Not so much apparently. The Other McCain has some painful details
If there is one sentence which should be indelibly etched in your mind about President Obama’s bailout of General Motors, it is this:
In other words, the folks who had loaned GM money got screwed over, and the benefit went directly to Obama’s friends in Big Labor, who had done so much to destroy the company’s profitability. Delivering effective control of the company to the UAW — anybody want to guess how that deal worked out at contract negotiation time?
It makes perfect sense: Screw over the bondholders, put the UAW in charge of the company and then have the UAW negotiate with itself!
While you’re contemplating that psychotic madness, now let’s take a look at the bottom line for U.S. taxpayers:
DETROIT — The U.S. government ended up losing $10.5 billion on the General Motors bailout, but it says the alternative would have been far worse.
The Treasury Department sold its final shares of the Detroit auto giant Monday, recovering $39 billion of the $49.5 billion it spent to save the dying automaker at the height of the financial crisis five years ago.
Without the bailout, the country would have lost more than 1 million jobs, and the economy could have slipped from recession into a depression, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said on a conference call with reporters.
Well, if Jacob Lew says the alternative was worse than losing $10.5 billion of taxpayer money, who are we to disagree? Because the effects of hypothesized alternative scenarios are always subject to speculation, officials can justify any policy by declaring that things would have been worse if we had done something different. (Let’s keep this principle of Liberal Logic™ in mind: Next time some hippie peacenik tells you that Bush’s Iraq policy was a failure, just remind him that an imaginary hypothetical alternative — e.g., Saddam Hussein’s army invading Connecticut — would have been much worse.)
Ah, yes, President Obama, the transparent president. transparent as in we can see right through him, and anyone that can’t, well they are employed by, or are watching MSNBS. Think about this the next time a Democrat, pretty much any Democrat will do, tells you we must raise taxes on the rich. What they are really saying is we must have higher taxes so that Obama can grease the palms of his union buddies.