*I Told You So

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, February 6th, 2012 10:10pm PST - promote requested by original submitter bareboards2.

They should run this every day until November.

Romney's editorial, if anyone's interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html.

Romney and others were clearly wrong about the bailout leading to the demise of the American auto industry. But (and it's an important point, I think) that's not to say that his proposal, namely a "managed bankruptcy," would not have been successful.

Stop defending Obama. He's done nothing for jobs.

I was listening to a podcast today:
http://blackagendareport.com/content/listen-black-agenda-radio-progressive-radio-network-glen-ford-and-nellie-bailey-%E2%80%93-week-febru

It was memorable when David said "How can you argue that we can't attack Obama? We've gotten nothing from him. And we're supposed to remain silent because he can't have opposition?"

The alternative to Obama? 10 times worse. Especially for black americans.

Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive

Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.

But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.


Didn't Bush make those bailouts? I mean weren't they done up but Bush people?

QM, would you rather have a domestic auto industry or not? >> ^quantumushroom:

Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

That was interesting. He had some good points. I wonder how many have been implemented.

He also left out miles per gallon standards -- the auto industry has finally seen how their obstinancy (spelled wrong, but I am too lazy to go look for the correct spelling) about fuel standards has been self defeating on a global scale.

Also interesting in that he buried the lead on dealing with workers. He lead with cut salary, cut benefits, cut retirement. Then buried in the end -- hey, pay with stock options -- and didn't even make the obvious leap of -- turn workers into owners with an investment in the business doing well.

Tone deaf. Not wrong. Just tone deaf when it comes to dealing with the American worker.


>> ^aurens:

Romney's editorial, if anyone's interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html.
Romney and others were clearly wrong about the bailout leading to the demise of the American auto industry. But (and it's an important point, I think) that's not to say that his proposal, namely a "managed bankruptcy," would not have been successful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeWBK6xY4f4&feature=related

A very flawed argument, as the interviewer points out. Noone is asking for the entire wealth of the rich; we are asking them to pay taxes at the highest rates, at the level that middle class people pay.>> ^nintendcore2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeWBK6xY4f4&feature=related

*politics

Adding video to channels (Politics) - requested by NetRunner.

Since the bailouts did happen, I'm glad they worked, because the worst case scenario obviously would have been that we dumped millions of dollars into these companies and they still tanked.

But I still would have preferred we let these companies fail, or they pick themselves up and turn things around like Ford did.

American cars have sucked for 20+ years now. They couldn't compete on a level playing field so we put tariffs on foreign cars to artificially raise their prices. On a slanted playing field, American cars still can't compete. Why? Because, overall, they're garbage; that's why.

We already voted to let them go out of business by not buying their cars. Anyone who steps in and says, "No, I'm sure you all really want the exact opposite of what you said, so we're going to loan them your money." is totally out of line. No means no.

Would it have hurt the job market to let them die? Yes, unquestionably. But the demand for cars does not decrease because companies go out of business. If GM and Chrysler sank, it would have been a huge opportunity for Ford to grow to fill the gap. Toyota, Honda, Kia, Mazda, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, and Nissan all have American plants as well, so jobs lost to foreign manufacturers aren't necessarily lost to foreign workers.

The argument that we should let massive faltering corporations fail so that they can be rebuilt or replaced with more effective and efficient competitors is appealing.

However, the devil is in the details, and in the case of GM and Chrysler, there would be a tremendous human cost in the short term (directly from unemployment and indirectly through the impact to the domestic economy already mired in a recession). The purist argument of letting them fail has an idealistic value but there are times where a compromise, a managed recovery, will get most of the benefit with a fraction of the cost.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. I think the bailouts were an imperfect and distasteful solution that worked without destroying the livelihood of thousands.

Hows that GDP, Obama? The only jobs Obama saved were his czars, liberal Fed government workers, and his cronies in the unions.

Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!)...

Answers your question about Bush approving of the auto bailouts.

...the left would be howling about their obvious failure.

Meaning if Bush were President now, the left, using the same exact stats, would declare the bailouts a failure. Which, by the way, they are.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Didn't Bush make those bailouts? I mean weren't they done up but Bush people?

I'd like to have a domestic auto industry IF it deserves to stay in business and meets expenses with profits from building cars consumers--not Chicago Jesus--want, not 50K rolling fireplaces like the chevy volt.

Ford didn't take any bailout money and they're doing fine. Plus how 'bout all those foreign car companies with domestic plants, sans greedy unions, building cars un-rich people can actually afford...


>> ^longde:

QM, would you rather have a domestic auto industry or not? >> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Did you know that Ford has also received HUGE help from the federal government? Why is it wrong for the government to help domestic industry. It's not like it's a new practice in the US, and it's not like other countries don't give their industries a similar advantage.>> ^quantumushroom:

I'd like to have a domestic auto industry IF it deserves to stay in business and meets expenses with profits from building cars consumers--not Chicago Jesus--want, not 50K rolling fireplaces like the chevy volt.
Ford didn't take any bailout money and they're doing fine. Plus how 'bout all those foreign car companies with domestic plants, sans greedy unions, building cars un-rich people can actually afford...

>> ^longde:
QM, would you rather have a domestic auto industry or not? >> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Either the bailouts werent enough, or they were.

They were not.

Therefore, the bailouts shouldnt have happened?

Nooo, not exactly... that still leaves us with not enough.

Seems the problem was with getting into the situation in the first place... and that had everything to do with people who wanted a puppet president like Bush.

You are out of date with your stereotypes - it has been a while since American cars have sucked. Quality has improved dramatically of late. And improved quality is a contributing factor in the slow-down of the industry. Americans replace their cars less frequently than in the past (a trend that predates 2008).

GM consistently outsells Ford, so your vote-with-our-wallets argument does not work.

Ford would have gone bankrupt in 2006 if it hadn't gotten a $23.5 billion government loan. Since it was a loan Ford now has more debt than its peers. Ford was not in a position financially to "grow to fill the gap".

The domestic automotive business accounts for nearly a million jobs, concentrated in just 3 states. Losing those jobs, even for a year or two while the economy adapted, would have sucked so so bad.


>> ^xxovercastxx:

...But I still would have preferred we let these companies fail, or they pick themselves up and turn things around like Ford did.
American cars have sucked for 20+ years now. They couldn't compete on a level playing field so we put tariffs on foreign cars to artificially raise their prices. On a slanted playing field, American cars still can't compete. Why? Because, overall, they're garbage; that's why.
We already voted to let them go out of business by not buying their cars...

To add anecdotal evidence. Chinese love american cars. You can see them all over Beijing being driven by the well-to-do. Some women lose their minds over them (in the end of the vid, you can hear the guy give in ("I'll buy it!!") and hand the guy his credit card to stop his girlfriend's tantrum):>> ^blackoreb:

You are out of date with your stereotypes - it has been a while since American cars have sucked. Quality has improved dramatically of late. And improved quality is a contributing factor in the slow-down of the industry. Americans replace their cars less frequently than in the past (a trend that predates 2008).
GM consistently outsells Ford, so your vote-with-our-wallets argument does not work.
Ford would have gone bankrupt in 2006 if it hadn't gotten a $23.5 billion government loan. Since it was a loan Ford now has more debt than its peers. Ford was not in a position financially to "grow to fill the gap".
The domestic automotive business accounts for nearly a million jobs, concentrated in just 3 states. Losing those jobs, even for a year or two while the economy adapted, would have sucked so so bad.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
...But I still would have preferred we let these companies fail, or they pick themselves up and turn things around like Ford did.
American cars have sucked for 20+ years now. They couldn't compete on a level playing field so we put tariffs on foreign cars to artificially raise their prices. On a slanted playing field, American cars still can't compete. Why? Because, overall, they're garbage; that's why.
We already voted to let them go out of business by not buying their cars...

People also forget that it wasn't just people who work for GM and Chrysler whose jobs were saved. There's a whole supply chain to think about. Ohio's job market was helped out a lot by the auto bailout because we have a lot of companies who supply parts to GM and Chrysler here.

And of course those effects just keep rippling out, because people who kept their job at the parts supplier also spend their paycheck in the local economy. They buy houses here, eat in our restaurants, shop in our stores, etc.

People seem to have this notion that economic growth is all about profits, but really, it has more to do with making sure money keeps turning over in the economy. You want people to spend money on things, so people selling things have money to hire people to make more things, which gives those people money they can use to spend on things. You want money to flow in a circle, so everyone's kept employed making more stuff which over time makes us more prosperous.

Something like the liquidation of Chrysler or GM would've been a major disruption to that flow, right at a time when the financial crisis was creating a giant disruption of its own.

The bailouts prevented those disruptions, and the amount of money it saved us versus the alternative is much, much greater than the costs of lending the money to GM and Chrysler would be, even if we never got a dime back from either one.

>> ^blackoreb:

You are out of date with your stereotypes - it has been a while since American cars have sucked. Quality has improved dramatically of late. And improved quality is a contributing factor in the slow-down of the industry. Americans replace their cars less frequently than in the past (a trend that predates 2008).
GM consistently outsells Ford, so your vote-with-our-wallets argument does not work.
Ford would have gone bankrupt in 2006 if it hadn't gotten a $23.5 billion government loan. Since it was a loan Ford now has more debt than its peers. Ford was not in a position financially to "grow to fill the gap".
The domestic automotive business accounts for nearly a million jobs, concentrated in just 3 states. Losing those jobs, even for a year or two while the economy adapted, would have sucked so so bad.

They may not be at their lowest point but I'm not convinced American cars are all that great yet. My mother bought a brand new 2012 Ford Edge in November and I've driven it a few times. It's typical poorly designed, shoddy American craftsmanship.

I don't understand your point about GM outselling Ford and how that invalidates anything I said. Please explain.

I'm under the impression that the 2006 Ford deal was a bank mortgage. Please explain if I'm wrong.

>> ^NetRunner:

People also forget that it wasn't just people who work for GM and Chrysler whose jobs were saved. There's a whole supply chain to think about.

Do you believe that the demand for cars would have decreased if the big 3 went under? If so, please explain how and why.

I think, if the big 3 tanked, people who would have bought those cars would still need cars and would have bought cars from other manufacturers. That means increased business for those other manufacturers which means they place more demand on the material manufacturers, the parts suppliers, etc. Some of that demand would have manifested overseas, but I believe much of it would have gone to the same businesses that Ford, Chrysler and GM use. After all, as I said above, there's lots of other manufacturers that do assembly here and it's easier and cheaper to have your suppliers nearby.

All the independent analyses that I read back in 2008 concluded that the cost of the bailouts vs letting the big 3 tank was close to a wash. That, at least, made me feel a little bit better about the horrible message that we sent by going forward with them.

There's also a cost to other businesses that comes with these sorts of bailouts that is rarely mentioned. I used to work at a small property insurance company. When the economy got rough, they played things smart. They minimized their risk, invested heavily and were one of the only companies of their kind to maintain a profit through the whole debacle. AIG, on the other hand, bet on high risk business and lost fortunes. They got a government care package and put themselves back together and now, as a result, are destroying the insurance market. My old company is struggling to stay in business (next year is their 100th anniversary) and AIG is swimming in ill gotten money.

So the question I pose (and I know we can only speculate on the answer) is what effect have the bailouts had on Toyota, Honda, etc? Or do we not care because they don't employ as many Americans as the domestics?

1) Of course, Bush did everything; after all, he collapsed the economy. Let's thank him for that too.
2) How can you say that "Obamacare" has cost us millions when it doesn't even go into effect until 2014?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

You're right - this is all mostly speculation.

I believe that if the GM and Chrysler had failed, consumer confidence would have collapsed and Americans would have deferred their new vehicle purchases or bought used cars. As it was, auto sales were down 18% in 2008.

The failure of GM and Chrysler would have removed something like 33% of U.S. vehicle production, and 4% of all U.S. manufacturing. Everyone else would have maximized their production to make up for the loss, but it would have taken years to replace that amount of production.

Meanwhile, the 1 in 30 Americans residing in the State of Michigan start living in Mad Max times.

I think it is one of the functions of government to provide a buffer between the people and the wild throes of relentless progress inherent in free-market capitalism. The government bans things like slavery and child labor, not because it makes financial sense, but because it is the right thing to do. I think there is a similar justification for the automotive bailout. The bailout prevented human suffering on a massive scale. That is why we should care about saving those jobs.

IMHO

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^NetRunner:
People also forget that it wasn't just people who work for GM and Chrysler whose jobs were saved. There's a whole supply chain to think about.
Do you believe that the demand for cars would have decreased if the big 3 went under? If so, please explain how and why....
... So the question I pose (and I know we can only speculate on the answer) is what effect have the bailouts had on Toyota, Honda, etc? Or do we not care because they don't employ as many Americans as the domestics?

Sorry to interrupt. If anyone wants some comparative data on who created more jobs in their first three years, click the link

http://ilovecharts.tumblr.com/post/17153603840/soupsoup-private-sector-jobs-created-by-barack

Turns out Clinton was the star. GWB - not so much.

As you were.

here's the thing with that...

It's total BS. Reps definitely would have bailed them out just like Obama did.

Reps will take ANY stance that is opposite of Dems. That's the long and the short of it. If Dems cured cancer, you'd see a Rep campaign arguing cancer was good.

That's a pretty shitty chart. If they're going to mess with the axes, why put actual numbers on them instead of relative numbers? And why give the dates for the Bush presidency along the bottom of a chart comparing 4 different administrations?

Finally, what a misleading and arbitrary decision to start the "fiscal watch" on October of the year the President took office. Clearly it's done to make Obama look better. It also gives people the impression that presidential policy can move employment numbers in the short term, when every economist will tell you just the opposite.

What does it say about us that major news organizations cover and promote this guy's opinions?

>> ^kymbos:

Sorry to interrupt. If anyone wants some comparative data on who created more jobs in their first three years, click the link
http://ilovecharts.tumblr.com/post/17153603840/so
upsoup-private-sector-jobs-created-by-barack
Turns out Clinton was the star. GWB - not so much.
As you were.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Do you believe that the demand for cars would have decreased if the big 3 went under? If so, please explain how and why.
I think, if the big 3 tanked, people who would have bought those cars would still need cars and would have bought cars from other manufacturers. That means increased business for those other manufacturers which means they place more demand on the material manufacturers, the parts suppliers, etc. Some of that demand would have manifested overseas, but I believe much of it would have gone to the same businesses that Ford, Chrysler and GM use. After all, as I said above, there's lots of other manufacturers that do assembly here and it's easier and cheaper to have your suppliers nearby.
No, like you say it's mostly a supply-driven story, not demand-driven. My point is that dismantling the Detroit-centered auto manufacturing infrastructure would be a huge shock to the American economy.

Like you say, eventually the economy would readjust, but even in a good economy it'd take a long time for it to adjust to a shock of that size. In a time where the financial markets had just gone into a crisis of historic proportions, it might've taken more than a decade.

A decade in which that circular flow is moving more slowly, dragged down by all the human and industrial capital that we leave idle as workers in Detroit look for new jobs, and while we wait for the prices of Toyotas and Hondas and BMW's to rise in response to the decline in supply, then wait for those price increases to build up as excess capital to the point where those companies decide to invest in opening new factories to meet the demand.

In the long run, the circular flow of our economy would eventually get back up to the rate it was at before, but in the long run we are all dead.

Or instead we could spot 'em 50 billion and avoid taking that kind of hit. Unless of course, you think there are inherent insurmountable problems with Chrysler and GM that can't be fixed with new management and some debt forgiveness?
>> ^xxovercastxx:

All the independent analyses that I read back in 2008 concluded that the cost of the bailouts vs letting the big 3 tank was close to a wash.

I'm not sure if the analyses you looked at were talking about the overall macroeconomic effects, but I bet not. I bet they just looked at "will it increase the government's debt load?" That's all most investor analyses do in situations like this.

The analysis I'm talking about would be comparing GDP forecasts with the bailout vs. without.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
There's also a cost to other businesses that comes with these sorts of bailouts that is rarely mentioned. I used to work at a small property insurance company. When the economy got rough, they played things smart. They minimized their risk, invested heavily and were one of the only companies of their kind to maintain a profit through the whole debacle. AIG, on the other hand, bet on high risk business and lost fortunes. They got a government care package and put themselves back together and now, as a result, are destroying the insurance market. My old company is struggling to stay in business (next year is their 100th anniversary) and AIG is swimming in ill gotten money.

The smartass in me wants to say "what's the cost?" After all, both companies made a profit. What's wrong with that?

But seriously, you're talking about "moral hazard". Believe me, that's not some topic nobody talks about, it's what right-wing economists and business journalists scream as loud as they can whenever there's talk about government stepping in to stave off major disruptions in the economy.

The my answer is that bailouts shouldn't be no strings attached, like the bailout of AIG was. The management of the companies that get rescued should lose their jobs, and be stripped of all their personal wealth. Depending on their actions, maybe tossed in jail too.

That way the value of company itself is preserved (and not liquidated), while there's a strong disincentive for the management to make a business plan that centers on expectations of being bailed out if the shit hits the fan.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

So the question I pose (and I know we can only speculate on the answer) is what effect have the bailouts had on Toyota, Honda, etc? Or do we not care because they don't employ as many Americans as the domestics?


Since this comment is approaching an epic length already, I'm just gonna say that it wasn't really about foreign vs. domestic ownership, but about minimizing the number of years we stay below trend in GDP during a severe recession. If you want to view it as a region vs. region dispute, it was also about keeping the perfectly good Detroit manufacturing cluster from being needlessly dismantled and rebuilt elsewhere.

So are you admitting partisan vitriol is bad or not? If you are, then stop doing it yourself. Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.

And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!)...
Answers your question about Bush approving of the auto bailouts.
...the left would be howling about their obvious failure.

Meaning if Bush were President now, the left, using the same exact stats, would declare the bailouts a failure. Which, by the way, they are.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Didn't Bush make those bailouts? I mean weren't they done up but Bush people?

I also wanted to point out Ronald Reagan bailed out Chrysler. This is what kills me about conservatives. It was the right policy. It doesn't matter what party the person who does it is.

Is it just me or do we get more and more bubble-living conservatives here every day to troll us with their delusions

Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.

Taxpayers on the hook for billions they'll never see recouped: NOT success. These same companies expecting the same bailouts again down the road? NOT success. While we're on the subject: Medicare fraud to the tune of 60 billion EVERY year? NOT success.

Bush was wrong and His Earness was wrong. These corporations should have filed for bankruptcy.

And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.

SIGH.

These weak sauce "success" stories are nothing more than obamedia shills defending their king.


P.S. LIBERALS run Detroit and have for decades. Until that changes, it has NO chance.




>> ^heropsycho:

So are you admitting partisan vitriol is bad or not? If you are, then stop doing it yourself. Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.
And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!)...
Answers your question about Bush approving of the auto bailouts.
...the left would be howling about their obvious failure.

Meaning if Bush were President now, the left, using the same exact stats, would declare the bailouts a failure. Which, by the way, they are.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Didn't Bush make those bailouts? I mean weren't they done up but Bush people?

>> ^Xaielao:

Is it just me or do we get more and more bubble-living conservatives here every day to troll us with their delusions


Their slowly learning the internet.

LOL! So if you get google hits, that makes it true?

Hmm...

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=obama+is+satan

SEE!!!!!!!!!!!! SATAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=George+W+Bush+Satan

SATAN IS EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=jesus+is+sexy

Rock me, Sexy Jesus!

Dude, seriously, nobody is buying your BS. How in the hell can Obamacare cost millions of jobs when it's not in effect fully, and unemployment is decreasing? *DECREASING!!!* You have no evidence. You have dubious claims based of crackpot analysis that are there to reinforce your delusions about reality. You WANT to believe that's true, and a quick google search where a bunch of rightwing think tanks and media outlets threw up a bunch of crap reinforced it. I could try to google stuff to show it's helped CREATE jobs if I wanted to on liberal think tank pages, but I'm not going to, because I don't have a preconceived outcome I want to be true. If Obamacare works, great. If it doesn't, it doesn't. For the record, I'm not even saying it won't cost jobs. I'm saying it's ridonculous to describe the impacts of a program that's not even fully implemented yet on a complex economic system!

So I guess Reagan was a dirty commie for bailing out Chrysler?! You're arguments are absurd! Your solution to our economic problems was to let Chrysler and GM go bankrupt and balloon unemployment beyond the 10% that it was?!?! Do you have any idea how macroeconomics actually work?! There's a reason why Reagan and Obama both bailed out Chrysler. Had Reagan been president, he would have bailed GM out, too. You know why? Because thankfully, both men when push comes to shove threw ideology out the window on the really big things and did what was best for the country. Lord knows I objected on principle that the banks got bailed out, but it had to be done for the good of everyone. Here we are, several years from those decisions, and unemployment is declining, and the economy is rebounding. You can link as many right wing articles as you want as snarky as you wish to be, but guess what - the policies worked. And I'd say the same thing to liberals who objected to the bank bailouts, too. But the bottom line is the policies are working.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Sorry, but you're wrong.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.
Taxpayers on the hook for billions they'll never see recouped: NOT success. These same companies expecting the same bailouts again down the road? NOT success. While we're on the subject: Medicare fraud to the tune of 60 billion EVERY year? NOT success.
Bush was wrong and His Earness was wrong. These corporations should have filed for bankruptcy.
And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.

SIGH.
These weak sauce "success" stories are nothing more than obamedia shills defending their king.

P.S. LIBERALS run Detroit and have for decades. Until that changes, it has NO chance.