Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet Romney doubled down on his idea, it already having been PROVEN to BE the wrong idea, proven to be an idea that would have ended GM and Chrysler, while at the same time trying to snow the viewing public into believing he always supported the government bailout Obama did. Romney said: I said they need -- these companies need to go through a managed bankruptcy. And in that process, they can get government help and government guarantees, but they need to go through bankruptcy to get rid of excess cost and the debt burden that they'd -- they'd built up. But again, like the GM chairman said, those government after the fact guarantees would not have made a difference because THE BANKS WERE BROKE so there were no banks willing and able to lend that MIGHT be guaranteed by the government. No private financing for government to guarantee + no government financing that Bush started and Obama completed = a Romney plan that, if implemented, would have ended GM and Chrylser altogether AND an array of partsmakers along with them (why Ford was pro-bailout even though they weren't the ones in need of bailout money- those partsmakers potentially put out of business make parts for them too).
Romney's idea would have failed miserably, and the financial evidence as well as the Republican vice chairman of GM demonstrated as much. Yet here we saw in Debate #3 Romney doubling down on his awful idea having been the right one yet declares: Under no circumstances would I do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet. And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry, of course not. Yet the Republican vice chairman of GM himself said that Romney's idea WOULD HAVE liquidated the auto industry. His idea was SHOWN that it would have failed to get the industry on its feet, yet he pushes the same idea again and then in the same breath turns around and tries to say he wouldn't do anything other than help this industry get on its feet. Unflippinbelievable. We would have been in DEPRESSION had Romney's way been done instead of Obama's. But all Romney can do is sit there with that fake grin acting as if his idea was and still is in retrospect the best way to have handled the situation and as if he's a friend to the auto industry.
Wake up Mitt! When auto execs say they would have gone out of business with your way of doing things, that makes your way of doing things NOT FRIENDLY to the auto industry, ie. a miserable failure of an idea, one that should not have been put out in the first place but CERTAINLY should not have been doubled-down on now that you've had TIME to see just how bad an idea it was. Clearly Mitt is way to arrogant to wake up. Hopefully American voters will, and will avoid being snowed by this double-talking snake oil salesman.
Shock of Shock. I still back Romney's plan too. It would have made for a stronger car company and would not have tossed investors under the bus the way Bammer did.
Look, Romney's way would have been the better way to get it done. And Obama lied last night. He asked America to check the record....guess what? I checked the record and Romney was right. Obama lied, one of several lies Obama told last night. But that is typical of Obama. He is a habitual liar.
Romney's plan was to let the car companies go through bankruptcy without government help - but the economy had tanked and there was no private money to the rescue. Under Romney's plan the companies would not have emerged from bankruptcy - they would have gone under and closed. Government money kept them open and saved jobs.
Romney in his own words in an editorial from just over 4 years ago.
Quote:
The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.
Look, Romney's way would have been the better way to get it done.
The vice chairman of GM says Romney's way would have been the end of GM and the American auto industry. Romney's way was to let PRIVATE BANKS fund the loan, and have the government GUARANTEE those loans and not offer any bailout money itself. The problem is that banks were about to go under and WOULDN'T lend under any circumstances. So if he had left it TO those banks as he promoted, and refused government bailout money as he promoted, GM and Chrysler would have GOTTEN no money, closed up shop, and the various auto parts makers as well right behind him. Then those like Ford who didn't need bailout money would not have had auto parts makers to supply them parts, so they wouldn't have been able to build cars and trucks, and they TOO would have ended up crushed. Result- the American auto industry and its jobs would have been lost.
That has been clearly stated by various parties, again including the Republican GM vice chairman. So the DATA says Romney's way would have failed miserably. HOW could automakers get the loans to stay in business if no private bank would lend them the money and the government as well refused to do so? Answer- they couldn't. But Romney doesn't let logic like that stand in the way of him doubling down on a miserable failure of an idea, PROVEN miserable failure of an idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwiley
People can cut clips and spin all they want, but Romney laid out what he wanted for the car company bail outs very clearly.
Yes, private bank financing. But again, at the time, there WAS NO private bank financing to be HAD. NO bank would lend that money. So since no bank wouldn't, if we had done like Romney and said ONLY bank lending, NO government lending, the result would have been no lending AT ALL, neither private nor government, and the automakers would have gone out of business.
How can somebody say private lending was the way to go when there was no private lending to be HAD? Answer- Be Mitt Romney, he can say any garbage and make it fly in the minds of some people, double DOWN on debunked garbage and make it fly in the minds of some people.
In case no one is paying attention...GM went bankrupt after the Obama "bailout". Obama's way sends $30 billion taxpayer dollars down the drain to pay off his union supporters.
Yet Romney doubled down on his idea, it already having been PROVEN to BE the wrong idea, proven to be an idea that would have ended GM and Chrysler, while at the same time trying to snow the viewing public into believing he always supported the government bailout Obama did. Romney said: I said they need -- these companies need to go through a managed bankruptcy. And in that process, they can get government help and government guarantees, but they need to go through bankruptcy to get rid of excess cost and the debt burden that they'd -- they'd built up. But again, like the GM chairman said, those government after the fact guarantees would not have made a difference because THE BANKS WERE BROKE so there were no banks willing and able to lend that MIGHT be guaranteed by the government. No private financing for government to guarantee + no government financing that Bush started and Obama completed = a Romney plan that, if implemented, would have ended GM and Chrylser altogether AND an array of partsmakers along with them (why Ford was pro-bailout even though they weren't the ones in need of bailout money- those partsmakers potentially put out of business make parts for them too).
Romney's idea would have failed miserably, and the financial evidence as well as the Republican vice chairman of GM demonstrated as much. Yet here we saw in Debate #3 Romney doubling down on his awful idea having been the right one yet declares: Under no circumstances would I do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet. And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry, of course not. Yet the Republican vice chairman of GM himself said that Romney's idea WOULD HAVE liquidated the auto industry. His idea was SHOWN that it would have failed to get the industry on its feet, yet he pushes the same idea again and then in the same breath turns around and tries to say he wouldn't do anything other than help this industry get on its feet. Unflippinbelievable. We would have been in DEPRESSION had Romney's way been done instead of Obama's. But all Romney can do is sit there with that fake grin acting as if his idea was and still is in retrospect the best way to have handled the situation and as if he's a friend to the auto industry.
Wake up Mitt! When auto execs say they would have gone out of business with your way of doing things, that makes your way of doing things NOT FRIENDLY to the auto industry, ie. a miserable failure of an idea, one that should not have been put out in the first place but CERTAINLY should not have been doubled-down on now that you've had TIME to see just how bad an idea it was. Clearly Mitt is way to arrogant to wake up. Hopefully American voters will, and will avoid being snowed by this double-talking snake oil salesman.
It's not the government's job to be FRIENDLY to any particular business. If they are losing money, and they can't continue doing business, they need to do what EVERY OTHER BUSINESS THAT'S NOT RUN BY THE UNIONS does - file for bankruptcy. Why are they so special? Well, we all know the answer to that - unions, unions, unions.
Yet Romney doubled down on his idea, it already having been PROVEN to BE the wrong idea, proven to be an idea that would have ended GM and Chrysler, while at the same time trying to snow the viewing public into believing he always supported the government bailout Obama did. Romney said: I said they need -- these companies need to go through a managed bankruptcy. And in that process, they can get government help and government guarantees, but they need to go through bankruptcy to get rid of excess cost and the debt burden that they'd -- they'd built up. But again, like the GM chairman said, those government after the fact guarantees would not have made a difference because THE BANKS WERE BROKE so there were no banks willing and able to lend that MIGHT be guaranteed by the government. No private financing for government to guarantee + no government financing that Bush started and Obama completed = a Romney plan that, if implemented, would have ended GM and Chrylser altogether AND an array of partsmakers along with them (why Ford was pro-bailout even though they weren't the ones in need of bailout money- those partsmakers potentially put out of business make parts for them too).
Romney's idea would have failed miserably, and the financial evidence as well as the Republican vice chairman of GM demonstrated as much. Yet here we saw in Debate #3 Romney doubling down on his awful idea having been the right one yet declares: Under no circumstances would I do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet. And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry, of course not. Yet the Republican vice chairman of GM himself said that Romney's idea WOULD HAVE liquidated the auto industry. His idea was SHOWN that it would have failed to get the industry on its feet, yet he pushes the same idea again and then in the same breath turns around and tries to say he wouldn't do anything other than help this industry get on its feet. Unflippinbelievable. We would have been in DEPRESSION had Romney's way been done instead of Obama's. But all Romney can do is sit there with that fake grin acting as if his idea was and still is in retrospect the best way to have handled the situation and as if he's a friend to the auto industry.
Wake up Mitt! When auto execs say they would have gone out of business with your way of doing things, that makes your way of doing things NOT FRIENDLY to the auto industry, ie. a miserable failure of an idea, one that should not have been put out in the first place but CERTAINLY should not have been doubled-down on now that you've had TIME to see just how bad an idea it was. Clearly Mitt is way to arrogant to wake up. Hopefully American voters will, and will avoid being snowed by this double-talking snake oil salesman.
Romney's plan was to let the car companies go through bankruptcy without government help - but the economy had tanked and there was no private money to the rescue. Under Romney's plan the companies would not have emerged from bankruptcy - they would have gone under and closed. Government money kept them open and saved jobs.
Saved union jobs, you mean. Let's be intellectually honest, at least.
Answer this for me - if the only way to survive was with the government's help, how did Ford manage it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
