Business

Obama Fact Check: Is Only Bush Responsible for Bailouts and Is GM Really ‘Number One’?

President Obama on Wednesday said that President Bush was responsible for bailing out auto companies in Detroit, writes the Washington Examiner’s Charlie Spiering.

“Keep in mind,” the president said, “That the administration before us, they had been writing some checks to the auto industry asking nothing in return. It was just a bailout, straight — straightforward.”

President Obama said that if it weren’t for his current administration’s policies, the auto industry would have been an expensive failure. That is to say, if it weren’t for President Obama’s guiding hand, the auto industry would have collapsed and taken all that Bush-era bailout money with it.

Obama explained that, unlike his predecessor, he “demanded responsibility” from the auto industry, forcing it to “retool and to restructure,“ making it ”more efficient.”

Critics argue that the president’s claim that the Bush administration demanded “nothing in return” is false.

As Spiering notes, when the Bush administration authorized the first auto loan of $17.4 billion, in October 2008, some aspects of the loan were contingent upon the companies hitting “Restructuring Targets.” Therefore, no one can say that the Bush administration didn’t at least demand or impose guidelines.

Of course, this isn’t to say that “guidelines” make the idea of a bailout any more desirable, but that President Obama‘s allegation simply isn’t accurate.

The president continued: “Over the past two years, that entire industry has added nearly 160,000 jobs, GM is number one in the world again. Ford is investing billions in new American plants. Chrysler is growing faster. So today, the American auto industry is back.”

Again, there are some inaccuracies worth noting.

First, why did the president cite Ford Motors, the only Detroit automaker that didn’t participate in the bailout smorgasbord? Surely, the president isn’t planning on using Ford’s success to prop up his own economic “achievements.” Or is he?

Second, although the president sounded pretty confident during his State of the Union address when he boasted that GM was “number one,” Volkswagen would beg to differ.

GM announced earlier this year that in 2011 it sold 9.03 million vehicles globally, according to Motor Trend. Volkswagen, on the other hand, claims it sold 8.16 million vehicles globally.

So why does Volkswagen disagree?

Volkswagen’s 8.16-million figure doesn’t include sales from commercial truck divisions MAN and Scania, according to Automotive News. If the manufacturer added those, it would significantly boost their overall numbers.

“On top of that, GM’s sales figure was padded with about one million sales by Chinese automakers SAIC Motor Corp. and Wuling Motors Co. — companies with which GM has joint ventures, but in which the American company does not have a controlling stake,” reports Motor Trend.

“If those sales were excluded and VW’s truck figures added, Volkswagen would probably steal the global sales crown from GM.”

Perhaps the president meant “number one” in reference to GM’s stock quote. But considering the current resting place for GM stock, this claim would be patently false.

Obama Fact Check: Bush Responsible for Bailouts and GM is Number OneGM stock summary as of Jan. 26, 2012

Now let’s go back to this business about the Bush administration’s complicity in the auto bailouts. There’s was a lot more involved than simply writing blank checks. Perhaps this part of the bailout story warrants a revisit.

As the Washington Examiner’s David Freddoso writes in Gangster Government:

When President Bush threw GM and Chrysler their first lifelines (with President-elect Obama’s assent), he did so without congressional approval. After Congress voted specifically to prevent an auto bailout, Bush turned to the overly broad and hastily written TARP statute, which Congress had passed under extreme duress and threats from Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson that their failure to act would cause financial Armageddon.*

What did this mean in terms of the future of the auto bailouts?

“President Bush erred when he said he had ‘abandoned free market principles to save the free market,’” writes Freddoso. “What he had really done was write his successor a blank check.”

So, while it was President Bush who started the U.S. down this road, it was President Obama who “took full advantage of this unlimited political line of credit, [and used] TARP as a justification for limitless executive meddling in economic decisions best left to private stakeholders,” writes Freddoso.

With the precedent set, an “unlimited political line of credit,” and a desire to “fix” things, President Obama introduced “car czar” Steve Rattner to GM:

Rattner fired GM’s hapless CEO Rick Wagoner, something he had no right to do (even if it was a good idea from a business perspective). He later forced out GM’s acting chairman and recruited its new chairman, Ed Whitacre. Rattner’s task force hand-picked staff, micromanaged GM’s relationships with its suppliers and foreign subsidiaries, chose the facilities it would close, chose the brands it would kill, set the pace at which would shed dealerships, even at one point considered forcing GM to move from its iconic Detroit headquarters.**

Wow. Okay.

In that case, yes. Yes, President Obama is correct to point out the differences between his and President Bush’s approach to the ailing auto industry. In fact, President Obama was so determined to differentiate himself from his predecessor that he decided the measly $17.4 billion President Bush gave to Detroit was wholly inadequate. President Obama upped the ante and committed a full-blown $85 billion to the “rescue” of the auto industry.

And what has been the result of all of this “rescuing”? Now that the Feds have invested billions of taxpayer’s dollars in restructuring GM, what do Americans have to show for it?

“According to the Detroit News, the Treasury Department announced in November that it expects to lose $23.6 billion in the auto bailout, as a result of the sharp decline in GM stock,” Spiering writes.

Oh, and let’s not forget the Chevy Volt. The electric vehicle that has been plagued by safety issues, call backs, poor sales, poor performance, and poor reviews. In short, the Chevy Volt, the “flagship vehicle” of the newly restructured GM, has been an utter and miserable failure.

Now this isn’t to say that General Motors is altogether a failed company. While they may not be first in global sales, they’re not last. And while the Volt is a massive flop, the Silverado has done well.

The point is this: $23.6 billion in taxpayer dollars that will never be recouped and a failed electric vehicle are not minor issues. And instead of blaming his predecessor, or incorrectly attributing Ford Motor’s success to policies, perhaps the president could at least address these two glaring problems. If not, the president will continue to repeat what critics have called falsehoods and inaccuracies every time he decides to tell a crowd that his administration “saved” the auto industry.

Read the president’s full speech here.

(H/T Weasel Zippers)

*David Freddoso, “Gangster Government: Barack Obama and the new Washington Thugocracy.” (Washington, D.C: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2011) 28.
**Ibid., 30.

Front page photo source: Michael Wayland | MLive.com

Comments (113)

1 2
  • Detroit paperboy
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 10:58am

    I cant even stand to hear the voice of our SCROTUM IN CHIEF…. ughghhh

    Report Post »  
    • lillymckim
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 11:35am

      Obama is to the USA what the Volt is to GM

      Report Post » lillymckim  
    • MONICNE
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 12:06pm

      The author seems to be splitting hairs. After reading this article carefully, I think the president’s remarks are more or less an accurate summary. American auto industry has come a long way with Government support when they were in crisis. That is indisputable.

      That being said, there are ways to argue this to spin it – of course ‘only Bush 2’ was not responsible for technically correcting the problem, he and his administration were long gone when the problem was being solved, but – they did start laying out taxpayer-backed funds.

      Of course, one can argue that General Motors is number one based on auto sales, maybe General Dynamics would be number one if we counted the money they make on tanks, missiles and aircraft carriers. Maybe General Electric would be number one if we counted how much money they made on turbines.

      TEA

      Report Post » MONICNE  
    • DisillusionedDaily
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 8:45pm

      Gee! No mention of the fact that the original shareholders got scr3wed out of their investments and the union got a majority of the company stock handed to them. I remember another union owned company, Eastern Airlines. If GM keeps allowing the US Government to direct its business it will soon be as profitable as AMTRAK or the USPS.

      Report Post » DisillusionedDaily  
    • B_rad
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 10:45pm

      Several things. One, GM and Chrysler both DID go bankrupt. I cannot stand when people say “if not for the bailouts, they’d have gone under.” No, they’d have gone through legal bankruptcy proceedings. Instead they went through illegal bankruptcy proceedings and they gave all the power and money to the unions. Obama’s takeover of the auto industry was a pure union grab, period. Thousands of non union jobs were lost because they forced dealerships – mostly profitable ones – to close with NO explanation. Family’s lost their livlihoods because they could no longer have GM or Chrysler dealerships, when some had had them for 100 years. Instead, unsuccessful dealers a few miles away, sometimes less, were given their privileges. Bondholders, who by law were supposed to be paid back first, got screwed. That is what Obama presiding over the bankruptcies accomplished.
      Next, though Ford ultimately didn’t take any money, once they saw the strings attached, they did have their hands out. GM was in a much better position than Ford prior to the collapse of the market. Because Ford was doing so poorly, they had started selling off brands and got huge sums of money just before the collapse of the industry. Since they had so much cash, they were able to make it thru. In short, Ford got lucky. They have made a remarkable turn around since then, but GM has too. Chrysler was given to Fiat and the unions.

      Report Post » B_rad  
    • B_rad
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 11:01pm

      The Volt is a remarkable vehicle, and was in development long before anyone knew the name Obama. I’m no greenie, but GM needed a halo eco car and it’s a good one. Just like the Prius, it’s not a cost effective car to start, but as the tech gets spread out, it will be, just like Toyota’s Prius, which was a money loser to start. I’m concerned about the fires, but with the hype about unintended acceleration and other such BS dramas, I’m reserving judgement. I’m skeptical of the claims. They could be true, more info is needed. Motor Trend named it Car of the Year, so it certainly has not been universally criticized.
      As for GM being the #1 car co. again, only because of the tsunami, and possibly the negative hype Toyota got over unintended acceleration. VW is playing with numbers. Their stated goal is to be the #1 automaker by 2018. If that’s their goal, they know they aren’t there yet. Don’t get me wrong, GM is having fun with the numbers too, but VW ain’t there yet. Toyota will be again next year, most likely.
      I’m a car nut, and an admitted fan of GM, tho I won’t buy a new one until the govt. is out of their business, which may be never. GM was once a great company and if the govt. hadn’t taken over, I think they could have stayed on top or not, tho probably with some foreign ownership or even breaking off pieces. I just don‘t think we would’ve lost storied brands like Pontiac if they had let the free market work. Moral of the story: keep the govt out of our

      Report Post » B_rad  
    • akcoins
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 3:53pm

      Scrotum, really? Your wit and debate skills are top notch. Hard to compete against someone like you!

      Report Post »  
  • HuckleberryFriend
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 10:54am

    Am I wrong to think that although Bush signed the bailout and TARP bills into law, that Senator Obama voted for all of these things before Bush was ever culpable? Way to pass the buck there Barry.

    Report Post » HuckleberryFriend  
    • argvan1823
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 8:20pm

      I initially thought Senator Obama voted ‘present’ but after looking up the role call on the US Senate website he in fact voted ‘yea’. If I recall correctly both he and McCain left the campaign trail to vote for this as it was such a national emergency. Good point HBF!

      Report Post » argvan1823  
  • JRook
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 10:44am

    VW commercial truck sales were 200,000 according to their reported figures. So they are still a tad short. The issue is whether GM can utilize the joint venture figures from China. Always like to see people criticizing and disparaging a US company while they claim to be pro US. This clearly has more to do with minimizing the fact that the President undertook a similar action than Reagan took with Chrysler in the 1980′s. Only difference is he made sure it wasn’t a total freebie.

    Report Post »  
    • AmazingGrace8
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 11:39am

      I remember that, thank you…forgot about this fact. At the time, I was puzzled why Ronnie stuck his nose into the private sector. No one president is perfect, as we well know, and now we have had a slew of “people-pleasing-presidents” and not following the blue-print-constitution. I fear for future generations.

      Report Post »  
    • scuba13
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 12:29pm

      Reagan did not bail out Chrysler in 1979, that was Jimmy Carter who signed that into law. I worked for Chrysler from1978 until 2009 we witnessed Jimmy Carter sign the bill at a plant meeting on video tape. So stop your lies about who bailed out Chrysler in 1979 .

      Report Post » scuba13  
    • thewatcher93
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 2:45pm

      ughhh Jimmy Carter did the bailout not Ronnie, I know this because Lee Iacocca became the CEO of chrysler and worked for a dollar a year. It was the hard work and bussiness practices of that time that saved Chrysler not the bailout.

      Report Post »  
    • DMan70
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 3:40pm

      And also please remember that Chrysler paid back EVERY DIME loaned to it. And they didn’t use subsequently handed out money to pay back the original loan either, like Obama Motors did.

      Report Post »  
    • JRook
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 4:06pm

      @scuba13 @thewatcher93 I’m assuming you gentlemen are capable of researching actual reports regarding the question as your memories leave a lot to be desired. There were 2 rounds of loans to Chrysler and Regan made the decision to provided the second round of $400 million.

      Report Post »  
    • JRook
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 4:51pm

      @DMan70 Right and Chrysler gave us the K car and planned so well for the future they needed money again.

      Report Post »  
    • scuba13
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 6:24pm

      Like I said I worked there at the time of the loans. I know who gave Chrysler that loan guarantee, and it was not Ronald Reagan.

      Report Post » scuba13  
    • M13
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 6:34pm

      The reason that Reagan signed the second round is because it was put into the budget by democrats.He signed the budget so he could cut taxes for everybody, nice try though Jrook you just forgot to mention that.

      Report Post »  
    • B_rad
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 11:11pm

      They gave loans to Chrysler so they could avoid bankruptcy and possible sell off to foriegn owners. Not agreeing with it, just saying. Obama made sure Chrysler has foreign ownership this time, and the company still went through bankruptcy – just not a legal one. The government acts like if it weren’t for them, all those jobs would have gone away. No, just someone else would have their name on them. Let the free market work, dammit.

      Report Post » B_rad  
  • Jim in Houston
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 10:41am

    The dimocRat mantra is “Never let nasty old facts get in the way of a good lie”.

    Report Post »  
  • Hickory
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 10:23am

    I hear that Obama is now contemplating on marketing the new and better Chevy Volt as a house warmer. This way, he can spin the Volt fires as a good thing.

    Report Post » Hickory  
    • JRook
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 10:35am

      “Therefore, no one can say that the Bush administration didn’t at least demand or impose guidelines.
      Of course, this isn’t to say that “guidelines” make the idea of a bailout any more desirable, but that President Obama‘s allegation simply isn’t accurate.” Are you serious. The President’s statement referred to getting something in return as in a return of the money. The guidelines you reference have little to do with either the context or substance of what was said. There is a difference between editorial bias and blatant misrepresentation.

      Report Post »  
    • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 11:41am

      And what return of money did Obama expect to get out of Solyndra and the other hand-picked green energy companies he gave tax-payer money to, when he KNEW they were going to go bankrupt?
      I call BS.

      Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
    • JRook
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 4:57pm

      @Anonymous T. Irrelevant Let’s say I accept the weak attempt at diverting from the issue. Please research for me how many $billions Haliburton ripped off the government in Iraq on empty truck convoys and infrastructure projects that were either not completed or are substandard. Silly game to play as we have the best politicians money can buy on both sides of the isle. Who do you think has the money to buy them. Most of what is discussed here is a silly parlor game provided to the citizenry. The federal government has been used by the wealthy and large corporations to transfer wealth upward for a long long time. People here focus on $75 billion in food stamps for poor kids and ignore the $5 billion per year that goes to Exxon, the richest company on the planet. And let’s keep in mind that the food and agricultural industry lobby heavily for the food stamp program.

      Report Post »  
    • Link8on
      Posted on January 29, 2012 at 1:07am

      no mention of Solyndra in the Liar’s address.

      Report Post » Link8on  
  • Tired of Idiotic Comments
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 10:20am

    Evidently, the Tsunami, earthquake, and nuculer reactors meltdown in Japan that crippled that country‘s auto industry didn’t have anything to do with Toyota being knocked out of the number one position.

    Report Post »  
    • hmanwarren1
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 1:37pm

      Bingo

      Report Post »  
    • wedgeii
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 2:06pm

      You are correct my friend!! Let us not forget the acceleration problems that forced Toyota to recall thousands of cars.

      Report Post » wedgeii  
    • riverdog1
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 2:54pm

      if the right had there way all the auto companies and banks would have failed. total economic collapse is what the right stands for.

      Report Post »  
    • JAMACAMECRAZYMAN
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 2:54pm

      Those incidents are only important when talking about his dismal economy…….

      Report Post »  
  • Joe Schmuck
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 10:15am

    The ol Blame Game … we’ve been scammed!

    Over the years BOTH parties have been in power.

    Which one established Term Limits?

    Report Post » Joe Schmuck  
  • crazyoz
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 9:59am

    I would never believe that King Obama’s facts are wrong.

    Report Post »  
  • OneTermPresident
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 9:58am

    Bush bailed them out and Oblamer took them over… big difference. Essentially what Oblamer did after Bush was take them over and prop up his union pals at the UAW and their failed pension funds. Tell me he didn’t… The UAW is the controlling owner of Chrysler stock at 67% of ownership.

    Report Post » OneTermPresident  
    • marion
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 1:31pm

      Fiat now owns more than 50 percent of Chrysler ( something like 58.5 percent as of earlier this month), so all BHO did was give controlling stock to a foreign company. He didn’t save Chrysler, he moved controlling stock out of the country! I think the UAW has the rest of it, so Krony Kapitalizm at its best as far as I am concerned.

      Report Post »  
  • 65Mustang
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 9:44am

    The idiot just reads what someone else has written. As stupid as he looks and sounds, he knows exactly what he is doing..following orders from Soros, the ultra-liberal left, the Chicago Mafia and all those that own him. There collective arms are up his butt.

    Report Post »  
  • jettson
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 9:29am

    The blaze is not letting me post. speak your mind what bs

    Report Post » jettson  
  • Mike Benton
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 9:21am

    As a free capital based operation GM was number one until the unions tipped the boat over. Had the bankrutcy rules been followed someone would have bought GM’s assets and put it back on track just as quickly becuase the need is clearly there for the cars and trucks world wide.

    Report Post » Mike Benton  
  • IMPEACHBHO
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 9:15am

    They both bailed out!
    http://youtu.be/7kqVZUCRth0?t=2m18s

    Report Post » IMPEACHBHO  
  • ncts12
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 8:44am

    ford should be outraged to be catagorized with the other clowns called an american car company.call them what they are.government motors.

    Report Post »  
    • EWWGPDN
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 9:15am

      Also, the next time you go pass a local or state government office notice how many new GM vehicles they have. Just saying…

      Report Post »  
    • lillymckim
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 9:17am

      If “Bush is responsible for the bailout” as Obama said, why is Obama taking the victory lap?

      Report Post » lillymckim  
    • DMan70
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 3:51pm

      Just like Oblunder is taking all of the credit for taking out Bin Laden. Was so funny watching Hannity talk with the senator from New Jersey after the SOTU and that was one of the ‘successes of Obama’ he kept spouting. I knew last summer that event would become one of his re-election campaign bullets and he’s not disappointing me….er, wait….he disappoints this nation every day. My bad

      Report Post »  
  • natstew
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 8:41am

    If I ever buy another new car it will be a Ford because they are the only American Car Company that didn’t take Obama money.

    Report Post »  
    • jcr9307
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 10:56am

      Exactly!

      Report Post »  
    • kapnkd
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 3:02pm

      Ditto – My wife now drives a Milan (bought just before they were discontinued) and I just purchased a new Fusion getting rid of my former Chrysler product.

      To date, we are more than satisfied with our cars – especially the quality of build and the gas mileage. I took the MPG up to 39.4 with my regular 4 cylinder engine for a distance of well over 250 miles. (I did draft a semi truck for many of the miles just to see how high the MPG would go.)

      I REFUSE to buy foreign OR – ESPECIALLY – from any company run/owned by the unions or the government!!!

      Report Post » kapnkd  
  • beebacksoon
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 8:30am

    Those of us trying to keep up with Obama’s next half truth or lie, know little of he says or reads from his teleprompter is the truth. He knows exactly what he is doing. Contrary to the size of his ears, he is no dumbo! He knows many of his “followers” are ignorant and live on welfare, food stamps and other handouts. They are loyal “D”s as long as the freebees keep a-comin’!

    Report Post »  
  • sawbuck
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 8:28am

    I find some irony in the argument between VW and GM

    Dictator declares …………Germany’s peoples car….VW “Volks” wagen

    President touts …………….America’s peoples car….Chevy “Volt ” wagon

    Report Post » sawbuck  
  • Rickfromillinois
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 8:25am

    I had always been a GM customer since I was old enough to buy cars. Now my wife and I both drive Fords, which by the way are very good cars and we are extremely happy with.

    Report Post » Rickfromillinois  
    • RightUnite
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 8:41am

      EXACTLY!! We’ve been GM customers for 25 years. We are no longer. We bought our first Ford in 2009, and will continue to buy Ford, until the government is out of the car business PERMANENTLY!

      Report Post »  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 8:52am

      Same here I use to buy GM their trucks were the cadilacs of work trucks. But after the recent events I switched to Ford and Toyota. My new F150 is grea, love it,great work truck and I also brought a T100 that I’m rebuilding as my play truck. Looking to get a car for longer trips this summer and Ford’s got the best mileage with all the buzzer,bottons,and whistle.
      I actuall read that Ford has had a diesel they sell in europe that get 65 mpg but is being blocked by our government for U.S. USAGES AS IT WOULD CUT INTO THE FEDS. DIESEL TAXES

      Report Post »  
    • EchoHawk
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 3:27pm

      The jokes on you, GM always was crap, ******* their money away on NASCAR simply for the prestige. Win on Sunday sell on Monday. I’ve owned European, Asian and pretty much everything made in America and the only thing that ever left me stranded were several GM products.

      Report Post »  
  • CodexMan
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 7:57am

    Boy, Obama sure likes to blame everybody except himself. If I ever get another car it will not be from Government Motors. Ford stuck it out and came out ahead. Good for them.

    Report Post »  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 8:32am

      You’re not alone.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • LIBS-ARE-DINGLEHEADS
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 9:01am

      Exactly. I won’t buy a GM product again. Ditto Chrysler.

      Here’s a retort to make every time a person complains about higher gas prices/food prices/utility prices/whatever is higher (and it all is higher, and going even higher);

      “Blame Obama: He’s the one that made this happen”

      I use the January 2009 prices versus now.

      Gas? 1.81 a gallon
      Food: Up 35% across the board
      Utilities: Up over 30% since early 2009

      I end it with this; “THAT‘S Obama’s policies at work. He told you this. You didn’t listen. You are paying for his programs. You’re paying for his “vision”.”

      The above usually wakes up most people. The others are too far gone to see it.

      Report Post » LIBS-ARE-DINGLEHEADS  
  • SpankDaMonkey
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 7:56am

    .
    Does it really matter anymore?

    Obama will be re-elected, and the RAPE of America will continue……..

    But, I sure Hope I’m Wrong………

    Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
    • LIBS-ARE-DINGLEHEADS
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 8:37am

      I have gone to ground. That is, I am telling everyone I know to vote for the GOP candidate – no matter whom they are, instead of Obama. I am even going to the lengths of a promise to fire any client I even suspect of voting for Obama.

      They know I read voluminous data, and see the facts, un-spun and un-altered.

      Obama is a joke.

      Too bad the sheeple only got interested when a black guy ran for office that the liberals liked.

      The amount of naivety I see is frightening out there. Idiot people who will swallow anything this liar/madman/Kenyan/union thug says.

      If Obama was even HALF as vetted as Romney is now, we’d never have had this Marxist to deal with.

      Report Post » LIBS-ARE-DINGLEHEADS  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 8:52am

      I hope you are wrong too. No bets though. I have no confidence in the outcome of this election.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
  • The American People
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 7:47am

    Its Obama’s Name on every Stimulus Bill. Every Government Takeover. Every illegal use of our tax dollars Money Laundering through Solyndra. And GM? lol who wants a vehicle the goverment can monitor or shut off???? NO ONE wants the Chevy Volt. This moron President actually believes that people want to pay more for a “car” with reduced capabilities that sometimes bursts into flame! Really obama?

    Report Post » The American People  
    • Obeckian1984
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 7:56am

      here is a fact that the Blaze needs to check
      White House bypasses Senate to ink agreement that could allow Chinese companies to demand ISPs remove web content in US with no legal oversight

      Months before the debate about Internet censorship raged as SOPA and PIPA dominated the concerns of web users, President Obama signed an international treaty that would allow companies in China or any other country in the world to demand ISPs remove web content in the US with no legal oversight whatsoever. http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-global-internet-treaty-worse-than-sopa/

      Report Post » Obeckian1984  
    • Obeckian1984
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 7:57am

      So why can’t the Congress start Impeachment hearing on Obama ?
      Is it because Treason is not Impeachable act ? Just for sleeping with
      white house aids ?

      Report Post » Obeckian1984  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 8:59am

      So why can’t the Congress start Impeachment hearing on Obama ?
      Is it because Treason is not Impeachable act

      They won’t start impeachment for several reasons
      1 Alot of them on both sides of the isles are pro-big government they have been trying for decades to centralize all power on every aspect of American citizens lives.
      2 Those that are part of the first reason are scared of a race war breaking out if the first black president is impeached.
      3 Those noty part of either of the first two reason are afraid they will lose party support and kill their re-election chances

      Report Post »  
  • old white guy
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 7:36am

    the car companies should have been forced into chapter 11, reorganized and made profitable without one dime of taxpayer money. tax breaks could have been given to gm and chrysler but not billions of dollars in cash to buy stocks. bothe gm and chrysler still have quality problems and are being forced by government tp produce products that no one wants.

    Report Post »  
    • RightUnite
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 8:42am

      Amen! Now, they’re just continuing their failed business processes…

      Report Post »  
    • scuba13
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 12:47pm

      If Chrysler is producing cars nobody wants,then why are the sales of Chrysler cars up so much?

      Report Post » scuba13  
    • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 3:11pm

      It is most likely Jeeps and the new Challengers.

      Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
    • M13
      Posted on January 26, 2012 at 6:32pm

      So aren’t those cars that people want?

      Report Post »  
  • Creativethinker
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 7:35am

    I remember that Mitt Romney came out publicly against the Auto bailouts and said that the companies should go Chapter 13 and restructure. I’m not saying that I will vote for him yet, but I made a mental not e of this at the time

    Report Post »  
  • momsense
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 7:33am

    I guess they don’t have calendars n the White House.

    Report Post »  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on January 26, 2012 at 7:30am

    Obama, Bush isn’t running this time. Good luck finding a Republican that supports what Bush did bailing out the unions.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love