Scott SoCal wrote:The funny thing is GM would still be around without the bailout. That's what bankruptcy is for (and they filed anyway).
The big difference is the structural problems that still exist would have been dealt with. Essentially, what the administration did was flush bond holders and replace them with the UAW as a stakeholder. Oh, and flush 30 or 40 billion dollars. But who's counting anymore, right?
Btw, does it bother you that GM took advantage of the tax code and paid zero taxes on billions in profit last year? Yeah, I didn't think it would.
And what does GM make? Oh yes, fossil fuel burning internal combustion engines placed in automobiles that transport individuals. Defending GM must present quite a conflict for you.
Well, let's look at what Romney said back then, in his own words:
If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.
Hmm. Not exactly prescient, was he. And singing a bit of a different tune now, ain't he. It must present quite a conflict for you that by trying to take credit, Romney is tacitly admitting that Obama was right.
GM also makes the Volt. And without the bailout stimulus, there would be no revival of the electric car industry in the US, nor would the automakers have ever agreed to the raising of CAFE standards. The stimulus gave the feds the leverage to push for both. Now if we had listened to the Romney's, we really would be stuck with a fossil-fuel-based, low mileage auto industry well into the future...if there were an auto industry at all, that is.
But really, this simply goes back to your inability to accept that sometimes government has to step in where markets fail.
EDIT: Even The Economist admits that it was wrong in initially agreeing with Romney.
Free-marketeers that we are, The Economist agreed with Mr Romney at the time. But we later apologised for that position. "Had the government not stepped in, GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures, without putting public money at risk", we said. But "given the panic that gripped private purse-strings...it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended." Even Ford, which avoided bankruptcy, feared the industry would collapse if GM went down. At the time that seemed like a real possibility. The credit markets were bone-dry, making the privately financed bankruptcy that Mr Romney favoured improbable. He conveniently ignores this bit of history in claiming to have been right all along.