UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

How much of the proposed Infrastructure Spending program will be nothing more than payback to his mob backers for 30 years of financing his casino escapades?

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

"it [is] like with him being made, we [are] all being made..."

(no message)

(no message)

I'm paraphrasing.

(no message)

Disliking Trump is not the exclusive domain of the liberals.

our... tweet happy carnival barker.

(no message)

Guess which topic most voters care about? (I should say, "non-obsessed voters")

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/business/trump-to-announce-carrier-plant-will-keep-jobs-in-us.html?_r=0

The other half are still going to Mexico. I'm sure the half getting laid off are grateful that Trump kept half of his campaign promise.

by the obsessed of course.

By the way it's a thousand jobs not thousands.

Thousands were the auto industry.

I won't be satisfied with that either.

Don't you have some electoral voters to sway before the deadline?

Trump would have likely done the same thing to save a huge domestic industry.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Link: An Inconvenient Truth: It Was George W. Bush Who Bailed Out the Automakers

(no message)

Way to convert the real facts into almost facts. It's the same way you guys convert the issue of Bin Laden over to Clinton. Because Clinton didn't assassinate Bin Laden he was the reason the attacks in US happened. Solid reasoning.

Also this bailout was part of the R reasoning that this was Obama's power grab and take over of the US economy to implement socialism. Long the claims of the R's was that Obama with this was implementing of a Czar was him creating Czars to rule over the citizens of the US - this when Bush actually had oversight "Czars".

So which is it with you guys? Obama created socialism or Bush was a genius and cared most for the working citizen in US?

(no message)

nonetheless, Bush gave some temporary financial relief to the auto industry in the close of 2008.

Joe Biden is right about the auto bailout. There was a President who bucked a public outraged about the Wall Street bailout, and loud criticisms from within his own party, to make an unpopular decision that ended up saving tens of thousand of jobs and putting Detroit on the road to recovery. Biden, in his rousing campaign speech in Toledo, Ohio, on Thursday, was also right about Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich when he criticized them for refusing to support the auto bailout back in 2008 and 2009. In putting dogma and electoral calculus before the national interest, the Republican candidates acted like craven politicians rather than national leaders.

At the end of 2008, General Motors and Chrysler were bleeding billions of dollars a month, and nobody in the private sector wanted to lend to them. Even the supposedly liberal Brookings Institution put out a report saying they should be allowed to go bust, with their factories and machinery being sold off to the highest bidder. Today, things look very different. A few weeks ago, General Motors reported that it made $7.6 billion in profit last year. Even Chrysler, which is now controlled by Fiat, made money in 2011. So Biden was telling the truth when he said, in reference to the Republican candidates, that the President “made the tough call… [he] was right, and they were dead wrong.”



The only problem with Biden’s history lesson is that the “man with steel in his spine” he referred to should have been George W. Bush, not Barack Obama. Lest we forget, it was Bush rather than Obama who initiated the government rescue of the auto companies.

On December 19, 2008, a week after Republicans in the Senate had killed a bailout bill proposed by Democrats, saying it didn’t impose big enough wage cuts on the U.A.W., Bush unilaterally agreed to lend $17.4 billion of taxpayers’ money to General Motors and Chrysler, of which $13.4 billion was to be extended immediately. He had to twist the law to get the money. Deprived of congressional funding, he diverted cash from the loathed TARP program, which Congress had already passed, but which was supposed to be restricted to rescuing the banks. “I didn’t want there to twenty-one-per-cent unemployment,” he said to a meeting of the National Automobile Dealers Association in Las Vegas last month, explaining why he acted as he did. “I didn’t want history to look back and say, ‘Bush could have done something but chose not to do it.’ ”

Obama, who in December, 2008, was the President-elect, publicly supported Bush’s move, saying it was a “necessary step to avoid a collapse in our auto industry that would have devastating consequences for our economy and our workers.” After taking office six weeks later, Obama put together an auto task force that extended tens of billions more in emergency financing to Detroit over the ensuing months, and also did what appears to have been a pretty good job in restructuring G.M. and selling Chrysler to Fiat.

Obama deserves a lot of credit for finishing the job that Bush and his Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, had started. He stood with the auto companies, which were victims of extraordinary circumstances beyond their control. As the price of the bailout, he also insisted on some changes at G.M., including the installation of new leadership and the elimination of several brands.

But that hardly justifies writing Bush and Paulson out of history, which is what the Obama campaign appears to be doing—in Biden’s speech and in “The Road We’ve Traveled,” a glossy new documentary about Obama’s tenure by Davis Guggenheim, the maker of “An Inconvenient Truth,” which the campaign released on Thursday. Biden didn’t mention Bush’s role at all, and Guggenheim’s film reduced it to one sentence: “The Bush Administration had given the car companies thirteen billion dollars, and the money was now gone.”

Speaking on Lawrence O’Donnell’s MSNBC show, Guggenheim explained that in making his documentary about Obama he said to himself, “Let’s look [at] this term. Let’s look at the really tough choices he made…. Time and again, you see him looking beyond the short-term political exigencies.” Maybe you do. But does bailing out the auto companies really qualify as one of these occasions? Given that Bush had already extended billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to G.M. and Chrysler; given the residual influence of the U.A.W. and other unions inside the Democratic Party; and given the fact that Obama had supported the highly unpopular bailout of Wall Street banks, how could he have turned around and argued that the auto industry, still the biggest manufacturing industry in the country by far, didn’t deserve rescuing? Politically speaking, ponying up more money was the least uncomfortable option for the new President to choose. As it happened, it was also the right thing to do, and we should be all grateful that he did it.




Bush, of course, was a lame-duck President by the time he decided to rescue G.M. and Chrysler. With Texas and retirement beckoning, he had the freedom to act as he thought best. But when Paulson and Ben Bernanke urged him to use money from the TARP program he still had to overcome his own free-market instincts. “Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy,” he said in Las Vegas. “I would make the same decision again.”

In bailing out the auto companies, Bush earned the lasting enmity of many on the Tea Party/crackpot right, who regard him as a traitorous big-government Republican. And given the anger felt toward him by many liberals and progressives, the decision to intervene didn’t earn him much credit on the left, either.

That, perhaps, was inevitable. But let’s at least acknowledge what he did.

From Politico

[at] "our quiet urging, (President George W.) Bush had agreed to provide just enough loans from the (Troubled Asset Relief Program) to keep GM and Chrysler alive for a few more months." Those conversations took place in the run-up to Bush's December 2008 decision to give $25 billion to automakers and their suppliers during the final weeks of his presidency.

Axlerod says that later, during a March 2009 meeting when Obama was deciding whether to extend a new bailout to Chrysler LLC — as part of a tie-up with Fiat SpA — that "fresh polling data showed that a majority of voters (in Michigan) opposed any federal aid for the auto companies. Nationally, the numbers ran three-to-one against a bailout. I wasn't urging the president to walk away, but I wanted him to understand what he was walking into."

During that meeting, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs — a former aide to Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing — "spoke powerfully about specific towns in the industrial Midwest that, wholly dependent on the auto industry, would be wiped out by the collapse of GM and Chrysler."
Obama said he understood the polling. "People look at these automakers, who have made a series of bad decisions over a long period of time, and ask why the American taxpayer should throw them a lifeline," he said, according to Axelrod.

But Obama said a million jobs were at risk including in the supply chain. "We'd lose two iconic American companies. I mean, we invented the auto industry. That's a big deal. No blank checks."

The Obama administration has sought to distance itself from the Bush administration actions, and Obama has repeatedly argued that taxpayers recovered all of the money he infused into the auto industry — by not counting the Bush administration's initial $25 billion.

In a Detroit News interview in January, Obama noted the government recovered all but $9.3 billion of the auto bailout, but said his administration had recovered $70 billion — more than the $57 billion his administration invested. Obama's tally didn't include the money extended by the Bush administration.

"It's been a good deal for the American taxpayer. It's been a good deal for autoworkers. It's been a good deal for America and it saved about a million jobs," Obama said in that January interview.

Asked then if Bush's administration was to blame for the losses, Obama declined to "second guess" the actions of the Bush officials.

Obama's team put a plan together, he said, "that was not just writing a check but insisting on collaboration between management and workers and suppliers and dealers and shareholders, where everybody had to make some sacrifices. There was clear-eyed recognition that we couldn't sustain business as usual. That's what made this successful. If it had been just about putting more money in without restructuring these companies, we would have seen perhaps some of the bleeding slowed but we wouldn't have cured the patient."

In a trip to Michigan last month, Obama highlighted what was one of his toughest decisions made in the early months of his presidency when he visits Ford Motor Co.'s Michigan Assembly plant in Wayne.

"The auto industry has led a resurgence of manufacturing in America. The quality of the cars has gotten so much better that we are competitive — not just in SUVs — but up and down the line. The branding of American cars is back to where it should be. Michigan's unemployment rate has fallen faster than the overall unemployment rate," Obama said.

The auto industry — including manufacturers, dealers and suppliers — has added more than 400,000 jobs since the industry hit bottom in June 2009 and auto sales in 2014 hit 16.5 million — their highest level since 2006.

In the January interview, Obama said, "The question was not, 'Do we intervene?' The question was, 'Do we intervene in a way that actually spurs the sort of restructuring that gives American automakers the chance to get back in the game.'"

...fuckin' funny...

There was nothing in that programs under Bush which made it mandatory for pay-back.

Bush just threw money at Wall Street (which you already know) hoping for the best or at least hoping it made look like he gave a shit. He helped break it in a big way and was never going to see money come back to the Tax payer.

Since you're off the rails the other way, I might as well post this...

Link: The Cause of the 2008 Financial Crisis

You should relax and go to the Trump rally in Ohio.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

He saved the Union. Get your fact right.

assistance.

-just like he credits the GM bailout to Obama which actually was initiated and structured by Bush's admin.

You angry that Obama saved those jobs?

the Bush term and Soetoro was more involved in the restructuring. GWB and Soetoro both played a role, although the LWRM wants to say that Soetoro saved those jobs. That is incorrect. Not all of the funds have been repaid last I know.

Incidentally GM has made 26.2 billion since the bankruptcy.

(no message)

he saved the union--he saved pensions