More on Government Motors


Earlier this year, President Obama went on one of his gloating tours, touting the wisdom of his nationalization of General Motors and Chrysler. Theirs was a corrupt bankruptcy that strongly rewarded the UAW, one of Obama’s major financial contributors. The new GM then posted a few months of improved sales, leading to much crowing by all the corrupt cocks.

But lately, the road for what is derisively termed “Government Motors” has become rather bumpy, as illustrated in a recent story. The report is about how the New GM is trying desperately to get a dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of 400,000 Chevy Impala owners.

The suit, filed by one Donna Truska, argues that the Impalas — made between 2007 and 2008 — had defective rear spindle rods, leading to rapid tire wear. The plaintiff claims that GM has breached its warranty, and demands that GM fix the cars.

But the new GM argues that since the cars were made by the Old GM, it is not liable for the repairs, and the 400,000 Impala owners should therefore go to hell. Of course, the New GM was only too happy to take over the losses of the Old GM so it could stiff other taxpayers out of future taxes on the New GM, but it doesn’t want to assume any liabilities.

And of course, back in March of 2009, as GM headed toward bankruptcy, Obama promised that in any action he took to “save” GM, consumers would have their warranties honored. As he trumpeted at the time, “Let me say this as plainly as I can. If you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired just like [sic] always. In fact, it will be safer than it has ever been. Because starting today, the United States will stand behind your warranty!”

Another Obama lie, of course. He stood behind GM warranties about as much as he has stood behind the American dollar . . .

Meanwhile, shares of the New GM hit a new low of $22 a share.

Share This


Richard Massey

My favorite concerns, in my view, the worst president, Woodrow Wilson who invaded Mexico for regime change, got us into our first European war which resulted in our GI's bringing back the Spanish flu and helped to create Hitler & Stalin

Rodney C.

I don't think my adding this point to the discussion here would be so out of place. Of all the bad things I see happening now, one of the most disturbing to me is selective enforcement and application of the laws. Now, I think I'm a very fair minded person, and I'm not pretending that Obama's the first chief of state to do this - but it seems given that he's the first to do it so explicitly and widespread.

I"m scared and I think we are in danger. Back when Obama won the election I LITERALLY had nightmares for a few nights (I am serious). That he can function at all under such conditions of failure, and low esteem by the best Americans, indicates a narcissism to the point of incredulity. The thought of how far this man might descend into inhumanity if given the power, and excuse to do so, is frightening.

Have I made myself clear?


What I don't understand RC is how so many people, including your reply, ever fail to mention congress? I find the President of the United States buying a car company with my money troubling, but I find a sycophant congress allotting the money much more of an ominous sign. I hear complaining about the decision's the president makes but never scrutinizing congress. A congress that has conceded all its authority to an executive branch that it is supposed to keep in check. Not only is congress weak, but even culpable in the Government Motors scheme. Within a couple months of Obama bailing out GM, congress held very public hearings to demonize Toyota (a major competitor) because 300 cars out of 8 million cars might have a brake problem (coincidence hmmm).
In my opinion it is not the Presidental loans, but the congressional co-signing that is the threat to this nation.

Rodney C.


Everything you say is true. In fact, I often caution myself, as well as my readers, that when I criticize any branch of the government, it must be remembered that ultimately it's the VOTERS who are to blame. We can forget that so easily. So I don't have tunnel vision, or a vendetta against Obama because he's black or anything.

That being said, my original post was merely my rant on how scary it is to have all that power of one branch of government concentrated in one single "political psychopath". I'm just not used to the President being this bad of a person. On the other hand, maybe the others were just hiding it better. Who knows?


I would normaly avoid any conversation that would possibly place me in a position that makes it sound like I am defending Obama. I may have to make an exception in this case. As bad as forced healthcare and company bailouts are, it fails in comparison to other Presidential psychopathic moments. Andrew Jackson sent the military to hang a sitting political rival (Calhoun). Then he rounded up tens of thousands of Native Americans and personally supervised their removal from his beloved south. Theodore Roosevelt sent the Naval fleet to several foreign shores expressly against congress orders before he finaly provoked Spain into a fight. His distant cousin, Franklin Roosevelt, rounded up tens of thousands of Japanese Americans and put them into camps in the middle of deserts. A more recent example is a President who invaded a foreign country (Iraq) after giving this nation a bolus feeding of deceitful information and attacking before citizens could digest any enzyme of truth. So I dare scribe, RC, it is not that other presidents are better at hidding their dictator ambitions, just rely on Americans ultra short memory to forgive them. I disagree with speding tax payer money to build Camaro's but at least he isn't having GM build tanks...yet!

Gary Jason

I never said that taking over GM was as bad as interning the Japanese. But it is still very bad policy. And as to invading other countries--Obama certainly chose to use military force in Libya....


The Spanish-American War happened before Roosevelt was even elected to Federal office and I have not learned or know of any opposition to the Great White Fleet. If you mean sending the Maine to Cuba before the Spanish American war and it's subsequent sinking, than I understand but that was not Roosevelt.


I realized after I submitted my reply I had made a historical error but could not figure out the best way to correct it (you fixed that for me). I should in all honesty have avoided conversation in presidential history considering the high intellect of the people who read liberty. I have been a huge fan of this magazine for years and was quite melancholy (trying to bring the word back in vogue) when they announced last year they were going to discontinue print. I was quickly made happy again when the web site launched. I am not only able to still read brilliant articles, but also interact with the writers I have admired for years. I find that in some cases (such as my last reply...well probably all of them) I overreach my knowledge boundaries in an attempt to be part of such interesting and dynamic conversations. Forgive my misstep. I concede that most (if not all) readers of this magazine are smarter than I am, but I am grateful and excited to be in the company of such intellectual giants.

© Copyright 2019 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.