Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What Romney said initially is that GM should be forced into a managed bankruptcy and they were, just as he said. obama departed from the Romney plan by bailing out the union legacy costs and shifting all losses onto the shareholders.
Had Romney been president instead of obama, the GM bankruptcy would have gone along like the Christler bankruptcy when it was managed by Lee Iacocca years ago.
That is exactly the kind of nonsense that nuts like you believe.
Based on this recent owning of the saving of the auto industry..why stop there Mittens? Why not take credit for killing Bin Ladin? These dumb ass fascists just suck it up. The possibilities are really endless.
I heard Mittens freed the Iran hostages, AND took down the Berlin Wall.
By himself.
/nod
I think Mitt Romney clarifies himself in this statement:
The auto bailout, put in motion by former President George W. Bush and continued by President Barack Obama, is now widely viewed as a success. Michigan Democrats have seized on the issue as a potential vulnerability for Romney in a state hard hit by the economic downturn.
Romney defends position on Detroit bailout CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com BlogsOn Wednesday Romney - who was born in Detroit and whose father was later the Michigan governor - said the president had eventually come around to his suggestion that a managed bankruptcy was the best solution for Detroit's auto manufacturers.
"The president finally came around to my own view that Detroit needed to go through managed bankruptcy, the auto companies needed to go through managed bankruptcy to shed their excess costs," Romney said during a business roundtable before his rally. "And it took him six months to get there but he got to the same place that I had suggested."
But the former Massachusetts governor accused Obama of "crony capitalism" and said the president had bowed to the United Auto Workers in the deal. Romney has said he would not have poured federal money into a bailout.
"He got hundreds of millions of dollars from labor bosses for his campaign, and so he's paying them back in every way he knows how," Romney said. "One way, of course, was giving General Motors and Chrysler to the UAW."
He also responded to criticism from UAW President Bob King, who has said Romney "turned his back" on the auto industry.
"I'm sorry Mr. King, I care very deeply about the auto industry. I want to make sure we have good jobs not just for a few weeks, but for many, many years," Romney said. "I've taken on union bosses before, and I'm happy to take them on again, because I happen to believe that you can protect the interests of American taxpayers, and you can protect a great industry like automobiles without having to give in to the UAW. And I sure won't."
And then on video--during a GOP debate in Arizona in a sparing match with Santorum--and WITHOUT all of the cutting and editing the left wing media and the Obama reelection campaign are doing.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9y_-eutQb0]Romney, Santorum spar over auto bailout records - YouTube[/ame]
And then finally this article--that specifically states the auto industry turned around based on costing costs--cutting union benefits--and not because of the billions of dollars that Obama threw at them.
Not due to any help from the Obama administration. New management at GM has made it clear that politicians will stay out of the car business. GM renegotiated its deal with labor to bring employee salaries in line with its competitors. This new labor agreement with the United Auto Workers union maintains a low, break-even level and gives employees a direct stake in company's performance. If the company doesn't do well, people don't make as much! Gone are automatic, built-in incentives for employees or overly generous retirement packages.
Ken Blackwell: Auto Industry Turn-Around Is a Two-Party Success
Serious question -
Are there really THAT many rw's who believe this jackass?
I was right once but it was so long ago that I forget what it was all about.
Well, but you're a dog. Dogs don't remember much but food, love and sleep.
And car rides.
Unless they are to the vet.
Or if they need transportation from Romney.
Serious question -
Are there really THAT many rw's who believe this jackass?
I'm not talking to the Obama haters who don't care what happens to the United States as long as Obama is not the president, not talking to those who would prefer we go down to having another four years of Obama crating jobs and improving the economy.
I'm talking about those who really care about our country.
How many of THOSE people would actually vote for this lying poseur?
I heard Mittens freed the Iran hostages, AND took down the Berlin Wall.
By himself.
/nod
I think Mitt Romney clarifies himself in this statement:
The auto bailout, put in motion by former President George W. Bush and continued by President Barack Obama, is now widely viewed as a success. Michigan Democrats have seized on the issue as a potential vulnerability for Romney in a state hard hit by the economic downturn.
Romney defends position on Detroit bailout – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
And then on video--during a GOP debate in Arizona in a sparing match with Santorum--and WITHOUT all of the cutting and editing the left wing media and the Obama reelection campaign are doing.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9y_-eutQb0]Romney, Santorum spar over auto bailout records - YouTube[/ame]
And then finally this article--that specifically states the auto industry turned around based on costing costs--cutting union benefits--and not because of the billions of dollars that Obama threw at them.
Not due to any help from the Obama administration. New management at GM has made it clear that politicians will stay out of the car business. GM renegotiated its deal with labor to bring employee salaries in line with its competitors. This new labor agreement with the United Auto Workers union maintains a low, break-even level and gives employees a direct stake in company's performance. If the company doesn't do well, people don't make as much! Gone are automatic, built-in incentives for employees or overly generous retirement packages.
Ken Blackwell: Auto Industry Turn-Around Is a Two-Party Success
Wow. It's almost like you can't be honest, no matter how easy it is.
He lied. He was against it, he said he was against it, there's video proving he was against it, and NO. He doesn't get to take credit for it.
Ken Blackwell: Auto Industry Turn-Around Is a Two-Party SuccessAs the 2012 election season turns full throttle, the president and members of his administration are pointing to their only economic success story -- the government's investment in an ailing, failing auto industry and the subsequent revival of the nation's manufacturing base.
Vice President Biden recently stated on a campaign stop that "Osama bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."
But let's put this presidential campaign victory tour into perspective. The president and even the media fail to acknowledge a critical fact, that the initial decision to help the automobile industry began with the Bush administration. This recovery plan was set in motion under a Republican administration, approved with votes in Congress from both parties, and was then continued by President Obama.
It's odd how this president and the press are so anxious and willing to blame former President George W. Bush for a failing economy and soaring national debt, yet the president's primary example of a GM turnaround began under the Bush watch. Apparently the president wants it both ways. In reality, this auto industry recovery is an example of both parties working together to help save a national treasure in our auto industry and preserve jobs in industries that depend on auto manufacturing.
I wrote some time ago that conservatives, myself among them, were certainly justified in opposing government involvement and partial ownership of a private company such as General Motors. Generally, when the government gets its fingers into private industry, problems only get worse. But since the decision was made to invest tax dollars in GM and Chrysler, let's look under the hood of GM to examine how and why this company is making a comeback. When you check the facts, you quickly understand how GM's accomplishments have nothing to do with this president and everything to do with restoring sound business practices that are rooted in conservative free-market principles -- something you'll never hear Obama, Biden or the media talk about.
The old days of GM building poor-quality vehicles that no one wanted to buy are over. The company finished 2011 by increasing U.S. sales by 14 percent versus 11 percent for the entire auto industry. GM's market share increased to 19 percent, the first share increase for the company since since 2002. All four GM brands increased their total sales and posted double-digit gains in retail sales. Since the bailout, GM has racked up a remarkable seven consecutive quarters of profitability. How?
Not due to any help from the Obama administration. New management at GM has made it clear that politicians will stay out of the car business. GM renegotiated its deal with labor to bring employee salaries in line with its competitors. This new labor agreement with the United Auto Workers union maintains a low, break-even level and gives employees a direct stake in company's performance. If the company doesn't do well, people don't make as much! Gone are automatic, built-in incentives for employees or overly generous retirement packages.
The company has been restructured to carry less debt on its balance sheet -- $4.2 billion in automotive debt at close of Q3 2011, versus $45.8 billion for the old GM. There are many new managers in top positions and a new board of directors is in place. Seven of eleven board members are new to GM. But at the end of the day, GM's resurgence is based on a fundamental decision to get back to work.
The company is simply building better cars, trucks and SUVs, and no amount of bailout money would have helped if the people at GM, from the CEO to the line worker, weren't working harder to help return this company to profitability.
Before Election Day, I am sure we will have to endure seeing more photos and video of the president sitting in GM and Chrysler vehicles and listen to him tell us how he is the savior of the auto industry. Truth be told, it's the American worker that is the real hero in this story, along with a company that is rededicating itself to a free-market system.
Well, now you're just repeating yourself.
I'm very disappointed in you, Oreo.
You can frame it any way you want. The fact remains that the auto industry is now doing well, and Romney didn't have a damn thing to do with it. He's a lying sack of shit.
What Romney said initially is that GM should be forced into a managed bankruptcy and they were, just as he said. obama departed from the Romney plan by bailing out the union legacy costs and shifting all losses onto the shareholders.
Had Romney been president instead of obama, the GM bankruptcy would have gone along like the Christler bankruptcy when it was managed by Lee Iacocca years ago.
It's more than clear that the 7 quarters of profit from GM and Chrysler came from CUTTING Union Benefits--and not the 80 BILLION taxpayers dollars that were thrown at the auto UNION bailout.
Ken Blackwell: Auto Industry Turn-Around Is a Two-Party Success
Judging that Romney has a 20 year track record of dealing with financially troubled corporations and along with a history of turning around the Winter Olympic games in Utah--he would have most certainly approved of a managed bankruptcy--versus the 80 billion taxpayer bailout.
This while Obama's policies of the Cash for Clunkers program bombed out--because that taxpayer subsidy went mostly to buy foreign auto's.
Cash for Clunkers Boosts Foreign Car Sales - ABC News
Then of course the Chevy Volt flopped big time.
What Romney said initially is that GM should be forced into a managed bankruptcy and they were, just as he said. obama departed from the Romney plan by bailing out the union legacy costs and shifting all losses onto the shareholders.
Had Romney been president instead of obama, the GM bankruptcy would have gone along like the Christler bankruptcy when it was managed by Lee Iacocca years ago.
You mean- gasp- he took care of the people who actually MAKE the cars before the people who were just betting on the outcome? THE HORROR OF IT ALL!!!!
Right here, where the Republican Party has gone wrong in the last 30 years.
What Romney said initially is that GM should be forced into a managed bankruptcy and they were, just as he said. obama departed from the Romney plan by bailing out the union legacy costs and shifting all losses onto the shareholders.
Had Romney been president instead of obama, the GM bankruptcy would have gone along like the Christler bankruptcy when it was managed by Lee Iacocca years ago.
You mean- gasp- he took care of the people who actually MAKE the cars before the people who were just betting on the outcome? THE HORROR OF IT ALL!!!!
Right here, where the Republican Party has gone wrong in the last 30 years.
So, in your opinion, secured creditors should be paid after the employees are paid? Is that the horrible thing that those darned Republicans were after? No one was protecting the shareholders; its common knowledge and accepted that shareholders have only a residual claim on whatever is left, if anything; it was the bondholders who got screwed.
Consider the chilling effect your interpretation of bankruptcy rules would have on business. When a company needs financing, and especially if they are seeking affordable rates, they offer collateral to the lender; this is what puts them in a senior position to other creditors (including employees). If the lender knows that they will not, in fact, be allowed to retain their collateral in the event of non-payment or bankruptcy, the risk of the loan increases dramatically, along with the rate that the lender has to insist upon to take on that additional risk (assuming they are willing to lend at any rate). Truly what you are seeking is for the employees to be paid twice, since it was the creditors money that supported the GM losses over the years and allowed them to continue paying the employees and contributing to their pensions; without them those jobs would have disappeared long ago. Its unfortunate when a company has to seek bankruptcy protection and there are rarely any winners; the stockholders are invariably completely wiped out, management is usually replaced, and some of the people who make the cars lose their jobs. However, bondholders are usually protected at least to the extent that they get the proceeds from assets first, as their contracts stipulate. If we are now going to ignore contracts because its not in the employees best interests (or not the demographic that the current administration wants to reward), we are in serious trouble.
There's been a lot of talk about the unwillingness of Bain Capital to invest in the New GM at the government's invitation. Maybe the adminstration's treatment of the senior creditors in the GM restructuring led private lenders like Bain to decide they didn't want to play. How could you blame them?
You mean- gasp- he took care of the people who actually MAKE the cars before the people who were just betting on the outcome? THE HORROR OF IT ALL!!!!
Right here, where the Republican Party has gone wrong in the last 30 years.
So, in your opinion, secured creditors should be paid after the employees are paid? Is that the horrible thing that those darned Republicans were after? No one was protecting the shareholders; its common knowledge and accepted that shareholders have only a residual claim on whatever is left, if anything; it was the bondholders who got screwed.
Consider the chilling effect your interpretation of bankruptcy rules would have on business. When a company needs financing, and especially if they are seeking affordable rates, they offer collateral to the lender; this is what puts them in a senior position to other creditors (including employees). If the lender knows that they will not, in fact, be allowed to retain their collateral in the event of non-payment or bankruptcy, the risk of the loan increases dramatically, along with the rate that the lender has to insist upon to take on that additional risk (assuming they are willing to lend at any rate). Truly what you are seeking is for the employees to be paid twice, since it was the creditors money that supported the GM losses over the years and allowed them to continue paying the employees and contributing to their pensions; without them those jobs would have disappeared long ago. Its unfortunate when a company has to seek bankruptcy protection and there are rarely any winners; the stockholders are invariably completely wiped out, management is usually replaced, and some of the people who make the cars lose their jobs. However, bondholders are usually protected at least to the extent that they get the proceeds from assets first, as their contracts stipulate. If we are now going to ignore contracts because its not in the employees best interests (or not the demographic that the current administration wants to reward), we are in serious trouble.
There's been a lot of talk about the unwillingness of Bain Capital to invest in the New GM at the government's invitation. Maybe the adminstration's treatment of the senior creditors in the GM restructuring led private lenders like Bain to decide they didn't want to play. How could you blame them?
You're absolutely right, because CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE TOO, MY FRIEND!
No. I never will agree with that kind of reasoning. That makes me what in Whack Bingo; a Marxist? Fine. I'm a Marxist.
Ciao!
