Quote

We're concerned with a powerful government who is telling General Motors now, maybe, what they can charge for their automobiles. Indeed, if the government owns 61 percent, they can do that.

I don't think I would have to run a campaign that's financed like General Motors.

We really need a public-interest government that is not taking marching orders from the fossil-fuel industry and the banks and the war profiteers. We really need a government that is acting on our behalf.

For years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors and vice versa. The difference did not exist. Our company is too big. It goes with the welfare of the country.

What really went wrong is that General Motors has had this philosophy from the beginning that what's good for General Motors is good for the country. So, their attitude was, 'We'll build it and you buy it. We'll tell you what to buy. You just buy it.'

One of the things the government can't do is run anything. The only things our government runs are the post office and the railroads, and both of them are bankrupt.

We need to get out of the way of the small business owner - and big business owners - and allow them to do what government can only dream of doing: creating jobs and thereby creating wealth.

We gotta get Fannie and Freddie out of government ownership. It makes no sense that these are owned by the government and have been controlled by the government for as long as they have.

I don't look for much to come out of government ownership as long as we have Democrats and Republicans.

Neither the George W. Bush nor the Obama administrations volunteered to bail out G.M., Chrysler and other parts of the auto sector. Both subscribed firmly to the longstanding American principle that government should resolutely avoid these kinds of interventions, particularly in the industrial sector.