• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [3:30 PM CDT] - in 25 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney Flip Flops again. Auto bailout was "his idea"

Dion said:
Romney was willing to let more American jobs and manufacturing go to Asia.

Obama's admin emergency loans saved over a million jobs and that the U.S. auto industry had created 120,000+ jobs since the companies emerged from their restructurings with some phenomenal products.

Romney is a sell out to a few and his steaming mess of his 'plan" has given him fog brain and an embarrassing window into his "big business" ideas.

No doubt in my mind Romney could have liquidated and made some multi millions for a handful ... however I am glad he was not POTUS and just McCain's sore loser blowing hot air at our American auto industry. China would have been frothing at the mouth over a Romney plan on that one!

Way to go ... United States of America!
Click to expand...

Even a blind person knows that was nothing mor then pay back to the Unions.. like Obama cares about "cars"? Id bet that Obama cant even drive..He cant throw a baseball, hit a golf ball , or play basketball.
 
I've always said I'd vote for a "flip-flopper" long before an ideologue. I want someone who's analysis of a situation changes as the situation changes. I want a president who can adapt to new information.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
I've always said I'd vote for a "flip-flopper" long before an ideologue. I want someone who's analysis of a situation changes as the situation changes. I want a president who can adapt to new information.
Click to expand...

I agree, but that's not what Romney does. Romney simply changes positions on the basis of political expediency.
 
AdamT said:
I agree, but that's not what Romney does. Romney simply changes positions on the basis of political expediency.
Click to expand...

As others have pointed out, Romney's position on this didn't really change -- he used it as the basis for political attacks, yes, and that's pretty hypocritical, but such is an election year.

In truth, both candidates are going to spin the GM bailout, and both are telling half-truths about it. The bailout happened in December 2008 -- under Bush. The managed bankruptcy took place under Obama. Obama's going to campaign at GM factories and try to play up the health of the industry and the administration's role without regard to the previous administration's involvement. Meanwhile, Romney's going to play up the losers in the deal (for example, Delphi salaried workers) without regard to the probability that the same people would have been screwed under his administration.
 
AdamT said:
I agree, but that's not what Romney does. Romney simply changes positions on the basis of political expediency.
Click to expand...


Id vote for Mitts dog.. over Obama the idealogue Kenyan..who nonody ever knew.. he has no friends from childhood and nobody knows how he got from Occidental to Harvard or who paid for this to happen.. but this Obama hes a great amercan...
 
drz-400 said:
Actually, for those that have done their research on the GM bankruptcy, Mitt Romney was spot on with what needed to happen in his 2008 op-ed. His general idea was pretty much implemented by Obama in 2009. The only flip flop exposed is that Romney's February Editorial should not have criticized Obama for following his plan. Although saying Obama did the right thing is not good for his campaign either so I do not fault him. The whole "collapse of the auto industry" in the last paragraph is BS because we pretty much did what Romney said to do in 08.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say, "spot on" ...

"IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed." ~ Mitt Romney, 11.18.2008

... they did get bailed out and their demise, as predicted by Romney, did not occur.
 
AdamT said:
I agree, but that's not what Romney does. Romney simply changes positions on the basis of political expediency.
Click to expand...

The word you're describing is, 'pandering,' which is the best word to describe Mitt Romney.

Etch-A-Sketch-Romney.jpg
 
Flippinfunky said:
Do my posts bother you? Or is it my support for Obama? Tough ****, deal with it.
Click to expand...

its actually the flawed logic which stands out... as well as this feinted sudden appearance of Romney's stance on the issue... which has been spoken about for months...

Romney was right... the way this ought to have been dealt with was by bankruptcy proceedings...

not the American taxpayer spending $80B, then giving bankruptcy proceedings, where GM and Chrysler used government funds from escrot to pay off the government loans... while they were able to falsely purport this as "paying back the loans in full", despite still being on the taxpayer tab for $40B still... and that's without counting the cash for clunkers, and tax breaks / incentives for the Chevy Volt... etc. Then, as a result, the US Government favors the union workers, and parts suppliers who are union based over those that werent...

The following is an excellent congressional panel hearing on the long term effects of the auto-bailout...



Now, if we had only followed Romney's plan... we would be free of all that...
 
Dion said:
No doubt in my mind Romney could have liquidated and made some multi millions for a handful ... however I am glad he was not POTUS and just McCain's sore loser blowing hot air at our American auto industry. China would have been frothing at the mouth over a Romney plan on that one!
Click to expand...
LMFAO!!! Yes, China would be ecstatic for the new dominance of that great Chinese auto-maker... whose name escapes EVERYONE ON EARTH atm...

In fact... as a result of the Obama Administrations auto-buyout, the Chinese had more of our debt that they could buy up... so Obama's buyout favored China... go figure (since one of the major architects of the plan, Bloom, had praised Maoism)...

Ford succeeded without a cent from the US Taxpayer... GM could have as well if they attempted to do so... instead, they knew they had a sucker at the helm who would hand over government funds to do so... piggy backing on the Wall St bailout... looking for their handout... and we are still short $40B in funds as a result... That's not good for America in any way...
 
AdamT said:
Romney is being fundamentally dishonest (he's a huge liar) on this issue. His response during the debates was that he supported a managed bankruptcy, but he thought it should be done privately. But he has GOT to know that there was absolutely no chance of that happening in 2009 when companies were having a hard time getting loans to make payroll, let alone fund a $100 billion reorganization. Given Romney's private equity background, it is inconceivable that he actually believes this was a possibility. This guy is a straight-up con man. I wouldn't buy a used car from him, let alone a BS story about the bailouts.
Click to expand...
Oh hey look.... someone else can find old video, too...


It looks here like Matt Lauer just said "Boy, you got this right" (auto-bailout topic begins at 1:31)

That's what he said... that's a guy who had what he said in person, and then saw that's what turned out happening... and then asks him about what should be done, and it's exactly what he's been saying all along...

Yes, you've identified that it's what Romney has done for a living, and knows exactly what to do when its happening... (as he was proven right about)

Thing is... the auto-industry got its turnaround... what about the rest of the economy? It's still in this afraid state, of government regulation and taxation, much like it was at the end of the Carter administration...

This is what we need Romney for... because he recognizes the action on the ground, looks through data, finds the best approach, and then executes it...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Oh hey look.... someone else can find old video, too...


It looks here like Matt Lauer just said "Boy, you got this right" (auto-bailout topic begins at 1:31)

That's what he said... that's a guy who had what he said in person, and then saw that's what turned out happening... and then asks him about what should be done, and it's exactly what he's been saying all along...

Yes, you've identified that it's what Romney has done for a living, and knows exactly what to do when its happening... (as he was proven right about)

Thing is... the auto-industry got its turnaround... what about the rest of the economy? It's still in this afraid state, of government regulation and taxation, much like it was at the end of the Carter administration...

This is what we need Romney for... because he recognizes the action on the ground, looks through data, finds the best approach, and then executes it...
Click to expand...


Romney is a lying sack of crap. He knows full well that a private managed bankruptcy was not an option -- not in a million years. You think GM and Chrysler didn't try that route? Who do you think owned Chrylser, for Christ's sake? It was owned by Cerberus Capital Management -- a private equity fund.
 
AdamT said:
Romney is a lying sack of crap. He knows full well that a private managed bankruptcy was not an option -- not in a million years. You think GM and Chrysler didn't try that route? Who do you think owned Chrylser, for Christ's sake? It was owned by Cerberus Capital Management -- a private equity fund.
Click to expand...
It's different when you try it on bankruptcy, since the private equity knows the initial investment is much lower at that point, and the rate of return can be higher... Hence why its such a mistake that the US Govt did what it did... buying GM stock when it was over $50/share... and now can't recover from the low $30s... So we won't recover those funds... whereas if they went to bankruptcy, the stock wouldve plumeted, and then the government could've acted as an investor... without the buyout...

(oh and just because Chrysler was owned by a private equity firm, doesnt mean that firm can speak for the actions of other firms... instead it speaks to that they were only acting on their own behalf of what's in their best interests... )
 
Last edited:
IndepCentristMA said:
It's different when you try it on bankruptcy, since the private equity knows the initial investment is much lower at that point, and the rate of return can be higher... Hence why its such a mistake that the US Govt did what it did... buying GM stock when it was over $50/share... and now can't recover from the low $30s... So we won't recover those funds... whereas if they went to bankruptcy, the stock wouldve plumeted, and then the government could've acted as an investor... without the buyout...

(oh and just because Chrysler was owned by a private equity firm, doesnt mean that firm can speak for the actions of other firms... instead it speaks to that they were only acting on their own behalf of what's in their best interests... )
Click to expand...

So the new line is that government followed Romney's plan to the dime, but Romney is an idiot? :lol:

The bottom line is that Romney was right about doing a managed bankruptcy, which is what Obama did, but Romney was lying when he suggested that it could have been done without government funding.
 
How do you think Romney made his $250-$300 million, multiple mansions and so many expensive cars that he needs an elevator to sort them?

By throwing American auto workers under the bus - “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt!”

How it must irk the conservatives that the son of a former Governor of Michigan turned his back on the autoworkers, while a son of a "Kenyan" intervened and save the industry!
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I wouldn't say, "spot on" ...

"IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed." ~ Mitt Romney, 11.18.2008

... they did get bailed out and their demise, as predicted by Romney, did not occur.
Click to expand...

Your history is mistaken. On 11/7/2008 the big three autos came to DC to ask for money, for which they did not recieve any bailout money. On 11/18/2008 Romney wrote this. Though later, in December GM and chrysler did recieve some bailout money from tarp, which obviously did nothing to save the companies. In June of 09 GM entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and were put through bankruptcy as Mitt Romney advocated in his 08 op-ed.
 
Sometimes it's difficult to discern just where Romney does stand on several issues, including this one.

He could stand up and tell the public just where he does stand and take an unwavering stance on the major issues regardless of what his audience thinks.

You know, much like Ron Paul does. How has that strategy worked for Ron Paul?
 
drz-400 said:
Your history is mistaken. On 11/7/2008 the big three autos came to DC to ask for money, for which they did not recieve any bailout money. On 11/18/2008 Romney wrote this. Though later, in December GM and chrysler did recieve some bailout money from tarp, which obviously did nothing to save the companies. In June of 09 GM entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and were put through bankruptcy as Mitt Romney advocated in his 08 op-ed.
Click to expand...

The December bailout was coordinated between the Bush administration and the incoming Obama administration (principally between Paulson and Summers). It was absolutely necessary in order to provide GM and Chrysler enough operating cash to survive the next several months so that the Obama administration could put together the bailout. Bush was ambivalent about it but he didn't want the liquidation of 2/3 of the American auto industry on his report card.
 
AdamT said:
So the new line is that government followed Romney's plan to the dime, but Romney is an idiot? :lol:

The bottom line is that Romney was right about doing a managed bankruptcy, which is what Obama did, but Romney was lying when he suggested that it could have been done without government funding.
Click to expand...

No, the line is that if we followed Romney's plan we couldve had them in managed bankruptcy before dishing out $80B... $40B of which likely won't ever be recovered... But, again, you're proving your inability to discern fact from opinion...

The bottom line is... that we will never know what could've been with GM, because the Obama administration used the approach that Rahm Emanuel let out of the bag... "Never let a good crisis go to waste"... They saw a weakened auto-industry and sought to maniupulate it in the way they wanted to... pro-union, and eco-cars... much of which is flopping... Those EVs are over priced and required additional tax breaks from the government to intice sales (most of which were buy large individual purchasers)... and the high cost of union labor will plague GM and leave it behind foreign companies such as Hyundai and Kia in the coming decade... Don't pretend that their current success, which came off the backs of how the tsunami effected the Japanese parts manufacturers for Toyota, Honda, and Ford, is any indicator of how GM will fair in the long term...

We could've seen the opposite approach... whereby the market dictated how the company should restructure... with cheaper labor, and more marketable cars for the future... and had them come out of bankruptcy on their own... without government funding... But Obama prevented that from occcuring...

See... if the Government had let them go to bankruptcy... and no private enterprise stepped in, the government could've stepped in at that later point... after giving the free market a go... instead, both Bush and Obama blew this... and set up an awful model for failing companies in the future... whine to the government...
 
Dittohead not! said:
Sometimes it's difficult to discern just where Romney does stand on several issues, including this one.

He could stand up and tell the public just where he does stand and take an unwavering stance on the major issues regardless of what his audience thinks.

You know, much like Ron Paul does. How has that strategy worked for Ron Paul?
Click to expand...
Um... it hasn't... He even had less delegates than Gingrich...

and Romney has stood up on this issue and taken an unwavering response...

This isn't a story of Romney changing... it's a story of other people reacting to what Romney says differently, now...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
No, the line is that if we followed Romney's plan we couldve had them in managed bankruptcy before dishing out $80B... $40B of which likely won't ever be recovered... But, again, you're proving your inability to discern fact from opinion...

The bottom line is... that we will never know what could've been with GM, because the Obama administration used the approach that Rahm Emanuel let out of the bag... "Never let a good crisis go to waste"... They saw a weakened auto-industry and sought to maniupulate it in the way they wanted to... pro-union, and eco-cars... much of which is flopping... Those EVs are over priced and required additional tax breaks from the government to intice sales (most of which were buy large individual purchasers)... and the high cost of union labor will plague GM and leave it behind foreign companies such as Hyundai and Kia in the coming decade... Don't pretend that their current success, which came off the backs of how the tsunami effected the Japanese parts manufacturers for Toyota, Honda, and Ford, is any indicator of how GM will fair in the long term...

We could've seen the opposite approach... whereby the market dictated how the company should restructure... with cheaper labor, and more marketable cars for the future... and had them come out of bankruptcy on their own... without government funding... But Obama prevented that from occcuring...

See... if the Government had let them go to bankruptcy... and no private enterprise stepped in, the government could've stepped in at that later point... after giving the free market a go... instead, both Bush and Obama blew this... and set up an awful model for failing companies in the future... whine to the government...
Click to expand...

Could you pull more stuff out of your ass? There was no way to save GM and Chrysler without government intervention. Zero. None. When Romney claims otherwise he is either lying or stupid, and I don't think he's stupid.
 
Romney has a PhD in flip-flopping.
 
Dion said:
Yea, I remember in 2008 when the auto industry and one of the last strongholds of our manufacturing base was on the verge of collapse. Mitt Romney (the career politician and Bain American job destroyer) shouted "let Detroit go bankrupt!" and we could "kiss the American automotive industry goodbye" if Obama was in charge.

Because of the action of this administration the industry is thriving and finally has some cars that compete and they hired over 100,000 workers!

Yes! the American auto industry is now lean, innovative and aggressive and kept jobs in America! Romney was shooting off his mouth and thank god it was only hot air and he was not the POTUS when that decision was made and he was simply a sore loser to McCain.
Click to expand...

The so called auto bailout was a takeover of GM/Chrysler at a cost of $52 per share. Chrysler was sold to Fiat an Italian company and GM stock is selling today for $21 dollars a share meaning that the American taxpayer is in the hole billions of dollars. Only non taxpayers don't care about having billions taken from them to bailout the unions.

Liberals believe if GM/Chrysler failed all those employees would have lost their jobs. The only losses would have been the labor unions and their bloated contracts which of course is a major funding source for Democrat candidates.

GM/Chrysler doesn't constitute the Auto Industry no matter how many times liberals make that claim, nor were the hundred thousand employees going to lose their jobs as some company would have taken over the businesses. Romney got it right yet labor unions are going to distort reality as they always do. Unions and the Democrat Party won this one and the American taxpayers again got the shaft.
 
AdamT said:
Could you pull more stuff out of your ass? There was no way to save GM and Chrysler without government intervention. Zero. None. When Romney claims otherwise he is either lying or stupid, and I don't think he's stupid.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion and those of leftwing zealots whose goal is a massive central govt. controlling production. How has that worked out for Europe? You have no idea whether GM/Chrylser could have been saved through managed bankruptcy.
 
Conservative said:
That is your opinion and those of leftwing zealots whose goal is a massive central govt. controlling production. How has that worked out for Europe? You have no idea whether GM/Chrylser could have been saved through managed bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

No, it is the dead nuts truth and no one who understands the situation and who has an ounce of integrity would deny it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom