Barack Obama - False Hope & False Statements

Before you sing Obama's Praises.....

More:
Romney's Jeep Ad- Obama 2012 Builds a Strawman
The Democrats' GM Fiction Causes Friction

Forward with Obama - Sing Along

Media Ignores Obama & Romney call for REAL Fact-Check in the Debate over G.M.

Another Fact-Check Fail by the LEFT
McClatchy Writes

Facts and fiction in foreign policy debate

By Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers      Posted 10/22/2012

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney traded barbs on foreign policy Monday night, dueling over everything from military spending to Middle East events to how best to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
In the last of three high-stakes presidential debates, not everything they said at Lynn University in the Florida beach city of Boca Raton squared with reality. Here’s a fact check of some of what they said:
SYRIA:
LIBYA:
IRAN:
IRAQ:MILITARY MATTERS:
.EGYPT:LATIN AMERICA:

 ========================================================================

Strange the Main Stream Media wouldn't fact-check the part of the debate where BOTH candidates ask to actually check their statements. Where else in the entire debate did they call for another?   Turns out the GM OpEd statement made by Romney was CORRECT and Obama was caught in ANOTHER Flat-out LIE.  Here is the Video and quotes from the Times Op Ed.  

 

The Hill Fails to Fact Check or run a column on the GM Statement. Obama's remarks go unchallenged and this is the best The Hill.com can do   Obama: 'We might not have an auto industry’ if Romney had been president  They dont even challenge the remarks. Again, Both candidates say check the facts.
========================================================================

Of course the propagandists at @MSNBC at the Maddow Blog ran with this disinformation piece.    Setting the record straight on the auto rescue

Excerpt:

In a debate in which many of the disputes are subjective, it's nice to have an argument in which there's an objective truth. Romney told viewers last night that his position was that American auto makers "can get government help and government guarantees" as part of the bankruptcy process.
Depending on how generous one is inclined to be, this is either a lie or a stunning case of "Romnesia."
Jonathan Cohn, who's done some great reporting on the auto rescue in recent years, noted Romney's condemnation during the Republican primaries of using public funds for the industry. Here's what Romney said during a debate in late 2011:

"My view with regards to the bailout was that whether it was by President Bush or by President Obama, it was the wrong way to go. I said from the very beginning they should go through a managed bankruptcy process, a private bankruptcy process. We have capital markets and bankruptcy. ... My plan, we would have had a private sector bailout with the private sector restructuring and bankruptcy with the private sector guiding the direction as opposed to what we had with government playing its heavy hand."

As a substantive matter, this didn't make any sense -- capital markets were frozen at the height of the crisis, and the money simply wasn't there. It was either the government or nothing. Last night, Romney argued the opposite of his position, saying he supported auto makers getting "government help."
By any measure, this isn't just a flip-flop; it's failing to tell the truth about a flip-flop.
And in terms of political salience, all of this only serves as a reminder to the nation -- most notably some folks in Ohio -- that if Romney had his way, the American auto industry would have collapsed, waiting for private investment that would have never come.

=========================================================================
Red Herring and Strawmen. MSNBC  gets caught with yet another piece of propaganda. First, they don't even reference the NYTimes Op Ed piece from the debate that the EDITORS TITLED.  Let Detroit Go Bankrupt   or even mention that Fiat took over Chrysler in the frozen capital market. The Main Stream Media and Barack Obama don't dwell in facts or truths, they perpetuate lies and push agendas.



TARP Overseer Neil Barofsky on Bailouts & Obama

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/10/22/172265/facts-and-fiction-in-foreign-policy.html#storylink=cpy

The Democrats' GM Fiction Causes Friction

The following article from NRO on the GM bailout makes a great case. I have added a YOUTUBE video to go along with this article with some more things about GM and the bailout.

September 10, 2012 4:00 A.M.

The Democrats’ GM Fiction

By The Editors

The Democrats have decided to run in 2012 as the bailout party. It is an odd choice — the 2008–09 bailouts were deeply unpopular among the general public, and even their backers were notably conflicted about the precedent being set and the ensuing moral hazard. But Democrats have nonetheless made one of the most abusive episodes in the entire bailout era their economic cornerstone: the government takeover of General Motors.

The GM bailout was always an odd duck: The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was created in order to preserve liquidity in the financial markets by heading off the collapse of key financial institutions that had made catastrophically bad bets on real-estate securities — nothing at all to do with cars, really. GM’s financial arm, today known as Ally Financial, was in trouble, but GM’s fundamental problem was that its products were not profitable enough to support its work-force expenses. A single dominant factor — the United Auto Workers union’s extortionate contracts with GM — prevented the carmaker from either reducing its work-force costs or making its products more efficiently. And its hidebound management didn’t help.

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 — at the same time that Barack Obama & Co. were caterwauling about the supposed lack of patriotism of firms that used legal means rather than political favoritism to reduce their tax bills.

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 Democrats cling to the ridiculous claim that the bailout of GM and its now-Italian competitor, Chrysler, saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs. This preposterous figure is based on the assumption that if GM and Chrysler had gone into normal bankruptcy proceedings, the entire enterprise of automobile manufacturing in the United States would have collapsed — not only at GM and Chrysler but at Ford and foreign transplants such as Toyota and Honda. Not only that, the Democrats’ argument goes, but practically every parts maker, supplier, warehousing agency, and services firm dedicated to the car industry would have collapsed, too. In fact, it is unlikely that even GM or Chrysler would have stopped production during bankruptcy: The assembly lines would have continued rolling, interest and debt payments would have been cut, and — here’s the problem — union contracts would have been renegotiated. Far from having saved 1.5 million jobs, it is not clear that the GM bailout saved any — only that it preserved the UAW’s unsustainable arrangement.

Bill Clinton bizarrely tried to claim that the bailout has been responsible for the addition of 250,000 jobs to the automobile industry since the nadir of the financial crisis. Auto manufacturers and dealerships have indeed added about 236,000 jobs since then, but almost none are at GM, which has added only about 4,500 workers, a number not even close to offsetting the 63,000 workers that its dealerships had to let go when the terms of the bailout unilaterally shut them down.

Ugly as the bank bailouts were, the federal government appears set to make its money back on most of them, with the exception of some smaller regional banks and CIT. Even AIG, one of the worst of the financial basket cases, is set to end up being a break-even proposition for U.S. taxpayers. But tens of billions of dollars will be lost on GM. The federal government put up more for a 60 percent interest in the firm than GM is worth today.

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.

The Obama administration talks up all of the “jobs” it saved at GM — but jobs doing what? Manufacturing automobiles that are not competitive without a massive government subsidy? Propping up an economically unviable enterprise just long enough to get Barack Obama reelected? As much as it will pain the hardworking men and women of GM to hear it, it is not worthwhile to save jobs at enterprises that cannot compete on their own merits. So long as the federal government is massively subsidizing the operation, a job at GM is a welfare program with a fairly robust work requirement. (And we all know how the Obama administration feels about work requirements.)
We have bankruptcy laws and bankruptcy courts for a reason. It may make sense to expedite the proceedings for very large firms such as GM in order to prevent disruptions in the supply chain that would, as Ford’s executives argued, harm other, healthier firms. But bankrupt is what GM was, and bankrupt is what GM is, a fact that will become blisteringly apparent should the government ever attempt to sell off the shares it owns in the company.

The GM bailout was a bad deal for GM’s creditors, for U.S. taxpayers, and, in the long run, for the U.S. automobile industry and our overall national competitiveness. No wonder the Democrats are campaigning on a fictionalized account of it.

#gm #bailout #tarp #barackobama #geithner #uaw #stimulus #delphipensions #subordinatebondholders #chrysler #joebiden #osamabinladen #tarp2 #toxicassetreliefprogram #nartionalreviewonline #sununu #mittromney #autobailout #governmentmotor #gmchina