In an unusual editorial-page response to Romney, the Detroit News said Romney was wrong to suggest there was a private-sector alternative to the government-funded rescue that began with $17 billion in bridge loans extended by then-President George Bush.

Industry executives also challenged Romney's claim there was a private alternative to government funding at the depth of the credit crisis.

"This is the lie that gets told again and again and again — government intervention wasn't necessary, that this was creeping socialism, that Obama wants to take over or give a sweetheart deal to the unions," Lutz told Reuters.

Mike Jackson, chief executive of the auto dealership group AutoNation, called Romney's opinion piece "reckless, detached from reality and dishonest."

"It was Bush that stepped in with the bailout," said Jackson, also a Republican, told Reuters. "Mitt's assertion that private financing was available in fall of 2008 into 2009 is fantasy."

The Center for Automotive Research, an Ann Arbor, Michigan-based think-tank supported by the auto industry, estimated more than 1 million jobs would have been lost if GM and Chrysler had been allowed to fail.

David Cole, the now-retired head of the center, said he believed then that the failure of government intervention would have been catastrophic. "Had a company like GM shut down, it would have shut the entire industry down," said Cole, who describes himself as a conservative.

One Detroit-based auto industry adviser who asked not to be named said he had been inclined to vote for Romney before the most recent controversy. "But for me, this just calls into question his judgment," he said.

Steve Rattner, a Democrat and the former head of the Obama administration's auto task force, called the idea of a privately funded restructuring of GM and Chrysler "utterly fantastical."

"No one — I repeat, no one — had the slightest interest in funding these companies on any terms," Rattner said in a blog.



Read more on Newsmax.com: Detroit to Romney: Get Real on Auto Bailout

Eager_Igraine posted:

---

People think that allowing the auto industry collapse would have been good for the nation?

---

Article posted:

---

Steve Rattner, a Democrat and the former head of the Obama administration's auto task force, called the idea of a privately funded restructuring of GM and Chrysler "utterly fantastical."

"No one — I repeat, no one — had the slightest interest in funding these companies on any terms," Rattner said in a blog.

---

Eager_Igraine posted:

---

People think that allowing the auto industry collapse would have been good for the nation?

---

Moe_Nox posted:

---

Eager_Igraine posted:

---

People think that allowing the auto industry collapse would have been good for the nation?

---

It wouldn't have collapsed, but some would have had to declare bankruptcy. That would have forced the reorganization of companies that were in need of it. Ford never took a bailout and has done outstanding.

Its funny that most of the arglebargle about not doing more to save these companies comes from people that don't drive their products and talk about how shitty they are.

---

Eager_Igraine posted:

---

article posted:

---

The Center for Automotive Research, an Ann Arbor, Michigan-based think-tank supported by the auto industry, estimated more than 1 million jobs would have been lost if GM and Chrysler had been allowed to fail.

---

That sounds pretty bad to me.

---

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.

Moe_Nox posted:

---

Eager_Igraine posted:

---

article posted:

---

The Center for Automotive Research, an Ann Arbor, Michigan-based think-tank supported by the auto industry, estimated more than 1 million jobs would have been lost if GM and Chrysler had been allowed to fail.

---

That sounds pretty bad to me.

---

I agree, that is a pretty bad source

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

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 other words...who cares if both Chrysler and GM have returned to profitability in a few short years. We needed to have shafted the unions more while, at the same time, privatized profits and socialized risks to lenders by guaranteeing any new loans they make.

Not to mention, absolutely no private funding was available. That's a big part of whey they were headed to bankruptcy in the first place.

Government investment in energy research is fine with me. More than fine. Though, it does come dangerously close to saying government is an important component of the system. I'm surprised that didn't set off the right. Unless he meant to do it through tax cuts to corporations.

---

Bobvillas posted:

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

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 other words...who cares if both Chrysler and GM have returned to profitability in a few short years. We needed to have shafted the unions more while, at the same time, privatized profits and socialized risks to lenders by guaranteeing any new loans they make.

Not to mention, absolutely no private funding was available. That's a big part of whey they were headed to bankruptcy in the first place.

Government investment in energy research is fine with me. More than fine. Though, it does come dangerously close to saying government is an important component of the system. I'm surprised that didn't set off the right. Unless he meant to do it through tax cuts to corporations.

---

He wrote that in 2008.

Second, he clearly states his stance on Unions.

"The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”"

"The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat."

"huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota."

He is not saying Unions are bad. He is saying we have to be competitive and unions need to make sacrifices just like the companies they are working with.

I agree.

Finally, I am not certain where we see him stating he wanted to use private financing.

"In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check."

He was advocating change and not the status quo that had gotten the auto makers into the mess.

Letting them make the proper changes and go through the proper channels.

I am not saying the process we went through was bad, but I don't see his answer as being bad either.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

2 moderate liberals on the Supreme Court

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

You wouldn't know "reality" if it crawled up your bung hole and made a condo in there.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Like I said, you don't know reality. One of those is near real time of debt and deficit. The other is an "analysis" and all the human failings that a subjective "analysis" can contain.

---

The first question was retarded. If it created one job then it passed that one. The second one was equally retarded. Asking if it was worth the cost is dumb. When there is a downturn any braking you can do is good. What they should have asked is was it the best or most efficient or most effective thing that could have been done. I assume those numbers would be hugely different.

So the only thing this proves is that polls say what you want them to say.

Groucho48 posted:

---

Health care reform
Nuclear Proliferation Treaty
A successful stimulus that saved us from what Europe is going through
DADT abolished...with a shout out to Log Cabin Republicnas
bin Laden...dead
al Qaeda in tatters
Iraq over
Qaddafi gone
Auto industry saved
2 moderate liberals on the Supreme Court


All at a time when Republicans were filibustering bills that praised Motherhood, because Democrats proposed it and with Obama being handed one of thew worst economies the U'S had ever faced, thanks to those very same Republicans.

---