The bailout made a 15 billion profit

tea partee was wrong wrote:

And this is why Romney was not elected. The public saw how clueless he was.

That's a pretty dumb conclusion.

I agree that the Romney conclusion was a non sequitur.

Romney is not a tea party guy and he wasn't against TARP.

It's to see a gain reported on this.

kdkd wrote:

tea partee was wrong wrote:

And this is why Romney was not elected. The public saw how clueless he was.

That's a pretty dumb conclusion.

And yours is an idiotic response because like a coward you did not explain yourself

X-Runner wrote:

I agree that the Romney conclusion was a non sequitur.

Romney is not a tea party guy and he wasn't against TARP.

It's to see a gain reported on this.

Romney opposed the bailout in order to appease his tea party followers. He only changed his mind when he realized it was costing him Ohio ............Too late

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Balian wrote:

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Poor righties can't deal with the fact that the very thing that created the tea party has been proven to be nothing but fear-mongering,

Just like all the fear-mongering about Obamacare will eventually be proven false.

$15B is a drop in the bucket.

Would aggregate auto demand have dried up if GM had gone under? A little maybe hut people would just start building other makes and those factories/workers would be employed by Toyota now.

They same liberal simple-think on economic policy is why we have diverging income and wealth disparity in this country. They need to look further down the road at secondary and tertiary effects. And embrace failure - it is part of what makes the system work.

Those who say Romney did support the auto-bailout need to go back and re-read recent history. In 2008, Romney wrote an Op ed in which he said the govt should not bailout the auto industry. He said a bailout would not work and the auto industry would instead die a slower death

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

Boy was he wrong. American car companies are not only employing hundreds of thousands, but they are back to profitability.

Only an irresponsible govt would let an industry that employes millions die. Thats why I did not vote for Romney. He was clueless.

Every civilized nation props up its key industries with bailouts, tax cuts, inflated contracts and so forth. Anyone who talks about pure capitalism is either lying or clueless. Both Boeing and Airbus have over the years been propped up by their respective govts via inflated contracts.

Romney didn't support TARP or really oppose TARP.

He did a lot of talking out both sides of his mouth depending on the audience in front of him.

Like the whole healthcare deal.

As far as the auto bailout, the piece that you linked showed that he wanted them to go through a managed bankruptcy and change their business plan.

He didn't support the proposed bailout but he did want them to stay in business and work on getting better.

There are different ways to accomplish the same result.

Romney cannot be confused with the Tea Party.

But he needed help to get the nomination.

So in the end he seemed to have no convictions on anything.

Letting the financial industry or even the auto industry go down was just going to be terrible.

Market forces weren't going to correct things and make it all good in any reasonable time.

Any profit on this is gravy. Some cost would have been worth it.

The cost of not doing anything needed to be avoided.

X-Runner wrote:

As far as the auto bailout, the piece that you linked showed that he wanted them to go through a managed bankruptcy and change their business plan.

He didn't support the proposed bailout but he did want them to stay in business and work on getting better.

There are different ways to accomplish the same result.

.

+1

many think 'bankruptcy' equals 'out of business'

what romney wanted was a formal bankrupcty proceeding so the auto cos could restructure and be more healthy in the future.

the feds said no - let's keep them afloat as the are.

hard to say which plan was better, but we do know that the feds' plan is certainly working.

that said, remember that the tea party is not based on reality - they are based on theory. And that theory is "markets good, government bad"

all comes from that - they don't really care about the nitty gritty - they want to yell and scream about political and economic theory.

which is intellectually dishonest and I am glad they are a spent force.

I wonder if Romney was OK with the headline the New York Times used - Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

Because the headline makes it look like he is OK with letting them die and go away.

But "Let Detroit go through a Managed Bankruptcy and Continue" wasn't as catchy as a title.

I know when I first saw this a couple years ago I misinterpreted it.

the Romney conclusion goes overboard only in so far as there were other reasons that he lost, but his opposition to the highly successful and justified auto bailout, which saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs, did cost him significant support.

I notice GM is rewarding the US taxpayer by investing $14 billion in auto plants in China and another $3.6 billion in Mexico on top of the $1.4 billion already invested.

GM make crap (and lethal) cars anyway, they’d be bankrupt now were it not for Americans buying pickups instead of cars and having an auto credit scheme not unlike the housing subprime racket that originally brought the economy down.

The secured creditors kinda got screwed. Just sayin.

tea partee was wrong wrote:

Those who say Romney did support the auto-bailout need to go back and re-read recent history. In 2008, Romney wrote an Op ed in which he said the govt should not bailout the auto industry. He said a bailout would not work and the auto industry would instead die a slower death

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

.

Except that the auto bailout was separate from TARP, and the government lost money on it.

U.S. government says it lost $11.2 billion on GM bailout

BY ERIC BEECH

WASHINGTON Wed Apr 30, 2014 5:41pm EDT

GM made $22.6 billion. We lost $10.6 billion

By Chris Isidore @CNNMoney May 29, 2014: 2:51 PM ET

If you believe that you're dumber than Joe Biden.

Hahaha. Exactly. TS thinks $15B is a huge number. GM, on its own, had $155B in revenue last year.

concerned office worker wrote:

$15B is a drop in the bucket.

Would aggregate auto demand have dried up if GM had gone under? A little maybe hut people would just start building other makes and those factories/workers would be employed by Toyota now.

They same liberal simple-think on economic policy is why we have diverging income and wealth disparity in this country. They need to look further down the road at secondary and tertiary effects. And embrace failure - it is part of what makes the system work.

The bailouts have been a tremendous success if you recognize that not only has the government to this point made a $45 billion profit, with a good deal more to come, on its investments (or profited off of roughly 5 or more investments to every 1 that it lost money on), but that the bailout made it possible to prevent the economy from falling much, much farther, and paved the way for the nearly six straight years of economic growth that we have had since then. Factoring in the added tax revenue from the bailout's direct and indirect economic effects would make the profit vastly larger.

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/