Obama and Bush fighting over who is responsible for GM, Chrylser collapse

Obama and Bush fighting over who is responsible for GM, Chrylser collapse
The Barack Obama administration and the former George Bush administration are in a battle of words over who is responsible for the collapse of Chrysler and General Motors.

According to the Obama economic advisor Austin Goolsbee, who spoke on Fox News last night, the Obama administration turned down a pitch last November from Bush’s administration to publicly join forces on setting tough conditions for GM and Chrysler in return for federal aid.

“We are only in this situation because somebody else kicked the can down the road, and that’s really an understatement,” Goolsbee said. ”When George Bush put money into General Motors, almost explicitly with the purpose, how many dollars do they need to stay alive until January 20th, 2009? There was no commitment to restructuring, to making these viable enterprises of any kind. I don’t know why the Bush administration simply handed them money and shoved...
Read Article

HSCenterconsoleHSCenterconsole - 6/9/2009 11:51:03 AM
+5 Boost
Putting blame on one person or administration is silly. The sorry state of the American auto industry is a result of decades of mismanagement, horrendous labor agreements, and politicans dictating fuel economy.


Agent009Agent009 - 6/9/2009 12:41:20 PM
+3 Boost
Put blame on the CEOs and let the sucka die. That way the responsible parties are held accountable.

IMHO there never should have been a bailout. If GM or Chrysler tanked then the market would have adjusted and the rest of the manufacturers would be better off than now. You save yourself in the real world and they screwed themselves.


ForeignerForeigner - 6/9/2009 12:45:04 PM
+3 Boost
Agree completely.


DinamoRDinamoR - 6/9/2009 5:31:16 PM
0 Boost
No. If there were no bailouts there would be 20% unemployment and 20% drop in GDP. Same thing that happened when Herbert Hoover cut spending and did not bail out anyone during an economic crises.

God you people are dumb. Your blind belief in markets correcting themselves is beyond stupid. Even now, when that is proven to be totally false and a disaster, you still preach that crap?

That is the story book definition of insanity.


FerrarisR4meFerrarisR4me - 6/9/2009 3:25:29 PM
+3 Boost
It's gotta be Obama's fault. He's been in office, what? 150 days? Let's just blame him.


DinamoRDinamoR - 6/9/2009 5:28:12 PM
+2 Boost
Republicans never take responsibility for anything. it is ALWAYS someone else's fault. 9/11, evne though they were warned for 9 months and cared more about Clintons sex life than terrorists. The economy. Energy. Everything.

GOP sucks. Their like little children.


MunichRobMunichRob - 6/10/2009 2:30:46 AM
0 Boost
Right...So what then, do we assume 911 wouldn't have happened had Clinton still been in office or if Al Gore had won the presidency? Come on now that's silly.


XYZZXYZZ - 6/10/2009 5:19:15 AM
0 Boost
you're damned right!

the neo-cons had plans for this. google and check out Project for a New American Century. but they couldn't implement these plans when clinton was prez, altho they schemed it in the early 1990s.

it was only after they helped Bush STEAL the 2000 election, and things were going badly from Jan 20 thru August 2001, that they figured the time was right to unleash the 9/11 plot.

and it not only got the peoples' minds off what a lousy job bush was doing, but provided the perfect EXCUSE to launch a war on saddam. (even though the majority of hijackers/accomplices were SAUDIs.


VISOVISO - 6/9/2009 6:26:58 PM
+1 Boost
Hmm, GM and Chrysler are responsible for their demise. No one else. The buck stops at their doorsteps.


DinamoRDinamoR - 6/9/2009 9:36:36 PM
0 Boost
Bush did do that. Until shit hit the fan (which, surprise surprise is what happens when repubs have both congress and president for 6-8 years). After shit hit the fan, he could not afford to do that anymore. Unless he wanted to become Herbert Hoover #2 that is.


MunichRobMunichRob - 6/11/2009 6:01:48 PM
+1 Boost
"XYZZ" You obviously hate Bush & republicans in general, so I wouldn't expect any reasoning with you. Just know that it's very easy to stand back & say the democrats had a plan that would've most definitely diverted these attacks.

BTW during Bush’s 1st term in office, most Americans would’ve disagreed with you concerning the job he was doing as he had the highest approval rating in the history of the ratings system.

Also I feel it just goes to show how immature & whiney democrats can be to still preach “stolen election” 9 years later...Let it go already! Clearly the majority of people don’t feel that way as the man was elected back into office by Bush supporters & Al Gore supporters. I say Gore supporters because of his clear win over Kerry that you can bet votes that went to Gore in the previous election went to Bush in the second one.

Why is it that democrats tend to have these extreme conspiracy theories that republicans have to denounce? I look at it as reality & fantasy land aka, republicans & democrats.


Copyright 2026 AutoSpies.com, LLC