Mitt Romney: 'I'll Take A Lot Of Credit' For Auto Industry Recovery

[Dick Tuck]

Romney taking credit for auto industry success - Yahoo! News

It wasn't the auto industry that was bailed out, it was the auto UNIONS that were bailed out, using taxpayer dollars. Estimates were that $1600.00 was added to the price tag of every car--to pay for retiree benefits--many of whom were retiring after 20 years with 80% pay.

Furthermore--it's more than clear that Romney DID NOT support taxpayer dollars being used to bail out the auto unions--and he was for a managed bankruptcy. Now if he is taking credit for some type of managed bankruptcy--without using taxpayer dollars he needs to clarify himself--but obviously he is NOT talking about what Obama decided to do.

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.

I would love to see a link on how well the auto industry is doing--LOL. I was just down at a car lot last weekend--with 8 salespeople all fighting over 1 customer--that stood around all day long smoking cigarettes. If that's what you consider "good" then God help us.

US Auto Sales

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm wondering just how low Romney's opinion of the American public is?
He must truly believe that everyone is stupid enough to buy his crap ....

 

[LogikAndReazon]

"It's a funny thing how so many still think we should have let Chrysler and GM go belly up.'


Its not the responsibility of taxpayers to bailout defective companies ............auto, banks or mortgage companies

Thats why we have bankruptcy/re-organization laws...................

But dimwitted politicians cant help but stealing from the public to satisfy their whims and need to "act"

 

[BDBoop]

Romney silent after claiming credit for auto industry comeback - latimes.com

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland argued that it was “incredible” that Romney wanted to take credit for the auto industry’s resurgence. “The conversation that we are having in this country right now is about who we are going to elect to lead the country, who we trust, who we can count on, who has our backs,” he said, adding that Romney comments on the auto industry should raise questions about his character.

“Mitt Romney is the last person who can talk about the auto industry with any credibility,” King said. “Mitt Romney cannot have it both ways, saying he was for managed bankruptcy without the funding source is like saying he was for medical treatment without any medicine.”

Romney was introduced at the Lansing event by Republican Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, who has said the bailout was necessary to save the industry. The men made no mention of the issue at the event Tuesday at Lansing Community College.

Across the street, protestors held a banner that said “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” the headline of a 2008 editorial Romney penned for the New York Times where he argued that the auto bailouts would lead to the eventual demise of the industry, and that the federal government should rather offer loan guarantees once the companies went through a managed bankruptcy.

 

[BDBoop]

Even McCain is looking at him cock-eyed, lol!

“Romney said that he was responsible for the auto bailout?” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told the website Talking Points Memo. “I’d have to look at the context of his remarks. I know that if the auto companies had gone into bankruptcy like thousands of small businesses had to do across America, they could’ve emerged without the sweetheart deal for the unions like was orchestrated by the Obama administration.”

Read more: Democrats renew Romney bailout bashing - Byron Tau - POLITICO.com

 

[Mr. Peepers]

I would love to see a link on how well the auto industry is doing--LOL. I was just down at a car lot last weekend--with 8 salespeople all fighting over 1 customer--that stood around all day long smoking cigarettes. If that's what you consider "good" then God help us.

I can tell you directly. I work for a company that imports heat buffer material used in the making of windshields for the domestic car market here and in Canada, Mexico and Brazil. I had a customer (American) place an order for another container to deliver at the end of July because, and I quote "a lot of the car companies are cancelling their 2 week shutdowns" - that is the direct quote from our customer. Our sales are up 80% from this very time last year (March 30 was the end of our financial year). We're having trouble keeping stock in our warehouse for the first time since 2007.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

I'd sure like to hear something that Barry Hussein takes credit for. Maybe the laughable "cash for clunkers" program

It saved, let's see, 4 jobs in my office alone - including mine, and every one of the other domestic car parts makers in this country... and there are a LOT of them, surprisingly. That's who I sell to. CAR PARTS MAKERS.

 

[Seawytch]

Romney enters the room: "Hello." he lied...

 

[BillyV]

You go with that, Mitt

Mitt Romney: 'I'll Take A Lot Of Credit' For Auto Industry Recovery

Despite his 2008 call to "let Detroit go bankrupt," presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said Monday that he would "take a lot of credit" for his impact on the U.S. automobile industry's comeback.

During an interview with WEWS-TV in Cleveland following a campaign stop, Romney said his views helped save the industry.

"I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy," Romney said. "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."

Romney's stance on the bailouts and his infamous 2008 New York Times op-ed "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," have come up throughout the campaign, especially ahead of February's primary in Michigan. In that editorial, Romney argued that a government bailout for ailing auto giants Chrysler and General Motors would do more harm than good.

that's hysterical... and just to refresh people's recollections so they don't pretend he didn't say it:

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
By MITT ROMNEYPublished: November 18, 2008

General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1

What exactly did Romney say in his op-ed that didn’t ultimately come true? Consider the time frame in which these comments were made; this was in November of 2008, and the heads of the Big Three had just flown down to DC in their corporate jets to ask the taxpayers for cash. The government ultimately gave them cash; GM ultimately got $19.4 billion and Chrysler got almost $6 billion. Yet six months later they were again on the brink of bankruptcy, just as Romney had predicted. They didn’t need to drastically restructure, so they didn’t (the union knew the government’s cash was in, so they remained intransigent as well). He advocated for lower labor and retirement costs and a change in management, as well as eliminating executive pay and perks; anyone want to argue with that? He went on to say that “A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs.” and “The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.” Isn’t that exactly what happened? GM and Chrysler did go bankrupt; GM emerged a little leaner, Chrysler with a foreign owner (Fiat). The federal government did provide for post-bankruptcy guarantees. It’s as if the Obama administration read his op-ed and used it as a playbook, except for granting a relatively sweet deal to the union vs. secured creditors. What am I missing? Did everyone just read the title, get offended and make the assumption that Romney was advocating for the elimination of the US auto industry?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Mitt Romney: On every side of every issue

 

[rdean]

General Motors: Government Motors no more | The Economist

An apology is due to Barack Obama

Given the panic that gripped private purse-strings last year, it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended. As for moral hazard, the expectation of future bail-outs may prompt managers and unions in other industries to behave rashly. But all the stakeholders suffered during GM’s bankruptcy, so this effect may be small.

-------------------------------------

Not even Bain Capital would have invested. That means they believe Romney was wrong.

 

[rdean]

You go with that, Mitt

Mitt Romney: 'I'll Take A Lot Of Credit' For Auto Industry Recovery

Despite his 2008 call to "let Detroit go bankrupt," presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said Monday that he would "take a lot of credit" for his impact on the U.S. automobile industry's comeback.

During an interview with WEWS-TV in Cleveland following a campaign stop, Romney said his views helped save the industry.

"I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy," Romney said. "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."

Romney's stance on the bailouts and his infamous 2008 New York Times op-ed "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," have come up throughout the campaign, especially ahead of February's primary in Michigan. In that editorial, Romney argued that a government bailout for ailing auto giants Chrysler and General Motors would do more harm than good.

that's hysterical... and just to refresh people's recollections so they don't pretend he didn't say it:

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
By MITT ROMNEYPublished: November 18, 2008

General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1

What exactly did Romney say in his op-ed that didn’t ultimately come true? Consider the time frame in which these comments were made; this was in November of 2008, and the heads of the Big Three had just flown down to DC in their corporate jets to ask the taxpayers for cash. The government ultimately gave them cash; GM ultimately got $19.4 billion and Chrysler got almost $6 billion. Yet six months later they were again on the brink of bankruptcy, just as Romney had predicted. They didn’t need to drastically restructure, so they didn’t (the union knew the government’s cash was in, so they remained intransigent as well). He advocated for lower labor and retirement costs and a change in management, as well as eliminating executive pay and perks; anyone want to argue with that? He went on to say that “A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs.” and “The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.” Isn’t that exactly what happened? GM and Chrysler did go bankrupt; GM emerged a little leaner, Chrysler with a foreign owner (Fiat). The federal government did provide for post-bankruptcy guarantees. It’s as if the Obama administration read his op-ed and used it as a playbook, except for granting a relatively sweet deal to the union vs. secured creditors. What am I missing? Did everyone just read the title, get offended and make the assumption that Romney was advocating for the elimination of the US auto industry?

Read what the "Economist" has to say. Professionals have a valuable perspective.

 

[J.E.D]

What exactly did Romney say in his op-ed that didn’t ultimately come true?

This:

General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed

BTW, perhaps you can help me with this. You claim that Romney was right in saying that the bailouts would spell the end for the US auto industry. But Romney is now claiming that he saved the US auto industry. So, which is it? Was he right that the auto industry is doomed, or did he save it?

 

[J.E.D]

By the way...

Bain Capital Turned Down Chance to Invest in GM - Politics - The Atlantic Wire

Mitt Romney says that he opposed the government bailout of Detroit because the private market would have provided loans so GM and Chrysler could go through managed bankruptcy, but it turns out the firm Romney once led, Bain Capital, turned down the chance to do so. The government's auto task force asked Bain Capitol if it would like to invest in GM's European operations, The New York Times' Jeremy W. Peters reports, but Bain said no thanks.

 

[BillyV]

that's hysterical... and just to refresh people's recollections so they don't pretend he didn't say it:



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1

What exactly did Romney say in his op-ed that didn’t ultimately come true? Consider the time frame in which these comments were made; this was in November of 2008, and the heads of the Big Three had just flown down to DC in their corporate jets to ask the taxpayers for cash. The government ultimately gave them cash; GM ultimately got $19.4 billion and Chrysler got almost $6 billion. Yet six months later they were again on the brink of bankruptcy, just as Romney had predicted. They didn’t need to drastically restructure, so they didn’t (the union knew the government’s cash was in, so they remained intransigent as well). He advocated for lower labor and retirement costs and a change in management, as well as eliminating executive pay and perks; anyone want to argue with that? He went on to say that “A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs.” and “The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.” Isn’t that exactly what happened? GM and Chrysler did go bankrupt; GM emerged a little leaner, Chrysler with a foreign owner (Fiat). The federal government did provide for post-bankruptcy guarantees. It’s as if the Obama administration read his op-ed and used it as a playbook, except for granting a relatively sweet deal to the union vs. secured creditors. What am I missing? Did everyone just read the title, get offended and make the assumption that Romney was advocating for the elimination of the US auto industry?

Read what the "Economist" has to say. Professionals have a valuable perspective.

OK, I read it; it's a little dated (2 years ago). What does that article tell you that disputes what I said above? Romney said use a managed bankruptcy; Obama used a managed bankruptcy. Romney said support them post-bankruptcy; Obama supported them post-bankruptcy. Romney said reduce executive pay and perks; Obama reduced executive pay and perks. Romney said reduce retirement and labor costs; Obama reduced executive pay and perks.

From your article: "Unions did win some special favours: when Chrysler was divided among its creditors, for example, a union health fund did far better than secured bondholders whose claims should have been senior." I think that's putting it a little mildly, but OK, at least they acknowledged it.

I don't want the US auto industry to disappear, and I don't think Romney did, either; he just recognized that "turnarounds" don't happen without extreme external pressure; being propped up by Uncle Sam can just perpetuate a system that needs to be changed. He would know; you see, he had a real job in the private sector doing exactly that.

 

[J.E.D]

Romney said use a managed bankruptcy; Obama used a managed bankruptcy

Romney said not to give them gov't loans; Obama gave them gov't loans

 

[BillyV]

What exactly did Romney say in his op-ed that didn’t ultimately come true?

This:

General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed

BTW, perhaps you can help me with this. You claim that Romney was right in saying that the bailouts would spell the end for the US auto industry. But Romney is now claiming that he saved the US auto industry. So, which is it? Was he right that the auto industry is doomed, or did he save it?

GM and Chrysler got $26 billion in December of 2008; by June of 2009 it was gone. They didn't make necessary changes within that period so that even that gargantuan amount of money wasn't enough. Romney didn't say that unlimited funds couldn't keep any company going, just that what they were asking for in November would lead to their demise. He was right, and another $35 billion was required to prop them up again. Taking credit for "saving" the industry is hyperbolic (politicians, you know? Like taking credit for killing someone who was on the other side of the world rather than giving credit to the architects of the plan and those that carried it out), but his assessment was correct.

 

[J.E.D]

What exactly did Romney say in his op-ed that didn’t ultimately come true?

This:

General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed

BTW, perhaps you can help me with this. You claim that Romney was right in saying that the bailouts would spell the end for the US auto industry. But Romney is now claiming that he saved the US auto industry. So, which is it? Was he right that the auto industry is doomed, or did he save it?

GM and Chrysler got $26 billion in December of 2008; by June of 2009 it was gone. They didn't make necessary changes within that period so that even that gargantuan amount of money wasn't enough. Romney didn't say that unlimited funds couldn't keep any company going, just that what they were asking for in November would lead to their demise. He was right, and another $35 billion was required to prop them up again. Taking credit for "saving" the industry is hyperbolic (politicians, you know? Like taking credit for killing someone who was on the other side of the world rather than giving credit to the architects of the plan and those that carried it out), but his assessment was correct.

Riiiigght

 

[Rinata]

Compared to the way I feel about Romney, I think I was in love with GWB!!!! Romney is the biggest jerk of the Republican party. He seems to me like he only wants to be president because he's a bored rich guy. And what a lying sack he is.

 

[rdean]

Here's the Op-ed from the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1

Here's more:

Romney: ‘I’ll take a lot of credit’ for auto industry success – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

If one has the time to read and compare both, it appears to be all about semantics.

*I think what he means by 'taking credit' is his solutions were similar.

You're mistaken. Even the Economist apologized to Obama. If we had followed Mitt's plan, there would be no auto industry. Steel, plastic, glass and textiles would all be horribly damaged. Remember, cars are made from something.

General Motors: Government Motors no more | The Economist