PDA

View Full Version : Elections Mitt Romney claims credit for Obama's success in bailing out GM


Ugly Duck
05-25-2011, 07:02 PM
Now that GM is back on its feet & paying back the taxpayers 6 years early, Romney has not only reversed his position - he's claiming credit! We'll get ALL of our money back, in contrast to our DC righties squealing about a Socialist Takeover. Thank Obama for cutting such a great deal... I mean, thank Romney for "thinking of it first." But remember when he said "Instead of a bailout, we should let the car companies go through a restructuring under the bankruptcy laws?” And when he called the auto rescue plan "tragic" and said it represented something "very sad" for America? And "if you write a check, they are going to go out of business?" If this guy flipflops any more we'll have to wear him on our feet & go to the beach....

A Romney spokesman said on Tuesday that the president’s plan was modeled after one Mr. Romney advocated in 2008.

“Mitt Romney had the idea first,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney spokesman. “You have to acknowledge that. He was advocating for a course of action that eventually the Obama administration adopted.”

Bewbies
05-25-2011, 07:10 PM
LMAO at thinking either guy is talking about a winning position here.

Saul Good
05-25-2011, 07:12 PM
I don't know if it's a good thing or not, but he's right.

Ugly Duck
05-25-2011, 07:12 PM
LMAO at thinking either guy is talking about a winning position here.

GM is back in business & paying us back early & added 4,000 new jobs.... what more do you want? .

Bewbies
05-25-2011, 07:13 PM
GM is back in business & paying us back early.... what more do you want?

Keep this for the next time they go bankrupt.

Saul Good
05-25-2011, 07:14 PM
Also, how is the "success" attributable to Obama?

Ugly Duck
05-25-2011, 07:16 PM
Keep this for the next time they go bankrupt.

If your only criticism is that its in the realm of possibility that they might eventually maybe go bankrupt some time in the future, I expect that you'll vote Obama in 2012...

Also, how is the "success" attributable to Obama?

He rescued them from going under with a massive bailout loan?

Saul Good
05-25-2011, 07:16 PM
If your only criticism is that its in the realm of possibility that they might eventually maybe go bankrupt some time in the future, I expect that you'll vote Obama in 2012...

Criticism of what? Obama's vote for the bailout when he was a congressman?

Ugly Duck
05-25-2011, 07:18 PM
Criticism of what? Obama's vote for the bailout when he was a congressman?

Yeah.


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RdyJ0nKF5Tc?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RdyJ0nKF5Tc?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Saul Good
05-25-2011, 07:20 PM
Yeah.

I guess you misspelled George W's last name in the OP. It's spelled "B-U-S-H", not "O-B-A-M-A".

orange
05-25-2011, 07:23 PM
Also, how is the "success" attributable to Obama?

These guys seem to think he had something to do with it.

Government Motors no more

An apology is due to Barack Obama: his takeover of GM could have gone horribly wrong, but it has not
Aug 19th 2010 | from the print edition

AMERICANS expect much from their president, but they do not think he should run car companies. Fortunately, Barack Obama agrees. This week the American government moved closer to getting rid of its stake in General Motors (GM) when the recently ex-bankrupt firm filed to offer its shares once more to the public (see article).

Once a symbol of American prosperity, GM collapsed into the government’s arms last summer. Years of poor management and grabby unions had left it in wretched shape. Efforts to reform came too late. When the recession hit, demand for cars plummeted. GM was on the verge of running out of cash when Uncle Sam intervened, throwing the firm a lifeline of $50 billion in exchange for 61% of its shares.

Many people thought this bail-out (and a smaller one involving Chrysler, an even sicker firm) unwise. Governments have historically been lousy stewards of industry. Lovers of free markets (including The Economist) feared that Mr Obama might use GM as a political tool: perhaps favouring the unions who donate to Democrats or forcing the firm to build smaller, greener cars than consumers want to buy. The label “Government Motors” quickly stuck, evoking images of clunky committee-built cars that burned banknotes instead of petrol—all run by what Sarah Palin might call the socialist-in-chief.

Yet the doomsayers were wrong. Unlike, say, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, who used public funds to support Renault and Peugeot-Citroën on condition that they did not close factories in France, Mr Obama has been tough from the start. GM had to promise to slim down dramatically—cutting jobs, shuttering factories and shedding brands—to win its lifeline. The firm was forced to declare bankruptcy. Shareholders were wiped out. Top managers were swept aside. 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. Congress has put pressure on GM to build new models in America rather than Asia, and to keep open dealerships in certain electoral districts. But by and large Mr Obama has not used his stakes in GM and Chrysler for political ends. On the contrary, his goal has been to restore both firms to health and then get out as quickly as possible. GM is now profitable again and Chrysler, managed by Fiat, is making progress. Taxpayers might even turn a profit when GM is sold.

So was the auto bail-out a success? It is hard to be sure. Had the government not stepped in, GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures, without putting public money at risk. Many observers think this unlikely, however. 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.

Socialists don’t privatise

That does not mean, however, that bail-outs are always or often justified. Straightforward bankruptcy is usually the most efficient way to allow floundering firms to restructure or fail. The state should step in only when a firm’s collapse poses a systemic risk. Propping up the financial system in 2008 clearly qualified. Saving GM was a harder call, but, with the benefit of hindsight, the right one. The lesson for governments is that for a bail-out to work, it must be brutal and temporary. The lesson for American voters is that their president, for all his flaws, has no desire to own the commanding heights of industry. A gambler, yes. An interventionist, yes. A socialist, no.

http://www.economist.com/node/16846494

Of course, what does The Economist know about economics?

Bewbies
05-25-2011, 07:26 PM
If your only criticism is that its in the realm of possibility that they might eventually maybe go bankrupt some time in the future, I expect that you'll vote Obama in 2012...



He rescued them from going under with a massive bailout loan?

LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO

"realm of possibility"

Saul Good
05-25-2011, 07:29 PM
These guys seem to think he had something to do with it.

Government Motors no more

An apology is due to Barack Obama: his takeover of GM could have gone horribly wrong, but it has not
Aug 19th 2010 | from the print edition

AMERICANS expect much from their president, but they do not think he should run car companies. Fortunately, Barack Obama agrees. This week the American government moved closer to getting rid of its stake in General Motors (GM) when the recently ex-bankrupt firm filed to offer its shares once more to the public (see article).

Once a symbol of American prosperity, GM collapsed into the government’s arms last summer. Years of poor management and grabby unions had left it in wretched shape. Efforts to reform came too late. When the recession hit, demand for cars plummeted. GM was on the verge of running out of cash when Uncle Sam intervened, throwing the firm a lifeline of $50 billion in exchange for 61% of its shares.

Many people thought this bail-out (and a smaller one involving Chrysler, an even sicker firm) unwise. Governments have historically been lousy stewards of industry. Lovers of free markets (including The Economist) feared that Mr Obama might use GM as a political tool: perhaps favouring the unions who donate to Democrats or forcing the firm to build smaller, greener cars than consumers want to buy. The label “Government Motors” quickly stuck, evoking images of clunky committee-built cars that burned banknotes instead of petrol—all run by what Sarah Palin might call the socialist-in-chief.

Yet the doomsayers were wrong. Unlike, say, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, who used public funds to support Renault and Peugeot-Citroën on condition that they did not close factories in France, Mr Obama has been tough from the start. GM had to promise to slim down dramatically—cutting jobs, shuttering factories and shedding brands—to win its lifeline. The firm was forced to declare bankruptcy. Shareholders were wiped out. Top managers were swept aside. 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. Congress has put pressure on GM to build new models in America rather than Asia, and to keep open dealerships in certain electoral districts. But by and large Mr Obama has not used his stakes in GM and Chrysler for political ends. On the contrary, his goal has been to restore both firms to health and then get out as quickly as possible. GM is now profitable again and Chrysler, managed by Fiat, is making progress. Taxpayers might even turn a profit when GM is sold.

So was the auto bail-out a success? It is hard to be sure. Had the government not stepped in, GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures, without putting public money at risk. Many observers think this unlikely, however. 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.

Socialists don’t privatise

That does not mean, however, that bail-outs are always or often justified. Straightforward bankruptcy is usually the most efficient way to allow floundering firms to restructure or fail. The state should step in only when a firm’s collapse poses a systemic risk. Propping up the financial system in 2008 clearly qualified. Saving GM was a harder call, but, with the benefit of hindsight, the right one. The lesson for governments is that for a bail-out to work, it must be brutal and temporary. The lesson for American voters is that their president, for all his flaws, has no desire to own the commanding heights of industry. A gambler, yes. An interventionist, yes. A socialist, no.

http://www.economist.com/node/16846494

Of course, what does The Economist know about economics?

When, exactly, was GM bailed out?

Ugly Duck
05-25-2011, 07:38 PM
When, exactly, was GM bailed out?

03/30/09 09:25 PM WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama asserted unprecedented government control over the auto industry Monday, bluntly rejecting turnaround plans by General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, demanding fresh concessions for long-term federal aid and raising the possibility of quick bankruptcy for either ailing auto giant.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/30/obama-denies-bailout-fund_n_180563.html

orange
05-25-2011, 07:39 PM
When, exactly, was GM bailed out?

2009.

Published May 24, 2011

| FoxNews.com

The fact that President Obama is trying to turn the negative of his unpopular bailout of General Motors and Chrysler into a political positive tells us two things:

...

Part of this is in an effort to rebrand the bailout blitz of 2009, one of the least popular Obama policies, as a bold but limited move to save the Midwestern economy and keep Michigan from collapsing.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/24/rebranding-gm-chrysler-bailouts-means-michigan-play-2012/#ixzz1NPlV62Hh

Ugly Duck
05-25-2011, 07:42 PM
2009.

When they thought it would fail, DC righties lambasted The President for a Socialist Takeover. Now that its a success, they're claiming that Bush did it.

Pitt Gorilla
05-25-2011, 08:18 PM
When they thought it would fail, DC righties lambasted The President for a Socialist Takeover. Now that its a success, they're claiming that Bush did it.You must be new around here.

BucEyedPea
05-25-2011, 08:22 PM
LMAO at thinking either guy is talking about a winning position here.
Yet, some Rs that do think there's a REAL difference. LMAO

BucEyedPea
05-26-2011, 09:25 AM
When they thought it would fail, DC righties lambasted The President for a Socialist Takeover. Now that its a success, they're claiming that Bush did it.

I didn't see anyone even claiming it was a success. There were also plenty of former Bush supporters that were not for GM being bailed out. You were absent during these times. There were plenty of Bush supporters who knew Bush was socialist too. Just not as much as Obama.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2011, 09:29 AM
Of course, what does The Economist know about economics?

Well, just because it's considered influential and mainstream doesn't mean they do or are always right. Nor are they true free-market types.
So your appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. The Economist is Keynesian with a mercantilist flavor. The latter label is evidence as to why they would say what they say here( their mercantilist cronies made out). The Economist certainly is not free-market in a laissez-faire or free-enterprise sense but very pro-govt intervention instead of just allowing a new private buyer to step-up. Not exactly what real free-enterprise economists endorse whether or not it was handed back over to private interests or not. I mean it still was an act of govt and central planning. You don't strike me as someone who would recognize a free-market publication anyway. So I can see why you needed to appeal to authority which you nearly always do I noticed.