Former United States Vice President Bush Administration hadn't bailed out General Motors with a $13.4 million rescue package and that he was disappointed, "but not surprised" that the Obama Administration took further steps to keep the world's largest automaker afloat.

Cheney said that he felt that bankruptcy was the right option.

Even so, the former vice president defended the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program designed to pull U.S. banks out of hot water, saying that the U.S. government was the only body able to protect the banking system from collapse. Private companies, Cheney said, should be judged by the marketplace.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 84 Comments
      Rick
      • 3 Years Ago
      With so many people it's what they think of GM that drives their responses to the bailout or not. Remember though, it wasn't just GM but Crysler too with Ford within months of needing assistance also. Add to those companies all the support, repair, parts and suppliers and you're talking a very huge impact to our economy and lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Might it been also the Chinese with all their wealth to sweep in and pick up the pieces of what remained? Tough decisions to be sure. If Boeing was going down, for example, what would/should our next move be?
      zrosum
      • 3 Years Ago
      Isn't the real story here the image of Vice President Cheney engaged in a conversation with Carrot Top?
        Hi SOBE
        • 3 Years Ago
        @zrosum
        Similar intellectual caliber . . . with my apologies to Carrot Top fans, if any.
      kevsflanagan
      • 3 Years Ago
      Also is it wrong that I think Carrot Top has this look of "Interrupt me again and I'll punch your face in!".
        • 3 Years Ago
        @kevsflanagan
        [blocked]
          David
          • 3 Years Ago
          I believe he asked the plastic surgeon to make him look angry
      Ernie Mccracken
      • 3 Years Ago
      If they would have gone into bankruptcy, and volkswagen or someone bought them up, everyone would be complaining about that a lot more.
      crandallRk
      • 3 Years Ago
      ****, I thought that was the late great Peter Sellers.
        • 3 Years Ago
        @crandallRk
        [blocked]
      JC
      • 3 Years Ago
      All of you are missing the point here - its the this picture of Carrot-top that's disturbing!!!!!
      guyverfanboy
      • 3 Years Ago
      "The memoir reveals that Cheney would have preferred that the Bush Administration hadn't bailed out General Motors with a $13.4 million rescue package" I think you mean billion. ;)
      foncool
      • 3 Years Ago
      So let's get this straight Cheney felt that GM should have been left to go into Bankruptcy, instead Bush sunk 13.4 Billion into GM and then Obama sunk in Billions more. Result, GM went into Bankruptcy, the tax payers get screwed, the bond holders get screwed, the share holders get screwed. But the UAW gets taken care of, so where exactly was Cheney wrong?
        billfrombuckhead
        • 3 Years Ago
        @foncool
        They paid the money back and both manufacturers are thriving. I hope hope the credit default crowd got reamed in this deal, that's who really complained about it. Screw Wall Street, this bailout actually seems to have worked. Furthermore Americans have had the benefit of more competition in the car market. Isn't that what capitalists always preach? And another thing, FIAT has basically set up shop in Auburn Hills rather than Italy and could become an American company.
        artandcolour2010
        • 3 Years Ago
        @foncool
        bankruptcy before the government cash infusion would have been the end of GM. Period. GM is up and running and profitable now. That's the difference. Take your hate blinders off long enough to see the facts. If you think the economy would be better off without GM, think again.
          tagg8019
          • 3 Years Ago
          @artandcolour2010
          The economy is better with GM but if you think that the bailout of GM was done in a proper way then you need your blinders off to see all the facts, not the convenient facts. Yes GM is profitable yet they are deferring all their taxes on those profits that are made possible by US taxpayer dollars. Im sure many companies could turn a profit if the government wiped away all debt, dropped billions in their lap and then converted that debt into equity in the company. Meanwhile that equity has taken a nose dive over the past few months. Never mind the other issues like the Impala issues and the clean up of factory sites.
        Hi SOBE
        • 3 Years Ago
        @foncool
        Straight? Maybe in the psycho teabagging world. . . . - First the financial crisis that created the conditions for the failure of GM and Chrysler was government made, so the least they could have done was what they did. - Second, tax payer's didn't get screwed. The investments in GM and Chrysler may even endup producing a profit but the final balance is still unknown. So that is a lie, plain and simple. - Third, GM went into bankruptcy as a precondition for getting help from the Obama administration and not after getting this help. - Fourth, how does having the largest automaker at home, making increasingly great cars, money and creating employment is not a good thing?? How could have the US in our current condition have afforded to lose GM? - Fifth, the bondholders DID get screwed, as did the shareholders. And guess what, that is an intrinsic risk associated in investing in that type of instrument. If you want to stay away from risk there are plenty of very secure investments. There are sixth, seventh, eighth and many more but I trust you get the idea . . . and please take note that using the UAW as a boogie man is so 2000s . . . those people couldn't possibly had made more concessions.
          foncool
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Hi SOBE
          Sobe, Have you ever heard of the terms Secure Bondholder and Unsecured Bond holder? The secured Bond holder is by law first in line to receive funds from the company's assets when liquidated. For the most part the Unsecured Bond holder is last.. In this case the Secured Bond holder was forced to take pennies on the dollar, while the Unsecured Bond holder was made whole. Now it just happens to be a Coincidence that the largest Unsecured Bond holder happened to be the UAW a major contributor to Obama. Now here's a question for you why have Honda, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes, etc all been profitable building cars in the US, but GM, Ford and Chrysler have trouble? What is the major difference? The UAW, the big 3 have been strangled by them for decades and are unable to break their strangle hold. If GM and Chrysler would have been allowed to enter Bankruptcy before they took Gov't funds it would have broken the UAW contracts and both companies would have emerged stronger than they are today. GM would have never been forced to build a POS like the Volt a car that consumers simply don't want, but Obama and his central economic planners want to force down everyone's throat. It was never about the Big 3 not building cars that customers want, (the #1 & 2 selling vehicles for the last 20+ years are the F150 and Silverado) it was about them not building cars that fit the liberal elite's idea of what cars everyone should drive! (except them)
        MACE
        • 3 Years Ago
        @foncool
        THANK YOU!! agreed.
        Ricardo Reyes
        • 3 Years Ago
        @foncool
        Foncool, i couldn't have said it better myself. While i don't agree that we shouldn't've bailed GM or Chrysler, i have to admit they would not have been better off as they are now without the cash infusion prior to the bankruptcy declaration. After they came out, they had cash on hand. But you're right. in the end the UAW and most execs were taken care of.
        William
        • 3 Years Ago
        @foncool
        In the immortal words of Dan Aykroyd- Foncool you ignorant slut! It's freaking Labor Day, and yet you feel the need to stick up for Darth Cheney and bash union workers. I realize that workers unions scare the hell out of you tea-baggers, but get over it. It's because of unions that we take weekends and overtime pay for granted today.
          • 3 Years Ago
          @William
          [blocked]
          Hi SOBE
          • 3 Years Ago
          @William
          Thank you!!
          foncool
          • 3 Years Ago
          @William
          It's Labor Day, NOT Union Day!
          foncool
          • 3 Years Ago
          @William
          If it were Union Day, only 5 people would be allowed to celebrate. The rest would claim it is not part of their job description and they can't be forced to celebrate people that actually work for a living.
      chargedzo6
      • 3 Years Ago
      I love GM.. I love Corvettes.. but business is business. GM and Chrysler failed. Sure, there would have been a big fallout from letting them fail, but pretty quickly, Ford and other large automotive companies would pick up GM/Chrysler customers and expand. Therefore, expansion yields more jobs. I seriously question the political disposition of so many people on here - Barack Obama is the antithesis of the automotive hobby, but somehow if Bush or Cheney are mentioned everyone is rabbling on about the war on terror blah blah blah. I miss the times when America had balls, wasn't afraid to push other people around, and wasn't filled with cry-babies, who after over 3 years, still complain about the last president. The feminization of America is really upsetting, and the comments here are perfect examples of why this country is going downhill fast.
        Snark McGee
        • 3 Years Ago
        @chargedzo6
        Really? Who would be buying all these fords with 500,000 people suddenly out of work?
        Hi SOBE
        • 3 Years Ago
        @chargedzo6
        . . . and yet Ford's own Allan Mulally would, and did, argue the exact contrary to what you are saying. It was always Ford's position that GM and Chrysler needed to survive in order for the US to have a viable auto industry, that is why he went on his second trip to DC with Nardelli and Wagoner. Would Ford would have picked GM and Chrysler customers? Some of them, absolutely but only if they had found the parts to make any cars after the local part makers had vanished as an effect of GM and Chrysler going under. More likely the importers would have benefited more. And those "customer" would have also been a lot less because of the domino effect of Chrysler and GM going belly up. I will not address your sexists comments except to underline them and tell you that some feminization is not a bad thing. Think about it, we share the world with women in an almost 50-50 proportion, balance is always a good thing and this all macho approach hasn't taken us anywhere good has it?
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Hi SOBE
          [blocked]
          chargedzo6
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Hi SOBE
          Just because Allan Mulally thought differently than I do doesn't effect my argument. I understand a lot of foreign auto companies would have picked up GM/Chrysler customers - that's exactly the point I was stating. Ford, as well as other large auto companies, would expand. In fact, I'd argue that VW, BMW, and other non-union labor coming to America is one of the best things for this country. As far as my comments on the feminization of America, I completely stand by that. As Theodore Roosevelt said, "walk softly and carry a big stick". I couldn't agree more with that policy, and it is that kind of policy that has kept America the world's superpower up until recently. Unfortunately today, ridiculous entitlement policies and thinking that diplomacy is the answer to everything has put America on the downhill path. I am not putting women down at all, in fact I can think of a few women who I think would make great leaders in this country. All I am saying is, this bleeding-heart, feel good, politically correct environment is toxic to the success of this country. Tell it how it is, don't sugarcoat things. Perfect example "let's reason with al qaeda... I'm sure they'll like us if we sit down and talk". Yeah, that worked.
          chargedzo6
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Hi SOBE
          excuse my grammatical errors in that other post btw :)
        Julius
        • 3 Years Ago
        @chargedzo6
        I'm surprised - what makes you think that Ford would have survived a GM/Chrysler shutdown? They use many of the same suppliers - as well as many of the transplant factories - and all of those ancillary suppliers would have collapsed with the shutdown of the OEM's. Those guys live on razor-thin margins, and a loss of two major companies would have wrecked what was left of their bottom lines. Therefore, Ford would have had noone to go to for parts, and as Ford is STILL highly leveraged, it would have gone into Chapter 11 shortly thereafter as well. I mean, just imagine it as an economic tsunami with regards to the American companies. Oh, and as the banks were the ones who functionally started this mess, they would be in no shape to provide Ford with any additional funding to get through a prolonged shutdown like Toyota/Honda have faced - and are still going through now. Oh, and one last thought - the economy pretty well sucks now. Car sales are in the tank as it is. Just imagine how it (and car sales) would go if unemployment topped 20%, rather than the 9% it does now... and a huge portion of those sales would go to countries that import cars, rather than built them here, compounding the problem. And if you don't believe that sales would shift abroad - just note people are saying that GM/Chrysler are picking up sales "just because Honda/Toyota have shortages", despite the animosity of being "Government Motors".
        billfrombuckhead
        • 3 Years Ago
        @chargedzo6
        Don't Americans pay attention to the rest of the world? Just lats week this happened: TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan's Sony Corp, Toshiba Corp and Hitachi Ltd will merge their liquid-crystal display operations using $2.6 billion of government-backed funds to fend off growing competition from rivals in South Korea and Taiwan. The merged entity will be the world's largest maker of small panels used in smartphones and tablet PCs, leapfrogging leaders Sharp Corp of Japan and Samsung Electronics of South Korea and keeping at bay the likes of Taiwan's AU Optronics." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/31/sony-toshiba-hitachi-lcd-display_n_943091.html A couple of weeks earlier the Japanese Ministry of Manufacturing was talking about standardizing Japanese auto parts so they would be more competitive and have a more dependable supply. Hyundai, KIA, Nissan all failed and were bailed out. Japanese corporations and banks are part of their government. Americans are the only ones that don't understand that socialism works and weakly regulated is capitalism is just fraud. Ex-Halliburton CEO Cheney is the face of corporate fraud.
      Bentot
      • 3 Years Ago
      This article means only one thing. It makes no difference if you're Cheney, Bush or Obama...all are Keynesians and pro-government interventionists who are more than willing to bailout their elite corporate buddies...at the expense of the hardworking, tax slaving American Public.
      whofan
      • 3 Years Ago
      DICK! Perfect name for this man.
      gork
      • 3 Years Ago
      And we care about what Cheney said because...?
        Elmo
        • 3 Years Ago
        @gork
        Because if Bush was on Cheney's side back then, the American auto industry would be no more today because of a bad decision. Bush was a horrible president, but his decision to bailout both GM and Chrysler saved the American auto industry. Both GM and Chrysler are now showing profits. Chrysler has even paid back all the TARP money and GM is not far behind.
    • Load More Comments