Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Bin Laden is dead, and GM is the walking dead

    Bin Laden is dead, and GM is the walking dead

    On GM, Dems have a simple lie, we have a complicated truth

    “Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive.”

    The Dems have simplicity and a bumper sticker.

    The truth is that Bin Laden is dead, but GM is the walking dead.  That second part takes more than a few words to explain.

    The editors of National Review do a very good explanation, here is part of it, The Democrats’ GM Fiction:

    Admirers of the GM bailout should bear in mind that it was the Bush administration that first decided to intervene at the firm, offering a bridge loan on the condition that it draw up a deeply revised business plan. President Obama’s unique contribution was effectively to nationalize the company, seeing to it that the federal government violated normal bankruptcy processes and legal precedent to protect the defective element at the heart of GM’s troubles: the financial interests of the UAW. It did this by strong-arming GM’s bondholders into taking haircuts in order to sweeten the pot for the UAW. The Obama administration also creatively construed tax law to relieve GM of tens of billions of dollars in obligations….

    Mitt Romney’s proposal for a structured bankruptcy would have necessitated considerable federal involvement, too, but with a key difference: The UAW contracts would have been renegotiated, and GM’s executive suites would have been cleaned out, placing the company on a path toward innovation and self-sufficiency rather than permanent life support. Which is to say, Obama did for GM what he is doing by un-reforming welfare: creating a dependent constituency.

    The post goes on to explain why GM is the walking dead:

    At their convention, Democrats swore that GM is “thriving,” but the market doesn’t think so: GM shares have lost half their value since January 2011. And while the passing of the Great Recession has meant growing sales for all automakers, GM is seriously lagging behind its competitors: Its sales are up 10 percent, a fraction of the increases at Kia, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Porsche. With its sales weak, its share price crashing, and its business model still a mess, some analysts already are predicting that GM will return to bankruptcy — but not until after the election.

    There is a reason the Democrats harped on their simple little lie.  It’s called Ohio.

    I’m not sure how we get the truth out in a way that can compete with a lying bumper sticker.

    I think the only way is for Romney to have a concise, 4-5 sentence explantion for the debates.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    currently | September 11, 2012 at 4:00 am

    Replacement bumber sticker: “Bush Lied – Bin Laden Died”

    Oh no, wait….

    Bush said we’d get Bin Laden “Dead or Alive”.

    Such a dillema…. A Bush promise fulfilled after he left office, but ensured by actions he took while in office.

    Unlike the economy, Obama will take credit for this one.

    The idea that GM is “coming back” is obviously false: their market equity has lost half its value in 18 months.

    Bankruptcy would have modified the union contracts to something sustainable, and probably cleared out a lot of the management which yet remains.

    However, it is not correct to say, “GM loses $49,000 on each Volt sold.” It’s just not true. That takes all the R&D costs which had mostly been incurred before Obama nationalized the company, and sets them against current profits on units sold. So the only way the statement is true is if GM never sold another.

    The Volt will end up a huge loser, but it is the product of a lot of revolutionary engineering. And the knowledge gained will carry forward into many other models.

      Browndog in reply to Estragon. | September 11, 2012 at 7:50 am

      However, it is not correct to say, “GM loses $49,000 on each Volt sold.” It’s just not true. That takes all the R&D costs which had mostly been incurred before Obama nationalized the company, and sets them against current profits on units sold. So the only way the statement is true is if GM never sold another.

      Absolute BULL.

      I don’t have time–or the room–to post all the links, but this “R & D” cost factor the dems are using to discredit the Reuters report is a red herring.

      What I can tell you is that R & D for the Volt started in the mid-90’s, and as the Volt was set to go into production, it’s sticker price was to be set at $60,000, and it’s cost to build was (estimated) to be $89-$120,000 above the sticker.

      Somehow you take the word of a company that can’t even tell the truth about how many units have been sold.

      (removed from factory lot=sold)….Obama math.

    So… wait, corporations are people?

    So corporations can’t be alive, then, right Lizzie?

    After all, Mitt Romney’s the guy who said corporations are people. No, Governor Romney, corporations are not people. People have hearts. They have kids. They get jobs. They get sick. They thrive. They dance. They live. They love. And they die. And that matters. That matters. That matters because we don’t run this country for corporations, we run it for people.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to lori. | September 11, 2012 at 9:55 am

      Please identify one corporation that exists without people.

      Ignorant in reply to lori. | September 11, 2012 at 2:54 pm

      Corporate Law is what says a corporation is a person. Of course, you’re trying to make it sound silly, but from a legal standpoint it isn’t. It’s more a simile than a metaphor. Like a person, a corporation lives beyond death, if the creator so wishes.

      Corporations predate the founding of the US, and obamney.

      Corporations have profit as a motive, so they don’t necessarily care about people, though they have and can. Government is no different – it has a profit motive – in spite of what it pretends. Government is a lot like its citizens in that respect, though citizens can and do show mercy. The job of government is to temper corporate profit motive with justice, but instead it has unsurprisingly refused to prosecute that to which it has prostituted itself. Fascism reigns.

      If the US is run for and about people, why do you sacrifice our children to molech, why has the government promised some $80,000,000,000,000 ($80 Trillion) in benefits to the baby boomers – a sum it can’t possibly pay in value? Why do you fill the culture to the brim with lust, and why are your families smashed into bits? Why do children that are lucky enough to not be murdered before they are born get a public education that only rivals the outcomes of third world countries? Why do you worship your pop tarts, and fawn all over the most hideous behavior imaginable? Why do you think that you can spend your way to prosperity, collecting so much crap that the storage unit business has boomed just about every year for several decades? American Idol is aptly named. You’re surrounded by them – both living, dead and in-between.

      Name one – any – government entity and I’ll show you in turn, bloated budgets, twisted agendas, and epic mission failures that make your sloganeering about how it’s “for people” look like a pitiful dirge.

      Casey in reply to lori. | September 12, 2012 at 12:19 am

      A corporation (look up the etymology of the word) is a person, not a “people;” a human being.

      A corporation’s legal existence as a person ensures legal accessibility.

      Pretend your fantasy becomes true, and corporations are no longer persons. This means they no longer exist in a certain legal sense, and there is no person to cite in a complaint in court. That is, there is no one to sue.

      Is that what you want? Really?

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend