The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[Jeepster80125 0]

The Obama Administration and The Government In George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)George Orwell's classic, Nineteen Eighty-Four (or 1984), is a novel that needs no introduction. Its lucid vision of a dystopian future has ignited controversy, stirred the cultural landscape, and terrified Orwell's admirers as well as generations of freshman English classes since its first publication in 1949.The following is a list of three of the most startling aspects of Nineteen Eighty-Four, along with their real-world parallels in the Obama Administration:1. DoublethinkOne of the most penetrating and astute criticisms of totalitarian government in 1984, is its use of "Doublethink" (sometimes referred to as "Doublespeak"), which is an active process of deliberate self-deception accomplished by ignoring the truth, believing lies, and entertaining contradictions in ones mind, or as Orwell described it in 1984: "to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself."1984 and The Obama Administration:Obama's administration, supporters, and rhetoric are rife with doublethink. It is amazing to consider just how many things the Obama camp says, meaning the exact opposite. They employ the word "Hope" ad nauseam while waging a campaign of shameless fear-mongering to pass bills like the Stimulus Package, Cap and Trade, and the Public Option.Obama's campaign repeated the slogan "Yes We Can" when it really meant "No You Can't: No you can't keep your own hard-earned money. No you can't make your own decisions about health care. No you can't choose where to invest for your retirement. No you can't take care of yourself without the government's help. No you can't use those light bulbs. No you can't own that gun." Obama has made a political career out of saying the exact opposite of what he means.2. NewspeakFrom the novel: "You don't grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year? Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten."1984 and The Obama Administration:Rigid control of the language is always on the agenda of totalitarians. Selecting and defining the very words of our lexicon gives a tyrant an immeasurable upper hand in setting the terms of debate, staking the deck in his own favor. This is why Barack Obama, with the help of a complicit media, made the word "empathy" front and center in the debate on Justice Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supreme Court. The words you did not hear were: justice, impartiality, and rule-of-law.This is why "global warming" has all but disappeared from the environmentalists' vocabulary after a decade of modest decreases in global temperatures. Instead of assenting to reality, conceding defeat, and admitting their mistake, the "environmentalists" simply changed the word to "climate change" and kept arguing as if nothing had changed. Words are powerful. That's why as a Senator during the 2008 Presidential Election, Obama carefully referred to the bailout package he voted for as "economic stabilization" and why he calls Henry Waxman's carbon tax bill "Cap and Trade." Make no mistake, the Obama Administration and its lackeys in the media are aggressively setting the terms of the debate by controlling the words we use.3. The Four Ministries in 1984In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the government is divided into four ministries:The Ministry of Peace carries out the nation's wars, which it doesn't want or try to win. It prefers to stay at war to endear its people to their leaders and focus their attention on an external enemy to distract them from their oppression and poverty. The Ministry of Plenty purports to provide for people's physical needs, but most of them live in squalor because of its activities.The Ministry of Truth keeps a stranglehold on information, "correcting" anything that it considers false by erasing it from public awareness, while disseminating "the truth" as the ruling party sees it. The Ministry of Love is the scariest of the four- it is the police force of the government, monitoring people's thoughts and ensuring that they don't commit "thoughtcrime." If they do, it takes "corrective measures."1984 and The Obama Administration:Like Bush, Obama has continued a foreign policy of aggressive military expansion without a clear plan for decisive and immediate victory. Instead our troops remained garrisoned overseas for years in harms way and with restrictive rules of engagement making it impossible for them to do their job. Meanwhile, Obama's "Ministry of Plenty" is on the move here at home, grabbing at the reigns of economic power in the banking, housing, farming, automotive, and health industries, promising "plenty" while ignoring the basic and uncontroversial economic principles which clearly demonstrate that Obama's policies will create scarcity and rationing.Like Orwell's Ministry of Truth, the Obama Administration and its lackeys in the media spread the party propaganda and seek to hush dissent. Take for instance, the recent White House request that citizens report anything that sounds "fishy" about the health care debate to flag@whitehouse.com. Or the media's unambiguous leap from the realm of bias to the realm of overt activism for Obama and the Democrats. Our own real life "Ministry of Love" doesn't seem too far off either when Obama claims the right to indefinitely detain terrorists not long after the Department of Homeland Security releases a report tagging Pro-Life activists, Ron Paul supporters, Army vets, and anyone that is too vocal about the Constitution as potential terror threats.

[CaneBrain 95]

The Obama Administration and The Government In George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)George Orwell's classic, Nineteen Eighty-Four (or 1984), is a novel that needs no introduction. Its lucid vision of a dystopian future has ignited controversy, stirred the cultural landscape, and terrified Orwell's admirers as well as generations of freshman English classes since its first publication in 1949.The following is a list of three of the most startling aspects of Nineteen Eighty-Four, along with their real-world parallels in the Obama Administration:1. DoublethinkOne of the most penetrating and astute criticisms of totalitarian government in 1984, is its use of "Doublethink" (sometimes referred to as "Doublespeak"), which is an active process of deliberate self-deception accomplished by ignoring the truth, believing lies, and entertaining contradictions in ones mind, or as Orwell described it in 1984: "to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself."1984 and The Obama Administration:Obama's administration, supporters, and rhetoric are rife with doublethink. It is amazing to consider just how many things the Obama camp says, meaning the exact opposite. They employ the word "Hope" ad nauseam while waging a campaign of shameless fear-mongering to pass bills like the Stimulus Package, Cap and Trade, and the Public Option.Obama's campaign repeated the slogan "Yes We Can" when it really meant "No You Can't: No you can't keep your own hard-earned money. No you can't make your own decisions about health care. No you can't choose where to invest for your retirement. No you can't take care of yourself without the government's help. No you can't use those light bulbs. No you can't own that gun." Obama has made a political career out of saying the exact opposite of what he means.2. NewspeakFrom the novel: "You don't grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year? Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten."1984 and The Obama Administration:Rigid control of the language is always on the agenda of totalitarians. Selecting and defining the very words of our lexicon gives a tyrant an immeasurable upper hand in setting the terms of debate, staking the deck in his own favor. This is why Barack Obama, with the help of a complicit media, made the word "empathy" front and center in the debate on Justice Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supreme Court. The words you did not hear were: justice, impartiality, and rule-of-law.This is why "global warming" has all but disappeared from the environmentalists' vocabulary after a decade of modest decreases in global temperatures. Instead of assenting to reality, conceding defeat, and admitting their mistake, the "environmentalists" simply changed the word to "climate change" and kept arguing as if nothing had changed. Words are powerful. That's why as a Senator during the 2008 Presidential Election, Obama carefully referred to the bailout package he voted for as "economic stabilization" and why he calls Henry Waxman's carbon tax bill "Cap and Trade." Make no mistake, the Obama Administration and its lackeys in the media are aggressively setting the terms of the debate by controlling the words we use.3. The Four Ministries in 1984In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the government is divided into four ministries:The Ministry of Peace carries out the nation's wars, which it doesn't want or try to win. It prefers to stay at war to endear its people to their leaders and focus their attention on an external enemy to distract them from their oppression and poverty. The Ministry of Plenty purports to provide for people's physical needs, but most of them live in squalor because of its activities.The Ministry of Truth keeps a stranglehold on information, "correcting" anything that it considers false by erasing it from public awareness, while disseminating "the truth" as the ruling party sees it. The Ministry of Love is the scariest of the four- it is the police force of the government, monitoring people's thoughts and ensuring that they don't commit "thoughtcrime." If they do, it takes "corrective measures."1984 and The Obama Administration:Like Bush, Obama has continued a foreign policy of aggressive military expansion without a clear plan for decisive and immediate victory. Instead our troops remained garrisoned overseas for years in harms way and with restrictive rules of engagement making it impossible for them to do their job. Meanwhile, Obama's "Ministry of Plenty" is on the move here at home, grabbing at the reigns of economic power in the banking, housing, farming, automotive, and health industries, promising "plenty" while ignoring the basic and uncontroversial economic principles which clearly demonstrate that Obama's policies will create scarcity and rationing.Like Orwell's Ministry of Truth, the Obama Administration and its lackeys in the media spread the party propaganda and seek to hush dissent. Take for instance, the recent White House request that citizens report anything that sounds "fishy" about the health care debate to flag@whitehouse.com. Or the media's unambiguous leap from the realm of bias to the realm of overt activism for Obama and the Democrats. Our own real life "Ministry of Love" doesn't seem too far off either when Obama claims the right to indefinitely detain terrorists not long after the Department of Homeland Security releases a report tagging Pro-Life activists, Ron Paul supporters, Army vets, and anyone that is too vocal about the Constitution as potential terror threats.

It would take 10 minutes to take all of these complaints and show how the Bush admin did them too. The party in power is always trying to frame things how they want them to be framed. Before cap and trade it was cut and run. Whatever. This article is pretty lame.Oh and the earth's water temperature hit a record high today since as long as they have been recording it. Just because Al Gore and the crazy left has over-pushed the issue of climate change or whatever you want to call it does not mean there are no problems on the horizon.The Obama administration has been far far from perfect so far but this article is really crappy.

[Avaron 0]

stupid article...

this is so stupid that i don't know how to answer.is stis still an intelligent political discussion?

[Nimue1995 1]

This reminds me of a number of books that have been written about when the Apocalyse will take place and how it will happen. Many of the dates and events in these books have come and gone and ya know what? Christ still hasn't made an appearance. Authors write articles and books that loosely interpret events to make them seem like they fit the pattern in Revelation and people get scared to death until the time passes and those events don't lead to anything. It's the same with comparing any government or administration with George Orwell's novel. You can always find ways to do it but it doesn't mean that the person doing the comparing doesn't have an agenda or hasn't left out or put in some things just to make it seem more scarey or more believable. This is why I stopped reading those books and why I believe this article is a bunch of bullcrap strung together designed to sell whatever agenda this author has.

[85suited 0]

It would take 10 minutes to take all of these complaints and show how the Bush admin did them too. The party in power is always trying to frame things how they want them to be framed. Before cap and trade it was cut and run. Whatever. This article is pretty lame.Oh and the earth's water temperature hit a record high today since as long as they have been recording it. Just because Al Gore and the crazy left has over-pushed the issue of climate change or whatever you want to call it does not mean there are no problems on the horizon.The Obama administration has been far far from perfect so far but this article is really crappy.

But Bush did it too.... you are too funny

[hblask 1]

OK, he's officially passed Bush as 3rd worst president ever, and my be in second place now, ahead of LBJ. It'll depend on whether he rolls any of this back next year.---------------------------------------------------http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/25/whi...-of-9-trillion/In a chilling forecast, the White House is predicting a 10-year federal deficit of $9 trillion — more than the sum of all previous deficits since America's founding. And it says by the next decade's end the national debt will equal three-quarters of the entire U.S. economy.[the article goes on at the link, but really, do we need to know more about Obama-nomics than this?]

[hblask 1]

Why it'll be worse than Obama says, something people on this board have said all along:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Earlier this year when President Obama was selling his first budget blueprint, he promised to end years of "borrow and spend" budgeting. Yesterday, reality struck. Mr. Obama's White House and the Congressional Budget Office told us that current U.S. fiscal policy is "borrow and spend" on a hyperlink. The good news is the deficit for 2009 will be "only" $1.58 trillion, about $250 billion lower than expected thanks to less need for TARP funds. But the Obama fiscal plan envisions $9 trillion in new borrowing over the next decade, which is $2 trillion more debt than the White House predicted earlier this year. The 2010 deficit also rises by about as much as the 2009 deficit falls from January, so even the TARP windfall gets spent. We've never fretted over budget deficits, at least if they finance tax cuts to promote growth or spending to win a war. But these deficit estimates are driven entirely by more domestic spending and already assume huge new tax increases. CBO predicts that debt held by the public as a share of GDP, which was 40.8% in 2008, will rise to 67.8% in 2019—and then keep climbing after that. CBO says this is "unsustainable," but even this forecast may be optimistic. Here's why. Many of the current budget assumptions are laughably implausible. Both the White House and CBO predict that Congress will hold federal spending at the rate of inflation over the next decade. This is the same Democratic Congress that awarded a 47% increase in domestic discretionary spending in 2009 when counting stimulus funds. And the appropriations bills now speeding through Congress for 2010 serve up an 8% increase in domestic spending after inflation. Another doozy is that Nancy Pelosi and friends are going to allow a one-third or more reduction in liberal priorities like Head Start, food stamps and child nutrition after 2011 when the stimulus expires. CBO actually has overall spending falling between 2009 and 2012, which is less likely than an asteroid hitting the Earth. Federal revenues, which will hit a 40-year low of 14.9% of GDP this year, are expected to rise to 19.6% of GDP by 2014 and then 20.2% by 2019—which the CBO concedes is "high by historical standards." This implies some enormous tax increases. CBO assumes that some 28 million middle-class tax filers will get hit by the alternative minimum tax, something Democrats say they won't let happen. CBO also assumes that all the Bush tax cuts disappear—not merely those for the rich, but those for lower and middle income families as well. So either the deficit is going to be about $1.3 trillion higher than Washington thinks, or out goes Mr. Obama's campaign promise of not taxing those who make less than $250,000. A burst of sustained economic growth, which we'd love to see, would substantially boost tax revenues and reduce future debt. But there's nothing in the Obama budget that nurtures or rewards growth or small business. Most of the major policy initiatives, such as the $1 trillion cap-and-trade energy tax, are a drag on growth. Mr. Obama wants to raise capital gains, dividend and income tax rates, which will reduce risk taking, innovation and investment. The House health-care bill would impose an 8% payroll tax on millions of small business owners, which will destroy jobs. The White House issued a statement yesterday that the President is "very concerned about these out-year deficits." But apparently not so concerned as to stop pushing for a new $1 trillion health-care entitlement that is conveniently not included in these latest budget forecasts. The real fiscal crisis in Washington is that neither Congress nor the White House are offering any escape from these trillion-dollar deficits. Mr. Obama has not called for automatic and immediate spending cuts. He has not proposed eliminating hundreds of wasteful programs. To the contrary, the White House still hasn't ruled out another fiscal stimulus, as if a $1.6 trillion deficit isn't Keynesian stimulus enough. The Administration's celebrated scrub through the budget this summer identified $17 billion in agency savings. That's what Uncle Sam is borrowing every three days. Obamanomics has turned into an unprecedented experiment in runaway government with no plan to pay for it, save, perhaps, for a big future toll on the middle class such as a value-added tax. White House budget director Peter Orszag promises that next year's budget will have a "plan to put the nation on a fiscally sustainable path." Hide the children.

[dapokerbum 0]

OK, he's officially passed Bush as 3rd worst president ever, and my be in second place now, ahead of LBJ. It'll depend on whether he rolls any of this back next year.---------------------------------------------------http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/25/whi...-of-9-trillion/In a chilling forecast, the White House is predicting a 10-year federal deficit of $9 trillion — more than the sum of all previous deficits since America's founding. And it says by the next decade's end the national debt will equal three-quarters of the entire U.S. economy.[the article goes on at the link, but really, do we need to know more about Obama-nomics than this?]

Well hopefully he'll be out in 3 years and 5 months. We all know that he won't be impeached! How the hell can we all sit back and say oh yeah 1,000,000,000,000 dollars ... no big deal! Fucking rediculous

[CaneBrain 95]

A great article that sums up my feelings on Obama and politics in general quite nicely.http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/27/avl...ents/index.html NEW YORK (CNN) -- Over the course of this summer, President Obama's approval ratings have plummeted among independent voters -- the largest and fastest-growing segment of the American electorate.In May, 66 percent of independents approved of Obama's job performance, according to the Gallup Poll.By August, Gallup showed the president was supported by 49 percent of independents, a collapse during the health care debate that reflects independents' dislike of deficit spending, the growth of big government and one-party control of Washington.It's a particular problem for Obama because post-honeymoon perceptions are hardening in ways that are counter to his core campaign promise to bridge partisan divides.Obama introduced himself to the American people by saying, "There are no red states; there are no blue states; there is only the United States of America."He won virtually every swing state in 2008 as well as 60 percent of centrists, won independents by an 8-point spread, and even won 20 percent of self-described conservatives. But right now he is presiding over a period of increased partisan polarization, with nearly 90 percent of Democrats supporting his efforts and 5 percent of Republicans doing so.Independents hold the balance of power in American politics. Their ranks have rocketed during the Obama presidency as the two parties have become more polarized, hitting an unprecedented 41 percent of the electorate in July, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll. At the same time, identification with both Democrats and Republicans has declined.Don't Miss * Commentary: Liberals' passion for public option * Commentary: What LBJ would do * In Depth: CommentariesAll this is evidence that Obama's election did not represent a liberal ideological mandate, as House Democrats and their partisan cheerleaders might wish. More than 70 percent of independents now disapprove of Congress.But it also shows that rejection of the Republican brand has only accelerated since the conservative caricatures of Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin -- and the town hall protesters -- became the most prominent public faces of their party.Independents are nonideological problem-solvers. They are sick of Washington's harsh and cynical hyper-partisanship, but they do not have a split-the-difference approach to politics.Independent voters are decidedly closer to Republicans when it comes to economic issues and closer to Democrats when it comes to social issues.To put it another way, they are fiscally conservative but socially progressive with a strong libertarian streak. And it's on fiscal issues that independents are putting Obama on notice.Obama has consistently spoken about the need to return to fiscal responsibility but he's presided over an unprecedented growth in government spending -- from bailouts to the stimulus bill. There is a gap between his rhetoric and his record - and that's contributing to the fact that only 35 percent of independents support his efforts on health care to date.That's why liberals' increasingly strident insistence that Obama abandon bipartisan outreach is terrible advice for the president and the nation. In a burst of triumphalism, they seem to be echoing former House Majority Leader Dick Armey's advice to Republicans in the past -- "bipartisanship is another name for date rape" -- despite the fact that it is exactly this hyper-partisan, play-to-the-base approach to politics that caused independent voters to abandon President Bush.Health care reform is one of the most demonstrably difficult issues in American politics. It has been attempted by presidents since Harry Truman, and in each case a combination of fear-mongering from the right and all-or-nothing insistence from the left has derailed any hope of real progress.In contrast, every major successful social reform -- from Social Security to Medicare to welfare reform -- has earned broad bipartisan support. For health care to pass in a durable form it must build on this tradition. Pushing through a party-line vote will backfire badly.To regain his footing with independents, Obama needs to depolarize the debate over health care reform. He can do so by endorsing a bipartisan Senate bill that offers increased competition and coverage through nonprofit co-ops rather than the $500 billion to $1 trillion public option.This will not be a retreat but real leadership toward uniting the country. Obama also needs to start addressing out-of-control costs by pursuing promised entitlement reforms for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in the name of generational responsibility. It would be a bipartisan effort based on fiscal responsibility -- and a courageous bit of political judo that would help him close the growing credibility gap with independents.Washington's professional partisans have an interest in perpetuating play-to-the-base politics. They view the inspirational post-partisanship of Obama's 2008 campaign as a necessary ploy that should be abandoned once entering Washington.What they don't appreciate is that for his independent supporters, the hope and change that Obama represented was a break from the hyper-polarized politics of the past. It's not too late for the president to regain this lost ground, but it is getting later than some in the White House might like to think.The culture of hyper-partisanship persists, but a leader's responsibility is to change a culture. This will require reinforcing Obama's strained centrist credentials -- a clear commitment to moving our nation not left or right, but forward.The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John P. Avlon

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

-10 PointsCash for Clunkers Aided Foreign Automakers more than US...http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/26/autos/clun...sion=2009082713

Domestic automakers usually account for about 47% of all cars and trucks sold in the U.S, according to data from J.D. Power and Assoc. But they sold just 38.5% of vehicles in the Clunkers program.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

i think that's partly due to the semi-boycott by people of GM. There is a tremendous amount of distrust of those companies the government is screwing with.

[CaneBrain 95]

-10 PointsCash for Clunkers Aided Foreign Automakers more than US...http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/26/autos/clun...sion=2009082713

it still helped out American auto dealers. don't be obtuse, warden.it's not the US gov's fault that American cars, by and large, suck. A union run amok is only one reason why American automakers are having problems. The product sucks too.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

it still helped out American auto dealers. don't be obtuse, warden.it's not the US gov's fault that American cars, by and large, suck. A union run amok is only one reason why American automakers are having problems. The product sucks too.

And what is an American car ?What would a Honda built in the US be considered ?Or a GM car built in Mexico ?

[Sal Paradise 57]

The product sucks too.

is there any real data on this though? I mean I know honda's and toyota's are known for being more reliable generally, and american cars are typically butt ass ugly, but, well, I've kind of made your point here. nevermind.oh wait, what I was saying was: american trucks at least are pretty much top notch, so there's that. I love my silverado, and I'd suck multiple dicks for a new camero. I just think the "american cars are terrible" thing is blown a little out of proportion.

[CaneBrain 95]

is there any real data on this though? I mean I know honda's and toyota's are known for being more reliable generally, and american cars are typically butt ass ugly, but, well, I've kind of made your point here. nevermind.oh wait, what I was saying was: american trucks at least are pretty much top notch, so there's that. I love my silverado, and I'd suck multiple dicks for a new camero. I just think the "american cars are terrible" thing is blown a little out of proportion.

there are no "really nice" American cars anymore. That is a huge part of the issue. I agree....if you want a truck you should buy American. Ditto an SUV. But most people dont need a truck and dont want an SUV do to the gas mileage. They want either a luxury car (BMW, Lexus, Mercedes, etc.....no USA makers on that list) or they want an economy car that gets great mileage and wont ever break down (toyota, honda, acura, nissan, etc). Again, no USA makers on that list. GM, Ford, etc have not made a competitive 4-door normal car in years and years and years. It takes a toll.I actually do own an American car (Jeep Grand Cherokee '04) because I wanted an SUV for a variety of reasons and I don't commute to work so gas mileage is not a huge issue for me. But most people are not in my situation (and I dont want to pretend like I bought American on purpose.....I just happened to like the Jeep....the fact that I was buying American never crossed my mind.)but no, I cant point to any real data on the issue. I am making an anecdotal argument (though I think a strong one). I dont know anyone in my law school with an American car except for me and one girl who has a truck her dad gave her for free.

[Sal Paradise 57]

(Jeep Grand Cherokee '04)

oh, well I can see why you have the opinion that you do.

[hblask 1]

And what is an American car ?What would a Honda built in the US be considered ?Or a GM car built in Mexico ?

http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?se...tory=amMade0808I saw a video somewhere about this subject, but can't find it again.

[CaneBrain 95]

oh, well I can see why you have the opinion that you do.

haha. I actually like my car just fine. Lots of room for road trips and it has only had one minor problem (the window on the passenger side broke once).

[strategy 4]

ford did real well, for good reason. I think clunkers worked just fine, but obviously was a horrible deal for everyone not buying or selling cars.

[brvheart 1,752]

it still helped out American auto dealers. don't be obtuse, warden.it's not the US gov's fault that American cars, by and large, suck. A union run amok is only one reason why American automakers are having problems. The product sucks too.

This is the real problem. People that are intelligent in general, but have no clue about cars, think that American cars are poorly made. This isn't the case, and you are simply perpetuating the lie.

[brvheart 1,752]

You know which transmissions have seen the biggest increase in business for us this year? (hint: this is not good, because if we see an increase, then that means more are breaking, and this increase is 1st by a country mile.)Honda. Why? Because there are more and more Honda's on the road. Up unto this time in history, American cars have dominated the repair shops, because they were dominating the roads... now foreign cars are pulling even and we are seeing massive increases in failures.

[El Guapo 8]

Cash for clunkers was an idiotic idea because it took thousands of perfectly fine vehicles off the road. They also had to destroy them and their engine blocks so they could not be re-used. Hundreds of thousands of parts will now not find their way to scrap yards, meaning people will have to pay full price for replacement parts. Not only that but it is a huge waste of materials.Seems like a lot of money an effort to increase MPG by 5. I would be curious to see if they could actually quantify the environmental impact of destroying the old cars, building new ones and disposing of all the parts, plus all the new parts that need to be made because the junk yards wont have alternators.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

This is the real problem. People that are intelligent in general, but have no clue about cars, think that American cars are poorly made. This isn't the case, and you are simply perpetuating the lie.

While Toyota clearly still does well, to say that US cars "suck" is just another opinion not terribly well supported by facts.

http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/rele...aspx?ID=2009043WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif.: 19 March 2009 — Buick and Jaguar each rank highest in vehicle dependability in a tie, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2009 Vehicle Dependability StudySM (VDS) released today. Buick improves from a sixth-place ranking in 2008, while Jaguar improves from 10th place. Following in the top five rankings this year are Lexus, Toyota and Mercury.Toyota garners five segment awards—more than any other nameplate in 2009—for the Highlander, Prius, Sequoia, Solara and Tundra. Lexus follows with four segment awards for the ES 330 (in a tie with the Acura RL), GX 470, LS 430 and SC 430. Lincoln captures two awards for the Mark LT and Zephyr. Models by Acura, Buick, Dodge, Ford, Honda, Mazda, Mercury, Nissan and Scion each rank highest in one segment.“Buick has ranked among the top 10 nameplates each year since the study was last redesigned in 2003, while Jaguar has moved rapidly up the rankings,” said David Sargent, vice president of automotive research at J.D. Power and Associates. “Lexus remains a very strong competitor in long-term quality. In particular, the Lexus LS 430 sets the industry standard for dependability, with fewer problems reported than any other model in the study.”

[CaneBrain 95]

This is the real problem. People that are intelligent in general, but have no clue about cars, think that American cars are poorly made. This isn't the case, and you are simply perpetuating the lie.

not necessarily poorly made (I said I like my jeep, right?) just poorly marketed. No one wants a buick. No one wants an American car. They aggressively courted the wrong market, imo. Ford and GM went hard after the Toby Keith crowd when they should have been trying to court the latte crowd. People want to drive a luxury car because cars are such status symbols in America. You should see my garage in Miami. Not all these people can possibly afford to have two luxury cars but they keep leasing them anyway.and the best combo of low price and quality is not an American brand which hurts.

[Sal Paradise 57]

wow, didn't know buick was all that good. doesn't it not even exist anymore? but really though, the whole concept of sucking doesn't just include dependability. I mean the only way I'd drive a buick is if the thing had a blow job attachment.