START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
News & Politics

Rave

Correction, Bush Saves Detroit....wait, what???

Posted 23 months ago|38 comments|1,334 views
Written by
I have had some trouble averting the urge to waylay some of my ideological counter parts posts recently but just did not have the time. However our good friend Altruist's recent post "Obama saves Detroit" beckons for a quick "slice and dice" to reveal the truth of the situation.

In true leftist fashion it is described to us how Obama through his wonderful "bailouts" saved the auto industry. Well it is nice that the bailouts are identified as saving Detroit since Bush "yes that is BUSH as in PRESIDENT" actually issued the first "bailout" http://consumerist.com/2008/12/bush-appr... so……….Obama only continued the process which Bush started.

As for the republicans causing the crisis, once again for all those liberal kool-aid intoxicated people out there please, please watch this short video. It is in English and the bunk is coming from the democrats themselves… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzI...

And in reference Chrysler or GM ever paying back the bailout money here are the cold hard facts folks, we (the actual tax payers) got the royal shaft from out leaders in DC. http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/belt...

Oh and as for our illustrious leader Obama please read this article which puts his speech in Ohio concerning the auto industry's payback into perspective, http://www.wallstreetsurvivor.com/CS/for...

Make no mistake folks this is a concerted effort by many in the media, education, unions etc to push this "progressive" ideology upon us. Many have bought into it and are spewing their religion of collectivism on us just as has been done before in many countries just before the darkness fell. Seek the truth not the candy coated whispers of nothingness.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: Thanks Jakarta. Very informative.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago:
GM's Vice Chairman Stephen Girsky in a television interview :

Question: Are you just paying the government back with government money?

Mr. Girsky: Well listen, that is in effect true...
23 months ago: Well, I guess you would have to give the guy a point for honesty at least.
23 months ago: Scoundrels, all of them!
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: Yeah, scoundrels. The way I understand it GM has paid back the 8 billion(?) in TARP money, but the other $57 billion or so is never going to be paid back. The US government has a 61% ownership and Canada owns 10% of GM.

Total US taxpayer dollars spent to keep GM afloat was $65.6 billion

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11227/03...

GM and Chrysler: $84 billion
GMAC : $17 Billion
GM and Chrysler auto parts $3.5 billion
23 months ago: Wow.... well that is around 104 billion dollars. I recently read that there are 130 something million actual individual tax payers in the U.S. So if we round that off to 140 million individual tax payers and if my math is correct dealing with that many zeros it appears Obama could have sent ever taxpayer in the U.S a check for $742.00 rather than sink it in an auto industry bailout, and I would be willing to bet people would be buying cars or getting their cars fixed with that money i.e. stimulation.
Of course it is water under the bridge now. If it had been my call I would have let them go into bankruptcy and made them restructure before giving any loans. And loans they did get from the government should be minimal and all paid back with interest. But if we are going to say that the bailouts are what saved a drowning Detroit then I say lets give the guy who first threw in the life line the credit, or at least half the credit.
23 months ago: "Wow.... well that is around 104 billion dollars. I recently read that there are 130 something million actual individual tax payers in the U.S. So if we round that off to 140 million individual tax payers and if my math is correct dealing with that many zeros it appears Obama could have sent ever taxpayer in the U.S a check for $742.00 rather than sink it in an auto industry bailout, and I would be willing to bet people would be buying cars or getting their cars fixed with that money i.e. stimulation."

Or they could have bought 2.5 weeks of groceries. maybe paid half a months house payment. After of course they lost their jobs at GM and went to work at McDonalds for minimum wage.
23 months ago: Again with the "sky would have fell" if we did not bailout the auto makers. The curious thing Slim is that I can think of several scenarios in which we do not bailout the automakers and all is not lost. I'm not saying they are necessarily right but as with the governments' decision to bail out Detroit we are now left with what appears for many to be "buyers' remorse". We look at what we got for the money and it feels, too many tax payers it was something of a bad deal.
23 months ago: "The curious thing Slim is that I can think of several scenarios in which we do not bailout the automakers and all is not lost."

Not so curious, we human beings have an incredible ability to create from whole cloth an entire scenario of would-haves, could-haves and should-haves to re-engineer a situation to better suit our sensibilities.

As a general rule I was and am against the government bailing out any industry that is so shortsighted in its operation to provide for their shareholders before they provide for the future of their company or the well being of their employee's. However a large part of our military preparedness is based on the availability of these companies in particular.

Perhaps the sky wouldn't have fallen. But how do we quantify the importance of the auto industry to our overall industrial base?
23 months ago: "Not so curious, we human beings have an incredible ability to create from whole cloth an entire scenario of would-haves, could-haves and should-haves to re-engineer a situation to better suit our sensibilities".

You got that one right. Someone presented this scenario earlier to indicate the auto industry would go belly up, imagine that.

"Or they could have bought 2.5 weeks of groceries. maybe paid half a months house payment. After of course they lost their jobs at GM and went to work at McDonalds for minimum wage".

"Perhaps the sky wouldn't have fallen. But how do we quantify the importance of the auto industry to our overall industrial base?"

I agree of the importance of the auto industry. I do not agree with how the help to the auto industry was administered. As it was bailed out and as we see more of the money trails from it, the appearance becomes of a pay off. A sincere effort to use taxpayer money as efficiently as possible in order keep the auto industry from completely going under would have in my opinion netted different effects than what we have.
23 months ago: Here is a thought... why not have the Gov purchase a car (Enviro-friendly of course) for everyone in America... send the bill over time to the taxpayers... now there's a "bail-out" that gets everyone working... and not just working at McDonald's !:]
23 months ago: ...it could be called "Rebuild America... while building your own car!"
23 months ago: Excellent post Bro. Nice return.
23 months ago: Thanks Huey. I hope I can hang around a while.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
23 months ago: Some good information, a lot of Fox's attempts to re write history. For one thing there were multiple causes for the economic collapse. I t wasn't so much that Fanny and Freddy were trying to get loans to low income people so they could own their own homes, the problem is that the banking community made these stupid ARM's with the balloon payments, then the realtors and bankers would sell the foolish people on them saying that of course housing would continue to go up and they wouldn't have to worry about those balloon payments because the house would be worth so much more then.

Then the financial agencies made essentially fraudulent high risk securities by bundling these high risk loans into derivitives, bribing companies to give them AAA ratings and then hedging their bets by buying insurance that would pay when they inevitably failed.

It does illustrate however how things can get politicized. Back then It was the Republicans that wanted more regulation. Unfortunately they just wanted regulation of Fanny and Freddie but not Wall Street and the Banking Industry that really created the problems. Bush and Obama agreed that the auto Industry needed to be bailed out. Now anything Obama proposes is considered bad and wrong despite the merits and any regulation is considered bad despite the need.

Likewise in the past, Reagan raised taxes 11 times, and Papa Bush also raised taxes despite promising not to. The Republican propensity to make government larger (mainly military) while refusing to pay for their purchases is what caused the majority of the national debt.

Cheney said that Reagan proved that deficits don't matter so they spent like drunken sailors, Now that the opposition is in charge suddenly deficits matter but they are still unwilling to pay for their purchases.

It is obvious that both parties cause problems because they only serve their core constituents, while the vast majority of people get screwed.

A Bipartisan system simply does not work. When the tally is balanced they are simply deadlocked, when one party is in power they over reach and only serve the radical wing of that party to the detriment of the majority. A pox on both their houses!

It is time to REQUIRE at least three parties, that there be a simple majority vote first to decide if a problem needs to be addressed, and then a separate vote to decide the best way to solve the problem. Every bill should have at least three proposals for solutions to those problems and then require a preferential vote.

That way the centrist proposal would generally agreed upon and instead of the radicals insisting on getting their way there will be an incentive to cooperate and help the vast majority of people and actually solve the nations many problems.

All parties should agree that we need a leaner more efficient government so they should agree that there be some accounting to determine if programs are doing their jobs and/or making long term savings.

Now programs are simply opposed along ideological lines. Republicans oppose anything not benefiting big business or the military, Democrats want programs to help the majority of people and think that business and the rich should help those most in need. There should be some middle ground so we need a centrist party.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
23 months ago: Sort of interesting that Obama gets condemned by Romney and most other Republicans for continuing the auto bailout, an idea that Bush first proposed, then gets condemned for his health care idea that Romney first proposed, and now he is being condemned by both sides for continuing wars that Bush started.

Is there any doubt that if roles were reversed and a Republican was in power that the Republicans would support those same identical policies while the Democrats would oppose them?

Both sides are controlled by big business and the big money rich elite. We need someone looking out for the regular people and the Tea Party ain it. They are just being manipulated by Fox and the right wing propaganda machine to support big business to their own detriment.
23 months ago: Some interesting points Al. I'm at work now but I do want to look them over again and get back with you.
23 months ago: Al I agree with you that there are multiple factors involved in the economic crisis. In fact it is my opinion the Democrats and Republicans share the responsibility as far as government goes. The American people also share in the responsibility as well by not taking personal responsibility of their finances and by jumping into mortgages they were not ready for. Fannie and Freddie had a large role because they were giving loans to people they should not have. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_2wmwNAG...
23 months ago: Cont.

As for Fox trying to re-write history, this seems to be a weak statement when most of the video is of clips, statements and quotes from actual government personnel. Now if they were morphing statements together or something yea but the republicans said what they said and the democrats said what they said when they said it, it is on record and Fox reported it.

I also agree that things are politicized way too much. Guess what though, that is what happens when government gets to big and to many people think it is suppose to do everything for them while the rest of the people feel it is intruding on their lives way to much and trying to get into more of their lives. This is where we are at now I believe.
23 months ago: Cont.

I also like the idea of three parties. And I do not disagree that big business can become greedy and overpowering. But people who demonize big business do not seem to realize that government is set up as an administrative form of business i.e. president of a business, president of the country etc. Government as any business is set up in a manner in which it will naturally increase its own stature without the constituents encouraging it to do so. Yet now the Democrats are calling for more power and bigger government and it has the democratic voters cheering it on. We have much more to fear from an overpowering government than we ever would from an overpowering business.

Big businesses may take your money but only big government can and has made murder big business.

.
23 months ago: "But people who demonize big business do not seem to realize that government is set up as an administrative form of business i.e. president of a business, president of the country etc."

Maybe the single most uneducated statement I have ever read on this forum. And that includes TCG which makes it a pretty big accomplishment.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: 'Maybe the single most uneducated statement I have ever read on this forum.'

Please elaborate.

23 months ago: Yes, I also request elaboration on that statement Slim.
23 months ago: Cont. (last one....whew!!)

I do not agree that the Tea party has been manipulated by anyone. The reason I feel more liberals have been manipulated than conservatives would best be illustrated with your own words. "We need someone looking out for the regular people". These are the type of words which come from people who no longer see themselves as being responsible for their own lives. When people expect some entity or whatever to be looking out for them then they have relinquished their own identity and freedom and are becoming dependants. The tea party wants less government "looking after them" thus I believe they have not become the subjects of others.
23 months ago: "do not agree that the Tea party has been manipulated by anyone. The reason I feel more liberals have been manipulated than conservatives would best be illustrated with your own words. "We need someone looking out for the regular people". These are the type of words which come from people who no longer see themselves as being responsible for their own lives."

Or it could be that as a population we are sick to death of politicians only looking out for those who pay to keep them in office. A lot of stress is put on the idea of personal responsibility while those individuals and corporations that profited from driving our country to the brink of economic collapse are allowed to continue unfettered.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: Did ya ever think that maybe it was the big bad banking boys who didn't want GM to go into bankruptcy and default on their loans after ten years of red ink? The US and Canadian governments stepped up and bought 71% of GM so they could pay off some of their debt immediately.
Since, they've been playing three card Monte with new government loans and incentives being used as evidence of GM repaying the money owed to the government. It's an expensive con game being played, and only 68,000 GM workers lost their jobs, while the banks continue to rake it in from both sides; GM and now the American taxpayer.
Content Removed by Jakarta99
23 months ago: Well Slim you summed it up even better than Al, i.e. you are sick of politicians only looking out for themselves so you want government to come in and protect us (population). Thanks for reiterating my point.
23 months ago: Sorry, I said nothing about the government protecting us. I do however feel that they should spend their time promoting the interest of the American public at large and not just the small wealthy segment that bought their way into office.

Protection of wealth to the exclusion of all else has led us to this point.
23 months ago: No Slim, I see you said nothing of the government protecting us. When you stated " allowed to continue unfettered" I thought that you was implying government should do something. However after looking at your comment again I realize you are simply making accusations and implications which are completely vague and without any real basis or constructive suggestion whatsoever.
Now I agree with your idea that our elected officials should act on behalf of the entire nation rather than a small segment of people who may have helped get them in office. In fact I would say in the case we have here our elected officials spent hundreds of thousands of dollars per each Detroit auto workers job when the auto industry is only a very small segment of the nations work force. Why, I ask you Slim does the auto industry get saved and not the small family owned construction company down the road? Is it fair? You say our elected officials should be doing what is best for the public at large rather than a small segment. I say rather than bailout the auto industry our government should have spread that money to more of the American public at large. Oh the Auto industry is to big to fail some say. Yet as you said yourself the country has been drove to the brink of economic collapse. Who will be buying these cars and trucks if the public in general is broke? The government? Looks like it is broke as well.
23 months ago: We as yet have the freedom to buy or not to buy a new car from GM or Chrysler. However the bailouts were pretty much forced down our throat as our government said it was doing us a favor. Well that may or may not be true but as the story has played out there are many indicators that this was as much of a "pay off" for those who helped support Obama as it was to save jobs. As OOTB pointed out the money trail has not lead to total and innocent American job saving but rather what appears to be many pay off's, money shuffling and back door deals.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
23 months ago: Of course the horible irony of this entire thread is that had the American Auto Industry not been beholden to the Oil industry for so long, they would have and could have made the changes that would have made them viable to this day. Indstead they spend many billions of dollars lobbying against the very changes that would have preserved their viability (increased efficiency, lower emissions, greater safety, alternative fuel sources etc. – note to all, the first economically viable mass-produced hybrid came out of Japan not USA for example). When the cost of oil skyrocketed, based on oil speculation, the results were the downfall of the entire economy as virtually every aspect of our lives now depends on the cost of oil.

In short, I don't think the auto industry should have been bailed out nor that anyone but the American tax payers should get credit if or when a bailout works. If you spend my money to save someone else, I get the credit, not you.
23 months ago: Well CRR I certainly have to cheer the idea of the taxpayer getting credit if it should work. Likewise I feel the taxpayer should keep a close watch on the situation. With over 104 billion dollars invested and a possible 13 billion which will never get paid back, for the individual taxpayer that is a huge investment.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: "...had the American Auto Industry not been beholden to the Oil industry..."

Huh? How has the suto industry been beholden to the oil industry? Seems like it would be the other way around, if anything. Take away the cars, and you take a huge slice out of the oil industries customer base. Make more efficient cars, and you take a large piece of the oil industries profits. Seems more accurate to say that the oil industustry would be in the auto industry's hip pocket.

But the auto market crash happened far in advance of the general economy, by at least five years. They were practically giving their vehicles away, just to keep the cash flow moving. They just lucked out when the economy crashed, and they rode the taxpayer gravy train along with all the other "too big to fail" establishments.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: Another note to all: The piece of crap, ultra expensive hybrids coming out now are getting what : 45 to 50 mpg?

They've been making diesel cars in Europe, primarily Volkswagon, that have been breaking 65 mpg for over ten years. A nice luxury edition Jetta seats 5 comfortably, runs about $22,000 US dollars, and gets 65 mpg in town and over 70mpg on the highway. I ran into a guy that has a Volkwagon truck, similar in size to the Chevy Luv or S-10, and he gets 52 MPG around town. Guess what? You can't buy them here.
23 months ago: Absolutely correct here. And it is a perfect example of what I refer to when I say that the Fed should be more interested in promoting the welfare of the American people over the welfare of the small wealthy segment that bought their elections.
23 months ago: That really stands to reason CR. I like the points OOTB makes on this one.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: And the first auto bailout way back when resulted in what? Chrysler going belly up anyway, bought by the Germans, unloaded by way of public auction, and if you follow the money trail you see names like Dan Quale, Bernie Madoff, John W. Snow, and other interesting characters.
23 months ago: Oh I completely forgot about that one. Now that bailout of Chrysler is looking more like a shot in the arm for a junkie. A few decades later and Chrysler needs another shot. Are these recent massive financial shots in the arm for GM and Chrysler going to merely prop them up for a few years? Good one OOTB.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2013 RantRave