Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-30-2012, 09:09 AM   #1
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Romney swings at Obama's auto bailout, hits himself

Sorry just loved the title................

flip flop flip flop...

QuoteQuote:
In the ad, titled "Who will do more?," the narrator notes the support Romney has received from former Chrysler chief Lee Iacocca and the conservative Detroit News. Then, against a backdrop of cars being crushed into scrap metal, the narrator says, "Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy."

PHOTOS: Six numbers to ignore from the presidential campaign

Yes he did. Of course, that's also what Romney called for in a New York Times op-ed in 2008, when the Big Three were pleading with Congress for a federal bailout. "A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs," he wrote, arguing that the federal government's help should be limited to investments in basic research, "guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing" and assurances that buyers' warranties would be honored.

The difference between the two approaches is that Obama was willing to provide the loans necessary to keep GM and Chrysler operating as they went through bankruptcy. The most Romney would have done was provide guarantees for private-sector loans, on the quixotic belief that such guarantees would entice banks to step in with billions of dollars in otherwise high-risk loans at the height of the credit crunch.

Direct loans were the only sure way to keep the companies going, and judging by an op-ed Romney wrote for the Detroit News in February, that route simply wasn't acceptable to him.

In that piece, Romney excoriates the "crony capitalism" that led to, among other things, the Treasury Department becoming a major shareholder in GM. But that was an unavoidable outcome of the administration's "debtor in possession" loans, which were converted from debt to equity (that is, shares) as part of the restructuring.

Here's how the Detroit News put it in the same editorial that endorsed Romney:

"The president stepped up with the support the two automakers needed to keep themselves and their suppliers in business. We have said in past editorials that while Romney rightly advocated for structured bankruptcies in his infamous 'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt' New York Times op-ed, he was wrong in suggesting the automakers could have found operating capital in the private markets. In that article, Romney suggested government-backed loans to keep the companies afloat post bankruptcy. But what GM and Chrysler needed were bridge loans to get them through the process, and the private credit markets were unwilling to provide them. Obama put a rescue team to work and they were true to the task."

Naturally, Romney's ad doesn't stop there. It goes on to claim that the administration "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China." Although Italian automaker Fiat did buy Chrysler (as well as the federal government's stake in the company), the claim about China is "simply not true," according to FactCheck.org, citing a statement by Chrysler. The company says it's exploring ways to increase production of Jeeps in China and "has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America" (emphasis in the original).

More than that, it's beyond cynical for a supposed defender of free-market capitalism to complain about a privately owned company's decision to locate manufacturing assets where they best serve the company's interests. But Romney's been stung by reports that the private-equity firm he ran, Bain Capital, invested in numerous companies that sent jobs overseas -- reports that Obama and his allies have touted throughout the campaign. Clearly, demagoguery about offshoring isn't the exclusive province of Democrats in this campaign.
Romney swings at Obama's auto bailout, hits himself - latimes.com

Every day Romney appears even stupider.............

10-30-2012, 10:38 AM   #2
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
Where he should have punched on the Government Motors is the way the bailout was handled. Number 2 is he sent Chrsysler back off shore to the Italians. 3) Rhombo hasnt clearly asked obama why Ford did ok with Governent take over.

Then there is Government Electric . . .

Last edited by Blue; 10-30-2012 at 10:44 AM.
10-30-2012, 01:57 PM   #3
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,306
Remember that there were at least two other governments involved in the bailouts. And Blue, the global econonmy means buyers from other countries can buy American corporations the same as American corporations buy foreign ones; SAAB,Volvo, Jag parts of Mazda and other Asian ones as well.

Our far right conservatibe Prime Minister who holds a degree in Economics and the Liberal Premier of Ontario were also part of the bail out so perhaps it was more a practical rather than an ideological decision and it supposedly was also to save the parts industry that depends on the big three and the communities that depend on them.

AS far as Ford goes perhaps if the economic crisis had occurred six or 12 years earlier either President Bush or Clinton would have had to act to save the auto industry and Ford rather than GM would have been on the receiving end as Ford has had problems in the past as has many large corporations. My point is the bail out was a responsible action that at least three governments in two countries, the unions (there are two major unions which do not get along that went along with the rollbacks etc), managment and shareholders. Ford was in a position not to need it at that time however if the other two went under so would have some of the parts suppliers and then Ford would have been in a more difficult time of making a profit.

I think that any President or Prime Minister who was not an ideolog would have been involved in the bailout. Obviously the terms and conditions would have varied but probably not a great amount but that is just my thought without any evidence to back it up. The US, Canada and Ontario are better off due to bailout the auto industry then they would have been otherwise. There have been plant re-openings and added shifts since the bailouts. There is also the matter of all the dealers etc through both countries, export sales of NA products and all the other spin off jobs and companies. And not allowing FIAT to buy Chrysler would have spoken volumes of the US lead free market idea, and perhaps a back lash to American companies buy up oversea ones.
10-30-2012, 02:19 PM   #4
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteQuote:
Oct. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Ford Motor Co., the only large U.S. automaker that didn’t receive a U.S. government bailout, would’ve failed along with General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC if President Barack Obama’s administration hadn’t rescued the industry, said Steven Rattner, who headed Obama’s auto task force.

“Ford would have closed because it wouldn’t have been able to get parts, because the parts industry in this country was in arguably worse shape than the assemblers,” Rattner said today at the Center for American Progress in Washington.
Read more: Ford Would Have Failed Without Bailouts, Rattner Says - SFGate

QuoteQuote:
Ford Chief Executive Officer Alan Mulally last month made similar comments, saying he doesn’t regret testifying before Congress in support of taxpayer support for his competitors.

“We think about that a lot, should we have gone back and testified on behalf of our competitors who were bankrupt,” Mulally told reporters Sept. 18 in New York. “I would do the same thing again today.”

Mulally said he agreed with the assessment of “the economic advisers of the Bush administration and the Obama administration that if GM and Chrysler had gone into free fall, they could have taken the United States from a recession into a depression.”
Read more: Ford Would Have Failed Without Bailouts, Rattner Says - SFGate

not sure why we have to rehash the "inconvenient truths"...............

10-31-2012, 05:46 AM   #5
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
I would agree with the premise of this thread if I had any confidence that voters care how many times Mitt Romney blatantly and provably lies.

QuoteQuote:
“We've clearly entered some parallel universe during these last few days,” GM spokesman Greg Martin said. “No amount of campaign politics at its cynical worst will diminish our record of creating jobs in the U.S. and repatriating profits back to this country.”
GM calls latest Romney auto ad 'politics at its cynical worst' | Auto news | Detroit Free Press | freep.com
10-31-2012, 07:04 AM   #6
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
QuoteOriginally posted by redrockcoulee Quote
Remember that there were at least two other governments involved in the bailouts. And Blue, the global econonmy means buyers from other countries can buy American corporations the same as American corporations buy foreign ones; SAAB,Volvo, Jag parts of Mazda and other Asian ones as well.

Our far right conservatibe Prime Minister who holds a degree in Economics and the Liberal Premier of Ontario were also part of the bail out so perhaps it was more a practical rather than an ideological decision and it supposedly was also to save the parts industry that depends on the big three and the communities that depend on them.

AS far as Ford goes perhaps if the economic crisis had occurred six or 12 years earlier either President Bush or Clinton would have had to act to save the auto industry and Ford rather than GM would have been on the receiving end as Ford has had problems in the past as has many large corporations. My point is the bail out was a responsible action that at least three governments in two countries, the unions (there are two major unions which do not get along that went along with the rollbacks etc), managment and shareholders. Ford was in a position not to need it at that time however if the other two went under so would have some of the parts suppliers and then Ford would have been in a more difficult time of making a profit.

I think that any President or Prime Minister who was not an ideolog would have been involved in the bailout. Obviously the terms and conditions would have varied but probably not a great amount but that is just my thought without any evidence to back it up. The US, Canada and Ontario are better off due to bailout the auto industry then they would have been otherwise. There have been plant re-openings and added shifts since the bailouts. There is also the matter of all the dealers etc through both countries, export sales of NA products and all the other spin off jobs and companies. And not allowing FIAT to buy Chrysler would have spoken volumes of the US lead free market idea, and perhaps a back lash to American companies buy up oversea ones.

You missed my entire point. Chrysler went off shore, again. If Rhombo did it, it would be called "out sourcing." Plus, the way the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler were handled in a peculiar way.
10-31-2012, 09:01 AM   #7
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler were handled in a peculiar way.
but it worked.. pragmatism won, not "ideology"...............

10-31-2012, 10:08 AM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 2,867
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
You missed my entire point. Chrysler went off shore, again. If Rhombo did it, it would be called "out sourcing." Plus, the way the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler were handled in a peculiar way.
You mean ownership went off-shore - did anything really change beyond that? Guess what, our new Fiat is made in the same factory that the now defunct PT Cruiser was made. The PT Cruiser, there was a fine show of American Workmanship...oh wait, the factory is in Mexico! Hahaha. It seems Chrysler was outsourcing LONNNGGGGG before Fiat came to town.

So in a nutshell - Rich Chrysler owners lose jobs to Rich Fiat owners - everything else, status quo.

Edit: Chrysler also long discontinued their compact Dodge Neon in 2005, built at an American Plant - the Plant was close to being shuttered in 2009 until Fiat came in and has begun production of the new dodge dart there. There is another tick in the box for Fiat creating jobs. So what exactly is your problem with Fiat?

Last edited by pxpaulx; 10-31-2012 at 10:14 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bankruptcy, campaign, chrysler, companies, detroit, gm, loans, obama, op-ed, romney
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Romney victory would vindicate right wing smears of Obama jeffkrol General Talk 2 10-30-2012 08:22 AM
Obama or Romney...Who Would Be The Most Beneficial to America, & The World? pickles General Talk 78 09-06-2012 05:53 AM
Mitt Romney Senior Advisor Sanunu : Obama smoking something jogiba General Talk 3 07-19-2012 06:26 AM
Santorum: Obama better than ‘Etch A Sketch’ Romney jogiba General Talk 10 03-25-2012 06:34 AM
John McCain Endorses Mitt Romney (Mistakenly President Obama) For 2012 jogiba General Talk 2 01-06-2012 04:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:31 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top