The problem is obvious and incredibly simple. You are defending Obama on the auto bailouts. The problem is that Obama didn’t bail out the auto companies. Your argument goes no where since you start with an incorrect premise.
Further, you also seem to have a problem with reading comprehension since the only ideology that anyone could possibly read into from my post was that people should read the news and understand it before trying to comment on it. I’m going to go ahead and disagree with you that my ideology is wrong.
Yes, but effectively the additional funds provided were part of the bankruptcy restructurings of both GM and Chrysler, albeit a portion occurred before the actual chapter 11 filings. Therefore, I think it is more appropriate to call those funds DIP (Debtor in Possession) loans. As such, they are actually a very safe type of loan: they receive a super priority in bankrputcy. I don’t think it can be properly said that Obama bailed out the auto companies.
Bush bailed out the auto companies to the extent that they were provided enough funds to buy enough time for them to undergo a more orderly restructuring. The restructuring of the auto companies through bankruptcy court occurred under Obama. In reality, Obama refused additional bailout requests by GM and Chrysler forcing them into bankruptcy and then provided additional funds as part of the restructuring. I personally believe that Obama ultimately made the correct general call. I had some minor disagreements with Obama over his actions but nothing major. I do think his rhetoric was a little inflammatory. The primary controversy from my standpoint was whether Bush should have bailed them out or forced them into bankruptcy. I can see both sides of the argument, and he probably did the right thing considering the extreme fragility of the economy at the time. Nevertheless, I would have liked to have seen them go into bankruptcy earlier and any funds provided be a part of that process.