FACT CHECK: Romney's clunker claim on auto bailout

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 14, 2011 11:06 a.m.

    To "UtahBlueDevil | 8:53 a.m." is it me, or do liberals have a hard time thinking about what is said before responding.

    Take a look at the number of banking regulations. It has grown every year. Using your logic, that would mean that a bank could never fail.

    If we are competing against foreign government, then we will surpass them as long as we allow businesses to run without our government micromanaging them. Governments do not have to be efficient, businesses do. Governments don't have to worry about debt like a business does because a government has guaranteed customers.

    But, that is just a tangent to what I said earlier.

    The fact is that since the 1980's we have added more regulations than we have taken away. Even in the 1980's when there were the bank failures, banks had more regulations added to them.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 14, 2011 8:53 a.m.

    Redshirt - to your banking regulation comments again.... you know when the two biggest periods of bank failure where in this country. Yes, one of them was the great depression.... but what makes those look like small time numbers is the numbers of bank failures during the ... hold your breath..... Reagan years.

    The number of bank failures during Reagan went like this...

    1989 - 534
    1988 - 470
    1987 - 262
    1986 - 204
    1985 - 180
    1984 - 10

    Under Bush 1, those numbers dropped and continued to drop all the way through Bush II, until you guess it, in 2006 they started to climb again.

    For 2010, our current peak - 157 banks have failed. Far too many, but far fewer than in those glory days of Reagan.

    The economic damage to jobs, supporting industries and our own manufacturing base would have been devastating had we allowed that economic base disappear. With out government help, GM and Chrysler would not have survived against the Korean, Japanese, and European car manufactures who are all supported with government provided infrastructure.

    We are not competing against Kia, but with Korea Inc, and China Inc. The game has changed, time to wake up.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 14, 2011 8:39 a.m.

    Lost in DC ... care to reference where these 13 billion in homeowner bailouts went? Perhaps if you actually explain that, your story might change a bit.

    Here is a latest quote from the program

    "Of the $45.6 billion in Trouble Asset Relief Program funds meant to aid homeowners, the most recent numbers available show that only about $2 billion has actually gone out the door."

    That was of August 25th of this year.

    Redshirt - can you point to this utopian time when Banking performed better with less regulation? The history of this country is littered with banking collapses. I am most interested in when this period was.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 14, 2011 8:22 a.m.

    To "NeilT | 5:34 p.m." first of all, you should realize that the banking industry has the most regulations to follow out of any industry in the US.

    Next, even the "deregulations" in the 1980's actually added regulations. If you look at history, the banking industry has performed better with fewer problems when there truely was less regulation. You know, back before the government mandated lower lending standards and before we had government guaranteed loans.

  • L Central, Utah
    Nov. 12, 2011 3:41 p.m.

    @KM | 7:25 a.m. Nov. 10, 2011
    Cedar Hills, UT

    How is it that the government owns a stake in either of these companies? Is this free market capitalism or is it communism? Why the government owns any
    part of these companies is beyond insane. Too big to fail...we'll see.

    KM- to take another look at what some are proposing, the privatization og Social Security could result in the USA being a major stockholder in many companies. If the government is a big stockholder in GM and it comes time to get government vehicles do we buy Fords, or do we buy GM because we have stock in that companyy? Your worry about government having ownership does bring some cautions.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Nov. 11, 2011 5:36 p.m.

    These "businesspeople" who have posted so far are interesting...they are concerned for their business. Of course, who wouldn't be? But how about some concern for possible employees? Maybe it's good you didn't end up having any. I worked for about a year for a company whose policy was to hire for just under full-time, to avoid paying benefits. This wasn't good for someone who wanted badly to work hard, but with a chronic disease to control and medicate on a regular basis. This was pre-ADA, I suppose you would like to get rid of that, too, so people like me wouldn't want the opportunity to work in your business. Those regulations many of you speak so derisively of often are there because living, breathing, human beings need them to be treated fairly and humanely---and sometimes, you're the human being who is helped, even if you're not aware of it.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 11, 2011 7:45 a.m.

    I Choose Freedom, my thought is that the discussion is not about right or wrong. It's about decisions, goals , and outcomes. First fact is that all citizens will need health care at one time or another, to one degree or another. Second fact is access to health care is granted through two sources, one health insurance, and two you just walk in the door with no means of paying and society picks up the tab. Third fact is that the majority of americans obtain health insurance through their employment.

    As a society Americans have decided to reduce the number of citizens who's only access to health insurance is to walk through the door and rely on the mercy of others. As an employer who doesn't offer health insurance you have increased the chances that your employees fall into this category of citizen, thereby you have placed yourself in direct conflict with a goal of society.

    You can choose to fight against the decision of society (health care reform act) but as long as you choose to not provide health care you're going to have this conflict..unless America makes another choice..to unbundle health care from employment in general.

  • I Choose Freedom Atlanta, GA
    Nov. 10, 2011 6:58 p.m.

    Wow, pragmatistferlife, you really do not get it. Answer this for me:

    I am a small business owner. I started my business with my own money that I saved over many years from my previous jobs. Once I started my business, I assumed all of the risk for the success or failure of that business. No one else risked anything, just me. As my business grew, I decided to hire my first employee. I could only afford to pay $12 per hour. No benefits. Just $12 per hour. A person that had previously only made minimum wage applied for the job and was hired. That person was now making more money than they had ever earned before.

    What did I do wrong? Should I have not hired that person because I was not able to offer "life sustaining benefits" such as health insurance?

    Last year my business grossed $1.6 million. I still do not offer any benefits but every employee now makes more money working for me than they have ever made before. They are all very happy to have their jobs.

    Should I not be in business? Your thoughts?

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 5:48 p.m.

    Hilarious article. Almost had me fooled. Economists say "poor sales" is the REAL problem. Good one. Now lets analyze this a bit.

    Why are there poor sales? People are losing thier jobs and homes, perhaps.

    Why are people losing their jobs and their homes? Mainly becasue businesses and people cannot take out loans.

    Why can't businesses or people get loans? Ta Da: Regulations!

    You see? Scoop away the spin and we find that neither the article nor the candidates were wrong. But we can take this analysis futher:

    Why is there so much unnecessary regulation? Obama and the Democrats.

    Why are Obama and the Democrats thinking they should stay in office? Now there's one no one can answer.

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 5:34 p.m.

    I am LDS 2 you are right,on good comments. There is a need and place for gov't regulation. We deregulated the savings and loans in the 80s. What a fiasco. Deregulation often backfires and makes things worse. Why is the savings and loan debacle never discussed. It was fairly recent.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 10, 2011 5:13 p.m.

    lari3, lost in DC, and J-TEX, I hardly missed the point I simply ignored your bias that any job created is a good job, even if it doesn't pay a liveable wage, and supply life sutaining benefits (health insurance etc.). I don't share your opinion or bias, and therefore support government regulations that attempt to create an economy where all jobs pay a wage that sustains life. To the poster who said they didn't purchase a business because providing health insurance to employees made the business so it only broke even..well guess what you probably shouldn't have beeen in business if your margins were so thin you couldn't provide employees decent benefits.

  • Midwest Mom Soldiers Grove, WI
    Nov. 10, 2011 3:58 p.m.

    A good Primary song to remember:

    I believe in being honest;
    I believe in being true,
    That honesty should start with me
    In all I say, in all I do.
    Ill form good habits in my youth,
    To keep my word, to tell the truth,
    To speak up in defending right
    And keep my name and honor bright.
    I believe in being honest;
    I believe in being true,
    That honesty should start with me
    In all I say, in all I do.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 3:00 p.m.

    If in fact government were limited and just had done what it was intended to do in the first place, which is to protect my unalienable rights, there would be very little of this partisan bickering. However, because government has branched out into areas that government was never intended to do, the partisan bickering will continue undeterred by heaven or hell. When it returns to its proper role, protecting me in my alienable rights, the partisanship will hardly be a whisper, and the corrupt power brokers will not be able to continue the charade of a government 'for the people'!

  • SLMG Murtoa Australia, Victoria
    Nov. 10, 2011 2:52 p.m.

    Lets just drop all regulations, rules, acts, civil ordinances and laws and then maybe everyone will be happy in the chaos that will follow. Wake up and smell the roses, a civilized society does not work without regulations, rules, acts, civil ordinances and laws.

    Nice article! It is good to see something written that shows the double speak of politicians, be they Republican or Democrat. Though this article is about a republican debate I will expect to read the same about any politician regardless of party during the silly season of the federal elections that plays a bit free with facts.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 2:33 p.m.

    For those of you who say TARP lost money, it depends on what part of TARP you are talking about.

    According to Table 2.2 of the Special Inspector General for TARPs October 27, 2011 Quarterly Report to Congress, the CBO estimates:

    The Capital Purchase Program (bank bailout) EARNED $16 billion.

    The Citigroup and Bank of America bailouts EARNED $7 billion.

    AIG COST $14 billion.

    The auto bailout COST $14 billion.

    Homeowner bailouts COST $13 billion. (BO's disappointed this didn't cost more)

    The financial bailout (AIG, BofA and Citigroup, and other banks) EARNED $9 billion.

    Auto and homeowner bailouts COST $27 billion.

    AFTER GM and Chrysler got TARP funds, then went BK, the unions got paid AHEAD of treasury and AHEAD of the bondholders. Romney was correct, and the OWS crowd should be protesting GM, Chrysler, and homeowners who got bailed out (but then I suspect some of them would be protesting themselves)

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 2:33 p.m.


    Thank you for setting the record straight!

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 1:46 p.m.

    This article WASN'T journalistic.

    It was an opinion piece by the "A.P." who think we're stupid!

    The "associated press" used to mean non-biased journalistic facts.

    They seldom ARE THAT anymore!

  • midcl REXBURG, ID
    Nov. 10, 2011 1:41 p.m.

    Fact Checking the Fact Checker

    How did Chrysler pay off the rest of the $7.6 billion they owed the Treasury Department?

    The Obama administrations bailout agreement with Fiat gave the Italian car company a Incremental Call Option that allows it to buy up to 16% of Chrysler stock at a reduced price. But in order to exercise the option, Fiat had to first pay back at least $3.5 billion of its loan to the Treasury Department. But Fiat was having trouble getting private banks to lend it the money. Enter Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu who has signaled that he will approve a fuel-efficient vehicle loan to Chrysler for wait for it $3.5 billion.

    To recap, the Obama Energy Department is loaning a foreign car company $3.5 billion so that it can pay the Treasury Department $7.6 billion for it's share of Chrysler stock even though American taxpayers spent $13 billion to save it in the first place.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Nov. 10, 2011 1:23 p.m.

    It is not about Big Government vs Small Government

    When government is too small you have anarchy (a condition where the people abuse each other).

    When government is too powerful you have tyranny, where the government abuses the people.

    Government must be large enough to prevent anarchy and strictly limited in power to prevent tyranny.

    Freedom is therefore the absence of abuse. (Including self abuse, sex, drugs, alcohol, etc.)

    The purpose of government is to prevent abuse: Protect the rights of the people.

    One stated purpose of government is to "Establish Justice". They got off the path when they attempted to establish fairness instead. You cannot establish fairness without being unfair to another.

    Let Freedom Ring

  • NewsJunkie Centerville, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 1:19 p.m.

    If the FACTS were really true, how is Romney wrong by saying that President Barack Obama "gave GM to UAW, he gave Chrysler to Fiat", when the fact IS that the UAW for whatever reason did get a good chunk of GM and Fiat did ended up with over 50% of Chrysler by paying the Fed?

    This article is an opinion piece, not a news article and especially not a FACT checking piece of journalism.

    Nov. 10, 2011 12:25 p.m.

    This article is misleading: a business isn't going to cite regulations as the reason for bankruptcy, but regulations do raise costs substantially which drive some businesses out of solvency. Consider Obama's drilling moratorium alone - the gas prices have stayed HIGH and the pinch is felt by all, businesses and families alike. Consider Obamacare: in the healthcare industry the cost of implementing Obamacare in the beginning stages alone (according to its rules and regulations) are astronomical. It is a scary time to work in medicine. You would never have thought doctors and medical professionals could have difficulty finding work before. Which means patients will have a harder time finding and receiving quality care. In manufacturing, the costs of following EPA standards are driving whole power plants out of business, which will only further raise energy costs.
    The fact checker should look further into the reasons businesses go bankrupt to be honest. I'm tired of the bulk of media directing readers to think left if they think at all. Anyway, if you're not sure of any facts in any article (left or right), do some thoughtful research and draw your own conclusions.

  • heedaf Layton, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 12:15 p.m.

    Jonathan Eddy - The reason why we had the housing melt-down was because the Liberals wanted to get those who can't afford a house into one. So banks were punished for not giving loans to those who can't afford it and Fanny May and FM/FDIC guaranteed these loans. So regulation wasn't a problem but the adverse effect of government involvement.

    This writer is pretty clueless about what he put into the article. Nothing like denying the obvious!!!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 12:06 p.m.

    To "christoph | 8:49 a.m." TARP, which bailed out the banks, so far has ended up losing a total of $25 billion. Yes some companies paid it back with interest, but others did not.

    If you look at the auto-bailouts, those have also lost billions of dollars too.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 11:55 a.m.

    @I M LDS 2

    "...As a lifetime Republican and conservative, I will be the first to advocate for "limited Government." But limited does not mean impotent nor small...".

    There is not a Republican candidate running for the Presidency who will, if elected, see a 2nd term unless they slash and burn government, regulation and entitlements.

  • CRM Tempe, AZ
    Nov. 10, 2011 11:53 a.m.

    Applicable to the comments of the candidates and to the stream of comments on this board I would like to remember a couple of timeless and immortal words from Thomas Jefferson;
    1) "The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
    2) "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government[s] results from too much government."
    and, (though I'm not positive which of our illustrative fore-fathers said this)
    3) "Government is destined to fail whrn it imposes over taxation, over regulation and the rewarding of poor performance."

    Based on those comments, which are truly prophetic, we (our government)appears to be on the cusp of failure.

  • shaun_ SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 10:24 a.m.

    It was interesting to hear what the circus, the GOP, had to say. I can not believe that anyone is calling for less regulations on banks. They are allowed to create money out of thin air and yet republicans(except ron paul) want to give them more power to ruin our economy.

  • Marrion Barry provo, Ut
    Nov. 10, 2011 10:23 a.m.

    The guy in the picture looks like a zombie.

  • barndog48 AMERICAN FORK, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 10:15 a.m.

    Anything the reality challenged Bachman says isnt all that surprising. Mitt Romney on the other hand knows better. He is pandering to the truly stupid for votes. The problem is we all suffer when politicians are willing to play the game of "Best Liar" to wooo those voters who will hear only what they want to hear.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 10:07 a.m.

    Those far right folks are really bad. They want free enterprise, lower taxes, less regulation, fewer govt workers, less spending. Yep. My neighbor a banker in a credit union says Frank-Dodd will hurt small business much worse than large as they do not have the staff to comply with the regulations. HE expects many small banks to have to quit.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 10, 2011 10:07 a.m.

    Tort reform--Obama offered to consider Tort reform in his STOU speech. Republicans refuse to come to the bargaining table. Malpractice insurance still rises in states with tort reform.

    International Internet prescription purchasing? Who is going to guarantee the safety and efficacy of those drugs?

    Allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines? A nightmare for physicians, adding to the already overly complex billing system. And what would a CA resident's recourse be if a health insurance co. in Wyoming unfairly denied a claim?

    The CBO estimated the Public Option would save $115 billion over 10 yrs.

  • midcl REXBURG, ID
    Nov. 10, 2011 10:04 a.m.

    Oh good, now I can either go the Huffington Post or Deseret News for a daily dose of diatribe, both chose to carry this "all spin zone" piece from Rugaber. For anyone who held common stock and lost it all in the government dictated deal with GM, I'm sure they agree with Romney. Beyond that, it is total spin to say that it was given to the retirement trust fund and not the union. Fiat "acquired????" their shares of Chrysler first by being given the shares directly and then by being given money by the US government to purchase enough more shares to have a controlling interest in the company. (But, I guess that I need to check to see if any of this is open to discussion once Rugaber has laid down THE FACTS). Since I have a word limit I need to end, but let me just say it is disappoointing to find this kind of lame journalism on DN.

  • RShackleford Saint George, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 9:31 a.m.

    Meanwhile, Ron Paul has been Stating the Facts for years. And the establishment (conservative?) politicians just don't get it!

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    Nov. 10, 2011 9:27 a.m.

    pragmatistferlife - You miss the entire point. "The Rock" said he started up a business without any 'direct' hires, hiring instead contract employees. I see this all over the place at small, medium and large businesses. It is a trend born of the rising costs of healthcare, which Obamacare is just adding to.

    Nothing in Obama's "health reform" did anything to bring fdown the cost of health care. It needs to be repealed, and replaced with reform that includes:
    -Tort reform, so Doctors do not have to pay $5k per month in malpractice insurance.
    -Patent reform, so new drugs that recoup their development costs in the first 2 years on the market can't gouge the public for 17 years of patent protection.
    -Prescription drug purchase availability internationally via the internet.
    -Allowing more health care providers access accross all markets in the US, instead of limiting access to a few players in each.

    These reforms will drive down cost. Driving down cost will allow more employers to offer health insurance, and will enable more employees to participate in it, lessening pressure on local, state and federal government to pick up the tab - also good for the deficit. Get it now?

  • The Missing Link A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Nov. 10, 2011 8:54 a.m.

    GOP greed, power and corruption has no common sense. WOW, DNews published something mildly critical of their favorite son Romney!?. Should we cut Defense spending? Get rid of the oil subsidies?. U.S. and global economies are heading for "The Great Stagnation." The ultra-wealthy have continued to prosper, as the American middle class is vanishing before our eyes. The last 10 years have brought about an unprecedented financial disaster for the average family on Main Street. Since the year 2000, the U.S. stock market has lost more than 20%. Thats more than a decade with nothing to show but losses for millions of investors. The housing crash has erased tens of trillions more in household net worth. Not even our money in the bank has been safe, as the U.S. dollar has lost 35% of its value and the price of everything from healthcare to food, fuel, utilities and education is soaring. Not only have the retirement accounts and net worth of millions been decimated but we are facing higher prices across the board, while bringing home less each month. I think we should also tax the Koch Brother's types, Wall Street and K-Street.

  • utesovertide Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 8:53 a.m.

    The Rock:

    I was thinking to the exact same points when I was reading the article. The bailout/bankruptcy did indeed hand the company to the Unions at the expense of the bond holders that were first in line to receive payment. Many normal American citizens likely were invested in the funds that got pushed to the back of the line meaning that many Americans got smacked twice. Once for taxpayer money, once for having bond rights stripped from us.


    Advocating bankruptcy without a bailout is not letting a company "go under". No one, especially Romney, was advocating that GM fail and close their doors. The point of bankruptcy is to allow the company to restructure their obligations, and come back healthy. So the up and down chain effects to suppliers and customers would have been minimal.

    The worst part is, even the reviled Uncle Ben at the Fed warned not to bail out the autos, and to let them enter bankruptcy. Obama ignored this, and ended up giving them large funding and then watching the company go bankrupt anyway.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 8:49 a.m.

    Tell me if I'm wrong, but the top Wall Street firms receiving bailouts, have repayed them with interest---the government has made money on most of them. TARP ended up not being that much money to the taxpayers. The government has said it will sell it's shares of stock it owns in companies on the open market. If we all believe in free markets, then surely the government has a right to make a profit??

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 8:38 a.m.

    Is The Rock a health care worker? If not, why would ANYONE want him providing them health care (other than in an emergency/first aid situation)?

    But wait, the Rock doesn't even HAVE any employees, so how can he be denying them health insurance (which is probably what you meant)?

    And why doesn't the Rock have any employees? Obamacare.

    He cites a clear example of how Obamacare stiffles employment and you ignore that to complain about his supposed selfishness.

    The Rock was correct when he told of how the bondholders were cheated in the bankruptcy proceedings to the union's benefit. I noticed you couldn't refute that so you ignored it.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 8:37 a.m.

    As a lifetime Republican and conservative, I will be the first to advocate for "limited Government." But limited does not mean impotent nor small.

    The limits placed on the Federal Government by the Constitution, and the balance of power among the branches of government, were not designed to ensure any particular size or potency of government.

    Rather, they are designed to focus the power of government on key aspects of a "more perfect union" that only a powerful and effective government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" can ensure.

    The government does have the authority and power to regulate interstate commerce, as well as to protect the welfare of US citizens from the harm that large, impersonal corporations may inflct on "the little guy".

    There was nothing about the "bailout" that violated the Constitution, and the stimulus actions Obama finally approved were consistent with what Bush was putting in place anyway.

    As conservatives, we Republicans must be committed to "conserving" the Defense, General Welfare, and Blessings of Liberty that underpin our way of life. That includes regulations to protect common citizens from greedy WallStreet leveraged speculation, Casino hedge fund manipulation, or labor exploitation.

  • larri3 Farmington, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 8:37 a.m.

    A friend and I decided not to buy a business two years ago precisely because Obamacare was being discussed. The business is a national franchise that provides a service at a moderate cost. At the time Obamacare had not passed and most experts thought that it would not pass, but the problem for us was that it was projected to cost the company approximately the same as it was making in profits. We did not want to put our assets at risk by buying a company that might end up breaking even. We backed out, the business shut down, and all the employees went on unemployment. Multiply this scenario a few thousand times, and you'll see that Obamacare indeed has had an extremely negative impact on the job market.

    I also have seen how regulations hurt business. I've given up two businesses primarily because of onerous governmental regulations. Huge businesses can afford to hire full-time employees to deal with thousands of pages of regulations and mountains of paperwork. A small company can't do it. Goodbye small business. Hello Walmart and Bank of America.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 8:27 a.m.

    Vince: Can you list the "facts" stated in this article?

    Like a previous poster, I see a lot of opinion, a lot of spin, a lot of interpretive analysis, but I see almost nothing that I could call a "fact." Perhaps you view them as "facts" because they happen to be more in line with your political viewpoints but doesn't that make you guilty of the same charge you levied against "the ruling majority in this state?"

  • sergio Phoenix, AZ
    Nov. 10, 2011 8:23 a.m.

    It seems the only candidate in the debates whose true interest is in serving his country the USA is Ron Paul. The others it seems their primary interest is their self interest: they want the glory of president for themselves and they are willing to say or do what ever it takes to get to the top.

  • Jonathan Eddy Payson, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 8:16 a.m.

    Regulation is the problem?

    How much regulation was in place during the mortgage backed security debacle. NONE! Government uncharacteristically turned a blind eye, allowing Wall Street to create their own Casino Royale, fleecing millions out of trillions.

    I have no faith in any candidate that lacks the courage to call a spade a spade.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 10, 2011 8:08 a.m.

    Nice "The Rock", you start a business but you're unwilling to provide health care for your employees..the single most important source of health insurance for americans. Now if you pay your employees an extra couple of bucks an hour so they can buy their own insurance good for you. I doubt that's the case though given you said you chose to hire temps so you don't have to provide any health benefits. You are the very reason the health care act was passed and why the government has regulations. Regulations are intended to blunt, mitigate, or change the undesireable effects of free markets. You are free to start a business, however the fact is access to health care is primarily obtained through employment, so if a society deems access to health care for everyone desirable then when employers don't provide it, society/government may step in and alter that outcome for the good of society. Yes you may be creating jobs but you are also thwarting a desired goal of society in the process.

    Not a perfect outcome here, but large societal goals are being met here. Solution..take health insurance away from employment..single payer.

  • Vince the boonies, mexico
    Nov. 10, 2011 8:07 a.m.

    That is a "great" article! It doesn't meet the thinking and ignorance of the ruling majority in this state, but it tells these dreamers that maybe just maybe they should fact check more than they do instead of spouting and whinning constantly!

  • Kim Cedar Park, Texas
    Nov. 10, 2011 7:55 a.m.

    Thank you for printing this article. During election years politicians get fast and loose with the facts. This year is seems to be worse than others. Newspapers provide a great service when they hold politicians to account for their distortions and misrepresentations. I find your article fair and unbiased. The facts that you quote are not your own, but from reputable economists not tied to politicians.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 7:54 a.m.

    Christopher: Unfortunately, I don't believe a word you said. Show me a writer, or politician, that will just tell the truth about why America is suffering right now and why Government isn't the answer to relieving that suffering and I'll know you are beginning to see the truth! Otherwise, the partisan bickering will continue.

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 7:53 a.m.

    OK...this "article" clearly belongs in the Opinion section, even though it was written by an AP reporter as a straight news story. The entire article is a debate against GOP political positions, not an actual "fact check". A true Fact Check should stick to clearly verifiable black/white facts that are not the subject of partisan debate, i.e. everyone can agree on what's true.

    Example: Everyone would agree that saying the US population is 200 million, when it's verifiably 300 million, is a fact check. But saying that regulation isn't really a problem for US businesses is another story entirely - that's a political argument subject to complicated debate. You may think you're right, you may even BE right, but it's no "fact check."

  • 3grandslams Iowa City, IA
    Nov. 10, 2011 7:43 a.m.

    So I get it now. Republicans can't make generalized statements, it's considered wrong. But the Dems can spout off generalizatoins all the time and get a free pass (i.we the tea party is racist,conservatives hate illegal immigrants, they want to destroy social security, etc).

    Nice double standard, I haven't even talked about the treatement liberals are giving Cain vs. Clinton.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Nov. 10, 2011 7:34 a.m.

    Pinch me I must be dreaming, DNews published something even mildly critical of their favorite son!

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 10, 2011 7:30 a.m.

    Why doesn't someone actually investigate where all the "bailout" money actually went within GM and Chysler? Answer: because Obama and the Democrats are hiding where it actually went; the UAW! Honestly folks, where do you think the money actually went? And some of you get down on Romney for asking honest questions that every American should insist on knowing! Dirty money anyone?

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 7:25 a.m.

    How is it that the government owns a stake in either of these companies? Is this free market capitalism or is it communism? Why the government owns any part of these companies is beyond insane. Too big to fail...we'll see.

  • FDRfan safety dictates, ID
    Nov. 10, 2011 6:20 a.m.

    Is all of this misinformation because of ignorance or by deliberate design to achieve a goal? Either way it is reprehensible. But the important question is: do we really want the truth?

  • fed up Provo, UT
    Nov. 10, 2011 3:16 a.m.

    How can this article pretend to be journalism? This is nothing but a distorted, biased attack on anyone opposing the would be dictator Obama. Please stop printing this article as "news."

    If GM had been allowed to go under, the bond holders (who were guaranteed first priority) would not have been wiped out, the union would not have been protected and a successor company(ies) would have arisen placing the auto industry in a stronger position without government and union ownership.

    Big government, big unions and big businesses are wrong. Make them all much smaller.

  • Isthisforeal BLACKFOOT, ID
    Nov. 9, 2011 11:05 p.m.

    As I sit in a meeting with an EPA employee tomorrow I can promise you he cannot even provide the information I will need to comply with their new regs. They are anybodies guess, but the new regs will move forward on the backs resource related industries.

    Has this author ever produced anything but his opinion?

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Nov. 9, 2011 11:01 p.m.

    Somebody should fact check the fact checker.

    Chrysler and GM bond holders were legally in the first position to be paid. Obama over rode their legal rights and instead gave away the store to the UAW.

    Robbing Peter to pay his buddies is what Obama does best.

    As for Obama Care. Heck yes that is a drag. I recently launched a new business and I refuse to hire any direct employees because of Obama Care. Regulations create a huge barrier to entry for manufacturing businesses. The regulatory burden costs American's $1.75 Trillion each year. Many of these regulations do little but increase costs and make life difficult for employers.

    Get rid of the abuse and watch the economy take off.

  • Isthisforeal BLACKFOOT, ID
    Nov. 9, 2011 11:00 p.m.

    This author is I'll informed. EPA means eliminate production agriculture. The regulation is ridiculous and growing. There are issues the EPA is court ordered to do and still moves at a snails pace. Regulation costs business big in this country and forces the creation of non revenue producing jobs. The kind of jobs Washington loves.

    Perhaps this author should get out from behind his desk and see the real world of the EPA.

  • JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt Beverly Hills, CA
    Nov. 9, 2011 10:34 p.m.

    Romney, come on, stop pandering to the far far right.

    If anyone educated themselves on the auto industry you would realize that of GM and Chrysler went under, parts suppliers that support ALL BRANDS would have suffered. Parts such as airbags supplied by Auoliv etc. would not have survived and you wouldn't have been able to buy a new car from any manufacturer.

    Also, the manufacturing base of this country is eroding and Romney supports sending those jobs overseas? How am I not surprised. Another reason I can't be a registered Republican and went independent, they support companies that are sending US manufacturing jobs overseas and are always looking for ways to do it.

  • phatness SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 9, 2011 10:23 p.m.

    This was a misleading, poorly written article. "THE FACTS" (I love how that was all in caps - as if that made the "facts" stated somehow more impenetrable to scrutiny) seem to actually be skewed statistics with a fair amount of spin. I'm sure there will be some readers that will fact check the facts in the article and post in the comments.

    The shame is that only a fraction of the people that read the article will read the corrections presented in the comments. Alas, the media still has such sway on what we think, and therefore how we vote...