RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Democrat Leaders Want Automaker Bailout

it's funny when you consider that ford has historically been one of the biggest proponents of and donors to 'progressive' causes. the ford family, the foundation, and much of its leadership are avowed liberals (to their credit they've been pretty transparent and honest about their political leanings), but they refused the bailout. makes you wonder about quite a few things...

AUBURN HILLS, MI—In a press event at its corporate headquarters Tuesday, Big Three automaker Chrysler unveiled a new entry into its vehicle lineup known as the Reside, a midsized, five-passenger sedan designed exclusively for in-home driving.

According to Chrysler chairman C. Robert Kidder, who kicked off the event by driving a sporty red test model from his office to the showroom podium, the household automobile has been "expertly engineered" for indoor driving conditions and is "ideal" for people on the go from one room of their home to another.

"With its sport-tuned suspension and spacious, comfortable interior, the Reside provides the ultimate around-the-house driving experience," said Kidder, gesturing toward a large image behind him of the vehicle cornering smoothly around an ottoman. "It's perfect for hauling that big load of laundry, shuttling the kids off to bed, and bringing the whole family to the dinner table each night."

"But this isn't your typical ho-hum four-door sedan," Kidder added. "It's also a high-performance vehicle that's great for just hitting the open halls or cruising down to the basement rec room to get away from it all."

Following years of flagging sales, billions in government aid, and a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, Chrysler hopes to reverse its fortunes by positioning itself as the first mover in the untapped within-home transportation market, which it regards as a vast and lucrative growth sector.

In a two-minute promotional video pre-sented after Kidder's remarks, the Reside was shown accelerating swiftly down a well- appointed foyer, effortlessly climbing the switchback staircase of a split-level home, and engaging in a controlled slow-motion sideways slide across a linoleum kitchen floor.

Starting at $17,595, the Reside boasts standard side curtain air bags; a five-star furniture-impact safety rating; a 3.5-liter, 239-horsepower V-6 engine capable of accelerating from zero to 60 miles per hour in 6.4 seconds; an integrated GPS turn-by-turn navigation system; and heated seats.

"This is the perfect car for an active family," said 36-year-old Anna Cavallo of Towson, MD, who test drove a Reside prototype for six months in her duplex townhouse. "I just pull right into my kids' rooms in the morning, honk them awake, and drive them over to get breakfast in the kitchen."

"After that, it's a quick drive to the garage where we can hop right into the minivan and head to school," Cavallo added.

According to EPA estimates, the Reside averages 28 miles to the gallon in hallway driving and 19 in a cluttered pantry or messy teenager's room.

In standard three-bedroom-home testing, the Reside reportedly cut the average person's commute to the bathroom by 80 percent and made driving down to the basement to pick up laundry a breeze.

"This is a fun and practical automobile, but it's so much more to boot," Chrysler spokesperson Amanda Montgomery said. "Ideal for parking right in front of the TV or a camping trip on an enclosed deck, the Reside allows you to enjoy the comforts of home without having to leave your car."

"And what could be better than an optional power sunroof for those beautiful days when you decide to take a pleasant cruise down to the sunroom?" Montgomery added.

With its "Drive Home" television and print ad campaign launching nationwide this week, the Reside already appears to have piqued considerable interest among the general public.

"It's about time, really," said 43-year-old father of two Roland Crawford of St. Louis. "Our old 1994 Hyundai Accent can barely make it upstairs anymore."

LAKE ORION, MI - OCTOBER 14:


Barack Obama believes he can take Ohio voters for fools. His “I saved GM from bankruptcy” was his first whopper. As if that was not enough, Obama, aided and abetted by Bill Clinton in Charlotte, conceived an even bigger whopper: “I saved the entire U.S. auto industry.” These two claims were supposed to assure Obama Ohio’s electoral votes with its 76,000 jobs in motor vehicle assembly and manufacture of bodies, trailers and parts.


Obama’s claim that he saved GM from bankruptcy is false. Even a bizarre bankruptcy is a bankruptcy is a bankruptcy, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, for my intellectual readers. Obama’s cars Czar strong armed GM through a political bankruptcy that flaunted judicial practice to reward Obama’s union allies and protect their gold-plated pensions, put the government in charge of product lines and investment, cheat creditors, and leave taxpayers on the hook for tens of billions of dollars.



Just ask the tens of thousands of retirees who sunk their life savings into now-worthless GM stock, whether Obama “saved” GM? Ask small bondholder, Debra June, whose $70,000 investment in GM bonds is now worth $200, whether Obama’s GM bankruptcy was fair to all or favored his political cronies?

Businessman Mitt Romney sensibly proposed in a New York Times article to create a new and competitive GM through a normal structured bankruptcy.
In a case of blatant journalistic malpractice, the venerable Times chose the headline: Romney wants to Let Detroit Go Bankrupt. Obama had his false narrative and sound bites for his stump speeches: Heartless Bain-capitalist, Mitt Romney, wants to destroy all GM jobs. He could care less about the embattled middle-class UAW workers earning more than a hundred grand. Regrettably, this malarkey resonated throughout much of the campaign.


Contrary to Obama’s claim that there was no financing for a normal bankruptcy, the Treasury could have provided secured credit (at no risk to taxpayers) and then stepped back and let the chips fall where they may, as the bankruptcy court created a truly “new” and competitive GM. Any government creditor-in-possession funds would have been chump change relative to the $25 billion the bailout has cost taxpayers.

Obama rejected this sensible and tried-and-true route favored by Romney. He wanted a political bankruptcy to reward friends, punish enemies, and secure Michigan and Ohio for the 2012 election.

The Obama bankruptcy reduced GM’s employment by twenty five percent in its immediate aftermath. (Don’t worry, UAW members left with gold-plated buyouts).
The UAW contract remained in place.
Instead, major cost-savings came from expropriating GM’s creditors, leaving the company with no interest expenses, and freeing the “new” GM from corporate income taxes. (And I thought Obama was against tax loopholes for big corporations.) The job losses were distributed among the various states in which GM operated, including Ohio.

GM’s 25 percent loss of employment was about the same as in the major airlines that went through normal bankruptcy. Hence, there is no evidence that Obama saved GM jobs over a Romney structured bankruptcy. In both scenarios, some jobs would have been shed but most would have been retained. (Obama enthusiasts will claim I am mistaken, but they are political first-responders, not economists).

Such was the case in Ohio: In March of 2008, GM employed 12,300 Ohioans. Today, GM employs 9,533, for a loss of 2,767 jobs — equal the average GM job loss in U.S. operations.
A structured bankruptcy would have yielded a similar jobs result, but a competitive GM. There would be about 10,000 GM jobs in Ohio today with or without Obama “Saving GM.”


The only way Obama can claim he saved a significant number of automotive jobs in Ohio and elsewhere is by arguing that somehow the GM bankruptcy saved not only GM (not true) but the entire U.S. automotive industry, of which GM accounts for less than ten percent of jobs. Indeed, Bill Clinton’s Charlotte boast of “250,000 more people working in the auto industry” refers to new automotive jobs at Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen, Mitsubishi, Ford, and assorted trailer, camper, and jeep operations in America – not at the “new” GM.

Clinton and Obama’s convoluted argument is that the entire automotive industry is so interconnected that if one component fails, all fail! If one worker ant in an ant colony dies, the whole undertaking collapses, I guess. More than one hundred computer manufacturers have ceased operations, but industry employment continues to expand. In such cases, competitors step up production and hiring to make up the difference. When GM hung its dealers out to dry, they became Honda, Toyota, or Volkswagen dealers.

At the time of the Obama GM bankruptcy, Obama understood he would have to carry Ohio to be re-elected. Over the past three years, GM has announced a series of investments in its Ohio plants, along with optimistic claims of how many jobs each investment would create. Why have a Government Motors if the administration cannot gain political advantage, Obama’s political operative asked themselves?

The Obama bankruptcy initially cost one quarter of GM jobs. They had to be cut somewhere. Normally, this would be a business decision, but, with a Government Motors, it became a political decision. Government Motors chose to leave 9,533 jobs in Ohio. If Ohio has been less politically important, maybe they would have cut more. I imagine that proud Ohioans want jobs they earn by their reputation for hard work and skill, not jobs given them by politicians.

I guess Obama assumes Ohioans will overlook his gross mishandling of the economy, the bitter partisan stalemate in Washington, the unpopular Obama Care, trillion dollar deficits, and the Benghazi fiasco in return for the 9,533 GM jobs he claims he “gave” them?



Obama did not save your automotive jobs. A normal bankruptcy would have left as many GM jobs in Ohio, but jobs that can compete with foreign competitors. Your automotive industry is rebounding not because “Obama saved Detroit” but because you have a skilled labor force and a receptive investment climate for those who can do business without government bailouts.



Fact Sheet on the GM Bailout:

Both Obama and Romney proposed taking GM through Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

GM went bankrupt. Its shares became worthless and its assets were transferred to a new company, which was called General Motors.

Obama used taxpayer dollars to force through a political bankruptcy that preserved union contracts and pensions, short changed bondholders, and made the unions and the federal government the new owners of GM.

Romney favored a regular bankruptcy that would treat all GM stakeholders fairly. The government would be limited to providing bridge financing backed by GM assets to limit taxpayer exposure.

The federal government remains a major shareholder because it cannot sell its shares without revealing the extent of the taxpayer loss.


The old GM was an ideal candidate for Chapter 11. It had an established brand name, billions of dollars of revenues, and needed restructuring to lower its high labor and pension costs. It would have attracted numerous bidders. It would have emerged from bankruptcy with slightly fewer jobs, lower wages, and less generous union pensions.