• 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!

Conservative Poll: Does Romney deserve credit for the auto-bailout?

Does Romney deserve credit for the auto-bailout?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 11 100.0%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    11

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,298
Reaction score
26,919
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In light of the new comments made by Romney, I thought it would be interesting to ask Conservatives if Romney deserves credit for the new revitalization seen in the Detroit auto industry.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/micheli...y-takes-credit-for-the-auto-bailout-say-what/

In the television interview, however, Romney takes his role further than just proposing an idea. Here’s what he said:

“ My own view, by the way, was that the auto companies needed to go through bankruptcy before government help. And frankly, that’s finally what the president did. He finally took them through bankruptcy. That was the right course I argued for from the very beginning. It was the UAW and the president that delayed the idea of bankruptcy. I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy and finally when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet. So I’ll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry’s come back.”

But where was Romney when the actual work was taking place on the bailout? As far as I could tell at the time, when I was reporting on the story on a daily basis for The Times, he was not involved in any visible way, beyond speaking about it.

There were Republican players who took part in the discussions, including Tenn. Sen. Robert Corker, who insisted that UAW members’ compensation be adjusted to reflect that of transplant auto workers, such as those he represented. Michigan’s former Republican governor, John Engler, now president of The Business Roundtable, did his best to round up support on Capitol Hill, before a Congressional bailout died in the Senate.

And of course, President George W. Bush got things rolling with the first assistance to the car companies, which kicked in just before Barack Obama took office and moved the ball further down the field.

It seems that the people who had a role in this were President Bush and later President Obama. So why is Romney giving himself credit for bringing the auto-industry back up after suggesting they should be allowed to fail?
 
Last edited:
Romney is a retired governor, not a senator/congressman. What did you expect him to do?
 
In light of the new comments made by Romney, I thought it would be interesting to ask Conservatives if Romney deserves credit for the new revitalization seen in the Detroit auto industry.

Mitt Romney Takes Credit For The Auto Bailout. Say, What? - Forbes

It seems that the people who had a role in this were President Bush and later President Obama. So why is Romney giving himself credit for bringing the auto-industry back up after suggesting they should be allowed to fail?

To clarify, Romney never suggested that the auto-industry should fail. He suggested it should go bankrupt. That's a huge distinction. And if you look at the process that Romney described in his Op-Ed, the government actually followed a lot of what he said.

However, I don't believe that Romney deserves any credit. It's like saying "I wrote this story on my blog, and then people happened to do what I said, so I should get credit." The path that Romney described was pretty much understood to be the only way to "save" the auto industry, but the problem was the availability of private capital willing to invest in GM and Chrysler. That's why the government stepped in.
 
To clarify, Romney never suggested that the auto-industry should fail. He suggested it should go bankrupt. That's a huge distinction. And if you look at the process that Romney described in his Op-Ed, the government actually followed a lot of what he said.

What is the difference between allowing a company to fail and allowing a company to go bankrupt? I´m dying to hear this.
 
hell no he doesnt...
 
What is the difference between allowing a company to fail and allowing a company to go bankrupt? I´m dying to hear this.

I'll do my best to summarize the differences here, but you really need to read up on what bankruptcy is if you don't see the distinction.

A company failing is simply that company ceasing to exist. I mean, there are a number of ways for a company to fail, but that's completely different from bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy is simply a way for a company to restructure their debt when they are unable to make payments. Look at the airlines after 2001. Every major airline in the US went bankrupt. And every major airline is still around. This exactly was the auto-industry's problem: they had accumulated too much debt, and were unable to make payments on that debt because of lack of revenue. Bankruptcy is a government protection that allows a company (or more generally an entity, like a person or an estate) to negotiate with their debtors to restructure the debts owed, in such a way that the company can eventually reach solvency again. Sometimes, it is not possible for an insolvent company to become solvent again, and so bankruptcy ends with the company being disbanded and its assets sold to recoup debt.

In many cases where a company becomes insolvent and then goes bankrupt, a third party investor decides to purchase stock of a company (usually with the condition of running the company), in order to infuse the company with capital. With this capital, and the new management from the third party investor, the company can be reformed, becoming solvent and once again able to pay down its debts. Firms like Bain Capital make a living doing this.

In the case of GM and Chrysler, this is exactly what happened: the government, acting as a third party investor, purchased shares of GM and Chrysler (after they declared what amounted to bankruptcy) in order to infuse capital into the companies and get them running again. Two major things were different in this case then if a firm like Bain Capital had acted as the debtor in possession: 1. Many loosened regulation of bankruptcy, like breaking up unions, were not enacted, and 2. the government bought shares of GM and Chrysler way above their fair market values (most investors reasonable high for the stock is well below what we'd need to break even).

Other than those two details, the motions that the government and GM/Chrysler went through look exactly like debtor in possession bankruptcy.
 
It seems that the people who had a role in this were President Bush and later President Obama. So why is Romney giving himself credit for bringing the auto-industry back up after suggesting they should be allowed to fail?

Because it worked...because a lot of people in midwest swing states have a job because the government stepped in. Because yesterdays "radicalism" generally seems to be today's common sense approach.
 
No and unlike Hussein Obama he would never try and take credit for it.
 
No and unlike Hussein Obama he would never try and take credit for it.

Oh IC....so a Man who accomplished something pretty damn cool, should be all contrite....yet the man who opposed the possibility of said accomplishment, should be allowed to take credit?

Get a freakin" clue....this makes no sense even in alternate realities.
 
Mitt Romney did absolutely nothing other then flip flop his opinions on this issue.

 
Mitt Romney did absolutely nothing other then flip flop his opinions on this issue.

The problem with that video is there is nothing incompatible with those two statements. Bankruptcy does not mean letting a company fail!

I mean, there are thousands of companies that are currently in bankruptcy proceedings, but will come out alive. A short list of major, well known companies who went through bankruptcy and are still here:

US Airways
United Airlines
Delta Airlines
Northwest Airlines
Frontier Airlines
AOL
Charter Communications
CIT Group
Kodak
Harry & David
Hostess Brands
Kmart
LA Dodgers
Marvel Comics
MGM Studios

(and I could keep going)
 
Last edited:
No and unlike Hussein Obama he would never try and take credit for it.

Navy...did you bother to read the story or the OP? He DID try and take credit for it:

"So I’ll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry’s come back"

No, Romney doesn't deserve credit for the Auto-Industry apparant resurgance. While yes, he could get credit for suggesting a course of action that was successful, he does't get credit for it actually happening since:

1) There's no suggestion what so ever that the final decision regarding the auto-industry was done with his comments in mind or based on his suggestions
2) Ultimately it wasn't Romney who was running those businesses at the top and farther dow or putting in the work to get them up and going again.

Coming up with an idea and getting credit for coming up with an idea is one thing. But taking credit for "The industry's come back"? No....he doesn't deserve that credit.
 
In light of the new comments made by Romney, I thought it would be interesting to ask Conservatives if Romney deserves credit for the new revitalization seen in the Detroit auto industry.

Mitt Romney Takes Credit For The Auto Bailout. Say, What? - Forbes



It seems that the people who had a role in this were President Bush and later President Obama. So why is Romney giving himself credit for bringing the auto-industry back up after suggesting they should be allowed to fail?

I am against bailouts. Romney at one time argued against the bailout, how in the hell is he going to take credit for it?
 
If he believes in free market capitalism, he shouldn't even want "credit".
 
Last edited:
I'll do my best to summarize the differences here, but you really need to read up on what bankruptcy is if you don't see the distinction.

What makes you think that GM and Chrysler wouldn't be liquidated by its majority shareholders and bondholders?

Given the necessary levels of capital, the unfriendly union, stiff competition and ocean of red ink, what reasonable argument is there to give to suggest that GM and Chrysler could survive a chapter 11 bankruptcy?

No one in their right mind in the private sector would pony up the kind of money to sustain the firms during a chapter 11. They certainly didn't have the money to do it themselves. I honestly see only one outcome without bailout money: chapter 7.
 
Last edited:
What makes you think that GM and Chrysler wouldn't be liquidated by its majority shareholders and bondholders?

If GM and Chrysler could have found capital backers, then it really wouldn't have matter what the bondholders wanted. Once a company goes into a debtor in possession bankruptcy, they are basically freed of forced liquidation.

I mean, ultimately, GM and Chryslers shareholders could, right now, decide to liquidate the companies, but they aren't doing that. Why? Because, like many companies whose debt got ahead of them, the big auto makers were not hugely unsuccessful. Their problem was that they had too aggressively grown debt during the boom times, and they were unable to generate enough revenue to pay that back during the bust times. GM was still doing quite well for itself considering the economic climate in 2008/2009. At least in the case of GM, I don't think the shareholders would have wanted the company liquidated. It was making money, just not enough relative to its debts.

Edited to respond to added material above

Given the necessary levels of capital, the unfriendly union, stiff competition and ocean of red ink, what reasonable argument is there to give to suggest that GM and Chrysler could survive a chapter 11 bankruptcy?

Under bankruptcy, the union wouldn't have been a problem. Bankruptcy would have allowed Detroit to shed itself of a lot of its costs associated with the UAW.

While GM and Chrysler especially suffered from a lot of competition, they weren't entirely overrun. GM still held favorable market positions internationally.

The large amount of capital would really have been the one question mark. In the end, the government was essentially that provider.

No one in their right mind in the private sector would pony up the kind of money to sustain the firms during a chapter 11. They certainly didn't have the money to do it themselves. I honestly see only one outcome without bailout money: chapter 7.

I honestly think that GM would have survived a Chpt 11 bankruptcy, but Chrysler would have folded. Most of GM's refinancing and restructuring capital would probably have come from overseas. The other thing to remember is that GM wasn't on its last legs when the bailout happened. As such, people were hesitant to give money to GM, because they weren't sure where they were going. As d-day drew nearer, it would have allowed private firms to get larger portions of the company in exchange for the same restructuring capital. This is why you don't see many companies finalize deals on bankruptcy until they are almost out of operating capital.
 
Last edited:
What makes you think that GM and Chrysler wouldn't be liquidated by its majority shareholders and bondholders?

Given the necessary levels of capital, the unfriendly union, stiff competition and ocean of red ink, what reasonable argument is there to give to suggest that GM and Chrysler could survive a chapter 11 bankruptcy?

No one in their right mind in the private sector would pony up the kind of money to sustain the firms during a chapter 11. They certainly didn't have the money to do it themselves. I honestly see only one outcome without bailout money: chapter 7.


The teaparty types wanted full bankruptcy for GM to enable the crushing of the union and making all of Gm and Chryslers CEO and management FAILURES be paid by their workers. GM workers didnt destroy GM and CHrysler...UPPER management did that all by themselves...and when you talk about Excess's they conveniently blame the workers and never the top that were flying around in personal jets as the companies sank and WERE BEGGING FOR TAXPAYER BAILOUT BILLIONS....
The Stockholders in failed companies like GM and BIg banks should lose EVERY DIME of their money...and watch how fast the investors take control back over big corporations from the CEO bigs at the trough that name their own ticket.
None of you teapartiers can ever convince me that this countries hole was dug by the middleclass and unions....the fault lies with the pigs at the trough...that now want their snouts in my pocket with another tax cut
 
Last edited:
If GM and Chrysler could have found capital backers, then it really wouldn't have matter what the bondholders wanted. Once a company goes into a debtor in possession bankruptcy, they are basically freed of forced liquidation.

That's a giant if. Especially in 2009~2010.

I mean, ultimately, GM and Chryslers shareholders could, right now, decide to liquidate the companies, but they aren't doing that.

Now is not then, when then was a time when banks would not even lend to each other for 8 hours. Personally, I think the notion that either Chrysler or GM could get financing in 2009~2010 is complete lunacy. No one had the money or was risk tolerant enough to lend that much to them for a restructuring. Institutions were pulling money out of equities and buying T bills because they were so afraid. The idea that VCs would commit that kind of capital to GM and Chrysler with their kind of problems in that bad of an economy is crazy talk.

GM was still doing quite well for itself considering the economic climate in 2008/2009. At least in the case of GM, I don't think the shareholders would have wanted the company liquidated. It was making money, just not enough relative to its debts.

Which makes it a bad investment. It doesn't matter if the shareholders (or at least some of them) don't want to liquidate. If you can't get financing to keep you out of bankruptcy, it doesn't matter what shareholders want.
 
What makes you think that GM and Chrysler wouldn't be liquidated by its majority shareholders and bondholders?

Given the necessary levels of capital, the unfriendly union, stiff competition and ocean of red ink, what reasonable argument is there to give to suggest that GM and Chrysler could survive a chapter 11 bankruptcy?

No one in their right mind in the private sector would pony up the kind of money to sustain the firms during a chapter 11. They certainly didn't have the money to do it themselves. I honestly see only one outcome without bailout money: chapter 7.
Let me add to your position here that the much longer time chapter 11 bankruptcy would have taken would have taken down Ford too.
 
Romney is only guilty of one thing regarding this issue: Lying. I do have to say that Romney has been a really consistent liar. He's played strictly by the "Politician's Hand Book", which says: Lie and deny even in the face of having been recorded or videoed making political claims or election promises that are inconsistent to any previous claims or promises.

By the way. George W. Bush was the primary source of the Auto Industry's salvation. Just weeks before the 2008 election, he gave the auto industry some $25 Billion. He also doled out $750 Billion to the market, insurance, and banking industries, which have since increased their casino business and are gambling with their customer's money more than ever in their history...because the laws that allowed them to crash over the early 2000's to 2008 period are still fully in force. I know, I know this information is startling to some who doesn't want to believe that Bush did such things...despite it being reported by most all news organization. But it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
No and unlike Hussein Obama he would never try and take credit for it.

ahhhhhhh....have you watched the news lately? DOH!!!!!!


This is almost as stupid as McCain saying "The fundamentals of the economy are strong".


Does Willard actually believe that people will buy this crap?
 
Back
Top Bottom