Obama defended the auto industry bailouts and then said Romney’s plan was to “make sure that the?
Question by Fufu: Obama defended the auto industry bailouts and then said Romney’s plan was to “make sure that the?
folks at the top play by a different set of rules.” How does this makes sense?
Obama said that by bailing them out, they saved a million jobs and that Romney wanted to let them go bankrupt. Well, wouldn’t letting them go bankrupt mean that they would have to play by the same set of rules as every other business, big or small? And didn’t the bailouts make sure that the folks at the top of the auto industry didn’t have to play by the rules of the free market?
Give your answer to this question below!
6 Responses to Obama defended the auto industry bailouts and then said Romney’s plan was to “make sure that the?
Leave a Reply
It does mean exactly what you said. But keep in mind: Obama makes up his own rules. He said he saved the industry, he forgot to mention he did it with taxpayers money.
He also never admits that he is just pandering to uneducated, reactionary, voters. He would sell his mother for one more vote and then blame Bush.
JRHRLH
November 8, 2013 at 1:49 am
romney would have done the same thing, he would of stole the money from the poor and paid the rich
angelo3718
November 8, 2013 at 2:46 am
Since you’re a conservative, you do not understand the fundamental economics. The bailout was required because, after the bankruptcy, no one would have lent the car companies any money. For some reason, you like the idea of the American auto industry failing.
xpatinasia
November 8, 2013 at 3:24 am
Most large companies will go bankrupt reach a deal with its creditors restructure its debt take on private investment not from the federal govt and if it seems profitable come out of bankruptcy.
Mitt romney advocated this approach in an op ed saying we shouldnt use federal funds to manage the bankruptcy.
Normally that might work. But back in 2008 banks were getting seized left and right. Lending especially of the kind to bring gm out of bankruptcy just wasnt happening at the time. If gm went bankrupt without federal intervention at that time its very likely they would never have re opened.
Now you could say lots of other companies went bankrupt in 2008 onward why should gm get special access to funds. Thats a valid point. But keep in mind its in the strategic interest of the united states to be able to produce its own automobiles. Not just for local jobs outside detroit but so were not outsourcing billions of dollars in auto sales to some foreign country every year. So we can push higher fuel efficiency standards lowering the price of gas for everybody.
A chevy volt would not exist if it werent for govt intervention. Theres not many being sold now, but whenever we figure out how to make a cheaper battery the us will lead the way in plug in hybrid technology instead of being behind like we were on hybrids like the priius.
icpooreman
November 8, 2013 at 3:27 am
obongo merely interferred with the normal operation of the bankruptcy courts to take money from taxpayers and bondholders and give it to the UAW. This is not “saving” Detroit.
Shovel Ready
November 8, 2013 at 4:17 am
Yes & they will never be playing by the rules as long as the incumbent is re-elected & keeps their 45.5 billion tax credits, ceo bonus they got after structured bankruptcy to halt its costly habits after 3 bailouts in the course of six months that resulted in closing of hundreds of GM dealership, reduction of domestic production, boost & import productions from foreign (China/Russian) GM plants (outsoursing).
$ 70 dollars per Hour to install tires (entry level) is more than 8 times the minimum wage.
The only thing the incumbent understand about economics is when you borrow money, the more money you can spend & since government can print money legally why not keep printing to fund his runaway spending. Its like a friend borrowing money from everyone close to them by faking cancer to go on a world tour or a lavish wedding. Its not about making money through trade, materials, goods, manufacturing, entertainment, or service, but making money by exhausting every ones money.
Devaluing the dollar (pay cut) further as the feds prints & buy back what they can’t sell to international countries is nothing more than money laundering. More borrowing & spending wont cut the deficit, just as it didn’t cut the 9 trillion deficit to 4.5 trillion deficit & ended up with 17 trillion deficit instead. Australia’s dollar use to be worth half that of the U.S. now ist worth more & probably 5 – 10 times more if the incumbent gets re-elected.
Wealthy multimillionaire celebrities (entertainment indus.) & corporation will do just fine without loopholes, HC waivers, tax credits, & tax exemptions that partisan journalist (media matters/npr), unions & corporations such as celebrity letting a bee farmer make honey in his/her land to pay little property tax, Fiscar for wealthy celebrities, Unions health care waivers, GE’s zero tax (exemption?) outsourcing half of its labor force out of the U.S.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2011-04/20/content_12362821.htm
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gm-invest-1-billion-russia-075103870.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/22/bonuses-given-after-raises-at-solyndra/
http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/06/12/akerson-admits-gm-bankruptcy-not-well-thought-out
http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/02/16/gm-pays-less-tax-buffet%e2%80%99s-secretary-uaw-profits
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704462704575590642149103202.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-influence-industry-obama-gives-administration-jobs-to-some-big-fundraisers/2012/03/06/gIQA9y3txR_story.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121011065037AAP7Syu
Blanco Y egro
November 8, 2013 at 5:10 am