Why is the Obama admin tougher on auto industry than banking industry?
Critical_rationalist asked:
No banking CEOs have been forced out.
The banks weren’t required to submit plans for solvency.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, August 9th, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
No banking CEOs have been forced out.
The banks weren’t required to submit plans for solvency.
And before you blame Bush for the bank bailout, the dems and Obama backed it, and Obama is implementing it!
August 12th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Just watch he is going to make them go green & make 60 mpg cars!
August 15th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
you just got to wait, and then you’ll see obama punishing bank CEOs. It was the auto industry that is continuously asking us for money
August 18th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Because he wants to make a peoples car, you know like hitler and stalin did. But even those two knew to keep the bankers as friends. Barry is no different.
August 20th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
They don’t want to look soft on unions.
August 20th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
I don’t know. He drove a Chrysler, I don’t know why all the hate. Maybe it broke down on him before.
August 21st, 2009 at 4:10 pm
The auto industry is more productive and less fully co-opted by government liberals.
Yeah. It really IS that simple.
August 25th, 2009 at 1:45 am
I have been pondering that myself. I think it is because The Federal Reserve is actually running our Government. Every day Obama is looking more like a puppet.
August 28th, 2009 at 4:32 am
He’s having to kiss up to the banks. For the banking system to be fixed, they have to buy each others toxic assets. They probably won’t anyway, but he can’t afford to make them mad. If they return the bail out money, he loses control.
August 30th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
the thugs want windmills and batteries follow the money[ your money]The great Carter tried the same thing in 79-80 and it failed thank God for ronald Reagen.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Well before you excuse Bush, remember that he too was tough on the auto industry in requiring restructuring plans and contract concessions from them. But, Bush and Paulsen fought hard against any executive compensation limitations being attached to the TARP legislation that was passed last October and it was Congress that insisted upon attaching some strings to the money over their objections.
That being said, I think that the Obama Administration should be tougher on the management of the financial institutions that have received federal dollars–but in order for that to happen the government needs the power to do that and said power has not been included in the legislation passed by Congress. On the other hand, the Obama Administration has proposed much more stringent regulation of the financial services industry as a whole than has been permitted during the past 20 years, so that demonstrates that they are intent upon reigning in the casino on Wall Street.
I find it rather amusing that when the Administration requested strong regulatory power over the financial services industry, the rabid mob was all bleating about ’socialism’, but want to get all worked up about a comparative pittance in AIG executive bonuses When Obama insisted on viable restructuring plans from the auto industry as a condition for more government loans, the rabid haters cry ‘dictator’, but a couple of weeks ago were saying that the auto industry shouldn’t get any help. Seems like many among us are just intent of criticizing whatever move he makes for the hell of it.
September 4th, 2009 at 1:53 am
The banks have all the money. The auto industry are only jobs.
September 4th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Short Answer: Political ties.
Obama is not for the auto industry, he is for the unions that financed his campaign. He will ask Auto CEOs to resign but not union leadership.
The banking industry is tied at the hip with Democrats (a simple list of campaign contributions would show this). The Democrats would show banks “Tough Love”, but it would still be love.