After Auto Industry Bailout, Detroit Fallout Trails Romney

As Congress and the White House scrambled in the fall of 2008 to confront the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, Mitt Romney felt compelled to say what many in his native Michigan would consider heresy: Do not bail out the troubled American automakers.

Government checks would not solve the car companies’ long-term problems, Mr. Romney wrote in an opinion article that he asked The New York Times to publish. The better path, he suggested, was a court-administered restructuring that would leave the companies with costs more in line with the global competition. The article carried the headline “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” which critics continue to use against him.

General Motors and Chrysler did eventually enter bankruptcy, and the headline was written by an editor, not by Mr. Romney. Yet more than three years later, the position he took still leaves many of his allies in the business world befuddled. It has also opened up an awkward distance between Mr. Romney and some top Republicans in his native state who insist that the $80 billion assistance plan completed by the Obama administration, expanding on steps taken by President George W. Bush, was the only viable path to save the carmakers from ruin.

But in that tumultuous moment — just after President Obama’s election but before he took office — Mr. Romney had both personal and political reasons to speak out.

He wrote of the experience of his father, George Romney, who as the head of American Motors had turned that company around, and he drew on his own experience as a private equity manager who had remade companies through bankruptcy. At a time when the bank bailout program that Congress passed six weeks earlier had left many on the right angry and concerned that the response to the financial crisis was undercutting free markets, Mr. Romney’s position was in sync with a desire among conservatives to draw the line against further government intervention.

Whether his opposition to the bailout plays as the kind of principled stand that Tea Party voters find reassuring or as an example of the cold, ruthless brand of capitalism that his opponents charge is responsible for his fortune will help determine how Mr. Romney fares in Michigan’s primary on Feb. 28 and likely beyond.

The Michigan Republican primary electorate is expected to be very conservative, defined at least as much by the kinds of conservatives who recoil at government bailouts and are suspicious of union power as it is by those with a more direct stake in the auto industry’s rebound.

“He gets attacked and mischaracterized for wanting to let Detroit die, and that’s not the case,” said Speaker Jase Bolger of the Michigan House, a Republican who represents a district near Battle Creek on the state’s conservative western side. He said Mr. Romney’s opposition to the auto rescue on principle could do the candidate more good than harm among primary voters.

“Autos are such an important part of Michigan’s heritage, but many people saw this as a government intervention that wasn’t going to cure the problem,” Mr. Bolger added.

The politics of the bailout and the industry’s comeback remain complex and not limited to Detroit. After the Michigan primary, the nominating contest moves into states where the automotive industry also has a significant presence: Alabama, Illinois, Mississippi, Ohio and Tennessee.

Some Republicans have criticized Mr. Romney’s insistence that federal intervention was wrongheaded as an example of what they see as his willingness to say anything to win over skeptical conservatives.

“He’s playing the same song as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck,” said Bob Lutz, a former vice chairman for General Motors who said he was still so upset with Mr. Romney that he had cast his absentee ballot in Michigan for Rick Santorum.

“I think all of us in the auto industry who knew what the situation was were profoundly disappointed and, I would say, angry,” Mr. Lutz said. “We all saw it for what it was, which was a political ploy to the right.”

The Obama campaign sees a potential advantage and is moving to seize it. An Obama campaign official said allies will be dispatched across Michigan this week to hold news conferences raising Mr. Romney’s opposition to the auto company loans and attacking his economic policies as beneficial to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

Mr. Romney has defended his 2008 plan, most prominently in an opinion article last week for The Detroit News, as essentially a blueprint for the path that Detroit ended up taking. “The course I recommended was eventually followed,” he wrote.

His 2008 opinion article advocated a managed bankruptcy process, one that would help General Motors and Chrysler shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. He also called for profit-sharing with the unions and for the federal government to invest in new fuel economy technology.

All of those things eventually happened, as Mr. Romney said. Chrysler went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April 2009. General Motors’ filing followed in June. But Mr. Romney’s detractors say his defense falls apart at “eventually.”

To go through the bankruptcy process, both companies needed billions of dollars in financing, money that auto executives and government officials who were involved with Mr. Obama’s auto task force say was not available at a time when the credit markets had dried up. The only entity that could provide the $80 billion needed, they say, was the federal government. No private companies would come to the industry’s aid, and the only path through bankruptcy would have been Chapter 7 liquidation, not the more orderly Chapter 11 reorganization, these people said.

In fact, the task force asked Bain Capital, the private equity company that Mr. Romney helped found, if it was interested in investing in General Motors’ European operations, according to one person with direct knowledge of the discussions.

Bain declined, this person said, speaking anonymously to discuss private negotiations.

Mr. Romney’s Republican allies in Michigan are seeking to shift attention to other topics.

“I think too much time has been spent on this issue,” said Gov. Rick Snyder, who has endorsed Mr. Romney but differs with him on the bailout.

Mr. Romney’s position that General Motors and Chrysler should have immediately filed for bankruptcy without receiving federal assistance, Mr. Snyder said in an interview, was an option that some Republicans found more palatable than providing billions in loans.

“I wouldn’t judge either one as a wrong answer,” Mr. Snyder added. “One got done. And it’s behind us.”

But while Mr. Romney’s position could resonate among grass-roots conservatives, it continues to rankle Republicans in the auto industry.

“I fully support an entrepreneurial, free-enterprise capitalist system that must include failure and the consequences of failure,” said Mike Jackson, chief executive and chairman of AutoNation, the largest auto retailer in the country. “I think the American people in principle agree with Mitt Romney. Unfortunately, we were in the midst of a historic, catastrophic, financial meltdown. And it was one of those moments where the reality trumped your principles. You had to hold your nose.”

Mr. Jackson, who said he had voted for Mr. Romney in the Florida primary last month, called the candidate’s position on the bailout “a circle that can’t be squared.”

Mr. Romney’s position is fraught on other levels. As an example of how many different constituencies it touches in sometimes awkward ways, one of his major campaign donors, Stephen A. Feinberg, benefited from the bailout. Mr. Feinberg’s firm, Cerberus Capital Management, owned Chrysler when the government stepped in.

Mr. Romney’s campaign sees some potential advantages beyond a resonance with small-government conservatives in his continuing insistence that the federal government should have stayed out of the car business. They say it demonstrates consistency, a trait Mr. Romney’s critics often say he lacks because of reversals on issues like abortion.

You must be logged in to post comments.

Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by Lavon Location: Goldsboro on Feb 21, 2012 at 06:26 AM
    So you people say the Government should stay out of peoples business. So in one side of your mouth you want the Government to stay out of peoples lives but the other side of your mouth you want the Government to create jobs?? Wait a minute now, which one is? You can't have it both ways. Hypocrites!
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Feb 22, 2012 at 12:09 AM in reply to Lavon
      If the government stayed out of peoples lives, i.e. small business owners, that in itself would create more jobs. If the government lifted regulations they have enforced, they would create more jobs. In other words, yes, we need the government to stay out of our lives.
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Feb 22, 2012 at 01:12 PM in reply to
        Except when it comes to the rights of minorities, then it's fine for the government to dictate everything about a persons life?
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Feb 22, 2012 at 07:18 PM in reply to
          What are you talking about? How exactly are minorities treated differently by the government?
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Feb 23, 2012 at 05:31 AM in reply to
          Abortion and marriage laws are a good place to start.
    • reply
      by Obama Snake Oil Co on Feb 22, 2012 at 07:15 AM in reply to Lavon
      AGNOSIA is a general term for a loss of ability to recognize objects, people, sounds, shapes, or smells; that is, the inability to attach appropriate meaning to objective sense-data. It usually is used when the primary sense organ involved is not impaired. APHASIA is a general term relating to a loss of language ability. APRAXIA is a general term for disorders of practice. These conditions are usually caused by brain injury due to trauma, stroke and/or tumor. Its also a telltale sign of a yellowdog Obama voter syndrone.
      • reply
        by Lavon on Feb 22, 2012 at 10:33 AM in reply to Obama Snake Oil Co
        There you go talking stupid again Snake Oil.
        • reply
          by Obama Snake Oil Co on Feb 22, 2012 at 12:51 PM in reply to Lavon
          Just addressing your confusion issues, hoped it helped. In regards to the question, It is believed that over 50% of the world's species of plants and animals are found in the rainforest. Amazingly, only cover 6 - 7% of the total land surface on Earth is covered by rainforest. On average, there are between 20 to 80 different species of trees per acre. There is also a wide variety of animal life found in the rainforest. Many of the animals have special adaptations that allow them to live in the tropical conditions, but they would not survive outside of this ecosystem. These animals include but are not limited to Toucans, Parrots, Resplendant Quetzals, Sloths, Orangutans, Gorillas, Queen Alexandra Birdwing Butterflies, and Lemurs. From what we can tell, they will still support Obama like Lavon will for the same reason...none, he doesn't make sense to animals either!
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Feb 22, 2012 at 12:51 PM in reply to Obama Snake Oil Co
        He is having one of his fits! Water on the Brain.....Oh..what brain?
        • reply
          by Obama Snake Oil Co on Feb 22, 2012 at 04:32 PM in reply to
          No, actually, I was thinking of the Spectacled caimans are the most common species of the crocodilian family. The Spectacled Caiman is one of the smallest crocodilians, but is the largest of the caiman family. Males generally reach 2-2.5 meters (6-7 feet long), with the largest specimens reported to approach 3 meters. But a caiman that is 9 feet long is very rare. Females are smaller, usually reaching a size of 1.5 meters, and rare individuals may reach 2 meters. Caiman is a Spanish term for "alligator" or any crocodilian. A spectacled Caiman's common name derives from a bony ridge which is found near the front of the eyes appearing to connect the eyes like a pair of spectacles. This is far more interresting than your post so I just thought I would add do you libterdial knowledge....
  • by Greg Location: Ayden on Feb 21, 2012 at 03:00 AM
    It could be said that if upper management at General Motors was as good as upper management at Ford "who did not take government bailout" that General Motors would not have nedded the tax payer bailout. Ford did well without the tax payer bail out.
    • reply
      by Select memory Loss on Feb 21, 2012 at 04:27 PM in reply to Greg
      Ford did receive $5.9 billion in government loans in 2009 to retool its manufacturing plants to produce more fuel-efficient cars, and the company lobbied for and benefited from the cash-for-clunkers program.
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Feb 22, 2012 at 12:10 AM in reply to Select memory Loss
        yeah, cash for clunkers worked out well for us taxpayers also didnt it?
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Feb 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM in reply to
          Yep, Millions got new cars, the economy grew, Jobs were saved, and GM has just about finished paying all the money back. I would rather GM get the money than giving it to Foreign Oil companies. How did the Oil companies getting the subsidies work out for you?
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Feb 22, 2012 at 04:17 PM in reply to
          If we used an average selling price of $25,000 for the program, and total unit sales of 700,000, the cash-for-clunkers program generated at least $17.5 billion of economic activity, not including incremental sales of additional products, such as extended warranties, alarm systems and financing revenue for the dealerships — as well as roughly $875 million in sales-tax revenue for state governments. When we add in the fiscal multiplier effect, the net impact of the program was easily north of $25 billion — if not much higher.
        • reply
          by Obama Snake Oil co on Feb 22, 2012 at 04:45 PM in reply to
          Anonymous on Feb 22, 2012 at 03:54 PM Even the Collared Aracari were happy about the economy still in the dumps, you know the Collared Aracari makes its home year-round in the tropical rainforests of southern Mexico and throughout Central America. The most distinctive physical chararcteristic of the Aracari is its amazing beak. Their beaks, about 4 inces long, are almost a quarter of the bird's entire body. Their bodies are a rainbow of colors, especially their breasts and beaks. On their breasts, Collared Aracaris have yellow, red and green feathers. They also have red or blue plumage surrounding their eyes.
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Feb 22, 2012 at 01:38 AM in reply to Select memory Loss
        You forgot the part of it that you got off of that Ford, the only one of the Big Three not to receive a bailout — feared a collapse of GM and Chrysler at the time would have hurt suppliers and, in turn, Ford itself. They also accepted the 5.9 billion because the Obama administration was forcing the auto industry to produce more fuel efficient vehicles and during a time of recession, was not in their budget to spend that amount of money.
        • reply
          by Thanks Obama on Feb 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM in reply to
          And thanks to Obama, Ford has re-tooled their facilities and making better cars to compete with their foreign counter parts. Built Ford Tough!(with the help of Obama).
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Feb 22, 2012 at 07:21 PM in reply to
          You mean with the help of the American taxpayers?
      • reply
        by Obama Snake Oil Co on Feb 22, 2012 at 06:55 AM in reply to Select memory Loss
        5.9 billion line of credit incase the suppliers for GM and Chrysler went belly up. Yeah, you should be touting that Cash for Clunkers program...more debt for taxpayers.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Feb 22, 2012 at 10:33 AM in reply to Obama Snake Oil Co
          Cash for Clunkers is having the most direct effect on the economy of any of the stimulus programs to date and also on the environment. 1. It gets credit flowing through up to 750,000 new car purchases with the extra $2B (2) It puts autoworkers back to work which provides them income which can help pay the mortgage or go out to dinner "ripple effect" (3) It releases growing pent up demand for new cars because the prices are fair with the rebate (4) It saves money with better gas mileage for those who replace their clunker, helping to offset the cost of the vehicle (5) It really helps us meet future greenhouse gas stipulations (6) It shows consumer confidence is stabilizing, even with the rebates this response wouldn't have happened if their was no faith in automakers. (7) Money raised in taxes when purchasing a new car helps state and local budgets which is a critical issue these days. You get the idea, and those who think this is just Obama trying to be a "car salesman" can shove it, or just go back to listening to (anything for ratings) Rush and Fox.
        • reply
          by Obama Snake Oil Co on Feb 22, 2012 at 12:58 PM in reply to Obama Snake Oil Co
          NEW YORK ( -- A total of 690,000 new vehicles were sold under the Cash for Clunkers program last summer, but only 125,000 of those were vehicles that would not have been sold anyway, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the automotive Web site Still, auto sales contributed heavily to the economy's expansion in the third quarter, adding 1.7 percentage points to the nation's gross domestic product growth. White House blows a gasket on Clunkers critique The Cash for Clunkers program gave car buyers rebates of up to $4,500 if they traded in less fuel-efficient vehicles for new vehicles that met certain fuel economy requirements. A total of $3 billion was allotted for those rebates. The average rebate was $4,000. But the overwhelming majority of sales would have taken place anyway at some time in the last half of 2009, according to That means the government ended up spending about $24,000 each for those 125,000 additional vehicle sales. Hmmm, even CNN has turned on Obamaclunkers....sorry, you post is pure nonsense with unsupported facts. I am not sure where you got that from but you were lied to and now repeating it here.
        • reply
          by Was the cash-for-clunkers program a success? on Feb 22, 2012 at 04:12 PM in reply to Obama Snake Oil Co
          The short answer is yes. The program accomplished what it was set out to do, which was to get consumers back into the showrooms and to jump-start new-vehicle sales. With some creative marketing and wheeling and dealing, dealers were also evidently able to convert many nonqualifying shoppers into the buyers of other new or used cars, a trend that created a sizable positive impact on sales as an indirect consequence of the program. The official total sales that were directly because of the program will be right around 700,000 units. The average incentive — based on the most recent data available — was around $4,200. If we simply divide $3 billion by $4,200, we get about 714,000 units. The original forecast for 250,000 units was based on the initial $1 billion budget for the program. The program was such a success, Auto Dealers wanted it extended. More importantly, the program was a lifeline thrown at severely cash-strapped dealers. Sales were up. So were the profits. Consumers tend to drop their guards when there are big incentives, assuming that they will get great deals no matter what. As the clunker sales reached a fevered pitch, I think it's fair to say that the deals got much stingier. Many shoppers could have gotten better deals if they had done their homework before going to the dealership.
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Feb 22, 2012 at 08:38 AM in reply to Select memory Loss
        The auto industry may have benefited from the "cash-for-clunkers" program but the taxpayers did not. It cost us $24,000 per vehicle. Now explain exactly how we benefited from that? Took money from the taxpayers but gave it to the UNIONS, no big shocker there when it comes to Democrats though. Also, if GM needed money to be bailed out, how could they afford to give Obama campaign contributions in 2008?
  • by Anonymous on Feb 21, 2012 at 02:49 AM
    People have a mentality that goverment will solve all their problems. People need to think for themselves and use their own abilities to become successful. General Motors had a failing business model and waited for the government to bail them out. My next car will be a Ford. They accepted no government bail out from Washington, and they are successful today.
    • reply
      by Lavon on Feb 21, 2012 at 06:24 AM in reply to
      SO wait a minute let me get this straight. So your mad because jobs were saved? Your mad because the Auto Industry was saved? You sir are pathetic!!
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Feb 22, 2012 at 01:52 AM in reply to Lavon
        G.M. said it expected to draw on the first installment of its loans by Dec. 29, 2009. Soon after it pays suppliers and workers, the troubled automaker will begin putting drastic downsizing plans into effect, outlined to Congress this month, which include eliminating more than 30,000 jobs, shutting factories, shedding dealerships and determining the future of its Saab, Saturn and Pontiac brands. Even with all the money they were given, they still cut over 30,000 jobs.
        • reply
          by W hat ? You must watch FOX on Feb 22, 2012 at 01:01 PM in reply to
          The United Auto Workers union says General Motors Co. plans to recall the last 2,000 of its laid-off workers by this fall, clearing the way for new hiring at its U.S. plants. The Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press report that word about the jobs came Wednesday at a union meeting in Detroit that sets goals for bargaining a new labor contract with automakers later this year. The three-day event wraps up Thursday. Joe Ashton, UAW vice president in charge of GM, says the union expects "full employment in September for the first time in a long time."
        • reply
          by Obama Snake Oil co on Feb 22, 2012 at 04:34 PM in reply to
          I think he caught that on the internet like I did...sorry...never trust the UAW, never.
    • reply
      by Another Repug with Select Memory on Feb 21, 2012 at 04:25 PM in reply to
      Although Ford did not need money from the $80 billion bailout program, Ford did receive $5.9 billion in government loans in 2009 to retool its manufacturing plants to produce more fuel-efficient cars, and the company lobbied for and benefited from President Obamas cash-for-clunkers program — contrary to what Fox/Beck and Rush told you.
  • by Anonymous on Feb 21, 2012 at 02:43 AM
    The government should stay out of the free market. Ford did fine with no bail out money from Washington. The goverment should not hand out corporate welfare checks to businesses with failing business models.
  • by Obama 2012 on Feb 20, 2012 at 07:28 PM
    Detroit has not forgotten Romney, and America has not forgotten the Republicans.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Feb 20, 2012 at 10:31 PM in reply to Obama 2012
      Bush was the one who signed the auto bailout, not Obama. Bush also didnt give GM the full amount that was approved, he wanted to see how GM would utilize the money before the received the rest and also left that decision in Obama's hands. While many elements of the loan requirements are drawn from legislation that failed in Congress, there is one crucial difference between Mr. Bush’s plan and the one the House approved: it strips away a requirement that Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm that owns 80 percent of Chrysler, be held liable for any losses experienced by the taxpayers.
      • reply
        by LA beatdown on Feb 21, 2012 at 01:00 AM in reply to
        Six reasons why Mitt R-Money is already history: (1) “Corporations are PEOPLE, my friend!” (2)“375,000 isn’t a lot of money (to make in one year).”(3)"The banks are scared to death. They're feeling the same thing that you're feeling."(4)"I’m not concerned with the very poor... that’s not my focus."(5)“I’ll bet you $10,000, right here, right now….”(6)“I’m SEVERELY Conservative!”, And there’s only going to more foot-in-mouth moments the longer this goes on…
        • reply
          by Obama Snake Oil co on Feb 21, 2012 at 05:10 AM in reply to LA beatdown
          Six reasons that Obama is done 1, gas prices, 2, heating costs, 3, spends too much, 4, going around congress with his personal agenda, 5, Obamacare and 6, his personal war on the churchs.....Anybody but Obama will be the next president, pick one!
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Feb 21, 2012 at 04:10 PM in reply to LA beatdown
          I can think of several more, and its just February.
        • reply
          by Whooopeeee on Feb 22, 2012 at 01:05 PM in reply to LA beatdown
          Obama Snake Oil is suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome again. This guy is going to implode when Obama is re-elected in 2012.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Feb 22, 2012 at 01:18 PM in reply to LA beatdown
          Obama doesn't control the price of gas. He doesn't spend too much, and he wouldn't have to spend so much if the economy he was given hadn't been so terrible. All Presidents can issue executive orders, don't blame Obama because the Republicans in congress are incompetent. Obama care hasn't take effect yet, and please do explain how making it a law that insurance companies can't just drop you because you became a 'liability' is a bad thing? There is no war on churches. So I guess you're left with no reasons.
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Feb 21, 2012 at 04:14 PM in reply to
        Yep, and Romney and his buddies wanted to let the Auto Industry go Bankrupt...thousands of people salaries lost, homes lost, everything they worked for their entire life GONE, while the GOP sit around and make bets for $10,000.00. They don't give a darn about the middle class.
  • by Lavon Location: Goldsboro on Feb 20, 2012 at 03:36 PM
    Hey has anyone seen Newt Gingrich lately? Just curious. Oh I know where he is, he's on the moon building his colony! LOL!! ha ha ha ha!!
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Feb 20, 2012 at 07:25 PM in reply to Lavon
      Take osoc with him.
      • reply
        by Obama Snake Oil Co on Feb 21, 2012 at 05:07 AM in reply to
        Did you know about the Rubber Tree? Well known from the products made from their milky sap, the rubber trees that dot the floodplain forest provide an important source of food to fishes and other animals during the annual floods. During the daily few hours of hot sunlight in the rainy season, the rubber tree's seed capsules mature and explode, sending the seeds flying into the water. Then, throughout the high-water season, the floating seeds are gobbled up by animals capable of cracking or crushing the hard exterior, including large fishes foraging in the flooded forest, and birds and monkeys, which scoop the seeds out of the water. Black piranhas split the seed shells with their razor sharp teeth to eat the kernel inside. Because they digest the seeds, these animals do not act as dispersers. So it can be said, you post is mere sap from a tree. Just under the skin of a poor, misguided poster who hates the truth being told about their manlove for Obimbo, just like Lavon.
        • reply
          by Lavon on Feb 21, 2012 at 06:35 AM in reply to Obama Snake Oil Co
          Snake Oil I have to admit, that has got to be the dumbest and most stupid post i've seen you post. Dude your rambling is scary. Have you ever had mental problems growing up? Im serious when I ask that question because no normal person talks like that. Have you ever had pshychiatric evaluation?
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Feb 21, 2012 at 04:08 PM in reply to Obama Snake Oil Co
          Are you OK? Do you know where you many fingers am I holding up?
        • reply
          by And... on Feb 22, 2012 at 05:56 AM in reply to Obama Snake Oil Co
          Wow that is similar to newt , a multiple disperser.
        • reply
          by Obama Snake Oil Co on Feb 22, 2012 at 04:37 PM in reply to Obama Snake Oil Co
          Just letting you know how the Rubber Tree works...just like Obama...bouncing along till the tires wear out....I mean, you didn't know this?
  • by Dave Location: Wilson on Feb 20, 2012 at 12:28 PM
    This is the dems idea of success??? ONLY lost $25 billion in taxpayer money!
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Feb 20, 2012 at 01:36 PM in reply to Dave
      Oh we could have done like Romney wanted and had a million people become unemployed in a few weeks. I'm sure that would have done wonders for the economy.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Feb 21, 2012 at 01:07 AM in reply to Dave
      Mitt Romney should man up and take responsibility for his "real" stance and quit speaking with a forked tongue. No wonder a light weight like Santorum can come in a steal the lead. Watching Romney on the campaign trail is one of the most frustrating experiences. He should say what he means and mean what he says and stop this nonsense.
    • reply
      by No more GOP on Feb 21, 2012 at 01:08 AM in reply to Dave
      I'm a Moderate. I am a Conservative. I am a Moderate Progressive. I am Progressive. I am Severely Conservative. I will say anything to get elected.
  • by LaBarlow on Feb 20, 2012 at 11:06 AM
    I think this country id headed in the right direction! We bailed out Chrysler that is owned by the italians and look how good they have done! Our saviour single handedly took out bin laden and we made enough folks drop out of unemployment to make the number come down......ANYTHING Obama says is good enough for us all.......HAIL TO THE KING!!!!!!!
  • by Dark Horse on Feb 20, 2012 at 08:16 AM
    It's easy for Romney to play Monday Morning Quarterback back in 2008. Now, those words haunt him. Bush and Obama did what had to be done to shore up the economy at the time which included bailouts. Not sure I was in favor of the bailouts back then, but I see the value in it now. It seems to have worked out fine. Unless you are the president, you have no idea how challenging it can be to run a country while the crackpots of the world (Romney, OSOC and his kind) tell you how badly you're doing in office. Talk is cheap and plentiful, but action is better.
  • by Dave Location: Wilson on Feb 20, 2012 at 08:14 AM
    Romney is right. The taxpayers should not be in the business of bailing out companies with failed business models. that includes GM, Chrysler and the banks. This notion that GM would have ceased to exist if not for the bail out is false. They would have gone through bankruptcy and come out stronger. As it stands now it has taken over $50 billion of taxpayer money, they pay no federal tax and they still can not pay back any money. If GM had gone under other companies would have picked up the market share. Jobs would have shifted but not disappeared. Even with the US taxpayer bailouts Chrysler is now a foreign company and the largest car compnay in the world is Volkswagen because they do not count fleet sales like GM. GM is also not selling these cars. Their dealers are at their highest inventory EVER!! That is the numbers they are counting.
    • reply
      by poor osoc..oh I mean Dave on Feb 20, 2012 at 07:24 PM in reply to Dave
      Prove now you are an economist and know more about the status of the auto markets than the experts do? What company are you the CEO of? Probably a Newt Gingrich appointed janitor.
  • Page:

275 E. Arlington Blvd. Greenville, NC 27858 252-439-7777
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 139677933 -
Gray Television, Inc.