RE: Debate #3

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Debate #3

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Debate #3

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 8 [9]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Debate #3 - 10/23/2012 11:24:27 PM

FMRFGOPGAL

Posts: 763
Joined: 9/1/2012
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Profile

Post #: 161

RE: Debate #3 - 10/24/2012 5:15:44 AM

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FMRFGOPGAL
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.

1. That wasn't what we were discussing. I stated Romney's position. You asked for the link. I provided it.
2. I'm going to guess that you meant to say, "I seriously doubt there are a lot of examples of "managed bankruptcy" where additional and very significant would not have occurred."

Obviously, I'm guessing about #2, but it would seem to fit better with your final statement. I'm also not going to argue the validity of your final statement. I'm not sure, however, that it was still the better way to go. Without making any personal statements of the people holding the positions, I don't know that those jobs should have been protected thus. And, Romney's prediction may still come to fruition.

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to FMRFGOPGAL)

Profile

Post #: 162

RE: Debate #3 - 10/24/2012 6:09:06 AM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
Neither Obama nor Romney ever served in the military.

Neither's old enough to have needed to cop out of doing so during a war where they had a draft call up, either.
(Unlike certain chickenhawk chimps who could be mentioned...)

Romney did. He got a deferment for his 'missionary' work in a french villa.

Mea culpa: I thought the twit was younger than that. Maybe his magic underpants have a rejuvenating effect...

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 163

RE: Debate #3 - 10/24/2012 6:22:01 AM

cloudboy

Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline

He gets his news from Rush Limbaugh. He probably also feels warm and fuzzy about Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity.

(in reply to FMRFGOPGAL)

Profile

Post #: 164

RE: Debate #3 - 10/24/2012 6:30:49 AM

cloudboy

Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline

To be fair to Romney, he opposed a "bailout" b/c he did not want to prop up a failing industry. Much like Elizebeth Warren did not want to bailout the banks without a management shakeup and new rules and restricts on their lending practices.

The problem, though, with BK, was the Lehman effect. Also, GM did not have the structural and management flaws that Romney was concerned about in his Editorial, rather GM had cash flow problem because auto demand dried up completely in the great recession.

GM was in a delicate position as was the American worker. GM does appear to have turned itself around, and I do not think the American tax payers saved either the bondholders or stockholders of the company.

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 10/24/2012 6:32:25 AM >

(in reply to Owner59)

Profile

Post #: 165

RE: Debate #3 - 10/24/2012 6:35:38 AM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

lol Yeah, that was in the link I gave.

Welcome hon.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to FMRFGOPGAL)

Profile

Post #: 166