12 Votes

Boost it!

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

omarrana submitted on 6/9/2009 Official Bell & Ross Timestamp: 9:05:59 AM

15 user comments | Category: Misc News | Source: | SOURCE: www.egmcartech.com

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

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

About the Author

omarrana

I hooked up my accelerator to my brake lights. I hit the gas, people behind me stop, and I'm gone.

— omarrana (View Profile)


User Comments

HSCenterconsole

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.

— HSCenterconsole (View Profile)

Posted on 6/9/2009 11:51:03 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 5   

Agent009

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.

— Agent009 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/9/2009 12:41:20 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

Foreigner

Agree completely.

— Foreigner (View Profile)

Posted on 6/9/2009 12:45:04 PM | | Votes: 3   

DinamoR

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.

— DinamoR (View Profile)

Posted on 6/9/2009 5:31:16 PM | | Votes: 0   

Invisible

Detroit killed GM and Chrysler, not Washington DC.

— Invisible (View Profile)

Posted on 6/9/2009 3:04:33 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 7   

FerrarisR4me

It's gotta be Obama's fault. He's been in office, what? 150 days? Let's just blame him.

— FerrarisR4me (View Profile)

Posted on 6/9/2009 3:25:29 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

DinamoR

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.

— DinamoR (View Profile)

Posted on 6/9/2009 5:28:12 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

MunichRob

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.

— MunichRob (View Profile)

Posted on 6/10/2009 2:30:46 AM | | Votes: 0   

XYZZ

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.

— XYZZ (View Profile)

Posted on 6/10/2009 5:19:15 AM | | Votes: 0   

VISO

Hmm, GM and Chrysler are responsible for their demise. No one else. The buck stops at their doorsteps.

— VISO (View Profile)

Posted on 6/9/2009 6:26:58 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

huu76

As much as I don't like Jesus' administration, neither Bush nor Jesus are responsible for the collapse of GM. Only the UAW and GM execs are to blame.

Bush could've been less enthusiastic about unfree trade but Obama isn't doing anything different than Bush.

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/9/2009 7:29:04 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

DinamoR

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.

— DinamoR (View Profile)

Posted on 6/9/2009 9:36:36 PM | | Votes: 0   

MunichRob

"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.

— MunichRob (View Profile)

Posted on 6/11/2009 6:01:48 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

huu76

DinamoR,
Democrats have the White House, Congress and Senate and they've successfully quadrupled your deficit with nothing to show for it. Republicans don't seem so bad right now considering the economy is showing signs of life (oh my God, a natural correction!) before Jesus' cheques to his corporate buddies has even started to filter through the economy (hard for that to happen when the money is in some CEO's bank account).

Read this, you might learn something.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13812470&source=features_box2

Ironic that Campbell Brown (one of Jesus' biggest media propaganda tools) asked the other day "Is Obama was more popular than effective?"

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/11/2009 11:42:39 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Add your Comments

Images hosted in your AgentSpace can now be posted in the comments section using the following syntax (case matters): [img]IMAGE URL[/img]
Example: [img]http://agent001.myautospies.com/images/sample.jpg[/img]