Auto bailouts have paid off, says Barack Obama

No doubt. Letting GM fall off the face of the earth would have been stupid and a disaster. And they better pass financial reform, otherwise I don't see a future in this country.

Obamas idea of financial reform is to allow the Government to run everything. This is the epitome of Greed.

"Obamas idea of financial reform is to allow the Government to run everything. This is the epitome of Greed."

Did you just make that up or repeat it from Faux News? There is no basis in reality for a claim like that. Pure BS.

Well just look at what is going on. Its Not B.S. If you choose to be blind of the facts thats your choice. Obama is Power Greedy. Does that help?

The auto industry bailout "paid off"? Only if you take the phrase "paid off" literally, as in the bailouts "paid off" the auto unions that helped get Obama elected. The strategy employed by the left to reward irresponsibility and bad decision making with incentives and to punish the responsible and productive with punitive taxation is a sure path to insolvency—whether we're talking about an institution or an individual.

Irresponsibilty would be to just let over 500,000 american jobs leave the US in one way or another in a time when people in America where being laid off left and right just for the sake of calling a company a failed caompany when clearly it was not them that failed it was the lac of credit available at that point of time and so is the case today.

"mbcls07, your an idiot."—1995e34

Just the type of articulate, rational arguments we've come to expect from the left. 1995e34, emotional rants are no excuse for intelligent, reasoned thought. Rather than blurt out the first nonsensical thought that comes to mind, why not form a cogent rebuttal to my assertion that the bailout was really a payoff of Obama's uaw political allies? Or that the left's policies of rewarding irresponsible behavior while punishing productivity is destructive?

"The strategy employed by the left..." - there's an amusing way of putting it. I thought the timeline started with the American buyers' preference for large inefficient cars, despite having gone through oil crisis, 2 wars in the Middle East, numerous oil shortage cycles, leading to the current crop of uncompetitive American cars. Throw in years of regulation neglect (if not undermining) of the financial markets by the supply-siders (aka Conservative) and you have a perfect cocktail of credit crisis that brewed and boiled over under the watch of the Repubican administration and congress. And what do you want, not throw a life vest to the American car companies so that the unemployment rate goes to 25% (instead of 15%+)? Talk about ideology gone mad.

Your right about all points but one and American automakers have been very competitive since the early 2000's

nguyenvuminh,
That's some interesting analysis. By "interesting" i mean dead wrong. The unceasing, unrealistic, undermining demands of the UAW are an indisputable factor in the financial destruction of GM. Only a blind partisan would disagree. Of course, the cause of GM's undoing isn't the point of this article or my comments, now is it, nguyenminh? Rather than respond with red herring arguments, why not tell my why my original comment is wrong?

A success? all exept the auto execs got huge bonuses with tax payers money, that should have been looked at more carefully so that wouldn't have happened. The biggest screw up that Obamma did is bail the bankers out that put the world in this position in the first place, then again Presidents stopped running the show since Kennedy, I would like to see what Ron Paul would have done, the bankers would kill him before he took them down, and he would have, he is 10 x smarter than Obamma, and I like Obamma.

Enterprises don't fail for lack of bail-outs. Therefore there don't get fixed by bail-outs. Chrysler showned us: the pig that feeds at the trough comes back to feed again at the trough. See you next bail-out.

Chrysler was bailed out a second time due to a German Company Policies. It is well noted that if Chrysler never had been involved with Diamler they would have been fine and some say in better shape than Ford. So to say Chrysler practiced the same policies twice with the intention of a safety let bailout would be incorrect.

Show me a link to Obama promising the UAW a continued existence. When will you ever get tired of lies.

Don't the auto workers get $70ish thousand a year? That doesn't sound unreasonable,they probably work 8-12hrs a day? I would be more inclined to think that it is the executives that screwed the whole thing, look at all there millions in bonuses, and for what? Are they some secret alien group that controls America? lol Where do these people come from, they make mediocre cars (exept the Camero,Vett and a few others) Then when they fail they blame the middle class! Remember they are making millions! Can you say that the majority of us are sheep? Is anyone surprised that Goldman Sacs is in trouble? Michael Moore exposed them a long time ago, now many Americans are waking up,they are pissed off, so Obamma is going to do something now,lol like they never knew. America may be close to a revolution against the Federal reserve and all the banks and Gov. that lets it all happen.

Invisible, I read your link and was amused to read Obbama's words on Iraq, "
"This is a war I opposed in 2002. It's a war I opposed in 2003. And in 2004, and 2005, and 2006. This is a war that should have never been authorized and never been waged. And we shouldn't compound the mistake of going in by waiting any longer to pull our troops out. That's why I've called for us to start withdrawing troops not next month, not next year - now"

Obamma increased the military presence, i don't hold this against him because it is not within his control, he is just a mascot with a little power, and a good guy, Kennedy tried to be in control, Presidents do what they are told regardless what party they represent.

if people would read closer they would see this...

In a report issued earlier this week, Barofsky, the special inspector general for the TARP, said, “GM has made several payments on its outstanding loan to Treasury and expects to pay it in full by June 30, 2010. The source of funds for these quarterly payments will be other TARP funds currently held in an escrow account.”

They are repaying their loan with another loan. It is no different than claiming when I refinanced my house I had paid off my mortgage. Well yes, technically with one company i did, but I still borrowed the money from someone else.

last do not forget that the government still owns 61% and GM still owes $2.1 billion to the government.

GM used money from one loan to pay off another that had a higher interest rate A smart and sound move and the rest that GM owes will be taken care of when GM goes public this year and the goverment will have made money on GM.

mbcls07 - to place the primary burden on uaw alone is a pretty weak argument. I don't much care for labour unions in the States and the uaw in particular but I would think it's the executives that decided to try to fool the market with the likes of Cimarron, no back up plan involving some small efficient cars, not leveraging their strong European car line up, etc. that played equally pivotal role in their demise. From what I know, European labour unions are equally if not even more difficult to deal with (you can talk to Fiat's current chairman about that) so it's not just the union. As for your comment "...The strategy employed by the left to reward irresponsibility and bad decision making with incentives..." Doesn't that also applies to the right rewarding irresponsibility via their undermining all regulations (financial, environmental and safety) and rewarding tax breaks to those companies that ship more jobs and technologies abroad? The market shall solve all problems theory have holes just like the pro-labour and left wing theories so please spare the lecturing.

nguyenvuminh, please reread my comments. Nowhere did I suggest there were not additional factors that played into GM's demise. The article referenced dealt specifically with the bailout, which, as I pointed out, was really a bailout of UAW jobs. nguyenvuminh, you've got to avoid fallacious red herring arguments if you wish to be taken seriously. Speaking of fallacious arguments, your assertion that the right rewards irresponsibility "via their undermining of all regulations" is baseless. In fact, the Bush Administration attempted to regulate Fannie Mae 17 times while in office. On each occasion he was blocked by Democrats.

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-17-times-in-2008-alone-dems-ignored-warnings/

We all know how that turned out, don't we? Both sides have, at times, been guilty of promoting unproductive behavior, however, more often that not, it's the left that seeks to reward and incent irresponsible behavior while punishing the productive class. Look no further than the tax code for evidence.

Your gross misrepresentation of the free market economic theory espoused by the right ("the market shall solve all problems" ) is yet another example of your unfortunate tendency to use fallacious arguments (google "straw man argument", nguyenvuminh). No serious conservative figure suggests all regulation should be removed.

nguyenvuminh, you owe it to yourself to expand your information base to include more objective news sources. Clearly, you're being influenced by objectivity-challenged sources, as evidenced by your rhetoric and the fallacious arguments you resort to. I get the impression you may be a student. I suggest you sign up for a course in philosophy, where you'll be introduced to rules of logic. Perhaps a course in economics will be of aid as well.

mbcls07 - funny you should question my background. I majored in economics, I'm 44 years old, worked on the East Coast and the West Coast, in N America and now in Asia, worked at American companies and now an Australian company. I worked on business development and in corporate finance. I worked in the financial services sector, the electronic equipment sector, the medical device sector and now at a top 100 university. I still don't subscribe to your notion and nor do I find your suggestion of argument methodology convincing. I do have my conviction from having lived in the US and Asia and seen different countries and cultures at different level of development. And I suspect your propensity to mention about debate tactic that you may be a lawyer but that's just pure speculation on my part. But if it's true, then I guess I'm dealing with someone who really adds value to America as a society, eh.

nguyenvuminh,

The only "argument methodology" I suggest is one based on facts and logic—two things that don't change, even when viewed through the lens of personal experience. Fallacious arguments aren't excused by your biography, no matter how diverse. If you can't be "convinced" by facts or logic, then there really isn't point in engaging in a serious discussion, now is there?

Another thing mbcls07 - when it comes to discussion about politics/religion, 9 times out of 10 it boils down to everyone has their reason for taking particular stance and each has his/her own reason/logic. But those that resort to attacking or questioning someone's personal traits are the one that have issues. You don't know me but you think you can attack my background and qualification? What does that says about you as a person in this land of the free etc. etc.

nguyenvuminh,
While it's true that "when it comes to discussion about politics/religion everyone has their reason for taking a particular stance" that doesn't make their particular stance any more factual or valid. I realize we live in a time influenced by postmodernist philosophy where notions of logic and fact have unfortunately been replaced by subjectivity and opinion, but the pursuit of truth still requires an adherence to logic. An opinion devoid of fact is worthless.

By the way, my intention wasn't to attack your background/qualifications, but merely to suggest a path toward self-improvement and credibility.