January 25, 2012

Disparaging Obama's SOTU because it "was written at an eighth-grade level."

Eric Ostermeier relies on the Flesch-Kincaid test, which calculates the readability of written text, based upon the length of sentences and words. He notes the prevalence of sentences like:
"There are plenty of ways to get this done. So let's agree right here, right now: No side issues. No drama. Pass the payroll tax cut without delay."
Hey, it would be on an even lower grade level if it weren't for that colon. You see my point? The punctuation says nothing about the difficulty or ease of the material in a text written for oral delivery. It's a signal to the speaker, indicating the length of pauses, the degree of flow. But I could just as well have written the previous 2 sentences as one sentence, with a colon in the middle, so quite aside from the oral/written distinction, the Flesch-Kincaid test is a pretty simplistic device to leverage an argument that a text is simplistic.

154 comments:

Wally Kalbacken said...

Simple, it was.

Jay said...

Given that Obama's understanding of economics is at a 4th grade level, I say this is progress!

Henry said...

I tried this out:

"I am Barack Obama. And you are not."

Flesch-Kincaid score of 3.67.

In contrast:

"I am Barack Obama. Suckers."

Scored 6.63.

David said...

Short sentences are good.

Defeat Obama.

chuck said...

Well, it ain't great rhetoric no matter how you punctuate it. Is this stuff really written by top graduates of our elite universities? And if so, why are they considered elite universities.

Patrick said...

Wouldn't the level at which it was written reflect the audience for which it was written, or at least how the speechwriters perceived the audience?

Pogo said...

So no we know his pay grade.

Eighth grade.

Dane County Taxpayer said...

It was just more shucking and jiving that we have come to expect from this minstrel act.

LYNNDH said...

Didn't they use this against Bush, trying to show how simple he was.

Jay said...

“No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team. This Nation is great because we get each other’s backs.”


Please Barry, get off my back.

Please.

Freeman Hunt said...

So he's supposed to have a less accessible SOTU to please the computer algorithm?

viator said...

"It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts." (2012 SOTU)

Followed almost immediately by the mother of all bailouts:

"Sure enough, the very next paragraph contained a massive bailout proposal and in more ways than is readily apparent at first glance. For starters "responsible homeowners" don't need mortgage relief. Secondly, $300 a month is a lot of dough so I would like to see an accounting.

Finally, and most importantly, every loan that is refinanced will be paid off in full. Thus, any bank, hedge fund, mortgage provider, or GSE that is paid off on a nonperforming loan will be immediately made whole.

This is a massive backdoor bailout of banks, mortgage companies, hedge funds, foreign banks, and anyone else holding mortgage related garbage."

Mike Shedlock

Quaestor said...

“No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team. This Nation is great because we get each other’s backs.” (H/T Jay)

I'm glad I missed the SOTU. To read this drivel is maddening enough, to hear it spoken by the President of the United States in a formal address would have ruined my whole week.

Scott M said...

You guys are all missing the bigger picture. Why hasn't the President released his junior high school transcripts?

Scott M said...

This Nation is great because we worked as a team.

This statement is going to come as quite a shock to those like Michael Moore who claim America was built on genocide and the backs of slaves.

Original Mike said...

"Pass the payroll tax cut without delay."

That would be the one the House did pass, right?

Original Mike said...

I found the speech remarkably flat. This is probably why.

Tim said...

"This Nation is great because we worked as a team."

Indeed. That explains the Whiskey Rebellion, the abolitionist movement, the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow laws, etc., etc., etc., let alone the lack of unanimity over the War for Independence.

Besides not knowing much about US history, Obama's "worked as a team" is about the weakest possible rhetorical tool to mask his effort to socialize all of our problems through his budget-less, annual $1 trillion+ deficits.

Such an idiot. But with our voters, we don't deserve any better.

Carnifex said...

As the man said, "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and prove them right". Although in this case, he had to inform the Congress as one of his Constitutional duties.(wish he did this more often) But then he never looses an opportunity to hear his own soaring rhetoric, delivered in that mellifluous barry-tone.

Question for anyone even reading his drivel, let alone listening to it, did he actually talk about the SOTU? The high unemployment rates, the massive debt, the uncontrolled spending?

Or was it just a campaign stump?(this is a rhetorical question.) We all know which he did, he is predictable as the sun rising in the east.(he thinks the sun is forced to wake up when he is), or the liberal news media fawning over socialists.(did Tingles get tingly again?)

Regardless, I thought it was pretty amusing that he was channeling Lincoln. I guess he wasn't a history major (or even studied history) in college. Lincoln freed the slaves not because he opposed slavery, but to make southerners paranoid about a insurrection stemming from them.(classic tactic in war).

DADvocate said...

I was told by more than one teacher that newspapers are written on the 5th grade level so most people can understand them. (Of course, considering typical journalists, this may be the highest level most journalists can write.) An 8th grade level is quite a step up.

I try to write in short, simple sentences to keep things concise and clear. (Concisely and precisely.)

ricpic said...

Short sentences are good.

Because they pack a punch...that dribbles away in long sentences.

edutcher said...

Hey, wait!!

I thought it meant you were smart if you supported GodZero.

Looks like Zero's people aren't any smarter than the ones who keep up with the Kardashians.

Jay said...

No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts.

He said that after bragging about bailing out GM.

The man is an idiot.

Roberto said...

A survey taken moments after President Barack Obama finished giving his third State of the Union speech found that an overwhelming majority of Americans who viewed the speech, including most Republicans, strongly favored the president’s proposals.

The CBS News poll’s focus group was 25 percent Republicans, 44 percent Democrats and 31 percent independents. In total, 91 percent of those surveyed approved of Obama’s agenda.

CBS News explained that the reason there were more Democrats in the survey is because more people from the president’s own party tend to watch the annual State of the Union speech. Approximately 27 percent of Americans identify themselves as Republican, the poll noted — versus 34 percent identifying as Democrats and 39 percent as independents.

Most remarkable of all, the poll found that approval of Obama’s agenda skyrocketed among speech watchers. Approval of his plans on the economy shot up from 53 percent to 82 percent; on the deficit, approval went from 45 percent to 80 percent; on the Afghanistan occupation, 83 percent approved, up from 57 percent. CBS News did not offer a partisan breakdown for Obama’s approval on individual issues.

A full 75 percent of respondents also said that Obama’s agenda will create jobs and make the U.S. more competitive. The president said he wanted to “do some nation building right here at home,” and proposed a series of progressive tax breaks that would encourage companies to bring overseas jobs back to the U.S. He also urged development of every energy resource available, including the controversial shale gas extraction method known as “fracking.”

The one area where the president did not gain as much traction is on his health care reforms, passed by Congress in 2010. Approval of the health care bill went from 56 percent to 65 percent after the speech. It was not one of the president’s main topics.

Roberto said...

Jay - The money that saved the auto industry was a "bailout" structured as a loan...with the government holding the title to GM if not repaid in full.

The "loan" has been fully repaid...and the inductry is once again standing on its own two feet.

Is there ANYTHING you don't WHINE about?

p.s. - What are your thoughts on the 700 billion dollar bailout of the banks....that has not ben repaid?

Roberto said...

Based on the overwhelming positive reaction to the speech, it once again appears to illustrate just out of touch the Althouse regulars are...with actual American voters and people who think before posting right wing tripe.

A vast majority of the regulars here spend 99% of their time whining, complaining and denigrating.

What a sad bunch you are.

Joe said...

Don't be such a moron, Roberto, everyone approves of vague proposals that propose to give you money. The devil is in the details.

The inane spectacle is why I gave up listening to SOTUs two decades ago. (I did listen to the one Bush gave in 2002, which only reminded me why I disliked them so much.)

Fritz said...

It is designed to be a report to congress, after all.

Henry said...

Roberto is right. To quote Frank J. Fleming:

Many believe that Barack [middle name omitted because it's racist to draw attention to] Obama is just a regular person who puts his pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us, but this is fallacy. In fact, were you to witness the miraculous way in which Obama puts on his pants, your brain would hemorrhage trying to comprehend it, and you’d die.

This is why Obama must keep his speeches boring, repetitive, simplistic, and internally illogical. If he were to do anything else, the people who watched would start speaking in tongues and wouldn't be able to answer poll questions.

Roberto said...

Henry & Joe - I realize neither of you listened to the speech you're whining about, but of those who did...it was very well received...even by your Republican friends:

Once again:

A survey taken moments after President Barack Obama finished giving his third State of the Union speech found that an overwhelming majority of Americans who viewed the speech, including most Republicans, strongly favored the president’s proposals.

The CBS News poll’s focus group was 25 percent Republicans, 44 percent Democrats and 31 percent independents. In total, 91 percent of those surveyed approved of Obama’s agenda.

CBS News explained that the reason there were more Democrats in the survey is because more people from the president’s own party tend to watch the annual State of the Union speech. Approximately 27 percent of Americans identify themselves as Republican, the poll noted — versus 34 percent identifying as Democrats and 39 percent as independents.

Most remarkable of all, the poll found that approval of Obama’s agenda skyrocketed among speech watchers. Approval of his plans on the economy shot up from 53 percent to 82 percent; on the deficit, approval went from 45 percent to 80 percent; on the Afghanistan occupation, 83 percent approved, up from 57 percent. CBS News did not offer a partisan breakdown for Obama’s approval on individual issues.

A full 75 percent of respondents also said that Obama’s agenda will create jobs and make the U.S. more competitive. The president said he wanted to “do some nation building right here at home,” and proposed a series of progressive tax breaks that would encourage companies to bring overseas jobs back to the U.S. He also urged development of every energy resource available, including the controversial shale gas extraction method known as “fracking.”

The one area where the president did not gain as much traction is on his health care reforms, passed by Congress in 2010. Approval of the health care bill went from 56 percent to 65 percent after the speech. It was not one of the president’s main topics.

Henry said...

Roberto, I'm not whining about the speech. I'm making fun of you.

Roberto said...

Speakign of Presidents and what they had to say...and considering most here are going to be stuck with the good ol' lying, cheating Newtster...

...here's an interesting tidbit relating to Ronnie "The Saint" Reagan and his take on the pompous gasbag of a candidate:

"From debates you'd think Newt Gingrich was Ronald Reagan's Vice President. Gingrich exaggerates, dropping Reagan's name 50 times. But in his diaries, Ronald Reagan mentions Newt Gingrich only once. Reagan criticized Gingrich saying Newt's ideas would "cripple our defense program". Reagan rejected Newt's ideas. On leadership and character, Newt Gingrich is no Ronald Reagan."

Roberto said...

Henry - You're not whing about the speech?

Did you or did you not post this comment a few minutes ago?

"This is why Obama must keep his speeches boring, repetitive, simplistic, and internally illogical. If he were to do anything else, the people who watched would start speaking in tongues and wouldn't be able to answer poll questions."

Dummy.

DADvocate said...

Based on the overwhelming positive reaction to the speech, it once again appears to illustrate how easily fooled most Americans are, how much they want something for nothing and what tools most politicians are.

Joe said...

Roberto, I'm not whining about the speech. I didn't listen to it because I knew it would be a list of bullshit proposals like every state of the union address by every president.

Your polling holds true for any list of absurd proposals and is just as meaningless. Forget what Obama (or any other president) proposes in speeches and look at what they actually send to Congress, what they negotiate and what they then sign.

In Obama's case, he is saying he will create jobs, yet he just prevents jobs from being created. Whether you agree with the Keystone Pipeline decision on other grounds, Obama's decision did prevent good jobs from being created. Look also at the decision to rescind oil leases in Utah and Colorado. Agree or disagree, it that decision did destroy jobs and is now preventing jobs from being created.

The point is that after three years Obama's actual record is piss poor in this regard, so why would you think it's going to change now?

Finally, most Americans have no idea what Obama proposed last night so any polling claiming this is pure bullshit and you know it. (Close examination will likely find that among people watching the SOTU approved and most people watching tended to support Obama--just like most people who watched Bush's SOTUs tended support Bush and gave big approval to his idiotic proposals.)

Pogo said...

Jesus, Roberto, your posts have lowered the IQ of everyone here.

Please trot away before you give us Alzheimer's.

Roberto said...

DADvocate - "Based on the overwhelming positive reaction to the speech, it once again appears to illustrate how easily fooled most Americans are, how much they want something for nothing and what tools most politicians are."

Kind of like those "Mission Accomlished" and "WMD" thingies we heard all about during the previous administration's tenure, huh?

Roberto said...

Pogo - If you have something to say that doesn't involve silly, infantile comments...throw it out there.

Otherwise take a hike.

Henry said...

@Roberto. Please look up the word "mockery." While you're at it, look up "credulous."

p.s. While it is fully intended as mockery I stand by my description of Obama's speeches.

Jay said...

Roberto said...

The "loan" has been fully repaid...and the inductry is once again standing on its own two feet.


Hilarious.

The loan has not been "repaid" unless you count using TARP money to pay bailout money, "repaid"

with the government holding the title to GM if not repaid in full.


Um, I don't think it a particularly good idea the government owns a car company.

I'm sorry you do.

Pogo said...

That you take the SOTU speech seriously, despite his actions and inactions over the past 3 years, means you are gullible and a fool.

As I wrote before: Every word he says is a lie, part of a lie, or in service to a lie.

Even the words and and the.

Jay said...

Roberto said...
Jay - The money that saved the auto industry


It did not "save the auto industry"

GM is not the "auto industry"


p.s. - What are your thoughts on the 700 billion dollar bailout of the banks....that has not ben repaid?


Obama bailed out the banks.

Why don't you ask him?

Roberto said...

Joe - If you didn't watch the speech...and of course are not really "whining" about it...what exactly is this drivel based on...telepathy?

"This is why Obama must keep his speeches boring, repetitive, simplistic, and internally illogical. If he were to do anything else, the people who watched would start speaking in tongues and wouldn't be able to answer poll questions."

And at the same time, you take the time to post an additional five paragrapghs of right wing drivel whining about a speech you didn't even listen to, and of course throwing in the standard teabagger personal attacks on our President?

Dummy.

Henry said...

Roberto -- You're mixing up your sources.

Jay said...

and the inductry is once again standing on its own two feet.


Um, is that why we need a federal tax credit for a Chevy Volt nobody wants to buy?

Or is that why the government lost $14 billion on this boondoggle?

Roberto said...

Jay - I didn't say that GM represented the "entire auto industry."

("Jay - The money that saved the auto industry was a "bailout" structured as a loan...with the government holding the title to GM if not repaid in full.")

But with that said, it is a fact that the entire auto industry was in deep shit and facing multiply bankruptcies.

The money provided by the government put them back onto firm footing.

You really need to take your time when reading comments before responding with bullshit.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Laugh it up but remember that Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was criticized for its simpleness and brevity.

One day our children's children will be memorizing this great speech as part of their edumacation.

Joe said...

Roberto, my comments are based a) on the reports by those who did watch the speech and distilled it down to its nuggets of idiocy, b) those snippets I heard on the news, c) Obama's overall record with jobs and proposals and d) my experience that all state of the union addresses are hopeless drivel.

Jay said...

The CBS News poll’s focus group was 25 percent Republicans, 44 percent Democrats and 31 percent independents.

I love how this is somehow supposed to be reflective of America.

You are a dupe, Roberto.

Jay said...

Jay - I didn't say that GM represented the "entire auto industry."


Um, you said "saved the auto industry"

You then go on to say:

The money provided by the government put them back onto firm footing.


Why it is almost as if you're incoherent or something.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... This Nation is great because we worked as a team..."

The last time I saw someone give a speech on teamwork he beat a guys brains out with a baseball bat.

Jay said...

You really need to take your time when reading comments before responding with bullshit.


I love the fact you repeated your "saved the auto industry" comments.

You are a bad parody.

Jay said...

Most remarkable of all, the poll found that approval of Obama’s agenda skyrocketed among speech watchers.

Most remarkable of all, left wing idiots rush to the Internet to pretend this means something.

Notice how leftists cite polls as if they are reflective of something meaningful.

Obama sucks dupe, get used to it.

Jay said...

You really need to take your time when reading comments before responding with bullshit.


GM did not repay its loans.

The government lost money on GM.

The government lost money on Chrysler.

You are projecting.

Scott M said...

Roberto said

Kind of like those "Mission Accomlished" and "WMD" thingies we heard all about during the previous administration's tenure, huh?

Jeremy's back, everyone.

Jay said...

A survey taken moments after President Barack Obama finished giving his third State of the Union speech found that an overwhelming majority of Americans who viewed the speech, including most Republicans, strongly favored the president’s proposals

Yeah, and here is a chart detailing the net change in the president’s Gallup approval rating following his State of the Union addresses, for all speeches back to 1962.

Good luck with all that.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... A vast majority of the regulars here spend 99% of their time whining, complaining and denigrating..."

Looks like Jeremy's mom let him out of the basement.

Roberto said...

Jay - We gave the banks 700 billion...and you're whinging about 14 billion related to the Volt?

How muc have we wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Roberto said...

Jay - Where did i mention anything about President Obama's poll ratings being affected by last night's speech?

I post the immediate polling related to the "speech."

Do you have a reading comprehension proble are you just a dick?

Jay said...

Roberto said...
Jay - We gave the banks 700 billion...


No, there was no "we"

The Democratic Congress and Obama bailed out the banks.

and you're whinging about 14 billion related to the Volt?


No. The $14 billion is actually not related to the volt.

The $14 billion is part of the loan you are idiotically claiming was "repaid"

It was not.

Jay said...

Roberto said...
Jay - Where did i mention anything about President Obama's poll ratings being affected by last night's speech?


I didn't say you did, stupid.

Roberto said...

Jay - The government bailouts/loans, investments...saved the auto industry.

Show me any factual/objective evidence that says otherwise.

You need to read more.

MayBee said...

I will make college cost less.
I will make your hose cost less.
Everyone will go to college.
Everyone will graduate from high school.
I will make the air clean.
Green Power!
The world loves us. More than ever, ever, ever.
Bin Laden is dead.
I am the first man to have someone who ran against me in the White House.
Everyone must follow me like the military follows me.
Rich people will pay for it all.
Life should be fair.
I will make life fair.

I think he did well to raise his message up to an 8th grade level.

shiloh said...

"Based on the overwhelming positive reaction to the speech, it once again appears to illustrate just out of touch the Althouse regulars are...with actual American voters and people who think before posting right wing tripe.

A vast majority of the regulars here spend 99% of their time whining, complaining and denigrating.

What a sad bunch you are."

>

ok, I can't improve on perfection! :)

Roberto, this is what Althouse lemmings do here 24/7 as she provides an outlet for all their teabagger pent-up frustrations and as a result, may prevent a few of them from going postal! lol

As always, it's a trade-off. So please, let the Althouse disingenuous, whining sarcasm continue. As it's what's for dinner. Served daily at Althouse.

Your eyes are full of hate, forty-one. That's good. Hate keeps a man alive. It gives him strength.

shiloh said...

Roberto, please don't confuse Althouse's flock w/facts! As some of them are quite fragile ...

Roberto said...

Jay: CNN/Money

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Including the $1.3 billion loss on its Chrysler investment, announced Thursday, the United States government has lost about $14 billion on the auto industry bail-out.

All in all, it was a bargain.

That $14 billion figure is far less than than the $40 billion bath the Congressional Budget Office expected U.S. taxpayers to take in the total auto industry bailout.

Saying the U.S. taxpayer "lost money" is probably the wrong perspective, considering that spending no money at all likely would have meant a financial catastrophe for millions of Americans far in excess of a mere $14 billion.

Had GM and Chrysler collapsed, it would have cost the federal government about $28.6 billion in lost tax revenues and assistance to the unemployed in just the first two years alone, according to the Michigan-based Center for Automotive Research. In other words, doing nothing could have cost more than twice as much the bailout.

By the way, that $28.6 billion figure doesn't include the business taxes the federal government would have lost but can now expect from two large, profitable automakers and their suppliers. It also doesn't include any lost state and local tax revenue.

At any rate, the federal government didn't become involved in lending money to Chrysler, General Motors (GM, Fortune 500) and others in the auto industry in order to make a profit. Had that been the goal, the Treasury Dept. should have bought Google (GOOG, Fortune 500) stock, instead.

Roberto said...

shiloh "Roberto, please don't confuse Althouse's flock w/facts! As some of them are quite fragile ..."

No kidding.

If there was an "audio" aspect to the site you wouldn't be able to hear yourself think over the high pitched whining, crying and grmbling.

Jay said...

Roberto said...
Jay - The government bailouts/loans, investments...saved the auto industry.


Uh, GM was bailed out

You admitted GM isn't the "auto industry"

You are incoherent.

Roberto said...

MayBee - C'mon, we all know you never eve got close to the eighth grade.

Stop trying to make yourself into something you're not.

Stick to the teabager meetings where you belong.

Jay said...

Roberto said...
Jay: CNN/Money


Great. You have an opinion column with suppositions "could" and "likely"

And then what?

Jay said...

Roberto said...
Jay - The government bailouts/loans, investments...saved the auto industry.


Wait.

So now GM & Chrysler are the "auto industry"

That is your claim?

Jay said...

Roberto said...

How muc have we wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan?


Oh, I love that one.

By the way, the Democrats increased funding for the Iraq war every year they had control of Congress. Why don't you ask them?

PS, and here I thought Democrats supported the war in Afghanistan.

Hoosier Daddy said...

You guys realize that debating with Roberto/Jeremy is like talking to one of those chatty Cathy dolls. He has about 3-4 standard talking points then you just pull the string again.

When he shows up its like watching the dog scoot across the carpet.

Jay said...

shiloh said...
Roberto, please don't confuse Althouse's flock w/facts! As some of them are quite fragile ...


Hilarious.

"Facts" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Roberto said...

Jay - ONce again...I never said that GM was the "auto industry."

Once again:

("Jay - The money that saved the auto industry was a "bailout" structured as a loan...with the government holding the title to GM if not repaid in full.")

Do they not hold stock in GM? Has GM not paid back the "loan" portion of the bailout?

Jay said...

Roberto said...
Jay - ONce again...I never said that GM was the "auto industry."


Then why do you keep using the phrase "saved the auto industry" when only GM was apparently saved?

Jay said...

Do they not hold stock in GM?

Yeah they do.

And guess what the stock is worth?

Again, I love the fact you are trumpeting that the federal government owns stock in a car company.

Roberto said...

Hoosier - It's obvious you have little if any real knowledge of the Presient's speech, but if by any wild chance, you do actually have anything to say that's relevant to the discussion...say it.

Posting silly personal blather is a waste of time.

shiloh said...

You realize Hoosier Daddy, giving you the benefit of the doubt, you're one of Althouse's "unique" complete and total idiots.

And given the vast array of whining competition, you should be damn proud! ~ congrats HD.

Roberto said...

Jay - The stock's worth is irrelevant unless they're selling it right now...which they are not. (Ever take a business course?)

But...if this makes you feel any better...in November of 2010/NYT's Business Section:

American taxpayers’ ownership of General Motors was halved on Wednesday, and billions of dollars in bailout money was returned to the federal government, as a result one of the nation’s largest initial stock offerings ever.

The sale, the largest initial stock offering ever, came 17 months after G.M. emerged from a government-brokered bankruptcy.

The offering, which raised $23.1 billion, is bigger and more ambitious than had once seemed possible.

Still, now that General Motors has shown that it can be profitable, a complete exit by the government could happen even within the next two years. With the offering, G.M. is shedding its ties to the government faster than expected, cutting the Treasury Department’s ownership stake to 26 percent, from nearly 61 percent.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... You realize Hoosier Daddy, giving you the benefit of the doubt, you're one of Althouse's "unique" complete and total idiots..."

Oh dear...admonished by Shiloh....how will I ever recover....

Roberto said...

Jay - "Then why do you keep using the phrase "saved the auto industry" when only GM was apparently saved?"

You are really...DENSE.

GM was not the only company saved by the goverment loans/investments/bailouts...and I've never refrred to GM alone as being the "auto industry."

Chrysler:

Chrysler's $1.5 billion EESA loan was made to a new financing corporation, Chrysler Financial, set up for the purpose. The interest rate for the loans was 1 point above LIBOR. In addition, Chrysler Financial promised to pay the government $75 million in notes and reduce executive bonuses by 40%. As a result, car buyers will get 0% financing for five years on some models.(Source: Washington Post, U.S. Expands Aid to Auto Industry, January 19, 2009)

Chrysler received $4 of the $7 billion bridge loan it originally requested. It also asked for $6 billion from the Energy Department to retool for more energy efficient vehicles. In return, Chrysler's owner Cerberus vowed to convert its debt to equity. Chrysler wanted the Big 3 to partner with the Federal government in a joint venture to develop alternative energy vehicles. Chrysler pledged to debut an electric vehicle in 2010, ramping up to 500,000 by 2013.

Ford's Bailout Proposal:

Ford requested a $9 billion line-of-credit from the government, and a $5 billion loan from the Energy Department. Ford pledged to accelerate development of both hybrid and battery-powered vehicles, retool plants to increase production of smaller cars, close dealerships, and sell Volvo. Ford is in better shape than GM or Chrysler because it had already mortgaged its assets in 2006 to raise $24.5 billion. Although Ford didn't need, and didn't receive any funds, it also didn't want its competition to get the upper hand thanks to the government bailout.

Jay said...

Roberto said...
Jay - The stock's worth is irrelevant unless they're selling it right now


So how long should the federal governemnt own 25% of a company anyway?

Jay said...

GM was not the only company saved by the goverment loans/investments/bailouts...and I've never refrred to GM alone as being the "auto industry."


Yes, GM & Chrysler.
So now GM & Chrysler are the "auto industry"

That is your claim?

Roberto said...

Hoosier - You you ever have anything to say, other than silly, infantile comments directed at other commenters?

For you to deny that you're nothing more than an disingenuous at best.

Instead of whining and complaing...why not show some guts and admit what you really are?

Jay said...

Roberto said...
Jay - The stock's worth is irrelevant unless they're selling it right now...which they are not. (Ever take a business course?)


Hysterical.

Um, because of the sagging stock price, last month Treasury raised the bailout’s net cost to taxpayers from $14.33 billion to $23.6 billion.

Business course!!!!

You are an idiot, Jeremy.

Sigivald said...

"There are plenty of ways to get this done. [...] Pass the payroll tax cut without delay"

Interesting that "plenty of ways" ends up being "do it my way", isn't it?

(Also, what Patrick said.

The SOTU address is political speech, with a specific purpose.

It's aimed at providing effective sound-bites for supporters to use to attack the opposition, and to rally the base.

Simple structure is ideal for those purposes.)

Jay said...

I love this this.

Roberto said...
Jay - The stock's worth is irrelevant unless they're selling it right now...which they are not. (Ever take a business course?)


And then he goes on to paste The sale, the largest initial stock offering ever, came 17 months after G.M. emerged from a government-brokered bankruptcy.




Note:
The pricing of the stock is critical to the Treasury Department's ability to recover the $50 billion spent on GM's bailout in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

But you've like taken a business course and you know all about business and stuff.

MayBee said...


Stick to the teabager meetings where you belong.


All of my teabagging is done in private.

Jay said...

So at a minimum, the federal government is going to lose $14 billion on the GM bailout to save a million jobs.

And this imbecile is calling it a success.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Hoosier - You you ever have anything to say, other than silly, infantile comments directed at other commenters?.."

Sure and I already said it on this topic. I was simply pointing out to those who might not be aware that you're just another one of Jeremeys sockpuppets and reasonable debate is not possible with you.

shiloh said...

@Hoosier Daddy

"Oh dear...admonished by Shiloh....how will I ever recover...."

A prefrontal lobotomy might help, but the odds are against it.

HD, better stick w/the full bottle in front of you ...

Roberto said...

Jay - Are you really this dense?

I just posted information relating to the government assistance provide to the BIG THREE automakers in America...and you're now trying to say that they do not, for all intents and purposes, represent the "auto industry" of America???

Investor's Daily - 1/25/12:

The Big Three U.S. automakers bettered their share of U.S. auto sales to 49.3% in December, up more than two percentage points from a year ago and turning the tables to top Asian makers' 46.3% share, which was down from 49%. In December, Chrysler's market share rose from 19.5% of the domestic makers' sales a year ago to 23.8% as 2012 models of its flagship 300 sedan and midsize 200 proved popular. GM still leads with 40.5%, followed by Ford with 35.6%, according to WardsAuto.

shiloh said...

"Jay - Are you really this dense?"

Rhetorical? ;)

Roberto said...

Hoosier - If you believe what you say...that "reasonable debate is not possible with (me)"...why are you continuing to respond to my comments??

It makes you look like more of a dummy than I already think you are.

Don't waste my time.

Roberto said...

Jay - You continue to whine about the 14 billion that you say the government will lose (from an article written in June of 2010 by the way...so how relevant can it be today?)...without considering how much would have been lost (or how many jobs would not be there today)...without the bailouts/loans.

Your arguments are not well thought out and represent nothing more than the usual uneducated, uninformed chum the teabaggers throw out on a daily basis.

*Tell us where the American auto industry would be today...if not for the government assistance.

Take your time.

Jay said...

Roberto said...
Jay - Are you really this dense?

I just posted information relating to the government assistance provide to the BIG THREE automakers in America...


OH, but you posted: "Although Ford didn't need, and didn't receive any funds"

Oh well, you've beclowned yourself again.

Roberto said...

Jay - "The pricing of the stock is critical to the Treasury Department's ability to recover the $50 billion spent on GM's bailout in the aftermath of the financial crisis."

No, Jay...the "pricing" of stock means little if anything unless you're selling the stock or using it to secure financing.

The government can wait and sell the stock when they want to do so.

Jay said...

Roberto said...
Jay - You continue to whine about the 14 billion that you say the government will lose (from an article written in June of 2010 by the way...so how relevant can it be today?)...


Actually, the latest Treasury figures are $23.6 billion.

?)...without considering how much would have been lost (or how many jobs would not be there today)...without the bailouts/loans.


Except I already said that we saved a thousand jobs at a minimum cost of $14 billion.

Which ignorant people like you things means "success"

Roberto said...

Jay - Ford got a credit line to make sure they could continue.

Dummy.

Jay said...

Your arguments are not well thought out and represent nothing more than the usual uneducated, uninformed chum the teabaggers throw out on a daily basis.


You mean like saying the loans have been repaid when they haven't?

Your projection is comical.

Jay said...

Roberto said...

No, Jay...the "pricing" of stock means little if anything unless you're selling the stock or using it to secure financing


Actually dumbass the pricing of the stock is important for calculating federal liabilities and budgeting.

But hey, business class!

Idiot.

Roberto said...

Jay - Where do you get that we only saved "thousand jobs at a minimum cost of $14 billion??"

You actually believe we only saved 1,000 jobs between GM, Chrysler and Ford..and of course the 1,000's of outside suppliers that are reliant upon the industry?

Jay said...

Roberto said...

No, Jay...the "pricing" of stock means little if anything unless you're selling the stock or using it to secure financing


So why is the Treasury Department busy looking at GM's stock price?

I guess they're not as smart as you.

Scott M said...

Can someone change the channel please? I hate women's tennis.

Jay said...

u actually believe we only saved 1,000 jobs between GM, Chrysler and Ford

I meant 1,000,000 jobs. Which is probably over inflated.

Jay said...

So, The Treasury Department yesterday revised its loss estimate for the Government Motors bailout from $14.33 billion to $23.6 billion, thanks to the company’s sinking stock price. GM’s Sept. 30 closing price, on which the new estimate is based, was $20.18, about $13 less than its December IPO price and $35 less than what is needed for taxpayers to break even.

The $23.6 billion represents a 25 percent loss on the feds $60 billion direct “investment” in GM.

You do realize Jeremy it would have been cheaper to just give those 1,000,000 people whos jobs were "saved" a million dollars, right?

Robert Cook said...

"Wouldn't the level at which it was written reflect the audience for which it was written, or at least how the speechwriters perceived the audience?"

Elementary.

The speech was intended for the mass audience of viewers at home.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Elementary.

The speech was intended for the mass audience of viewers at home..."

Robert Cook once again showing his respect for his nation and countrymen.

It really must be a hardship living amongst such riff raff. I really don't know how you do it day after day.

Triangle Man said...

Didn't they use this against Bush, trying to show how simple he was.

Not that I recall, and his score of 10.4 was higher than Clinton's so it is easily refuted. I do recall a lot of complaints about the "axis of evil" phrase.

Freeman Hunt said...

Robert Cook once again showing his respect for his nation and countrymen.

It really must be a hardship living amongst such riff raff. I really don't know how you do it day after day.


To be fair to Robert, the speech does look like it was written right at a level comfortable for a mass audience. The majority of media people consume is probably written at lower than an eighth grade level.

EMD said...

Chrysler received $4 of the $7 billion bridge loan it originally requested. It also asked for $6 billion from the Energy Department to retool for more energy efficient vehicles. In return, Chrysler's owner Cerberus vowed to convert its debt to equity. Chrysler wanted the Big 3 to partner with the Federal government in a joint venture to develop alternative energy vehicles. Chrysler pledged to debut an electric vehicle in 2010, ramping up to 500,000 by 2013.


Where does Fiat come into play in regards to "saving" Chrysler?

Roberto said...

Jay - "You do realize Jeremy it would have been cheaper to just give those 1,000,000 people whos jobs were "saved" a million dollars, right?"

So you think just giving 1,000 people a million dollars (and I still have no idea where you get the 1,000 jobs saved number?)...would be better than saving the American auto industry, along with the 1,000's of outside purveyors who are reliant upon the industry?

Seriously...that's your argument?

Jay said...

So you think just giving 1,000 people a million dollars (and I still have no idea where you get the 1,000 jobs saved number?)...

Right after me quoting 1,000,000 people no less!

Hysterical.

Roberto said...

Freeman - "To be fair to Robert, the speech does look like it was written right at a level comfortable for a mass audience."

No kidding?

A speech to over 300 million Americans, from every imaginable educational level..."written right at a level comfortable for a mass audience?"

WOW...I wonder who came up with that concept of communication?

And speaking of levels of communication designed for mass audiences...would you like to give us your take on some of G.W.'s masterful speeches...and who he was catering to?

Jay said...

Seriously...that's your argument?


As noted by your lack of reading comprehension, you're not capable of understanding.

Roberto said...

Jay...sorry for the typo, but...can you tell me how much 1,000,000 times 1,000,000 is?

Original Mike said...

"The money that saved the auto industry was a "bailout" structured as a loan...with the government holding the title to GM if not repaid in full.

The "loan" has been fully repaid"


Bullshit. GM was allowed to carry forward $50B in losses to write off against their taxes; something that doesn't happen in a normal bankruptcy. My my count, they still owe us $50,000,000,000.

Freeman Hunt said...

Roberto, what is your criticism of my comment? I was unable to extract it from the sarcasm.

Jay said...

Roberto said...
Jay...sorry for the typo, but...can you tell me how much 1,000,000 times 1,000,000 is?


Less than $23.6 billion.

Duh.

Jay said...

The money that saved the auto industry was a "bailout" structured as a loan...with the government holding the title to GM if not repaid in full.


By the way, it was fun to watch you say "GM repaid" and "auto industry" then weave back to "The Big 3"

Gee, I wonder why you did that?

Jay said...

Also note:

U.S. taxpayers likely lost $1.3 billion in the government bailout of Chrysler, the Treasury Department announced Thursday.


Add that to the likely $20 billion GM loss.

Also note:
In the year leading up to the Chrysler and General Motors' bankruptcies, the auto industry lost 400,000 jobs. Since the bailout, about 113,000 of those jobs have been recovered.



So for $25 billion we got 288,000 jobs lost.

Obama Administration success!!!!

Jay said...

GM was allowed to carry forward $50B in losses to write off against their taxes;

No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts!!!

Roberto said...

Jay - 1,000,000 times 1,000,000 is ONE TRILLION...not less than 23 billion.

And, as for the GM stock price today...it has little relevance to what it might be a wekk, a month or a year from now.

It was less than $20 three weeks ago and is at $25 today.

And it is rated as a "buy" or "strong buy" by 18 of 21 financial analysts.

DADvocate said...

I took the first 7 paragraphs of the article at SmartPolitics. Ironically, the paragraphs rated an 8th grade level.

Roberto said...

Jay - TARP (which, you like to forget, was enacted under Bush with the full support of the entire Republican leadership: McCain, Palin, Boehner, McConnell, etc.)

As was the auto industry bailout, which also began under Bush.

Original Mike said...

"And it is rated as a "buy" or "strong buy" by 18 of 21 financial analysts."

Are you buying?

Jay said...

Roberto said...
Jay - 1,000,000 times 1,000,000 is ONE TRILLION...not less than 23 billion.




Right.

So finally you're doing math.

And now you should be able to figure out what an idiotic premise the whole thing was.

Jay said...

Roberto said...
Jay - TARP (which, you like to forget, was enacted under Bush with the full support of the entire Republican leadership: McCain, Palin, Boehner, McConnell, etc.)


TARP was written by and passed by the Democratic Congress and implemented by Obama.

Obama also asked for TARP 2.

Epic fail on your part.

Jay said...

And, as for the GM stock price today...it has little relevance to what it might be a wekk, a month or a year from now

Actually, it has a lot of releavance which is why the Treasury Department is calculating taxpayer losses on the bailout.

Again, how long should the federal government hold 25% in a car company? Forever?

Roberto said...

DADvocate "I took the first 7 paragraphs of the article at SmartPolitics. Ironically, the paragraphs rated an 8th grade level."

There's that "mass audience" thingie again.

Roberto said...

Jay - You said that it was better to give 1,000,000 people $1,000,000 than to invest 14 - 23 billion.

Is this some kind of new math you've come up with?

Roberto said...

Jay - "TARP was written by and passed by the Democratic Congress and implemented by Obama."

No, that is incorrect...as usual:

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

Roberto said...

Original Mike - "Are you buying?"

As a matter of fact, yes.

If you, instead of spending your time attending teabagger meetins, had bought 1,000 shares of GM stock about 3 weeks ago...you could sell it today at a profit of $5,000...a hefty 25% return.

Or, better yet, buy call options, especially LEAPS...and see what you can make over the next few years.

Or...just stiack around the Althouse site and whine about every thing Obama.

Jay said...

No, that is incorrect...as usual:


Hysterical.

Um, I never said Bush didn't sign the law.

Obama implemented TARP.

That is a fact.

Obama supported TARP.

That is a fact.

bagoh20 said...

"This Nation is great because we worked as a team."

Are the 47% who pay no income taxes on my team too, cause I don't really need 'em. You can have them on your team Barry, but of course I bet most of them are already.

Original Mike said...

Bagoh20: Pick me! Pick me! Pick me!

sleepless nights said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roberto said...

Jay - "Um, I never said Bush didn't sign the law."


Jay - "TARP was written by and passed by the Democratic Congress and implemented by Obama."

Nathan Alexander said...

re: TARP

Take a timeout and clarify: regardless of who passed it, did it help or not?

Since liberals are trying to blame it on GOP, I assume that means they recognize it was harmful and abandoned any further Keynesian attempts?

No?

Then why would Democrats not want to take credit for TARP?

It was passed by Democrat-controlled House and Senate.

President Obama was a member of the Democrat-controlled Senate that passed TARP...not sure if that was one of the times he courageously voted "present" or not, but the point is: he had a huge hand in creating the mess he dishonestly claimed he inherited.

Just like liberals like Shiloh and Roberto dishonestly refuse to take credit for the non-conservative, liberal-policy Keynesian tactics known as TARP and Stimulus.

John Lynch said...

I remember people saying this about Bush, and it was stupid then, too.

shiloh said...

Nathan Alexander, when you take credit/stop apologizing for everything cheney/bush did or did not do er protect the U.S. ie cheney/bush getting caught w/their pants down on 9/11, etc. etc.

Then we'll talk ...

take care

Joe said...

Does Roberto have a job?

Mutnodjmet said...

American Bald Eagle Turds on SOTU!

Scott M said...

Does Roberto have a job?

Yes. He's a full-time sock puppet.

Jay said...

Roberto said...
Jay - "Um, I never said Bush didn't sign the law."


Jay - "TARP was written by and passed by the Democratic Congress and implemented by Obama."


Thank you for demonstrating that you don't understand the difference between signing a law and implementing it.

Jay said...

shiloh said...
Nathan Alexander, when you take credit/stop apologizing for everything cheney/bush did or did not do er protect the U.S. ie cheney/bush getting caught w/their pants down on 9/11, etc. etc.


You can't name a single security measure Bush would have proposed or implemented prior to 9-11 that you would have supported.

PS, the 9-11 hijackers came into the country and trained for their mission on Clinton's watch.

ken in sc said...

Military regulations and manuals are supposed to be written on the eighth-grade level. Although you are supposed to have a high school or higher education to enlist, many high school grads can not read above the eighth-grade level. I once saw a tank manual that was written as a comic book. This was in the 1980s.

Nathan Alexander said...

@shiloh,
I have never apologized for Bush/Cheney's successes in responding to a sneak attack on our nation that was born of Clinton fecklessness. Never will, either.

Even aside from that, when you are on defense, sometimes the bad guys win.

So I will never apologize for Bush/Cheney's "Best defense is a good offense" strategy. Because it works when it isn't undermined by additional feckless lack of leadership from Democrats.

I will be an apologist, but that's an entirely different word that someone who can read at an 8th grade level would know.

Of course, your mistake arising from a limited vocabulary doesn't nullify your point. Your point does that all on its own! Win-win!

shiloh said...

"I have never apologized for Bush/Cheney's successes in responding to a (((sneak attack))) on our nation"

Speaking of reading comprehension, you just admitted cheney/bush were caught w/their pants down on 9/11.

Back to the dictionary Nathan A.

win/win indeed!

Almost Ali said...

An 8th grade reading level is higher than normal, much higher. Newspapers are happy to achieve a 4th grade reading level so "all" readers will understand what is being said. The NYT was [once] rated highest: 8th grade when affectations were absent - and incoherent when present. Which means that most of the time the NYT is essentially incoherent to the average reader. Think about the diversity of readers, with English not necessarily their primary language.

ajcjw said...

Roberto, take off your blinders. The auto bailout "structured as a loan" wasn't fully paid back. The Obama administration's own report admitted to losing "only" $14b of taxpayer money in the auto bailout. If that's what they admit to you can bet the actual amount lost was a lot more. And if Althouse regulars are cynical it's probably because they are better informed and have more finely tuned critical thinking skills than the clones who took part in a (most likely rigged) CBS poll.

Steven said...

When it comes to Flesch-Kincaid scores, lower is better. Clarity in communication is a virtue, not a flaw.

Charlie Martin said...

Hemingway is at about a 5th grade level. It's just another stupid argument.