GM Means Gone Mexican
by Big Dog on May 20, 2011 at 11:23 Political
Thanks to US taxpayers General Motors became Government Motors as taxpayer money was used to bailout the failing auto company. It should have been allowed to fail but Barack Obama had to bail out the company in order to save his union supporters and his puppet master at union headquarters.
Barack Obama took OUR money and without our permission used it to help a failing auto company by allowing the government to become a part owner in the enterprise. This all happened as private investors were screwed over in favor of union thugs. We were told that there would be a profit for us out of this (as if those of us paying the bills would actually see any of it) but there was no profit and the government is selling its shares in the company at a loss. GM did not pay the money back as any money paid back came from stimulus money. In other words, GM took the name Government Motors seriously and paid its debt to us with money it borrowed from us.
Given all this, one would think that GM would be beholden to the US taxpayers. One would think that since our money was confiscated from us and used to keep that company from failing that we would be rewarded, not individually but as a collective. In other words, one would think that since the country did something good for GM that GM would do something good for the country.
One would be wrong for thinking that because GM has decided to spend 540 million dollars (no doubt taxpayer money) to produce two low emission motors in Mexico. The project will create (directly and indirectly) about 1000 jobs. Since 2006 GM has invested about 5 BILLION dollars in Mexico.
I would think that GM would produce the motors in the US. In fact I would require them to. As the NLRB tells Boeing where it can use ITS OWN MONEY to build planes, the government is silent about a company partly owned by taxpayers fleeing to Mexico to build its product. It is not bad enough that GM is screwing the people who saved its sorry butt but the company has been investing in Mexico, at the expense of jobs here, since 2006.
So tell me, why didn’t GM go to the Mexican government when it needed to be bailed out?
And why is the Obama regime not stopping our employees (yes people at GM, we own you and you work for us now) from going out of the country.
I think Detroit could use a new plant and the workers that come with it. I would imagine that the 5 BILLION spent in Mexico could have helped Detroit quite a bit.
Then again, Detroit is run by liberals and GM is a union company. Either is bad but combined they are a recipe for disaster and failure which is why GM needed to be bailed out and Detroit is a wasteland.
GM went from General Motors to Government Motors and now it is just Gone Mexican.
So folks, how do you feel about being taken advantage of like this?
I said it before and I will iterate it here. I will never buy a GM vehicle (and yes, I have owned GM in the past).
Heh, when Barack Obama gave us his simplistic approach to the jobs problem by telling businesses that they needed to hire I guess he forgot to tell his toadies that they needed to hire INSIDE the country…
Perhaps we should rename GM to BOHICA Motors.
Bend Over, Here It Comes Again…
And maybe their next car should be the Chevy Bolt since they bolted across the border…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: bailout, gm, lies, Mexico, thugs, unions
We don’t live in a Constitutional Republic. Government in America today exists to perpetuate itself and is happy to work with large companies to do so.
Poetic justice;
Government takes people’s money to save union jobs, and the jobs move to Mexico, because there is too much overhead in union workers for the jobs to remain in America.
I am not against the loss of union jobs. I just hope that union government jobs are also farmed out to Mexico as well!
“It should have been allowed to fail but Barack Obama had to bail out the company in order to save his union supporters and his puppet master at union headquarters.”
Correct me if I’m wrong but I wasn’t aware that Obama bailed out GM.
If you are not aware that GM was bailed out by our government led by Obama then you are not paying attention.
You’re right. Obama did give money to GM. I simply got confused as to how a process started under Bush of which Obama continued then turned into a ploy for Obama’s union supporters. What about when Bush gave money? Was that to support his puppet masters at the Union HQ too?
So Bush started the TARP and it was designed to bailout financial institutions (and you know I did not agree with that position) and Obama promised to bailout Detroit while running and then after he won the car makers lobbied to get bailout money from the TARP, a process that continued into 2009 (after Obama took over) and then Obama approved it and it is Bush’s fault.
You have an amazing way of spinning this since the automakers were not part of what TARP was for and were rewarded only after Obama won and they began lobbying for the funds. It is not unusual for your side to blame Bush for everything but your assertion makes about as much sense as blaming arson on the guy who sold the lighter…
I had believed that Obama had not given cash to GM but I was clearly wrong. Yet, there were 42.7 billion in loans given. A 3rd of that was given by Bush. I didn’t say this is anyone’s fault. I think the loans were great. I give Bush credit for many of the early attempts to correct the financial crisis but of course the Democratic Congress played a role as well.
I was not happy with any of it. I want to explore something. You said Bush spent a third of the cash from TARP and that his early attempts (and short lived since he was out of office in a few months) were something you give him credit for but readily point out that of course his Democratic Congress played a role.
Now then, you and your side continually blame Bush for the economic problem in the first place. He did have a Democratic Congress when that happened so, according to your example, they are as much to blame for it as Bush (whom your side readily blames)
Thanks for clearing it up.
Really? I thought we had stopped torture in this country but the way you’re abusing logic right now makes me wonder.
Bush and Congress put forward a specific agenda that I think prevented a deeper recession and contributed to a quicker road to recovery. We can point to specific actions taken by each and that is why they have a hand in it.
That does not imply they share equal blame and I have no idea why you think that’s a reasonable conclusion. President Bush had been in office for almost 7 years when the bubble burst. The 110th Congress had been in session about 7 months.
Now, if you can point to something the 110th Congress did to cause the downturn then let’s hear it. I don’t blame President Bush directly for the mess but let’s not be silly enough to suggest that since Democrats were in control of Congress in October 2007 that they are as much to blame as Bush.
Whats the point in correcting YOU? You are always wrong and no matter how much anyone beats you on the head you don’t learn.
Don’t even consider an answer, rebutthole. ;-> Right is right and left is wrong. Case closed.
Do you libs go to a special class to learn half truths? The 110th Congress was in session from Jan 2007 til Jan 2009. Bush was in office from Jan 2001 til Jan 2009. Seven years in would put the downturn at 2008 which we all know was the case as it happened, conveniently, before Obama was elected. Since August 2008 minus January 2007 equals 18 months I can’t see how you can say that they were in office only 7 months. Perhaps I am missing something.
Prior to 2007 unemployment was low and inflation was low and the stock market was going well and gas was relativley stable.
We had 18 months of Democrats when the wheels came off the cart. Now if you can show me something specific that points to Bush causing the problem when the numbers were pretty good most of the time prior to Jan 2007 then maybe it will override the fact that the Democrats had been in control a year and a half when it collapsed.
Cause and effect, don’t know but I can only say who was in charge for a year and a half before the collapse.
We will never know what would have happened had we not had TARP but I thinks we would have recovered by now or be well on our way. Right now we spent trillions to have unemployment higher than it was then, slow to no job creation (with a net loss) and inflation.
“We had 18 months of Democrats when the wheels came off the cart.”
To be even more fair it’s more like 6 years for Bush and zero months for the 110th Congress. The housing market began to decline rapidly in 2006 and the sub-prime mortgage industry collapsed early in 2007. The house of cards began to tumble long before the 110th Congress came to session and long before August 2008. By October of 2007 it was clear the bubble was popping and we now know that as of December 2007 we were in a recession.
The argument is more about individuals and their actions (or inaction) than it is about flatly suggesting somehow the Democrats controlling Congress for said amount of months implies they share blame in mass as you want to do.
“…but I thinks we would have recovered by now or be well on our way.”
We are well on our way despite what you think. The three major indexes are 78% to 105% above their recent low. Job growth is slow but steady. We still have a huge problem with housing and gas prices are hurting of course but you seem to want to stick your fingers in your ears and hum so you don’t have to hear all the positive signs of recovery.
You continue to believe the spin that things are getting better. They are not, well maybe for Obama supporters.
I have long said that both parties are responsible for the mess but since your side continues this Bush’s fault mantra then it is fair to point out that the downturn happened when Democrats were in charge.
As for the housing bubble, it was caused by the CRA and that is all on the left. Barney Frank and his rant about the FMs being sound (while he was having sex with one of the major players there) and all Dems backing the FMs while Bush, on more than a dozen occasions, said there was trouble ahead and they needed to be reigned in. This fell on the deaf ears of Dems and we got a collapse.
“I have long said that both parties are responsible for the mess but since your side continues this Bush’s fault mantra then it is fair to point out that the downturn happened when Democrats were in charge.”
President Bush had been in office 6 to 7 years. While his administration clearly was worried about where things were headed they ultimately failed to take useful action while simultaneously encouraging bad lending and home buying practices under the phrase “ownership society.” You do the math. Had this been Clinton you’d have no trouble adding it up.
“As for the housing bubble, it was caused by the CRA and that is all on the left.”
No matter how many times you repeat this idea it is still untrue. About 94% of bad lending took place outside of the CRA. Most of the lending was to middle and upper income people and 1 out of 5 to lower income buyers were outside of CRA as well. This is flat out a myth you should stop repeating right now.
You do realize that the Senate had control for four of Bush’s 8 years, right? You also realize that Bush and McCain often talked about the problems but the Congress (controlled by both parties) led by Democrats defending the FMs failed to act based on the assurances of Democrats that all was well.
You also realize that an article from the WSJ reporting what some federal official says is not something that would make people believe that the CRA had no effect. As Ogre says, you get your links and I’ll get mine.
Here it is, spelled out for you.
Those bad loans were packaged and sold to the FMs and those loans were under the threats from government to make them even if people could not afford them or did not have a down payment. Banks did not make those kinds of loans until forced to under the CRA.
Keep spinning that the CRA was not to blame and that Dems were as pure as the driven snow but it is obvious what happened and now those who did it are covering their rears and blaming others while presenting misleading information from government employees.
“As Ogre says, you get your links and I’ll get mine.”
Ogre has no links. He has only his unqualified opinion. Don’t question it or you’ll get called a troll and a freedom hater.
Your source is guilty of the same bad reasoning you are making so I hardly see how it bolsters your view.
You can pretend that I’m spinning or that you have some factual basis to blame CRA but we know the problems came long after CRA and the vast majority (96%) of bad loans came outside of the CRA. Easy money and lack of regulation, not the CRA, was the root cause of the bad lending that lead to the sub-prime crisis.
The CRA was the reason for the ease in lending. Banks were terrorized into lending by the very rules it established. Even if 96% of loans were not under the CRA the majority of them were because of it. Read the history of it and see. Look at how ACORN and other groups ranted and raved until banks loaned money. Look at how the government threatened them if they did not serve the community (by lending to those who could not afford to pay). There are plenty of regulations but government caused the mess and then decided that more regulation was needed. CRA was the root of the problem.
So if CRA which was passed almost 30 years before the crisis then why did the subprime lending crisis largely rise and fall over a few years between 2001 and 2006? Which change to CRA caused this and when was it changed?
The CRA was passed 30 years ago and has been in effect all that time. It took time to build to a crisis. There have been problems for years which finally built to the tipping point where a lot of people who should not have bought houses did so (and often a lot more than they could afford) and they did so with little or no down payment at a low adjustable interest rate. When the interests rates went up and the loans readjusted people could not afford to refinance (and there was not a good rate) and their payments went up to where they could not afford. So you have a lot of people with houses that have little or no equity, devalued because of a bad economy, and unable to afford because the adjustable rate THEY selected, went up.
CRA made it easier fo rpeople to get the liar loans, the no down payment loans, the other loan schemes that put them in houses. The CRA and the ACORN (and other race baiting entities) as well as the feds putting pressure on lending institutions to make bad loans or else.
Yeah, it was 30 years ago so it can’t be hurting now. So what you are saying is that if I injure my knee at 20 and then at 50 I need knee replacement because my knee is not strong enough I can’t say it was the injury of 30 years prior that caused it?
Or If I am exposed to asbestos at 20 and never again but at 50 I develop mesothelioma you can’t say it was the asbestos exposure because it happened 30 years ago? I bet the companies that were sued over asbestos would like to have known your philosophy.
But it is typical for a liberal. Past actions have no consequences in their world.