeking grants under the Obama administration’s economic recovery package, Ryan responded to a caller on WBZ’s Nightside with Dan Rea who asked if he sought any of the money.
Ryan said that he would not vote against something “then write to the government to ask them to send us money.”
“I did not request any stimulus money,” he continued.
Meanwhile, in an interview yesterday with an Ohio television station, Ryan repeated the denial, before quickly adding “I don’t recall.”
You were saying?
_The only thing Ryan appears to have gotten technically wrong in Wednesday’s version was saying that the plant didn’t last another year. It did last another year – more like 14 months – if the Isuzu line and its 57 workers count
You’re correct. But the speculators can’t drive up the price of any commodity unless someone (like one or more central banks) extend the credit for them to gamble it away. (Unless they sell off something else which isn’t too likely.) In this sense the President takes the blame for appointing those members of the Federal Reserve who do such things. The wars, or droughts or earthquakes for that matter, in a sense are just catalysts for commodity price increases, not the real cause.To be fair, we had two wars going on in the middle east and there is little that he President can do to stop speculators from gambling on the price of commodities. Regarding the wars, at the time, I thought they were justified.
just a little about what I was talking about.I agree completely with the caveat that we will still need energy as we gradually ramp up on newer technology. In this I prefer natural gas because it is cleaner and (selfish) my rural area could use some prosperity, however temporary.
John
First of all, it didn’t close before then. Secondly, I don’t think Ryan was blaming him for the plant closing but for making such promises beforehand, when he knew the plant was in trouble and slated for closing, and then the plant closed down anyway.Since Obama didn’t take office until Jan 20, 2009, there wasn’t much he could do when the plant closed before then. One can blame Obama for a lot of things but he can’t be blamed for that closing. Have to be fair if you want credibility.
You will note that this new Washington Post (opinion) column is a big re-write from what went before. It’s a bit better but still misses the point of Ryan’s comment. It’s not that Ryan wanted Obama to micromanage. He pointed out the empty promises and sad aspects of the Obama recovery.
Yes just saw him interviewed on the same subject ten minutes ago. He said the point wasn’t that Obama caused the plant to close but that he’d gone all over the country making these promises that he truly was not in the position to keep.Paul Ryan defends debt commission, Janesville plant comments with Wolf blitzer
therightscoop.com/paul-ryan-defends-debt-commission-janesville-plant-comments-with-wolf-blitzer
You believe this because?Yes, I understand that. But, everyone is so bent on blaming everything on Obama no matter what he inherited, so why not give him that? anyway, the point was that it’s not enough and we have to get off oil. Drill baby, drill is a fail!
What kind of problem does she have? There is a difference between an underdeveloped brain and no brain at all.I happen to know a very lovely young lady whose brain never developed. She is 35 years old.
It has nothing to do with labels, but with properties. What would happen, do you think, if a superintelligent chimp was born and could talk to us and socialize with us - would that chimp have the right to life? I think most people would think so. But why? The chimp would not be human, but he would be a person. That’s why.Why does human life have to be labeled “person” to have the right to life?
Right. So, if we have monozygotic twins, it doesn’t matter if one of them dies since the distinct DNA survives? DNA has been digitalized and brought to life. Granted, it’s only been done with bacteria, but we have a proof of principle. DNA is code. So, presumably, we could digitalize human DNA, change the code, and bring it to life. Would we be obligated to bring to term every possible variation of the code? No, it seems that the uniqueness of DNA isn’t the real issue. If we were to clone humans beings, it seems equally strange to say that those beings would not have a right to life simply because their DNA was not unique.Total strawman to equate a picked off scab with an embryo. A human embryo is a distinct human being with distinct DNA, different than the mother in whose body she is carried. The embryo will grow and develop into a baby with fingers and toes and yes a brain. Skin cells will not develop into a baby. So that knocks out the old “part of your body” argument that is often used.
No, it doesn’t measure humans by usefulness. What is the difference between a fly and a chimp? Are they of equal value? If not, why not? If a superintelligent chimp was born – a chimp who could talk with us, share with us, be a person with us – it would be a monstrous thing to kill him. Why? Because of his properties. What is the moral difference between a rock, a plant, a bacteria, a fly, a rat, a pig, a chimp, and a human? Moral value corresponds with mental properties. What properties? The ability to experience existence. To feel, to suffer, to enjoy, to think, to be. Something has to matter to them. For a rock, there is nothing. For a bacteria, close to nothing. For a fly, a little bit more. For a rat, a bit more still. And so on.As to brain function meaning human, “I think therefore I am” again you could use this argument to kill those wish significant mental impairment, dementia, head injuries or long term comas. I don’t think even the most militant abortion supporters would go that far thank heavens but there would be no justification for allowing such people to be given continued support and resources under that standard. It meansures humanity and human worth by usefullness–something we don’t even apply to our animals. I hope we have more concern for the helpless whether born, unborn, loved, unloved, conscious or unconscious.
This is kind of how abortion works in most countries. Abortion is restricted, and those restrictions are based on (sometimes outdated science) on fetal development.Tell me how you could kill an unborn baby by determining the precise point at which the brain was formed and functioning? Would you then only allow abortions at that time?
Really? What about the arguments then? Your standard is presumably established by proper arguments, and not merely «a matter of opinion». Why would you think it’s different for pro-choice? It’s not, of course. I have already given some arguments, and none of those arguments are simply «a matter of opinion». And what do you mean when you talk about subjective standards?All of the Pro Choice arguments are based on subjective standards…what is human life and in whose opinion? Our standard is clear and definitive. Yours is merely a matter of opinion.
You did notice that every country on that list reduced poverty substantially, including the US and other relatively populous and heterogenous nations?You make the mistake of equating small and relatively homogenous populations with the 300 million diverse pppulation in the United States.
This if funny. Did you know that welfare is distributed locally in those terrible nordic countries? In any case, I’m sure you are aware of the massive government transfers from rich, liberal states to poor, conservative states in the US. This has been debated a lot in Europe due to the apparent need for increased government transfers to poorer European nations. Government transfers and services are complicated animals, unfortunately.Our Catholic teaching of subsidiarity can inform this choice. We know that the most direct assistance by, from and to the local community has the greatest impact. THe idea that trillions of dollars go to Washington to be administered and then returned to programs favored by the administration in power, will work defies logic.
No, I don’t think so. What is waste, do you think? Waste is a byproduct of every human organization. There will always be waste. Three things to say: 1) do you think efficiency is a recent issue? Do you think this has never been adressed before, that easy improvements are just lying around ready to be made? If so, why doesn’t the current administration get rid of «all the waste»? Why didn’t the previous one? If it’s so obvious, significant and easy to do, why not? 2) how much money does it amount to? It’s peanuts, of course. This is probably the most important point. And if you look at realistic improvements, even less money can be saved. 3) when there is a change in leadership of an organization (like the government) with millions of employees, do everyone suddenly become better at their jobs and more efficient? No, they don’t.So it’s NOT a matter of sticking with this current system or letting millions starve to death. We need to go over the budget, line by line (sound familiar? Another broken Obama promise). We need to look at EVERY program and whether there are results. We need to quit spending tax dollars on expensive boondoggles, vacant buildings, and advertisments to get MORE people on food stamps and welfare. There would be a lot more money for the poor if we hadn’t wasted it on all this c**p don’t you think?
Oh Lisa, I don’t know why I bother with you. Your so closed minded and rude also. First…I did reference facts to back up my comments. I suggest you take the time to go back and review…you may learn something. If you don’t already know EVERYTHING!! As to your windmill comments…if all your worried about is noise and birds, your priorities may be slightly out of whack. The cost savings are obvious and if you deny it you are not being sincere. Solar…I believe we are much more advanced now than in the Carter years and could be much further along if not for big oil and energy money fighting to block any progression in that area. It seems your living in the past. Coal? I live in Kentucky, I know the importance of coal to the people of our state. I know it’s cheap. I also know the lives lost and ruined due to deregulation, the irreversible damage done our beautiful mountain tops for cheaper easier ways to access that all too important coal. The pollution caused from burning coal and the overall impact to our environment world wide to due those unwilling to move on from the past. We can create new jobs, we can stop destroying our environment. Oil wars, global warming, out-dated electric grid, crumbling infastructure, poisoned water supply…TALK ABOUT SCARY! Your windmill argument is for the birds!You believe this because?
Why do we have to ‘get off’ oil? We are not running out.
It is not expensive in comparison to other sources and could be less expensive if we would DRILL BABY DRILL
There are no short term alternatives. I’m not putting a windmill on top of my car.
Much of the green technology has been around for decades. They put solar panels on the White House during the Carter years. I suspect you weren’t even born then. We haven’t been able to make this a viable option in most cases. WIndmills have been around for a long time as well. THere are problems with storing the power they generate, the fact that they must be in areas where the noise does not disturb people. Have you seen one of them in operation? SCARY! Especially if you’re a birds. Oh btw…you show me some facts LISA…is oil going to last forever?
I just don’t think these knee jerk responses…remember Harry Reid’s comment “Coal is dirty and it makes us sick.”…make any sense at all. Get some facts and base these decisions on economics not emotions.
Lisa
You didn’t bother to answer the question. Why do you disparage oil for energy. We have a large supply under our control and by cooprating with Canada and Mexico could get a ready and safe supply without dealing with enemies.Oh Lisa, I don’t know why I bother with you. Your so closed minded and rude also. First…I did reference facts to back up my comments. I suggest you take the time to go back and review…you may learn something. If you don’t already know EVERYTHING!! As to your windmill comments…if all your worried about is noise and birds, your priorities may be slightly out of whack. The cost savings are obvious and if you deny it you are not being sincere. Solar…I believe we are much more advanced now than in the Carter years and could be much further along if not for big oil and energy money fighting to block any progression in that area. It seems your living in the past. Coal? I live in Kentucky, I know the importance of coal to the people of our state. I know it’s cheap. I also know the lives lost and ruined due to deregulation, the irreversible damage done our beautiful mountain tops for cheaper easier ways to access that all too important coal. The pollution caused from burning coal and the overall impact to our environment world wide to due those unwilling to move on from the past. We can create new jobs, we can stop destroying our environment. Oil wars, global warming, out-dated electric grid, crumbling infastructure, poisoned water supply…TALK ABOUT SCARY! Your windmill argument is for the birds!