• 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.

What Romney really said about GM . . .

JRog said:
That's not entirely accurate. Part of the mission of NASA includes research into various types of energy sources for propulsion of their space vehicles.
Click to expand...

Please, that is not what he was talking about. Try not to derail the discussion. If he meant propulsion he would have said so.
 
American said:
Please, that is not what he was talking about. Try not to derail the discussion. If he meant propulsion he would have said so.
Click to expand...

Propulsion requires energy.
 
UtahBill said:
Some of that tons of money could get spent more wisely.....IMO, NASA should spend less on space programs and more on energy research.
Click to expand...

I had an idea of a rewards based government research & investment wing where your product is reviewed and if thought to be good enough, invest heavily in it with government money and also in marketing it then even though it is still your product all money invested in that product is recouped in its early sales. Then when the money is recouped, the government ducks out and you have your product and business. But you have to put forth a solid business plan based around your product describing what purpose it serves and projected sales of the product.
 
Some of these car companies have republican CEOs and they all opposed what romney suggested.
 
Deuce said:
But that isn't the claim you made. At no point does Obama claim Romney said those words. Are you retracting your OP? Because you put the words "Let GM fail" in quotes, as if Obama made the claim that Romney used those exact words.
Click to expand...

ROMNEY:And I know he keeps saying, you want to take Detroit bankrupt. Well, the president took Detroit bankrupt. You took General Motors bankrupt. You took Chrysler bankrupt. So when you say that I wanted to take the auto industry bankrupt, you actually did.

And I think it’s important to know that that was a process that was necessary to get those companies back on their feet, so they could start hiring more people. That was precisely what I recommended and ultimately what happened.

CROWLEY: Let me give the president a chance.

Go ahead. OBAMA: Candy, what Governor Romney said just isn’t true. He wanted to take them into bankruptcy without providing them any way to stay open.
Click to expand...

Probably the closest you are going to get. President Obama lying about what Romney wanted to do during the second debate.
 
99percenter said:
Some of these car companies have republican CEOs and they all opposed what romney suggested.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the people Romney specifically said should be replaced with new blood opposed the idea?

That's quite the news flash.
 
American said:
The difference is that Romney understands how this works using private funds and govt guarantees, and you don't. Don't try to tell me you know more about this than a man who did this kind of thing for years. Obama is a lawyer, not a businessman. Whatever decision he made was based on advise from people around him, Romney actually knows how this stuff works.
Click to expand...

for someone you insist 'knows how this stuff works', romney certainly has not come forward - despite being provided many opportunities - to explain HOW he would make it happen
when someone tells me they can achieve a particular result but then is unable to describe the action steps they would implement to reach that objective, my only logical conclusion is they are full of ****
like your post(s), mitt's repeated insistence that he knows what to do to enhance our nation's economy is full of ****
his latest attempt to recant his own words regarding the detroit bailout only confirms this
 
American said:
Energy research is not their mission. WTF are you talking about? DoE has the energy mission. Spending money wisely everyone agrees on. If you want NASA to spend less on space, then they should focus on aeronautics, but not energy.
Click to expand...

another example of very narrow thinking
when reading the following cite remember that this forum member's admonition would have us forfeit these advanced technologies because they are not directly related to aeronautics:
http://ipp.nasa.gov/pdf/spinoff_top_20a.pdf
 
poweRob said:
I had an idea of a rewards based government research & investment wing where your product is reviewed and if thought to be good enough, invest heavily in it with government money and also in marketing it then even though it is still your product all money invested in that product is recouped in its early sales. Then when the money is recouped, the government ducks out and you have your product and business. But you have to put forth a solid business plan based around your product describing what purpose it serves and projected sales of the product.
Click to expand...
it has long existed
it's called the Small Business Innovation & Research (SBIR) (and Small Business Technology Transfer - SBTT) program
SBIR.gov
 
justabubba said:
it has long existed
it's called the Small Business Innovation & Research (SBIR) (and Small Business Technology Transfer - SBTT) program
SBIR.gov
Click to expand...

I can't believe these guys stole my idea
 
AdamT said:
No offense, Maggie, but YOU do not understand. Romney's position was that the government should not help the companies through bankruptcy. His position was that they should go through the process on their own and then maybe he's give them some support to help them get back on their feet.

But the reality is that there was absolutely no way they could go through Chapter 11 without massive government assistance. That's because the credit markets were completely locked up and there was no chance at all that private lenders were going to put up the $50 - $100 billion necessary to complete the process.

The result of Romney's policy would have been Chapter 7 liquidation.
Click to expand...

Damn. You believe the liar in the oval offce, then you don't bother to check the facts even after maggie posted the source for you. Then she even bolds the applicable portion for you and you still got it wrong.

What a maroon.
 
marsden said:
Damn. You believe the liar in the oval offce, then you don't bother to check the facts even after maggie posted the source for you. Then she even bolds the applicable portion for you and you still got it wrong.

What a maroon.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input, but you don't get it.
 
MaggieD said:
I wasn't aware of this, actually. Romney was correct. Obama was wrong. His campaign lied. Romney NEVER said, “Let GM fail.”

Mitt Romney's op-ed piece that started it all:



OBAMA AND HIS CAMPAIGN HAVE LIED ALL ALONG. ​Conservatives, we should have caught this. Or maybe everyone did but me...

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

In fact, Obama DID take GM into bankruptcy. The difference is that rather than creditors getting their money as is what usually would happen, Obama - unique to GM and Chrysler - instead had the creditors shafted and covered the ass of union pensions. Nor is there mention that Chrysler went into bankruptcy too - against Obama's doing.

Thus, the attack against Romney for wanting GM to go thru bankruptcy and the President claiming he opposed this is one of the most massive lies of the campaign, with most of the media going along with this, reinforcing public ignorance by silence.

In the meantime, Ford did NOT take bailout money and did NOT go thru bankruptcy via the Obama plan - and is now the only profitable car manufacturer with the highest profits in almost 2 decades.

Ford earnings: Biggest profit since '98 - Jan. 27, 2012

Romney had it right that GM and Chrysler should have gone thru normal bankruptcy procedures like American Airlines, Delta and every other company back-to-the-wall financially that came out viable on the other end of it. GM came out of it in the same mess as it went into it - if not worse. Obama did NOT save GM. He gave taxpayer money to GM so it could 1.) cover union pensions and 2.) build car factories in China to ship US jobs and car manufacturing there.
 
MaggieD said:
I wasn't aware of this, actually. Romney was correct. Obama was wrong. His campaign lied. Romney NEVER said, “Let GM fail.”

Mitt Romney's op-ed piece that started it all:



OBAMA AND HIS CAMPAIGN HAVE LIED ALL ALONG. ​Conservatives, we should have caught this. Or maybe everyone did but me...

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Romney's plan was for private capital to finance the managed bankruptcy. Obama's plan was for government backed capital to finance the managed bankruptcy.

Unfortunately for Romney there wasn't any private capital available making his plan impossible. If it was implemented as he described it, then it would have caused GM to dissolve.

That said, I think that this is a classic example of Romneyomics. He put forward a position that appealed to the politics of the day without providing the mechanisms or detail to actually implement it. Obama took a huge political risk for the good of the country, and contrary to public opinion, bailed out GM saving around a million jobs. Had it failed, Romney would have been first to say that if Obama had only implemented his plan, everything would be okay. But because Obama's plan succeeded, now Romney says that Obama followed his plan all along.

We see this time and time and time again from Romney. He refuses to provide any detail. Then regardless of what happens, he looks back in retrospect, cherry picks a few vague details, and says see... I was right.

Conservatives beware. Romney isn't one of you. He will betray you the second it's politically advantageous.
 
joko104 said:
In fact, Obama DID take GM into bankruptcy. The difference is that rather than creditors getting their money as is what usually would happen, Obama - unique to GM and Chrysler - instead had the creditors shafted and covered the ass of union pensions. Nor is there mention that Chrysler went into bankruptcy too - against Obama's doing.

Thus, the attack against Romney for wanting GM to go thru bankruptcy and the President claiming he opposed this is one of the most massive lies of the campaign, with most of the media going along with this, reinforcing public ignorance by silence.

In the meantime, Ford did NOT take bailout money and did NOT go thru bankruptcy via the Obama plan - and is now the only profitable car manufacturer with the highest profits in almost 2 decades.

Ford earnings: Biggest profit since '98 - Jan. 27, 2012

Romney had it right that GM and Chrysler should have gone thru normal bankruptcy procedures like American Airlines, Delta and every other company back-to-the-wall financially that came out viable on the other end of it. GM came out of it in the same mess as it went into it - if not worse. Obama did NOT save GM. He gave taxpayer money to GM so it could 1.) cover union pensions and 2.) build car factories in China to ship US jobs and car manufacturing there.
Click to expand...

the only problem with this rant: it was dubya who gave the bailout money to GM
it was Obama who got it back
 
JRog said:
Romney did support bankruptcy (chapter 11), and financing from the private sector with government guarantees. The problem arises when determining whether GM could have qualified for chapter 11. My understanding has always been that GM would have not qualified for chapter 11, and couldn't have gotten private financing, which would have resulted in a chapter 7 liquidation.

The part of Romney's plan that I didn't agree with, however, is the part where he advocates paying for GMs issues by draining pensions and labor costs. This treatment of labor and pensions is reminiscent of his Bain capital methodologies, where the shareholders push a big portion of the loss onto employees. Investment works on the premise of "risk begets reward". As I've said many times, these days the risk is passed off to others, while the rewards are retained by investors.
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
But that isn't the claim you made. At no point does Obama claim Romney said those words. Are you retracting your OP? Because you put the words "Let GM fail" in quotes, as if Obama made the claim that Romney used those exact words.
Click to expand...

upsideguy said:
Not a lie at all. There is a major difference between the government providing direct debtor-in-possession financing before the bankruptcy, as Bush-Obama did, and offering to provide loan guarantees for a post-bankruptcy financing, particularly at a time when investment banks were frozen and could no such investing. The first approach was one certainty and decisiveness and the alternative somewhat theorhetical, if not pie-in-the-sky.

Sorry, if you remember 2008-09, no one was investing in anything. The banks were all insolvent and without leadership, in most cases. No single bank or consortium of banks was in a position to loan $50-70B on moments notice. The fact was, it was the government or it was nothing... in the interim, the confidence GM and Chrysler (and even Ford) was rapidly eroding. Time was of the essence. There was no one to invest and no time to put that investment together. It was government making a direct investment or it was letting the industry fail. (Not to mention that loan guarantees generally offer tax payers all the risk and none of the reward; and the private sector almost risk-free profit).
Click to expand...

To posters above and others . . . If I could rate a post as "best" in this thread, it would be Don Sutherland's below. We could all learn something from it. I know I did. And most other conservatives who read it will, too. I'm not going to "interpret" Don's post or add a thing to it. It stands quite nicely on its own:

donsutherland1 said:
Maggie,

The op-ed makes clear that Romney wanted Detroit to survive (and saw Detroit as "vital" to the nation's economy) and offered a well-reasoned plan. His point about structured bankruptcy as a mechanism for achieving necessary restructuring was spot-on. However, Adam is right about the state of the credit markets at the time. They had broken down. Even blue-chip corporations such as GE had to use the Fed's corporate paper facility, as they were unable to raise funds on their own. In that environment, it is not likely that government guarantees would have induced the private sector to provide funding for GM or Chrysler.

Having said that, given his past work in business and his pragmatic approach to governing in Massachusetts, I believe Romney would ultimately have agreed to direct government financing once convinced that neither GM nor Chrysler could raise private funds even with government guarantees. However, that would have been a last resort so to speak. His campaign comments that he would not have allowed Detroit to fail suggests that he would likely have pursued additional measures. However, he still believes that had his approach been pursued early on, direct government intervention would have been unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Don, thank you for shining a light on the subject. I agree with you completely. You added a dimension that I didn't even consider, the bolded text above. Of course!
 
joko104 said:
In fact, Obama DID take GM into bankruptcy. The difference is that rather than creditors getting their money as is what usually would happen, Obama - unique to GM and Chrysler - instead had the creditors shafted and covered the ass of union pensions. Nor is there mention that Chrysler went into bankruptcy too - against Obama's doing.

Thus, the attack against Romney for wanting GM to go thru bankruptcy and the President claiming he opposed this is one of the most massive lies of the campaign, with most of the media going along with this, reinforcing public ignorance by silence.

In the meantime, Ford did NOT take bailout money and did NOT go thru bankruptcy via the Obama plan - and is now the only profitable car manufacturer with the highest profits in almost 2 decades.

Ford earnings: Biggest profit since '98 - Jan. 27, 2012

Romney had it right that GM and Chrysler should have gone thru normal bankruptcy procedures like American Airlines, Delta and every other company back-to-the-wall financially that came out viable on the other end of it. GM came out of it in the same mess as it went into it - if not worse. Obama did NOT save GM. He gave taxpayer money to GM so it could 1.) cover union pensions and 2.) build car factories in China to ship US jobs and car manufacturing there.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken on several fronts. First, you don't seem to understand the difference between Chapter 11 reorganization -- what happened here -- and Chapter 7 liquidation, which is what would have happened Romney was in charge and did not commit government funds to work out the restructuring. It's bankruptcy in both cases, but the results couldn't be more different. In the former case the companies continue on and in the latter they don't. That distinction is what's being discussed here.

Second, all three of the auto makers are now profitable -- not just Ford.

Third, Ford lobbied for the GM and Chrysler bailouts because Ford knew that many of its suppliers would have gone under with GM and Chrysler. Thus Ford also benefitted from the bailouts, albeit indirectly.
 
MaggieD said:
No offense, Adam, but I think that a guy who put companies back together (and took them apart) for a living recognized that GM was never EVER going to be liquidated. You and I are always going to disagree, Adam, because our subjective opinions are soooo different; but I do enjoy seeing your name in the New Posts thread, 'cause I always know you'll get my heart racing. :rofl
Click to expand...

Isn't that a case of wishful thinking? The idea that Romney would have saved GM because he "knows" how managed bankruptcy works is a bit of a fallacy. The right's doing exactly what they criticized Obama for. Romney isn't an economic messiah any more than Obama was going to fix all the ills in Washington.

Romney's plan as he described it wouldn't have worked. Everyone agrees on that. If Romney was such an expert, why would he have suggested a plan that wouldn't work? The answer is that it WASN'T a plan. It was a political add. The same is true for his tax policies and his incoherent foreign policy.
 
Mithros said:
Isn't that a case of wishful thinking? The idea that Romney would have saved GM because he "knows" how managed bankruptcy works is a bit of a fallacy. The right's doing exactly what they criticized Obama for. Romney isn't an economic messiah any more than Obama was going to fix all the ills in Washington.

Romney's plan as he described it wouldn't have worked. Everyone agrees on that. If Romney was such an expert, why would he have suggested a plan that wouldn't work? The answer is that it WASN'T a plan. It was a political add. The same is true for his tax policies and his incoherent foreign policy.
Click to expand...

Obama saved the UAW, GM will probably fail again in the next 12 months.
 
Here are a few facts about Chapter 11 bankruptcy and why it would have been a bad choice for the auto industry and the share holders:

Chapter 11 affords the debtor in possession a number of mechanisms to restructure its business. A debtor in possession can acquire financing and loans on favorable terms by giving new lenders first priority on the business' earnings. The court may also permit the debtor in possession to reject and cancel contracts. Debtors are also protected from other litigation against the business through the imposition of an automatic stay. While the automatic stay is in place, most litigation against the debtor is stayed, or put on hold, until it can be resolved in bankruptcy court, or resumed in its original venue.

If the business' debts exceed its assets, the bankruptcy restructuring results in the company's owners being left with nothing; instead, the owners' rights and interests are ended and the company's creditors are left with ownership of the newly reorganized company.
Click to expand...

If the company's stock is publicly traded, a Chapter 11 filing generally causes it to be delisted from its primary stock exchange if listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, or the NASDAQ...Many stocks that are delisted quickly resume listing as over-the-counter (OTC) stocks. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the Chapter 11 plan, when confirmed, terminates the shares of the company, rendering shares valueless.
Click to expand...
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

Definition of 'Over-The-Counter - OTC'
A security traded in some context other than on a formal exchange such as the NYSE, TSX, AMEX, etc. The phrase "over-the-counter" can be used to refer to stocks that trade via a dealer network as opposed to on a centralized exchange. It also refers to debt securities and other financial instruments such as derivatives, which are traded through a dealer network.
Click to expand...
Definition of 'Over-The-Counter - OTC'

Congress first explored whether a planned bankruptcy reorganization was the best alternative for the companies, but realized that would take too long to implement. Congress was divided on whether to use the $700 billion EESA funds, instead of the $25 billion available from an Energy Department energy-efficient loan program.
Click to expand...
The Auto Industry Bailout

In short, the share holders would have lost value in their stock. The auto industry risked being controlled by their creditors, if they could not find loans to bail them out under a chapter 11. At the time of the bailout, the auto industry contributed 3.6%, or $500 billion, to total U.S. GDP output. Our economy would have went further into recession if the bailout did not happen.

And the fine print people fail to see about Mitt in his remarks from the OP:
First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.
Click to expand...
To me, this means take a pay cut and lose out on a portion of your retirement you worked hard for. Not to mention, the people who are already in retirement lose out on money they were already promised. If we let that happen, we might as well let the government take away a percentage of our 401k when we retire.
 
helix2048 said:
Here are a few facts about Chapter 11 bankruptcy and why it would have been a bad choice for the auto industry and the share holders:




Chapter 11 Bankruptcy


Definition of 'Over-The-Counter - OTC'


The Auto Industry Bailout

In short, the share holders would have lost value in their stock. The auto industry risked being controlled by their creditors, if they could not find loans to bail them out under a chapter 11. At the time of the bailout, the auto industry contributed 3.6%, or $500 billion, to total U.S. GDP output. Our economy would have went further into recession if the bailout did not happen.

And the fine print people fail to see about Mitt in his remarks from the OP:

To me, this means take a pay cut and lose out on a portion of your retirement you worked hard for. Not to mention, the people who are already in retirement lose out on money they were already promised. If we let that happen, we might as well let the government take away a percentage of our 401k when we retire.
Click to expand...

They do take a percentage of your 401(k). Not only that, but if the people managing my account screw it up, I am out.

I don't got a sugar daddy to come in and change the rules for me.
 
MaggieD said:
OBAMA AND HIS CAMPAIGN HAVE LIED ALL ALONG. ​Conservatives, we should have caught this. Or maybe everyone did but me...

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
This was debated at the time. There wasn't the capital in private markets to spend 10's of billions on the automakers. People seem to forget...there was a massive credit crunch, large instititutional investors were worried about going belly up not looking to supply billions to failing car manufactorers in the middle of a massive recession.
 
smb said:
Big key there Post-Bankruptcy guaruntees....There was not capital to allow a post-bankruptcy without DIRECT Federal funds. Please put your spin somewhere else. Romney stated directly that he did NOT support direct Federal funds for the auto industry. He believed private capital should be used. If no private capital then the company fails. The post-bankruptcy would have been AFTER the GM and Chrysler went OUT OF BUSINESS. There was NO PRIVATE CAPITAL available. Sell your spin somwhere else. Romney, like almost every issue, is trying to have it all ways to anyone willing to buy is crap. If you buy crap you get crap.
Click to expand...

wrong... period.. thanks for showing that off..
 
iliveonramen said:
This was debated at the time. There wasn't the capital in private markets to spend 10's of billions on the automakers. People seem to forget...there was a massive credit crunch, large instititutional investors were worried about going belly up not looking to supply billions to failing car manufactorers in the middle of a massive recession.
Click to expand...

We still would have been better served for the Fed to provide the loan to the people coming in to buy up GM assets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom