Comments on: Why is the Obama admin tougher on auto industry than banking industry?

By: VoiceOfReason

VoiceOfReason — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:25:07 +0000

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.

By: docholiday

docholiday — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 06:53:02 +0000

The banks have all the money. The auto industry are only jobs.

By: ColleenIsBack

ColleenIsBack — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:11:17 +0000

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.

By: honeybeejim

honeybeejim — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:06:17 +0000

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.

By: misty19492000

misty19492000 — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:32:51 +0000

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.

By: wisdomforfools

wisdomforfools — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 06:45:10 +0000

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.

By: . .

. . — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:10:27 +0000

The auto industry is more productive and less fully co-opted by government liberals.
Yeah. It really IS that simple.

By: Master Debater

Master Debater — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:29:14 +0000

I don’t know. He drove a Chrysler, I don’t know why all the hate. Maybe it broke down on him before.

By: Small Enough to Fail

Small Enough to Fail — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:34:05 +0000

They don’t want to look soft on unions.

By: chappye7

chappye7 — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:34:34 +0000

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.