CNN Arizona debate thread

Good question from King, I don't really understand Romney's answer.

Q: How can you say auto industry should have gone through managed bankruptcy rather than public bailout when Bush officials said there was no private capital to keep industry alive through bankruptcy?

A: Something about UAW and Obama, nothing about decision under Bush except to say funds were wasted.

It was a bullshit question. Bankruptcies are negotiated with the capital that is saved by ditching debts to other vendors. Private capital is not needed in a normal bankruptcy. The bail out of the auto industry did nothing more than line pockets. Thus bankruptcy was ultimately needed anyhow because the bailout money wasn't spent on the companies debt. It was spent on the union.

Bogus question

It's hard for me to research this on the fly, but I believe the point was that without private capital the bankruptcy would end the companies which went bankrupt. Certainly, bankruptcy does not require private capital, but neither does it require that the company survive.

Any company can survive bankruptcy without private influxs of capital. Or they can go belly up depending on which form of bankruptcy they choose.

What's more interesting is that you seemingly don't understand the process yet I bet you've defended the bailout.
 
"Just because I'm talking about something doesn't mean I want a government program to fix it...." I'm not a Santorum fan...but AMEN BROTHER!!!

Exactly. But I am not sure the left even understands that.
 
Question: What's your position on birth control?

Romney: This isn't a question about birth control...
 
Question: What's your position on birth control?

Romney: This isn't a question about birth control...

He's right. The issue is one of religious liberty, not birth control.

He's also right about the damage inflicted on children born to single parent, poor families.
 
It was a bullshit question. Bankruptcies are negotiated with the capital that is saved by ditching debts to other vendors. Private capital is not needed in a normal bankruptcy. The bail out of the auto industry did nothing more than line pockets. Thus bankruptcy was ultimately needed anyhow because the bailout money wasn't spent on the companies debt. It was spent on the union.

Bogus question

It's hard for me to research this on the fly, but I believe the point was that without private capital the bankruptcy would end the companies which went bankrupt. Certainly, bankruptcy does not require private capital, but neither does it require that the company survive.

Any company can survive bankruptcy without private influxs of capital. Or they can go belly up depending on which form of bankruptcy they choose.

What's more interesting is that you seemingly don't understand the process yet I bet you've defended the bailout.

As I said, it's hard for me to research on the fly, but I can't believe that's true. How and why would, for example, a company with no assets and large debts survive bankruptcy without receiving new capital?
 
Santorum (by implication): birth control causes out-of-wedlock births, according to the NYT and Charles Murray.
Newt says Obama is pro abortion because he voted as state senator to protect doctors who perform abortions. Newt forgets he once supported "exceptions" to his anti abortion stance. How is the manner of conception relevant if one is pro life?
 
It's hard for me to research this on the fly, but I believe the point was that without private capital the bankruptcy would end the companies which went bankrupt. Certainly, bankruptcy does not require private capital, but neither does it require that the company survive.

Any company can survive bankruptcy without private influxs of capital. Or they can go belly up depending on which form of bankruptcy they choose.

What's more interesting is that you seemingly don't understand the process yet I bet you've defended the bailout.

As I said, it's hard for me to research on the fly, but I can't believe that's true. How and why would, for example, a company with no assets and large debts survive bankruptcy without receiving new capital?

Irrelevant question. The Auto Industry has lots of assets. They industry requires large assets before they can even produce anything.
 
Santorum (by implication): birth control causes out-of-wedlock births, according to the NYT and Charles Murray.
Newt says Obama is pro abortion because he voted as state senator to protect doctors who perform abortions. Newt forgets he once supported "exceptions" to his anti abortion stance. How is the manner of conception relevant if one is pro life?

What he was talking about was abortion doctors killing babies that survived the actual abortion.
 
It's hard for me to research this on the fly, but I believe the point was that without private capital the bankruptcy would end the companies which went bankrupt. Certainly, bankruptcy does not require private capital, but neither does it require that the company survive.

Any company can survive bankruptcy without private influxs of capital. Or they can go belly up depending on which form of bankruptcy they choose.

What's more interesting is that you seemingly don't understand the process yet I bet you've defended the bailout.

As I said, it's hard for me to research on the fly, but I can't believe that's true. How and why would, for example, a company with no assets and large debts survive bankruptcy without receiving new capital?

Smart companies, with good products, and innovative business methods, can and do survive bankruptcy and come out the other side stronger, more efficient and more profitable.
 

Forum List

Back
Top