Apologies Susan; late to the thread as usual and got the wrong date and wrong speech to boot. As Miss Litella would say, “oh. never mind.”

I hope it’s clear in any case that Obama’s target is in fact the automakers, despite his tongue-tangle in the speech you saw.

Again, sorry!

From WaPo’s transcript of the speech:

We are going to raise fuel efficiency standards on cars because that is the only way that we can actually bring down gas prices over the long term, and I know you need that.

And, by the way, when I talked about increasing fuel efficiency standards, I didn’t do it in front of some environmental group. I did it in Detroit in front of the automakers. And I told them they had to change their ways.

Automakers, Miss Litella. Not Auto Workers, Automakers .

Hillary has to convince voters to support her. She cannot assume that she is entitled to every vote because she is Hillary Clinton. She can’t win many votes by questioning Obama’s experience or lack of achievement. She has to stay with her ideas and programs. She also has to say something about the role her husband will have if she is elected. No one believes he will become her John Thatcher.

Found a link to the Daily news article about the limitations on CitiBank ATM withdrawals. Don’t know if Citi has put the limits back or has kept them tight.

There are plenty of old dem hacks working for both candidates who know how to handle the levers of power and who to call to get something done in every crooked department.

And how do they differ from the republican hacks?

Really, what do you think the main difference is?

Nothing against politically disinterested former librarians, but to compare her experience to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s is silly.

Senator Clinton went to Yale, was a practicing attorney for numerous political entities, has a brilliant husband who while President avoided unnecessary wars, has a talented smart daughter who stays out of trouble, was way ahead of the curve on Health Care and is a U.S. Senator.

Sure Laura Bush killed a kid in high school, but I’d rather Senator Clinton didn’t have that experience.

Citibank just halted redemptions on another of its failed derivative thingies. ( Citibank is damn close to a run on itself. It already put restrictions on the amount customers could withdraw from ATMS ).
FDIC has never in its history faced a large bank failure, they have no policies to deal with a Citi going under.

In researching the Obama/Middle East arms/drugs/crime et al syndicates, it appeared a lot illegal monies needed to be laundered, even in terms of governments, and politicians actively profiting from these criminal activities.

Given that, is this second economy affecting the primary American economy, in ways we aren’t accounting for, hence, in ways we’re not addressing, in terms of solutions?

I know it’s kinda out there, but I remember reading in Rolling Stone, a long time ago, about the drug economies in central America, essentially parallel untaxed,unregulated economies, with the money generated from narcotics. Multiple that by arms and goods dealing, (I’ve read the FBI site on money laundering activities, it was very interesting, and informative), the crooks MUST have been looking for bigger and better ways to put that money into the mainstream. It IS plausible it would find it’s way to the stock market, eventually, right?

How can we fix this problem?

What does Clinton say?

Who owns Obama?