Michigan R Party lambastes Obama 'taking credit for auto recovey'

1. 87

   Stacie Lposted 12 years ago

   "It is sad and disappointing to watch Pres. Obama trample on the successes of the middle-class by taking credit for auto's recovery. Obama acts as if he built and designed the cars today that are outselling their foreign competitors. Republicans and in fact most Americans recognize that credit is owed to the men and women who work on the line and build the cars, and those engineers who brought us world class cars and trucks designed for a global economy.
   
   "Republicans recognize the real reason for the auto's successes is the men and women who work for the companies did not give up. Instead they buckled down and built more popular and higher quality vehicles that are outselling their foreign competitors. Republicans applaud middle-class men and women who are the backbone of the automotive industry.
   http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/201 … _lamb.html
   Of course the men and women on the line make the cars but Obama made that possible,no?

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Jason Marovichposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Not only did the President get behind a rather unpopular cause by bailing out the automakers, the experience has changed him.  I think it was the blue collar workers that brought about this change, because I also believe the President was impressed by them enough to where he has made bringing back manufacturing jobs to Michigan, the Midwest, and the rest of the USA one of his highest priorities.
      
      I'm a registered Republican who may vote for the President because of these efforts.  It's too early to judge Romney, yet, but the President has gained some moderate followers for his efforts, and I won't let anyone cause me to forget what he did. 
      
      I love my hometown of Detroit, and maybe the best thing that ever happened to us was some Chicago-style politics on this matter, where thousands more blue-collar men and women could have been on the streets.

      replyreport
   2. 66

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, he did. All of the GOP candidates say that the bailout of GM and Chrysler was a mistake. That will sink their ship in Michigan for sure.

      replyreport
   3. 66

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, he did. All of the GOP presidential candidates are criticizing the auto bailout. That won't help them in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana.

      replyreport
   4. 81

      Dr Billy Kiddposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      In the speeches I’ve heard, Obama gave credit for GM reaching number one internationally to the workers and the management.  30% of pay now is in bonuses when there is a profit. It seems like people who hate Obama will find any reason to blame him for the success of the auto industry. It's funny. People speak of a bailout, but it was just a loan, and the money is just about all paid back.

      replyreport
2. 90

   livelongerposted 12 years ago

   The GOP rule is:
   If it's bad and occurred between Nov 4 2008 and now, it's Obama's fault.
   If it's good and Obama didn't do it 100% by himself, then it's to someone else's credit.
   Sounds ridiculous but apparently it works.

   replyreport
3. 80

   lovemychrisposted 12 years ago

   I wish he used MORE chicago-style politics.
   
   These people need to be stopped, any way necessary.
   
   They blasted him for the GM loan.
   Just as they blasted him for the stimulus and ACA and Lily Ledbetter and student-loan help, and regs on credit cards,even Bush's TARP--they blast him. Whatever he does, they call it Socialism, out to destroy our way of life.....
   
   They need to go and the sooner the better.
   
   A Cult of Greed has taken over this country. 30 years....that's all it took.

   replyreport
4. 60

   kateperezposted 12 years ago

   I think that money seems to be the only thing that anyone considers here.
   
   Obama may have given them the money, but it is certain that the good men and women of GM did a great deal on their own, without Obama's credit.
   
   Think about it:  Solyndra, and Fiskar would be successful if it were Obama's money and policies, yes?  They failed.... Why?  The American people did not want what Solyndra and Fiskar were selling.. They WANT cars, they don't want to pay exhorbitant fees and costs for things that are not even proof positive at this time.
   
   We cannot keep giving credit to Obama and blame to Bush just because someone believes the rhetoric.  Facts are more valuable than rhetoric...
   
   Obama may have given them money to go forward, but what GM did with the money is what is making them work again!!!

   replyreport
   1. 80

      lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      But if Obama hadn't given them the money---they would have gone bust!
      
      And all the GOP were using their "socialist" propaganda on him to stop him from doing it.
      
      We CAN give Obama credit...because he did it on the face of a huge discredit campaign against him, and if he didn't do it, no one else would have.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         GM would not have gone bust. Ford was ready to take them over, you know Ford, the ones that did not need any stimulus movie

         replyreport
   2. 80

      Jason Marovichposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      President George W. Bush was a war President, not by choice.  The fantasies people have made up about him are unfortunate.  Automakers needed to cut the fat decades ago, but the organizations, from top to bottom, were more concerned with getting all the gold they could get.
      
      If there had been no bailout, these companies would have failed, so let's give President Obama his due in standing firm to his commitment to help them.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         "President George W. Bush was a war President, not by choice."
         
         Are you kidding?  He and his Neo-Con puppeteers chose to go to war with Iraq—a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
         
         Talk about revisionist history!

         replyreport
         1. 61

            American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Yea there were no UN sanctions against Iraq, Iraq did not massacre his people, he did not tell the world and the UN where to go.
            
            and while you are correct Whz, the is no direct evidence that Iraq was involved in 911, its all circumstantial but where there is smoke, Iraq was funding terrorist organizations and offering training.
            
            While we can debate if it was a wise decision or not, whether there was WMDs or not will be debated for years. But whether it was wise and whether he had reasons are two different things.
            
            BTW, just a prediction and I may be wrong, but if Israel attacks Iran, I have a feeling some of those non existent WMD missiles no one could find may just show up.

            replyreport
            1. 66

               Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               "the is no direct evidence that Iraq was involved in 911, its all circumstantial but where there is smoke, Iraq was funding terrorist organizations and offering training."
               
               There was no evidence at all, direct or indirect that Iraq had anything to do with 911. All the evidence I've seen is that Iraq had no WMD, was not working on WMD, and had no means of delivering WMD against the United States.  And I haven't seen any indication that Iraq was training or funding terrorists. Saddam Hussein didn't allow terrorists in the country. Bush, Cheney and CIA director Tenet defrauded the American people to justify the needless, foolish, costly invasion which wrecked the country and pushed it into the hands of Iran.
               
               "While we can debate if it was a wise decision or not, whether there was WMDs or not will be debated for years."
               
               Dick Cheney is about the only person who won't admit that the invasion was a fraud and a big mistake.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Ralph,
                  
                  There was plenty of circumstantial evidence of meetings, in and out of Iraq, Hussein offer troop training regularly, he did so publicly.
                  
                  As for the WMDs, three cruise missiles that were on the list from Blix that were never found in Iraq surfaced last year when they were shot into Kuwait.
                  
                  Did you miss the Cheney interviews when his book came out and he looked for vindication over the rockets surfacing.

                  replyreport
                  1. 66

                     Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Where do you get your facts. The WMD excuse for the invasion was manufactured by Dick Cheney with the help of Tenet in the CIA. Moreover, even if Iraq had had WMD it had no means of delivering them against the US and no motive to do so, unless Saddam Hussein was suicidal. His apparent motive in playing coy about his WMD capability was for the benefit of his real enemy, Iran. Our invasion blundered into making Iraq a satellite of Iran thanks to the takeover of the Shiites from the Sunnis.
                     
                     If you can provide any documentation for your claim that Saddam Hussein was training terrorists or allowing them to do so in Iraq, feel free to do so. From what I've read Saddam Hussein did not tolerate terrorists.
                     
                     Dick Cheney is the only major figure who has not admitted that our invasion of Iraq was a giant mistake.

                     replyreport
5. 0

   idratherbeposted 12 years ago

   One has to laugh at the spin here. Too much faux for sure! If Romney, Gingrich, Santorum or Ron Paul, along with the other Republicans, had it their way. They would have allowed the industry to bankrupt! That would not only impacted the auto workers, but any suppliers or businesses suppling goods or services to those businesses and folks. Believe what you want! Heck Romney not only wanted the auto industry to go belly up, but was FOR the bailout of Wallstreet. Let's see here, save peoples jobs? NO Say the big money people? Yes. Next you'll be telling me the price of gas is President Obama's fault? If you do believe that, do a search for faux news (O'reilly, Hannity, etc), all said the president can't control the price of gas. (They stated that when gas went over 4 bucks a gallon under President Bush).

   replyreport
   1. 61

      American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If a President has no influence over gas prices, explain why under bush when gas was way over $4 per gallon he Executive order to allow more drilling and leases the price of gas plummeted down to $ 1.89 the day Obama took office, a drop of $2.13 per gallon in less than 6 months. Can you then explain Obama and Chu wanting to get $5 gas, Obama raising the tax on gas in his first 30 days, gas jumped 25 cents a gallon and has been rising ever since. I wrote an article on that subject you might want to read

      replyreport
6. 75

   Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

   So let me get this straight. The workers on the line in Detroit got together and said, "I know how to save our industry! Let's buckle down and build more popular and higher quality vehicles!"
   
   No one is denying they are the backbone of the auto industry. But if they were the brains, wouldn't they have had the idea to make more popular, high quality cars years before, so their companies wouldn't have gone into financial freefall in the first place?
   

   replyreport