Ohio's un-employment rate

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
Ohio's un-employment rate
Mon, 10-29-2012 - 8:46am

 Our un-employment rate has dropped to 6%.    5.7 % in Central Ohio.   Kasich, our Governor, doesn't want anyone to know this as it will help Obama.    Obama saved the auto industry and jobs here are spreading.     Former Governor Strickland was responsible for a new plant -research center - test track-race track being build about 20 miles away.    Bringing about 500 jobs here.   

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Wed, 10-31-2012 - 1:47pm

Did nothing to help unemployment...too busy with golf outings to be bothered...sounds like you're talking about Obama.  Interestingly, you seem to hold Taft responsible for Ohio unemployment, but you don't hold Obama to the same standard when it comes to the US economy...in fact, most people on the left go out of their way to apologize and make excuses for Obama's failures.  Not making excuses for Taft, because I couldn't care less, but a lot of the unemployment that occured during Taft's administration was caused by Federal trade policies that he had nothing to do with.

And Boehner...what power to you think he has to stop a private company from relocating?  And whatever meager power he possesses, why makes you think he didn't do everything he could to persuade the company to stay?  There's no benefit to Boehner in having a large employer in his district leave, so it only stands to reason that he would have done all he could to convince them to stay.

And Romney..."he ad states that job creation in Massachusetts “fell” to 47th under Romney. That’s a bit misleading. Massachusetts’ state ranking for job growth went from 50th the year before he took office, to 28th in his final year. It was 47th for the whole of his four-year tenure, but it was improving, not declining, when he left."


And finally, Strickland...from what you describe, he sounds like a Republican...pro-business, lower taxes...the exact opposite of Obama.  Why is it you find  Strickland's conservative policies worthy of praise, but you support Obama, who's policies are the exact opposite?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
Wed, 10-31-2012 - 4:52pm

Boehner had no power???   Really??? Cause I was taught that we elect congress,  senate and the President to work and represent us.  We The People.  


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Wed, 10-31-2012 - 8:28pm

Fiat SpA (F), majority owner of Chrysler Group LLC, plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in that country, according to the head of both automakers’ operations in the region.


Fiat is in “very detailed conversations” with its Chinese partner, Guangzhou Automobile Group Co. (2238), about making Jeeps in the world’s largest auto market, said Mike Manley, chief operating officer of Fiat and Chrysler in Asia. Chrysler hasn’t built Jeeps there since before Fiat took control in 2009.



As for Obama saving the auto industry…it’s not as simple as “Romney called for bankruptcy, Obama delivered bankruptcy.”  There are more than a dozen auto manufacturers operating in the US who didn’t get a bail out.  What Obama did was throw billions in taxpayer dollars at a failing company to prop them up to serve his own political agenda.


There is a legal process by which companies in this country can deal with situations that GM was facing, but rather than go through that process, Obama interjected himself and his administration, displacing investors and non-union pension holders to illegally turn over portions of ownership to his union cronies and compel a formerly private business to manufacture products approved by the government.


And concerning the Volt, Obama's flagship…sales are practically non-existent even with a huge government rebate, GM loses around $47K per car sold and they have a tendency to burst into flames.  The public and the free market have decreed that the Volt is a piece of crap.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Wed, 10-31-2012 - 10:48pm

The authority of an elected official to "represent" his constituency and an elected official having the "power" to dictate that a private company cannot relocate are not equitable.

What power do you think Boehner possesses that allows him to control a privately run business?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Thu, 11-01-2012 - 10:08am

TO:  Deenasdad (the message boards have a long way to go after the October "makeover"--including getting their programming to correctly display who's replying to whom)

Gee, who to believe......The regional COF?  Or the Chrysler CEO?  Most likely is a partnership between Fiat/Chrysler and the Chinese manufacturer to build units for the huge China market. 

The claim that "dozens" of auto manufacturers didn't get bailouts has me scratching my head.  DOZENS?  Really?  I didn't know that the U.S. had so many!  How about some proof........?

As for the "legal process", apparently both Obama and Bush believed more jobs would be lost by taking that particular route.  A "political agenda" which salvages a key U.S. industry while retaining jobs seems more than a little reasonable, negative language notwithstanding.  GM paid off its loan too--http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/21/us-usa-autos-idUSTRE63K56920100421  Conservatives kvetch about "big government" and social welfare programs.  What the h*** did they think would happen when workers no longer had jobs and other sectors such as the housing and construction industry clearly had no demand for an increased labor supply?  I'll be waiting for the answer to that question. 

And the Volt?

Chevrolet Volt Sales Redefine 'Failure'

Even if many transactions were bolstered by cut-rate lease deals and other incentives last month, with 13,497 units rolling out of dealerships through the end of August, the Chevrolet Volt “extended range electric” sedan is outselling about half of all cars marketed in the U.S.

If indeed the Volt is a “failure,” as some of its critics have contended, we’re sure there’s several auto executives out there that would like many of their slower-selling models to suffer the same fate.

Now to be fair, the industry’s top performers were responsible for far more sales over the first eight months of the year than the Volt could register in a decade at its current pace. Among passenger cars, the Toyota Camry leads the pack with 280,536 deliveries through the end of August (not counting 30,587 Camry Hybrid models). The Ford F150 pickup truck did even better with a phenomenal 408,656 units, albeit with sales bolstered by considerable cash rebates.

Still, the Volt’s 133rd-place ranking placed it ahead of industry stalwarts like the Audi A6, BMW 7-Series, Porsche Cayenne and Mercedes-Benz S-Class, and it outsold most hybrids including the Toyota Prius plug-in, Honda Civic, Kia Optima, Toyota Highlander and Lexus RX 450h. Sure, the big-money incentives helped kick start sales last month, but the more Volts GM gets into consumers’ hands will closer the car and its advanced technology will approach the mainstream. It took Toyota many years to become profitable with the Prius, and the company took heat investing big bucks to develop its hybrid technology back in the late 1990′s when gas cost about a dollar a gallon.

Now of course, as it is in the National Football League, one great game does not ensure a Super Bowl victory, and it doesn’t help that General Motors’ executives were, shall we say, overly optimistic with the Volt’s initial sales projections, but it does look like the Volt may finally be finding a niche for itself. Or at least one that’s stronger than, say, any of the well-regarded sports cars it’s handily outselling this year like the Chevrolet Corvette, Porsche 911 and BMW 6 Series. If GM can figure out how to attract a steady stream of customers without having to slap a thick wad of cash on the Volt’s hood, so much the better.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2012/09/24/august-chevrolet-volt-sales-redefine-failure/

Consumer Reports apparently didn't consider the Volt to be "crap" either.  http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/10/consumer-reports-recommends-chevrolet-volt.html

I remember when the Prius was equally dispargaged by "conservatives"Why they see fuel efficient vehicles as anathema, I simply cannot fathom. 


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Thu, 11-01-2012 - 12:16pm
Thank you for making my earlier point about the demonization of the Volt. Your claim that "they have a tendency to burst into flame" is incorrect. "No real-world fires were reported by regulators or the automaker" More at http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/21/us-gm-volt-idUSTRE80J20X20120121. The only ones who seem to be "decreeing that the Volt is a piece of crap" are ideologues and those who (mistakenly) heed them. We would all do well to inform ourselves and make sure that our opinions are based on sound facts and critical thinking, not propaganda promulgated by partisans.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
Thu, 11-01-2012 - 2:35pm


It wasn't me that said anything about the Volt.  

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Thu, 11-01-2012 - 9:09pm
To Ohearto: I was replying to Deenasdad. The boards are still horribly glitchy. Am seriously thinking about giving up on iVillage.


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Fri, 11-02-2012 - 1:49am

Sergio Marchionne has specifically said that it will build Jeeps for the Chinese market in China.  Chrysler currently sells Jeeps in China.  Where are those Jeeps made?  Right, in the US.  Where will those jobs go?  Right, China.
And I believe I said “more than a dozen auto manufacturers” not “dozens of auto manufacturers”…and a list of auto companies that build vehicles in the US is available via a simple google search…you can easily take note of the ones that didn’t get a bail out.
As for the “legal process”…Obama can believe anything he likes, it’s when he flaunts the law that things go awry. He ended up shoving GM through a structured bankruptcy, as Romney suggested, but not before rewriting bankruptcy law and illegally wiping out investors, destroying the pensions of thousands of people, forcing the closure of more than 2000 dealerships and costing 1000,000 people their jobs, and handing over ownership equity to his UAW union cronies as a political repayment. His actions have directly weakened the company, which will likely have to file for bankruptcy again in the near future.
And as I mentioned, with MORE THAN A DOZEN auto manufacturers operating in the US that didn’t get a bail out, you’d have to stretch the truth beyond reason to claim that Obama “salvaged a key U.S. industry.” Those kind of lies and distortions are expected from Obama, but here, I’d appreciate just a little more intellectual honesty.

And no, GM did not repay it’s loan…

General Motors announced this week that it repaid its multibillion-dollar taxpayer-backed TARP loans. GM even bragged that it was able to “repay the taxpayers in full, with interest, ahead of schedule, because more customers are buying [GM] vehicles.” There was great fanfare, including expensive, around-the-clock GM TV commercials nationwide. But, the hype is not the reality. In fact, GM did not repay the loans with money it earned from selling cars. Instead, GM repaid the TARP loans with money it withdrew from another TARP fund at the Treasury Department.

The day before the GM story broke, Neil Barofsky, the government TARP watchdog, testified before the Senate Finance Committee. He explained that GM did not use earnings to repay its TARP debt. The April quarterly report to Congress from his office stated: “The source of funds for these quarterly [debt] payments will be other TARP funds currently held in an escrow account.”

GM filings with the SEC reveal that GM was paying 7 percent interest on a $6.7 billion TARP debt. The filings also confirm that the source of funds for GM’s debt repayments was a multibillion-dollar TARP-funded escrow account at Treasury; that means it was taxpayer money — not earnings.

Meanwhile, in all the fanfare and patting themselves on the back, Treasury and GM made no mention of what happened to the $2.5 billion loan GM owes its union health care plan. The union loan carries a 9 percent interest rate and runs until 2017. Don’t most Americans try to pay off their higher-interest debts first? Well, the union loan was not paid off. Why not? Does the union get to keep collecting 9 percent from GM until 2017, courtesy of the American taxpayer, while taxpayers give up a 7 percent return over the next five years in exchange for the hope that GM stock will be worth more than what we paid for it, someday down the road?


 And a some more information on the truth of the Gm bailout...

Note to Obama fans: GM did go bankrupt – filing for Chapter 11 protection against its creditors on June 1, 2009. It’s what happened next that the president can take credit for – a handout of $49.5 billion in taxpayer money to GM, some $27 billion of which remains outstanding, and another $17 billion to its financial arm Ally Financial, which still owes $14.7 billion.

In other words, Obama didn’t save General Motors; American taxpayers did, with an assist from the Federal Reserve. While liberals rant about the bailouts of Wall Street, it is worthwhile noting that of the $417 billion in TARP funds spent to stabilize the economy, only $65 billion has yet to be repaid – and more than half of that is owed by GM and Chrysler. The latest TARP report from the Congressional Budget Office says that the government invested nearly $80 billion in those two auto giants and that taxpayers are still on the hook for roughly $37 billion. 

In the same report, the CBO projects that handouts to Wall Street firms will ultimately net the government a cool $11 billion profit. They say the auto industry, on the other hand, will never pay back taxpayers. According to the congressional bean counters, $20 billion is gone for good.


What the GM bailout really cost American taxpayers

While President Obama campaigns on “tax fairness” – eliminating loopholes for the wealthiest one percent, the oil companies and other big corporations -- his favorite corporate giant is enjoying an unprecedented, under-the-table multi-billion dollar tax break. 

In addition to the more than $50 billion given to General Motors in the bailout, the Obama administration quietly snuck in a special tax break for GM, which allows the company to write off approximately $45 billion in post-bankruptcy losses against post-bankruptcy profits. 

The result? In 2011, GM paid nothing in federal income taxes despite claiming record profits of $7.6 billion, the “highest profits in the 100 year history of that company” according to President Obama. 

In fact, that’s not quite right. GM paid a tax rate of negative 1.5% on its record profits – less than nothing. 

That’s right, while you were paying your income taxes last month, the IRS was sending General Motors a check for $110 million. And GM’s tax break is a gift that will keep on giving every year at tax time. 

It’s good for twenty years. 


Race Played Role in Obama Car Dealer Closures

Dealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, were key wholesale parts dealers, or were minority- or woman-owned dealerships. - Troubled Asset Relief Program Special Inspector General Neal M. Barofsky


GM’s market share fell by 2.1 percentage points in the first three months of 2012, to a level the company hasn’t seen since 1922. GM’s 2012 share is even more striking considering that 10 years ago, GM was aiming to return to 30 percent of the American market.

2007: 23%

2008: 22%

2009: 20%

2010: 18%

2011: 19.6%

2012: 17.5%


Before the bailout of General Motors, it was well understood that the world’s largest automaker was losing huge amounts of money in the US and was staying afloat thanks to stronger performance in overseas markets. Since the bailout, however, that dynamic has been turned on its head. Thanks to a leaner manufacturing footprint, debt eliminations and steadily recovering sales, GM’s US operations have generated the lion’s share of the company’s profit since the bailout.

And now, as the rest of the world economy slows, GM is spending more and more of its taxpayer-enhanced cash pile to shore up its faltering foreign divisions. In fact, according to an analysis of GM’s SEC filings, the company is likely to incur over $6.5 billion in losses and expenditures overseas in the 2011-2014 period, not counting over $1.6b in foreign potential legal liabilities or several other incalculable expenses that could add up to billions more. Not only are these expenses a challenge to GM’s overall financial health at a time when it also faces billion-dollar expenditures on pensions in the US, it shows the basic problem with national bailouts of global companies. Taxpayers who were told they were saving an American company are now seeing their tax dollars flowing overseas by the billions.


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Fri, 11-02-2012 - 2:38am

And to the Volt…

The Volt doesn’t have a “real world” possibility of bursting into flames…and yet, GM recalled the Volt to address the possibility that it might burst into flames.  Isn't that strange?

And a salient point in the article you cited…

If indeed the Volt is a “failure,” as some of its critics have contended, we’re sure there’s several auto executives out there that would like many of their slower-selling models to suffer the same fate.”

The Volt wasn’t some cheap, “slower-selling model”…the Volt was Chevy’s flagship, much acclaimed by both GM and Obama, and a BIG part of Obama’s plan to have 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015.  With only 13,500 units moved…and the vast majority of them being leases with HUGE…Obama’s success with electric cars is only rivaled with is success picking solar panel companies.,,much to the chagrin of US taxpayers who are billions and billions of dollars poorer as a result.

“Now to be fair, the industry’s top performers were responsible for far more sales over the first eight months of the year than the Volt could register in a decade at its current pace. Among passenger cars, the Toyota Camry leads the pack with 280,536 deliveries through the end of August (not counting 30,587 Camry Hybrid models). The Ford F150 pickup truck did even better with a phenomenal 408,656 units, albeit with sales bolstered by considerable cash rebates.”


‘Record’ Volt Sales?  Not Really -- GM Counts $159 Leases for an $89,000 Car

But the Press left out a few non-incidental facts...

Fully 2/3s of the “sales” were leases, leaving around 925 cars that were truly sold. 

And this lease scam appears to have been going on since the Volt’s November 2010 launch.

Chevy Volt MSRP is $41,000, But Will Lease For Same Price as ($33,000) Nissan Leaf

And what kind of Volt lease deals is GM now cuttingHow about:

$159 a month on a two-year lease, with no money down.

Let us pause here to do the math.  $159 x 24 months = $3,816.  For an $89,000 car

New cars lose 20% of their value the moment they roll off the lot.  And after two years of additional depreciation, these Volts are then returned to GM dealers.

Who’s on the hook for the massive cost differential and value loss?  Why, We the Taxpayers of course.

Meanwhile, the vaunted Volt batteries are then two years closer to extinction.  GM guarantees them for eight years - during which they will lose 10%-30% of their already pitiful 25-mile range

And how much does it cost to replace a Volt battery?  GM their own selves say - in the $8,000-$9,500 range

And in case they’re fibbing (as post-bailout GM is wont to do):

Ford CEO: Battery Is Third of Electric Car Cost

Ford Motor Co. Chief Executive Alan Mulally indicated battery packs for the company's Focus electric car costs between $12,000 and $15,000 apiece.

How many used, post-lease Volts will GM realistically be able to sell - when the record for new “sales” is just over 2,800?  And that non-lease sales number is actually under 1,000?

And who’s on the hook for all these leftover, depreciated pre-owned Volts?  Why, We the Taxpayers of course.

And about those 925 actual sales.

GM Pays You $10,000 to Buy a Chevy Volt

Sales of the Chevy Volt have increased recently, but it's largely due to GM's 25 percent discount on the electric vehicle, according to Consumer Energy Report.

And who’s on the hook for this $59,000 difference between the Volt sale price and its actual cost?  Why, We the Taxpayers of course.

And because all of this is working so splendidly:

CBO: U.S.to spend $7.5B to Promote Electric Cars by 2019

Federal policies to promote electric vehicles will cost $7.5 billion through 2019 and have "little to no impact" on national gasoline consumption over the next several years, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report issued on Thursday.

Consumer tax credits for buying electric vehicles, which can run as high as $7,500 per vehicle, will account for about 25 percent of the $7.5 billion, the CBO said.

$2.4 billion are grants to battery makers and projects to promote electric vehicles, $3.1 billion are loans to auto companies.

$2.4 billion in grants to battery makers?

Obama-Backed Car Battery Company Files for Bankruptcy Protection

Electric Car Battery Makers Hit the Skids

Bankruptcy Filing Shows Difficulty of Thriving in Battery Sector

All of which makes the Press‘ attempted sale of the Volt’s “record-setting” “success” more than a mite difficult to swallow.


Are the Chevy Volt’s sales being inflated by “giveaway” leases?

The Chevy Volt, which the Obama administration has hailed as the vanguard of its green-energy subsidy efforts, has had a bad month in the news.  While GM announced a sales record for the plug-in hybrid for August, Reuters pointed out that the company was losing around $49,000 per vehicle in those sales, pouring red ink into an automaker that can’t deal with the money it already owes taxpayers.  Fox News then reported that the sales record came in part because the Department of Defense began ramping up purchases of the Volt, making it look like another bailout was in process.

Earlier this week, Forbes discovered how GM was able to claim a record in the first place.  The company has been practically giving away Volts in its lease program:

GM is giving away rent-a-Volts. While the claim of 2800+ sales in August is certainly enough to still the Volt’s critics, at least until Election Day (which is all that really matters to the current management), that number is an automotive Potemkin Village, concealing enough rot to make any czar, car or otherwise, proud.

With additional subsidies from GM (that would be you and me), Chevrolet dealers in August were offering two-year Volt leases for as little as $250 down and $199/month.  Fully 2/3s of the “sales” were leases, leaving around 925 cars that were truly sold.  Prior to the giveaway leases, GM says that 40% of 2012 sales were also leases.  The number remains the same—an average of about 925 cars really sold each month for this year.

Automotive News recently reported that the feds have purchased 182 Volts so far in 2012.  Now we’re down to 900 real sales per month..  Corporate (fleet) sales are conservatively estimated at 5% of the total, putting the consumer number closer to 850.

Two years at $199 a month and $250 down amounts to $5,026.  What happens at the end of two years?  Either the lessee buys the vehicle, or the dealer takes it back to sell as a used car.  The car becomes a write-off for GM, while the dealer pockets most of the proceeds, according to Forbes. The big loser? Taxpayers, who both own GM stock and pay the bill for all the subsidies, as well as the write-off losses in deductions from taxable corporate income.

The truth is that there isn’t much of a market for the Volt, and there probably wouldn’t be any without the massive subsidies provided by taxpayers.  It’s not difficult to determine why.