GOP continues to misplay auto bailout issue

Any real hope that Republicans may have had of carrying Michigan in November has probably disappeared thanks to the hard-fought GOP primary battle in that state, with Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney bidding for votes among the Republican base by trying to condemn the auto-industry rescue plan more harshly than his opponent.

But just in case, President Obama chose today, as Republican voters were going to the polls, to speak to the United Auto Workers convention and look back at recent history, when it seemed likely that both Chrysler and General Motors would go into liquidation.

Here’s part of what he had to say (full prepared text here):

“With the economy in complete freefall, there weren’t any private companies or investors willing to take a chance on the auto industry. Anyone in the financial sector could tell you that. So we could have kept giving billions of taxpayer dollars to the automakers without demanding real change or accountability in return. But that wouldn’t have solved anything. It would have just kicked the problem further on down the road. The other option we had was to do nothing, and allow these companies to fail. In fact, some politicians said we should. Some even said we should “let Detroit go bankrupt.”

Think about what that choice would have meant for this country. If we had turned our backs on you; if America had thrown in the towel; GM and Chrysler wouldn’t exist today. The suppliers and distributors that get their business from those companies would have died off, too. Then even Ford could have gone down as well. Production: shut down. Factories: shuttered. Once proud companies chopped up and sold off for scraps. And all of you – the men and women who built these companies with your own hands – would’ve been hung out to dry.

More than one million Americans across the country would have lost their jobs in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

As Obama went on to note:

“About 700,000 retirees saw a reduction in the health care benefits they had earned. Many of you saw hours reduced, or pay and wages scaled back. You gave up some of your rights as workers. Promises were made to you over the years that you gave up for the sake and survival of this industry, its workers, and their families. You want to talk about values? Hard work – that’s a value. Looking out for one another – that’s a value. The idea that we’re all in it together – that I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper – that is a value.

But they’re still talking about you as if you’re some greedy special interest that needs to be beaten. Since when are hardworking men and women special interests? Since when is the idea that we look out for each other a bad thing?”

Given the success of the bailout, Republicans could have played the issue in one of two ways. They could acknowledge that it worked, applaud its success and move on, thus minimizing the political damage. Or they could continue to argue against all evidence that the bailout was a mistake, that they were right to oppose it and that the Americans involved didn’t deserve the help they got in keeping their jobs, their homes, their careers and their dreams.

They have chosen the second course, which frankly is pretty damn foolish.

– Jay Bookman

403 comments Add your comment

Guy Incognito

February 28th, 2012
2:01 pm

Yugo didn’t take bailout $$$

ty webb

February 28th, 2012
2:04 pm

piss off a Nanny-Stater, buy a Ford.

Jay'sNonsense

February 28th, 2012
2:05 pm

What about the true owners of GM the stock and bond holders?
Obama gave the best parts of GM to the union thugs that support him and the democrats.

Mick

February 28th, 2012
2:06 pm

Well, even when the president is proven correct on something, the naysayers will disavow any success. Don’t believe it? Just look and see if bin laden is still around, you’ll get every excuse under the sun on how to avoid giving obama an inkling of that success. It is the sad state of a deluded party…

Jay

February 28th, 2012
2:07 pm

Would that be the same Ford that strongly supported the bailout because it feared that it too would get sucked into the maelstrom, Ty?

The same Ford that would have needed a bailout too except for the happy accident that it had negotiated a huge line of credit just before the economy collapsed, and thus had the capital to survive?

(ir)Rational

February 28th, 2012
2:08 pm

As it is, I wouldn’t buy a GM or a Chrysler product because of the bailout. I know a lot of people that are like me, but I do agree with what Jay is saying. They are shooting themselves in the foot by arguing against something that kept people employed and that did (to anyone with eyes and a rational brain) work. Especially with Romney being from Michigan, he should know better than to argue against the bailout that saved his home state. He shouldn’t have had a problem running the table in Michigan, but this could be one thing that would help him along the way to losing it. Guess he can’t run as himself in the primaries, so he is presenting himself as someone that he wouldn’t vote for or recognize and I believe he will lose because of it.

Butch Cassidy

February 28th, 2012
2:09 pm

ty webb – “piss off a Nanny-Stater, buy a Ford.”

I guess reading comprehension isn’t your forte’. Had the other automakers gone down, the suppliers would have gone down with them. Unfortunately, you can’t keep multiple units going with only one client. Ford is great, but there is an immense and symbiotic support structure that holds the auto industry together. I’m hoping your comment was simply an attempt at humor.

Butch Cassidy

February 28th, 2012
2:10 pm

Jays Nonsense – “What about the true owners of GM the stock and bond holders?”

Yeah, F%$k the workers, where’s my dividend?

ty webb

February 28th, 2012
2:10 pm

Jay,
“would have”? that’s all you got?

Adam

February 28th, 2012
2:13 pm

ByteMe - Liberal Thug

February 28th, 2012
2:13 pm

Obama gave the best parts of GM to the union thugs that support him and the democrats.

Pretty easy to call someone a “thug” as an anonymous blog poster, huh, little man?

:lol:

getalife

February 28th, 2012
2:13 pm

Our President wins this issue.

He is positioned like this on most issues.

The gop deserve to lose.

They BOTH suck

February 28th, 2012
2:14 pm

ty

Why no mention of the low interest loans that Ford received from the FEDs to revamp several factories?

Talking Head

February 28th, 2012
2:14 pm

this piece could also read “The President continues to mislead America” as he claims that Ford could have gone down as well. Ford wasn’t in trouble, didn’t need bailout cash. Also, the President implies Chrystler is still around because of the bailout. Yet Chrystler is owned by Itlanian Fiat.

ByteMe - Liberal Thug

February 28th, 2012
2:14 pm

ty: you’re doubling down on dumb. Ford wanted the bailout to happen as well. You can’t refute that, so you need to call a waaaahmbulance ….

(ir)Rational

February 28th, 2012
2:14 pm

Adam – Haha.

Adam

February 28th, 2012
2:15 pm

ty: Ford is not the most profitable auto maker in the world this past year. GM is.

JKL2

February 28th, 2012
2:15 pm

New Michigan campaign slogan:

Vote obama–get a check!

Butch Cassidy

February 28th, 2012
2:15 pm

Talking Head – “Ford wasn’t in trouble, didn’t need bailout cash. ”

And here’s why:

” it had negotiated a huge line of credit just before the economy collapsed, and thus had the capital to survive?

ty webb

February 28th, 2012
2:16 pm

“Ford” didn’t want a bailout…”you can’t refute that”.

Adam

February 28th, 2012
2:16 pm

(ir)Rational: Hey, if you believe some of the cons here, TENTH and SECOND are more important than FIRST (amendments) :D

ByteMe - Liberal Thug

February 28th, 2012
2:17 pm

Ford wasn’t in trouble, didn’t need bailout cash.

Talking Head, there’s more than one way to be “in trouble”. Running out of cash is one. Not being able to get parts to build your cars is another. Check out what happened when a parts supplier’s workers went on strike in the past. Now imagine how well those parts suppliers — with large factories they have to pay off — suddenly lose 2/3 or 1/2 of their customer base and have to close up shop. No one just comes in and starts supplying alternate parts. Reality doesn’t work that way.

Butch Cassidy

February 28th, 2012
2:17 pm

JKL2 – “New Michigan campaign slogan:

Vote obama–get a check!”

New GOP Slogan – Vote Republican – Free Gas for Everyone!

Adam

February 28th, 2012
2:17 pm

“Newt is gonna pay my GAS BILL!” – Tea Party low information voter

Joe Hussein Mama

February 28th, 2012
2:17 pm

J. Nonsense — “What about the true owners of GM the stock and bond holders?”

As far as I’m concerned, y’all had a choice between getting *something,* which you did when the bailout happened, and getting nothing, which is what would have happened in a bankruptcy.

Stockholders’ equity would have been wiped out. Bondholders would have become unsecured creditors, just like the suppliers.

Stockholders and bondholders came out better in the bailout than they would have in a bankruptcy, so eff them and their whining.

(ir)Rational

February 28th, 2012
2:18 pm

Talking Head – Yeah, Chrysler was in bad shape before the economy went in the dumps. Jeep and the Dodge Ram have been about the only thing worth buying from them for as long as I’ve been alive. And as has already been pointed out, just what would have happened to Ford if their suppliers had of gone bankrupt?

getalife

February 28th, 2012
2:18 pm

He saved our auto industry and got them to change.

A major accomplishment.

You lose cons.

Adam

February 28th, 2012
2:18 pm

ByteMe: There you go talking about REALITY again…. :roll:

(ir)Rational

February 28th, 2012
2:19 pm

Adam – I won’t agree that they’re more important, but I would say that are at the very least equally as important. :)

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

February 28th, 2012
2:19 pm

What hasn’t the GOP misplayed of late?

They’ve become the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.

Recon 0311 2533

February 28th, 2012
2:19 pm

“Given the success of the bailout,”

It was certainly successful for the unions, for the taxpayers, not so much.

ByteMe

February 28th, 2012
2:19 pm

Adam: sorry. I’m tired of the “War on Reality” being obsessively waged by those who live in Rightwingnutistan.

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

February 28th, 2012
2:20 pm

Vote GOP – Free Gas!

Adam

February 28th, 2012
2:20 pm

(ir)Rational: I would say they are exactly equally important.

(ir)Rational

February 28th, 2012
2:20 pm

ByteMe – Given the shear size of GM, I would say that if GM and Chrysler had of gone under, the parts suppliers would have lost somewhere in the range of 75%-80% of their business.

ByteMe

February 28th, 2012
2:20 pm

for the taxpayers, not so much.

On the contrary: taxpayers would have had to pick up the tab for 1,000,000 more unemployed people than they did and those people are paying taxes this year as well. We win!

Butch Cassidy

February 28th, 2012
2:20 pm

Recon 0311 2533 – “It was certainly successful for the unions, for the taxpayers, not so much.”

Yeah, F!@K the workers, Where’s my tax cut?

Joe Hussein Mama

February 28th, 2012
2:21 pm

Recon — It was certainly successful for the autoworkers, for the GOP, not so much.

FTFY.

Adam

February 28th, 2012
2:21 pm

“I can get you gas for a dime” – Ron Paul

DebbieDoRight

February 28th, 2012
2:21 pm

Guy: Yugo didn’t take bailout $$$

OMG!! Too funny!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

getalife

February 28th, 2012
2:21 pm

Hang it up del.

ByteMe

February 28th, 2012
2:21 pm

I would say that if GM and Chrysler had of gone under, the parts suppliers would have lost somewhere in the range of 75%-80% of their business.

Depends on whether they supply two or three of them. That’s why I didn’t try to estimate the size of their book, but the number of customers.

(ir)Rational

February 28th, 2012
2:22 pm

Adam – I would actually argue that 1 and 2 are the only things that make 10 enforceable. But that is just me.

Adam

February 28th, 2012
2:22 pm

ByteMe: On the contrary: taxpayers would have had to pick up the tab for 1,000,000 more unemployed people than they did and those people are paying taxes this year as well

Ah, ah, ah! You forgot the other part of the plan – defund unemployment insurance!

jm

February 28th, 2012
2:22 pm

“Somehow,” Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73138.html#ixzz1nhqAY4Wg

jm

February 28th, 2012
2:24 pm

oh. and Republicans would’ve helped the auto companies. Just in a different manner than Obama would have.

Republicans wouldn’t have violated decades of bankruptcy law like Obama did.

Adam

February 28th, 2012
2:24 pm

(ir)Rational: I would say “possible” rather than “enforceable”, along with the 4th amendment

(ir)Rational

February 28th, 2012
2:24 pm

ByteMe – Good point.

Adam

February 28th, 2012
2:25 pm

Republicans wouldn’t have violated decades of bankruptcy law like Obama did.

Contact Rep. Issa so he can open up an investigation.

Joe Hussein Mama

February 28th, 2012
2:25 pm

Pretty sure no one’s paying attention to you today, jm.

Yeah you Bet

February 28th, 2012
2:26 pm

Jay’sNonsense

February 28th, 2012
2:05 pm
What about the true owners of GM the stock and bond holders?
Obama gave the best parts of GM to the union thugs that support him and the democrats.

Well what about that jack?

ByteMe

February 28th, 2012
2:26 pm

You forgot the other part of the plan – defund unemployment insurance!

Didn’t Republicans do that here in the past few years?

Tommy Maddox

February 28th, 2012
2:26 pm

“Given the success of the bailout” [which presupposes that you are a member of the UAW as opposed to a secure bond holder], our President has once again shown what thug politics is all about.

“He saved the auto industry”? No, he took it from the investors and gave it to the UAW. Give them a little while to do what they normally do then they’ll all go away.

Murph

February 28th, 2012
2:26 pm

Not that this is relevant at all to the topic at hand, jm, but….”Never mind that some energy experts say Chu had it exactly right, and that higher fuel prices would encourage consumers to buy more efficient vehicles, discourage suburban sprawl, make renewables more competitive and reduce U.S. reliance on imported oil”

Talking Head

February 28th, 2012
2:26 pm

Also, it appears from the actions of the DNC and the President that they are either very uncertain or fearful of Mitt becoming the GOP nominee. Just observing what has taken place so far today with the get out to vote campaign by the DNC and liberal media figures urging democrats to vote for Rick in MI, the President flying to MI to give a speech on the same day as the primary attempting to fire up the base by assuring everyone that the bailout was the best thing to happen and that some politicians (ie Mitt) wanted it to go bankrupt.

The uncertainty and fear is very real from the DNC and President.

Jimmy62

February 28th, 2012
2:28 pm

Success= massive theft, huge tax waivers, no real renegotiation of burdensome union contracts, billions of dollars of loans not paid back, two failed companies continuing the same junk that caused them to fail in the first place, and a third now at a big disadvantage because it didn’t get billions in free money.

That’s not success, and in 5 years when they either fail again or want more taxpayer money, even you will have to admit the truth. Any idea that this was a success is based on ignoring the numbers.

You know what happened when the horse and buggy industry was failing in this country? Companies shut down, new ones opened. It worked out pretty well.

ByteMe - Liberal Thug

February 28th, 2012
2:28 pm

our President has once again shown what thug politics is all about.

Ah, there’s that Republican dog whistle again.

Bruno

February 28th, 2012
2:28 pm

Or they could continue to argue against all evidence that the bailout was a mistake, that they were right to oppose it and that the Americans involved didn’t deserve the help they got in keeping their jobs, their homes, their careers and their dreams.

Newt made a good point in the last debate–It wasn’t the auto industry as a whole that was on the verge of bankruptcy, it was two specific companies. Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Ford were all surviving.

The idea that we’re all in it together – that I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper – that is a value.

Yes, a value of socialism and communism, neither of which can produce a dynamic economy in the way that capitalism can. I’ll stick with capitalism.

Tommy Maddox

February 28th, 2012
2:28 pm

You ever been a secured creditor?

The Snark

February 28th, 2012
2:29 pm

@ Jay’s Nonsense:

“Obama gave the best parts of GM to the union thugs that support him and the democrats.”

Are you high on crack? Wage reductions and taking responsibiltiy for the benefits plan were the “best parts of GM”?

jewcowboy

February 28th, 2012
2:29 pm

I’m enjoying my Caddy (I wish I could afford a couple)…thank you Obama.

ByteMe - Liberal Thug

February 28th, 2012
2:29 pm

You know what happened when the horse and buggy industry was failing in this country? Companies shut down, new ones opened. It worked out pretty well.

Not all at once on a single day, though. Are you needing a history lesson on the time between the car’s intro and the demise of horses as a primary mode of transportation?

(ir)Rational

February 28th, 2012
2:30 pm

Jimmy62 – To work off your analogy to the carriage industry, exactly what was going to replace the automobile if those companies shut down? Are we all finally going to get those flying cars that were promised in the 60s?

Tommy Maddox

February 28th, 2012
2:30 pm

Just don’t look for too many investors in GM for the future.

Butch Cassidy

February 28th, 2012
2:30 pm

Jimmy62 – “You know what happened when the horse and buggy industry was failing in this country? Companies shut down, new ones opened.”

Yes, they were GM, Ford, Chrysler who came along with automobiles. What were you planning on replacing these industries with? Jet packs?

ByteMe - Liberal Thug

February 28th, 2012
2:31 pm

I’ll stick with capitalism.

Bruno needs to read some Adam Smith. What we have is not “capitalism” by any stretch of the imagination and Adam Smith would be appalled at the level of market manipulation being done for and by the wealthy class.

Adam

February 28th, 2012
2:31 pm

Tommy: No, he took it from the investors and gave it to the UAW

You seem to know a lot about this. Please explain, in as much detail as you can, how Obama “gave” the auto industry to the UAW. Thanks in advance.

jm

February 28th, 2012
2:31 pm

Murph, that’s what it says. Question is do Americans want that kind of social engineering?

They seem to prefer the Republican position frankly. Like it or not.

Butch Cassidy

February 28th, 2012
2:31 pm

Bruno – ” I’ll stick with capitalism.”

Me too, but why does your side want to interfere with free trade in order to get cheap fuel? Sounds a lot like socialism to me.

Adam

February 28th, 2012
2:32 pm

fearful of Mitt becoming the GOP nominee.

AHAHAHA. No, no no… you’ve got it wrong. It’s not that they’re fearful of Mitt, it’s that they would LOVE to run against Santorum and his anti-woman, anti-choice, anti-education rhetoric.

Joe Hussein Mama

February 28th, 2012
2:33 pm

B. Cassidy — “Yes, they were GM, Ford, Chrysler who came along with automobiles. What were you planning on replacing these industries with? Jet packs?”

I think it was actually the opening that the buggy and whip makers had been looking for.

ByteMe - Liberal Thug

February 28th, 2012
2:33 pm

Please explain, in as much detail as you can, how Obama “gave” the auto industry to the UAW.

We starting a betting pool on this one that he can’t actually provide facts? How about a drinking game for the number of times the word “thug” gets used?

Jimmy62

February 28th, 2012
2:33 pm

If this is such a success, then shouldn’t we take it further? Let’s give $25 billion to every failure in the country. Big company, small company, poor person, rich person, if you’ve failed at something, we’ll give you $25 billion! All our problems will be solved!!! I know this because Jay and Obama said so!

(ir)Rational

February 28th, 2012
2:33 pm

Bruno – I’ll be back with links to either prove or disprove this later, but I believe that Japan and a few other countries stepped in and did the same thing we did with GM and Chrysler. Realizing you were just quoting someone else, I’m just cautioning you to check what others say before you repeat it.

Paul

February 28th, 2012
2:33 pm

Or Romney could have said what he hinted at, that he would have preferred a different way to save Detroit, but he’s glad the plan that Presidents Bush and Obama put in place worked.

But that’s probably too nuanced, so a “I’m glad it worked and all these Americans have jobs” would be best. But he keeps getting sucked in by his shortsighted opponents.

Romney’s like the bystander who jumps in the lake to save the drowning, flailing 350 lb whale of a guy who thrashes about and pulls them both under.

jm

February 28th, 2012
2:33 pm

“why does your side want to interfere with free trade in order to get cheap fuel?”

Reversing unreasonably denied drilling permits is not interfering with free trade. Rather the opposite.

Butch Cassidy

February 28th, 2012
2:34 pm

Jimmy62 – “Let’s give $25 billion to every failure in the country.”

Well, if Congress approves it.

(ir)Rational

February 28th, 2012
2:34 pm

JHM – Dam, I always wanted to use a horse and buggy to get to work. That 25 mile trip from Kennesaw to Atlanta would have been awesome! :)

ByteMe - Liberal Thug

February 28th, 2012
2:35 pm

If this is such a success, then shouldn’t we take it further?

Jimmy loses, because he can’t back his nonsense with facts. Too bad. Was hoping to see where he got his nonsense from.

Adam

February 28th, 2012
2:36 pm

If this is such a success, then shouldn’t we take it further? Let’s give $25 billion to every failure in the country.

What’s failing right now?

ByteMe - Liberal Thug

February 28th, 2012
2:36 pm

But he keeps getting sucked in by his shortsighted opponents.

The mark of a leader.

Joe Hussein Mama

February 28th, 2012
2:36 pm

jm — “Reversing unreasonably denied drilling permits is not interfering with free trade.”

But nationalizing the US petroleum industry so that “our gas” gets kept and sold here at home IS.

jm

February 28th, 2012
2:36 pm

Jimmy62 – valid point (in terms of illustrating absurd liberal illogic)

ByteMe - Liberal Thug

February 28th, 2012
2:36 pm

That 25 mile trip from Kennesaw to Atlanta would have been awesome

Down I-75?? :)

Butch Cassidy

February 28th, 2012
2:37 pm

Jm – “Reversing unreasonably denied drilling permits is not interfering with free trade. Rather the opposite.”

And once the oil has been pumped, where will you dictate that the oil company sell it? Afterall, if it goes on the world market, it gets sold at market prices. Oh wait, I forgot, we’ll just nationalize the industry so we can dictate the price ourselves.

jm

February 28th, 2012
2:37 pm

“But nationalizing the US petroleum industry so that “our gas” gets kept and sold here at home IS.”

And no one has suggested doing that other than a few loco libs in their own imaginations.

/out

Doggone/GA

February 28th, 2012
2:37 pm

“It was certainly successful for the unions, for the taxpayers, not so much”

Since it was successful for the unions it WAS successful the taxpayers. The roles of taxpayers still includes those union workers, and we don’t have to pay for them all being on unemployment and/or assistance because they wouldn’t have jobs.

Joe Hussein Mama

February 28th, 2012
2:39 pm

jm — “And no one has suggested doing that other than a few loco libs in their own imaginations.”

It’s been suggested here several times in recent weeks by our very own cons.

Tommy Maddox

February 28th, 2012
2:39 pm

Hey Adam: Talk to Obama’s Auto Task Force Czar, Ron Bloom.

Oh, I guess he misspoke. Never mind…

(ir)Rational

February 28th, 2012
2:39 pm

ByteMe – Yeah, like I said, it would have been “fun.” – Granted, I forgot the quotation marks around fun last time, but I think you understand.

Adam

February 28th, 2012
2:39 pm

For every 1% increase in union membership among the workforce, the wages of EVERY employee, union or non union, rises by about $156/year on average. Look it up, and weep.

(ir)Rational

February 28th, 2012
2:40 pm

Paul

February 28th, 2012
2:40 pm

ByteMe

“On the contrary: taxpayers would have had to pick up the tab for 1,000,000 more unemployed people than they did and those people are paying taxes this year as well.”

And then we’d hear Republican candidates criticizing the President with “Look at that. Under his leadership, another million workers lost their jobs!!!!”

Butch Cassidy

February 28th, 2012
2:40 pm

jm – “And no one has suggested doing that other than a few loco libs in their own imaginations.”

Fine, then please instruct everyone as to how the U.S. control the price of a commodity without actually controlling the industry that produces it. And keep in mind, there is no United States of America Oil Corporation.

(ir)Rational

February 28th, 2012
2:40 pm

Bruno – Don’t know if it happened or not, but here is an article talking about Volkswagen and Daimler asking for one:

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2008/12/volkswagen-if-the-american-carmakers-can-get-bailout-funds-so-can-we.html

Jimmy62

February 28th, 2012
2:40 pm

Byte Me: That’s easy. The UAW wasn’t a secured creditor. In a bankruptcy the secured creditors go first. Rather than follow those procedures, Obama ignored the secured creditors (who only put up their money in the first place because they were supposed to be first in line in bankruptcy), and out UAW at the front of the line and gave them over 50% of the company. It was literally stolen from those secured creditors to give to the group who was as responsible as anyone for the failure of the company.

So not only did we reward the UAW for driving GM to bankruptcy, not only did we make investors think a lot harder before investing in businesses the government favors, not only did we chill capital investment altogether, but we also failed to take advantage of the chance to renegotiate the bad union contracts (and even Obama buddy Steven Rattner agrees with the last being a major mistake, and one that will likely lead to further failure for the company, and further reward for UAW leadership, who got more out of this than anyone, despite being more responsible for the failure than just about anyone else).

But all this has been written in these pages many times, the left just chooses to ignore massive grand theft as long as it’s their side stealing.

Adam

February 28th, 2012
2:40 pm

Tommy: Never mind…

I accept your surrender.

ByteMe - Liberal Thug

February 28th, 2012
2:41 pm

Paul: yes, their whining seems to know no bounds.

harvey

February 28th, 2012
2:41 pm

Given most of us don’t get to keep a job if there isn’t anything to do, or get a pension, the auto bailout sucks. So does the bailout king.

(ir)Rational

February 28th, 2012
2:41 pm

Butch – I already explained it downstairs. There is a magic gas prices button. :)