[video=youtube;fi757Z95E9I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fi757Z95E9I[/video]
Romney continues to lie about auto rescue
- Thread starter JuliefromOhio
- Start date
Lukey
Senator
Obama is the one lying here (made sure management and the union got together - I didn't see Gettlefinger lose HIS job). When the President says "Mitt Romney said let the auto companies go bankrupt" does he think we are stupid enough to forget that he, in fact, did make the auto companies go bankrupt?
GordonGecko
President
"Let Detroit Go Bankrupt".....is why he has already lost his home-state of Michigan and has to spend ever dime he has to try to win Ohio.
Nobody buys his "No I meant bankrupt in the GOOD way" line.
Nobody buys his "No I meant bankrupt in the GOOD way" line.
GordonGecko
President
"Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"....is what damned Romney, D-O.
He's lost his home state....he's struggling to even compete in Ohio, where 1 of 8 are in the auto industry.
Calling them "stupid" for not believing Romney's lies....doens't change that.
He's lost his home state....he's struggling to even compete in Ohio, where 1 of 8 are in the auto industry.
Calling them "stupid" for not believing Romney's lies....doens't change that.
know what really pissed off Ohioans? when Romney visited the state and had the nerve to say he deserved some credit for the auto rescue. we laughed him out of the state. he then said he was against Kasich's anti-union bill, then the next day said he was for it.
OHIO will never forget.
Mitt says Obama followed his plan? Is he lying? Mitt said he takes credit for saving GM? Are you nucking futs?
Lukey
Senator
No, he correctly says Obama did, in fact, take the companies through bankruptcy, which is exactly what he recommended in his Op Ed. If Romney had overseen it these companies would be in far better condition to weather the next downturn and the tax payers would likely have recouped all their money by now. All Obama saved was the UAW (for another couple of years).
GordonGecko
President
So Romney would have done the same thing the President did...except he'd have killed the UAW?
Lukey
Senator
They would have either accepted a competitive contract proposal or they'd be gone, yes. This isn't tiddly winks - we need these companies to not just survive but to prosper. Obama's plan has them alive, but on a steady dose of government medicine. That's not sustainable over the long term.
1. Romney would not have lent money to GM.
2. There was no other bidder for GM.
3. They'd have been sold for the parts, not as a company. One million jobs are the difference between Romney's plan and Obama's.
Right wingers called it Government Motors and then tout Romney's plan.....except that Romney proposed excercising significantly more government control over the company.
Don't you get tired of Romney's etchasketch moments? He's against it before he's against it and eventually it becomes his idea.
He did the same thing on Iran. Obama has been weak on Iran, but he is doing exactly as Romney proposed 5 years ago....
Romney is depending on your inability to maintain a train of thought longer than a couple of days.....welcome to the Republican Short attention span theater....
even Romney's Bain Capital refused to put up the "private sector" money.
Lukey
Senator
Romney in his Op Ed most certainly did say the US government could provide financial guarantees for the buyer. They never put GM up for bid so of course no bidders emerged. Look around the next time you go for a drive. Count all the GM vehicles you see. Then tell me that the GM brand was worthless. Without the UAW legacy costs GM is worth tens of billions, which is precisely how a post (Romney) bankruptcy GM would have emerged. This Marxist meme that one million jobs would have been lost is tiresome (and easily debunked).
"That sounds like a wonderfully sensible approach — except that it’s utter fantasy. In late 2008 and early 2009, when G.M. and Chrysler had exhausted their liquidity, every scrap of private capital had fled to the sidelines.
I know this because the administration’s auto task force, for which I was the lead adviser, spoke diligently to all conceivable providers of funds, and not one had the slightest interest in financing those companies on any terms." --Steve Rattner
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/opinion/delusions-about-the-detroit-bailout.html?_r=0
Lukey
Senator
Because the UAW legacy costs made them unsustainable. So Obama took the ownership claims of the bondholders and transferred them to the UAW as a bribe for them to take on the legacy costs. And the UAW got to keep their hold over these companies which makes them less competitive. You may believe Rattner spin but I do not buy it for a second. A traditional (but expedited) bankruptcy, along the lines of Romney's Op Ed proposal, would have resulted in a much stronger post bankruptcy GM with little if any costs to the taxpayers.
your posts are full of shit, Lukey. scram.
Mytzlplk
Governor
what nonsense, demonstrating you know nothing about contract negotiations. If "costs" got outta control that pertain to worker compensation, then the company signed onto that, making it their fault. Furthermore, a rebuttal to what Rattner said would necessarily include a showing as to how his statement was inaccurate. As always, you have nothing but bluster, dodging, and assorted other BS, like speculation that they'd be "stronger post bankruptcy" without even showing that they'd have found funding for such, and dodging the absense of it Rattner cited, eh?
and what would have happened to retirees? Mitt would have done away with their retirement and their medical insurance. So in one stroke of a pen Romney would have destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives.
Of course, that assumes that some other investors would have come up with the money to buy GM and there was nobody who came forward when GM was on the block.
Of course, that assumes that some other investors would have come up with the money to buy GM and there was nobody who came forward when GM was on the block.
1. GM was in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The only bidder was "New GM" with federal loans. There was not one single opposing bid.
2. What you refer to as the UAW legacy is a few hundred thousand retirees. You are talking about eliminating their pensions and retiree health benefits.
3. Easily debunked? Go ahead.
2. What you refer to as the UAW legacy is a few hundred thousand retirees. You are talking about eliminating their pensions and retiree health benefits.
3. Easily debunked? Go ahead.
