By on August 30, 2011

The Detroit News reports that former Vice President Dick Cheney claims to have opposed the decision to bail out GM and Chrysler, writing in his forthcoming memoir:

“The president decided that he did not want to pull the plug on General Motors as we were headed out the door… Although I understood the reasoning, I would have preferred that the government not get involved and was disappointed — but not surprised — when the Obama administration significantly increased the government intervention in the automobile industry shortly after taking office.”

Cheney notes he had voted against the 1979 $1.5 billion loan guarantee for Chrysler Corp. in the House. “I had continued throughout my career to be philosophically opposed to bailing out specific companies or industries,” he wrote.

But lest you think the 1979 vote makes Cheney a model of consistency, consider his defense of the $700b TARP expenditure:

Providing sufficient support to avoid the collapse of our banking system was something only the federal government could do. But, all things considered, companies in the private sector should be judged in the marketplace. Having the government intervene was not, in my opinion, a good idea.

I’ve been thinking about the bailout era a lot recently, as GM’s stock slumps towards an inevitable and significant government loss in the near future. I’m sure that when the government finally writes off the $14b+ loss, a political knifefight will ensue with all sides seeking to justify their positions on the matter. But where will that get us? After all, both political parties bear some responsibility for the decision, and it’s impossible to say what would have happened without the bailout. And if politicians and partisans make the final chapter of the auto bailout about politics, they’ll have missed the entire point… and provide a smokescreen for the real culprits.

GM and Chrysler have to live with their outstanding moral (if not legal) debt to the American people, and all eyes should be on those companies rather than the posturing politicians. How these private firms relate to the taxpayers who bailed them out will be the defining issue of their post-bailout existence, and one that should be taken extremely seriously in Auburn Hills and the Renaissance Center. I’m not sure I can say exactly what they should do about it, but the first step is to not run from reality (as has already happened too often in the past). The final tallying of the bailout bill will be a defining moment for these two companies… let’s hope they realize it, and act accordingly.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

52 Comments on “Quote Of The Day: “Don’t Blame Me For The Bailout” Edition...”


  • avatar
    getacargetacheck

    Notice Cheney has no problem awarding fat, no-bid contracts to his favorite contractors, especially the one he used to run. Is that a proactive bailout? Saving GM (despite itself) was the right decision. Thousands of people have a meal on the table and a roof over their heads tonight because of this. With unemployment even today at 9% there’s no way things would have been better by letting the industry implode. Bush tried laissez faire with Lehman Bros and that action nearly took everyone down.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      Save it. I’ll assume you mean Halliburton.

      Try naming more than a few companies that can rebuild the infrastructure of a whole country – quickly. If the US government sits around waiting for quotes on doing the work, then it is blamed for having a scorched-earth policy. If you want to rebuild quickly, then you give the work to people who know how to get it done.

      Go ask the people along the East Coast if they really care who comes in and repairs their power lines, roads, and neighborhoods after Hurricane Irene. They don’t, and cleanup after the destruction of war is similarly time-pressed.

      The fact that Cheney once worked for them is an advantage for the Iraqi people, and does not make him guilty of anything by association.

      • 0 avatar
        mike978

        I promised myself I wouldn`t get involved on this thread but you go too far. I recommend reading this :

        http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/why-dick-cheney-left-office-unpopular-and-reviled/244306/

        I accept the point about no-bid contracts but there are other companies than Halliburton who can do this work. It is hardly like they did a bang-up job is it!

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        Dick Cheney was reviled by the left wing media and their sheep. He was my favorite member of the Bush administration, and many real conservatives feel the same way.

      • 0 avatar

        “…is an advantage for the Iraqi people,…”
        That’s a nice one. Oh, the advantage! As in getting into a brawl in a pub, loosing my teeth and being told by the barman that the real advantage is that my assaulter knows a good dentist.

      • 0 avatar
        CamaroKid

        True conservative?

        Lets review,

        He is now pro gun control.
        He is pro same sex marriage.
        He was pro bank bail out.
        And while in office he basically ripped up the Constitution with illegal wire taps and CIA surveillance of American citizens at home and abroad.

        Have you read his book? He is quick to chuck Colin Powell (someone who DID pick up a weapon and ACTUALLY defended is country) and Condi Rice under the bus for HUGE mistakes that he made. He also refers to “W” was weak and indecisive in his book.

        I’m a Republican… a democratic friend of mine (I have one of those) once said, Whats the difference between Cheney and Obama.. When Obama shoots someone in the face it is a terrorist.

      • 0 avatar
        gslippy

        @CJinSD: “Stone Cold” Dick Cheney was my favorite also. The mere mention of his name makes liberals convulse even more violently than that of GWB, which tells me I’m on to something.

      • 0 avatar

        “Save it. I’ll assume you mean Halliburton.

        Try naming more than a few companies that can rebuild the infrastructure of a whole country – quickly.”

        GUESS WHAT.. IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN ARE STILL A MESS. We haven;t rebuilt a damned thing. The Neocon racist nation building scams have FAILED and they have dragged us into this so deeply that there is no end in sight.

        These tea bagging morons like to talk about our forefathers and the old days, but in the old days, Cheney would have been put up against a wall and shot.

    • 0 avatar
      MrGreenMan

      There was no guiding moral principle of laissez-faire with Lehman Bros – follow the money. With the number done on Lehman, and the pruning to Merrill Lynch — Goldman Sachs was handed a bright, shiny gift by Henry Paulson at Treasury, a Goldman Sachs alum.

      Goldman hoped to get in on the GM IPO and own a big part of the company. They could have just as easily dismembered and sold off the profitable Chevrolet and Cadillac division in bankruptcy court and kept people in jobs. However, they were looking for another cozy relationship like they have with Ford.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        They could have just as easily dismembered and sold off the profitable Chevrolet and Cadillac division in bankruptcy court

        You should have provided the bankruptcy court, the various creditors and, for that matter, the automotive task force with contact information for and details about these buyers. You are apparently the only person who knew about them.

      • 0 avatar
        MrGreenMan

        The idea of “Chevrolet Motor Company” was floated a lot here. It would have been sold into a DIP or some other investor; you’re aware that’s not a new idea on the hallowed scribbling boards of TTAC?

        https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/06/book-review-car-guys-vs-bean-counters-the-battle-for-the-soul-of-american-business/#comment-1760295

        https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/03/yankee-econo-car-comparo-1st-place-2009-chevrolet-malibu/#comment-1343632

        There was even an article about it:

        https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2008/07/general-motors-death-watch-190-nows-the-time-to-kill-everything-but-chevrolet-and-cadillac/

        There was, in fact, a comment on that article from you, Pch101, where you appeared to agree with the idea of using bankruptcy to make a simpler, leaner company and pare down to the two brands:

        https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2008/07/general-motors-death-watch-190-nows-the-time-to-kill-everything-but-chevrolet-and-cadillac/#comment-615571

        Invariably, reorganizational bankruptcy would have required selling the good assets into a new ownership structure…

        Edit: Since it was clear from the start that the US Government was going to prevent a GM bankruptcy and dismemberment, all the money sat on the side. I’m sure Magna would have loved to have purchased significant parts of GM, as would any number of Russian interest. The pre-pack was a political deal, so if you weren’t a political crony, you weren’t in it.

      • 0 avatar
        CamaroKid

        Cadillac hasn’t been profitable since the 90’s And Chevy, on it own, without GMC and truck sales was in almost as much trouble.

      • 0 avatar
        MrGreenMan

        @CamaroKid: They would have been shorn of the legacy costs, so they would have emerged with cars to sell and no debts to pay. They would have been profitable.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        The idea of “Chevrolet Motor Company” was floated a lot here.

        A lot of ideas have been floated around here. Ideas can be lovely things.

        But now, we’re talking facts. You alleged that there were buyers for Chevrolet and Cadillac.

        I want you to name that buyer or buyers, and provide some solid support to back your claim that they were legit. Because again, you’re the only individual on the planet who apparently knows who they are, while everyone who actually worked on the deal did not.

      • 0 avatar
        MrGreenMan

        @PCH101

        The most logical buyer:

        – Who had the wallet out
        – Who tried to purchase two mass-market brands, one in 2007 and one in 2009
        – Who was widely published to be trying to purchase Jeep

        was Magna. (http://blogs.motortrend.com/can-magna-buy-chrysler-from-cerberus-2242.html)

        Edit: Changed Magna-Steyr to Magna; unless this is a Holden situation, I meant the parent company.

      • 0 avatar
        MrGreenMan

        @PCH101

        Further proof:

        They were trying to buy another major division of General Motors:

        http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/News/Search-Results/Industry-News/Magna-agrees-to-buy-GM-Europe-latest-news/

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Further proof

        Er, no.

        You claimed that there were buyers for Chevrolet and Cadillac. I want you to name them, and support for your claim.

      • 0 avatar
        MrGreenMan

        @PCH101

        And, of course, to go back to “just as easy” — In that period in particular, the US government had already committed to TARP. There were a large number of financial institutions on the hook. Here is someone who floated the idea in 2008 of forcing the TARP institutions to provide a 1979-1981 Chrysler situation with the assured note — slash it down to the two divisions:

        http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/11/17/gm-an-alternative-to-bankruptcy/

        There was a lot of money in the TARP banks, they were sitting on it, and the Treasury wanted them to do something at the time. These would also have been an able, if not willing, buyer.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        And, of course, to go back to “just as easy”…

        I’ll tell you what isn’t easy — getting you to provide a direct answer to my question.

        One more time: You claimed that there were buyers for Chevrolet and Cadillac. I want you to name them, and support for your claim.

        That doesn’t mean linking to op-ed pieces that provide one guy’s idea of what should have happened. I want the name of the buyer of these two divisions, and what their terms were for purchasing them.

        If you can’t provide an answer to my question (and it is really bloody obvious that you can’t), then just admit it. All you’ve proven so far is that your earlier claim was made up.

      • 0 avatar
        MrGreenMan

        @PCH101,

        Now, that is a convenient reading, which allows you to engage in your “names and addresses or get out!” position, but I did not assert there was an offer on the table. In fact, I have said the US government signaled that wasn’t going to happen.

        Here is what I claimed:

        “They could have just as easily dismembered and sold off the profitable Chevrolet and Cadillac division in bankruptcy court and kept people in jobs.”

        All deals must be worked; I showed you that there were fish in the sea who would have taken bait, and they could have done this without upending the existing bankruptcy laws, so it would have been even easier:

        – The government had control of banks with more than enough money to have forced them to do a Chrysler, and they would have dismembered the company and created a new entity with the surviving ones — at the time, everyone said that was only Chevrolet and Cadillac — funded by the TARP banks.

        – Mr. Rattner made a number of public statements that they had to prune brands. Chevrolet and Cadillac were consistently identified as the only top brands in the portfolio.

        – There was at least one institution on the prowl for a purchase, with money, and that was Magna, and they were in the hunt to buy divisions.

        So, you have your answer.

      • 0 avatar
        MrGreenMan

        The direct answer to your question is:

        I never asserted that I had a list. You did not read correctly.

        I said they could have done the package differently, kept people in jobs, and it would have involved dismembering the divisions that were, at the time, looking the best, and the government would not have been in the business of becoming the shareholder of GM.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        I did not assert there was an offer on the table.

        “They could have just as easily dismembered and sold off the profitable Chevrolet and Cadillac division in bankruptcy court.”

        If it “just as easy”, then name who would have done it.

        I know that this will sound crazy to you, but I prefer facts. And the fact is that no one came in to bid for GM.

        If there was a buyer who was serious about it, then we would have all heard about it. But as it turns out, there was no such bidder.

        It’s one thing to read things between the lines. But you go much further, frantically scribbling stuff in the lines that’s just in your head.

    • 0 avatar
      windswords

      Guess who the Obama admin contracted with? Yep. Halliburton. But don’t worry they were not the big money maker the left portrayed them as. The parent company tried to sell them. Halliburton was good political ammo to froth up the masses who get their news from MSNBC and the Daily Kos. Nothing more.

      Now as to Cheney himself, he seems pretty consistent. He doesn’t rule out government intervention when it’s necessary but he does not like it as a rule. I think he was wrong in the case of GM/Chryco. I think the effects on the economy would have been severe. Just not as severe as the a financial collapse.

      • 0 avatar
        windswords

        Well, I did hit the reply button to getacargetacheck but it didn’t work. Mods please move my comment and delete this one if you can.

      • 0 avatar
        mike978

        The problem is not contracting with Halliburton, the problem is no bid contracting, especially when the company concerned has overcharged for simple stuff like fuel in the past. That would make me cautious accepting at face value any bid they gave without the free-market ethos of competition

        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/12/politics/main588216.shtml

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        If the Obama administration contracted with Halliburton, despite that the fact that the mere mention of its name caused Bush critics to foam at the mouth, it appears as though all of the fuss and noise over no-bid contracts is really much ado about nothing.

        But then, after being lectured about how bad Bush was, and how dumb people were for voting for him, in the third year of the current administration, the words from that famous Who song keep rolling around in my mind – “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

        And not just because the Obama Administration is using Halliburton as a major contractor.

    • 0 avatar
      wsn

      –Saving GM (despite itself) was the right decision. Thousands of people have a meal on the table and a roof over their heads tonight because of this.

      At the cost of tens of thousands losing theirs.

      • 0 avatar
        ihatetrees

        Thousands of people have a meal on the table and a roof over their heads tonight because of this.

        Please. No one starves in America. Poor people tend to be cows.

        At the cost of tens of thousands losing theirs.

        You assume those lost jobs would not have been replaced by Ford and Toyondissan…

        And would it really have mattered if the Malibu and Silverado were replaced by more F150’s and Fusions (or Tundras and Camrys)?

        Or if Ford stepped in to buy the Bowling Green plant and make the Corvette?

        The market would have adjusted. The convoluted stretching of bankruptcy law was unnecessary and will add to market uncertainty for politically connected firms.

  • avatar
    Darkhorse

    Cheney is a patriot, that’s for sure. If he’d only ordered the heads of the major Wall Street banks to be waterboarded to find out what the REALLY did to us.

  • avatar
    gslippy

    I’m not a fan of the government’s intervention in the banking or the car industry. “Too big to fail” is a lie.

    GM’s financial debt will not be repaid, and in reality Chrysler was saved by Fiat. And the banking industry isn’t the picture of strength today. The bailouts taste like icing on spoiled cake.

    As for “the final tallying of the bailout bill…”, I don’t think that will ever happen.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      ““Too big to fail” is a lie.”

      I’m not so sure it’s a lie as opposed to being an unacceptable current state. If a bank, car company, etc is deemed too big to fail, meaning that that company’s failure will cause catastrophic consequences for the country, than it is indeed the Federal government’s responsibility to break that company apart and remove the risk they pose to the rest of us. Why is this viewed outside the scope of national security?

      Bank of America, Wachovia, Lehman, MorganStanley, Goldman, etc. all should have been broken apart. Same with GM and Chrysler.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Every time Dick Cheney smirks, an angel is waterboarded in heaven.

  • avatar
    Bryce

    Its ok to bail out the criminally stupid Banksters but not the incompetent car industry typical lying politition

  • avatar
    NormSV650

    Giving banks “no strings” attached cash was only something the government could screw up.

    Given two major auto makers a loan when they really don’t need it was something most Republicans did not agree with as the government ownership stigma hurt sales and got CEO Mr Ed fired when he identified it publicly. It didn’t buy the Democrats any extra votes in 2010 election cycle.

    GM did get to pull ahead a 5-7 year plan in about a month of so under bankruptcy.

  • avatar
    Educator(of teachers)Dan

    Hindsight is 20/20 and politicians are constantly going blind.

  • avatar

    After owning a Chrysler 300c, I doubt Obama would have let Chrysler go down. I’d have bailed em out too.

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      Chrysler couldn’t survive on the 300, Charger and Magnum alone. The problem was that the rest of the line-up simply was not competitive with the offerings from GM and Ford, let alone Honda and Toyota.

  • avatar
    sfdennis1

    @CJSD/Slippy

    CJ quoted “Dick Cheney was reviled by the left wing media and their sheep. He was my favorite member of the Bush administration, and many real conservatives feel the same way.”

    Just to contribute a little accurate information to the discussion from place I like to call “Reality”…upon leaving office, Vader’s (oops, of course I mean Cheney’s) approval ratings hovered around the sewer…like below 30% overall, so it wasn’t some fringe disapproval, rather a wholesale rejection of his flawed policies and misguided tactics.

    Of course, since leaving office Cheney hasn’t shot anyone in the face, or lied us into any new wars wasting trillions of taxpayer dollars, or personally authorized the torture and waterboarding of any detainees and then lied about it, (and let’s not forget to mention ‘War Hero Cheney’ and his 5 deferrals to avoid serving in Vietnam, what an American Hero!)…but still, I can’t imagine his approval rating in the general population has improved much with time, if at all.

    So to recap, Vader Cheney was and is broadly unpopular with the VAST MAJORITY of the American populance…Liberals may have smelled the stink on Cheney from day one, but the majority of the population eventually came to their senses and got on board.

    TARP was OK with Cheney because he had his OWN multi-millions to protect by stabilizing the stock market, (I’ve got mine, but scr*w everyone else)…if tens of thousands of blue-collar autoworkers lost their jobs and faced financial ruin, well, too bad for them…guess they shoulda got into the oil business as well.

    See, welfare for millionaires is good, and hundreds of billions spent on defense contracting/warmongering is good…but helping the middle-class? Why, that’s socialism, right? Vader Cheney, an American Hero!

    End rant, back to cars.

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      sfdennis1: You got *that* right…

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      The problem is that the Obama Administration has continued virtually all of the policies enacted by Darth Cheney, or even expanded upon them. (Which is no surprise, considering that, while in Congress, the president voted for the extension of the Patriot Act in 2006).

      For that matter, last time I checked, the Guantanamo Bay facility was still open, and I seem to recall a certain president who promised to close it right away after winning the election.

      The president also promised that we would not be long involved in two separate wars (Iraq and Afghanistan). He was right on that one – we are now involved in THREE separate wars – Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Oops…

      He has also authorized the assassination of American citizens on foreign soil.

      The Obama Administration’s biggest coup so far – the killing of Osama bin Laden – was made possible by information obtained from those detainees. Apparently the administration and its supporters don’t have a problem with using information obtained from detainees by these supposedly awful methods.

      Perhaps, instead of throwing stones at Darth Cheney, you and the president need to send him a big thank you.

      Of course, if the Bush Administration had assassinated bin Laden in a foreign country, without that country’s cooperation or permission, the usual suspects would have had their heads explode in rage. But I guess they have all suffered from a really bad case of laryngitis since May of this year, or perhaps DailyKos, MSNBC and the Huffington Post all failed to carry news of Bin Laden’s death, or reported that he conveniently committed suicide after a courtesy call from U.S. Special Forces.

    • 0 avatar
      jplew138

      @sfdennis1:

      You forgot to include “Communist” in there too. When are people going to realize that Cheney and the neocons like him are only interested in their own kind…the rich warmongers who actually run this country. We, the middle class (what’s left of it, anyway) are just screwed. That why the tax rate of Goldman Sachs was only 14% in 2009. Think about that…14% on about 12 billion…wouldn’t YOU want a rate like that?

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      It’s obviously time for a lesson in recent U.S. history (with a special focus on events since January 21, 2009).

      Given that the current administration has retained, and in some casee, expanded upon, all of the policies enacted by the Bush Administration and Mr. Cheney, painting him as the source of all evil is more than a little rich, not to mention the source of more unintentional hilarity than an episode of The Bachelor.

      After all, the current occupant of the White House voted to authorize the extension of the Patriot Act in 2006, while he was in the United States Senate.

      The last time I checked, the Guantanamo Bay facility was still open, even though I seem to recall a certain candidate for president who, in 2008, promised to close it in the event that he won the election. Please note that said candidate was not John McCain.

      Candidate Obama also promised that we would no longer be involved with two wars – Iraq and Afghanistan – if he won. Well, he was right on that one. We are involved in three wars – Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

      And President Obama has authorized the assassination of American citizens on foreign soil.

      The information used in the assassination of Osama bin Laden this May was obtained from those detainees at Guanatamo Bay. That didn’t seem to bother the president or his supporters at the time.

      Now, if the Bush Administration had successfully assassinated bin Laden in a foreign country, without that country’s permission and cooperation, and using information gleaned from Guantanamo Bay detainees, the usual suspects would have had their heads explode in rage. I guess they have all been struck by a really severe case of laryngitis since May.

      Perhaps MSNBC and DailyKos reported that bin Laden conveniently committed suicide after a courtesy call by U.S. special forces, who just happened to be in his neighborhood, and decided to drop in for tea and a chat.

  • avatar
    jimboy

    While a conservative, I have never been able to stomach Cheney. Rarely have I seen a more self-serving, venal character. No morals, compassion, or understanding for anything other than his own self-centered, irresponsible pursuits. Re: the endless bailout discussion, a true conservative would never have gone along with ANY of the TARP handouts, especially the financial institutions that dragged us into this mess in the first place; you cannot cherry pick your recipients, it has to be all or none. Nor would the individuals who were let go because of the mismanagement have been rewarded with Government positions. This whole mess stinks worse than yesterdays crap, and Cheney sits right in the middle of it, no matter what B.S. he’s trying to peddle.

  • avatar
    probert

    It always confounds me that the tin hat brigade rants against liberal government intrusion into our lives and yet rally around a man who advocated,and implemented, illegal wiretapping of millions of American citizens without warrant.

    Go figure.

    He’s a criminal who should be investigated, tried and incarcerated.

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      You mean like the people rail against corporate welfare and government support of special interests, and then support the bailout of two corporations and an injection of taxpayer money for the UAW?

      • 0 avatar
        CamaroKid

        Psst buddy, don’t look now, but it was a REPUBLICAN who bailed out those two corporations and injected the taxpayer money for the UAW. It was a REPUBLICAN who socialized AIG, City Group, Bank of America, Freddy, Fanny, (long list here), etc. It was a REPUBLICAN who at one point had more Federal ownership of private land and family homes (based on a percentage) then Main Land China or the Former Soviet Union.

        You are more than a little confused as to which administration was handing out all of the bailout money…

        You also are confused that the current Administration has actually PRIVATIZED more companies than ANY other President… (of course that was/is an easy thing to do since the previous president basically socialized much of the Banking , Insurance and Real Estate industries) Buy why let facts get in the way of a good rant.

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        Pssst, buddy, you might want to check out that it was a DEMOCRAT who finalized the bailout of the GM and Chrysler, and it was a DEMOCRAT who gave the UAW large blocks of stock in both companies that was only worth anything because of taxpayer money given to said companies.

        Of course, if you really want to have a more thorough undestanding of politics, you need to learn it’s best to look at ACTIONS, not political labels. Plenty of conservatives and libertarians were not happy with Bush’s actions (regarding either the auto companies OR the banks), despite the “R” after his name. The last time I checked, however, plenty of liberals who usually get their panties into a twist over corporate influence over government and government aid to special interests are ardent supporters of the bailout of GM, Chrysler and the UAW.

        (For future reference, you might want to learn that GM and Chrysler are corporations, and in the real world, the UAW is just another special interest, not the vanguard of the middle class, despite what its propaganda, oops, its press releases, say).

        That was the point of my original post, and nothing you posted proves this incorrect, so you might want to read posts more carefully before writing meaningless tangents.

    • 0 avatar
      Monty

      Here, gentlemen, I fixed that for you:

      Psst buddies, don’t look now, but it was a POLITICIAN who bailed out those two corporations and injected the taxpayer money for the UAW. It was a POLITICIAN who socialized AIG, City Group, Bank of America, Freddy, Fanny, (long list here), etc. It was a POLITICIAN who at one point had more Federal ownership of private land and family homes (based on a percentage) then Main Land China or the Former Soviet Union.

      You are more than a little confused as to which POLITICIAN was handing out all of the bailout money…

      POLITICIAN > Democrat

      POLITICIAN > Republican

      It makes no difference as to which party holds the White House or Congress – they’re all POLITICIANS out to feather their own and their friend’s nests. Scratch a Republican or Democrat and underneath they’re all the same.

      As a Canadian, it amazes me that Americans consider the Democratic Party uber left-wing liberals, socialists or even communists. If you want to see what a liberal government looks like – look to Sweden. If you’re unsure of what constitutes a socialist party – look to the British Labour Party under Micheal Foote. The only socialism is the United States is Corporate Socialism – Congress shared the wealth when Wall Street came begging.

      The Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin – and they’re all out to screw over the middle class.

  • avatar

    aside from the fact that Red Ink Rick intentionally BK’d GM after his asset stripping bankster cash diversions and prior to his GOB appointment to the Post, it’s been the horrific and inexcusable marketing at the root of GM’s decades of decline that began shortly after the duPont divestiture. the gov’t involvement is inconsequential long term as it’s relative short term ownership stake occurred merely to effectively rinse the balance sheet and enable surgery on the liability side of the income statement in regard to lessening wages, benefits, environmental concerns and legal entanglements.

  • avatar
    william ockham

    Here’s a question for anyone who will answer it. The universal way that the government rescue of our largest auto company is called is the “General Motors Bailout”. But what really was the bailout? It didn’t bailout the owners of GM, the stockholder. They were completely wiped out. They didn’t get a penny of the governments money. Likewise the creditors of GM got almost nothing. The few creditors with “mortgages” on the assets of GM got a very small payment, ten cents for each dollar they were owed. The creditors without a mortgage got nothing. The banks and the pensioners got nothing from the money that government put into the bailout. As far as I can tell the only people who got anything out of the bailout were the employees of GM. For the UAW union workers, the large majority of whom kept their jobs, kept their same pay and lost some of their of their benefits, but not much. So wasn’t it the UAW and its workers who were bailed out, not the company or its banks. Am I wrong? Anyone, please tell me. And for whats it’s worth I still can’t decide whether the bailout was a good idea or not

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ToolGuy: New cars have perfect paint (the best paint jobs in the world come out of mainstream OEM vehicle plants...
  • Old_WRX: I suspect there’s a ways to go before a robotic plane could pull off something like...
  • Old_WRX: @Andrew, Wow, that could lead to some interesting law suits.
  • Vulpine: I’ll accept that. I thought the Fairmont came after the Torino/LTD II
  • ToolGuy: I’m excited about the Sportback, and I have started planning my acquisition process: Step 1: Find...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber