Post by soontobeka on Aug 17, 2012 21:42:11 GMT -5
Paul Ryan slammed President Obama on Thursday for failing to rescue an auto factory in his Wisconsin district — one that closed in 2008, under President George W. Bush.
The latest attack highlights the complicated politics of the auto rescue for Ryan, who was one of only a handful of Republicans to vote in favor of the 2008 bailout that President Bush signed as a stopgap measure to prevent the industry from going under.
“I remember President Obama visiting it when he was first running, saying he’ll keep that plant open,” Ryan said in Ohio Thursday, describing the shuttered GM factory in Janesville, Wis. “One more broken promise.”
Ryan blamed rising gas prices under Obama for the closing. He echoed the complaint in an interview with a local ABC affiliate, suggesting it showed that Obama’s auto rescue was a sham.
“It didn’t help Janesville,” he said. “They shut our plant down. It didn’t help Kenosha. I represent there; they shut down the Chrysler plant.”
The Detroit News noted that Obama said during a visit in early 2008 that government help and some restructuring could keep the plant open. But after the financial crisis and a collapse in demand for the SUVs the factory produced, it shut down in December 2008 in the waning days of Bush’s second term. It’s still owned by GM, but has been closed ever since.
This seem worse than your average gaffe, since it's Ryan's own district. I would think he'd keep his mouth shut about the auto bailoust anyway since he was for it at the time and against it later, but in hindsight it seems to have saved a lot of jobs t after all so he's probably better off not pointing it out to folks.
In 2008, Bush is the outgoing president. Obama, campaigning, promises to work to keep the plant open. Plant closes in late 2008 before Obama takes office, but then he does nothing about it once he is in office even though he said he'd keep it open. Even though it closed under Bush, it doesn't necessarily mean that Obama could do nothing about it, esp since he said he would keep it open.
Look, I'm not saying he should have done anything about it or that I think this is something Ryan should slam Obama for (because I don't - I think it's kind of dumb, TBH, to even bring it up) - I just don't see how this is a gaffe. I don't think Paul Ryan thought that this closed while Obama was president, unless I'm missing something from the article.
Post by UMaineTeach on Aug 17, 2012 22:26:24 GMT -5
I figure Obama gave them the bailout and they restructured with the cash to get to a place to re-pay the bailout. It would have been worse if Obama said 'you have to keep plant x open, for me, even though there is no demand for the product in produces' And if he had we could blame him if all of GM went under and there were no plants, dealers, or suppliers still open and millions had lost jobs.
It's the same as AW and the military whatever in her town. GM needed to close plants and streamline to stay afloat - sorry it was in Ryan's backyard, but something clearly had to be done.
Post by soontobeka on Aug 17, 2012 22:43:00 GMT -5
I agree it is not a gaffe. I think this is a very intelligent man (Ryan) capitalizing on the often repeated misnomer that the auto bailouts started under Obama.
From the Detroit News article linked in OP article: Obama did speak at the Janesville plant in February 2008, and suggested a government partnership with automakers could keep the plant open, but made no promises as Ryan suggested.
"I believe if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years," Obama said.
That is very different than Ryan saying that Obama said that "he'll (Obama) keep the plant open".
Post by soontobeka on Aug 17, 2012 22:46:43 GMT -5
Another point: GM had more than one SUV plant at that point in 2008. The other in Arlington, Texas which has some pretty awesome tax deals with the city and state along with a no income tax on the state level. The Arlington plants furloughed some employees during the 2008-2010 timeframe but has recently added another shift to keep up with the demand (with the highest demand coming from Saudi Arabia).
I agree it is not a gaffe. I think this is a very intelligent man (Ryan) capitalizing on the often repeated misnomer that the auto bailouts started under Obama.
I did wonder if/when they were going to bring this up. But as I recall, Bush was on his way out and told Obama 'if you want this bill signed I will sign it and get things started.' He started it to be kind to his replacement.
Post by soontobeka on Aug 17, 2012 23:13:09 GMT -5
Here is more on why I think that Ryan is capitalizing on the short term memory of the public and often repeated falsehoods to bolster his place on the ticket:
After repeated denials, Paul Ryan has admitted he requested stimulus cash even after sharply criticizing the program.
Ryan had denied doing so as recently as Wednesday, when he spoke to ABC’s Cincinnati affiliate, WCPO, in Ohio.
“I never asked for stimulus,” Mitt Romney’s new running mate said. “I don’t recall… so I really can’t comment on it. I opposed the stimulus because it doesn’t work, it didn’t work.”
Two years ago, during an interview on WBZ’s NewsRadio he was asked by a caller if he “accepted any money” into his district. Ryan said he did not.
“I’m not one [of those] people who votes for something then writes to the government to ask them to send us money. I did not request any stimulus money,” the congressman answered.
But as we’ve now learned, Ryan did write letters. He did request stimulus funds.
...
In 2009, Ryan wrote to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis asking for stimulus money to cover costs on two energy conservation projects in his home state of Wisconsin. In the letter, Ryan said the funds would help create jobs and reduce “energy consumption” in the state. At least one of the companies received the requested cash.
The letters were first obtained by The Wall Street Journal through the Freedom of Information Act back in early 2010. The Boston Globe turned them up for the first time during this campaign season Wednesday. At that point, a Ryan aide referred ABC News back to what a Ryan spokesman said when the letters first went public.
“If Congressman Ryan is asked to help a Wisconsin entity applying for existing Federal grant funds, he does not believe flawed policy should get in the way of doing his job and providing a legitimate constituent service to his employers,” the spokesman told the Milwaukee (Wisc.) Journal Sentinel.
Thursday, Ryan responded to the questions himself.
“After having these letters called to my attention I checked into them, and they were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security or Veterans Affairs are handled,” he said in a statement. “This is why I didn’t recall the letters earlier. But they should have been handled differently, and I take responsibility for that.
“Regardless, it’s clear that the Obama stimulus did nothing to stimulate the economy, and now the President is asking to do it all over again.”
How is it not a gaffe? He said Obama made a promise that he didn't. He blamed Obama of non action even though he passed the bailout. In the OP, it says he blamed Obama for increased gas prices, of all things, and that is what killed the plant. What should have Obama done? Decrease gas prices for just this business??
How is it not a gaffe? He said Obama made a promise that he didn't. He blamed Obama of non action even though he passed the bailout. In the OP, it says he blamed Obama for increased gas prices, of all things, and that is what killed the plant. What should have Obama done? Decrease gas prices for just this business??
I don't necessarily think Obama could have or should have done anything more. I think he might just be calling him on the carpet for empty promises during a campaign. Ryan might be unfairly laying blame at Obama's feet. But I don't think it's a Palinesque moment of having the facts or timeline all wrong.
It's a dumb call out for Ryan to but gaffe? Not really.
I think it's a bit of a gaffe because a) it happened under Bush, and b) GM should bear the blame more than President.
For the Conservatives defending Ryan, should Obama (or Bush) have given stimulus money to reopen or keep the plant? Doesn't that go against free market?
Post by sandipluschris on Aug 18, 2012 8:17:21 GMT -5
I don't think it's a gaffe - it's a LIE. Not unlike many, many other lies told in the campaign. It's so ridiculous how much information is put out there that is just downright untrue. Then, all of the crazy crazies run with it and it eventually becomes fact.
This just reminds me of yesterday. I am not surprised that there are two people in the world who believe the President should intervene in decisions about what factories stay open. I am kind of surprised though that both of those people call themselves conservatives. I thought it was my own conservative side that was saying "well GM has to decide where to locate its operations" and now I'm confused.
And this where people like me get stabby about politicians. A lot of folks who claim to be against the government picking and choosing winners change their tune when it involves their own district.
I'm still a bit confused as to why we had to prop up a dying industry. Just as we complain that banks will never stop taking unreasonable risks if they know they will be bailed out, there is little incentive to create a better product if the government throws you a lifeline for creating a product no one really seems to want. You can argue that jobs were saved in both cases, but query whether this is worth it in the long run.
I think it's a bit of a gaffe because a) it happened under Bush, and b) GM should bear the blame more than President.
For the Conservatives defending Ryan, should Obama (or Bush) have given stimulus money to reopen or keep the plant? Doesn't that go against free market?
No, I'm not a fan of the bail outs. I just edited to clarify that it's a dumb thing for him to focus on. I'm not defending Ryan. I just see this story as trying to frame him as a bit of a dolt.
Despite being a "liberal" I don't expect the government to prop up inefficient and unwanted private industry. But apparently conservatives sometimes do and it CONFUSES ME!
TBF, politicians across the spectrum are hypocrites on a lot of issues because they have to cater to a local constituency, and to avoid it you need to go with someone like Ron Paul, who has definitive positions and tends to be very black/white with his PsOV. The problem is that the B/W POV gets you situations such as his opposition to Title VII because it interferes with independent business decision-making. While I understand his position *in theory* and appreciate his desire for consistency, I think most of us can agree there are times when shades of gray on political issues are more than appropriate.
Discussing whether or not this happened under Bush or Obama totally misses the point. (the plant still isn't technically closed, it's on stand-by. plants get closed via UAW negotiations. I couldn't find a story that said the UAW agreed to close it, so I'm going to assume it's still on stand-by.) Bush didn't have anything to do with what plants were closed, nor should he have. I HOPE Obama had nothing to do with all the plants that closed during his term. The plant certainly didn't stop production b/c of Obama's energy policy. Demand for those vehicles was down long before that. I don't know what his auto czar influenced at GM, but since the plant stopped production despite his rhetoric, I will assume he had nothing to do with it either. I will be so pissed if GM shut down plants according to political votes instead of business sense.
The Detroit News noted that Obama said during a visit in early 2008 that government help and some restructuring could keep the plant open. I hate it when politicians say stuff like this. It's almost always a false promise, or a bad one. Yes gov't help to retool could have kept the plant open, but that would have made no sense, since GM needed to downsize so drastically.
Pixy/laurier, I'm not saying it would be easy OR it should have been done by a President OR that it even could have been done.
I just think it's dumb to frame this as a gaffe, like he's some sort of dolt who thought the plant closed while Obama was President. I think he knew exactly when it closed and was spinning it in a way to blame Obama for a campaign promise. I think it's dumb, which I said in my first post.
If Obama talked about saving it on a campaign stop there, it's absolutely fair game to talk about the fact that he did not.
honest question- how do you save something that has already been closed? Again, Obama never said "I will save this plant". The plant was not feasible for GM to maintain so even with the bailout, they (GM) chose not to reopen it. Should he have forced them to reopen it?
If Obama talked about saving it on a campaign stop there, it's absolutely fair game to talk about the fact that he did not.
honest question- how do you save something that has already been closed? Again, Obama never said "I will save this plant". The plant was not feasible for GM to maintain so even with the bailout, they (GM) chose not to reopen it. Should he have forced them to reopen it?
The govt absolutely could have made the plant stay open if it financed restructuring it. I'm not saying they should have done that, b/c I don't believe that at all. But a presidential candidate at a shut down plant "alluding" to the govt restructuring it is meant to court votes from people who have hope they can keep the jobs. It's fair game. Blaming oil prices under Obama is wrong though.
honest question- how do you save something that has already been closed? Again, Obama never said "I will save this plant". The plant was not feasible for GM to maintain so even with the bailout, they (GM) chose not to reopen it. Should he have forced them to reopen it?
The govt absolutely could have made the plant stay open if it financed restructuring it. I'm not saying they should have done that, b/c I don't believe that at all. But a presidential candidate at a shut down plant "alluding" to the govt restructuring it is meant to court votes from people who have hope they can keep the jobs. It's fair game. Blaming oil prices under Obama is wrong though.
10 months and a huge financial crisis occurred between when Obama made his comment (Feb 2008)and when the plant shut (Dec 2008) (add about another 6 weeks before he became president). I do not see the leap Ryan is making. If the government stepped in and found it more financially sound to keep it closed, then keep it closed.
If Obama talked about saving it on a campaign stop there, it's absolutely fair game to talk about the fact that he did not.
Even assuming Obama made the comment, I'm curious if you think there's a point at which it would be unfair to blame Obama? If Obama was never elected president, would it also still be his fault that the plant closed?
I'm just looking for a point at which it became Obama's responsibility to keep the plant open.
I find it hard to believe that Paul Ryan did not ever make a promise to keep the plant in his home district open too. Assuming he ever said such a thing, is it also fair game to criticize him for that failure?
honest question- how do you save something that has already been closed? Again, Obama never said "I will save this plant". The plant was not feasible for GM to maintain so even with the bailout, they (GM) chose not to reopen it. Should he have forced them to reopen it?
The govt absolutely could have made the plant stay open if it financed restructuring it. I'm not saying they should have done that, b/c I don't believe that at all. But a presidential candidate at a shut down plant "alluding" to the govt restructuring it is meant to court votes from people who have hope they can keep the jobs. It's fair game. Blaming oil prices under Obama is wrong though.
I'm confused. Was the plant closed in early 2008 when Obama allegedly said these things? The article suggests it was open so I'm not following this logic.