So, there's a story today about how Mitt's taking credit for the auto recovery even after he said let them go bankrupt back in the day and outrage and shock and blah blah blah.
Here's the part I don't get:
"Bush rejected the idea that with GM and Chrysler on the brink of collapse in late 2008, there were any alternatives to a bailout.
"Under ordinary economic circumstances, I would say this is the price that failed companies must pay, and I would not favor intervening to prevent the auto makers from going out of business," Bush said. "But these are not ordinary circumstances. In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action."
After taking office, Obama added about $60 billion and put GM and Chrysler through bankruptcy - swapping much of the government loans for equity stakes in both automakers.
The administration has completely exited Chrysler - booking a $1.3 billion loss on its $12.5 billion bailout - but still holds a 26.5 percent stake in GM. The government forecasts it will lose $21 billion - and is not expected to sell its GM stake before the November election.
From The Detroit News:http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120508/AUTO01/205080389#ixzz1uIEa3ZQX
SO - I thought the bailouts were also a financial success? Why are we taking losses exiting these arrangements if the companies are now solvent and can presumably afford to pay off their debts to us, the US taxpayers?
Anyone get that?