Quantcast

President Obama Speaks at Washington Auto Show

ϟMöpvytöϟ 2012/02/01 11:58:31
Barack Obama For President ...

SLIDESHOW: Obama Speaks at Washington Auto Show

1 of 6

President Obama Speaks at Washington Auto Show

  1. President Obama Speaks at Washington Auto Show

    President Obama Speaks at Washington Auto Show

  2. <

    <

  3. <

    <

  4. <

    <

  5. <

    <

  6. <

    <

President Obama Speaks at Washington Auto Show


President Obama discusses the resurgence of the American auto industry at the Auto Show in Washington, DC. January 31, 2012.

Read More: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB1f_V_jbJw

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • carmen 2012/05/02 02:14:25
    carmen
    HAPPEND BROGHT REPORT APPECT FOR NISSAN
  • Dave 007 2012/02/04 12:57:32
    Dave 007
    Did he tell all again how to beat high gas prices? He said "keep your tires inflated and do regular tune ups".
  • D Hanes 2012/02/03 02:11:28
    D Hanes
    You mean Obama LIES AGAIN...... at auto show. He never does anything without a reason.. Hows that Voldt..Barry!!!!!
  • Tennessee3501 2012/02/02 19:37:47
    Tennessee3501
    Who Said It?......QUIZ

    This is a fun quiz. Listed below are 10 direct quotes. You have to guess which American politician said it. Your four choices are:
    Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Former VP Dan Quayle, President Barack Obama, Former President George W. Bush
    Ready? Here we go!

    1) "Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s."

    A. Barack Obama B. Dan Quayle C. Sarah Palin D. George W. Bush

    2) "I've now been in 57 states I think one left to go."

    A. Barack Obama B. Dan Quayle C. Sarah Palin D. George W. Bush

    3) "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes, and I see many of them in the audience here today."

    A. Barack Obama B. Dan Quayle C. Sarah Palin D. George W. Bush

    4) "What they'll say is, 'Well it costs too much money,' but you know what? It would cost, about. It it would cost about the same as what we would spend it. Over the course of 10 years it would cost what it would costs us. (nervous laugh) All right. Okay. We're going to. It. It would cost us about the same as it would cost for about hold on one second. I can't hear myself. But I'm glad yo...



























    Who Said It?......QUIZ

    This is a fun quiz. Listed below are 10 direct quotes. You have to guess which American politician said it. Your four choices are:
    Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Former VP Dan Quayle, President Barack Obama, Former President George W. Bush
    Ready? Here we go!

    1) "Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s."

    A. Barack Obama B. Dan Quayle C. Sarah Palin D. George W. Bush

    2) "I've now been in 57 states I think one left to go."

    A. Barack Obama B. Dan Quayle C. Sarah Palin D. George W. Bush

    3) "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes, and I see many of them in the audience here today."

    A. Barack Obama B. Dan Quayle C. Sarah Palin D. George W. Bush

    4) "What they'll say is, 'Well it costs too much money,' but you know what? It would cost, about. It it would cost about the same as what we would spend it. Over the course of 10 years it would cost what it would costs us. (nervous laugh) All right. Okay. We're going to. It. It would cost us about the same as it would cost for about hold on one second. I can't hear myself. But I'm glad you're fired up, though. I'm glad."

    A. Barack Obama B. Dan Quayle C. Sarah Palin D. George W. Bush

    5) "The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savngs and inefficiencies to our health care system."

    A. Barack Obama B. Dan Quayle C. Sarah Palin D. George W. Bush

    6) "I bowled a 129. It's like - it was like the Special Olympics, or something."

    A. Barack Obama B. Dan Quayle C. Sarah Palin D. George W. Bush

    7) "Of the many responsibilities granted to a president by our Constitution, few are more serious or more consequential than selecting a Supreme Court justice. The members of our highest court are granted life tenure, often serving long after the presidents who appointed them. And they are charged with the vital task of applying principles put to paper more than 20 centuries ago to some of the most difficult questions of our time."

    A. Barack Obama B. Dan Quayle C. Sarah Palin D. George W. Bush

    8) "Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma, they end up taking up a hospital bed, it costs, when, if you, they just gave, you gave them treatment early and they got some treatment, and a, abreathalyzer, or inhalator, not a breathalyzer. I haven't had much sleep in the last 48 hours."

    A. Barack Obama B. Dan Quayle C. Sarah Palin D. George W. Bush

    9) "It was interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of ,I don’t know what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing."

    A. Barack Obama B. Dan Quayle C. Sarah Palin D. George W. Bush

    10) "I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."

    A. Barack Obama B. Dan Quayle C. Sarah Palin D. George W. Bush

    Sorry. This was a trick quiz. All of the correct answers are the same person. Each of these quotes are directly from President Barack Obama. And now you know why he brings his teleprompter with him everywhere he goes ... even when talking to a 6th grade class.And some members of the media continue to insist he is "The smartest man ever elected to the Presidency". Yea Right.! Send it to all your family and friends so they can see for themselves.
    (more)
  • RobertChristopherLaity 2012/02/02 08:32:42 (edited)
    RobertChristopherLaity
    +1
    Obama hjas never BEEN President:
    http://www.thepostemail.com/0...
  • Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA 2012/02/02 04:04:05
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    Why didn't he explain why after spending billions of tax bucks on developing Obama's Electric Chevy Volt, that they keep exploding and burning up?

    All that yapping and he didn't even buy a damn car!
  • Charles R. Anderson 2012/02/02 02:12:48
    Charles R. Anderson
    +2
    Letting GM and Chrysler die would have allowed other private American auto companies to be created and would have occurred without the federal government stealing from the shareholders and bond holders of GM and Chrysler. That theft was a serious trampling of rights, primarily for the benefit of labor unions who received large blocks of stock they did not deserve and preservation of the very unions that did so much to kill GM and Chrysler in the first place. Reborn auto companies kicked free of the unions would have been much better.
  • Jorge Enriquez 2012/02/01 23:52:27
    Jorge Enriquez
    Maybe Save Auto Industry..
    But VW, Toyota, Nissan....hahaha
  • SandraKogelheide 2012/02/01 22:58:40
    SandraKogelheide
    One step closer to helping to created jobs
  • alonnastorm 2012/02/01 22:09:22 (edited)
    alonnastorm
    Here's 2 GM being #1 in the world!!! Champaine toast
  • tom C 2012/02/01 21:59:38 (edited)
    tom  C
    How did Obama save the Auto Industry????

    Bush loaned Gm money to prevent them going bankrupt....

    Then Obama loaned GM more money to prevent them from going bankrupt...


    Then guess what....GM went bankrupt anyways....and screwed all the stockholders...


    Then they came out off bankruptcy and Obama gave them some more money....


    So what did obama save???
    NOTHING!!!!


    You could have let GM fail...go bankrupt , and come back out of bankruptcy ..just as it did...

    WITHOUT throwing all the TAXPAYER money at it...
  • rebar4444 2012/02/01 21:42:51
    rebar4444
    +1
    It's a tribute to Obama. GOP was literally saying to let them fail. He saved the us auto industry. But you have to also give Ford Kudos for not needing the loan. Bottom line is the cars look better, have higher fuel standards and made in the USA. This issue should not be partisan.
  • Adakin ... rebar4444 2012/02/02 04:11:09
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    "...and made in the USA." except for the reason why GM is #1 in the world, i.e. because of the world's biggest auto factory is the new General Motors plant in Bejing, built with your "ObamaBucks" where the number one selling car in China is BUICK... all of which are made right there in Bejing.

    Yup... they certainly are number one!
  • BILL 2012/02/01 21:20:25
    BILL
    Why didn't someone lock that LUMM in a trunk, and ship him back to Kenya, or where ever he is from because it sure isn't America
  • Marleneemm 2012/02/01 19:31:41
    Marleneemm
    the more jobs that we can take back from overseas the better the Economy will be!!!
  • Adakin ... Marleneemm 2012/02/02 04:12:30
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    Exactly, that's why we need to pass the FairTax Bill (HR-25) a bill that would COMPLETELY UNTAX manufacturing and industry in the US and attract global businesses back to our shores.
  • Bill Rind 2012/02/01 19:31:24
    Bill Rind
    +1
    So what, he is a liar anyway in every thing he says and does.
  • the fuze 2012/02/01 18:56:02
    the fuze
    +2
    Yeah, FORD did a great job... without anybody's help.
  • Pete the fuze 2012/02/01 19:46:42
    Pete
    Amen! And the stock is hold it's own without government money!
  • sjalan 2012/02/01 17:38:11
    sjalan
    +1
    To bad he didn't talk about the best success story that being FORD and their having not needed bailout money.
  • Kern 2012/02/01 16:06:32
    Kern
    Had GM gone down, all of the car manufacturers would have suffered because they all share the same supply line.
  • Maveric... Kern 2012/02/01 16:34:56
    Maverick Capitalist
    +1
    News Flash: They filed for Bankruptcy...but bankruptcy does not mean the company stops engaging in business it simply protects them from creditors until they reorg. So taxpayers gave GM billions to prevent a bankruptcy only to have them file bankruptcy -- Brilliant!!
  • Kern Maveric... 2012/02/01 17:47:08
    Kern
    The real story, which all news organization ignored is that GM could have used money from its foreign subsidiaries to save it's American factories.
  • Pete Kern 2012/02/01 19:50:27
    Pete
    Highly unusual that the lib media would past up a story like that? Unless they where told to drop it by the ones running the show.
  • Kern Pete 2012/02/01 22:32:04
    Kern
    I read about it in Matt Taibbi book.
  • Adakin ... Kern 2012/02/02 04:15:44
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    Yes, but the story behind that story is the minute they used their overseas profits to do ANYTHING in the U.S. the taxman would have met that money at the import dock and confiscated upwards of 35% of it before it could create the first job, build the first car, or create a better economy.

    That's why we need to elect a president and congress that will pass the FairTax bill into law. It abolishes the tax code and would completely untax the return of overseas profits and tax shelters.
  • Kern Adakin ... 2012/02/02 04:58:32
    Kern
    My belief is, if you have a company in America, you should be willing to pay for the privilege of being here. If they feel they can't bring the money in, get the hell out.

    The fair tax plan that push the tax burden on the backs of the middle class. The fair tax plan works best for people making over $200,000 a year. It's almost a bad an idea as the flat tax.
  • Adakin ... Kern 2012/02/03 04:03:13 (edited)
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    "...if you have a company in America, you should be willing to pay for the privilege of being here"

    Hmmm, so if I benefit society by risking my time, my knowledge and MY CAPITAL, to open a business enterprise, you feel that I should somehow be punished for my brazen actions in providing goods or services to my community and providing my employees with good jobs. Is that what you are advocating?

    If so, you are correct. I will quickly pack my bags and take my JOBS with me to a country that appreciates free market capitalism and the benefits it brings to society.
    == == ==
    "The fair tax plan that push the tax burden on the backs of the middle class. The fair tax plan works best for people making over $200,000 a year. It's almost as bad an idea as the flat tax.


    Please show me your statistical basis for the FairTax being a burden for the middle class and windfall for the rich, when every taxpayer would have the equal ability to choose when and how much tax they pay.

    PLEASE provide me with a hypothetical example of how or where the FairTax would be a burden or benefit for whatever class of people you choose to divide us Americans up into.

    == == ==
    I agree with you that if we used a static analysis and nothing else changed, you may be correct in the application of the Fa...
























    "...if you have a company in America, you should be willing to pay for the privilege of being here"

    Hmmm, so if I benefit society by risking my time, my knowledge and MY CAPITAL, to open a business enterprise, you feel that I should somehow be punished for my brazen actions in providing goods or services to my community and providing my employees with good jobs. Is that what you are advocating?

    If so, you are correct. I will quickly pack my bags and take my JOBS with me to a country that appreciates free market capitalism and the benefits it brings to society.
    == == ==
    "The fair tax plan that push the tax burden on the backs of the middle class. The fair tax plan works best for people making over $200,000 a year. It's almost as bad an idea as the flat tax.


    Please show me your statistical basis for the FairTax being a burden for the middle class and windfall for the rich, when every taxpayer would have the equal ability to choose when and how much tax they pay.

    PLEASE provide me with a hypothetical example of how or where the FairTax would be a burden or benefit for whatever class of people you choose to divide us Americans up into.

    == == ==
    I agree with you that if we used a static analysis and nothing else changed, you may be correct in the application of the FairTax (without the prebate feature that it provides, see HR-25).

    But we live in a dynamic world. Give people the right to choose when and how much tax they pay for the gov't they want, and they would modify their behavior to provide for whatever is in their own best interest and best suits their personal situation. The current tax code and even the flat income tax does not for allow that.

    With an income tax, your earnings are SEIZED.

    With the FairTax, your money is PAID.

    One is compulsory while the other is voluntary.

    Regardless if you earn $1000 or a $1 Million, if you don’t spend it, you don’t pay any tax with the FairTax. And if you choose what you buy, you can mitigate your tax impact, especially when you consider the prebate feature that makes the FairTax unique among normal consumption taxes and completely untaxes those with income at or below the poverty level.

    A consumption tax is the only tax that DOES NOT FIRST lay a claim on an arbitrary portion of what you create, produce or earn.

    Think about it. If you could claim an unfettered arbitrary ownership of whatever portion of another person's assets and wealth... A claim of percentage of ownership that YOU choose... a claim upon someone else’s productivity, earnings and assets... wouldn't the subject of your claim effectively be your slave?

    When Obama says that Bush's tax cuts COST the Government money, he is implying an ownership of what the tax dollars that he didn’t seize and that money earned is really property of the "plantation"... or in today's vernacular... the State! And when politicians and candidates debate the “rate” of taxes for various “classes” of Americans, what they are really debating is how much the various classes WILL BE ALLOWED TO KEEP.

    You are either for slavery, or you are for freedom. Just as you can't be a little pregnant... you can't support just a little bit of slavery.

    I believe in, advocate and will fight for the sovereignty of the individual. Anything less is abdication to the Plantation Master.

    Give the poor and the middle class the ability to choose what taxes they pay and what assets they keep and invest, and you would not need such an omnipotent benefactor as the Plantation Master looking out for your well being since you could easily do that for yourself... at far less cost to both you and to society in general.

    Support the Candidates that Support the FairTax!
    fairtax
    (more)
  • Kern Adakin ... 2012/02/03 05:34:50
    Kern
    The Fair Tax, just like a flat tax puts the burden on the middle class and underprivileged because they have to spend more of their income on day to day living expenses. So what you say?

    The fair tax system is imposed only on new items. This would stunt the manufacturing of new items. Why buy new and pay and extra 23% if you don't have to.

    It would also open the door to have items reclassified. How much of a house has to be build with new items to have it classified as "new?"

    My favorite issue is, how would you enforce it? One claim of fair tax supporter is that it would eliminate the IRS. I think it would increase the size of the IRS. How you ask? Well, who would enforce the fair tax? Instead of your employer being your "tax collector" anyone who sold anything new or provided a service would be the new tax collector. How would you enforce that rule? Would there be neighborhood tax collectors watching your son mow the lawn and hit him up for the 30% he owned the government?

    To draw a comparison of what a "Fair Tax" would look like as compared to a the current system we must understand how much a fair tax would cost. Most estimate put it at 30 to 34 percent. A care costing $10,000 would not cost $13,000. Under the current tax system, the car would cost $11,252. this would drive...








    The Fair Tax, just like a flat tax puts the burden on the middle class and underprivileged because they have to spend more of their income on day to day living expenses. So what you say?

    The fair tax system is imposed only on new items. This would stunt the manufacturing of new items. Why buy new and pay and extra 23% if you don't have to.

    It would also open the door to have items reclassified. How much of a house has to be build with new items to have it classified as "new?"

    My favorite issue is, how would you enforce it? One claim of fair tax supporter is that it would eliminate the IRS. I think it would increase the size of the IRS. How you ask? Well, who would enforce the fair tax? Instead of your employer being your "tax collector" anyone who sold anything new or provided a service would be the new tax collector. How would you enforce that rule? Would there be neighborhood tax collectors watching your son mow the lawn and hit him up for the 30% he owned the government?

    To draw a comparison of what a "Fair Tax" would look like as compared to a the current system we must understand how much a fair tax would cost. Most estimate put it at 30 to 34 percent. A care costing $10,000 would not cost $13,000. Under the current tax system, the car would cost $11,252. this would drive the consumer to either buy cheaper new cars or stay with what they have because they won't be able to afford new cars thereby slowing down the economy. Sales of new items would drop; slowing down the economy.

    Here's a fair analysis of the Fair Tax proposal.

    http://www.factcheck.org/taxe...

    Under a fair tax system, you do not get to choose whether or not you get to pay taxes. That's a lie. Everyone will eventually have to buy something new. Try to tell the sales person that you don't feel like paying the taxes right now when you are purchasing the item and see what happens.


    Murray Rothbard: "There can be no such thing as 'fairness in taxation.' Taxation is nothing but organized theft, and the concept of a 'fair tax' is therefore every bit as absurd as that of 'fair theft.'"
    (more)
  • Adakin ... Kern 2012/02/04 03:19:44 (edited)
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    Your "FactCheck" link has some interesting comments:

    "Moreover, even FairTax critics like Gale agree that consumption taxes increase the size of the economy. Many studies show that long-term incomes would rise under a consumption-based tax system. Optimistic accounts show a 10 percent rise in income over time, but even the more cautious studies show gains of 5 percent to 7 percent.

    Because the FairTax will grow the economy, workers will eventually see increases in their income. FairTax proponents claim that the growing economy, coupled with the reduction in marginal tax rates, will offset the increased tax burden.

    Burton argues that "the FairTax is a positive-sum game," one in which purchasing power will grow faster than the tax burden" and "We found that while there are several good economic arguments for the FairTax, unless you earn more than $200,000 per year, fairness is not one of them."

    For a detailed rebuttal to FactCheck's claims, please see
    http://www.fairtax.org/site/P...

    == == ==
    RE: "How much of a house has to be build with new items to have it classified as "new?"

    That's easy enough, do a title search. If you are the original purchaser, the house is new. That's exactly how a typical county tax assessor determines if a home is new or used. Another me...























































    Your "FactCheck" link has some interesting comments:

    "Moreover, even FairTax critics like Gale agree that consumption taxes increase the size of the economy. Many studies show that long-term incomes would rise under a consumption-based tax system. Optimistic accounts show a 10 percent rise in income over time, but even the more cautious studies show gains of 5 percent to 7 percent.

    Because the FairTax will grow the economy, workers will eventually see increases in their income. FairTax proponents claim that the growing economy, coupled with the reduction in marginal tax rates, will offset the increased tax burden.

    Burton argues that "the FairTax is a positive-sum game," one in which purchasing power will grow faster than the tax burden" and "We found that while there are several good economic arguments for the FairTax, unless you earn more than $200,000 per year, fairness is not one of them."

    For a detailed rebuttal to FactCheck's claims, please see
    http://www.fairtax.org/site/P...

    == == ==
    RE: "How much of a house has to be build with new items to have it classified as "new?"

    That's easy enough, do a title search. If you are the original purchaser, the house is new. That's exactly how a typical county tax assessor determines if a home is new or used. Another method is to see when the "Certificate of Occupancy" was issued. That's a document showing that the home is ready and safe for its new owner to live in it. But I would defer to a title search to examine who was the original owner of that home.

    == == ==
    RE: "Why buy new and pay and extra 23% if you don't have to?"

    Kern, you are already paying that "extra 23%" right now! Why do you assume that you would pay an "EXTRA" 23%?

    Here's an example... Let's assume that you are in the 15% income tax bracket (low to middle income rage after deductions)... In addition, you pay 7.65% FICA and your employer matches that with another 7.65% "contribution (effectively costing your employer $107.65 for every $100 she is contracted to pay you).

    If we assume that what was deducted from your gross earnings was the 15.3% for the FICA (both your part and the bosses) and the 15% income tax, then in order for you to walk into a diner and pay for a $10 meal TODAY under current tax law, you first had to earn $14.35 in pretax gross income. If measured in gross earnings, that $10 meal really costs you $14.35.

    With the FairTax, you have the ENTIRE $14.35 in your pocket because there was no tax or withholding.

    You buy your $10 meal and pay $13.00 and as 23% tax (inclusive) of $13.00 is $3.00, the remaining $10 goes to the restaurant, and you still have $1.35 in your pocket.

    As the FairTax REPLACES the existing tax code, where does your claim of an "EXTRA" tax come in?

    == == ==
    But wait... Let's look at that $10 meal.

    The wholesale food distributor that sold the product to your diner made a taxable profit on that food.

    The delivery truck company made a taxable profit on hauling that bulk delivery to the restaurant chain from the wholesale food distributor.

    The gas company supplying the natural gas for the grill/oven made a taxable profit on the sale of their gas to the restaurant business.

    The landlord pays tax on the rental income paid by the restaurant operator.

    And so on, etc, etc.

    With the FairTax... all of those taxes added to the total cost of that $10 meal.

    Abstracting out the "embedded" (i.e. hidden) taxes from the price of that dinner, that $10 meal could very well cost as little as $8.50 or $9.00 because with the FairTax... all those embedded taxes are gone, yet those vendors would still be earning the same net profit that they did when embedded taxes actually inflated the cost of everything you buy today.

    Now add the FairTax to your now $9.00 dinner and your final cost is $11.70.

    And you pay for it from the $14.35 that is in your pocket, leaving you with $2.65!
    == == ==
    In the 1980's, then General Motors CEO Roger Smith told a congressional subcommittee that embedded taxes paid by the literally dozens of vendors that supplied the hundreds of subcomponents that go into building a new car added almost 30% to the final retail price paid by the purchaser of that new vehicle.

    With the FairTax, those embedded costs are gone.

    Embedded taxes inflate the costs of goods and services by as much as 35% to as little as 3% depending on the product or service. But regardless, with the FairTax, you would pay for your purchase with untaxed earnings.

    In addition, the four items that are not subject to the FairTax are
    1) used goods
    2) investments
    3) educational tuition
    4) Business to Business wholesale transactions (which makes the FT very different from the European VAT system which adds a tax to every step of a product's creation)

    Sure there will be fraud. But with the current system, it only takes one person to file a fraudulent tax report.

    But with the FairTax, it would require the collusion between the customer and the vendor in order to commit fraud. And in states like Florida and Texas where there is only a sales tax, over 92% of all tax revenue comes from just 6% of all retail vendors (i.e. Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, etc). So it would be pretty hard to imagine trying to get someone at a big box store to go along with your tax fraud scheme, while that same person can easily game the tax system that we have today.

    Besides, with an income tax, the presumption is that government has a claim, or effectively a lien, upon everything you earn, create, produce and accrue. What you earn is arbitrarily property of the state and NOT YOU! If someone or some entity can claim all or part of whatever you earn or create, you are nothing but a slave to that entity.

    All that changes when you have the freedom to choose when, where and how much you choose to spend.
    (more)
  • Quazimoto 2012/02/01 14:15:01
    Quazimoto
    +4
    This is why I just bought a FORD.
  • bob h. Quazimoto 2012/02/01 14:34:16
    bob h.
    +2
    FORD Forever; but it saved the economy.
  • Maveric... bob h. 2012/02/01 16:42:11
    Maverick Capitalist
    The bailout did not save the economy...unless you consider this missery saved. But the bailout did save some union jobs in a company that is manufacturing a green electric car that in reality runs on coal...
  • Adakin ... bob h. 2012/02/02 04:17:08
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    A 1.5% GDP is a "saved" economy? Have you been drinking the bong water again?
  • loudelk99 2012/02/01 14:14:13
    loudelk99
    Did he mention that GM used the taxpayer bailout to build a new factory, in China?
  • bob h. loudelk99 2012/02/01 14:40:17
    bob h.
    GM had a factory in China for Aveo's. The Cruze was a Suziki first; then a Daewoo; now it's made in China along with some junker they call Buick. I don't care, I wouldn't buy a GM product; but they put a lot of Americans back to work and paid off the bailout with interest.
  • Maveric... bob h. 2012/02/01 16:50:12
    Maverick Capitalist
    GM did NOT pay off the bailout with interest. They did pay back some capital with money in another account, but that was money from a government loan. Just because it is technically not from the bailout money doesn't mean they repayed the loan. Taxpayers still own stock in this abortion and in order for the taxpayers to BREAK EVEN the stock price needs to double to around $53 per share.
  • Pete loudelk99 2012/02/01 19:55:44
    Pete
    Where's the lib news media, like the Chinese are going to buy a Chevy.................There just going import them back to the US with a big "C" at the beginning of the vin number!
  • bonnie 2012/02/01 13:58:11
    bonnie
    I am proud of American car makers for making a difference and staying in America so we can feed our children and send them to college.
  • Maveric... bonnie 2012/02/01 16:51:54
    Maverick Capitalist
    BMW, Toyota, Mercedes also make cars in the United States.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/02 01:52:00

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals