Romney Takes Credit for the Auto Bailout
 

The same guy who wrote an Op-Ed piece in the NYTimes entitled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" was quoted yesterday as saying "I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy. And finally, when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet. So I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry's come back."

I suspect he'll now take credit for tomorrow's sunrise.:rolleyes:

You really should read his op ed. In it he pushes for a managed bankruptcy: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

Indeed he did. What's funny about it is that Obama took his own course with his own advisers (none of whom were Romney) and was very successful. Romney subsequently criticized him on numerous occasions about his management of the restructuring of the auto industry, but now is trying to lay claim for the credit now that it has been shown to be successful (and that success is being highlighted in campaign ads).

It's remarkably similar to his response after videotape shows up of him saying that he wouldn't go after Bin Laden during a 2007 debate. Now, he's saying he would have done exactly what Obama did.

Let's see. He would have done the auto industry restructuring just like Obama. He would have attacked Bin Laden just like Obama, and his MA healthcare plan formed the blueprint for Obamacare. Just how is it that he's claiming that he's so much more capable than Obama and that Obama's administration has been a failure? Color me confused and amused.:rolleyes:

Its called politics Finn. Do you think he'd jump up and down and cheer for a future political opponent?

What I think is hilarious is that Obama flogs private equity firms and banks for political points, but had to turn to Steve Rattner, a product of those firms that he and the OWS crowd love to demonize, to manage the auto industry bankruptcy process. Then Obama wants to take full credit for it. Color me amused over that bit of hypocrisy.

I call this post "changing the subject.";)

What an absolute joke. Does anyone here think the American auto industry would be where it is today if the right had their way three years ago?

Please.

I'll call it: "meeting alleged hypocrisy (Romney) with actual hypocrisy (Obama)."

Isn't this thread about Romney taking credit for it?

How about hopeless partisanship? :eek: (In the interest of legitimate discussion, I described the conduct rather than engaging in name-calling - like "partisan hack." :rolleyes:)

Regards,

D-Ray

It's the new dance. Spin-pivot-flip-flop-do see do.:p

It's about politics and politicians. They want to take credit when things go right, and deflect when the poop hits the fan. Romney wants to position himself as being on the right side of the auto bail out while on his way to campaign in Michigan. Obama and company get pissed cuz they took the credit for it already. Whoopee.

They both wanna take credit for it? Great. Take it. It was a bonehead move that so far has taxpayers on the hook for over $20 billion and counting.

I assume that in that inflated figure, you're not accounting for the additional tax revenue that is derived from thousands and thousands of workers in decent paying jobs, and thousands and thousands fewer needing unemployment benefits and other social services.

Regards,

D-Ray

It ain't inflated. That's just the estimate for GM. A host of other companies got bailed out too, but that's another story.

The talk track on the auto bailouts has always been that if the government hadn't stepped in, all those workers would be unemployed. That's sophistry.

The demand for cars would not have gone away. GM's manufacturing capacity and cuurent sales would likely have allowed it to sustain operations - albeit at a reduced level - while it shed costs and debt in a traditional bankruptcy. Even with government intervention, the workforce was still reduced. That would likely have happened in a traditional bankruptcy. Pension and labor costs might have been reduced more effectively in a traditional bankruptcy as well. It also might have given GM greater flexibility to shift labor and productive capacity to plants that were producing product that was in higher demand.


I guess we'll never know, though...

However, Obama can justly claim some credit. He was, after all, President at the time and directly involved with the decision-making that led to where we are today (i.e., GM and Chrysler alive).

Romney had no role whatsoever in it. He was neither on Obama's team, nor on the Congressional Republican team opposing it. He was irrelevant on this issue. Period.

Just great your idea on welching on pensions and wages not to mention unfettering management to further erode the already weakened UAW. I guess that was an intended benefit of the bailout. Hadn't heard about that aspect. That is a win win my book. Sounds like a truly good course of action to take when a large employer decides to call it quits. They should never be allowed to play possum and shed their responsibility to the citizenry.

What is astounding to me is this cannibalistic mindset that unions are bad for the country. The country is it's citizenry not these corporations whose only purpose is profit. Without protection afforded by collective bargaining you end up with the citizenry reduced to wage slaves. It's such a simple concept.

No unions = no 40hr workweek, no unions = no five day workweek, no unions =no paid holidays, no unions = no child labor laws, no unions = no workplace safety standards, no unions =no paid sick leave, no unions= no liveable wages, no unions = no health insurance, no unions = no overtime.

So Whell, how many of these benefits do you enjoy in your place of employment?

More to the point why do you continue to accept these benefits in the face of your outspoken distaste for unions.

Why in the world would you accept blood money hard won by union workers and organizers of yesteryear? I'm truly curious as to your rationale cause it really escapes me.

I am so glad mittens wrote an oped in the NY Times that single handedly saved the auto industry.

The only problem with his plan was it relied on private sector money. You want to tell me who would have provided the capital for the structured bankruptcy. No one was loaning money, in the private sector, at the time.

The difference is that the Obama team deserves some credit. Romney had nothing to do with it. He's full of shit, as usual. Stealing credit for other peoples work is, most likely, a skill he picked up in the corporate world. We've all seen that crap in our careers, many a time.

Nice post, Bob.

Right on Bob,
Everyone is forgetting that Romney wanted private investment firms to bail out the industry at a time when there was no private credit to be had (Romney knew this too...was Bain Capital asked to participate?). Obama used the Federal Government because it worked and he had no other choice. Sort of like the difference between FDR (Obama) and Hoover (Romney)

google alf landon whell...and thomas dewy and wendell wilkie while your at it

Obama = FDR?

Pete

People hated "that man in the White House" just like they hate Obama today....whether he is just a one term President or not, he is going down in history as one the most important Presidents of this century....just check back in 50 years or so...lol:D
Hoover failed because he was afraid to fully utilize the power of govenrnment when his nation needed it the most...Romney reminds me of someone afraid to do what it takes to get the job done. There is a really great book about Hoover called Hoover Forgotten Progressive

http://www.amazon.com/Herbert-Hoover.../dp/0881337056

ok today's history class is adjourned

Of course if one's idea of a great nation is Calvin Cooldige's America ...you know the one without Wall Street regulation and no safety net for anyone...feel free to vote for Ryan....oops I meant Romney.

I kinda got it :) From my reading the biggest difference between Hoover and FDR was, Hoover would not give money directly from the feds to the people, but to the respective States. Which fits when one considers what the founders were trying to set up. Who could foresee the radical changes society would make due to the industrial revolution?

Interestingly before he was hung with the Depression he was considered a great humanitarian and very good at bringing people together.

Heck even blaming the tacturn Coolidge is something of a stretch, as things really were different before the Depression....

Pete

Indeed they were from what I read and they declined.

yeah....Coolidge did not really "know better" since he was living in a pre-Depression United States that had not embraced Keynesian economics (the idea of deficit spending to help stimulate an economy out of an economic slump or depression)...however I would not want to live in Coolidge's America as it were. I think the big thing about Hoover is that he failed to go all the way with massive intervention the way FDR did. Progressive yes but not enough for what was needed at the time, which was to fix a deflated economy with about 33 percent unemployment.
Even the New Deal did not end the Depression...World War II did with the massive re-industrialization of the economy brought about by the war effort did. FDR however was able to bring back some confidence in the economy and went way further than Hoover.

And therein lies our biggest differences. The New Deal didn't work, but it did create the biggest expansion of government power since probably the Civil War, and once taken good luck getting it back.

We did need serious revisions in the Constitution (and probably still do) but allowing fiat power instead of the amendment process to revise it shows our unfitness for self rule.

Because man, I had a X 1/9, and it was way underpowered :D

Pete

When has big government hurt you? I can see if you were drafted and send to Vietnam how you might be angry...being a military man I can understand that. How has the Tennesee Valley Authority, Interstate Highway System, Medicare (and the medical establishment it underwrites) and Social Security hurt you? NASA hurt you? GI Bill bad?
School Loans bad? You know somebody paid taxes for you go to public (GOVERNMENT) school so someday you would be able to reply to internet posts lol. What do you want?
Some small government paradise where you get to keep all of your paycheck?

what is it you want? Pete I am just dying to hear what small government means....

Hello!

Dave

It seems to me that conservatives (even ultra-right teabagger types) want all the services of a big government (Social Security, Medicare, National Defense, good roads...) They just don't want to pay for it.

I wish. We wouldn't have to worry about the CEO of Waffle, Lie and Liquidate Inc. ending up in the Whitehouse.

Well, it's just like everything else, Pat. Rightwingers always fancy themselves to have "earned" whatever they've embezzled and the rest of the world is just a bunch of parasites, living on their dime.:rolleyes: But, you're an observant guy. I'm sure you've noticed that.

But the gas mileage was killer, wasn't it?;) I'm still waiting for Fiat pick up truck though....:rolleyes:

I have to resist the urge to run em off the freeway here in Socal. How dare they use any interstate and lobby to not pay for it. Local control my ass...;)

Can't speak for Pete, but I have certain worries about a government which has grown so large that it is reduced to funding it's operations with deficit spending to such an extent that it is quite possible that it will destroy the currency.

A government so big that it has created myriad regulations which have caused the private sector becomes so uncompetitive that they are reduced to moving their operations offshore.

A government which which has reached the point of largess that is can use it's devalued currency to enforce it's will on everyone, by first creating an atmosphere where the states can no longer function without federal funding, and then denying that funding unless they dance to the tune of their federal masters.

A government which has reached the size that it no longer serves the people, but rather the people serve it.

I think we could do with a little less government, and for sure a smarter and less corrupt government.

Chas

And what if the company implodes trying to sustain the unsustainable pension and employee benefit costs? Where would the employees be then?

And what makes you think that health care in the workplace was only made possible through collective bargaining? You're misinformed on that one. Also, Henry Ford instituted the shorter work week and more generous pay, prior to Ford being unionized.

Just imagine if Obama had let the Big Three go.. the Ford, GM and Chrysler trademarks would be held by companies that had no relationship to the original organizations just like the marques of Sansui,KLH and Akai are held today by businesses with no ties to the original products. Imagine ersatz cars being sold in China with the GM logo on them NOT made by GM but a Chinese car company. Imagine Obama running with that baggage. Oh he lost the big three would be the Tea Bagger mantra.

You know there is something wrong with anyone who wants the Big Three to go down...that is just not patriotic in any way if you ask me.

Last one first, Ford was trying to forestall the unionization by offering the shorter workweek and out compete his competitors by offering higher pay. He didn't want to keep losing his trained workforce.

Just stating that I'm misinformed about healthcare in the workplace doesn't make it so. What's the rationale?

The strange practice of feathering their own bed that the corporations tend towards and throwing up their hands when the profitablility they envisioned didn't materialize isn't a valid justification to welch on their obligations. Time after time the unions renegotiate wages down when times are tough and it's never enough leads me to believe that the corporate model that's being followed is not a partnership with labor.

Again, there is no corporation with out labor. Labor + capital = corporation. Since capital has shown that it's only interest is growing itself, labor must protect itself through collective bargaining. A contract is a contract and obligations can't be tossed through bankruptcy court unless the law is corrupted.

Back in the Gilded Age when a worker was used up he was shown the door with no consideration nor compensation. That was the impetus for labor organizing itself and forcing the powers that be to acknowledge the fact that this behavior towards a citizen could no longer stand as business as usual.

For a while. Until he (And others in the industry) realized it didn't bring the increases in productivity he expected, nor did it do much to curb interest in unionization. The plan wasn't working. Then what happened, Mike?

"....prior to Ford being unionized.", should be your first clue.
Your second clue should be the undeniable fact that employers rarely do anything substantial (willingly) unless they see some advantage to it, as we have all witnessed in real life experiences. Beyond that it is either job market conditions, contractual agreements or government mandate that influences wages, benefits and working conditions before any "goodness of the heart" kicks in.

I believe some time ago, I posted an entire thread on this subject, with references and all. (See; History forum, "Welfare Capitalism" thread.)

Spare us this "saintly benevolence" of employers nonsense. We're all adults here, nobody believes that fairytale. (Well, maybe some on YOUR side do.)

100% correct, and I thank you for yet another excellent post.

Yeah, someone paid for me to go to school alright - my dad. Through local taxes.

SS is the biggest govenment sanctioned ripoff of all time and puts private ripoffs to shame. Ask me again why I don't trust the Feds with my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

As a matter of fact, ALL those things you mention are paid by me and people like me. It's OUR money, not 'the governments'.

And as Chas says, it's completely out of control.

LOL! Really, I liked the X1/9, it was the closest thing to a 'real' sports car I've ever owned. Once you got the jewel of an engine revved up it could be entertaining too, all 78 horses? worth ;) Man, that thing handled like it was glued to the ground. You could turn people's hair white. But the seat didn't go back quite far enough, heat poured out of the dash, and I felt like if I bumbed into someone in a parking lot I'd be killed. Still, fun :D

Come now Ice, the correct thing to do is buy a Prius. Maybe a Volvo... Saab?

Pete

No, that's not correct AT ALL. Ford was a proponent of higher wages and shorter work weeks as a business case. His plants were suffering from heavy turnover because the work was tough and monotonous. He did it to increase productivity and reduce turnover, and it turned out to be a tremendously profitable move for Ford. It resulted in an influx of talent to the Ford labor pool: not just assembly line workers but designers, engineers, etc. It also dated back to 1915, quite a bit in advance of the labor strife that would visit that auto industry 10 - 15 years or so later.

The rest of your post, to me, reads like a laundry list of your own prejudices or pre-conceptions against "big business" and "greedy corporate executives. Nothing I can do to address that, unless I can encourage you so source your information from multiple sources that might provide you with differing perspectives.

For example, on health insurance:

During the first half of the 20th century in the US, most health care service transactions were still "fee for service" and/or "direct pay" - the patient actually paid the doctor directly. It wasn't until the 1920's that some hospitals began offering services on a pre-paid basis. These arrangements ultimately lead to the creation and proliferation of the Blue Cross / Blue shield organizations nation-wide. However, the first comprehensive health insurance products go back as far as the 1890's.

The BCBS model was to negotiate discounts with medical service providers in exchange for creating a member organization that delivered a volume of customers to the medical service providers, along with an increased assurance of payment for services.

The rise of employer - sponsored plans was not directly due to unions or collective bargaining. It can be said that once health insurance became part of the employment/compensation landscape it also became a legitimate collective bargaining item. However, the rise of employer - sponsored plans in the 1940's was a combination of circumstances:

- the biggest factor was the wage controls enacted in 1942. Inflation was cooking the wartime economy and the Roosevelt administration took away wages as a tool for employers to use to compete for scarce workers. Expansion of benefit plans was allowed, however, and that's just what many employers decided to do to compete for and attract workers.

- Blue Cross / Blue Shield and other commercial insurance providers had products that had matured since their introduction 15 years or so earlier and the insurers were looking to expand their market share and product lines.

Also, since Roosevelt calculated that he probably couldn't get both Social Security AND universal health insurance, and instead prioritized the passage of Social Security, Roosevelt's administration left open the door for the proliferation of private medical insurance.

So, there you have it. Roosevelt, the father of the modern entitlement system, created the circumstances whereby the proliferation of employer - sponsored health plans have risen in the USA. Employers continue to expand their health benefit offerings throughout the post - WWII years, not able to foresee what the impact that increased demand for medical services (while shielding the consumer from the cost of those services) would have on the long term rise in health care service costs.

There's certainly other factors that are quite significant to the systematic delivery of health services. Also, the proliferation of pharmaceuticals, demographic changes, and the increase in unhealthy lifestyles have taken a significant on the delivery and cost of medical services. Those issues are relatively recent, however, and are laid over an already - entrenched system of employer - sponsored and government - sponsored health plans which are now viewed as 'entitlements", while their costs are becoming unsustainable.