Romney's new auto ad

[_Kevin Graham]

GM and Chrysler were sick, and all Obama did was turn them into government owned zombies. They'll be back for more tax-payer money soon enough.

No he didn't. Is this really your understanding of the situation? And since when do you have a problem with companies looking for Federal subsidies? Romney obviously has no problem with it so long as those companies are contributing to his campaign.

The car companies are in trouble because their deals with the UAW make them uncompetitive

That is a well refuted talking point from the same idiots who caused this mess. At every turn, their boogeyman is the working class and/or government. Fault is never laid upon those who should bear responsibility, because they're your heroes for making so much money. This talking point is easily refuted by the fact that Ford didn't file for bankruptcy. GM Vice Chairman blames management incompetence, not the UAW.

All Obama did was give them taxpayer money so they could keep paying out on those awful UAW deals, and keep making cars no one want to buy. If that's "success", you can have it.

It really doesn't take a lot of effort to see that the American auto industry has turned around. You're just not interested in doing minimal research. If half of what you said were true then they would have continued to fail at turning a profit, nor would they have paid back those loans with interest. You should really stick to critically assessing LDS claims, because you simply haven't a clue when it comes to these socio-economic issues. All you've done is regurgitate well refuted talking points from FOX News, such as this one. Next thing you know you're going to start talking about how the UAW emploees get paid $70 per hour!

[_Jason Bourne]

Well one way Romney differs from Bush is in regards the government takeover, bailout, reorg, structured bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler. Bush was the one who started the initial phase of the bail out and President Obama continued it.

[_cinepro]

It really doesn't take a lot of effort to see that the American auto industry has turned around. You're just not interested in doing minimal research. If half of what you said were true then they would have continued to fail at turning a profit, nor would they have paid back those loans with interest.

If GM can make it another four years without needing more government money, and the government can sell their stock without a loss, then I will admit that the bailout was a success. As it stands now, it doesn't sound like they have made the necessary changes to survive as a viable company, and I'm skeptical.

[_Kevin Graham]

Well one way Romney differs from Bush is in regards the government takeover, bailout, reorg, structured bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler. Bush was the one who started the initial phase of the bail out and President Obama continued it.

But then Romney chooses a running mate who voted for it.

So it isn't really clear Romney is much different at all. You're still one of those naïve folks who actually think Romney has an ounce of integrity, and that you can actually trust what he says his position is at any given time.

The structured bankruptcy idea Romney pushed was an impossibility and a joke, which has already been proved. Romney would have effectively let these companies go bankrupt, which means he would have been the guy overseeing the unemployment rate skyrocket yet again after the American auto industry collapsed. But hey, this is guy the who should be President, right? Because he has bright ideas such as these!

[_EAllusion]

If GM can make it another four years without needing more government money, and the government can sell their stock without a loss, then I will admit that the bailout was a success. As it stands now, it doesn't sound like they have made the necessary changes to survive as a viable company, and I'm skeptical.

Even if that happens, there's a major moral hazard in having the government underwrite the risk of a private company by bailing them out when they teeter on collapse. If I went to Vegas knowing that the feds would cover my losses, I would be far more willing to make riskier bets with higher payoffs. Why wouldn't I? The long-term expected value from that strategy, however, isn't good for the person underwriting the risk. Every bailout event sends the message that the government might do it again, which reduces perceived risk, which encourages riskier decisions, which increases the odds the public will be on the hook again. Privatize the profits and socialize the losses.