A revived Chrysler pays off last gov’t loan

From the Detroit Free Press:

“At 10:13 a.m. (Tuesday), Chrysler fully repaid the $7.6 billion in loans it owed the U.S. and Canadian governments.

The repayment comes more than six years sooner than required under an agreement reached in June 2009….

The Chrysler 300

The Chrysler 300

The Auburn Hills automaker, which few thought could rebound after it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on April 30, 2009, received a total $12.5 billion in aid from the U.S. government under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, according to the U.S. Treasury.

With today’s transaction, the U.S. government has recovered more than $10.6 billion of that amount….

Even with the repayment of the loans, the U.S. government still holds a 6.6% ownership of Chrysler. The government could recover additional money when it sells its shares either through a public stock offering or by selling its stake to another investor.”

Of course, as Mitt Romney reminded us back in 2009:

“This is a very sad circumstance for this country, and it represents bad decisions by management, overreaching by the UAW. It’s really tragic in a lot of ways, and it has not been well-played either in my opinion by the Bush administration or the Obama administration.”

Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich were also highly critical of the bailout at the time. Gingrich cited the move as evidence that Obama is the most radical president in U.S. history, while Pawlenty complained on Fox News that “You’ve got big government, big business and big labor concocting a deal that reflects an economic model that is broken, that is 20 years out of date.” And as National Journal points out, they weren’t alone:

“While economists say the bailout saved tens of thousands of jobs, both Obama and President George W. Bush—who pushed out the first $25 billion of the bailout before he left office—faced stiff public resistance as it was rolled out.

A CNN poll in December 2008 found that 61 percent of Americans opposed the bailout; only 36 percent supported it. When Obama injected an additional $60 billion in the first months of his presidency, a Gallup poll found 72 percent opposing the additional money for the auto companies and only 25 percent in favor.”

It wasn’t popular at the time, and few people expected the rebound to come as quickly and completely as it has. (Chrysler, for example, reported profits of $116 million in the first quarter, and its sales are up 22.5 percent over a year ago.) But sometimes, doing the right thing pays off for everyone.

Well, almost everyone.

– Jay Bookman

648 comments Add your comment

USinUK

May 25th, 2011
8:43 am

OHNOES!!!! what will the TeaTards complain about NOW!!!???

kitty

May 25th, 2011
8:45 am

Wow, Chrysler has more lives than a cat. Good for them and good for the workers who still have their jobs. Unions or no unions, the workers realize or I hope they do, that the gravy train is over and having a job with benefits even if not the wonderful ones they used to have is a good thing.

Bet Lee Iacocca is happy today. :-)

kitty

May 25th, 2011
8:47 am

USinUK, wanna bet they will think of something? :-P

USMC dawg

May 25th, 2011
8:47 am

Obama skirts rule of law to reward pals, punish foes

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/05/obama-skirts-rule-law-reward-pals-punish-foes#ixzz1NMrUQU7O

TnGelding

May 25th, 2011
8:48 am

Well, it’s great that they’ve survived and repaid most of the loan, but they aren’t out of the woods yet. Certainly it was the right thing for Bush and Obama to do and I supported it then. Why not invest in America?

Granny Godzilla

May 25th, 2011
8:48 am

Item on Obama Do to list:

Save the US auto industry.

Check.

God Bless the American work force.

USMC dawg

May 25th, 2011
8:50 am

larry

May 25th, 2011
8:50 am

While the bailout did save jobs for Chrysler workers , it also saved jobs for Chrysler suppliers as well. I would hated to see the unemployment numbers if there was no bailout.

USinUK

May 25th, 2011
8:51 am

USMC – from your article – “On its website HHS pledges that the waiver process will be transparent. But it doesn’t list those whose requests for waivers have been denied.”

it doesn’t list those whose requests were denied.

so we don’t know 1) if anyone WAS, in fact denied

or

2) if they were, the reason why / whose districts they were in ,etc

so, as much as you SOOOOOOOOO desperately WANT this to be an issue, it still isn’t one.

poison pen

May 25th, 2011
8:51 am

But sometimes, doing the right thing pays off for everyone.

And if it failed, what would be your headlines then? As a retiree from the big 3 ( at that time ) I’m glad that they made it however, at which time do you pick & choose who you want to save.
I’ll bet the hundreds of companies who went under don’t feel the way you do.

I have a problem giving out tax dollars without hardly any restrictions on them, such as, Executives getting huge bonuses and huge salaries 1 year after the bailout. The Govt should have had stipulations on them for 5 years with a portion of the profits going back into the Govt coffers, call it interest if you will.

AmVet

May 25th, 2011
8:51 am

Another example of why “Capitalism will never fail because socialism will always be there to bail it out”.

And I have seen a boatload of those 300s rolling around town…

Jay

May 25th, 2011
8:54 am

USMC, that piece cites not a single piece of evidence to justify its claim of “skirting the law.”

Not a single one.

I used to respect Michael Barone, but he has become a hack.

Granny Godzilla

May 25th, 2011
8:55 am

USMC DAWG

Next can you post where the fringe righties claimed Obama was going to give America back to the native Americans? Or maybe the born in Kenya stuff? Can we get a Madrassa post? A wee bit of Muslim slamming? The whitey tapes? Slumber parties with Ayers maybe? (I heard they gave each other facials)

I love the comedy bits that are GOP ginned up scandals.

If the GOP spent half as much time working for solutions to the problems facing America as they do making crap up, they might get a little respect

Mr_B

May 25th, 2011
8:55 am

But..But..But.. But …. the man’s a KENYAN/ MOOSLIM/ MARXIST/ SOCIALIST…….
He CAN”T be selling state assests to private investors………

TnGelding

May 25th, 2011
8:56 am

poison pen

May 25th, 2011
8:51 am

IF? Give us a break!

godless heathen

May 25th, 2011
8:56 am

Mopar to you!

Vet, the Challengers seem to be selling as well.

Mick

May 25th, 2011
8:56 am

Isn’t it strange how some could view saving american jobs as a bad thing? They can stand by their priciples but it doesn’t put food on the table or taxes in the coffers…

larry

May 25th, 2011
8:57 am

And i agree with kitty’s earlier post, it does seem like Chrysler has nine lives.

Peadawg

May 25th, 2011
8:57 am

“But sometimes, doing the right thing pays off for everyone.” – I still don’t agree with the principle of rewarding people/companies for bad decisions and bailing out companies that are about to file bankruptcy…too much gov’t control for my liking…but o well. I agree with larry on the jobs saved.

USinUK

May 25th, 2011
8:57 am

Mick – “Isn’t it strange how some could view saving american jobs as a bad thing?”

BOOTSTRAPS, babbee – all these hundreds of thousands of people who work the lines at Chevrolet and it’s suppliers should go out and become their own CEOs!!! Start their own companies!!! Entrepeneurship, ya’ll!!!

stands for decibels

May 25th, 2011
8:57 am

Yesterday morning commute–I heard an sound clip from the Fiat CEO explaining how they were able to transfer this particular bit of debt elsewhere, made it sound (as CEOs are wont to do) like the sort of thing any grade-schooler would understand.

And then a bit later I saw googobs of posts from folks claiming it was crazy that a restaurant owner would owe MONEY – why, millions even! — on a viable business.

(the juxtapositioning…It was just too crazy to really explain at the time. But thanks for running this piece, Jay, because now I think I can.)

oh, and

what will the TeaTards complain about

UnU, I believe we’re supposed to call them Tea-capables now.

Paul

May 25th, 2011
8:59 am

Well, maybe not so simple as that.

There is a difference between being opposed to the bailout, and being opposed to the bailout as it was implemented. Big difference.

Don’t have time to go into all the particulars (leaving for a trip in a few hours) but following the rule of thumb that those accusing others of certain behavior (revisionist history) are likely themselves guilty, the NY Times has an op-ed showing there’s plenty of room for interpretation. It also highlights the Obama Administration’s real aims in attacking Romney: Minnesota’s electoral votes in 2012.

“A Romney spokesman said on Tuesday that the president’s plan was modeled after one Mr. Romney advocated in 2008.

“Mitt Romney had the idea first,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney spokesman, citing the Times opinion article. “You have to acknowledge that. He was advocating for a course of action that eventually the Obama administration adopted.”

But Mr. Fehrnstrom also accused Mr. Obama of wasting billions of dollars “propping up” the auto companies as part of the government’s restructuring plans for the industry.

“Mitt Romney argued that instead of a bailout, we should let the car companies go through a restructuring under the bankruptcy laws,” Mr. Fehrnstrom said.

Democratic officials in Washington and Michigan responded that Mr. Fehrnstrom’s assertion flew in the face of both the time line of events and the financial reality that was facing the companies at the time.

“Mitt Romney must think that the entire country has fallen into a state of amnesia if he believes he can get away with this revisionist history,” said Brad Woodhouse, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee. “The record is clear. Mitt Romney would have let G.M. and Chrysler go bankrupt without extending them a dime of federal assistance.”

Democratic officials noted that Chrysler and General Motors received the federal aid only after they entered bankruptcy — not before, as Mr. Romney’s spokesman asserted.

And they said the bankruptcy’s success depended on the federal money.

“Mitt Romney is doing circuslike contortions to get out from under the damaging words he uttered in 2008,” said Jennifer M. Granholm, a former Democratic governor of Michigan. ”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/us/politics/25romney.html

Oh, and Granny…

“Item on Obama Do to list:

Save the US auto industry.

Check.”

It was on Pres Obama’s ‘to do’ list because Pres Bush had already initiated the auto bailout.

“Pres Bush announces $17.4 Billion Auto Bailout”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.html

He said it went against all his principles (that’s the theory part) but circumstances made it necessary (that’s the reality part).

John K

May 25th, 2011
8:59 am

The Tealiban will just end up claiming it was their idea all along and Obama had nothing to do with it.

larry

May 25th, 2011
8:59 am

I have a problem giving out tax dollars without hardly any restrictions on them, such as, Executives getting huge bonuses and huge salaries 1 year after the bailout

Now that i will agree with you . The executives should not be getting huge bonuses and salaries . But i think that goes for any company that gets bailed out.

USinUK

May 25th, 2011
9:00 am

dammit, dB – that’s the second snort of the day … you’re on a roll.

getalife

May 25th, 2011
9:01 am

The President saved the US auto industry and now we have our first electric cars.

He is all about making history.

larry

May 25th, 2011
9:02 am

Vet, the Challengers seem to be selling as well.

Im not a big Chrysler fan, but i love those cars. Sharp retro lines . Just like the early ’70’s

Paul

May 25th, 2011
9:04 am

Y’know, Granny, it occurs to me -

Pres Obama received a lot of flak for the “Bush did it” refrain regarding the economy.

Yet here’s a case where Bush clearly was responsible, but the Obama Administration acts like Bush never existed.

That’s about as political as one can get.

poison pen

May 25th, 2011
9:04 am

Granny Godzilla

May 25th, 2011
8:48 am
Item on Obama Do to list:

Save the US auto industry.

Check.

God Bless the American work force.

Actually Granny, Ford, Honda, Toyota, Kia, Hyundai, Nissan are all car companies that build cars in the US that didn’t need a Govt. handout. Just to name a few.
I’m glad that Obama helped them and I feel sorry for the companies that didn’t get any handout.

Don't Tread

May 25th, 2011
9:04 am

WSJ: Under the details announced last week, Chrysler secured $3.2 billion in bonds, $3 billion in a term loan and a $1.3 billion revolving credit facility. The company also is receiving $1.3 billion in cash from Italian auto maker Fiat SpA, which will round out the repayment.

So in actuality, Chrysler hasn’t “repaid” anything – it just paid a loan with proceeds from other loans.

But, the new loans carry a lower interest rate than the gov’t loan did, and at least now taxpayers are off the hook – until the next bailout.

arnold

May 25th, 2011
9:05 am

I hope the Republicans can think up some more problems with TARP. It helps make life interesting.

Bosch

May 25th, 2011
9:05 am

Paul!! Did you survive the storms? Hope all is well with you — I sent you a well wish last night in the hopes you were in your basement.

I guess this bit of good news will send the wingnuts a swooning and as we’ve seen with USMC they’ll just post crap in the hopes that we won’t actually look at it in some kind of vain attempt to make the POTUS look bad. Sad and pathetic, but it’s what we’ve grown to expect.

AmVet

May 25th, 2011
9:05 am

pen, and like the “new” Camaros, Mustangs, etc, they look great.

Not sure I’d buy one, but I’m thrilled to see American car makers flexing their muscles again!

“I got me a Chrysler, it seats about 20″

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw7guzT6ANI&feature=fvst

Call it like it is

May 25th, 2011
9:06 am

And of course USinUK does his opening salvo with name calling. Nice, so I guess that Gallop poll that showed 75% of AMERICANS were not in favor, were all Tea Party people? Interesting.

Anyway glad for Chrysler, however when I needed a new car I bought a Ford, and in the future it will be a Ford. They needed no handouts and they deserve my business.

brad

May 25th, 2011
9:06 am

Good news, and not unexpected. Pretty quiet from the right this morning…guess they’re licking their wounds from the NY special congressional election loss. Mandate is as mandate does.

JKL2

May 25th, 2011
9:06 am

John K- Obama had nothing to do with it.

Unfortunately this is a Bush fiasco. Not to worry as obama has plenty of other careless spending programs he can take credit for (or still blame Bush when they don’t work)

Granny Godzilla

May 25th, 2011
9:06 am

Paul

Yep….you are right….and I know that was on Bush’s to do list.

I might note however it was Obama who took most of the heat over it…..

larry

May 25th, 2011
9:06 am

Actually, Ford and Nissan North America, while not needing a bailout , did need a government loan.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/economy/markets-mainmenu-45/1290

Bosch

May 25th, 2011
9:07 am

“I feel sorry for the companies that didn’t get any handout.”

Why?

stands for decibels

May 25th, 2011
9:07 am

I used to respect Michael Barone

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15527.html

“The liberal media attacked Sarah Palin because she did not abort her Down syndrome baby,” Barone said, according to accounts by attendees. “They wanted her to kill that child. … I’m talking about my media colleagues with whom I’ve worked for 35 years.”

(Which begs the question: if not this, then what IS a career ender for a right-wing pundit?)

AmVet

May 25th, 2011
9:07 am

Mea culpa, my 9:05 should be addressed to Larry…

poison pen

May 25th, 2011
9:08 am

getalife

May 25th, 2011
9:01 am
The President saved the US auto industry and now we have our first electric cars.

He is all about making history.

GetaLife, We had Electric cars 90 years ago, they just never caught on. I think he saved the WORLD, snark, snark

cosby smith

May 25th, 2011
9:08 am

Pathetic…this is the second time the taxpayers ahve bailed out Chrysler and the executives, board of directors, UAW big wigs paid no price. they kept all their wealth, percs etc. Had this been a mom apnd pop business their homes would have been foreclosed on. fair, hell no, the big guys with the political connections won. their business model, same as it has always been and they will loose again. why does big Government get to pick the winners and loosers. and Jay, another jab toward the republicans…get over it, perhaps some of the republicans do have a better idea other than the socialist dems. foot note – Chrysler borrowed the money to pay back the government loans…they are still in trouble.

USinUK

May 25th, 2011
9:08 am

Irwin M. Fletcher

May 25th, 2011
9:08 am

PP – “The Govt should have had stipulations on them for 5 years with a portion of the profits going back into the Govt coffers, call it interest if you will.”

I agree with you on that. However at the time Paulsen, Bernanke and Geitner were literally on their knees begging everyone from Wall Street to Congress to allow the bailout. Paulsen needed to Congress to authorize the funds, and then he needed the investment bankers to take it. The situation was so dire, that he was afraid that if he placed too many restrictions on the plan, it would not work, and the economy would have completely collapsed.

Bosch

May 25th, 2011
9:09 am

“guess they’re licking their wounds from the NY special congressional election loss. Mandate is as mandate does.”

Oh glad to hear this….

Paul

May 25th, 2011
9:09 am

Granny

“I might note however it was Obama who took most of the heat over it…..”

And I’ll revise my earlier assertion. It’s people on the blog who don’t realize Bush implemented the bailout. Jay’s quote above clearly states both Bush and Obama took heat over it. Obama did have to continue the program and implement the rules. So it does appear the Obama Administration is including the Bush Administration in implementing the program in the face of stiff public opposition.

And it’s even stiffer now that people have forgotten how bad things were.

USinUK

May 25th, 2011
9:10 am

dB – 9:07 – speculation that Clinton was in cahoots with Fidel didn’t end it for the Noonster, so they seem to have BURIED hte bar

Bosch

May 25th, 2011
9:11 am

Oh good lord cosby — they paid back their loans, many American jobs were saved — but by all means, dont’ let that ruin a perfectly good rant about….well….nothing….

TnGelding

May 25th, 2011
9:11 am

“The money will come from the Wall Street bailout passed by Congress, a reversal for the White House. President-elect Barack Obama and Democrats had long advocated that course, and Bush had resisted it.”

AmVet

May 25th, 2011
9:12 am

Zooks! One more mea culpa. I didn’t acknowledge heathen’s contribution to the semi-sidebar at hand!

Carry on, all you hot rodders…

Jay's Brain and Ford owner

May 25th, 2011
9:12 am

As Jay knows, this was a sweetheart deal for Fiat (not an american company thus profits go out of the country) and for the unions of course, As in the case of GM where the unions paid NOTHING for their stake from the American taxpayer(jay loves getting ripped off).
GM still owes 100’s of millions to us the taxpayer(Write about that jaybo) and instead is paying lobbyist friends of Reid and Barry to lobby against the interests of repaying back the citizens of this country on a timely manner.
Once again your hack president has failed us.
Still in Afghanistan,
Still got Gitmo
Still spending 25 times faster than the repubs
Still handing out waivers to obamacare at an alarming pace but jay isn’t man enough to write about that. Too busy being a hack shill for the rats.
Still have 9 to 10% unemployment
Still blaming Bush
and the beat goes on……….

USinUK

May 25th, 2011
9:12 am

“The transaction also allows Fiat, which took control of Chrysler in June 2009, to increase its ownership from 30% to 46%.”

woohoo!!! I wonder if they’ll launch the 500 in the US – they’re FAB!

md

May 25th, 2011
9:12 am

It’s not a matter of “did it work”, but a matter of picking winners and losers………it may have saved the jobs of some of the folks in the auto industry, but there are 20+ million other folks that were deemed “not special”.

The question then becomes “why were these folks special”?

And since we are on the subject, this link gives a glimpse of why US companies have so much cash sitting offshore:

http://www.gokandy.com/energy-stocks/crazy-cheap-stocks-for-2012.html

This goes back to that argument about subsidies that are never realized if companies never come in the first place……….billions of dollars being held outside our economy because Uncle Sugar wants to double tax………….

TaxPayer

May 25th, 2011
9:13 am

If only AIG, for example, could pay back everything its owes the tax payers.

Call it like it is

May 25th, 2011
9:14 am

“a Gallup poll found 72 percent opposing the additional money for the auto companies and only 25 percent in favor.”

I stand corrected it was 72% and if these figures are wrong take it up with your idol Mr. Bookman for this came direct from the above blog last paragraph. Might want to try reading the whole thing before you comment in the future. Of course I understand I sometime cant get thru it either.

Mopar=Crap

May 25th, 2011
9:14 am

50 Billion still to go from GM, but, who’s counting. And btw, Jay, this doesn’t mean they made 7.6 in profit, just got the money from some other suckers. I probably compelled to do it since the Dems are now pillaging Gov. Workers pensions instead of passing a fair budget.

Senior Citizen Kane

May 25th, 2011
9:14 am

Thank you, President Bush, for saving the U.S. auto industry.

The Thin Guy

May 25th, 2011
9:14 am

When was the last time anyone saw a Chrysler dealership or a Chrysler? Basically they used credit card A to pay for credit card B. Got to go fire up the Stanley Steamer for the trip to work to try to make ends meet in The Great Pelosi Recession so that my taxes can be used to bail out another company ruined by union thugs.

Mopar=Crap

May 25th, 2011
9:15 am

Oh and Ford’s stock is through the roof and they never got any gov money.

larry

May 25th, 2011
9:15 am

If i could afford it, I would buy a Challenger, and a Camaro convertable. Not sure about a Mustang. I haven’t had very much luck with Fords.

poison pen

May 25th, 2011
9:15 am

Bosch

May 25th, 2011
9:07 am
“I feel sorry for the companies that didn’t get any handout.”

Why?

Bosch, if you honestly don’t know the answer to that, then there is no hope for you, Really?

getalife

May 25th, 2011
9:16 am

Paul

May 25th, 2011
9:16 am

Bosch

Fine, thanks. One of the kids in Oklahoma City had a touchdown 4 miles from their house. Went to the school storm shelter. Here, reports of tornadoes all around. Turned on Weather Channel and there was our city smack in the middle of the path of the system outlined in Red. No basements. Just a pool and a bathtub! But when the storms (there were several cells) passed thru it was like Moses and the Red Sea. Everything parted and went around us. Incredible. Then after the big systems moved east we got rain. Lots and lots of rain.

So thanks for doing the pagan dance in the moonlight, ‘k? It worked!!!!!

AmVet

May 25th, 2011
9:16 am

I know it is common con parlance now to speak of “the government picking winners and losers” and “income redistribution”.

To which I have only one question.

Where exactly have you Rip van Winkles been living the past 100 years or so?

Mopar=Crap

May 25th, 2011
9:16 am

Billings

May 25th, 2011
9:17 am

And for the rest of the story?

Payne: SUVs saved Chrysler

Chrysler and the White House will celebrate the Detroit icon’s $5.9 billion repayment of government loans Tuesday in a ceremony that will be hailed by both sides for the same reason: The government bailout had become a liability for both entities.

In fact, government-free Chrysler is hardly off the debt hook, but is simply refinancing its debt with private rather than public debt-holders. For its part, the U.S. government will still have a 6.6 percent equity stake in Chrysler – but by removing itself as the company’s loan shark, the White House can boast of the unpopular bailout’s success in returning taxpayer loans 6 years ahead of schedule. That’s an important sound-bite in an election year.

But there is one inconvenient truth you won’t hear at the Sterling Heights, Mich. ceremony: Chrysler wouldn’t be here had it not defied its green White House masters. Chrysler’s return to profitability is a direct result of the fabulous success of its SUVs.

The White House hand-picked Fiat to shepherd Chrysler out of bankruptcy in June, 2009 because of Barack Obama’s obsession with remaking Detroit’s automakers in the image of their European peers. Convinced that Americans craved small cars to fight the warming scourge, the president demanded Fiat bring its best-selling 500 Eurobox to the States as part of the acquisition deal. Obama was convinced that Fiat could reform the immoral, gas-swigging, SUV-dependent Chrysler.

The exact opposite occurred.

Two years later, the little 500 is about to go on sale in dealer “boutiques” – but it is the resurgence of America’s appetite for trucks that has brought Chrysler back from the dead. Chrysler Group reported sales were up 17 percent to 1.1 million vehicles in 2010 on the strength of its wildly popular, redesigned Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango SUVs. For CEO Marchionne, the SUVs success in the U.S. market has been a revelation and he is planning to expand the SUV lineup into Europe with Alfa Romeo and Maserati-badged trucks. Marchionne is no starry-eyed green – he has realized that trucks like the Cherokee typically rake in twice the per-vehicle profit of cars (thus the beleaguered company’s speedy repayment of U.S. loans).

Chrysler’s truck sales – largely ignored by Obama’s green media parrots – has also been good to UAW workers as Chrysler’s Detroit assembly plant is now at full, three-shift capacity.

But there is one more inconvenient truth: Chrysler has been here before.

After it repaid its 1980s loans under the legendary hand of Lee Iacocca, Chrysler was unable to diversify into smaller vehicles.Today, as the truck boom fades before the specter of $4-a-gallon gas, Chrysler is still heavily dependent on truck sales.

Chrysler is back. But is it just 1980s déjà vu all over again?

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110524/MIVIEW/105240374/Payne–SUVs-saved-Chrysler#ixzz1NMzMG3ce

getalife

May 25th, 2011
9:17 am

Ford did take bailout money and their Mustang is leading the horsepower race at the moment.

I love American muscle cars.

Joe Mama

May 25th, 2011
9:17 am

Did USMC and Peadawg have a love child or something?

Mopar=Crap

May 25th, 2011
9:18 am

Jay calling someone a political hack? Get real. What time are your daily briefings from the DNC on talking points.

Mopar=Crap

May 25th, 2011
9:19 am

getalife, FORD took NO money.

larry

May 25th, 2011
9:19 am

Oh and Ford’s stock is through the roof and they never got any gov money.

Actually, they did , a 5.9 billion dollar loan in June 2009.

Jefferson

May 25th, 2011
9:19 am

Ya can’t respect folks that look for any little petty ass item to try to make a President look bad. Works both ways.

Granny Godzilla

May 25th, 2011
9:20 am

Paul

I googled the words “Obama takes heat on auto bailout”…..

They were merciless.

DebbieDoRight

May 25th, 2011
9:21 am

Can we get a Madrassa post? A wee bit of Muslim slamming? The whitey tapes?

Oh no…..not the whitey tapes!!!!

Mick: Isn’t it strange how some could view saving american jobs as a bad thing? They can stand by their priciples but it doesn’t put food on the table or taxes in the coffers…

That’s because it’s more important to them to save Chineese jobs, or to save 3rd world sweat shops. You gotta have your priorities.

poison pen

May 25th, 2011
9:21 am

Irwin M. Fletcher

May 25th, 2011
9:08 am
PP – “The Govt should have had stipulations on them for 5 years with a portion of the profits going back into the Govt coffers, call it interest if you will.”

I agree with you on that. However at the time Paulsen, Bernanke and Geitner were literally on their knees begging everyone from Wall Street to Congress to allow the bailout. Paulsen needed to Congress to authorize the funds, and then he needed the investment bankers to take it. The situation was so dire, that he was afraid that if he placed too many restrictions on the plan, it would not work, and the economy would have

Irwin, I respect your thought on it, but I don’t agree, if they were all on their knees they would have taken anything that was offered to them, otherwise we should of let them sink.

Gary

May 25th, 2011
9:21 am

What will we do the next time Chysler fails? We all know it will happen. The build subpar cars that few people are interested in. They mostly sell rental cars. It was time for them to go.

ty webb

May 25th, 2011
9:22 am

Funny how we only ever hear the word “inherited” from the obama apologists when things go bad…guess we can just put this up as yet another thing he “inherited” from the Bush administration(and I didn’t agree with them either).

so to fix an earlier comment by one of the regulars:

Item on Obama to do list;
“Inherit” the saving of the automobile industry.
Check.
God Bless the good things obama has “inherited”.

USinUK

May 25th, 2011
9:23 am

PP and Irwin – for all it’s flaws, the US bailout was a damn sight better than the UK bailout – the companies were actually incented to pay the US back as quickly as possible whereas the MPs really did let the banks ride roughshod over them

md

May 25th, 2011
9:23 am

“Where exactly have you Rip van Winkles been living the past 100 years or so?”

I’ve been against it ever since I left the d party……..before that, I thought my company was special……..

The process the other 20 million were forced into was called bankruptcy……and these auto folks should have used the system set up for their mismanagement……………….

getalife

May 25th, 2011
9:23 am

Mopar gave us the hemi and it is not crap.

Ford got a bailout.

Are you one of those cons that are never right about anything?

stands for decibels

May 25th, 2011
9:24 am

And if it failed, what would be your headlines then?

“Obama making the most of his early retirement”

larry

May 25th, 2011
9:24 am

Mopar=Crap

May 25th, 2011
9:25 am

Ford Loan != bailout and never filed for bankruptcy….

All of this is just “Wag the Dog” anyway. The timing is incredible. 3 weeks AFTER the government ran out of money, all of these bailouts are actually being called in.

HavocMaker

May 25th, 2011
9:25 am

Larry –
Per your 9:19, please provide a link.

Thanks,
HM

larry

May 25th, 2011
9:26 am

How did that happen. My link is showing up BEFORE HavocMakers request for it. This is wild.

getalife

May 25th, 2011
9:27 am

We do not prosecute white collar crime because the doj are busy busting the so called “mafia” in Philly.

All twelve of them.

It is ridiculous and our country is soft on white collar crime.

Paul

May 25th, 2011
9:28 am

Granny

Yeah, and here in Texas (where about half the pickups in the US are sold and where Suburbans are considered a wonderful commuter car) Bush still takes it on the chin, too.

Somehow, I hoped bipartisanship would be better than this.

Gm

May 25th, 2011
9:29 am

Thanks President Obama for not listening to the retards and UnAmericans on the right, who wanted Chrysler, General Motors to fail. I bet you want hear anything about this on racist fox news channels, Hannity, Beck, all they did was call the President names for helping to keep people employed.
Suppliers were able to stay in business, GM is building more plants in America, more people will be working, this is why you can not listen to the idiiots on the right who want this great President to fail, these people are not Americans but hatred Rep who dont love this country and the American people.

AmVet

May 25th, 2011
9:29 am

md, I’m referring to something MUCH, MUCH bigger and systemic than just the Wall Street and auto industry bailouts.

Corporate welfare.

To wit, Porsche just moved into the old Ford plant in Hapeville.

Why?

Because Uncle Sugar and his kids in Atlanta basically gave away $14,000,000.00 to them.

All for about 100 new jobs.

Woo Hoo!

Sounds like somebody, after many decades of doing so, has perfected picking the winners and losers, wouldn’t you say?

jm

May 25th, 2011
9:29 am

“pays off”

A. Not for Bond Holders
B. Great, glad you see the light and value of unpopular things. So I’m sure you’ll be endorsing RyanCare despite its lack of popularity among seniors because it is the right thing to do.

Bosch

May 25th, 2011
9:30 am

Paul!

Glad my dances helped out you and the kiddos. I’m exhausted this morning — that took ALOT of work.

jms

May 25th, 2011
9:31 am

“A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.”

ABC News said they still owed $2 billion.

jm

May 25th, 2011
9:32 am

TaxPayer

May 25th, 2011
9:32 am

I see even Georgia companies got a few bucks of bailout money. I doubt that Republicans can even envision what our economy would be like even now if all those banks and auto companies and insurers and pension funds and brokerages and FDIC insured deposits and money market funds, etc., had been left to fend for themselves in a free market.

Bosch

May 25th, 2011
9:32 am

“It is not the job of the government to pick winners & losers in businesses.”

On the one hand, I agree with that sentiment, but on the other hand, when the employees of said company loses their jobs, it’s the government that pays for their safety net, so in a way, it is kind of the governments job to do what they can to minimize the damage.

cmac

May 25th, 2011
9:33 am

Chrysler is a privately held company that did not deserve government money. It is not the job of the government to pick winners & losers in businesses. The one good thing about it is that Chryslercs rebound was done mostly through the sales of gas guzzling trucks & SUVs! Stick that up your pooper al gore! HAHAHAHA!

AmVet

May 25th, 2011
9:36 am

getalife, saying our country is soft on white collar crime is like saying the Pacific Ocean is a small pond!

Banksters and legalized con-men are now adulated, not incarcerated…

HavocMaker

May 25th, 2011
9:36 am

Larry -
Either the blog is going whacky, or you are just a forward thinker. :)

Otherwise, per your 9:19, I think you were being a tad dishonest. Your article states that they took a loan subsidy. Isn’t there a difference between a loan and a subsidy?

HM

Logic 05

May 25th, 2011
9:36 am

“I used to respect Michael Barone, but he has become a hack.”

Jay has always been a hack.