Reason

Reason Writers on Freedom Watch: Matt Welch Talks GM's Tax Relief and the Neverending Housing Crisis

|

On Thursday, Feb. 24, Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch went on Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch to discuss General Motors' unusual post-bankruptcy tax holiday, and Washington's latest big ideas about underwater mortgages. Approximately eight minutes.

NEXT: How to Make Unions More Powerful, the Libertarian Way

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Erica Payne: “We almost lost an entire industry.”

    GM is the only car company in the US?

    Then who the hell made my Fusion? The logo says “Ford”. Are they some kind of different industry?

    And the idea that our spending close to $100 billion in funds, tax breaks and investment dollars as well as gigantic tax subsidies to try and get people to buy the Volt is a “good deal” is close to the dumbest thing I’ve heard all week, and I’ve been around a TON of stupid people this week.

  2. I didn’t want Wall street saved, nor the banking industry but GM is slightly different. If they had failed all the supporting industries would have followed, and the result would be catastrophic for Ford.

    1. You understand that squandering $700 billion on TARP was pretty catastrophic for the American taxpayer, right?

      1. Yes, I said TARP was a waste of money but I would have preferred the government had attempted to address the supporting businesses, and Ford’s viability issues.

        As it stands, GM was awarded for incompetence.

        Further the government paid the defense of these thieving jackasses.

        1. I remember the day Gettlefinger stopped negotiating with GM management and started negotiating directly with the Obama Administration for a takeover.

          The UAW refused to make concessions to GM so long as they could get a better deal from the Obama Administration.

          There was no need for a bailout. There was a need for concessions from the UAW. The UAW thought they could get a better deal on the backs of the taxpayers–because the Obama Administration said they could. So the UAW went with the taxpayer financed deal.

          The concessions from the UAW were necessary, but the taxpayer financed bailout of GM wasn’t necessary. In essence, it wasn’t even a bailout of GM–the American taxpayer really bailed out the UAW.

          The UAW needed to make concessions; but the Obama Administration wouldn’t let that happen! The Obama Administration canceled huge chunks of GM and Chrysler’s debt, refinanced them with taxpayer money–and then gave huge equity positions directly to the UAW!

          Why would the UAW make the necessary concessions when the Obama Administration was offering them a better deal? …on the backs of the taxpayers.

          Take a look at this table…

          http://bigthreeauto.procon.org…..commentary

          UAW workers cost GM an average of $73.26 an hour, for over $130,000 a year on average.

          Look at how much non-union autoworkers make.

          UAW workers were making more on average than people with PhDs. TARP didn’t bail out the auto-industry. Management got screwed. The bond holders got royally screwed. The shareholders got screwed. The taxpayers didn’t bail out the auto industry.

          The taxpayers bailed out the UAW.

          1. What percentage of the American people out there, do you imagine, has just been completely snowed by this false image of the UAW and other unions as the champions of the working class?

            The UAW kept their upper class wages intact, and they did it on the backs of the working class! It’s the working class that’s paying through the nose for the UAW bailout, both in terms of the taxes they pay, and in terms of a high unemployment rate…

            All that money we squandered on the UAW is money that won’t be invested. It won’t be loaned out to expanding businesses against reserves in a bank. That’s money that won’t be spent by consumers on things manufactured and serviced by working class people…

            …and yet it’s somehow the UAW that’s looking out for the interests of the working class?!

            How?

            1. Ken, I agree it was a bad deal, and you failed to mention that the democrats received their kick-back contributions.

              My original point stands: I thought the deal’s focus should have been to save supporting industries, and not punish Ford.

              Union money used for lobbying is corrupting but I dislike the pay-for-play for all industries.

    2. Rather |2.25.11 @ 9:07PM|#
      “…but GM is slightly different…”

      Bull………..
      Shit.

  3. GM is slightly different. If they had failed all the supporting industries would have followed, and the result would be catastrophic for Ford.

    No, the result would’ve been catastrophic for Obama, and the ex-employees of GM. The “supporting industries” would either find other customers or they too would’ve gone out business, but it’s not true to say it would have been catastrophic for everyone.

    What HAS been catastrophic is our failure to realize that we taxpayers now own a car company that has been losing money hand over fist for most of the last ten years, and the government is going to take more money from taxpayers to “encourage” people to buy a car that GM will not even make a profit selling!

    The stupidity, it burns.

    1. Dumbassologist,

      If GM and Chrysler had collapsed, there’s absolutely no doubt that Ford wouldn’t have had the suppliers it needed to survive. Ford’s executives have already acknowledged this; it’s not exactly a contentious point.

      http://www.washingtonmonthly.c…..026364.php

      1. Dumbassologist?

        Your insults are almost as stupid as your arguments. If you were twice as smart, you’d still be stupid.

        The article you link to by Steve Benen says “If GM and Chrysler had collapsed, there’s absolutely no doubt that Ford wouldn’t have had the suppliers it needed to survive. Ford’s executives have already acknowledged this; it’s not exactly a contentious point.”

        How do the prove this? By linking to a speech by Obama wherein O’Wise Spender Of Our Money said “when you talk to the CEO of Ford, he’ll tell you that [the collapse of GM and Chrysler] wouldn’t have been good for Ford either, because a lot of those suppliers that they depend on might have gone out of business.”

        “Might have gone out of business” is different than “there’s absolutely no doubt that Ford wouldn’t have had the suppliers it needed to survive” but what’s even more ridiculous is that you believe that Ford would’ve somehow been “worse off” if their #3 competitor left the market? Seriously?

        You can’t be that stupid.

        1. His link not mine but I have heard the CEO of Ford make the precisely the same point.

          If you were twice as smart, you’d still be stupid. Haven’t heard that from a boy since if was 12. Lol

          1. You do act like a troll–a lot.

  4. rather|2.25.11 @ 10:30PM|#
    “His link not mine but I have heard the CEO of Ford make the precisely the same point…”

    And I heard that if we don’t have purple unicorns soon………..
    What an ignoramus.

    1. shit, I didn’t know purple unicorns were real-do they have them in pink?

  5. Matt makes a point which so many of these arguments fail to take into account. Bankruptcy does not automatically equal liquidation.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.