|
FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: Debate #3 (10/23/2012 11:24:27 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: FMRFGOPGAL
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
He wasn't for the bailout. He was for allowing the car companies to go through bankruptcy, and to give them backing when they emerged. That certainly isn't what happened, now, is it?
May I please see the 2009 article where he says that? Because that's when this dialogue of letting the car companies fail began.
I'm not saying you aren't right, but I don't remember him talking about it in the same light. Until a few weeks ago that is.
Yup.
quote:
The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.
This was from November of 2008. Considering Congress authorized the bailouts starting in October of 2008, with Bush signing them, there would be no 2009 article. The article is from 2008.
Here's the point I want to make, the goal was to keep people working and avoid additional plant closure and I seriously doubt there are a lot of examples of "managed bankruptcy" where additional and very significant layoffs would have occurred.
Because of the bailout that was not the result Romney predicted, and it protected the automakers from all manner of assaults during the time frame, it's my contention that jobs and the industry were better protected through the process that actually occurred.
|
|
|
|
