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?

Maybe the loss is interest the money would have earned if it were invested somewhere else?

Oh wait, what I meant to say is I have no idea.

Yeah, me either.

I asked an actual economist friend on FB, so if she responds, I'll repost it here.

I'm not an economics expert, but my cynical answer would be because rich people and corporations never pay their debts if they can find a way to weasel out of them.

.

What's that quote about capitalism... "it is privatizing profits while socializing losses." something something..

Here's a good one I found during my search:

I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank. ... You are a den of vipers and thieves.
Andrew Jackson, 1834, on closing the Second Bank of the United States;

I think the overall bailout plan was successful because the bulk of the money went to banks that have since paid the loans back. The auto bailout only made sense because it would cost the taxpayers more in unemployment compensation and bankrupcy than the bailout did.

Not just because of the employees for Chrisler and GM being out of work but because all of the companies that make parts for them would be out of work too.

And the shippers.

Would we be better off having let them go down and ending up with the big one rather than the big three?

What did your smartypants, high falutin', know-it-all, poindexter, friend say, Squid?

She blew me off! Posted some other smartypants highfalutin' thing right over the top of my question on her wall about how BoA are dicks.

So I just messaged her and asked her if she saw it. THIS SHALL NOT STAND!

The Mermaid may still have a pal on the Hill who might now. I'll explore that avenue as well and try to get this answered.

Man, leave DC and you become a provincial 'not knower' of things. Sheesh.