Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 23, 2014, 11:30:18 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King, Sheriff Buford TX Justice)
| | |-+  Romney: I'll take a lot of credit for auto industry success.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print
Author Topic: Romney: I'll take a lot of credit for auto industry success.  (Read 1827 times)
Yank2133
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1445


View Profile
« on: May 08, 2012, 09:41:48 am »
Ignore

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/07/romney-ill-take-a-lot-of-credit-for-auto-industry-success/

Honestly, do Republicans hate Obama so much that they will actually support this man?
Logged
Bull Moose Base
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2656


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2012, 09:46:29 am »
Ignore

The man has a gift for setting up headlines.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10224
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2012, 10:20:05 am »
Ignore

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/07/romney-ill-take-a-lot-of-credit-for-auto-industry-success/

Honestly, do Republicans hate Obama so much that they will actually support this man?

No -- they are so deluded that they think that a trimming, self-contradicting leader is better suited to lead America than someone so... whatever.
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16059


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2012, 10:36:37 am »
Ignore

He also founded Staples, apparently.
Logged

Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29815
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2012, 03:43:51 pm »
Ignore

Except that Romney was right and therefore he does deserves credit for that.

Did anyone else speak honestly about the need for bankruptcy restructuring? No, all everyone else wanted to know was through tax payer money at a losing model to avoid the inevitable and avoid looking bad politically.

Strickland and Obama are the ones distorting the reality of the situation. Without the bankrupty restructuring, even with all the tax payer bailouts in the world, those companies would still be just as screwed as they were in late 2008. The only difference is that by now, they wouldn't be salvageable, regardless of the means. In 2008, they were salvagable through bankruptcy restructuring.

I hope Romney somehow manages to tear Obama a new asshole on this in one of the debates.

The willful ignorance of those who have previously posted in this thread, is breath taking. Tongue
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



R2D2
20RP12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22954
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -7.74, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2012, 03:52:24 pm »
Ignore

He meant it on the level that his suggestion is what was implemented and what contributed to the auto industry rebound.

Whether or not you agree with him, that's what he meant.
Logged


i like girls but there is NOTHING better then a sexi hott dude
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4039
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2012, 04:01:25 pm »
Ignore

Except that Romney was right and therefore he does deserves credit for that.

Did anyone else speak honestly about the need for bankruptcy restructuring? No, all everyone else wanted to know was through tax payer money at a losing model to avoid the inevitable and avoid looking bad politically.

Strickland and Obama are the ones distorting the reality of the situation. Without the bankrupty restructuring, even with all the tax payer bailouts in the world, those companies would still be just as screwed as they were in late 2008. The only difference is that by now, they wouldn't be salvageable, regardless of the means. In 2008, they were salvagable through bankruptcy restructuring.

I hope Romney somehow manages to tear Obama a new asshole on this in one of the debates.

The willful ignorance of those who have previously posted in this thread, is breath taking. Tongue

Oh, okay.  He also railed against the loans, which were which played a huge roll in the Obama plan.  Is he responsible for that too?
Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29815
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2012, 04:01:36 pm »
Ignore

Except that Romney was right and therefore he does deserves credit for that.

Did anyone else speak honestly about the need for bankruptcy restructuring? No, all everyone else wanted to know was through tax payer money at a losing model to avoid the inevitable and avoid looking bad politically.

Strickland and Obama are the ones distorting the reality of the situation. Without the bankrupty restructuring, even with all the tax payer bailouts in the world, those companies would still be just as screwed as they were in late 2008. The only difference is that by now, they wouldn't be salvageable, regardless of the means. In 2008, they were salvagable through bankruptcy restructuring.

I hope Romney somehow manages to tear Obama a new asshole on this in one of the debates.

The willful ignorance of those who have previously posted in this thread, is breath taking. Tongue

Oh, okay.  He also railed against the loans, which were a huge part of the Obama plan.  Is he responsible for that too now?

Pre-bankruptcy loans, yes. Because it was money down the drain for a busted business plan. That is where Romney and Obama differ and that is where (all things being equal such as understanding of business and these things) Romney would crush Obama.

Once you have a new business plan drawn up (restructuring plan), then you go to a judge with both the plan and the cash.

It is you guys that are relying on general ignorance to maintain this as a positive rather than a negative in the Midwest. Tongue
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Invisible Obama
DrScholl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3724
United States



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2012, 04:07:22 pm »
Ignore

It seems pretty clear that Romney wants to back track (as he does on other things) on the auto bailout because his initial view on it will not be looked at favorably in the states that benefited from said bailout.

Plus, he wasn't in a position of authority to save any industry, so how can he take credit? One voicing an opinion does not translate into industry being saved.
Logged

Please seek a 5150 if your candidate loses.
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47609


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2012, 04:08:03 pm »
Ignore

But North Carolina Yankie, the State can make any 'business model' 'succeed' or 'fail' by the legal structure in which it is allowed to function.  The only reason an 'auto company' branch of government has difficulties or thrives is due to its legally defined powers - relating to taxes, trade, control of workers, etc.  The autos were 'failing' because of policy, and its just an alteration of policy to make them 'succeed'.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29815
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2012, 04:56:34 pm »
Ignore

It seems pretty clear that Romney wants to back track (as he does on other things) on the auto bailout because his initial view on it will not be looked at favorably in the states that benefited from said bailout.

Plus, he wasn't in a position of authority to save any industry, so how can he take credit? One voicing an opinion does not translate into industry being saved.

Unless you are stake out a position that later gets translated into action by those in charge, which Romney did in fact do with "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". What Obama did differently was 1) along with Bush, To prop up a failing business model for a period of time  and 2) to intervene in a politically motivated fashion into the content of the restructuring plan.

I don't see any backtracking here. This is perfectly consistent with "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". In fact that is what he is wanting to take credit for.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2012, 05:06:57 pm by Senator North Carolina Yankee »Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29815
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2012, 05:03:05 pm »
Ignore

But North Carolina Yankee, the State can make any 'business model' 'succeed' or 'fail' by the legal structure in which it is allowed to function.  The only reason an 'auto company' branch of government has difficulties or thrives is due to its legally defined powers - relating to taxes, trade, control of workers, etc.  The autos were 'failing' because of policy, and its just an alteration of policy to make them 'succeed'.

My statement assumes a degree of political reality. The Midwest is shrinking and at some point California, Texas and Florida would grow weary of propping up a perpetually insolvent institution either as a nationalized entity or a constantly bailed out private firm. Plus, no mainstream political figures were willing to tolerate nationalization.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47609


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2012, 05:11:36 pm »
Ignore

My statement assumes a degree of political reality. The Midwest is shrinking and at some point California, Texas and Florida would grow weary of propping up a perpetually insolvent institution either as a nationalized entity or a constantly bailed out private firm. Plus, no mainstream political figures were willing to tolerate nationalization.

Yes, of course, you're very practical within your narrow paradigm, but you're missing my point - the reason you think California, Texas, and Florida are 'propping up' Michigan and Ohio, etc, is again because they are 'succeeding' entirely due to policy.  It is the State which makes one person 'rich' - ie powerful - or one state or region favored over another.  There is no high ground here, and no one is 'to blame' except those with power - the ones who destroyed the auto industry (and the working class).

In fact what is happening is the State is propping up The Upper East Side, Hamptons, Palm Beach, etc., at the expense of everyone else.

The 'degree of political reality' you are assuming is in fact precisely the ignorance of reality on the part of most americans - and in that sense, you have your nerve on the pulse.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16059


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2012, 05:29:15 pm »
Ignore

The problem with Romney's article is that he tries to have it both ways. The headline and first two paragraphs make it seem like he's advocating for a solution without government help, and even the meat of the article is consistent with that reading, but at the very end it's clear that he does, after all, support a government rescue. In other words, he pulled a bait and switch by sneaking his real position in at the very end of his article. Had he actually faced the political heat of a real decision, would he have stuck to his position or would pandering to popular sentiment have won out? We'll never know.

The difference between Romney and Obama is like the football commentator urging the quarterback to throw to the WR on the left, vs. the quarterback actually making a completed pass. The commentator can say he made the right call, but he doesn't take home the MVP because he was never even on the field.
Logged

LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4448
Thailand


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2012, 06:16:36 pm »
Ignore

But North Carolina Yankee, the State can make any 'business model' 'succeed' or 'fail' by the legal structure in which it is allowed to function.  The only reason an 'auto company' branch of government has difficulties or thrives is due to its legally defined powers - relating to taxes, trade, control of workers, etc.  The autos were 'failing' because of policy, and its just an alteration of policy to make them 'succeed'.

My statement assumes a degree of political reality. The Midwest is shrinking and at some point California, Texas and Florida would grow weary of propping up a perpetually insolvent institution either as a nationalized entity or a constantly bailed out private firm. Plus, no mainstream political figures were willing to tolerate nationalization.
We should be implementing policy that punishes industries in those states, we don't need to be incentivizing people to move to sh**thole climates. Appalachia, Mountain West/Pacific West should be propped up instead.
Logged
Bull Moose Base
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2656


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: May 08, 2012, 06:21:39 pm »
Ignore

He should simultaneously blame Obama for Massachusetts's record on job growth from 2002-2006.
Logged
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4039
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2012, 09:31:26 pm »
Ignore

Except that Romney was right and therefore he does deserves credit for that.

Did anyone else speak honestly about the need for bankruptcy restructuring? No, all everyone else wanted to know was through tax payer money at a losing model to avoid the inevitable and avoid looking bad politically.

Strickland and Obama are the ones distorting the reality of the situation. Without the bankrupty restructuring, even with all the tax payer bailouts in the world, those companies would still be just as screwed as they were in late 2008. The only difference is that by now, they wouldn't be salvageable, regardless of the means. In 2008, they were salvagable through bankruptcy restructuring.

I hope Romney somehow manages to tear Obama a new asshole on this in one of the debates.

The willful ignorance of those who have previously posted in this thread, is breath taking. Tongue

Oh, okay.  He also railed against the loans, which were a huge part of the Obama plan.  Is he responsible for that too now?

Pre-bankruptcy loans, yes. Because it was money down the drain for a busted business plan. That is where Romney and Obama differ and that is where (all things being equal such as understanding of business and these things) Romney would crush Obama.

Once you have a new business plan drawn up (restructuring plan), then you go to a judge with both the plan and the cash.

It is you guys that are relying on general ignorance to maintain this as a positive rather than a negative in the Midwest. Tongue

Sorry, I mean the bailouts prior to the official bankruptcy, which were part of Bush's and Obama's plans.  Tongue
Logged
ajb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 872
United States


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: May 08, 2012, 10:50:14 pm »
Ignore

Romney's trying to thread a very fine needle here, taking credit for part of the Bush-Obama approach to the auto industry crisis (the decision to let the car companies go bankrupt), while blaming other parts of the Bush-Obama approach, like lending the car companies money before they filed for bankruptcy. Moreover, he placed greater emphasis on the blame side of the equation during the primary, and has now fairly abruptly shifted emphasis to the taking credit side.
You'd think he'd take advantage of the opportunity to tie Obama to Bush here -- if Obama was wrong, then so was Bush, and you'd think it would be a smart move for Romney to say that his business experience gave him a clarity on the issue that neither the current nor the former president had. Maybe he's afraid that Republican voters won't like being reminded that the bailout of the auto companies began as an executive order under President Bush?
Of course, the tricky needle-threading here really has to do with claiming to know which part of the policy actually implemented actually worked, and which part was a hindrance. I suspect voters are likely to feel that, since GM and Chrysler are doing much better now, that the plan worked, and are more likely to credit the president who supported the plan while president-elect, and continued to implement it when he became president, than the guy who supported parts of the plan, but opposed other parts, and who had nothing to do with its implementation, since at the time he was a once and future presidential candidate who held no position of responsibility.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31901


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: May 08, 2012, 10:53:07 pm »
Ignore

Romney's trying to thread a very fine needle here

As a religious robber baron, he's very good at threading camels through needles.
Logged
LiberalJunkie
LiberalJunkie99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 675
Canada


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2012, 10:55:34 pm »
Ignore

Worst....candidate....ever...
Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29815
United States


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: May 09, 2012, 06:39:19 pm »
Ignore

Except that Romney was right and therefore he does deserves credit for that.

Did anyone else speak honestly about the need for bankruptcy restructuring? No, all everyone else wanted to know was through tax payer money at a losing model to avoid the inevitable and avoid looking bad politically.

Strickland and Obama are the ones distorting the reality of the situation. Without the bankrupty restructuring, even with all the tax payer bailouts in the world, those companies would still be just as screwed as they were in late 2008. The only difference is that by now, they wouldn't be salvageable, regardless of the means. In 2008, they were salvagable through bankruptcy restructuring.

I hope Romney somehow manages to tear Obama a new asshole on this in one of the debates.

The willful ignorance of those who have previously posted in this thread, is breath taking. Tongue

Oh, okay.  He also railed against the loans, which were a huge part of the Obama plan.  Is he responsible for that too now?

Pre-bankruptcy loans, yes. Because it was money down the drain for a busted business plan. That is where Romney and Obama differ and that is where (all things being equal such as understanding of business and these things) Romney would crush Obama.

Once you have a new business plan drawn up (restructuring plan), then you go to a judge with both the plan and the cash.

It is you guys that are relying on general ignorance to maintain this as a positive rather than a negative in the Midwest. Tongue

Sorry, I mean the bailouts prior to the official bankruptcy, which were part of Bush's and Obama's plans.  Tongue

So he should criticize Bush then. It would only help Romney. The base was made at Bush over the bailouts anyway and the Indies would applaud him distancing himself from Bush on something so substantial.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29815
United States


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: May 09, 2012, 06:46:03 pm »
Ignore

Romney's trying to thread a very fine needle here, taking credit for part of the Bush-Obama approach to the auto industry crisis (the decision to let the car companies go bankrupt), while blaming other parts of the Bush-Obama approach, like lending the car companies money before they filed for bankruptcy. Moreover, he placed greater emphasis on the blame side of the equation during the primary, and has now fairly abruptly shifted emphasis to the taking credit side.
You'd think he'd take advantage of the opportunity to tie Obama to Bush here -- if Obama was wrong, then so was Bush, and you'd think it would be a smart move for Romney to say that his business experience gave him a clarity on the issue that neither the current nor the former president had. Maybe he's afraid that Republican voters won't like being reminded that the bailout of the auto companies began as an executive order under President Bush?
Of course, the tricky needle-threading here really has to do with claiming to know which part of the policy actually implemented actually worked, and which part was a hindrance. I suspect voters are likely to feel that, since GM and Chrysler are doing much better now, that the plan worked, and are more likely to credit the president who supported the plan while president-elect, and continued to implement it when he became president, than the guy who supported parts of the plan, but opposed other parts, and who had nothing to do with its implementation, since at the time he was a once and future presidential candidate who held no position of responsibility.

Romney has only two objectives as it relates to this issue:
1) Reinforcing his image as possessing "econ cred" and for that it doesn't matter if Obama gets primary credit, so long as Romney doesn't get "credited" for wanting to close the plants, fire all the workers and sell the machinery to China, but does get acknowledged with having had a workable alternative proposal that differs on one or two key pivot points. This boast is strategically aimed at acheiving that purpose.

2) Removing it as an exlusionary issue in Michigan and Ohio, especially Ohio. Achieving this is part and parcel to achieving objective number 1.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29815
United States


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: May 09, 2012, 06:51:31 pm »
Ignore

Worst....candidate....ever...

It is a risky move necessitated because of the position Romney took on the issue (which was the smart move to take on the matter I might add). Romney is not a traditional candidate in a number of ways because he is a detail-oriented technocrat and in no way a politician. He is a fairly crappy politician. As a result of this, Romney will need to attempt some pretty risky maneuvering on the level of Lee at Chancellorsville, in order to win. Because sadly, so many people are completely ignorant on this and many issues.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10224
United States


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: May 10, 2012, 07:53:46 am »
Ignore

But North Carolina Yankee, the State can make any 'business model' 'succeed' or 'fail' by the legal structure in which it is allowed to function.  The only reason an 'auto company' branch of government has difficulties or thrives is due to its legally defined powers - relating to taxes, trade, control of workers, etc.  The autos were 'failing' because of policy, and its just an alteration of policy to make them 'succeed'.

My statement assumes a degree of political reality. The Midwest is shrinking and at some point California, Texas and Florida would grow weary of propping up a perpetually insolvent institution either as a nationalized entity or a constantly bailed out private firm. Plus, no mainstream political figures were willing to tolerate nationalization.

The Midwest and the Northeast have been shrinking largely because people don't like winter. Nobody really likes shoveling snow, and having to pay for heating fuel and multiple sets of clothes does not come with any hedonistic delight attached. If one ignores real estate costs, living in the snow belt implies a higher cost of living due to cold-weather expenses, and thus higher pay that requires union wages.

You are right about nationalization. Americans still distrust government involvement in business whether as owners or regulators. What is public sector they accept if it is effective and economical. But that is a vastly different story and a severe digression. 
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
AmericanNation
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 956


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: May 10, 2012, 10:30:52 am »
Ignore

Worst....candidate....ever...

It is a risky move necessitated because of the position Romney took on the issue (which was the smart move to take on the matter I might add). Romney is not a traditional candidate in a number of ways because he is a detail-oriented technocrat and in no way a politician. He is a fairly crappy politician. As a result of this, Romney will need to attempt some pretty risky maneuvering on the level of Lee at Chancellorsville, in order to win. Because sadly, so many people are completely ignorant on this and many issues.
I'm wondering if it will be better to be right or to have the catchy soundbite on this one...  Must feel great promoting ignorance and misinformation democrats... nice job. 
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines